The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Monitoring, reporting and verification for national REDD + programmes: two proposals
Open accessAbstract
Different options have been suggested by Parties to the UNFCCC (United Framework Convention on Climate Change) for inclusion in national approaches to REDD and REDD + (reduced deforestation, reduced degradation, enhancement of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forest, and conservation of forest carbon stocks). This paper proposes that from the practical and technical points of view of designing action for REDD and REDD + at local and sub-national level, as well as from the point of view of the necessary MRV (monitoring, reporting and verification), these should be grouped into three categories: conservation , which is rewarded on the basis of no changes in forest stock, reduced deforestation , in which lowered rates of forest area loss are rewarded, and positive impacts on carbon stock changes in forests remaining forest , which includes reduced degradation, sustainable management of forest of various kinds, and forest enhancement. Thus we have moved degradation, which conventionally is grouped with deforestation, into the forest management group reported as areas remaining forest land, with which it has, in reality, and particularly as regards MRV, much more in common. Secondly, in the context of the fact that REDD / REDD + is to take the form of a national or near-national approach, we argue that while systematic national monitoring is important, it may not be necessary for REDD / REDD + activities, or for national MRV, to be started at equal levels of intensity all over the country. Rather, areas where interventions seem easiest to start may be targeted, and here data measurements may be more rigorous (Tier 3), for example based on stakeholder self-monitoring with independent verification, while in other, untreated areas, a lower level of monitoring may be pursued, at least in the first instance. Treated areas may be targeted for any of the three groups of activities (conservation, reduced deforestation, and positive impact on carbon stock increases in forest remaining forest).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
The effect of bioenergy expansion: food, energy, and environment
Popp, J., Lakner, Z., Harangi-Rákos, M., & Fári, M. (2014) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.056 · Cited by 967
Vaughan, C., & Dessai, S. (2014) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.290 · Cited by 526
Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices
A., A., M., B., W.D., S., L., V., & eds (2012) · Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooks · doi:10.17528/cifor/003805 · Cited by 477
Environmental issues associated with wind energy – A review
Dai, K., Bergot, A., Liang, C., Xiang, W.-N., & Huang, Z. (2015) · Renewable Energy · doi:10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.074 · Cited by 473
Emission pathways consistent with a 2 °C global temperature limit
Rogelj, J., Hare, W., Lowe, J., van Vuuren, D. P., Riahi, K., Matthews, B., Hanaoka, T., Jiang, K., & Meinshausen, M. (2011) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1258 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- Herold, M., & Skutsch, M.
- Venue
- Environmental Research Letters
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2011-01-01
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 014002
- ISSN
- 1748-9326 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2075373322
- Cited by
- 548
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 53.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Monitoring, reporting and verification for national REDD + programmes: two proposals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014002
- The paper
- Herold, M., & Skutsch, M. (2011). Monitoring, reporting and verification for national REDD + programmes: two proposals. Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.