Posted on April, 13 2015

Dr. Naikoa Aguilar-Amuchastegui, a Senior Forest Carbon Scientist and member of the Forest and Climate Programme gives us a brief overview of how reference levels work, why they matter, and how countries are moving ahead on establishing these important benchmarks for REDD+.

What is a reference level? 
A reference level is a way to assess how good your performance is when doing something. So for example, if you’re running on your own, you may think you’re fast, but in reality the only way to know if you’re fast is to run with other people or against a time goal for a comparison.

For REDD+, a reference level is the benchmark against which your future reporting on emissions from deforestation and degradation will be compared in order to be able to assess whether these emissions are moving in the right direction (ideally below that reference level). Countries need to have a reference level as a starting point to know if they have actually achieved emissions reductions. For REDD+ countries, reference levels are the result of an interesting combination of both technical and political elements related to measuring emissions.

What's the process for establishing a reference level? 
The first step a country takes is to get an idea of historic emissions levels from deforestation and degradation. In most cases, countries look at a 10-year period, often from 2000 to 2010. In many instances, countries use the average level of emissions from the historical period, but sometimes they make proposals for adjustments based on specific circumstances. When a country believes that the historical average is not a good indicator of the future emissions levels because of political circumstances, for example, it can propose another approach that could be based on a given trend the emissions have shown during the historical period or by comparing the country’s performance with that of others. This is most common in high forest cover, low deforestation (HFLD) countries because these countries want to have the flexibility to be able to support future development while still tracking and reducing emissions.

Once a country has a refence level, what's the next step? 
Once a country has established a reference level, it’s time to present it. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) works a bit like a notary service. When the country presents the reference level, two experts – one from a developed country and one from a developing country – go through the international consultation and analysis process (known as ICA) to review it to make sure it complies with the technical requirements defined under the convention.

During this process, the experts work with the countries to thoroughly review the reference level and focus on clarifying any technical questions or issues. After the assessment is completed, an updated reference level is presented to the UNFCCC along with details on what has been changed or updated based on the experts’ suggestions and whether the reference level complies with the mandate under the convention. Only at that point do the Parties make a decision on whether to use the reference level at face value or to use an improved version. Reference levels can always be updated as better data becomes available and countries decide to use it and as additional REDD+ activities are incorporated (e.g. deforestation, degradation, sustainable forest management, afforestation).

As one of WWF’s experts on this topic, what is your role in reviewing these reference levels? Are you looking for anything specific? 
As part of my role with the WWF Forest and Climate Programme, I look at how countries are interpreting what was decided under the convention and then see how the assessments of the reference levels by the ICA improved them. From this exercise, I can begin to pull out lessons learned that can hopefully be used in the future to improve this workflow. These reference levels are the very first step in a long process, and I strongly believe that something as complex as reference levels can always be improved. 

I also focus on south-south learning. Because each country does this work differently, I try to find ways to connect teams in developing countries directly with each other to share lessons learned. At the end of the day, the idea is that countries can catalyze action on REDD+. Brazil was the first to submit its reference level in June 2014, and then suddenly at the next UN climate meeting in December 2014 we saw a number of other countries come forward with their levels, some of which we didn’t expect to see so soon, which was very positive.

The process of reviewing reference levels and identifying what we consider good practices versus practices that can be improved can hopefully spur a healthy competition among countries to present the best possible reference level, always keeping in mind that each country has different capacities.

After you have reviewed a reference level, with whom do you share your analysis? 
I share my review with WWF country offices and with the rest of our Forest and Climate Programme team. Hopefully my analysis can help the WWF offices do their work better and further link our REDD+ efforts to their other forest and climate initiatives.

Have you been surprised by anything thus far? 
The biggest positive surprise thus far has been the level of transparency of the reference levels presented and how well the ICA process is working. For example, Ecuador’s submission included access to every protocol, data set and map the country used to put together the reference level, with all of these materials posted in one place for people to download. We hope this can help start a “race to the top” so that other countries that are preparing reference levels will present the information in a similarly open and accessible way.

Countries have only recently started presenting reference levels. How do you think it has been working so far? 
Overall the process has been quite good. The level of transparency of the reference levels presented so far has been higher than anticipated. It is great that countries are moving forward from REDD+ ideas to action. We hope more countries now feel confident enough to present their reference levels and that countries feel more confidence in the overall process as we see REDD+ move ahead.