Good afternoon everybody and thank you very much for attending this Fokali-Siani event on the impact of carbon offsetting on landscapes and the implications it will have for climate and land use policies. I'm very happy that you're here today. My name is Fedra and I work here for SEI. And one of the reasons why you're here is because we have been hosting the SEI network for the past 10 years here at SEI and we have a bunch of great colleagues who are unfortunately all traveling at the moment who could not be here to welcome you today. However, I would like to share with you a couple of events. So in the last year we have been hosting the SEI network for the past 10 years already and so we had some events that are of particular interest for today. We had for example a global landscapes forum that we organized in 2017. We participated in the Committee on World Food Security, UNCFS at the FAO. We had an event with Karolinska Institute and the County Administration Board of Stockholm on Planetary Health and we also had an event on forest and livelihoods assessment, research and engagement and the third annual meeting. As part of our SEI network, we're also really happy to have strengthened our ties with the Gothenburg Centre for Sustainable Development and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Today is World Environment Day, so we're very happy to have you here to be discussing with you this really important topic. My colleague Olsa, she's our new Global Research Director. She will provide you a little bit of background in the topic here at SEI and then we'll hear from some speakers and be moderated. If you have any questions on SEI or SEI, do feel free to contact any of the SEI staff. There's also some brochures in the hallway that you can see and of course we'll be happy to talk to you after. Thank you. So thank you, Fedra. And can I also extend a warm welcome to you from SEI globally? So this Stockholm Centre is just one of nine centres across the globe. We have now offices in the UK, the US, Estonia and quickly growing centres in Asia, in Africa and now Latin America with the latest addition. We are around 230 staff now. And SEI's mission is really to bridge science and policy and we are really excited to see now that more and more science-based organisations, universities are coming into this space. There is a greater interest in putting research into use, we feel. But that has been our core business from the start almost 30 years ago and we have three pillars in our strategy. One is to do high quality scientific research but also a big focus on the second pillar policy engagement which means both engaging before we develop our research questions to find out what is the demand, what are the needs and also of course when we do the research in the process and at the end to make sure it can have the biggest impact as possible. The third pillar which we're currently trying to build up more where we have some work to do and we also see greater demand is to do capacity building. And I think the best way actually to present what research we do is to show some of our flagship initiatives. And so we have chosen to invest our core funding into 11 areas and from the start it was a discussion should we have one agricultural initiative but so far we haven't really come to that point but rather mainstreamed agricultural and land use issues into some of these other initiatives. So for example a recent addition in our portfolio is the Bioeconomy Pathways Initiative where agriculture is very important also featuring in the climate services initiative and some other for example this initiative using behavioral science to understand how agricultural innovations can be taken up in the most effective way. But when I did some research ahead of this seminar on carbon offsetting actually we haven't done that much recently so this topic is very complementary for us and I hope that our SEI colleagues who will be here this afternoon can report back to us a little bit too so we understand what are the key debates. We did some work on carbon offsetting around 10 years ago on the clean development mechanisms and other tools under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change but that work was quite critical of these mechanisms both the additionality aspects are these new projects really they have been done anyways regardless of climate policy and also the quality of these credits social and environmental implications. So after that period we have rather focused our climate policy work on trying to engage with the supply side how to face our fossil fuels and now with the nationally determined contributions the national climate plans if you like under the Paris Agreement we try to provide support into how countries can transform their energy systems energy planning so it's a bit more direct and we also see increased interest in sort of dealing with domestic emissions. However as we know and if we look through these national climate plans that have been submitted many countries do see a need for carbon markets carbon offsetting there is an article in the agreement on internationally transferred mitigation outcomes its most so this issue clearly needs more research also with a whole negative emission technology discussion huge issues around land use and agriculture so with that I just really want to again say a warm welcome and we really look forward to getting some reports on the findings from this seminar. Thank you very much. Hi good afternoon. My name is Thorsten Krause. Thank you so much for the introduction to SEI and to Siani. I'm a researcher at Lund University and also member of the vocali secretary and I'm going to be the moderator for this afternoon for the next two and a half hours. We have invited it's actually usually we have meetings in Gothenburg and we decided that it's time for a change and also to like come to Stockholm so a lot of us have traveled from Gothenburg from Lund myself or from Copenhagen to come here today to talk about offsetting carbon offsetting and impacts on landscapes and we have invited four speakers one researcher from Copenhagen University Ida Thajlade who works at the Center for Food and Resource Economics she's going to be our first speaker I'm going to introduce her shortly then we have Peh Budin who is from research but now works at the Swedish Board for Agriculture and then after the coffee break which will be in about 35 minutes we have two I would say practitioners who actually work with carbon offsetting in their business life so to speak I'm going to introduce Linda and Tralotta after the coffee break so we're going to do it the following way each speaker has 15 minutes depending on whether there is time there can be a short amount of very precise clarifying questions after each talk otherwise if there is no time and just to keep the time that we have I would urge you to keep your questions for the coffee break I mean a small group so you can just approach the speakers to discuss a little bit of a coffee but there's also going to be time after the presentations for a bigger panel discussion around about 40 minutes so that we get out of here at four o'clock hopefully with lots of new ideas and insights but also on time to enjoy the national day tomorrow so that's so much for me I'm going to introduce to you Ida Thajlade so she has worked with management and conservation topical forest for the past 25 years she's currently a senior researcher at the Institute of Food and Resource Economics and Copenhagen University her main research interests are in the areas of indigenous knowledge and natural resource management in relation to tropical forests she works with ethnobotanical studies on use and importance of plant resources to local people as well as their priorities for conservation and she has been or is still a consultant on conservation planning and red plus as well as rainforest rehabilitation and she's also member of the IOCN species survival commission on threatened trees and I know that she has worked a lot on Cambodia and you're probably sharing that with us today and in your presentation she will talk about community involvement and monitoring for carbon and associated safeguards in a red plus project this is the result of five years of research that she has conducted in Cambodia and she will show how comprehensive forest data collected by communities can actually be really useful in calculating opportunity costs of red plus and also in agricultural landscapes so some very exciting some exciting results here and the second speaker before the coffee break is Pére Boudin he has a PhD from Kalmarhoekskolan he was also at Lund University that's where I am he's an environmental analyst and since 2015 he's been working at the Swedish Board for Agriculture looking into environmental objectives as an environmental objectives coordinator and analyst he's responsible for international and external communication in relation to agriculture and climate change including mitigation and adaptation since 2017 he's also member of the Swedish delegation for negotiations within the framework of the UNFCCC and in his talk he will touch upon a general overview on agriculture and how it relates to the Paris Agreement and the ongoing climate discussions or climate negotiations and he will focus in particular on the country's national determined contributions and climate financing so I hope you find these two discussions before the coffee break very stimulating and as I mentioned we have 50 minutes between quarter past two to two thirty of coffee break and then we continue with the other two presentations okay thank you very much thank you very much thank you Mr Chairman and thank you to the organizing committee for giving me this opportunity to present our research on community monitoring and the role we believe it could have in implementation of red plus so as we all know the most of the remaining tropical forests are inhabited by indigenous peoples or other territories of indigenous peoples and it is also well known that these indigenous peoples often have intricate knowledge of the environments so I am an ethnobotanist and as Thorsten said I'm interested in the role that local peoples knowledge and institutions can play in in forest management and sustainable development the research I'll present is some of the results of the past five years of research not only from Cambodia but a range of countries but the first question could be why do we want communities to monitor carbon why can't we just do it ourselves and by ourselves I mean all of us educated foresters biologists remote sensing specialists and so on and I think one of the answers is if we look to the UNFCCC texts and guidance documents they actually do spell out explicit roles for local and indigenous peoples in the implementation of red so we have some international agreements we have to adhere to furthermore we know from literature that involving local stakeholders can provide a lot of other benefits it can enhance feelings of responsibility and ownership it can build local capacity it can enhance decision-making at the local level in the sense that communities who are part of the monitoring they will faster put in new regulations and bylaws to protect the resource in a response to the monitoring results the city while central governments usually take five to ten years to do so local monitoring can strengthen enforcement of forest laws as monitoring patrols enforce the laws at the same time it can give locals a voice and improve governance it can support indigenous peoples access to rights and resources which is one of the central debates in red plus so based on this we felt there is a potential for community monitoring in red plus and making it a more just red plus it led us to formulate these four research questions first we wanted to take a look at how are we plus actually doing to its extent has this local involvement been taken up by existing projects and if it has can unit communities monitor forest carbon and at what costs can they monitor biodiversity and at what cost and could we possibly use the information or the data collected by local communities in order to answer the first question we analyzed 50 forest carbon projects which were all validated by the CBPA that's the climate community and biodiversity alliance we chose that certification scheme as it was regarded as one of the highest standards in the red red plus market and as you can see by 2012 when we did the study only about 25 projects or 25 percent of the projects involved local people in monitoring carbon and livelihoods and the percentage was a little bit higher for biodiversity we believe this is because most of the initial red plus projects actually stemmed from conservation projects where local people were maybe already involved at the time of the start so while the trend is promising more and more projects involve local people with time there's certainly still room for improvement in order for the projects to live up to the international promises of local involvement so we thought maybe we could come up with some simple guidelines on how to involve communities and in order to do so we did comprehensive fieldwork across eight study sites in five countries these sites represent different forest types from lowland diptocap forest in Borneo to lowland and hill rainforest in Cambodia monsoonal forest in Vietnam and Laos and mountain rainforest in Yunnan China so a range of forest types and different ethnic groups very briefly on the methods we tried to develop very simple methods preferably pen and paper we then trained communities in using the same methods as the professional foresters would do according to existing red plus manuals we use circular plots and then all trees above 10 centimeters dbh that's the diameter breast height were measured and from that you can calculate the forest biomass and forest carbon in two of the sites we asked both communities and the foresters to identify all the trees in the plots and in one site we furthermore trained local community members as paratroxonomists by paratroxonomists I mean members of the local community who receive a short training in botanical methods to collect specimens and prepare them we then analyzed the accuracy and calculated the costs for both the community monitors and the professional monitors so these nine graphs show biomass measurement done by or done in 289 forest plots by foresters on the x axis and by community members on the y axis so if the two groups measure the same amount of carbon it should be a straight line as you can see the first graph there's some confusion this is the Indonesian site as the community monitors were uncertain how to delineate the plots which trees to count in and which are out but actually for the rest of the sites the two groups carbon measurements are quite similar this led us to ask a question whether communities couldn't improve their accuracy with more experience so in order to test that we went back to all the communities and foresters and we asked them to measure all the 289 plots one more time the next year and what this figure shows now you don't have the statistics behind but actually community monitors indeed did increase their accuracy the second year more interestingly maybe for implementation we found that while community costs were equal to foresters cost the first year community cost decreased significantly the second year as they didn't need as much training so that was the forest carbon but how about the biodiversity our idea was that if these local community members were already measuring trees in this network of plots it wouldn't be much extra effort to also identify the trees in the same plots so this table show a comparison between educated botanists and then community members working in their own language and how many trees they can identify and what we found was that community members consistently could identify 95 percent of the tree species in the plots when we calculated biodiversity indices there were no significant difference between the numbers based on the botanists or the community monitors identifications so promising results for involving local communities and what about the costs of community biodiversity assessments we did some detailed breakdown of all the expenses we have had and I like to draw your attention to this line actually community monitors could monitor tree diversity at one third of the costs of the botanical experts who of course had to be flown in and had a lot higher salaries also interesting is that while the botanist spent 23 percent of their budget at the village level this figure increased to almost 90 percent for the community monitors so a kind of benefit which is actually dispersed at the community level one of the benefits hopefully of rate plus now that was the field site in Yunnan China so we asked ourselves was this only in China or could we extrapolate this result to other areas and other ethnic groups so at the moment we are working with a community in Burau in East Kalimantan here we have trained six paratoxonomists people who have no or very little formal education and we have then asked them to work with us on tree diversity studies in the plots and our results so far and they've been working for two years on this is that while the professional forest botanist identified 130 trees in the plots the paratoxonomist has to date collected 192 tree species they collect specimens of very high quality they are there all the year round so they can collect them the trees are flowering while the professional botanist he will have to fly in maybe three three times a year we also found that the diac people group these pieces into a hierarchical system and the taxa assigned to each rank are mutually exclusive for a botanist like me means it's easy to work with their classification system as long as we can translate the names and understand their way of classifying we can actually start to translate species um finally we looked at the cost again and we found a result very similar to the chinese study paratoxonomists can collect specimens at around one third of the cost of the professional botanist finally i was just going to show you a figure from a recent paper published in nature communications and it shows how you can use this very detailed forest data to increase the accuracy of the calculations of opportunity costs for rate plus this is a study from cambodia and i think what is new is that we were able to not just calculate with biomass estimates from remote sensing but now we could actually calculate with timber species from different classes of different diameter sizes and different species furthermore we could also include some of the ntfps that are collected by the local people and which we would otherwise not had known about so very brief conclusions uh yes local communities with a little bit of training can measure forest biomass and tree diversity as well as professionals at very comparable costs these paratoxonomists can help us improve biodiversity monitoring and i think local generated data will also give us a wealth of other information which are useful in a more just implementation of rate plus i think my time is about up so thank you for listening and thank you to all the wonderful people i have worked with yes thank you very much and that's actually under the time so we have two minutes for short questions if there are any i'm gonna come and give you the microphone the microphone by the way is not really for us because it's a small room it's for the audience that is listening to us a question on payment to what extent were the participants from the local communities paid and how were those levels of payment determined if there were any in um in these uh sites i've worked in we have taken a look at what's the the daily rate paid if you're for example worked in the rubber plantation or for the oil palm company and then we have paid 50 or 100 percent more than that and uh we've asked to work with people who are knowledgeable about forests so it's not everyone who can do this job uh and you can often see that the younger people are not as knowledgeable as the elder people but once you start working with them i think in some of the pictures you could see if you prepare specimens the whole community will come and look what are you doing and start to tell the younger ones also they see a value in their their own knowledge but it's paid better than the plantation work which these people often dislike okay one final question would just hang on thank you did you look at the gender differences bit among the local people in the knowledge uh in other studies we have looked at the gender difference and i must say uh when we asked for monitors to come and do this plot uh work it's often quite strenuous because the last forest are on very steep slopes or in mountains so all our community monitors have been men but when we employed the paradoxonomists it quickly turned out that it was the women who would then prepare the charcoal dry the specimens order them a newspaper change the paper and so on so uh it was actually the women doing half the job on that but generally men and women will know different tree species and have different priorities okay thank you very much ida great um let's hear from pere hi uh i'm paverin i'm with the swedish board of agriculture and i realized now that i should maybe have put on the slide what the swedish board of agriculture is it's an advisory board which is underneath the ministry for enterprise and innovation so we work on a lot of different things many of them are connected to the common agricultural policy the EU cap we've failed to pay money to farmers and things like that no but it's we've had some problems which you might have heard of in the press um i'm working at a unit called the environmental environment analysis unit and so we are working with the environmental objectives of sweden i don't know if you're familiar with them but climate change is one of the objectives and we also work with water management in this unit so we are sort of experts and working to assist in different inquiries and things like that um this talk is mainly going to be based on my role as a member of the swedish delegation so it's going to be focused on on climate negotiations and how it links to agriculture and so i will this is being my outline i will start with a short introduction to the paris agreement and national determined contributions and how it links to agriculture and also a little bit about the EU and the sea and the 2030 climate and energy framework how that connects and how an agriculture in the climate negotiations in general and more specifically related to finance and technology transfer so as you see it's going to be quite a an overview it's not going to be going to much detail on any of these issues so the paris agreement i sure you all know or maybe most of you know it was adopted in 2015 and it was entered into effect in 2016 and here is a map of the countries who have signed and the countries who have joined and the countries who have pulled out and as of today this 195 parties have signed and 176 parties have joined i don't know if us is where us is in these figures uh yeah and the aim of the of the paris agreement is to hold global temperatures well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to one and a half degree and so the difference between the paris agreement to the Kyoto protocol which you probably know is that it takes a more bottom up approach and the bottom up approach is then formalized in these nationally determined contributions and so what is a nationally determined contribution it's a non-binding national commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and it should be updated every five years with increased ambitions and on a biannual basis parties should submit national inventory reports of emissions and removals and it should also provide information necessary to track progress made in implementing and achieving their NDCs and the parties are also encouraged to provide information on climate change impacts and adaptation products and as we heard in the introduction there is some flexibility in this in the paris agreement with these called the so-called internationally transferable mitigation outcomes and it's not really decided or clear yet how these will work this is under negotiation and the NDCs also relate to what is called the global stock take and the global stock take is is a part of the paris agreement and it's the aim of the global stock take is to assess the collective progress towards achieving the goals of the paris agreement so and then the global stock take will then consider the outputs from the NDCs in this in this evaluation and how does agriculture link to the NDCs the FAO has made two studies on one on the iNDCs which was the precursor of the NDCs and one on the NDCs but it's one this one it's the most comprehensive so they have listed here how many countries included agriculture in their NDCs and it's about 89 it's 89 percent that mentioned agriculture or lucif which is land use land use change and forestry so it's it's quite a lot and most most of the developing countries do this in relation to to adaptation so it's about more than 90 percent of development countries refer to the agriculture sector in relation to adaptation and more than 85 percent of developing countries mention agriculture and or lucif in relation to mitigation and many countries also identify the potential for adaptation mitigation co-benefits in the in their NDCs and about one third of the NDCs include a forestation and reforestation measures or forest management or measures for reducing deforestation or red plus so there is a link to red plus here it's well hidden in my presentation so you can try to spot it so that's the that's the overview of agriculture in the NDCs I was going to also mention the the EU NDC and the EU has an NDC which says that we are going to reduce our emissions by 40 percent the total emissions and so this is then linked to the 2030 climate and energy framework and so and this is basically the 2030 climate framework so for land for land use in this in this framework the EU has decided on a no debit rule which means that each member states ensures that accounted emissions from land use are entirely compensated by an equivalent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere through action in the sector so there should be a net zero emissions from lucif in relation to a reference level that is and so and this this stranger this lucif regulation also ensures it's a standardized system of counting rules and it establishes a new governance process of monitoring how member states calculate their emissions and also broadens the scope of accounting to cover all managed land within the EU so but this is this is my only slide in swedish I apologize so this is a slightly swedish bias this is the 40 percent here is the swedish target within the within the EU the 30 percent reduction for the entire EU so this is the emission effort sharing regulation and this is the emission trading scheme and this is the lucif so the emission trading scheme this is the the the big the big industries the energy production coal coal power plants etc and this is the rest of the industrial sector including agriculture for example also transport and then you have the lucif so and there is some flexibility in this you can transfer between the sectors so if you fail to reach one target you can transfer your emissions within this system and you can also trade between member states and you can also save the surplus within the lucif sector to the next commitment period so if you have a surplus you can there is some flexibility in here so this is how it the this one then couples to the EU NDC so and then you have sweden which is in the EU which has who has its own targets then that then will link to this system so it's pretty complex and now we're not going to the swedish swedish goals here so if you tend then take agriculture within the climate negotiations there has been an agenda item under something that is called the substa oh help subsidiary subsidiary body for the technology and advice yeah and it has been ongoing since 2011 and there has basically been no outcome until last autumn when there was a sudden breakthrough uh caused by or at least partly caused by the change in in the head of delegation the negotiator for the g77 in china which was egypt before and then went to uruguay and so in this autumn there was a decision um that was then later named that there's going to be a joint program between the spi which is a subsidiary body for implementation and the substa to work jointly on agriculture and it got a name and since last meeting was in fiji well it wasn't one but it was in fiji it got a name from a hill in fiji called corinivia so um this was the breakthrough and it was then it was a the decision was that it was going to be a series of workshops and now in may it was a decision on how these workshop when they were going to be taking place and also how they're going to be reported back in in different reports and report back to the cop in 2020 so that was the success story other negotiations that relate to agriculture are connected to what is called the paris rulebook which is how the paris agreement is going to be implemented and this is an ongoing uh this is ongoing negotiations and it should be finished at the cop in katowice and it's not going very well so therefore they're having an extra meeting in bankok in september to try to speed things up a bit so the agenda items that relate to agriculture or land use change are the one about cooperative approaches which is about these itmo's one of the things and it's also about the uh further guidance in relation to the mitigation in emdc's the transparency framework and global stock take and the two agenda items related to further guidance and transparency framework they have now ended up in very large documents containing everyone's views and they are trying now to from these huge documents get down to a decision text which takes time so that's why we're having this um extra meeting so and these long texts uh they contain some information on on agriculture red plus and uh lucif so there is it's not quite clear how these concepts kind of fit into the the the paris rulebook but there are elements within the negotiations that relate to those issues so that's why we need to monitor these negotiations and so key issues related to these negotiations are how you're going to treat natural disturbance is that just the forestry of one minute so i'll i'll yeah you can read them and so this is just a a list of a different uh technology mechanisms uh for fun for uh how transferring technology from from developed to developing countries and a list of financing mechanisms under the u and triple u and f triple c so i'll just end with this one which is about the green uh green climate fund which is the key delivery mechanism of climate financing and it has a target of 100 billion u s dollars and it's totally 76 projects and the aim is to deliver deliver equal amounts to mitigation as well as adaptation and developing country parties can now access support for activities across the free red plus phases and since october 2017 the board has approved a pilot program for red plus result-based payments so it's not in the startup phase so thank you for listening here's the coronavia negotiation team sorry for so there's no time for questions sorry one one question if there's an urgent question otherwise we can probably like if you have a question for clarification you can ask pear over coffee unless someone wants to ask a very urgent question it's burning then i would say that we proceed to the coffee which is going to be outside i suppose linda maria uh so there's coffee i think there's coffee outside there's also a little fika um outside and i would really appreciate if you could be back here in about i think it's 20 minutes in 20 minutes thank you okay i have the pleasure to introduce our two speakers from the private sector after we heard some more insights into research that's been going on looking at monitoring and indigenous or communities involving in monitoring but also the complexity of international climate negotiations and to different nationally determined contributions um we're going to have linda anderson who's going to be the first presenter now and linda has been working and living at the viscogen regional office in that will be for the last three years um but now she has moved back to Stockholm yeah and is the policy officer for agroforestry and sustainable agriculture here at the head office in sweden she also coordinates the agroforestry network which is a platform for international agroforestry practice based in sweden um that promotes the use of agroforestry in developing countries and linda has a background in both private sector and civil society with a special interest in corporate sustainability and carbon offsetting that's why she's here today um she will talk about the work that they're doing in viscogen or viscogen yeah and how sustainable agriculture and agroforestry can be a part of mitigation priorities uh in the n dc's and she's going to present more in-depth results or in-depth finding from a case study story in kenya the kenya recultural carbon project after linda we have uh charlotte schepanowski uh who is the head of sustainable development at the riksbogen um a big construction company or housing company we develop a property property developing and and managing all right uh in sweden where she's been working for almost 10 years the last 10 years and she's a shaman on the board of the swedish association for sustainable businesses and before she has been working with environmental issues at the swedish post intellectuals company and she will talk about how the work at the riksbogen is and how they're working with climate offsetting and how organizations within the swedish association for sustainable business are looking upon climate offsetting or carbon offsetting in particular so we're much looking forward to those two presentations and then give the floor to linda right now thank you very nice to be here and super interesting to hear the findings also from the studies before um yes i work for viscogen uh it's a vego forestry in our region and my question today is if carbon offsetting can fight both poverty and climate change and uh i can't push it down this one is dead okay fair enough okay then up no up you know it works super yes um and i would like to bring us back to who we think this is all about and for viscogen or vego forestry it's all about margaret mochanga who is one of them uh women in kenya that we work with in carbon offsetting and why i bring her up is that because this is who we are working with and this is why we do carbon offsetting and for us it's about fighting exactly both poverty and climate change together so the full reason why vego forestry is even doing carbon offsetting programs is because of the adaptation effects the productivity increase and the mitigation itself is a bonus the carbon credit itself is just a bonus it's the other thing that really matters um some of you might already know what viscogen does uh but more or less we have been around since 1983 and our core business is of course the plant trees but since then our um our mission has developed today we have a strong presence in east africa we work in four countries and we have connected our work to primarily five of the stgs so no hunger and no poverty gender equality climate change and life on land and we do this um together with small holder farmers and their farm organizations today we work with approximately 54 farm organizations and since the very beginning in 1983 um we together with these partner organizations have planned approximately 123 million trees and supported 2.5 million people so why then the carbon offsetting programs from this well um we have 17 projects running at the moment and four of them are carbon offsetting ones because we saw that there is a need for truly linking the private sector with the civil society organizations and we saw a way to finance development through these carbon offsetting programs and i'm really happy to see that you mentioned how strong the agricultural is in the end disease for example and i'm a huge fan of maps uh and i found this map from ccaps i know it's a year old it's from 2017 and it's from the iand disease and i haven't found a new one for the end disease but i still think it's quite fascinating that one someone did look through all the end disease to see how strong agroforestry really is in them but then two also see that there is quite a number of countries that actually are prioritizing agroforestry specifically in the end disease 23 more or less i would like to see the whole map filled definitely but it's a good start more or less um so what type of projects are we doing then when it comes to carbon offsetting i won't go through all of them but we have four carbon offsetting programs with a different setup all of them and i will focus today on the kenya agricultural carbon project which is one of the first ones so our approach is that we work together with smallholder farmers um in farmer groups or in farm organizations and we have one partner even either a donor investor or some kind of on the ground partner and the co2 sequestrations comes as in the plant vivo project or tree sustain life solely from trees uh or it comes from a combination which is the products that we're developing at the moment which is carbon offsetting from trees and also sustainable agricultural land management so salm from the soil so these are the four we have um and the one i'm focusing today on is the kenya agricultural carbon project so this is a product that we jointly developed together with the biocarbon fund at the world bank and unique land forestry um and it's funded from the beginning by both the biocarbon fund but also by sida to some extent and today we're implementing this project together with almost 30 000 farmers in kenya they are smallholder farmers 0.5 to 2.5 hectares and from the beginning they're all on subsistence agriculture basically these 30 000 farmers are organized into self-help groups 20 to 30 farmers each so in 1700 groups and as per today almost 22 000 hectares are under salm so it's a significant area um we use salm as it we see it as a holistic approach to both get the social benefits the economic benefits and the environmental benefits because as i remembered before when we talked about margher mucanga that is the whole purpose of it it's not about actually mitigating it's about restoring agricultural production increasing the farm productivity and diversifying the food sources to get the adaptation effect and the increase resilience and then we also contribute to the ghd emission reduction and i just got some fresh figures from our excellent m&e officer in in iroby pete washira and we're at the third verification of the cast project and so far on 22 000 hectares the project and the farmers per se have sequestered 329 000 tons of co2 emissions or equivalents sorry which gives us about 2 14 tons of co2 per hectare this is with all the buffers and everything removed so when the farmers calculate how much co2 is sequestered in the soil in the trees we then remove the buffer and buffer again and that's the figure we get yes so what is then these practices that we are promoting well the whole reason why we started working in the areas of kenya is because of the integrated land of course and also a quite severe number of unsustainable practices such as burning of residues or quite heavy tillage or using raw manure and the result is a quite heavy land degradation and also low crop yields and what we are then promoting is sustainable agricultural land management and we even have our own little bible for it the salm handbook and it's both for the adaptation mitigation benefits so what are then the practices well the practices are a huge set of practices from the salm but then there are only a few that we actually calculate the carbon from so for example when it comes to soil organic carbon the farmers implement residue use from short term trees for example compost from raw manure and residue mulching and cover crops and for the above ground biomass in trees it's of course a mix of improved varieties of agroforestry trees and these together then combines into a carbon model and this is what is measured as well so where would we like to see Margaret Machanga's farm to be within the project period well in the best of worlds like this and quite a number of them that I visited actually look like this so you start at the very top before the salm is implemented it's a quite heavily degraded farm with the free flow of water and so on which goes then to number to year number one where you can see the farm is being divided into sections you start a bit of a crop variety a few trees being planted along the way will take you to the next year more trees more diversification and then after eight years hopefully this and this is along the way we see the 2.14 tons of carbon sequestered and looking at the sound practice that we promote as I said we promote a huge handful maybe 20 of them all together but there is only a few that we actually measure for the carbon so I would dare to say that the carbon sequestration is most likely higher than what we measure but to get that extra buffered off we only measure from these ones so when we do a carbon sequestration project if I can call it that we want to see three main benefits we want to see the social the environmental and the economic ones and looking at the environmental changes we follow the farms on GPS every year and of course the community monitoring is a huge part of that so the farmers monitoring themselves but just to give you view of how the landscape changes in 2009 to 2017 and we'll take you down to Kenya and one of the farms there this is in 2002 one of the farmers in the project 10 11 14 and 17 so you can see there's a quite a huge improvement of trees plantable so the way the farms are are divided then of course also brand new figures for today super happy we measure of course how much yields do the farmers actually get and to be true it's not us measuring it it's the farmers themselves measuring on a seasonal basis how much they harvest and we measure among other we measure among other things maize bean and sorghum and since 2009 we actually see a 250 percent increase in maize and when I presented these figures in 2015 we were at 90 percent so it keeps increasing and you can see it's not as vast increase in beans and sorghum but it's still there and I looked up the figures for average maize production in Kenya looking at the fowl figures from 2010 to 2016 and taking an average of that and an average Kenyan farmer would produce approximately 1600 kgs of maize per hectare and the cusp farmer would do 3200 so the benefit is not in the mitigation the benefit is in the yield production and the increase of food on the table from that and also on income of course speaking of income we did a research in 2015 together with e-craft these are part of the figures showing how much farmers actually save who are in the project and what we can say clearly is that farmers within the cusp project all of them save in some way and more farmers than the control groups saves one to two used dollars per day so we see an absolute increase there's definitely more to be done on this but it's a good indication that it has both economic social and environmental impacts and quickly going back to those actual environmental impacts since we measure both tillage but we measure both the good and the bad practices so to say so we measure what is increasing when it comes to the good practices and what is decreasing in the practices that is actually not giving so much back to the farmer we can see a huge improvement just giving two example if you look at 2009 and the burning of residues almost 60 percent of the farmers burning residues at the time which is now down to almost zero and instead what has increased the mulching and the cover crops and the reduced tillage so we see it's a it's a push from both ways which is super interesting I'm just going to touch briefly on the monitoring because I thought it was so interesting that you said back to community monitoring and it's absolutely possible so we use a SMS based or text message based system for monitoring so every season farmers send in basically farm records on how much have you harvested how much have you planted what have you done and those are then put into our M&E system and calculated towards the emission reductions so it's farmers doing this themselves it is proven to be quite a cost effective way of doing things but also accurate and I think one of the most important things is that as a farmer if you report your own achievements you also get a sense of higher sense of knowledge on what you actually are doing in terms of climate compensation but also adaptation on climate change but I think also important is what we discussed in the break that if you know how much your farm produces and if you know what exercise is to do to increase your productivity you have your farm record basically and if you have your farm record you also have a business mindset of your farm and start going from subsistence farming to a profit-giving farming so it's a multiple use we've been doing these types of projects since 2009 and we have learned our lesson good and bad and I just put together a few do's and don'ts in this Guggen's approach that we would like to highlight and one of them is the upfront investment we need upfront investments to do carbon offsetting programs and for them to be sustainable you can't have investors paying afterwards we need the upfront local expertise definitely a lead organization on the ground together with local farm organizations and also strengthening institutional capacity and that is strengthening the farm organizations that are eventually going to take over the product per se and keep monitoring and keep developing and keeps spreading and I think I cannot mention enough the market incentives it's being clear from the beginning that it's not about the mitigation income because that is a tiny tiny part the absolute best benefits for the local community is the productivity increase and the adaptation benefits the mitigation is still a bonus and of course monitoring having activity based monitoring with the farmers with the community per se and sustainability we would not do a carbon offsetting program if it didn't have those three parameters so we learned our lesson and from CAS we then developed our livelihoods month Elgin project together with a French investment firm that's where you have the upfront financing and together with a local market a value chain somewhere to sell your products together with Brookside Dairy so we developed a project that is aiming to increase the livelihoods for 30 000 farmers more or less the same size as CASP but this time we've learned our lesson we have the upfront financing we also have a clear value chain attached to it we have a much stronger collaboration with local farm organizations this is developed together with 15 dairy cooperatives in Kenya and we also have a stronger component on not only trees and agriculture but also the watershed and the ambition is we started this in 2015 and it will run for 10 years and we have a 3.5 million euro investment the ambition is to reach a 30 crop increase at least and increased milk revenues going from 5 000 liters to 135 000 liters in the project and sequester 1 million tons of CO2 in both trees soil and dairy productivity so we started with one in 2009 now we have four and so far we are super happy thank you Linda there is I mean all the speakers are very easy to manage because they're all like another time budget that we have so there's two minutes for clarification questions for Linda anyone Susanne thank you very much that was very impressive I mean the production increase is very very high I'm wondering do you have any idea or do you look into what if there is an increase in production per worked hour in that case so can you say something about that I really wish I could and it's interesting because one of the two of the things that are very little researched on when it comes to agroforestry and sustainable agricultural land management is the socioeconomic aspects and we don't look into it we don't measure it ourselves but I would really like to see it so if someone is in the research is eager to do so I thought it would be super interesting when you look at the agroforestry research per se doing reviews of what is done on agroforestry the socioeconomics are really low so I would really like to see it if no one has a question I I have a question about the yields as well there was an increase in the in the yields have you looked at the stability of the yields as well has that changed and have you tried to quantify it or is it qualitatively qualitatively assess it I can't answer the question actually I need to speak to our Amani guru in Nairobi for that one but I would say if I'm not mistaken that you can see a fluctuation that goes also with the fluctuations in Kenya per se I know there's a dip around 2015 if I'm not mistaken which goes quite well with I would believe the drought that year but I'm not quite sure it's still a less of a dip than you would otherwise yeah maybe I just take the liberty of asking a question myself bring it on it was very impressive and I was thinking that to what extent do you actually also work with some technological advances so not just planting trees and trying to get better agricultural practice but also actually decreasing for example the amount of wood needed to cook and like efficient stoves smokeless kitchens and so on that could complement actually the carbon benefits and also health and yeah I didn't mention it because I think it's somewhere it's it just goes for us without thinking about it but yes so I would say in most of the products that we do we have an energy efficient component either if it's from biogas which is not huge but it's there it's a bit of a heavy investment but at least on energy efficient cook stoves so either if it's just energy efficient with less firewood or if it's with briquettes if you look at for example the the carbon offsetting program in Uganda we're looking at briquettes together with energy efficient stoves it's a two-way combination of that yeah okay thank you all right then okay one short question why we I love that setting up you put a figure of 2.14 tons of CO2 equivalent per hectare is that per year just to compare to what we know from yes yes it's per year that's that's impressive yeah yeah thank you and that's figure is for the per year as per year seven so we've done it for seven years and then we'll see if it decreases or increases hello Shalota Chopinofsky I work as head of sustainable development at Riksbygen and I will talk about how we work with climate offsetting and what we what we compensate for and what we what what the driving forces are and also about why we choose to work with Vskogen if that's not obvious after this fine presentation Linda and then I will finalize with some lessons learned and then after that I'll just switch to having another another hat on my head and being the chairman of the Swedish Association for Sustainable Development and show you a small study where we ask the some companies within that association how they think about carbon offsetting but before I start just quick about Riksbygen we are a company that develop housing property and then we manage housing properties both our own and also housing association both that's just reininger around 500 000 people live in in apartments that we are managing so we're quite big 5000 apartments in production at present and someone asked me if I called it compensation or offsetting I we speak Swedish all day long in Riksbygen so so my English might not be be perfect but I'm I'm not I'm not afraid of speaking English but it won't be perfect we compensate for our admission arising from air from from the from the flights that our employees are doing and the reason for us to compensate is that we want a driving force for our employees to change their behavior so by making the the the transportations more expensive by air then we think that they should choose train instead so they should choose their another mode of transportation so we try and find incentives internally to change behavior and as an extra value we saw that when the Swedish government initiated the initiative of climate change challenge the klimat vexlings with morning and we saw that the compensation the climate the climate offsetting could be one part of of this program so that we can adapt to this program by doing this so this is like an extra value and this is an initiative that is under the fossil fritz valier in in sweden but as you can see we are compensated for 620 tons and as you can see in the picture we emit a lot of more carbon dioxide and this is only for for our internal work I mean we're emitting a lot more when the the houses are being built so so this this is just a very very small part of it so you have something to sell to me maybe try and get me convinced that I should offset the other carbon dioxide as well but the reason for us not doing that is that I think and that's that's the how how I've talked about it within my company that we should really use those money to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions instead and we are working hard on our own properties to renovate them and make them reducing their carbon dioxide and also with our with our cars for examples that we own so that they should be a better fleet of vehicles and and reducing our carbon dioxide by using electric cars for example so we choose to to work with our own emissions instead and we reduced our carbon dioxide with approximately 35 of the last years this is really something that we're doing quite hard and I also want to say that we're working with programs with we affect for example and our core business is housing association so we work with housing association with we affect so we work with different just for sponsoring or just for helping other cooperative that we do that in other ways so so this is not the only thing that we're doing and we choose to work with V school again and the reason is that we are a cooperative company and cooperative companies has like in their core to try and help other cooperatives in other countries so that's why we thought that we school again was such a good partner from the start and we also think that V school again is very credible since they work with all with the standards we wanted to be like plan a weave or something like that and when V school came and presented their idea that we should compensate with them or climate offsetting with them then I was afraid about the monocultural that we should land plant trees in bro so then when they talked about the agroforestry that was when I decided that okay let's go for for the climate offsetting with V school again so without the agroforestry we wouldn't be here today so some lessons that we learned that both the method and the company need to be credible for us because because before we worked with Tricorona as a partner and then they had a business on the side that helped the companies to reduce their climate emissions and then I thought that that was a credible company and then they choose to not work with that anymore so they only were working with the climate compensation and then I thought they're not credible anymore and then V school called and then we got to work with them instead so what is really both the method because the method that Tricorona works with is credible I think but this was the match we needed both the company and the method and then it is good if the work around the company compensation is very simple and now I think it's a bit more complex with V school again than it was with Tricorona everything worked out very well and very smooth but now every year there is something where should we put the money it's something here but we think that it's it's better that there is a credible company than it is simple so it's more important for us to work with a credible company than that everything is simple but we could improve here the cooperation and then sadly enough the compensation that we're working with doesn't lead to decrease travel by flight because the carbon dioxide is too cheap so you don't see that effect and then you could think maybe why don't we stop working with this time of climate offsetting but I think that that would send the wrong signal and also I hope in the future that the true cost of carbon dioxide would really be there and then I think that that would have an effect so I'm really waiting for the true cost of carbon dioxide so we're continuing and now for my other part of the presentation I am the chairman of the Swedish Association of Sustainable Business it's a nationwide association and we are a cross industry and we are around 217 members and it's the large companies in Sweden you could say and I sent out a small survey within the within the board and they were these companies answering the questions so they're quite large companies here in Sweden and when I asked them what you think about companies using climate assets no one more than myself but I didn't answer this thought that it could be a tool for companies to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions many many thought that it was a way for companies to compensate for climate gases they need to emit and only a few companies said it's greenwash so I think we still need to be very careful on how we communicate when we work with climate offset because there are still people thinking that it might be greenwash so about the communication I think it's important and I also think that there might be something here for you who work with climate offsetting to find new business solutions so that we can drive new habits internally and by that reducing both the carbon dioxide that we emit and creating those good things that Linda just talked about and when I asked what kind of climate offsetting do you think is most credible the it really doesn't matter this this to me is is saying that it doesn't matter because everything has almost almost the same and so as long as it is standardized we really don't know when when you're talking about the different standards in within the companies we don't have very much knowledge about that we need to like lean upon that you if it's a standard it's a good one if we're not I mean we can we can go in then but I think that that's how we work we don't have the time really to go in into deep that's that's what this show me and the future bright for climate offsetting when I asked how will you use climate offsetting in the future our company would use climate offsetting more 75 percent of the companies say so our company will use climate offset less and then the last this company doesn't compensate today and will not do it in the future either so just to summarize we are using climate offsetting because we want to reduce our travel by air so this is like trying to get the driving force to to change behavior within the company but it doesn't work and we don't use offsetting for the other climate gases we focus rather on reducing our emissions and we use V school again for climate compensation because we think they're credible and it's really good matching our own company and the study in this association then shows that companies see climate offsetting as a way to compensate for emissions they cannot reduce and we see that it doesn't matter really which method is being used as long as it's a it's something that we can feel is credible like I don't know yeah I can explain this more if you have any questions I can see here there are some questions but I think that we're not don't what I want to send out here is don't expect us to be expert on these different methods so as long as they are standardized I think that that we we can't really have the time to to deep go deeper into that and the companies will use climate offsetting more in the future thank you okay so where are the questions there was one all right yes thank you for a very interesting presentation for now yes ask questions please introduce yourself okay my name is Sara and I'm from Lund University Sweden yeah so thank you for the interesting presentation and I was curious because you said it didn't work so well with the travel by air so do you have other measures to trying to reduce your air yeah we bought a video conference system and so we have reduced our travel by air but we can't see that that is something that is driving it so we have new we have policies and we have different the video conference in every office and everything so we're really trying hard to reduce the travel by air and I think that we are succeeding but I can't see that anyone when I'm talking to them that they are that they really think about this even though they see it on there when they are buying the ticket they can't they don't care about that anymore or they don't care about it maybe it's the other way around I don't know I don't think so that's not how we how we are communicating it internally thank you all right thank you uh anyone else has an urgent question I just want to verify that the the the things we pay we don't pay it centrally they pay it in their own business so that I think is very important so we in the so that has been very important to me that we are not the one paying it centrally they are paying it in their own business and that is how I thought that there might be a driving force so the the I want the the the manager of this people people to say that this is going to these these planes this travels that you're doing are too expensive why don't you choose train that's where I want to go so we're not doing it on the top we're doing it all right then I think we should kindly ask the other three presenters to also come to the stage and we can just turn around some of the chairs if you don't want to stand all time we can actually take these and then we can open the floor for some for a larger discussion um with the help of the audience then I actually just wait until you forget I just wanted to start with something I think it's very interesting what you mentioned that actually the offsetting itself and the carbon is not so important it's basically a vehicle to get to the more important benefits that are adaptation and that are actually like poverty reduction or more resilient agriculture actually in that case which I think is something that's quite telling and I think that's something we see quite a lot also in red plus projects that the carbon itself is maybe not so important really it's more like a tool to get the financing needed to pursue other benefits or to pursue other goals which is the protection of forests or is the poverty reduction in local communities and so on and so forth um and I think also you pointed towards that in a way as well so I think this is quite interesting I mean given the title of the seminar today and that brings me to I have two questions that I would like the panelists to answer if they want to and then we can open the floor for questions from the audience the first one is basically pointing towards the when we talk about red plus and we talk about carbon compensation around forestry for example there's been a lot of critique since the red plus mechanism was kind of introduced or started to be debated a lot of critique pointing towards the loss of rights for local or indigenous community unmet expectations there was a lot of there was a lot of hype around red plus in the beginning a lot of money was supposed to actually reach local communities and people were told many different things um it hasn't materialized and I worked with red plus as well for a long time and if you ask people about the carbon money they were supposed to reach the communities people were really disappointed and said like well we've been hearing about this for years and nothing has ever come um so maybe like some of you who have worked with this what future do you see for these kind of mechanisms that have been debated for 10 years 12 years at the international policy arena but actually haven't really materialized yet um I just invite you for some short comments you can use this microphone thank you Thorsten I during my work with red plus I've had many communities saying the same yes we heard now we were going to be paid to protect forests but we're still waiting 10 years later so I have two observations I would like to share with you one is that when you're looking at budgets for the international red plus projects or programs I have reviewed many different UN red road maps and World Bank FCPF red plus strategies and what I found was that about 95 percent of the budgets were ultimately spent in the capital city all on meetings workshops coordinating committees red plus agencies red plus task forces red plus none of the funds left the ministries so I think that's quite telling why people still have to wait at the local level and the other thing is as you say there's been a lot of discussions about local people's rights and I would say rightly so that's why we started to work with community monitoring because the thing we have to to turn the whole red plus implementation upside down and start from the local level now we have had 10 years of red plus readiness and now we have to start to work with communities hearing their wishes and I think that would address both of these two you could say challenges of red plus I haven't met a community that wasn't eager to conserve their forest so I think that's not where the problem is it's more our approach we have to work more local local yeah um I actually agree um viscogen hasn't worked um ourselves in red plus or red projects um but listening to the critique that has come up um there are definitely challenges I mean yes the world's forest needs to be preserved um but I guess you need to approach it in the same way as you would do in any sustainable and effective development project you need to start with a community and project needs to be developed from a community's approach um including all members indigenous and non and including both men and women and looking at the critique on on gender equality in the red one red plus and red programs it is understandable uh someone wrote I can't remember who that there is no such thing as carbon as there's no such thing as um as gender neutrality in forests and I think it's very true you need to start both with women and men and you need to start with the communities and develop both monitoring and project implementation and project design from that level and then it could work yeah I'm no expert on on red plus but I from what I've heard from my colleagues in the um delegation they seem seems that they are quite happy with the the framework it's been well negotiated it's it's been a long project process and now it's existing and I was at the side event at the last substo meeting which was from the Green Climate Fund and they are now as I said looking into these um pilot studies on on the uh yeah on this red plus um result based payments and so from what I heard it sounds very promising but I I mean I cannot I have no insight in the GCF so I was more I was more trying to direct the question towards maybe you might know about about the GCF because I think they had some some ideas at least how to try to to increase the ground level involvement that's what I so that was my more more of a question than a comment yeah just I mean I can answer something as well for my personal experience I totally agree with you I mean it has to be in many ways locally driven but often what we find um in these negotiations that there is grand ideas that are designed by people who have I mean they don't they don't live in these forests so they don't live with the day-to-day issues that you have to deal with and basically it's grand ideas that sound really great on paper but then when it comes to the implementation locally that's where we often stop and I also agree with you I mean there's so much money going around and often this money is desktop conservation it's basically people sitting in capital capitals around the world writing reports over and over and that's where the carbon offsetting well it's where the money for carbon compensation goes but actually is very rarely going to where it should go and that's why I think I would congratulate you for your approach because that's something that I think is actually really hands-on and what can actually observe the changes and you show that quite nicely as well with the satellite pictures and how it has changed and actually made a difference in people's lives the other question I had and then we can open the floor so I would urge you to prepare some some thoughts or some comments as well you can also chip in on these questions of course is that now we're sitting here in Stockholm in Sweden and I've just in preparation for today I looked up the ecological footprints of countries in Scandinavia of Sweden of Norway and of Denmark and if everybody would live as we do we would need four planets just because of the materials that we consume and then just the way we live at the same time of course one could say like well Denmark and Norway particularly but also Sweden are doing great things when it comes to actually spending money on fighting poverty mitigating climate change during research in many countries around reducing deforestation and Norway has been in the news for a number of years now spending a lot of I mean a lot of money on actually reducing deforestation in DRC in Indonesia but also in Guyana but I mean not wanting to be too critical but I think we kind of have to isn't carbon offsetting or carbon compensation whatever you want to call it not just actually a way to distract ourselves from the real problem and the real challenge that we actually need to do I mean decreasing flights of employees within Sweden and I'm in Lund University did a study as well and the major emissions are actually flights between Malmö and Stockholm where you can take a train that's that's these are small changes but they actually lead to a bigger problem that sometimes it's easier to look somewhere else than actually like asking ourselves what can we do about it and I think this is a question as well for you to comment on if you would like to I think it's a good question because I think that we need to understand all the companies need to understand that sustainability is about the core business and we really need to look upon these sustainable development goals as a new future and then see how our business model is really fitting into that new future and then lead our companies towards that future and that's really not the way how businesses I'd say is really doing it we're looking more I think we're a bit towards that in in my companies is I'm now in the in the in the top level group but the most people they are just working with their business model as it is and then try to like reduce their carbon dioxide and minimize their their footprint on the planet but not changing their business model and often they need to change their business model or their strategy or their way they're they are steering their companies because they need to see the complexity as it is so I think it's a really good question that that is really the core of these companies within within the the western world that we need to change for real so I think it's a good question but this is something on on the side I see it like yeah we believe that it's it's neither or it's it's not we can't we can't just do one of them we need to do both and looking at where the world is going we're going towards 10 billion people in 2050 and the land will not be more for agricultural productivity we need to use what we have and to be able to feed a world of 10 billion we need to increase productivity at the same time we need to reduce the carbon emissions and sequester so I think that we can't just focus on one of these things we need to do both at the same time and that's how complex the climate change is and we found that carbon offsetting is is one way of financing that type of development it's no silver bullet and the methods of agroforestry and sal will not solve it all but it's one way of doing it and we found that by by finding a market for these development projects it's a way to both fight poverty and climate change at the same time so there are both pros and cons definitely and one thing they often see is that it is really discouraging when the flights are not going going down at the same time you can see that there is a shift in companies that do offset have a tendency to all also reduce their own emissions in other cases and when you see a cost for something in red you try to to reduce it it's not always the case but it can happen yeah sure yeah I just want to be clear that we have really reduced our emissions so and also from the flights but it's more of a feeling that that this is not that they don't think about that small extra cost when they are booking their tickets that I'm really sure of that and we have I have people within the organization and we are asking these questions and it doesn't really work that way but other other things works absolutely so we maybe we are encouraged them to think more about the sustainable sustainability by doing this that can be one of the driving forces as well you're going to say when you post the question I came to think of that very many indigenous associations they would say exactly what you said it's the global market it's capitalism who created the problem of climate change they are not going to fix it they are part of the problem not part of the solution on the other hand I think we should remember that deforestation and forest degradation is contributing up towards 20 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions if we do not do anything about deforestation we're not going to reach the parish agreement goals and I believe that these offsets is just one of the ways we can start to work with combating forest degradation and forest clearance so there are many many problems so we should probably use many different solutions if you read the next IPCC report the six assessment report coming out soon I think it'd be very clear what you said we have to work on all different fronts there's not one solution it's not enough yeah my my comment kind of relates to that if you want to I mean pragmatically if you want to reach 1.5 degrees we need to do both we need there's I mean it's a we need negative emissions to reach the 1.5 degree goal and the same goes for the Swedish Swedish target of net zero emissions by 2045 if you're going to reach those there is some room for emissions but then we need to compensate by by these complementing measures and these complementing measures involve carbon offsetting in some way either for bio CCS or increased carbon storage in forests or trading which that is yeah emission reductions in another country and another thing I was thinking about which is not carbon offsetting in one way but it's the this debate that is ongoing about flying or eating meat there is this never-ending story in the press and I'm as a working at the Swedish border of agriculture and as a private person I'm getting really annoyed by this debate because you have you have one side saying okay this meat consumption needs to be reduced and the other one say no it's the flying that needs to be reduced we are and then you have the meat producers the Swedish meat producers on one side and you have and you have the environmentalist on one side but the thing is you cannot choose there is no there's no choosing we need to cut down our fossil fuel emissions that's the primary and then we also need to reduce our food consumption I mean we import 50% of our beef to Sweden and even if we could reduce our our consumption by half and still keep the same production level as today so there is no there's no either or it's we need to do both and so I yeah that's the whole whole thing but it's it's a psychological I mean it's tricky people cannot keep two balls in the air at the same time so that's that's a trick to and even in the in the in the on the in the newspapers people cannot keep two two thoughts at the same time when in the debate so I think it's yeah that's a trick I totally forgot to answer the question about if Sweden should be ashamed or not well I think it's really good that we have all of these investments in in carbon offsetting and and smart agriculture abroad but we also need to look at what we are emitting ourselves extremely and there I would really like to highlight the need for both looking at our own emissions with products produced in the country but also looking at our emissions from products produced outside so we if we are flying to whatever country we would like we need to take those emissions and for ourselves yes I mean just as a side note to here I mean I live in Skåne and it's a great place but I mean there's so much investment in agroforestry in other countries why can't we do it here like Skåne I know I know there is but when I when I take the train from Malmö to Lund I see an agricultural desert yeah it is true so and that's so sad sometimes you know but I think we should open the floor to the audience uh so you don't get bored listening to us all the time speaking um there's one question over there could you thank you okay oh sorry um my name is Wilmar I'm agroforestry engineer I have just a comment about your last one about we need to be aware why we are what is our footprint I guess we need tools to know why we are doing and how we need the information in order to take the decisions and simple tools and that's what we need to provide to the people otherwise people is not going to be aware about that so I think so we need to develop apps or information flow that people okay when I buy this product this is my footprint what should I do about that the other question I skip this one thank you I agree with you but on the other hand there are many things that people already know and they're still not doing it so it's even more tricky than that I'd say to what what I work a lot with in in in my company is to say to people that they they are on the way to something new and they need to change day by day so have have a challenge all the time to change something something that you can feel that you can change so not going into saying you should stop doing this for example one of my colleagues in Helsingborg she said she was very annoyed that she was taking the car every day and then I said well think about something else that you can do instead and then she called me up and said well I've made a promise that I shouldn't buy anything in a year any clothes or anything and in you in a year and then she called me up some some days later and said now I have five five of my other colleagues doing the same thing and then I think it's much better that she goes buy her car every day and do those kind of things that really triggered her and she made it made a fun thing of it and got more people on board so I think we need to think more of where are you as a person now and what can you do as the next step to take your your further towards that sustainable development society that we're all aiming for I do agree we need tools for that and I think there's an app for that actually there are several apps I know that Visco is working on ways to highlights for private individuals also how the carbon footprint is and how it reflects on your behaviors and how you can offset it we do the same for companies I also know friends in the in the industry other organizations have excellent apps for for example food I'm not sure if the Swedish meat producers would be super happy about that one but there are apps definitely for how to look at food consumption and so on so there is more to be done definitely but as a consumer you need to be able to do really easy choices yes because we don't want to leave the comfort zone it's true leaving the comfort zone is really difficult it is about making those small decisions every day and also the big ones thank you hello my name is Golia I'm from the Salvation Army I think I'm very happy to hear about that agriculture is part of the COP because that's been a big debate and and actually one of the big problem is the low price of carbon and I think Linda you mentioned you know you lock these farmers to enter into this I think they are beneficial but the cost of monitoring is so high do you see any scope for increasing the price of carbon in the coming years I'm really happy because I think you answer that question I think we're charging too little if if the if the flights are not going down fast enough and then the price is too low so I mean of course there's a difference between the voluntary market and others but yeah definitely maybe I should just add that one thing our study from Cambodia showed that the real costs of defending forests against for example rubber plantations that's between 30 and 50 per tonne CO2 a lot higher than the prices offered right now at the carbon market but actually very close to the real cost of damage of one tonne of CO2 which I think in the last large study from the US was estimated to be about 36 per tonne so for a beginning I think the cost should reflect that cost of damages that would be a star at least yeah I just want to like like for the when when people should make a decision I think that of course we can have like a carbon carbon figure but there are so much more things for example with meat then we have the other biological bilogism of other things like that so there are like things that even though you're lowering your carbon footprint there is something else to think of and that is also something that we need to keep in mind and and the eco labeling are of course looking into that but still it's it's tricky I think so it's not easy I think that the understanding of the complexity in the question in these issues and that we are moving forward and not doing something good enough something bad needs to be more that people understand that so I'm into this now they say you should go and buy an environmental car and there's not no such thing as an environmental car right and then the next day this environmental car can't go on some some street of Stockholm it happened to be a diesel car that was an environmental car yesterday and then every people in the society they don't trust the eco labels they don't trust when we say that something is environmentally good and bad we need to talk on these issues in a different way we need to talk about them as these journey that we're in and this is a better step than it was yesterday because it it's this was really undermining I mean my father he's really angry now because he bought this this environmental car and he says to me it was environmental car yesterday and it's not today and that that is what then he doesn't want to go and buy his van mark something the next day and this is really really a problem I think thank you there was a question over there hello my name is Ansofi I work at the Africa department at SIDA I was wondering are you aware of any studies sort of comparing the increase in productivity and adaptation that you mentioned using the offsetting comparing that to other projects which are not using carbon offsetting like could you see the same sort of increase even though you're not using carbon offsetting in the projects sort of is it my question is really is it worth you know in terms of time and you know trainings needed to be able to collect those funding through a carbon offsetting program so is it worth for the communities to to invest in this because as you mentioned before there are a lot of examples where communities have invested a lot of time as far as I know and trainings and still have not received any funding well I think it's it's many different questions so one is the last part about whether or not you receive the funding as we saw in the red project there are farmers or forest conservators who doesn't receive the funding which is just very very unprofessional and you need to have a project set up that ensures that the funding reaches who it intends to do and I haven't seen myself a study comparing the yield increase for example between carbon offsetting programs using the same methods and products using the Salem or agroforestry what we do know is that finding funding for agroforestry and still agriculture land management is quite difficult. SIDA for example has an extreme low budget on agroforestry funding today and still agricultural funding so finding that that money is difficult so the carbon offsetting is the way to finance those kinds of projects I would love to see more funding both from the green climate fund on sustainable agriculture primarily agroforestry but also from from SIDA and maybe I can add something there I think there's been an interesting shift in the public debate lately where that's maybe also like behavioral psychology has a little to do that who cares about the climate I mean it's so far away we can't see the carbon but we care about our health and lately with all these discussions we've seen in cities like London and Paris where basically one studies have shown that people's life has been affected I mean people die earlier because they live in polluted cities too much traffic too many pollutants and so on and so forth or people who are living and using these wooden open fires in Kenya cooking they're also basically suffered tremendously in their health I mean these arguments seem to be flying much easier with funders but also with changing behavior so leaving aside the carbon a little bit and actually talking about again like indirectly the climate benefits that we achieve on the sideline but actually the health benefits I think this is a really convincing argument and we've seen that I mean in Hamburg they started to implement bands Stockholm maybe as well so cities are actually like now getting more and more support to doing that because of health issues and just the recently reported mom were also pointed to that that mama actually also you live in mama your life expectancy decreases a little bit because air is polluted so we have to do something about it so it's not the carbon anymore it's the health but the carbon is an aside benefit and I think that's an interesting discussion here because then what does it matter whether we know the true cost of carbon what really matters then is that if we do climate friendly activities or policies we actually have a health benefit for people that seems to be a convincing argument I guess I fully agree but I don't think that they always go hand in hand like for example when you buy things that doesn't really you don't you don't see that on your health or if you eat less meat then yeah yeah yeah if you eat meat yeah it can absolutely it can but it doesn't always go hand in hand but when it does of course we should use that as a tool to communicate yeah maybe just to add I think it's it's right that this behavior as a human you can easier take small steps and if you can see a direct benefit to your own personal self fine I will go for that but on the other hand I think the the issues of global warming are so serious so it's also important that our policy makers maintain that focus on greenhouse gas emissions and that we have to reach like you say the negative emissions it's not going to come on its own from people's hobbies of not shopping or being a vegetarian we also have to have the international focus and negotiations I'm just thinking about this with the train and the and the airplane again that this is this is why it doesn't happen I mean it's not possible to go from one place to another we should go to Kiruna with my department and then it happened to be a work on the on the train track that in that that evening so we couldn't go by train and the flight took one hour and the the train took many hours so then we had to change direction and go to tell by instead and took the train with with our department but it's not another department wouldn't do that in my company they would take the the flight if nothing else works they wouldn't change where they were going but we did but it's it's like there need to be like system supporting your chain the change that we're doing and there are not in place when it comes to the flights we don't have system enough I mean it's much easier to book a flight you can go into what app you want and book the flights in 10 minutes and how do you book I want to go to Italy this summer and I said we should go by train and now how do we book how do we do I don't really know so now we're searching about how do we book this train ticket so it's there are too many boundary there are too many hinder in the way yeah yeah I know I know I'm part of that but I don't have the time I mean I just want to book it as easy as I book the flight I don't have time to read everything in that Facebook group even though it's a good Facebook group there's one more question over there please so what does the numbers look like in terms of carbon offsetting like has it increased in terms of the money available or do we see an increase or a decrease in the money available I mean for me I mean I just have a feeling that it has decreased I don't know if because we talk less about this as an option nowadays but I I'm I have no idea so perhaps you know globally what it looks like I can't say globally on in terms of funding from from corporates or private individuals but what we see as viscogen is that there is an increased interest from investment funds and investors in terms of carbon offsetting and if it wouldn't have been for the long journey of starting off with the kenya agriculture carbon project doing all those lessons learned we wouldn't have a livelihood fund the french investment fund as an investor today and having those I mean the livelihood fund consists of a number of european companies who are investing in this fund together to see both the economic environmental and social benefits and them investing 3.5 million euros upfront I don't think it would have happened some years back I mean to the money I think it's actually it's a straightforward question I think it's very hard to find answers to that because it depends on what market you're looking at the cdm is still running very strongly and it's been going I mean since I don't know the late 90s I guess there's a lot of money in that because it's companies or countries have to then there's a voluntary carbon market that's kind of like staggering like more back and forth I mean it's not really that much in comparison to the cdm but it's true that the price of carbon has decreased and it's much lower than what it should be but that's because there's an over supply of carbon credits and it's based on you know past calculations and I mean lots of flaws in the system I guess yes I mean I think there is some hope in the new ETS but that that will add some that the carbon prices might go up within this new system but I have no idea on that I can just comment with my my slide that I had that that many companies in in this association then said that they were going to offset more in the future so that might be something that does not scientifically prove or anything but it might say something are there any more questions or any comments final thoughts something positive yes I have a one comment I wonder because you're all interested in carbon offsetting and so on whether you see the change in status among for example traveling by plane compared to traveling by public transport by other means and whether you think that this is actually something that will trigger a major change because I think we're in a social media era where our branding of ourselves is extremely important so whether you you experience from your perspectives whether there is a major kind of change potential there from my point of view there is many people around me that is really pressuring each other not to fly on the other hand I don't think that that is so wide that's not the feeling that I got when I go to my company and talk to other people they are not really there so there are there are a few people that are really there but it's not a big group yet I think but that's just a personal reflection but I think that if for me I think a lot if I fly somewhere it's it's really it's really hard I haven't made my my own decision never to fly but it's really hard for me to do it it's it's hard for me to make that decision and it wasn't before then I thought well I do other things like like you say but but now I feel like I shouldn't do this so so something is really happening I think I'm not really sure I haven't seen the statistics on it I'm really hoping personally that it is kicking off and that we will see a huge increase in trains I think the Swedish train situation this weekend had a bit of a down on that one but in general I'm really hoping for it and I'm hoping that it will be not a social media phenomenon just to increase your brand but to go wider than that and go beyond the big cities then maybe yeah well I just read an article today about this and there was I don't remember who where she was from was a researcher who had done some studies on this and she said that the only things that really worked were higher prices and restrictions on commercials for travel that was the two things that worked yeah going back a bit on the on the funding for for carbon offsetting and the funding for for carbon sequestration products as such I think one of the challenges that we discussed just before was this separation of the funding to forestry and for example red and for agriculture and their agroforestry really falls in between and we see a huge problem with that we keep debating whether or not agroforestry belongs to forestry we belong to agriculture and from an outside perspective it might just seem oh it just works it doesn't matter where it lands well it does because if the forestry sector doesn't embrace agroforestry as as its thing then there won't be any funding and the indices for it or in the in the strategies in the in the Namas and Appas and if the agricultural sector does the same and doesn't embrace agroforestry it doesn't go within their budget line either so somehow we need to find a way to really integrate the forestry in agriculture perspective and really let's agroforestry fly there a bit because it has those both levels and it could work on on both sections reduce deforestation and get productivity up while sequestering carbon so yeah I would love to see that I'm not saying it should be one sector but definitely agroforestry should belong to one of them or its own yes I I agree with you have found that myself in research I have a comment here from the FAO from Selena Fortuner who's joined us live from Rome I suppose um she says thank you very much for the interesting presentations um she has a question or more than a question actually it's a comment or a contribution with regards to where plus and the involvement of stakeholders um she says that yes where plus has been negotiated for a long time the last more than a decade at various meetings um the red plus readiness process has been taking more time than probably many people anticipated um and has to do with the technicalities of it and the measurement and monitoring what we heard also from either the governance tenure and so on but at least it also meant that actually we talk about forests again at the policy arena so there is actually a renewed discussion about forests and the good news is that now implementation is speeding up um and to you know the Green Climate Fund I think is also like actually investing a lot in in forestry in Ecuador at least they are um and it looks like there are more important actions that are happening and start happening on the ground at the national sub-national and local level some countries are standing out like Colombia, Ecuador, Vietnam and Indonesia and if anyone has more questions she's happy to share more information in the future um one regards from the FAO um from Rome and if there's no further questions or comments from the audience then I just want to end on a happy note uh I read on the morning I took a train at four this morning and actually this train was on time yes from Marmer and I read an article that was just recently released I think in one of the nature journals and they did a study on so I have to remember it was very early and I was tired but basically what they said is that no matter what the policy makers are going to decide in the future now it looks like that businesses are taking the lead and actually have already started to invest so much money renewable energies and non-carbon intensive technologies that um it looks like that no matter what how if the United States are in or out or whatever happens that there will be a huge shift of money going from dirty technologies and dirty industries into clean industries and clean technologies that are less carbon intensive so there's going to be a huge share of stranded assets as you would say in business jargon basically where investors that are still keeping on investing in carbon intensive like coal or oil or tar sands will actually losing a lot of money because um the tide has turned and the future is looking a bit brighter of course there's still lots of work to do and I think carbon offsetting as we heard has a role to play and if not even just to get the financing to actually do the more important things which are adaptation and poverty reduction and we have of course maybe to work on business strategies and policies to reduce flying invest in train systems open technologies to actually make it easier for people to travel by train in Europe which I agree is very difficult me going to Germany I have a hard time to find a good trains and it's more expensive than flying unfortunately and to the negotiations as well that have to continue and have to basically pave the way to make more bold um I would say like more bold targets for countries but ultimately we all here also have a role to play I mean responsibility to basically make informed choices when it comes to consuming and and thinking about where materials come from in the end um so I'd like to thank the speakers of this afternoon very much we can give them a hand and I do have a little gift for you uh from Maria from the GMB from Fokali it's a card game of the sustainability goals for the train journey so you can accept online train journeys um and I would like to thank you for having been here today um on this afternoon so thank you very much for coming here for asking questions and for joining us and we hope to see you sometime soon in the future either here or in Gothenburg or maybe also in London Malmoor so enjoy the national day tomorrow have a nice afternoon thank you