Getting the Data Flowing: Lessons Learned from Existing Reporting Systems in the Forestry Sector in Indonesia for REDD+ MRV

PLoS One. 2016 Nov 9;11(11):e0156743. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156743. eCollection 2016.

Abstract

In the context of REDD+, Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) is one way to manage forest change information. A national carbon and non-carbon database will be used in REDD+ to negotiate compensation schemes with the international community. Much of this data will be collected at the local level, thus a reporting system that can integrate these locally collected data into the national database is crucial. In this paper we compare and draw lessons from three existing local to national reporting systems that include the participation of local communities: 1) the government extension services, 2) the government owned forestry company, and 3) a private logging company in Indonesia, and provide recommendations for REDD+ reporting systems. The results suggest that the main desired conditions for effective data flow are: benefits to motivate local participation, based on contributions to reporting activities; simple data format and reporting procedures to allow local participation in the reporting process, and to support data aggregation at the national level; a facilitator to mediate data aggregation at the village level to ensure data consistency, completeness and accuracy; and a transparent and clear data flow. Under these conditions, continuous, accountable and consistent data flow from the local level will reach the national level where it can be fully utilized.

MeSH terms

  • Carbon / metabolism*
  • Conservation of Natural Resources / methods*
  • Conservation of Natural Resources / statistics & numerical data
  • Forestry / methods*
  • Forestry / statistics & numerical data
  • Forests*
  • Government Programs
  • Humans
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • Trees / growth & development*

Substances

  • Carbon

Grants and funding

Funded by: 1. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), grant number MTO069018, http://www.usaid.gov/. 2. The Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), grant number GLO-3945, QZA 12/0882, http://www.norad.no/. 3. The Republic of Germany, represented by the Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), grant number KI II 7–42206-6/75, http://www.bmub.bund.de/en/. 4. The Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), under Forests, Tree and Agroforestry: Livelihoods, Landscapes and Governance (FTA), grant number TF 069018, http://www.cgiar.org/. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.