- Email: [email protected]
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Barney Dickson and Valerie Kapos Increasing emphasis on social and environmental safeguards for REDD+ in the UNFCCC and work under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have prompted growing interest in biodiversity monitoring for REDD+, but most discussions of REDD+ monitoring have so far centred on greenhouse gas emissions and removals at national level. Challenges in monitoring biodiversity for REDD+ include choosing which aspects of biodiversity to monitor, the difficulty of attributing particular changes to REDD+ and the likely scarcity of resources for biodiversity monitoring. Three responses can help address these challenges. First, already-agreed policy targets can help to identify what should be monitored. Second, making links to existing biodiversity monitoring and to monitoring to estimate GHG emissions and removals (both remote sensing and ground based inventories) can provide some solutions. Finally, developing clear theories of change can assist in determining which changes in biodiversity can be attributed to REDD+. Address Climate Change and Biodiversity Programme, United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK Corresponding author: Dickson, Barney ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
monitoring will be important not just to assess whether safeguards are adhered to, but also to guide the on-going planning and implementation of REDD+. The scientific literature has yet to catch up with this new policy interest. There are very few papers that look specifically at biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ [4]. There is more in the grey literature [e.g. [5]], but much of this is focused on REDD+ projects [6,7] and does not address the connection with national scale monitoring needs. By contrast, there is a significant volume of work on estimating forest-related GHG emissions and removals, and a large literature on the general topic of biodiversity monitoring, including in forests [8]. In this paper we summarise the state of knowledge on biodiversity monitoring for REDD+. The primary focus is on REDD+ as a mechanism that will be implemented at the national level. The paper begins by outlining the different ways in which REDD+ may affect biodiversity. It briefly surveys the recent policy developments on biodiversity safeguards for REDD+. It then identifies three challenges faced in biodiversity monitoring to support safeguards and in the implementation of REDD+ more broadly. The remainder of the paper is devoted to discussing three responses that can be helpful in addressing these challenges.
This review comes from a themed issue on Climate systems
Biodiversity and REDD+
Edited by Ingrid J Visseren-Hamakers, Aarti Gupta, Martin Herold, Marielos Pen˜a-Claros and Marjanneke J Vijge
REDD+ is a financial incentive mechanism that will provide incentives to developing countries to reduce forest-related GHG emissions and to increase GHG removals from the atmosphere by forests. The five activities that will be incentivised by the REDD+ mechanism are: reducing emissions from deforestation; reducing emissions from forest degradation; conservation of forest carbon stocks; sustainable management of forests; and enhancement of forest carbon stocks [9].
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Received 1 May 2012; Accepted 30 September 2012 Available online 23rd October 2012 1877-3435/$ – see front matter, # 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.017
Introduction Although REDD+ has been perceived as an opportunity to make progress on biodiversity conservation [1,2,3], the main focus of discussions on monitoring has been on how to estimate anthropogenic, forest-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals of GHG from the atmosphere through sequestration. However, in the light of the increasing emphasis on social and environmental safeguards for REDD+ in the UNFCCC, and supplemented by the work being carried out under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), there is growing interest in biodiversity monitoring for REDD+. Such www.sciencedirect.com
The inclusion of the five activities in the REDD+ mechanism has the consequence that the range of potential impacts, including on biodiversity, is likely to be broad, generating a variety of both risks and opportunities. There have been various attempts to identify and classify the opportunities and risks for biodiversity [3,10,11]. To the extent that REDD+ results in large scale reduction in deforestation and degradation, it is likely that the overall effects on biodiversity will be positive; tropical forests are home to the majority of terrestrial species [12], deforestation is one of the largest threats to global biodiversity [13,14], and habitat loss and degradation, especially deforestation, is the most important threat to the world’s Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
718 Climate systems
birds [15], amphibians and mammals [16]. However, there may be risks to biodiversity that arise directly or indirectly from REDD+ activities [17]. The nature of the risks and opportunities in any particular case will depend on which of the five REDD+ activities are undertaken and where, together with the types of interventions that are used to implement them. These, in turn, will be shaped by policy priorities. A GHG focused approach may deliver less positive outcomes for biodiversity than one that addresses both GHGs and biodiversity; so decisions on trade-offs between GHG and biodiversity outcomes may well be necessary [2,18,19]. Indeed, trade-off decisions may concern not just GHGs and biodiversity, but also ecosystem services and broader issues of biofuel development and food security [20].
Safeguards for biodiversity Concerns that REDD+ may also pose certain social and environmental risks – and that these should be guarded against – motivated the adoption of the Cancun guidance and safeguards that are contained in Appendix I of the Cancun Agreements [17,9]. In the parts most relevant for biodiversity, these propose that REDD+ activities should: take into account the multiple functions of forests and other ecosystems; be consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity; not be used for the conversion of natural forests but instead should be used to incentivise their protection; and be used to enhance other social and environmental benefits [9]. Several features of this list of provisions are noteworthy. It includes reference to non-forest ecosystems. It has a focus on the conservation of natural forests but does not otherwise prioritise particular elements of biodiversity. It pays attention not just to outcomes but also to what is done to promote certain outcomes and it calls for enhancing benefits as well as avoiding harms. The UNFCCC decision further requests developing countries to develop a system for providing information on how the safeguards are being addressed and respected [9]. Broad guidelines – which may be developed further – on these safeguard information systems have since been agreed [21]. This guidance indicates, inter alia, that the information systems should take into account national circumstances and respective capabilities and recognise national sovereignty and legislation and relevant international obligations and agreements. It is noticeable that the guidance does not use the term ‘monitoring’ in reference to these information systems. This may have been influenced by the desire to make a distinction between the requirements that may be placed on Parties in relation to the measurement and reporting of GHG emissions and removals, and the less stringent demands that are thought to be appropriate for safeguard information systems. Nevertheless, it seems likely that the results of monitoring of the biodiversity impacts of REDD+ may provide valuable inputs for safeguard information systems, and that some Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
countries will wish to make use of such monitoring in this way. Other REDD+-related multilateral and voluntary initiatives have also adopted safeguards, principles or processes that are designed to avoid social and environmental risks and promote benefits. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment [22] outlines a process that is to be undertaken by countries receiving REDD+ funding from the FCPF. This includes provisions for monitoring. The UNREDD Programme’s Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria [23] and the REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards [24], developed by Care International and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), both set principles and criteria whose content is elaborated in much more detail than the Cancun safeguards themselves. The second of these is designed specifically as a set of standards against which countries can report on performance; it also contains an indicator framework. The CCBA has also developed a set of standards for individual REDD+ projects that are used to provide investors with an assurance that these specific interventions are designed and implemented in ways that mitigate environmental and social risks [25]. The CBD has recognised both the potential of REDD+ to contribute to biodiversity conservation [26] and the potential risks it poses [11], and has undertaken work on the identification of indicators for the impacts of REDD+ on biodiversity [5]. This comes in the context of a broader interest in indicators, which stems from the adoption of global targets for biodiversity [27] and the consequent need to identify indicators that can be used to assess progress towards both these targets and national biodiversity objectives and targets. Such indicators and the monitoring needed to implement them can also play a crucial role in guiding improvements in the policies and actions used to advance towards these objectives.
The challenge of biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ The range of REDD+ activities and their potential direct and indirect effects, means that in order to understand the impacts of REDD+ on biodiversity it will be necessary to monitor biodiversity in non-forest areas as well as within forests. The Cancun (and related sets of) safeguards offer only a partial specification of what effects may be of most interest; natural forests are of particular concern. In addition, the safeguards point to the need to track the actions that are undertaken (and not undertaken) in the implementation of REDD+. Monitoring will also be important to inform complex decisions about potential trade-offs among benefits of REDD+ and amongst different approaches to mitigating risks; even if safeguards constrain such decisions, they are unlikely to eliminate the need for them. There are therefore some difficulties www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Dickson and Kapos 719
Figure 1
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Challenges Responses Choosing what to monitor
Focus on priorities specified in existing policies and targets
Attributing change to REDD+
Draw on existing knowledge to develop causal models and counterfactuals
High Costs
Build on existing monitoring: of biodiversity and for GHG accounting Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Major challenges in biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ and key responses that can help to address them.
associated with biodiversity monitoring for REDD+. Three particular challenges can be identified (Figure 1). First, there is a question about what aspects of biodiversity should be monitored. The complexity of biodiversity is well established and capacity and resources for monitoring generally limited. While a general understanding of the risks and opportunities from REDD+ for biodiversity is helpful, and the safeguards highlight natural forests, this still leaves much to be determined in identifying priorities for monitoring. Developing biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ requires clearer specification of which aspects of biodiversity need particular attention [28,29]. Second, there is a problem concerning the attribution of effects to REDD+. Monitoring for REDD+ does not simply require that one assesses what is happening to biodiversity in forests (and non-forest ecosystems). Rather it necessitates understanding which changes (or lack of changes) are consequences of REDD+. Attributing particular changes in biodiversity to particular policy or management actions is always difficult, and there are two particular difficulties with regard to REDD+. Firstly, a national REDD+ strategy may, to a greater or lesser degree, be integrated with other large scale policies (e.g. agriculture policy, forest policy) so that the boundary between REDD+ actions and actions originating in other policies may not be clear. If that boundary (between REDD+ and non-REDD+ actions) is not clear then attributing changes to one or the other side of that boundary becomes more difficult. A second, associated problem is related to spatial explicitness. Policies developed and implemented to support REDD+ objectives will sometimes neither be tied to specific locations nor have impacts that can easily be assessed in a spatially explicit manner. Furthermore, as the REDD+ mechanism is currently envisaged, a country’s success (or lack of it) in reducing deforestation will be assessed against a reference level that sets out what the deforestation rate would have been in the country as a www.sciencedirect.com
whole in the absence of REDD+. A country could reduce its deforestation rate compared to that reference level, and be compensated accordingly without it being possible, even in principle, to identify which particular forests had been conserved through REDD+. However, biodiversity is distributed unevenly across forests (and other ecosystems) and some forests are of greater biodiversity significance than others. Thus if one cannot determine which forests have been conserved it limits what monitoring can, even in principle, tell us about the potential biodiversity gains from REDD+. A further complication is that differences in biodiversity between locations mean that it is difficult to identify common units that can be used to combine or compare results of monitoring in different locations; this is in stark contrast to the ease of using tonnes of carbon or CO2 equivalents to summarise results of carbon monitoring. Third, REDD+ potentially already demands appreciable commitment of resources to greenhouse gas monitoring; design and establishment of national monitoring systems represents on average 40% of country REDD+ readiness costs [30], so it is unlikely that significant additional resources will be available for monitoring biodiversity impacts of REDD+. The remainder of this paper focuses on what can be learnt from the existing literature on approaches that can be used to address these three challenges.
Addressing challenges in biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ The complexity of assessing biodiversity and its change over time has been a consistent challenge both in assessing policy impacts and in evaluating the on-the-ground impacts of individual interventions [31]. The limited resources usually available for such monitoring mean that both the aspects of biodiversity (e.g. particular species or habitats) to be monitored and the methods employed must be chosen strategically. Three broad approaches can help to respond to the challenges enumerated above (Figure 1): drawing on existing policy objectives and targets to help identify priorities for monitoring; making use of existing monitoring efforts to provide data with limited additional investment; and developing clear conceptual models and theories of change to help identify likely impacts and target monitoring accordingly.
Drawing on existing policies and targets There is considerable experience under the CBD of setting policy targets in relation to biodiversity and of the challenges of monitoring progress towards them [32,33]. The CBD experience has made clear the value of having policy targets as a focus for monitoring, and has highlighted both the necessity of using multiple indicators to form a coherent picture of status and trends in biodiversity and the challenge that this represents. It Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
720 Climate systems
has provided a focus for compilation and use of existing data relevant to biodiversity status and trends, as well as for the establishment of national programmes of biodiversity monitoring. The CBD has also provided a stimulus for the setting of biodiversity priorities within national policy through the original 2010 biodiversity target [34] and the more recently established Aichi targets [27] and the guidance they provide for development of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). Particularly relevant to REDD+ are the Aichi targets on reducing the rate of natural loss and degradation of habitats (target 5), on sustainable management (target 7), on protected areas (target 11), on ecosystem services (target 14) and on restoration (target 15), and the national policies developed to help achieve them. Many countries already have relevant policies in place, both for conservation and in other sectors, and some have developed their own national biodiversity targets. The REDD+ safeguards and policy objectives relating to biodiversity in the national context provide the basis for setting goals for biodiversity in the context of REDD+, which can potentially stimulate identification of relevant indicators and the monitoring needed to generate the data necessary to implement them. The CBD has highlighted linkages between biodiversity indicators proposed for monitoring progress towards the 2020 ‘Aichi’ targets in its Strategic Plan [27] and indicators that could provide key information on REDD+ impacts on biodiversity [11]. Review of these and other relevant policies, objectives and targets can be used to help identify which aspects of biodiversity are of high priority for focusing monitoring efforts.
determine change in extent of ecosystems (one of the CBD’s key indicators) and on-the-ground monitoring of priority species and (rarely) ecosystem condition in priority areas. These monitoring programmes, as well as some international programmes, can provide data on such indicators as change in forest extent and configuration that are useful in the context of REDD+, and make a sensible, attainable and affordable starting point for biodiversity monitoring [4]. As observed by Gardner et al. [4], there is already substantial information from research and practice that helps to clarify both status and trends in biodiversity at more local scales and the likely impacts of many of the interventions that will be used to implement REDD+ programmes. This information can be used to prioritise locations for intensive monitoring as well as the components of biodiversity most likely to be affected. A wealth of guidance is available on using both technical [28] and community based [38–40] approaches to monitoring biodiversity. Technical or expert-dependent approaches have the advantage of being robust and replicable in line with scientific consensus and expertise, but tend to be resource intensive. Community based approaches tend to be much more affordable and to increase the sense of both ownership and accountability among local groups responsible for stewardship of both carbon and biodiversity [41,42,43]. Established methodologies and guidance exist for the estimate of forest-related anthropogenic GHG emissions and removals [44,45]. Monitoring of REDD+ carbon impacts will generally comprise both remote sensing, sometimes using multiple sensors [46], and ground based surveys, to assess respectively land use or cover change (activity data) and carbon density (emissions factors).
Making use of existing monitoring efforts At least three types of monitoring for other purposes can potentially contribute to national biodiversity monitoring for REDD+: biodiversity monitoring developed to track the impacts of conservation policies and inform management decisions; measurement reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gases; and project scale monitoring of both biodiversity and carbon impacts. Existing national efforts in relation to biodiversity monitoring vary greatly among REDD+ countries. While many countries have conducted assessments of biodiversity priorities as part of generating their NBSAPs, monitoring change is more challenging and far fewer countries have established biodiversity monitoring programmes. Many found it difficult to report on the range of indicators proposed for tracking progress towards the CBD’s 2010 biodiversity target [35–37]. Most commonly, national biodiversity monitoring programmes are based on some combination of remote sensing or aerial survey to Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
Remote sensing, which for carbon has so far been used principally to estimate change in forest extent, can deliver biodiversity-relevant information if such changes are quantified for particular forest or ecosystem types (e.g. ecological zones [47], ecoregions [48] or regional or national classifications). Expressing area change by ecosystem type can provide information about likely changes in associated biodiversity. The biodiversity relevance of remotely sensed land cover/land use change data can also be enhanced by examining them in the light of knowledge about the specific biodiversity importance of particular areas. This can be done in terms of prioritisation schemes developed internationally [49], or more appropriately, in relation to conservation priorities identified nationally through gap analyses [50] or in the development of national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPS) under the CBD and other policy www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Dickson and Kapos 721
Figure 2
(a)
(b)
Legend Common chimpanzee species range Bonobo species range Eastern gorilla species range Important Bird Areas (IBAs) CBFP Landscapes
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations Environment Programme or contributory organisations. (c) Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Some biodiversity priorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ can be advanced by relating data on forest change from remote sensing or other sources to different types of priority areas, such as: (a) ranges of occurrence of species important for policy commitments eastern gorilla, common chimpanzee and bonobo [68]; DRC is a signatory to the Kinshasa Declaration on Great Apes and has thus agreed to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure the long-term future of the species of great apes within its boundaries [69]. (b) Important Bird Areas are key sites for the conservation of birds because of their importance for globally threatened bird species, restricted-range or biome-restricted ones, or for migratory or congregatory bird species [70,71]. (c) Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) Landscapes [72,73] are priority areas for conservation identified based on taxonomic importance, their overall integrity, and the resilience of ecological processes represented through a region wide evaluation by biological and socioeconomic experts from around the world.
commitments. As illustrated for the Democratic Republic of Congo in Figure 2, there may be many such priority sets relevant in a given country. Alternatively, recently developed analytical approaches can help to quantify and map the relative contribution of any area (whether or not it is in a priority area) to specific conservation objectives on a ‘wall-to-wall’ basis, that www.sciencedirect.com
is, covering the whole of a country or area of interest [51]. Combining mapped data on conservation priority with monitoring data on land cover/land use change makes it possible to assess changes in relation to their biodiversity importance, for example as annual forest cover loss (or gain) in areas of highest priority for conservation of a particular taxonomic group. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
722 Climate systems
Area change is only one aspect of change in ecosystems, and other aspects of change may have significant biodiversity implications. Remotely sensed data on forest cover can also be used to assess forest fragmentation both as an indicator of potential forest degradation (and conversely of where ‘natural forest’ currently exists [52,53]) and in relation to known impacts on biodiversity [54–58]. The change over time in such measures can provide better insight into degradation and is more relevant and easily interpretable in relation to biodiversity than any single static assessment. Higher resolution remote sensing has an improving capacity to detect changes in composition and forest structure, which are key aspects of biodiversity likely to be affected by REDD+ actions [59–63]. However, use of high resolution data for such purposes can be financially and technically demanding, and for understanding impacts at project scale, where persistence of particular species or assemblages is of concern, some ground-based assessment is likely to be necessary [43]. Well-designed field inventory programmes to collect the carbon stock data needed to assess emissions factors are critical components of national monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions [44] and are particularly important for assessing forest degradation [64]. Forest inventory can provide information on tree species composition (but it may require modification of standard inventory programmes to ensure that this is available) and on forest structure, but is unlikely to include information on other taxonomic groups. Repeated inventory in time is especially important for assessing stock changes in new forest, and for assessing ongoing degradation. Repeated assessment using comparable methods is critical for assessing biodiversity changes, as for accurate assessment of carbon emissions [65], but programmes of such repeated inventory are rare in developing countries, and the inventories that do exist have often focused on areas of forest that are perceived to be in the best condition. It is particularly important that the sampling design of inventory programmes targets areas currently undergoing rapid change and those where pressures likely to result in deforestation or other adverse impacts are concentrated. In some cases temporal change is inferred by using variation in space amongst different sites of different ages as a substitute for repeated assessment [64]. This approach is more reliable for carbon stock change than as a basis for assessing biodiversity change because of the spatial variation in biodiversity discussed above. However landscape context (e.g. proportion of forest cover, fragmentation, and proximity to roads and settlement) can have significant effects on both biomass and biodiversity, so such approaches must be applied with great Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
caution and rigorous attention to controlling for context variables. As noted by Gardner et al. [4], there is considerable existing knowledge that can be used to identify relationships between particular types of structural and compositional change in the tree community and likely changes in other groups. These relationships can be used to infer biodiversity change, and to identify priorities for repeated inventory, for promoting additional data collection in conjunction with inventory programmes, and for targeting more intense monitoring effort. There are advantages both in terms of resource use and effectiveness in using participatory approaches for some aspects of field based monitoring [66]. Finally, biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ can also build on a significant existing body of project scale monitoring. Although the negotiation of the national-level REDD+ mechanism is still ongoing in the UNFCCC, many REDD+ type projects are being implemented and monitored in the meantime. Some of these projects include provision for an assessment of the biodiversity impacts of the project, particularly where the project is led by a conservation organisation and/or it seeks to have its carbon credits validated under the Climate, Community and Biodiversity standards [25]. These projects therefore provide an important testing ground for monitoring the biodiversity impacts of REDD+ and implementing the guidance that has been produced on how this should be done [6,7]. In order to assess the impacts on biodiversity of a REDD+ project it is necessary to know the starting conditions, to monitor changes (or lack of them) in those conditions and to determine the degree to which the observed change can be attributed to the project [6]. The guidance proposes that attribution should be addressed through a combination of a biodiversity reference level (which sets out what would have happened to biodiversity in the absence of the project), and either a causal model (describing how the project will affect biodiversity; [8]) or, ideally, a control site (a site similar to the project site where outcomes are also monitored). There are thus significant potential synergies to be achieved by drawing on many types of existing monitoring to support biodiversity monitoring for REDD+. However, realising these synergies and building on them will require substantial coordination and cooperation among the wide diversity of institutions involved.
Developing clear conceptual models and theories of change The elaboration of clear conceptual models [8,67], can also help to address the attribution problem for a REDD+ programme that is implemented at the national level. This requires examination of the various factors and www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Dickson and Kapos 723
policies that may be influencing forest biodiversity and clear articulation of how REDD+ polices and interventions are expected to achieve REDD+ outcomes. On the one hand, this approach can help to identify key processes and interim outcomes that may be priorities for monitoring. On the other hand, in articulating other factors that may influence outcomes, it can be used to develop a rationale for attributing observed change to REDD+ policies and actions (or not). It can guide the use of existing data to understand the biodiversity starting conditions. While development of a biodiversity reference level at national scale would be very complex, causal models and more local monitoring results can be used at subnational scales to identify the appropriate counterfactuals (controls or reference sites) necessary to link specific aspects of practice to biodiversity impacts. Monitoring aspects of practice at national scale could thence be used to supplement direct biodiversity monitoring to infer REDD+ impacts. However, where REDD+ implementation is not spatially explicit, a causal model (or theory of change) would be difficult to develop that provided any very detailed analysis of biodiversity. Where REDD+ is implemented through geographically specific policies and measures, as it almost certainly will be in some cases, there is the potential for developing a causal model based on existing knowledge and research results, which may be helpful, in determining both priorities for monitoring and which changes can be attributed to REDD+.
and the biodiversity monitoring undertaken for REDD+ projects. Third, it is possible to develop causal models of how REDD+ is likely to affect biodiversity in order to identify priorities for monitoring efforts and more rigorously attribute observed changes to REDD+ as distinct from other factors. Delivering on these three fronts (and the first two in particular) will require a significant degree of coordination between those who are responsible for REDD+ implementation, for GHG monitoring, for biodiversity monitoring and for the implementation of REDD+ projects. These responsibilities may normally be split between different governmental institutions and between government and non-governmental organisations. In the light of what has been argued here, two further rules of thumb for decision-makers may be helpful. First, plans for monitoring the biodiversity impacts of REDD+ (and ensuring the necessary institutional coordination) should be incorporated early on in the planning of REDD+ implementation. Second, it makes sense to proceed in an incremental way. Given the challenges associated with monitoring the biodiversity impacts of REDD+, it is reasonable to try first to achieve some understanding of those impacts, even if it is imperfect, before attempting to realise a comprehensive understanding. Improvements can then be made over time. This approach is consistent with UNFCCC guidance [21].
Acknowledgements Conclusions It has been noted that REDD+ may have a number of different impacts on biodiversity, both positive and negative. These impacts can arise through a variety of routes and in different places across the national territory. Monitoring these impacts is therefore difficult, but there are many reasons why such monitoring is important. It can inform assessments of safeguard performance and be used to guide on-going implementation of REDD+. Three particular challenges with monitoring biodiversity have been identified here. There is the need to identify which components of biodiversity should be monitored; there is the difficulty of attributing any particular changes in biodiversity to REDD+; and there is the resource intensive nature of monitoring. Three distinct responses can assist in addressing these challenges. First, it is possible to draw on targets for biodiversity conservation that have already been established (whether in the safeguards themselves or through other policy processes) to shape the choice of what to monitor. Second, one can make use of existing or planned monitoring processes to avoid the costs of establishing a new system de novo. Such processes include ones focused on assessing progress towards national or international goals for biodiversity conservation, GHG monitoring processes for REDD+, www.sciencedirect.com
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the UNREDD Programme. They are grateful for helpful discussions with Toby Gardner and the other participants of the CCI workshop on ‘Informing on biodiversity safeguards for REDD+’, and to Julia Thorley for assistance with research and preparation of the manuscript.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Venter O, Meijaard E, Possingham H, Dennis R, Sheil D, Wich S, Hovani L, Wilson K: Carbon payments as a safeguard for threatened tropical mammals. Conserv Lett 2009, 2:123-129.
2.
Venter O, Laurance WF, Iwamura T, Wilson KA, Fuller RA, Possingham HP: Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science 2009, 326:1368.
3.
Harvey CA, Dickson B, Kormos C: Opportunities for achieving biodiversity conservation through REDD. Conserv Lett 2010, 3:53-61. This paper provides a good summary of the potential for REDD+ to benefit biodiversity conservation.
4.
Gardner TA, Burgess ND, Aguilar-Amuchastegui N, Barlow J, Berenguer E, Clements T, Danielsen F, Ferreira J, Foden W, Kapos V et al.: A framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national REDD+ programmes. Biol Conserv 2011, 154:61-71. The first scientific paper to discuss thoroughly issues of biodiversity in planning and monitoring REDD+, and the role of existing monitoring efforts in contributing to meeting needs under REDD+. 5.
Tyrrell TD, Alcorn JB: Analysis of Possible Indicators to Measure Impacts of REDD+ on Biodiversity and on Indigenous and Local Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
724 Climate systems
Communities: A Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2011. 6.
7.
Pilgrim J, Ekstrom J, Ebeling J: Biodiversity impacts guidance: key assessment issues for forest carbon projects. In Building Forest Carbon Projects. Edited by Ebeling J, Olander J. Washington, DC: Forest Trends; 2011. Richards M, Panfil S: Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 1 – Core Guidance for Project Proponents. Washington, D.C.: Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Forest Trends, Fauna & Flora International and Rainforest Alliance; 2011.
25. CCBA: Climate, Community & Biodiversity Project Design Standards. second edition. Arlington, USA: The Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA); 2008. 26. CBD: COP Decision IX/16 Biodiversity and Climate Change. 2008. 27. CBD: COP decision X/2. The strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. UNEP/CBD/ COP/DEC/X/2; 2010. 28. Gardner T: Monitoring Forest Biodiversity: Improving Conservation Through Ecologically Responsible Management. London: Earthscan; 2010.
8.
Gardner TA: The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. Ecol Lett 2010, 11:139-150.
29. Nichols JD, Williams BK: Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 2006, 21:668-673.
9.
UNFCCC: Decision 1/CP.16. The Cancun agreements: outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Longterm Cooperative Action under the Convention. FCCC/CP/ 2010/7/Add.1; 2010 [15-12-2011].
30. Simula M: Analysis of REDD+ Financing Gaps and Overlaps – Final Draft. REDD+ Partnership; 2010:. p. 1–92.
10. Miles L, Dickson B: REDD-plus and biodiversity: opportunities and challenges. Unasylva 2010, 236:56-63. 11. CBD: Advice on the application of relevant REDD+ safeguards for biodiversity, and on possible indicators and potential mechanisms to assess impacts of REDD+ measures on biodiversity. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/8; 2012. 12. Groombridge B, Jenkins MD: World Atlas of Biodiversity: Earth’s Living Resources in the 21st Century (2002). Cambridge, UK: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre; 2002.
31. Balmford A, Crane P, Dobson A, Green RE, Mace GM: The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 2005, 360:221-228. 32. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J et al.: Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 2010, 328:1164-1168. 33. SCBD: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3; 2010.
13. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM: The future of biodiversity. Science 1995, 269:347-350.
34. Convention on Biological Diversity: COP 8 Decision VIII/15. Framework for monitoring implementation of the achievement of the 2010 target and integration of targets into the thematic programmes of work; 2006 [6-8-2012].
14. Baillie JEM, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN: 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: A Global Species Assessment. Cambridge: IUCN Species Survival Commission; 2004.
35. Chandra A, Idrisova A: Convention on Biological Diversity: a review of national challenges and opportunities for implementation. Biodivers Conserv 2011, 20:3295-3316.
15. BirdLife International: State of the World’s Birds. 2011:. [1-5-2012].
36. Collen B, Ram M, Zamin T, McRae L: The tropical biodiversity data gap: addressing disparity in global monitoring. Trop Conserv Sci 2008, 1:75-88.
16. Hilton-Taylor C, Pollock CM, Chanson JS, Butchart SHM, Oldfield TEE, Katariya V: State of the world’s species. In Wildlife in a Changing World – An Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Edited by Vie´ J-C, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2009. 17. Visseren-Hamakers I, McDermott C, Vijge M, Cashore B: Tradeoffs, co-benefits and safeguards: Current debates on the breadth of REDD+. Curr Opin Environ Sustain; 2012, 4:xx–yy. 18. Strassburg BBN, Kelly A, Balmford A, Davies RG, Gibbs HK, Lovett A, Miles L, Orme CD, Price J, Turner RK, Rodrigues ASL: Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conserv Lett 2010, 3:98-105. 19. Phelps J, Friess DA, Webb EL: Win-win REDD+ approaches belie carbon-biodiversity trade-offs. Biol Conserv 2012, 154: 53-60. 20. Koh LP, Ghazoul J: Spatially explicit scenario analysis for reconciling agricultural expansion, forest protection, and carbon conservation in Indonesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010, 107:11140-11144. Presents important approaches for assessing trade-offs in REDD decision making. 21. UNFCCC: Decision 12/CP.17 Guidance on systems for providing information on how safeguards are addressed and respected and modalities relating to forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels as referred to in decision 1/CP.16; 2011. 22. FCPF: Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: Readiness Fund Common Approach to Environmental and Social Safeguards for Multiple Delivery Partners – IV. Strategic Environmental and Social Assessments (SESAs) and Environmental and Social Management Frameworks (ESMFs); 2011. 23. UN-REDD Programme: UN-REDD Programme Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria. 2012. 24. CCBA: REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards. Version 1 June 2010; 2010. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
37. Yamasaki SH, Tyrrell TD: A background report on improving forest biodiversity monitoring and reporting. CBD SBSTTA 16 Information Document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/25. Montre´al, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; 2012. 38. Danielsen F, Burgess N, Balmford A, Donald PF, Funder M, Jones JPG, Alviola P, Balete DS, Blomley T, Brashares JS et al.: Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterisation of approaches. Conserv Biol 2009, 23:31-42. 39. Danielsen F, Balete DS, Poulsen MK, Enghoff M, Nozawa CM, Jensen AE: A simple system for monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing country. Biodivers Conserv 2000, 9:1671-1705. 40. Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Jensen PM, Pirhofer-Walzl K: Environmental monitoring: the scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of peoples involvement. J Appl Ecol 2010, 47:1166-1168. 41. Larrazabal, A., Larraza´bal AP, McCall M, Mwampamba T, Skutsch M: The role of community carbon monitoring in REDD+: a review of experiences. Curr Opin Environ Sustain, 2012, 4:xx–yy. 42. Danielsen F, Skutsch M, Burgess ND, Jensen PM, Andrianandrasana H, Karky B, Lewis R, Lovett JC, Massao J, Ngaga Y et al.: At the heart of REDD+: a role for local people in monitoring forests? Conserv Lett 2011, 4:158-167. Key discussion of participatory approaches to monitoring and their application in REDD+. 43. Sommerville MM, Milner-Gulland EJ, Jones JPG: The challenge of monitoring biodiversity in payment for environmental service interventions. Biol Conserv 2011, 144:2832-2841. 44. GOFC-GOLD: A sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals caused by deforestation, gains and losses of carbon stocks in forests remaining forests and forestation. GOFC-GOLD Report Version COP 15-1. Alberta, www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Dickson and Kapos 725
Canada: GOFC-GOLD Project Office, Natural Resources Canada; 2009.
Vasconcelos HL et al.: The fate of Amazonian forest fragments: a 32-year investigation. Biol Conserv 2011, 144:56-67.
45. IPCC: In Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Edited by Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, Wagner F. IGES; 2003.
59. Asner GP, Knapp DE, Balaji A, Paez-Acosta G: Automated mapping of tropical deforestation and forest degradation: CLASlite. J Appl Remote Sens 2009, 3: 033543-33624.
46. De Sy V, Herold M, Achard F, Asner GP, Held A, Kellndorfer, Verbesselt J: Synergies of multiple remote sensing data sources for REDD+ monitoring. Curr Opin Environ Sustain; 2012, 4:xx–yy.
60. Gillespie TW, Foody GM, Rocchini D, Giorgi AP, Saatchi S: Measuring and modelling biodiversity from space. Prog Phys Geogr 2008, 32:203-221.
47. FAO: Global forest resources assessment 2000. FAO Forestry Paper 140. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2001. 48. Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, D’Amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC et al.: Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 2001, 51:933-938. 49. Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB, Gerlach J, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF, Mittermeier CG, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues ASL: Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 2006, 313:58-61. 50. Dudley N, Parish J: Closing the gap. Creating Ecologically Representative Protected Area Systems: A Guide to Conducting the Gap Assessments of Protected Area Systems for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal 2006 [Technical Series No. 24]. 51. Buchanan GM, Donald PF, Butchart SHM: Identifying priority areas for conservation: a global assessment for forestdependent birds. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:e29080. 52. Bucki M, Cuypers D, Mayaux P, Achard F, Estreguil C, Grassi G: Assessing REDD+ performance of countries with low monitoring capacities: the matrix approach. Environ Res Lett 2012, 7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014031. Highlights the role that can be played by remote sensing in supporting REDD+ monitoring in developing countries. 53. Broadbent EN, Asner GP, Keller M, Knapp DE, Oliveira PJC, Silva JN: Forest fragmentation and edge effects from deforestation and selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Biol Conserv 2008, 141:1745-1757. 54. Cordeiro NJ, Howe HF: Low recruitment of trees dispersed by animals in African forest fragments. Conserv Biol 2001, 15:1733-1741. 55. Fahrig L: Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 2003, 34:487-515. 56. Laurance WF: Second thoughts on who goes where in author lists. Nature 2006, 442:26. 57. Laurance WF, Laurance SG, Hilbert DW: Long-term dynamics of a fragmented rainforest mammal assemblage. Conserv Biol 2008, 22:1154-1164. 58. Laurance WF, Camargo JLC, Luizpo RCC, Laurance SG, Pimm SL, Bruna EM, Stouffer PC, Bruce Williamson G, Benı´tez-Malvido J,
www.sciencedirect.com
61. Goetz S, Dubayah R: Advances in remote sensing technology and implications for measuring and monitoring forest carbon stocks and change. Carbon Manag 2011, 2:231-244. 62. Goetz SJ, Mack MC, Gurney KR, Randerson JT, Houghton RA: Ecosystem responses to recent climate change and fire disturbance at northern high latitudes: observations and model results contrasting northern Eurasia and North America. Environ Res Lett 2007, 2. 63. Turner W, Spector S, Gardiner N, Fladeland M, Sterling E, Steininger M: Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 2003, 18:306-314. 64. Herold M, Skutsch M: Monitoring, reporting and verification for national REDD + programmes: two proposals. Environ Res Lett 2011, 6:014002. 65. IPCC: In 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Edited by Eggleston S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K. Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES); 2006. 66. Danielsen F, Burgess N, Balmford A: Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers Conserv 2005, 14:2507-2542. 67. Margoluis R, Stem C, Salafsky N, Brown M: Using conceptual models as a planning and evaluation tool in conservation. Eval Program Plann 2009, 32:138-147. 68. Caldecott J, Miles L: World Atlas of Great Apes and their Conservation. Berkeley, USA: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, University of California Press; 2005. 69. UNESCO, UNEP, GRASP: Kinshasa Declaration on Great Apes2005. [15-10-2011]. 70. BirdLife International: Important Bird Areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo (GIS data). Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International; 2011:. [29-7-2010]. 71. BirdLife International: Important Bird Areas. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International; 2011:. [14-4-2011]. 72. CARPE: Priority conservation landscapes of the Congo Basin. Central African Regional Program for the Environment, CARPE; 2009. 73. Yanggen D, Angu K, Tchamou N: Landscape-Scale Conservation in the Congo Basin: Lessons Learned from the Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2010.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Barney Dickson and Valerie Kapos Increasing emphasis on social and environmental safeguards for REDD+ in the UNFCCC and work under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have prompted growing interest in biodiversity monitoring for REDD+, but most discussions of REDD+ monitoring have so far centred on greenhouse gas emissions and removals at national level. Challenges in monitoring biodiversity for REDD+ include choosing which aspects of biodiversity to monitor, the difficulty of attributing particular changes to REDD+ and the likely scarcity of resources for biodiversity monitoring. Three responses can help address these challenges. First, already-agreed policy targets can help to identify what should be monitored. Second, making links to existing biodiversity monitoring and to monitoring to estimate GHG emissions and removals (both remote sensing and ground based inventories) can provide some solutions. Finally, developing clear theories of change can assist in determining which changes in biodiversity can be attributed to REDD+. Address Climate Change and Biodiversity Programme, United Nations Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK Corresponding author: Dickson, Barney ([email protected])
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
monitoring will be important not just to assess whether safeguards are adhered to, but also to guide the on-going planning and implementation of REDD+. The scientific literature has yet to catch up with this new policy interest. There are very few papers that look specifically at biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ [4]. There is more in the grey literature [e.g. [5]], but much of this is focused on REDD+ projects [6,7] and does not address the connection with national scale monitoring needs. By contrast, there is a significant volume of work on estimating forest-related GHG emissions and removals, and a large literature on the general topic of biodiversity monitoring, including in forests [8]. In this paper we summarise the state of knowledge on biodiversity monitoring for REDD+. The primary focus is on REDD+ as a mechanism that will be implemented at the national level. The paper begins by outlining the different ways in which REDD+ may affect biodiversity. It briefly surveys the recent policy developments on biodiversity safeguards for REDD+. It then identifies three challenges faced in biodiversity monitoring to support safeguards and in the implementation of REDD+ more broadly. The remainder of the paper is devoted to discussing three responses that can be helpful in addressing these challenges.
This review comes from a themed issue on Climate systems
Biodiversity and REDD+
Edited by Ingrid J Visseren-Hamakers, Aarti Gupta, Martin Herold, Marielos Pen˜a-Claros and Marjanneke J Vijge
REDD+ is a financial incentive mechanism that will provide incentives to developing countries to reduce forest-related GHG emissions and to increase GHG removals from the atmosphere by forests. The five activities that will be incentivised by the REDD+ mechanism are: reducing emissions from deforestation; reducing emissions from forest degradation; conservation of forest carbon stocks; sustainable management of forests; and enhancement of forest carbon stocks [9].
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial Received 1 May 2012; Accepted 30 September 2012 Available online 23rd October 2012 1877-3435/$ – see front matter, # 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.09.017
Introduction Although REDD+ has been perceived as an opportunity to make progress on biodiversity conservation [1,2,3], the main focus of discussions on monitoring has been on how to estimate anthropogenic, forest-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and removals of GHG from the atmosphere through sequestration. However, in the light of the increasing emphasis on social and environmental safeguards for REDD+ in the UNFCCC, and supplemented by the work being carried out under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), there is growing interest in biodiversity monitoring for REDD+. Such www.sciencedirect.com
The inclusion of the five activities in the REDD+ mechanism has the consequence that the range of potential impacts, including on biodiversity, is likely to be broad, generating a variety of both risks and opportunities. There have been various attempts to identify and classify the opportunities and risks for biodiversity [3,10,11]. To the extent that REDD+ results in large scale reduction in deforestation and degradation, it is likely that the overall effects on biodiversity will be positive; tropical forests are home to the majority of terrestrial species [12], deforestation is one of the largest threats to global biodiversity [13,14], and habitat loss and degradation, especially deforestation, is the most important threat to the world’s Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
718 Climate systems
birds [15], amphibians and mammals [16]. However, there may be risks to biodiversity that arise directly or indirectly from REDD+ activities [17]. The nature of the risks and opportunities in any particular case will depend on which of the five REDD+ activities are undertaken and where, together with the types of interventions that are used to implement them. These, in turn, will be shaped by policy priorities. A GHG focused approach may deliver less positive outcomes for biodiversity than one that addresses both GHGs and biodiversity; so decisions on trade-offs between GHG and biodiversity outcomes may well be necessary [2,18,19]. Indeed, trade-off decisions may concern not just GHGs and biodiversity, but also ecosystem services and broader issues of biofuel development and food security [20].
Safeguards for biodiversity Concerns that REDD+ may also pose certain social and environmental risks – and that these should be guarded against – motivated the adoption of the Cancun guidance and safeguards that are contained in Appendix I of the Cancun Agreements [17,9]. In the parts most relevant for biodiversity, these propose that REDD+ activities should: take into account the multiple functions of forests and other ecosystems; be consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity; not be used for the conversion of natural forests but instead should be used to incentivise their protection; and be used to enhance other social and environmental benefits [9]. Several features of this list of provisions are noteworthy. It includes reference to non-forest ecosystems. It has a focus on the conservation of natural forests but does not otherwise prioritise particular elements of biodiversity. It pays attention not just to outcomes but also to what is done to promote certain outcomes and it calls for enhancing benefits as well as avoiding harms. The UNFCCC decision further requests developing countries to develop a system for providing information on how the safeguards are being addressed and respected [9]. Broad guidelines – which may be developed further – on these safeguard information systems have since been agreed [21]. This guidance indicates, inter alia, that the information systems should take into account national circumstances and respective capabilities and recognise national sovereignty and legislation and relevant international obligations and agreements. It is noticeable that the guidance does not use the term ‘monitoring’ in reference to these information systems. This may have been influenced by the desire to make a distinction between the requirements that may be placed on Parties in relation to the measurement and reporting of GHG emissions and removals, and the less stringent demands that are thought to be appropriate for safeguard information systems. Nevertheless, it seems likely that the results of monitoring of the biodiversity impacts of REDD+ may provide valuable inputs for safeguard information systems, and that some Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
countries will wish to make use of such monitoring in this way. Other REDD+-related multilateral and voluntary initiatives have also adopted safeguards, principles or processes that are designed to avoid social and environmental risks and promote benefits. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment [22] outlines a process that is to be undertaken by countries receiving REDD+ funding from the FCPF. This includes provisions for monitoring. The UNREDD Programme’s Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria [23] and the REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards [24], developed by Care International and the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA), both set principles and criteria whose content is elaborated in much more detail than the Cancun safeguards themselves. The second of these is designed specifically as a set of standards against which countries can report on performance; it also contains an indicator framework. The CCBA has also developed a set of standards for individual REDD+ projects that are used to provide investors with an assurance that these specific interventions are designed and implemented in ways that mitigate environmental and social risks [25]. The CBD has recognised both the potential of REDD+ to contribute to biodiversity conservation [26] and the potential risks it poses [11], and has undertaken work on the identification of indicators for the impacts of REDD+ on biodiversity [5]. This comes in the context of a broader interest in indicators, which stems from the adoption of global targets for biodiversity [27] and the consequent need to identify indicators that can be used to assess progress towards both these targets and national biodiversity objectives and targets. Such indicators and the monitoring needed to implement them can also play a crucial role in guiding improvements in the policies and actions used to advance towards these objectives.
The challenge of biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ The range of REDD+ activities and their potential direct and indirect effects, means that in order to understand the impacts of REDD+ on biodiversity it will be necessary to monitor biodiversity in non-forest areas as well as within forests. The Cancun (and related sets of) safeguards offer only a partial specification of what effects may be of most interest; natural forests are of particular concern. In addition, the safeguards point to the need to track the actions that are undertaken (and not undertaken) in the implementation of REDD+. Monitoring will also be important to inform complex decisions about potential trade-offs among benefits of REDD+ and amongst different approaches to mitigating risks; even if safeguards constrain such decisions, they are unlikely to eliminate the need for them. There are therefore some difficulties www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Dickson and Kapos 719
Figure 1
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Challenges Responses Choosing what to monitor
Focus on priorities specified in existing policies and targets
Attributing change to REDD+
Draw on existing knowledge to develop causal models and counterfactuals
High Costs
Build on existing monitoring: of biodiversity and for GHG accounting Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Major challenges in biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ and key responses that can help to address them.
associated with biodiversity monitoring for REDD+. Three particular challenges can be identified (Figure 1). First, there is a question about what aspects of biodiversity should be monitored. The complexity of biodiversity is well established and capacity and resources for monitoring generally limited. While a general understanding of the risks and opportunities from REDD+ for biodiversity is helpful, and the safeguards highlight natural forests, this still leaves much to be determined in identifying priorities for monitoring. Developing biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ requires clearer specification of which aspects of biodiversity need particular attention [28,29]. Second, there is a problem concerning the attribution of effects to REDD+. Monitoring for REDD+ does not simply require that one assesses what is happening to biodiversity in forests (and non-forest ecosystems). Rather it necessitates understanding which changes (or lack of changes) are consequences of REDD+. Attributing particular changes in biodiversity to particular policy or management actions is always difficult, and there are two particular difficulties with regard to REDD+. Firstly, a national REDD+ strategy may, to a greater or lesser degree, be integrated with other large scale policies (e.g. agriculture policy, forest policy) so that the boundary between REDD+ actions and actions originating in other policies may not be clear. If that boundary (between REDD+ and non-REDD+ actions) is not clear then attributing changes to one or the other side of that boundary becomes more difficult. A second, associated problem is related to spatial explicitness. Policies developed and implemented to support REDD+ objectives will sometimes neither be tied to specific locations nor have impacts that can easily be assessed in a spatially explicit manner. Furthermore, as the REDD+ mechanism is currently envisaged, a country’s success (or lack of it) in reducing deforestation will be assessed against a reference level that sets out what the deforestation rate would have been in the country as a www.sciencedirect.com
whole in the absence of REDD+. A country could reduce its deforestation rate compared to that reference level, and be compensated accordingly without it being possible, even in principle, to identify which particular forests had been conserved through REDD+. However, biodiversity is distributed unevenly across forests (and other ecosystems) and some forests are of greater biodiversity significance than others. Thus if one cannot determine which forests have been conserved it limits what monitoring can, even in principle, tell us about the potential biodiversity gains from REDD+. A further complication is that differences in biodiversity between locations mean that it is difficult to identify common units that can be used to combine or compare results of monitoring in different locations; this is in stark contrast to the ease of using tonnes of carbon or CO2 equivalents to summarise results of carbon monitoring. Third, REDD+ potentially already demands appreciable commitment of resources to greenhouse gas monitoring; design and establishment of national monitoring systems represents on average 40% of country REDD+ readiness costs [30], so it is unlikely that significant additional resources will be available for monitoring biodiversity impacts of REDD+. The remainder of this paper focuses on what can be learnt from the existing literature on approaches that can be used to address these three challenges.
Addressing challenges in biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ The complexity of assessing biodiversity and its change over time has been a consistent challenge both in assessing policy impacts and in evaluating the on-the-ground impacts of individual interventions [31]. The limited resources usually available for such monitoring mean that both the aspects of biodiversity (e.g. particular species or habitats) to be monitored and the methods employed must be chosen strategically. Three broad approaches can help to respond to the challenges enumerated above (Figure 1): drawing on existing policy objectives and targets to help identify priorities for monitoring; making use of existing monitoring efforts to provide data with limited additional investment; and developing clear conceptual models and theories of change to help identify likely impacts and target monitoring accordingly.
Drawing on existing policies and targets There is considerable experience under the CBD of setting policy targets in relation to biodiversity and of the challenges of monitoring progress towards them [32,33]. The CBD experience has made clear the value of having policy targets as a focus for monitoring, and has highlighted both the necessity of using multiple indicators to form a coherent picture of status and trends in biodiversity and the challenge that this represents. It Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
720 Climate systems
has provided a focus for compilation and use of existing data relevant to biodiversity status and trends, as well as for the establishment of national programmes of biodiversity monitoring. The CBD has also provided a stimulus for the setting of biodiversity priorities within national policy through the original 2010 biodiversity target [34] and the more recently established Aichi targets [27] and the guidance they provide for development of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). Particularly relevant to REDD+ are the Aichi targets on reducing the rate of natural loss and degradation of habitats (target 5), on sustainable management (target 7), on protected areas (target 11), on ecosystem services (target 14) and on restoration (target 15), and the national policies developed to help achieve them. Many countries already have relevant policies in place, both for conservation and in other sectors, and some have developed their own national biodiversity targets. The REDD+ safeguards and policy objectives relating to biodiversity in the national context provide the basis for setting goals for biodiversity in the context of REDD+, which can potentially stimulate identification of relevant indicators and the monitoring needed to generate the data necessary to implement them. The CBD has highlighted linkages between biodiversity indicators proposed for monitoring progress towards the 2020 ‘Aichi’ targets in its Strategic Plan [27] and indicators that could provide key information on REDD+ impacts on biodiversity [11]. Review of these and other relevant policies, objectives and targets can be used to help identify which aspects of biodiversity are of high priority for focusing monitoring efforts.
determine change in extent of ecosystems (one of the CBD’s key indicators) and on-the-ground monitoring of priority species and (rarely) ecosystem condition in priority areas. These monitoring programmes, as well as some international programmes, can provide data on such indicators as change in forest extent and configuration that are useful in the context of REDD+, and make a sensible, attainable and affordable starting point for biodiversity monitoring [4]. As observed by Gardner et al. [4], there is already substantial information from research and practice that helps to clarify both status and trends in biodiversity at more local scales and the likely impacts of many of the interventions that will be used to implement REDD+ programmes. This information can be used to prioritise locations for intensive monitoring as well as the components of biodiversity most likely to be affected. A wealth of guidance is available on using both technical [28] and community based [38–40] approaches to monitoring biodiversity. Technical or expert-dependent approaches have the advantage of being robust and replicable in line with scientific consensus and expertise, but tend to be resource intensive. Community based approaches tend to be much more affordable and to increase the sense of both ownership and accountability among local groups responsible for stewardship of both carbon and biodiversity [41,42,43]. Established methodologies and guidance exist for the estimate of forest-related anthropogenic GHG emissions and removals [44,45]. Monitoring of REDD+ carbon impacts will generally comprise both remote sensing, sometimes using multiple sensors [46], and ground based surveys, to assess respectively land use or cover change (activity data) and carbon density (emissions factors).
Making use of existing monitoring efforts At least three types of monitoring for other purposes can potentially contribute to national biodiversity monitoring for REDD+: biodiversity monitoring developed to track the impacts of conservation policies and inform management decisions; measurement reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gases; and project scale monitoring of both biodiversity and carbon impacts. Existing national efforts in relation to biodiversity monitoring vary greatly among REDD+ countries. While many countries have conducted assessments of biodiversity priorities as part of generating their NBSAPs, monitoring change is more challenging and far fewer countries have established biodiversity monitoring programmes. Many found it difficult to report on the range of indicators proposed for tracking progress towards the CBD’s 2010 biodiversity target [35–37]. Most commonly, national biodiversity monitoring programmes are based on some combination of remote sensing or aerial survey to Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
Remote sensing, which for carbon has so far been used principally to estimate change in forest extent, can deliver biodiversity-relevant information if such changes are quantified for particular forest or ecosystem types (e.g. ecological zones [47], ecoregions [48] or regional or national classifications). Expressing area change by ecosystem type can provide information about likely changes in associated biodiversity. The biodiversity relevance of remotely sensed land cover/land use change data can also be enhanced by examining them in the light of knowledge about the specific biodiversity importance of particular areas. This can be done in terms of prioritisation schemes developed internationally [49], or more appropriately, in relation to conservation priorities identified nationally through gap analyses [50] or in the development of national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPS) under the CBD and other policy www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Dickson and Kapos 721
Figure 2
(a)
(b)
Legend Common chimpanzee species range Bonobo species range Eastern gorilla species range Important Bird Areas (IBAs) CBFP Landscapes
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on maps do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations Environment Programme or contributory organisations. (c) Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
Some biodiversity priorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ can be advanced by relating data on forest change from remote sensing or other sources to different types of priority areas, such as: (a) ranges of occurrence of species important for policy commitments eastern gorilla, common chimpanzee and bonobo [68]; DRC is a signatory to the Kinshasa Declaration on Great Apes and has thus agreed to undertake all necessary efforts to ensure the long-term future of the species of great apes within its boundaries [69]. (b) Important Bird Areas are key sites for the conservation of birds because of their importance for globally threatened bird species, restricted-range or biome-restricted ones, or for migratory or congregatory bird species [70,71]. (c) Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP) Landscapes [72,73] are priority areas for conservation identified based on taxonomic importance, their overall integrity, and the resilience of ecological processes represented through a region wide evaluation by biological and socioeconomic experts from around the world.
commitments. As illustrated for the Democratic Republic of Congo in Figure 2, there may be many such priority sets relevant in a given country. Alternatively, recently developed analytical approaches can help to quantify and map the relative contribution of any area (whether or not it is in a priority area) to specific conservation objectives on a ‘wall-to-wall’ basis, that www.sciencedirect.com
is, covering the whole of a country or area of interest [51]. Combining mapped data on conservation priority with monitoring data on land cover/land use change makes it possible to assess changes in relation to their biodiversity importance, for example as annual forest cover loss (or gain) in areas of highest priority for conservation of a particular taxonomic group. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
722 Climate systems
Area change is only one aspect of change in ecosystems, and other aspects of change may have significant biodiversity implications. Remotely sensed data on forest cover can also be used to assess forest fragmentation both as an indicator of potential forest degradation (and conversely of where ‘natural forest’ currently exists [52,53]) and in relation to known impacts on biodiversity [54–58]. The change over time in such measures can provide better insight into degradation and is more relevant and easily interpretable in relation to biodiversity than any single static assessment. Higher resolution remote sensing has an improving capacity to detect changes in composition and forest structure, which are key aspects of biodiversity likely to be affected by REDD+ actions [59–63]. However, use of high resolution data for such purposes can be financially and technically demanding, and for understanding impacts at project scale, where persistence of particular species or assemblages is of concern, some ground-based assessment is likely to be necessary [43]. Well-designed field inventory programmes to collect the carbon stock data needed to assess emissions factors are critical components of national monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions [44] and are particularly important for assessing forest degradation [64]. Forest inventory can provide information on tree species composition (but it may require modification of standard inventory programmes to ensure that this is available) and on forest structure, but is unlikely to include information on other taxonomic groups. Repeated inventory in time is especially important for assessing stock changes in new forest, and for assessing ongoing degradation. Repeated assessment using comparable methods is critical for assessing biodiversity changes, as for accurate assessment of carbon emissions [65], but programmes of such repeated inventory are rare in developing countries, and the inventories that do exist have often focused on areas of forest that are perceived to be in the best condition. It is particularly important that the sampling design of inventory programmes targets areas currently undergoing rapid change and those where pressures likely to result in deforestation or other adverse impacts are concentrated. In some cases temporal change is inferred by using variation in space amongst different sites of different ages as a substitute for repeated assessment [64]. This approach is more reliable for carbon stock change than as a basis for assessing biodiversity change because of the spatial variation in biodiversity discussed above. However landscape context (e.g. proportion of forest cover, fragmentation, and proximity to roads and settlement) can have significant effects on both biomass and biodiversity, so such approaches must be applied with great Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
caution and rigorous attention to controlling for context variables. As noted by Gardner et al. [4], there is considerable existing knowledge that can be used to identify relationships between particular types of structural and compositional change in the tree community and likely changes in other groups. These relationships can be used to infer biodiversity change, and to identify priorities for repeated inventory, for promoting additional data collection in conjunction with inventory programmes, and for targeting more intense monitoring effort. There are advantages both in terms of resource use and effectiveness in using participatory approaches for some aspects of field based monitoring [66]. Finally, biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ can also build on a significant existing body of project scale monitoring. Although the negotiation of the national-level REDD+ mechanism is still ongoing in the UNFCCC, many REDD+ type projects are being implemented and monitored in the meantime. Some of these projects include provision for an assessment of the biodiversity impacts of the project, particularly where the project is led by a conservation organisation and/or it seeks to have its carbon credits validated under the Climate, Community and Biodiversity standards [25]. These projects therefore provide an important testing ground for monitoring the biodiversity impacts of REDD+ and implementing the guidance that has been produced on how this should be done [6,7]. In order to assess the impacts on biodiversity of a REDD+ project it is necessary to know the starting conditions, to monitor changes (or lack of them) in those conditions and to determine the degree to which the observed change can be attributed to the project [6]. The guidance proposes that attribution should be addressed through a combination of a biodiversity reference level (which sets out what would have happened to biodiversity in the absence of the project), and either a causal model (describing how the project will affect biodiversity; [8]) or, ideally, a control site (a site similar to the project site where outcomes are also monitored). There are thus significant potential synergies to be achieved by drawing on many types of existing monitoring to support biodiversity monitoring for REDD+. However, realising these synergies and building on them will require substantial coordination and cooperation among the wide diversity of institutions involved.
Developing clear conceptual models and theories of change The elaboration of clear conceptual models [8,67], can also help to address the attribution problem for a REDD+ programme that is implemented at the national level. This requires examination of the various factors and www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Dickson and Kapos 723
policies that may be influencing forest biodiversity and clear articulation of how REDD+ polices and interventions are expected to achieve REDD+ outcomes. On the one hand, this approach can help to identify key processes and interim outcomes that may be priorities for monitoring. On the other hand, in articulating other factors that may influence outcomes, it can be used to develop a rationale for attributing observed change to REDD+ policies and actions (or not). It can guide the use of existing data to understand the biodiversity starting conditions. While development of a biodiversity reference level at national scale would be very complex, causal models and more local monitoring results can be used at subnational scales to identify the appropriate counterfactuals (controls or reference sites) necessary to link specific aspects of practice to biodiversity impacts. Monitoring aspects of practice at national scale could thence be used to supplement direct biodiversity monitoring to infer REDD+ impacts. However, where REDD+ implementation is not spatially explicit, a causal model (or theory of change) would be difficult to develop that provided any very detailed analysis of biodiversity. Where REDD+ is implemented through geographically specific policies and measures, as it almost certainly will be in some cases, there is the potential for developing a causal model based on existing knowledge and research results, which may be helpful, in determining both priorities for monitoring and which changes can be attributed to REDD+.
and the biodiversity monitoring undertaken for REDD+ projects. Third, it is possible to develop causal models of how REDD+ is likely to affect biodiversity in order to identify priorities for monitoring efforts and more rigorously attribute observed changes to REDD+ as distinct from other factors. Delivering on these three fronts (and the first two in particular) will require a significant degree of coordination between those who are responsible for REDD+ implementation, for GHG monitoring, for biodiversity monitoring and for the implementation of REDD+ projects. These responsibilities may normally be split between different governmental institutions and between government and non-governmental organisations. In the light of what has been argued here, two further rules of thumb for decision-makers may be helpful. First, plans for monitoring the biodiversity impacts of REDD+ (and ensuring the necessary institutional coordination) should be incorporated early on in the planning of REDD+ implementation. Second, it makes sense to proceed in an incremental way. Given the challenges associated with monitoring the biodiversity impacts of REDD+, it is reasonable to try first to achieve some understanding of those impacts, even if it is imperfect, before attempting to realise a comprehensive understanding. Improvements can then be made over time. This approach is consistent with UNFCCC guidance [21].
Acknowledgements Conclusions It has been noted that REDD+ may have a number of different impacts on biodiversity, both positive and negative. These impacts can arise through a variety of routes and in different places across the national territory. Monitoring these impacts is therefore difficult, but there are many reasons why such monitoring is important. It can inform assessments of safeguard performance and be used to guide on-going implementation of REDD+. Three particular challenges with monitoring biodiversity have been identified here. There is the need to identify which components of biodiversity should be monitored; there is the difficulty of attributing any particular changes in biodiversity to REDD+; and there is the resource intensive nature of monitoring. Three distinct responses can assist in addressing these challenges. First, it is possible to draw on targets for biodiversity conservation that have already been established (whether in the safeguards themselves or through other policy processes) to shape the choice of what to monitor. Second, one can make use of existing or planned monitoring processes to avoid the costs of establishing a new system de novo. Such processes include ones focused on assessing progress towards national or international goals for biodiversity conservation, GHG monitoring processes for REDD+, www.sciencedirect.com
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the UNREDD Programme. They are grateful for helpful discussions with Toby Gardner and the other participants of the CCI workshop on ‘Informing on biodiversity safeguards for REDD+’, and to Julia Thorley for assistance with research and preparation of the manuscript.
References and recommended reading Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review, have been highlighted as: of special interest of outstanding interest 1.
Venter O, Meijaard E, Possingham H, Dennis R, Sheil D, Wich S, Hovani L, Wilson K: Carbon payments as a safeguard for threatened tropical mammals. Conserv Lett 2009, 2:123-129.
2.
Venter O, Laurance WF, Iwamura T, Wilson KA, Fuller RA, Possingham HP: Harnessing carbon payments to protect biodiversity. Science 2009, 326:1368.
3.
Harvey CA, Dickson B, Kormos C: Opportunities for achieving biodiversity conservation through REDD. Conserv Lett 2010, 3:53-61. This paper provides a good summary of the potential for REDD+ to benefit biodiversity conservation.
4.
Gardner TA, Burgess ND, Aguilar-Amuchastegui N, Barlow J, Berenguer E, Clements T, Danielsen F, Ferreira J, Foden W, Kapos V et al.: A framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national REDD+ programmes. Biol Conserv 2011, 154:61-71. The first scientific paper to discuss thoroughly issues of biodiversity in planning and monitoring REDD+, and the role of existing monitoring efforts in contributing to meeting needs under REDD+. 5.
Tyrrell TD, Alcorn JB: Analysis of Possible Indicators to Measure Impacts of REDD+ on Biodiversity and on Indigenous and Local Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
724 Climate systems
Communities: A Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2011. 6.
7.
Pilgrim J, Ekstrom J, Ebeling J: Biodiversity impacts guidance: key assessment issues for forest carbon projects. In Building Forest Carbon Projects. Edited by Ebeling J, Olander J. Washington, DC: Forest Trends; 2011. Richards M, Panfil S: Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 1 – Core Guidance for Project Proponents. Washington, D.C.: Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Forest Trends, Fauna & Flora International and Rainforest Alliance; 2011.
25. CCBA: Climate, Community & Biodiversity Project Design Standards. second edition. Arlington, USA: The Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA); 2008. 26. CBD: COP Decision IX/16 Biodiversity and Climate Change. 2008. 27. CBD: COP decision X/2. The strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. UNEP/CBD/ COP/DEC/X/2; 2010. 28. Gardner T: Monitoring Forest Biodiversity: Improving Conservation Through Ecologically Responsible Management. London: Earthscan; 2010.
8.
Gardner TA: The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests. Ecol Lett 2010, 11:139-150.
29. Nichols JD, Williams BK: Monitoring for conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 2006, 21:668-673.
9.
UNFCCC: Decision 1/CP.16. The Cancun agreements: outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Longterm Cooperative Action under the Convention. FCCC/CP/ 2010/7/Add.1; 2010 [15-12-2011].
30. Simula M: Analysis of REDD+ Financing Gaps and Overlaps – Final Draft. REDD+ Partnership; 2010:. p. 1–92.
10. Miles L, Dickson B: REDD-plus and biodiversity: opportunities and challenges. Unasylva 2010, 236:56-63. 11. CBD: Advice on the application of relevant REDD+ safeguards for biodiversity, and on possible indicators and potential mechanisms to assess impacts of REDD+ measures on biodiversity. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/8; 2012. 12. Groombridge B, Jenkins MD: World Atlas of Biodiversity: Earth’s Living Resources in the 21st Century (2002). Cambridge, UK: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre; 2002.
31. Balmford A, Crane P, Dobson A, Green RE, Mace GM: The 2010 challenge: data availability, information needs and extraterrestrial insights. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 2005, 360:221-228. 32. Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J et al.: Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 2010, 328:1164-1168. 33. SCBD: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3; 2010.
13. Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM: The future of biodiversity. Science 1995, 269:347-350.
34. Convention on Biological Diversity: COP 8 Decision VIII/15. Framework for monitoring implementation of the achievement of the 2010 target and integration of targets into the thematic programmes of work; 2006 [6-8-2012].
14. Baillie JEM, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN: 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: A Global Species Assessment. Cambridge: IUCN Species Survival Commission; 2004.
35. Chandra A, Idrisova A: Convention on Biological Diversity: a review of national challenges and opportunities for implementation. Biodivers Conserv 2011, 20:3295-3316.
15. BirdLife International: State of the World’s Birds. 2011:. [1-5-2012].
36. Collen B, Ram M, Zamin T, McRae L: The tropical biodiversity data gap: addressing disparity in global monitoring. Trop Conserv Sci 2008, 1:75-88.
16. Hilton-Taylor C, Pollock CM, Chanson JS, Butchart SHM, Oldfield TEE, Katariya V: State of the world’s species. In Wildlife in a Changing World – An Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Edited by Vie´ J-C, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2009. 17. Visseren-Hamakers I, McDermott C, Vijge M, Cashore B: Tradeoffs, co-benefits and safeguards: Current debates on the breadth of REDD+. Curr Opin Environ Sustain; 2012, 4:xx–yy. 18. Strassburg BBN, Kelly A, Balmford A, Davies RG, Gibbs HK, Lovett A, Miles L, Orme CD, Price J, Turner RK, Rodrigues ASL: Global congruence of carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conserv Lett 2010, 3:98-105. 19. Phelps J, Friess DA, Webb EL: Win-win REDD+ approaches belie carbon-biodiversity trade-offs. Biol Conserv 2012, 154: 53-60. 20. Koh LP, Ghazoul J: Spatially explicit scenario analysis for reconciling agricultural expansion, forest protection, and carbon conservation in Indonesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010, 107:11140-11144. Presents important approaches for assessing trade-offs in REDD decision making. 21. UNFCCC: Decision 12/CP.17 Guidance on systems for providing information on how safeguards are addressed and respected and modalities relating to forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels as referred to in decision 1/CP.16; 2011. 22. FCPF: Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: Readiness Fund Common Approach to Environmental and Social Safeguards for Multiple Delivery Partners – IV. Strategic Environmental and Social Assessments (SESAs) and Environmental and Social Management Frameworks (ESMFs); 2011. 23. UN-REDD Programme: UN-REDD Programme Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria. 2012. 24. CCBA: REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards. Version 1 June 2010; 2010. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725
37. Yamasaki SH, Tyrrell TD: A background report on improving forest biodiversity monitoring and reporting. CBD SBSTTA 16 Information Document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/25. Montre´al, Canada: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; 2012. 38. Danielsen F, Burgess N, Balmford A, Donald PF, Funder M, Jones JPG, Alviola P, Balete DS, Blomley T, Brashares JS et al.: Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterisation of approaches. Conserv Biol 2009, 23:31-42. 39. Danielsen F, Balete DS, Poulsen MK, Enghoff M, Nozawa CM, Jensen AE: A simple system for monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing country. Biodivers Conserv 2000, 9:1671-1705. 40. Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Jensen PM, Pirhofer-Walzl K: Environmental monitoring: the scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of peoples involvement. J Appl Ecol 2010, 47:1166-1168. 41. Larrazabal, A., Larraza´bal AP, McCall M, Mwampamba T, Skutsch M: The role of community carbon monitoring in REDD+: a review of experiences. Curr Opin Environ Sustain, 2012, 4:xx–yy. 42. Danielsen F, Skutsch M, Burgess ND, Jensen PM, Andrianandrasana H, Karky B, Lewis R, Lovett JC, Massao J, Ngaga Y et al.: At the heart of REDD+: a role for local people in monitoring forests? Conserv Lett 2011, 4:158-167. Key discussion of participatory approaches to monitoring and their application in REDD+. 43. Sommerville MM, Milner-Gulland EJ, Jones JPG: The challenge of monitoring biodiversity in payment for environmental service interventions. Biol Conserv 2011, 144:2832-2841. 44. GOFC-GOLD: A sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals caused by deforestation, gains and losses of carbon stocks in forests remaining forests and forestation. GOFC-GOLD Report Version COP 15-1. Alberta, www.sciencedirect.com
Biodiversity monitoring for REDD+ Dickson and Kapos 725
Canada: GOFC-GOLD Project Office, Natural Resources Canada; 2009.
Vasconcelos HL et al.: The fate of Amazonian forest fragments: a 32-year investigation. Biol Conserv 2011, 144:56-67.
45. IPCC: In Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry. Edited by Penman J, Gytarsky M, Hiraishi T, Krug T, Kruger D, Pipatti R, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K, Wagner F. IGES; 2003.
59. Asner GP, Knapp DE, Balaji A, Paez-Acosta G: Automated mapping of tropical deforestation and forest degradation: CLASlite. J Appl Remote Sens 2009, 3: 033543-33624.
46. De Sy V, Herold M, Achard F, Asner GP, Held A, Kellndorfer, Verbesselt J: Synergies of multiple remote sensing data sources for REDD+ monitoring. Curr Opin Environ Sustain; 2012, 4:xx–yy.
60. Gillespie TW, Foody GM, Rocchini D, Giorgi AP, Saatchi S: Measuring and modelling biodiversity from space. Prog Phys Geogr 2008, 32:203-221.
47. FAO: Global forest resources assessment 2000. FAO Forestry Paper 140. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); 2001. 48. Olson DM, Dinerstein E, Wikramanayake ED, Burgess ND, Powell GVN, Underwood EC, D’Amico JA, Itoua I, Strand HE, Morrison JC et al.: Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: a new map of life on Earth. Bioscience 2001, 51:933-938. 49. Brooks TM, Mittermeier RA, da Fonseca GAB, Gerlach J, Hoffmann M, Lamoreux JF, Mittermeier CG, Pilgrim JD, Rodrigues ASL: Global biodiversity conservation priorities. Science 2006, 313:58-61. 50. Dudley N, Parish J: Closing the gap. Creating Ecologically Representative Protected Area Systems: A Guide to Conducting the Gap Assessments of Protected Area Systems for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal 2006 [Technical Series No. 24]. 51. Buchanan GM, Donald PF, Butchart SHM: Identifying priority areas for conservation: a global assessment for forestdependent birds. PLoS ONE 2011, 6:e29080. 52. Bucki M, Cuypers D, Mayaux P, Achard F, Estreguil C, Grassi G: Assessing REDD+ performance of countries with low monitoring capacities: the matrix approach. Environ Res Lett 2012, 7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014031. Highlights the role that can be played by remote sensing in supporting REDD+ monitoring in developing countries. 53. Broadbent EN, Asner GP, Keller M, Knapp DE, Oliveira PJC, Silva JN: Forest fragmentation and edge effects from deforestation and selective logging in the Brazilian Amazon. Biol Conserv 2008, 141:1745-1757. 54. Cordeiro NJ, Howe HF: Low recruitment of trees dispersed by animals in African forest fragments. Conserv Biol 2001, 15:1733-1741. 55. Fahrig L: Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 2003, 34:487-515. 56. Laurance WF: Second thoughts on who goes where in author lists. Nature 2006, 442:26. 57. Laurance WF, Laurance SG, Hilbert DW: Long-term dynamics of a fragmented rainforest mammal assemblage. Conserv Biol 2008, 22:1154-1164. 58. Laurance WF, Camargo JLC, Luizpo RCC, Laurance SG, Pimm SL, Bruna EM, Stouffer PC, Bruce Williamson G, Benı´tez-Malvido J,
www.sciencedirect.com
61. Goetz S, Dubayah R: Advances in remote sensing technology and implications for measuring and monitoring forest carbon stocks and change. Carbon Manag 2011, 2:231-244. 62. Goetz SJ, Mack MC, Gurney KR, Randerson JT, Houghton RA: Ecosystem responses to recent climate change and fire disturbance at northern high latitudes: observations and model results contrasting northern Eurasia and North America. Environ Res Lett 2007, 2. 63. Turner W, Spector S, Gardiner N, Fladeland M, Sterling E, Steininger M: Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 2003, 18:306-314. 64. Herold M, Skutsch M: Monitoring, reporting and verification for national REDD + programmes: two proposals. Environ Res Lett 2011, 6:014002. 65. IPCC: In 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Edited by Eggleston S, Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T, Tanabe K. Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES); 2006. 66. Danielsen F, Burgess N, Balmford A: Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodivers Conserv 2005, 14:2507-2542. 67. Margoluis R, Stem C, Salafsky N, Brown M: Using conceptual models as a planning and evaluation tool in conservation. Eval Program Plann 2009, 32:138-147. 68. Caldecott J, Miles L: World Atlas of Great Apes and their Conservation. Berkeley, USA: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, University of California Press; 2005. 69. UNESCO, UNEP, GRASP: Kinshasa Declaration on Great Apes2005. [15-10-2011]. 70. BirdLife International: Important Bird Areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo (GIS data). Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International; 2011:. [29-7-2010]. 71. BirdLife International: Important Bird Areas. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International; 2011:. [14-4-2011]. 72. CARPE: Priority conservation landscapes of the Congo Basin. Central African Regional Program for the Environment, CARPE; 2009. 73. Yanggen D, Angu K, Tchamou N: Landscape-Scale Conservation in the Congo Basin: Lessons Learned from the Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2010.
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2012, 4:717–725