- freely available
Forests 2015, 6(1), 133-156; https://doi.org/10.3390/f6010133
2.1. REDD+ in Guyana
2.2. Case Study/Early Activities
3.1. Local Monitoring of Co-Benefits
3.2. Building Local Capacities
3.3. Data Sharing
|Indicator||➢ Number HH extracting timber||➢ Number HH extracting NTFP||➢ Number HH extracting fish (top extractor HH)||➢ Number HH extracting game||➢ Water extraction points and sources|
|➢ Seasonality of extraction||➢ Seasonality of extraction||➢ Seasonality of extraction||➢ Seasonality of extraction||➢ Quantity extracted (litres)|
|➢ Quantity extracted (FBM/month)||➢ Quantity extracted (KG/month)||➢ Quantity extracted (KG/month)||➢ Quantity extracted (unit/month)||➢ Extraction methods|
|➢ Extraction methods||➢ Extraction methods||➢ Extraction methods (techniques and tools)||➢ Extraction methods||➢ Proximity of contaminants to water sources (distance)|
|➢ Species preference and demand (price per species)||➢ Species preference and demand (price per species)||➢ Species preference and demand (price per species)||➢ Species preference and demand (price per species)||➢ Water treatment frequency|
|➢ Perceived timber scarcity over 5 years||➢ Perceived scarcity over 5 years||➢ Extraction effort and time||➢ Quantity commercialised||➢ Vegetation cover near water sources|
|➢ Occurrence of illegal extraction||➢ Extraction location||➢ Quantity commercialised by species||➢ Extraction location (vegetation type)||➢ Perceived threats and changes to water quality and quantity|
|➢ Quantity commercialisation||➢ Perceived fish size changes over 5 years||➢ Occurrence of illegal extraction|
|➢ Demand (price per species)||➢ Perceived fish scarcity over past 5 years (availability and location)||➢ Perceived scarcity of 5 past years (availability and location)|
|➢ Extraction location||➢ Extraction location, (distance)|
|➢ Demand (price per species)|
|➢ Occurrence of illegal extraction|
|➢ Occurrence of sport fishing|
|➢ Effectiveness of management plans (rules and enforcement)|
|Material Wealth||Employment & enterprise||Social relations &governance||Culture & beliefs||Security||Education & skills||Health|
|Indicator||➢ Number of HH with regular income||➢ Frequency of out-migration||➢ Frequency of food exchanges||➢ Frequency of church attendance||➢ Occurrence of theft||➢ Number of people with official education||➢ Perceived frequency of diseases|
|➢ Existence of transport and communication infrastructure||➢ Perceived community development||➢ Number of HH participating in village activities||➢ Number off HH speaking native language||➢ Frequency of alcohol-related incidents||➢ Number of education facilities in the community||➢ Self-reported health & emotional wellbeing|
|➢ Number of HH with farm inputs and livestock||➢ Availability and access to financial loans||➢ Number of HH married or in long-term partnership||➢ Purchase of food and water||➢ Frequency of illegal activities||➢ Perceived quality of education services||➢ Number of existing health facilities|
|➢ Number of HH able to purchase food||➢ Community businesses||➢ Incidences of resource conflict||➢ Existence of traditional activities||➢ Frequency and length of flooding||➢ Number of HH with potable water|
|➢ Number of HH with mobility||➢ Number of HH with extended family support||➢ Building material preference||➢ Frequency and length of droughts||➢ Distance of HH from contaminants|
|➢ Electronic assets per HH|
|➢ Perceived level of cooperation||➢ Perceived quality of health services|
|➢ Attendance of village meetings||➢ Leisure and sport facilities|
|➢ Perceived quality of village leadership||➢ Water treatment and waste disposal facilities|
3.4. Assessing Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation
Mapping Agricultural Areas
3.5. Facilitating Community Measurement of Aboveground Biomass
- “High bush”: primary, high canopy forest comprising purple heart (Peltogyne paniculata) and associated species;
- “Mixed bush”: Mixed forests with tree species such as mora (Dimopharidra mora), wallaba (Esperua falcate). and green heart (Nectandra flodier) forests;
- “Low bush”: low-lying mixed swamp forest and scrub in areas prone to seasonal flooding.
3.6. Supporting Communities to Ground Truth Satellite Data
3.7. Monitoring Resources of Local Interest and Safeguards
3.7.1. Natural Resource Use
3.7.2. Community Wellbeing
4.1. Community Demonstration Site: Data Contributing to the National MRVS
4.1.1. Assessing Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: Farming Impacts
4.1.2. Measuring Aboveground Biomass
4.1.3. Ground Truthing Satellite Data
4.2. Resources of Local Interest and Safeguards
4.2.1. Natural Resource Use: Timber Harvest
4.2.2. Community Wellbeing
5.1. Contributions of Community-Based Monitoring to National MRV Systems for REDD+
5.2. Providing Data for REDD+ Safeguard Information Systems
5.3. Harnessing Technology for Scale
Conflicts of Interest
- Decision 4/CP.15, Addendum, FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1, March 2010. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Parties on Its 15th Session, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7–19 December 2009.
- Decision 1/CP.16, Addendum, FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1. March 2011. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Parties on Its 16th Session, Cancun, Mexico, 29 November–10 December 2010.
- Decision 2/CP.17, Addendum, FCCC/COP/2011/9/Add.1, March 2012. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Parties on Its 17th Session, Durban, South Africa, 28 November–11 December 2011.
- Decision 9/CP.19, Addendum, FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1, January 2014. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Parties on Its Nineteenth Session, Warsaw, Poland, 11–23 November 2013.
- Larson, A.M.; Brockhaus, M.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Duchelle, A.; Babon, A.; Dokken, T.; Pham, T.T.; Resosudarmo, I.A.P.; Selaya, G.; Awono, A.; et al. Land tenure and REDD+: The good, the bad and the ugly. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 23, 678–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danielsen, F.; Burgess, N.D.; Jensen, P.M.; Pirhofer-Walzl, K. Environmental monitoring: The scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of people’s involvement. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 1166–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schelhas, J.; Samar, S.; Johnson, C.; Asumadu, K.; Tease, F.; Stanturf, J.; Blay, D. Opportunities and capacity for community-based forest carbon sequestration and monitoring in Ghana. Nature Fauna 2010, 25, 41–45. [Google Scholar]
- Brewster, J.; Bradley, A.; Yeang, D. Community-based Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV): An Assessment in the Oddar Meanchey Community Forestry REDD+ Site, Cambodia; Lessons Learned Report; United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Skutsch, M.; Balderas Torres, A. Expanding MRV for assessment of policy effectiveness and as a basis for benefit distribution (Chapter 10). In Capacity Development in National Forest Monitoring: Experiences and Progress for REDD+; Mora, B., Herold, M., de Sy, V., Wijaya, A., Verchot, L., Penman, P., Eds.; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Bogor, Indonesia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Pratihast, A.K.; Herold, M.; de Sy, V.; Murdiyarso, D.; Skutsch, M. Linking community-based and national REDD+ monitoring: A review of the potential. Carbon Manag. 2013, 4, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larrazábal, A.; McCall, M.K.; Mwampamba, T.H.; Skutsch, M. The role of community carbon monitoring for REDD+: A review of experiences. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 707–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danielsen, F.; Adrian, T.; Brofeldt, S.; van Noordwijk, M.; Poulsen, M.K.; Rahayu, S.; Rutishauser, E.; Theilade, I.; Widayati, A.; An, N.; et al. Community monitoring for REDD+: International promises and field realities. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Austin, K.; Stolle, F. Community-based Monitoring. In REDD+ Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) Manual; Hewson, J., Steininger, M., Pesmajoglou, S., Eds.; USAID-supported Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Skutsch, M.; Zahabu, E.; Karky, B.S.; Danielsen, F. The Costs and Reliability of Forest Carbon Monitoring by Communities. In Community Forest Monitoring for the Carbon Market: Opportunities Under REDD; Skutsch, M., Ed.; Earthscan: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Danielsen, F.; Burgess, N.D.; Balmford, A. Monitoring matters: Examining the potential for locally-based approaches. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 2507–2820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Danielsen, F.; Skutsch, M.; Burgess, N.D.; Jensen, P.M.; Andrianandrasana, H.; Karky, B.; Lewis, R.; Lovett, J.C.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pratihast, A.K.; Herold, M.; Avitabile, V.; de Bruin, S.; Bartholomeus, H.; Ribbe, L. Mobile devices for community-based REDD+ monitoring: A case study for central Vietnam. Sensors 2012, 13, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hvalkof, S. Imperatives for REDD+ Sustainability: Non-Carbon Benefits, Local and Indigenous Peoples; International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA): Copenhagen, Denmark, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Skutsch, M.; Vijge, M.J.; Turnhout, E.; den Besten, J.W.; Wits, T.; Herold, M. InfoBrief No. 2: Options for a national framework for benefit distribution and its integration with REDD+ monitoring. In Proceedings of the Workshop convened by WWF Netherlands and WU on REDD+ Measuring, Reporting and Verification—Science Solutions to Policy Challenges’, Zeist, The Netherlands, 10–12 June 2013.
- De Sy, N. Forest monitoring should integrate biodiversity and socioeconomic data, say experts. Available online: http://blog.cifor.org/13018/forest-monitoring-should-integrate-biodiversity-and-socioeconomic-data-say-experts#.UuKkKhBFDIU (accessed on 13 March 2014).
- Palmer Fry, B. Community forest monitoring in REDD+: The “M” in MRV. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lund, J.F. Towards a more balanced view on the potentials of locally-based monitoring. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 237–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Case-Studies: Getting Countries MRV Ready; Lessons from Mexico and Guyana; Conservation International: Arlington, VA, USA, November 2012.
- Guyana REDD+ Monitoring Reporting & Verification System (MRVS) Year 3 Interim Measures Report 01 January 2012–31 December 2012; Guyana Forestry Commission: Georgetown, Guyana, 2013.
- Joint Concept Note; Government of Guyana: Georgetown, Guyana; Government of Norway: Oslo, Norway, 2012.
- Guyana’s REDD+ Governance Development Plan; Office of the President, Republic of Guyana: Georgetown, Guyana, June 2011.
- Developing a Framework for an “Opt in” Mechanism for Amerindian Villages; Concept Paper; Office of the President, Republic of Guyana: Georgetown, Guyana, March 2010.
- Bholanath, P.; Dewnath, N.; Singh, J. Developing a monitoring, reporting and verification system for REDD+ in Guyana. In Capacity Development in National Forest Monitoring: Experiences and Progress for REDD+; Mora, B., Herold, M., de Sy, V., Wijaya, A., Verchot, L., Penman, P., Eds.; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Terms of Reference for Developing Capacities for a National Monitoring, Reporting and Verification System to Support REDD+ Participation of Guyana Background, Capacity Assessment and Roadmap; Guyana Forestry Commission: Georgetown, Guyana, 2009.
- Chave, J.; Andalo, C.; Brown, S.; Cairns, M.A.; Chambers, J.Q.; Eamus, D.; Fölster, H.; Fromard, F.; Higuchi, N.; Kira, T.; et al. Tree allometry and improved estimation of carbon stocks and tree balance in tropical forests. Ecosyst. Ecol. 2005, 144, 87–99. [Google Scholar]
- Alder, D.; van Kuijk, M. A Baseline Assessment of Forest Carbon in Guyana; Guyana Forestry Commission: Georgetown, Guyana, 12 June 2009. [Google Scholar]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).