Table 1.
Weighted multi-criteria analysis of the performance and importance ratings
| Importance Survey Rating | Performance Rating | Weighted MCA | ||||||||
| Nr. | Indicators | Average | SiHA | SpHA | JRCA | CLUE-S | SiHA | SpHA | JRCA | CLUE-S |
| 1 | Prediction of business-as-usual emissions from deforestation | 7.1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 14.2 | 14.2 | 21.3 | 28.3 |
| 2 | Estimation of leakage and permanence | 7.0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 7.0 | 14.0 | 14.0 | 28.0 |
| 3 | Precision in calculating emissions from deforestation and degradation | 7.2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 7.2 | 14.4 | 21.6 | 28.7 |
| 4 | Encouragement of early action | 7.8 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 23.3 | 23.3 | 23.3 | 23.3 |
| 5 | Co-benefit: contribution to the management of ecosystem services | 7.2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 7.2 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 28.7 |
| 6 | National sovereignty over data | 6.4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 25.4 | 19.0 | 19.0 | 12.7 |
| 7 | Provision of financial incentives for countries with low deforestation rates | 7.5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 22.6 | 22.6 |
| 8 | Applicability in all NA-I countries | 7.5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 15.1 | 15.1 | 15.1 | 15.1 |
| 9 | Clarity to policy makers | 8.3 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 41.3 | 33.0 | 33.0 | 16.5 |
| 10 | Dynamic baseline updating | 8.4 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 16.8 | 16.8 | 25.1 | 33.5 |
| 11 | Low dependence on subjective expert input | 6.7 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 13.5 | 27.0 | 27.0 | 13.5 |
| 12 | Low baseline data and capacity requirements and costs | 6.9 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 34.4 | 27.5 | 20.6 | 13.8 |
| 13 | Financial carbon benefits for host country | 7.1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 14.3 | 14.3 | 21.4 | 14.3 |
| 14 | Calculation the opportunity costs of forest protection | 7.4 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 7.4 | 22.0 | 22.0 | 29.4 |
| 15 | Compatibility with FAO data sets and UNFCCC forest definitions | 7.5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 37.4 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 15.0 |
| 16 | Compatibility with existing IPCC Good Practice Guidelines | 8.5 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 25.5 | 34.0 | 34.0 | 34.0 |
| 17 | High validation accuracy | 8.0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 8.0 | 15.9 | 15.9 | 23.9 |
| Sum | 297.3 | 334.7 | 372.7 | 381.1 | ||||||
Overview on the weighted multi-criteria analysis scores for each baseline approach (main right column). The scores were derived by multiplying the indicator performance rating (main middle column) for each baseline method by the mean importance rating (left column). The following criteria are represented by indicators: environmental effectiveness (Nr. 1–5), international equity (Nr. 6–8), transparency (Nr. 9–11), cost effectiveness (Nr. 12), economic attractiveness of the baseline (Nr.13–14), data and method compatibility with existing standards (Nr. 15–16) and output accuracy (Nr. 17).