Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 548

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Monitoring, reporting and verification for national REDD + programmes: two proposals

Open access
Herold, Martin, Skutsch, Margaret·2011·Environmental Research Letters

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1088/1748-9326/6/1/014002

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 548

Metadata

Authors
Herold, M., & Skutsch, M.
Venue
Environmental Research Letters
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.