Let me first introduce myself. My name is Ariel Engelsen. I'm a professor at the Norwegian University of Life Science and I'm also an associate of C4 Now I one of my capacities in the department is that the head of the recruitment committee and there is a story about three applicants for a job an Accountant an economist and a mathematician and and they were called for interview And they was just asked one question and the question was what is 2 plus 2? And first the economist comes in and he says well, that's very easy to put two is for and Then comes the mathematician and he's asked the same question said well It depends a lot on the assumptions you make but in most cases I would say it is for and Then comes the accountant and he got the same question He looks around and see if all the doors are closed and he said well, it depends. What do you want it to be and? And this also goes for accounting in of of carbon emissions or Forest stocks or money flows It's not an exact answer to all of this What do we want the number to be and the answer quite often depends on on what we want the number to be? in this session, we are going to look at the red performance in a landscape and most of the Or not most of them all the four speakers here that I will introduce in a moment are part of this global comparative study on red That is headed by seafo and involving a large number of partners so just a few words on on that project and What we hope to get out of this session and So the purpose of this project that started one at the time and The purpose of this project is for to support red policy arenas and practice in their communities with both information for example a number of country studies country profiles that have been useful to Analyze and do research and publish of that and also provide some tools that can be used in Their implementation of red and we developed this 3e or 3e plus outcomes in terms of effectiveness efficiency and equity and co-benefits Beyond the the carbon benefits So as a general framework now, it's four major components now in this phase two that started this year Is it possible to only get one? Okay, and the first focus on national policy the politics and the policies at Primarily the national level around this what is needed to get the transformation change the second looking at red project activities mainly at local levels and 20 plus Pilot project in six countries being the focus of that third the mrv Including reference level discussions on how to set this and how to help and assist and provide good inputs into the mrv development and the fourth a new module on carbon management at the landscape level and Some of this I just put up one of that those who were published in the book last year by Maria Brocco sitting here and myself is a chapter it's an figure from that of this Four eyes that we introduced. You know when you get older, it's nice to intervene some rules of them So we have the threes effectiveness efficiency equity and the four eyes Which are that on this arena you have actors and each of these actors They have their particular set of interests. They have the ideas Including ideologies. They have certain information and all this is taking place on a An arena where there are certain rules of the games or institutions leading to policy process and outcomes It's a good framework to help to understand what's happening in there and that also is true for data There is the politics of data Generation we just saw yesterday some news Published in data in science Presenting quite new deforestation or rather forest covered change figures that will certainly spark a lot of Debate and being used selectively to whatever to fit certain interests and ideas that different actors have These are the countries Working in and and even more being added. I don't need to to list them all you can read and Three volumes that have been produced to synthesizing and and is available, of course for free download at at the website Just to acknowledge those who have sponsored this the governments and aid agencies of Norway, Australia EC and and UK and there are also other grants but these are the four majors plus literally hundreds of people that have been involved in that and Farmers and others sharing information Now for this session we look at red performance in landscape and these are the presenters that We will see starting with Martin and then fair Naya and and Daniel at last To give the introduction I'll introduce each of them when it comes But just the focus that we have we do the accounting for a purpose very few of us May there are some people like Martin Harold that have a pleasure in measuring in itself But for most of us it's a tool for the next step So we use so what's the purpose of this now? Two purposes that I think it would be nice to focus on and I hope you also can help and get involved One is to do the mr. Being for Implementing a landscape approach For example that we can analyze the actors and the interaction among different sectors and actors that operate in the landscape and the second the process itself of MRV generation Frick's think we'll hear some of that from Nepal can Contribute to implementing the landscape approach so data is not just a product. It's a process And the second is mr v as a basis for a performance-based system Which is I would say a core original idea of red that it should develop these performance-based systems So can mr v be used to support or form the basis for that? and Get involved there's a few of us here But we try a new thing if you will be given the chance to speak up But we will also distribute some cards that you can write down See Lee and and a couple of others will distribute them for you and then there's something called tweets For those over 40. It's something. It's a Twitter.com and you get your account and you can say whatever you want and maybe someone read it too If you want to tweet you're welcome to do it. We have the general hashtag Forum that is GLF cop 19 and it's also a particular one for this session called Hashtag DF3 so Three ways of communicating by card old-fashioned well proven technology by tweets or just standing up and and Speaking in in the audience after we have heard the presentations So with that, I'm happy to introduce Martin Harold the first speaker who will try to give a I'm not just trying I'm sure he will Give a broad overview of of mr. V systems before we have the the three countries studies Martin's professor at Wageningen University in the Netherlands Professor of remote sensing and geo informatics. So welcome Martin Thank you very much, Harold. Good afternoon, everyone There are more things that excite me than measuring first of all and among of them is Speaking in a classic old university hall like this. You don't see many of those around anymore So so this is really classic and so that's something that I find exciting among other things so and as part of that I'm trying to Start off thinking a bit about monitoring red plus landscapes and as we we're here at the UN FCCC Conference of the parties and who has been following a bit what has been discussed Negotiated in terms of monitoring for it plus on the UN FCC arena knows that most of it has been focused on Modalities for monitoring and mr. V for red plus to support countries Abilities to report to the international level. So a lot has been about the IPCC could practice guidelines and and and about Technicalities capacities and these kind of things to bring country up to speed to actually do that And the technical community has been trying to provide some input to that process Which is the technical one of the technical source books that has been put out It's available some of you may know it and I don't want to say a whole more about it Except that we'll have a new set of training modules alongside this That are becoming available early next year that if people want to use the tool and want to use That guideline that it actually becomes a bit easier and can be used more for training than it has been in the past But what I'm not gonna do today is talk about these national Capacities and national ways to report to the international level because what we are seeing now is that red plus is moving into phase two and phase two is that the payments for performance is moving much more into the center of attention and Just as one example, those are some of the countries that have put forward proposal to the carbon fund That like to get started on actually getting paid for Performance and you see most of them has actually subnational initiatives usually some kind of jurisdictional dimension and What we are now seeing is that that these payment for performance and these need to actually create emission reductions because performance Has to be based on emission reduction or removals or increased removals that this is actually getting much more important and that of course Raises other things then repair just reporting on carbon to the international level One of the first things that if you want to stimulate activities to reduce emissions or increase removals of carbon is that you have to think about so what is changing my forests and We all know the debate about trials about Proxima drivers with direct cause of deforestation. There was a report that was put out at the last COP in fact where some scientists See foreign partners have looked into what are the most important direct drivers of deforestation and and that is not news That is mostly Agriculture by a large amount that is driving deforestation So what sub-star has done so the negotiating body that Negotiates these technical things under the convention has actually proposed a decision on on drivers of deforestation And just gonna go through some of these things that have been put forward there It's it's it's up for decision at this COP in fact For example that it notes the complexity of the problem in terms of drivers different national circumstances and multiple multiple drivers at work that Countries should address drivers when developing and implementing their national strategies for red plus that it requires participation of relevant stakeholders It's important to take into account different sectors And that they have to have to be involved for addressing drivers that international Cooperation can contribute to that process because some drivers are international drivers that countries cannot deal with them on their on their own it encourages parties organization the private sector to reduce drivers and It notes that livelihoods may depend on drivers and there are implications when addressing drivers when it comes to economic costs and Domestic resources so just buys and that's about what Substar has can say about drivers It's rather general if you think about it, but basically it gives countries some ideas And how important it is first of all to address drivers And that is that you have to think beyond forests and you have to think about many other dimensions Then for us if you actually like to address drivers and address them in a way so you can actually reduce emissions In the global comparative study We have done an analysis to look into the way countries have tried to address drivers in their readiness proposal So this is a graph that is based on for 43 countries based on 90 and 98 readiness documents and we have grouped the countries in those that have actually Taken on board that have assessed the drivers and developed their planned red plus interventions out of that out of the Drivers and those that have just listed a red plus intervention without considering drivers And so what you see the countries that have done a clear Develop the clear relationship between drivers and interventions that are shown in shown in red the other ones are shown in blue that the ones who have Basically not taking drivers into into account as as much they mainly propose forest related Interventions such as sustainable forest management protected areas strategies offer station and reforestation There are a couple of interventions that are really they're basically both country cases are equal such as aqua forest re plantation Establishment and and dealing with fuel would and fuel would efficiency and then if you look at the Areas where the red the country shown in red here are most prominent. Those are the ones Where most of these activities are actually outside the forest such as Ecoculture intensification livestock management sustainable mining And so on so basically the countries that have Analyze the drivers and plant their interventions based on the importance of specific trials What they point at is there's a lot of activities actually outside the forest that do affect it and that has to be taken into account So what what can we learn from this? analysis well, first of all that many red plus interventions are actually outside the forest and If you do think about you know changing the way Ecoculture is done to reduce the pressure on the forests. It can actually be quite hard to link it to a specific Forest carbon impact to like say which type of which forest has been safe and how much forest has been safe because of this activity The second thing is that if you do want to monitor the activities these Outside forest area activities as part of your red plus implementation program You have to monitor quite a few things outside the forests and that is something that has to be taken into into account Still the national forest-related greenhouse gas impact has to be assessed on the national level to be reported But the internal monitoring within the country does has to think far beyond forest to actually Well to be used as a policy tool to support red plus interventions The other question is that as I said Most some activities are outside the forest and it really hard to relate these activities to specific forest carbon savings Unless you want to get every stakeholder on every land owner to be a red plus project on his own It will be very hard to pay them based on forest carbon Performance and so basically what that means we have to think about different ways of actually sharing Generating and sharing benefits in these contexts So if you think about objectives then for red plus monitoring on the national level Besides meeting these international reporting requirements It needs to underpin and stimulate strategies and priorities for red plus implementation It has to track performance of red plus activities and their impacts which include carbon both non carbon and non carbon And it has to support the generation and the sharing of Benefits and that's basically a broader a much broader objective than what you have As it comes to international reporting if you take into account the sub-star guidance on drivers, which highlights multi-sector issues the involvement of stakeholders the important of livelihoods It is clear that we talk about red performance in a landscape context thinking about more holistically thinking about more more into into integrated so basically we're talking about and an increase in monitoring and Assessment needs and that certainly raises the questions versus simplicity versus complexity because if you think about Landscape and we think about monitoring the multiple impacts of red plus and the links to benefit sharing We've been talking about much more monitoring That has to be done So if you think about them performance on the landscape scale And some examples to matter and that's the slide I borrowed from Peter home grain We have to then actually think about something to measure and monitor that is easy to understand that applies to any scale and Any location that can actually be done and that can be done not only once but sustainably So if you think about for example the different objectives like livelihood provisions sustained ecosystem services pollution and resource efficiency and food and non food products on the outside using some examples of things that could serve as well at least simple or starting proxies for these different dimension of red plus in the landscape performance in terms of livelihoods it can be related to Amount earned or return or things like GDP in terms of ecosystem services the tons of biomass in the landscapes in terms of pollution and resource efficiency the amount of CO2 emitted or the Tons of products delivered in both food and non food Context so it is one Important objective also for the monitoring community to take these multiple dimensions Into account to assess the impacts of red plus also in a broader context so This idea of having simple measurable things is at the core of that And as I would mention Some of you have been aware or are aware that three days ago and that a paper came out in science by Matt Henson and colleagues that looked at or that provided a global An annual assessment of forest cover gains and losses for 2012 and this is the map that has been Produced in fact you can view it on the on the web and the one of the question is so is that one of these simple Indicators that we can use to help us to monitor Red plus on the landscape scale. Well first of all what you see is from a very Broad perspective, where do you see the most red dots on these map? The ones I see mostly are in the Canada and somewhere in Russia All right, those are the ones that I that I pick pick up and in Canada Those are also in Russia. Those are mostly fires All right, those are fires that have basically reduced The forest cover and has that that's that's when he picked up and in Canada It's also linked to harvesting of operations the things that have been there's a plantations things that have been Harvested and replanted as part of rotational harvesting cycles So it is a measure of forest cover gains and losses It doesn't tell us very easily what is actually behind that besides Analysis like this because the detail of these analysis is quite good. It's 30 meters spatial Resolution this is very detailed It's the scale that we are thinking in terms of landscapes and human interactions with the landscape So in that sense it has the right thing and in fact it is an advertisement of what remote sensing and Global remote sensing can actually do today We do have to be careful when interpreting these things for example gross forest cover loss of the loss of forest Can be natural causes. It can be human causes It can result in land use change. It can regenerate to forest It can succeed to non forest So the the signal that we get in terms of forest cover gain and loss is not easily Attributed to specific human activities, which is in my sense a problem When it comes to assessing landscapes get performance because red plus for example is about human induced changes So it is an interesting measure and it is provides a consistent global picture But it will have limitations or people have to understand the limitations of apply using the data and applying the data for specific frame for specific context for specific accounting framework for for example, and so The paper doesn't the scientists don't claim that what they're providing is deforestation Although sometimes it is understood that that way So to some to sum up that landscape thinking is Inherent to red plus in particular now that we move to phase 2 and that this issue of addressing drivers and thinking about Impact in the port port of sale are really coming up that national red plus monitor goes beyond forests And it includes drivers carbon non carbon benefit and it has to provide some base to share benefits Monitoring red plus landscapes has to look for simple and measurable Indicators and that is very important and I'd see that as a charge for the monitoring Community community and one way that we start to have to provide an answer for that is because red plus is moving to phase 2 now With the performance base pain as part of the carbon fund or by For other donors that are now really starting to take shape Thank you Can you hear on this? Yes. I'm happy to introduce the next speaker Fae as I know her son, but her full name is Maria Fernanda Gabra. She's working at the at the Rio Federal University of Rio Among other places and also being actively involved in this project to update us on Brazil. So welcome Thank you, Eric Thanks actually to all the organizers for being here It's a pleasure for me and it's very inspiring to be in such a meeting especially in this room as Martin noticed and Hello, everyone. I am here to present some of the social and political dimensions of financing MRV and benefit sharing in Brazil and I will start With some red context in Brazil So in 2003 a group of NGOs proposed to the when FCC see a compensated reduction Where developing countries would be compensated by emissions reduction from deforestation at the same time The government of Brazil started to construct the plan to reduce deforestation called PPC down Which was published in the next year in 2004 after that in 2006 the government of Brazil proposes to the when FCC see a voluntary regime for red in 2007 a group of NGOs signed a zero deforestation pact and Promoted it in the National Congress and at the same time the state of Amazonas created the Bolsa Floresta program In 2008 the government's launch is a national climate plan the national plan for climate change Also created the Amazon fund and the first red project started to be implemented the Juma project in the state of Amazonas in 2009 the government launches the national policy for climate change establishing voluntary targets for mitigation and also The go the governments of Amazon. They start the Amazon governance governors forum in 2010 We submit some national mitigation actions to the when FCC see also the Ministry of Environment Creates different working groups to start debating the red national strategy a group of NGOs led by Ima Flora Institute research Institute in Brazil created the principal and criteria for red Also, the government's launch of two important plans one to reduce deforestation in the se rado is the equivalent of PPC done is the PPC Hado and also the plan to reduce emissions from from agricultural from the agriculture sector the ABC plan Finally in 2011 The government created the interministerial working group for red to discuss the national strategy And also we had some the red NPS bills being discussed and some meetings to start Constructing the safeguard systems systems. Sorry in 2012 last year the straight states created a task force for red Also, the government made available the first draft of of the national strategy for civil society and the Feep investment plan from the forest investment program Was approved for Brazil and also the last version of the forest code was published by the government Finally this year we proposed for the one FCC see some guidance on red a technical issues in bone and we have many Subnational initiatives including state laws on red and also more than 50 projects that relate to red being implemented in Brazil and this is a figure of some some Scenarios for future deforestation if all these actions weren't in place So this is what would happen from 2006 until 2050 May mainly the deforestation of course Near the rivers and the roads So from the draft of the national strategy and this is this is being discussed between the ministries and is led by the Ministry of environment so it may change But the main objectives would be reducing differs reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation by 2020 according With what is established by the national policy for climate change Also achieve zero net deforestation in 2020 Maintain and restore ecosystem services and other functions of forest ecosystems and also promotes the sustainable development Of fragiles with forests So going to the financial mechanism that the national level we have the Amazon funds Which receives donations from Norway Petra Brice in the government of German and also the national climate fund Created by the national policy for climate change which receives donation from Petra Brice as well Which is our national agency for oil exploitation? At the subnational level we have some states climate funds such as the state of Amazonas funds Also have some agreements between states such as the Acre and California agreements and some some Local funds being developed such as the Surui fund and the San Felix the shingles fund And there is also the biodiversity fund Which receives donations from Jeff the Amazon fund and others and some public budget being available for ads as well At the international level from the the bond proposal that Brazil submitted in the middle of this year Brazil is betting pretty much in the green climate fund And it suggested two acts on to financing one for directed for the national governments another one directed to other actors and Subject to a no objection procedure by national authorities and Finally a po ex post payments to be disbursed according to me mitigation results Neither of these options preclude or nor exclude others according to the proposal submitted Including market-based approaches, but they say in the proposal that these discussions are not yet mature and it Come on understanding at the international level the proposal also suggests the national authority that would Be responsible for the disease To recommend proposals and consult other proposals and also be responsible for presenting Proposals under modality a of the green that of what they suggested for the glean climate fund and Applying for grants under modality C and for the no objection procedure and the modality B This national authority would work in close coordination with other nationals authorities and maybe even the same if appropriate In terms of monitoring Brazil is one of the most advanced countries in the world in capacity to monitor its forests Using remote sensing and GIS Technologies at the national level we have the National Institute for Special Research With four different initiatives to monitor deforestation and degradation including a one which is the project that they launched as Recently a mission model to monitor emissions gg emissions as well and also the National Institute for environment Producing also data on on deforestation levels at the national level and at the Subnational level we have partnerships between the minister of environment and states at the local level We have the partnership between Surui and Google to monitor the Surui lands and other initiatives by the civil society institutions such as Amazon we pun the Federal University of Minas Gerais Going to reporting the bone proposal made them in the middle of this year established is that reference levels would be Determined by a focal point at the national level but following when FCC decisions and Also, this would be based on projected emissions for 2020 determined by the national policy for climate change and these admissions were projected based on deforestation historical deforestation levels Results would be approved at national level first and then at the international level and Consultation process and analysis would occur at national level, but with greater detailing at the international level Verification and performance for Brazil verification is to ensure transparency and funding So the government believe that believes that verification is there for domestic and this Generated a great discussion in the last copy in Durban Where Brazil was arguing the no developing country will have international Verification of its sections because it could cause disadvantages Against other sections and also add some additional obligations and the thing Aerialed can give some inputs on that as the main Opposer to this position was norway and they were arguing that they were willing to pay as long as they could be Sure that they are paying for actual emissions reductions I'm not sure if this discussion was solved already by the by this meeting now But I hope it will at some point and the indicator would be the tone of co2 equivalent Maintain door reduced it and this would be verified by a technical scientific committee at the national level created by the national strategy and They consider they they believe that it's possible to consider other indicators, but it still lacks a wider global debate They also proposed in bone an international verification tool which wouldn't be centralized and Results after being endorsed by cop They would be published at the UNFCCC website Indicating the country the year the reference levels and if the country was paid or not And also for them international level results based payments can can best support using a national jurisdiction such as as reference sorry and but in an interim basis of national reference levels could also be used So the way that the this draft of the strategy relates MRV and Finance is in financing is like these they suggest the creation of executive authority at the national level Which would be responsible for approving the MRV process and reporting back to investors and Also, they would generate a red unit and these units would be would be the one responsible for payments by results and These would allow the financing process and also after that the resources would be distributed by to beneficiaries So going to benefit sharing at the international level Brazil believes it should be Determined independently to recognize the whole of different sectors and In relation to the green climate funds They suggest is that disbursements should occur based on total results over a period of time rather than in a fixed monetary value At the national level, they don't the government don't doesn't have yet a clear position on how it's work They suggested the Amazon funds as the main instrument also the the suggested the use of economic instruments and The descent the decentralization from the Amazon funds with the core Implementing new instruments and types of financing but they were really the strategy this draft of the strategy is really vague and Doesn't mention any examples of the economic instruments of these new instruments. They aim to create So I brought here some initiatives from the local level. I don't want to go through all of this because of time But it's just to show some examples and how projects are Investing resources in in terms of benefits and as you can see, there are many types of benefits some of them's Relate some of them relates to redness activities and from the examples The examples I took just one of them is using direct payments, which is the Bolsa Floresta program going to the safeguards Brazil in 2010 as I mentioned in the in the timeline led by IMA flora and and other groups of NGOs they launched the red social and environmental principle and criteria and it was construct with great participation from different actors from civil society including local actors and And also it's been used as a as a model by many countries and also by the ministry of its Building the Ministry of Environment debate on the construction of the system for safeguards and from this debate from these meetings that the Ministry of Environment organized during 2011 There were some safeguards there was suggested to be included in the national strategy Including governance monitoring Transparency benefit sharing and others The Amazon funds also established some safeguards in according to the when FCC decision But there is no monitoring of the implementation of this safeguards So going to the conclusions in terms of challenges I would say the nesting activities from Subnational and local levels to national level to guarantee accountability is one of the main challenges of Brazil Also the attribution of results. How do we really link the MRV with the performance and the benefit sharing in order to have the results based payments? improve monitoring and measurement of Amazon funds results and monitoring safeguards and Key lessons I would say that advanced monitoring systems are not enough to guarantee performance Therefore performance indicators are critical and we also need to think about the the policy scape and by that I mean like it's really important to look at the landscape But not alone. I think we should also look at the different the mix of policies that are acting in a specific Landscape especially when we deal with such a big country like Brazil There is totally different even in the Amazon. We have totally different realities and I'll leave you with this picture from an Indian trying to hit the Development Bank in Rio during the Rio plus 20 because I think this reflects pretty much this Conflicts of bread implementation because this bank is the one responsible for managing the Amazon funds, but at the same time is responsible for Funding many of the initiatives that are causing deforestation in in the Amazon and in other biomes So that's that's why I think it's really important to look at this policy scape and not be just Looking at the the policy from the forest sector and try to look at the whole landscape and policy scape Thank you We're going to move from the largest rainforest country to the tallest country in the world Of course, that's Nepal That's my students telling me that okay. It's a small country, but at least we are the tallest Naya pandal working with forest action in Nepal and been involved in much of the red activities and also the GSS project, so Thank you and Welcome everyone and as Nepal is not yet there in terms of developing its MRV and Other required studies like reference and other thing and it's just to developing its red national lady strategy But many of the knowledge gaps are still there so we are much behind in terms of No sharing the experience of landscape level Activities in terms of MRV and so what I would bring you here is more kind of process particularly starting from Nepal's very successful community forestry and other community-based natural resource management schemes at the community level at watershed level and slightly moving up to the landscape level and how does those lessons from the natural resource management conservation can be actually Read in to the development of MRV so that would be my emphasis particularly bringing two cases one the experimentation or practice with the natural resource management and second Some of the piloting with the raid and also pace and then drawing lessons from those practices I'll start from community forestry because this is the I think only area where we can Confidently, you know, say as we have done something good in Nepal otherwise in terms of politics economy We are in a failed state almost and for last ten years of political conflict violent conflict and then Followed by almost four or five years of still ongoing political transition Waiting for another election and waiting for new constitution. So so it's the only proud thing that we can share and The the community forestry in Nepal is not only in terms of coverage of the population also in terms of its economic and social and Environmental benefits, but also it provides a lot of other lessons to Generate or to build on Either for raid or a climate adaptation or other democratic processes starting from these grassroot emerging institutions Why this is so Strong community forestry experience there is primarily it has a very strong policy and legal foundations very robust institutions at the grassroot level and the the institution and the Policy and legal framework fits very much with a kind of traditional socio-ecological setting of the country and that's why it hasn't very successful And I think we can learn a lot from these experience particularly in the context of raid ads at Through red we certainly wanted to protect forest and reduce emission But we moving up from these small forest patches that are managed by a small Communities and we also have experience of the managing watershed Or a small protected area There are several examples starting from late 80s and 90s but we have observed some asymmetry, you know in terms of managing these watershed particularly asymmetry in terms of the political and administrative unit and also the civic institutions are on the one hand and the second hand We have these ecologically units ecological boundaries two of them doesn't fit quite but at least in terms of these these Watershed management we are trying to develop Institutions at that level which are in a way federated local institutions Or coordination among government agencies and government agencies and private agencies and civic agencies but still there are some gaps and in terms of the institutional robustness and also in terms of the environmental gain and these are not that much successful as we have community forestry But moving up from these watershed level Experiences we also have several projects In terms of trying to manage the resources at the landscape level So both in the northern. I'm just trying to juxtapose is to hear two different maps Which doesn't fit well? But there are some landscapes where different conservation projects are operating this time but we can see these red little bits down there in the Western side which are protected areas and some corridors and then other settlements and You can see this area is divided into different political and administrative unit and the There is no institution at the landscape level either Political level or the administrative level or at the civic level so because there are no Or there are differences or there are asymmetries between this political administrative and civic institutions and the Initiative to manage this landscape level resources Mostly these are managed by No central level entities Trying to pull people from different sectors and then set up some kind of project management committee steering or coordinating But these institutions doesn't fit well with the existing institutions there. So they're such some level of Latent conflict or lack of coordination or lack of authority exist there. So When we go up from these small patches of community managed forest to what to say to landscape level certainly we have faced a different institutional challenges and When we go up to the national level and just bringing up here one of the recent analysis on the drivers of deforestation in Nepal Which shows a range of proximate drivers up there and then underlying causes of drivers and Given the Nepalese government's capacity to deal with these various economic and socio social policy or corruption oriented and other issues It looks like that the government will almost be Unable to address the drivers at the national level So there is a an implicit Tendency from within the government that we may not be able to address the drivers at national level. So We should find some particular landscape where we can better focus We strategize our whole resources and efforts so that we can show some results so the complexity of drivers and the the complexity of dynamics Has also no kind of encouraged government to take these Landscape approach, but then there are a skill some challenges Now I will shut slightly go to the red piloting Well in terms of the national policy process The government is we have this red cell within the ministry of forest and this particular Entity is coordinating national red readiness process Through the support of World Bank FCPF program and there are also other agencies working in the periphery But the process is very slow and we are not yet in the Second phase we are still in the first phase, but there are parallel piloting going on at the word shed level where Some kind of experimentation is going on on benefit sharing creating some kind of forest carbon trust fund and then the national advisory committee there and then down we have this watershed level Red net and then down trying to bundling our number of community forest user groups Which are a small passes of 200 actors 300 actor 50 actors the average size of Nepalese community forest are 85 actors so trying to bundling these different groups into that watershed level network and then Trying to develop monitoring and Benefit sharing within that word shed level but then we have observed a number of challenges at the Landscape level initiative in piloting rate particularly when the new institution That was introduced as a part of coordinating body of these local groups So the the introduction of these groups has created a slight Latent tension with the existing ones because the existing System is not operating at the watershed level It has the administrative unit is at the national level the district level and the local level The watershed level doesn't fit Either in the district or in the local level so it is in somewhere in between so These what said level units they can't coordinate with the district level They can't fit at the local level so there is some kind of misfit between the existing political administrative units and the Ecological units that we are trying to experiment with and there is similar another piloting on payment for environmental services in one of the hydropower scheme so we have this hydropower a scheme that pays a 12% of its revenue To the local governments And then out of that a 20% goes to the upstream communities and the whole intent is to protect the watershed upstream of the hydropower but because of the existing legal system the money goes through local government to the village development committees without the local governments at the lowest level and These bodies would you spend that money particularly in construction road and which is one of the key drivers of deforestation and causing siltation and sedimentation so the whole purpose of Protecting the watershed is not working here so with this to No kind of piloting Both at the rate and also in the for the pace we can see that the Very grass root level institutions community forestry organization or other community based organization They are functioning very well But once you gradually go up from that level there are some challenges in terms of the institutional robustness in terms of the symmetry between the existing Political and administrative units and the new institution that we are promoting and Also the kind of needed coordination between different institutions Now in this context the government is also trying to develop Project at the landscape level while the national process is going on it. It is also encouraged by a certain I think part of the support from the World Bank and is going to you know is developing a project at the Landscape level But I see some problems there one because there are no institutions at the landscape level to actually define the tenure to Maintain the data to monitor and maintain the data and to actually one and Kind of take the accountability or responsibility to protect to manage sustainability of that area so the the pace of piloting or going through this landscape level project and the actual preparedness in terms of the institutions and Other preparedness is not there yet. And so some of the messages from my Presentation here based on the community forestry and What to say level management and in landscape level management and the rate piloting Is that the the local level institutions? Which are very strong robust and managing forest well for last 20 30 years So how can we build on from that local level experience? When we go up upper level higher level without losing the Institutional robust net without losing the tenure security without losing the kind of ownership that the communities and other Institutions are taking off. So that is one challenge. I can see the second when most of these conservation initiatives went up to the higher level and the world the landscape is being used just to just to refer that the Larger scale of resource but not adequately know bringing up the Diversity of actors and institutions and dynamics Which actually we would like to see within the landscape debate so that it's because the drivers of forest Sorry deforestation are not only within the forest sector and that are other a strong actors So how to integrate these different actors at the landscape level so that we can have a better or successful rate so I think the the simple one conclusion I would like to draw is When we move towards a landscape based rate We must focus Educately on the institutional aspects whether that can support landscape level or not. Thank you Thank you Just to be reminded that about the cards where you can write questions if you would like to or Send it more in there in the is it working? Yeah so Tweeting Df3 hashtag Df3 Plus this a GLF cop 19 hashtag also or the sheets if you would like to to write But there will be a Q&A session just after this. So let me introduce Daniel Murdi asso a red guru from Indonesia and Guru in Indonesia and means teacher and he's not just a guru. He's a big teacher guru Bessar Which is professor of methodology also and has been a long time involved in both the mrv work and Red work in general Indonesia and the policy process and from a more scientific point of view So an excellent background for your presentation on the mrv and performance based system in Indonesia Welcome. Well, thank you. I real talking about guru. I'm also talking about students. It's Really associated with this room Martin said said about the sentiment about the room when I was student the room was like this In the sense of the flipping seat you have and that's also signify when the student were Satisfied with the lecture and it was not so depressing. They can squeeze move out the room very quietly But if it is very depressing they can go out and bang the seat So I will mrv you the way you bang the seat when you leave the room Anyway, so the talk I'm going to share with you here is Our observation as far as Indonesia is concerned in implementing red But putting landscape into the context is is quite a challenge it is an ongoing kind of processes very quick and and Fast process in the past six or seven years or so Okay, so I will Set the scene by telling the story about the forest governance in Indonesia and then the way red was accepted and and process national and sub national level in in the last few years and how can I think this is the the the topic of the day how the mrv is Really presented so that the credibility is secured and in a broader scale is not project but landscape level and then the story about the Financing which is still a work and in progress at the moment and It's also associated and closely related what is being discussed and negotiated in Warsaw here and We will take some Messages home what's what's this happening after this and Expectedly especially if there are colleagues from Indonesia or those who are working in Indonesia can have some some lessons here It's a long story of forest governance in Indonesia Started off back in the 70s. It's very much centralized governed by national law very strong and Included in that process is the permitting and issuance of of license So a lot of activities going on in the 70s the 80s Very fast deforestation occur For the development of the national economy So forestry has been the backbone of national economy in the past 20 years the national revenue is Somewhere around six or seven billion US dollar a year coming from forestry sectors related activities and Of course most of the activities are goods related activities Surfaces is not there and in the agenda even climate change is way from the forestry activities in Indonesia and then very recently in the early 2000 the Government is very much decentralized but of course without Problem there's a lot of problem with regard to the capacity in the regional or district governance lot of issuance of permits of Forest-related activities issued by the local government and with low capacities in doing that of course the associated calamities including a mission of greenhouse gases is Extensive it's happened everywhere in the region the use of fire is very prominent and as the local government is trying to catch up with what is going to happen in the local level and It leaves a lot of gaps in term of capacity in in various aspect and Looking at forests in the landscape now is it going to be forests in the future this kind of Setting in the landscape is being discussed now where the oil palm will be part of force so it's a huge challenge as far as research and Also the implementation by the local government the player of the private sector looking at the changing landscape in Indonesia Where most of the development are based on forest and forest land, which is at the moment governed by one single ministry So when red was introduced lot of actors play in the role and various Initiative was implemented including very early stage of Multilateral engagement with with donors to try to understand what was the underlying causes of deforestation People start to consult with each other a lot of activities going on with regard to trying to understand what red is all about and that started off soon after Montreal When red with single 1d was discussed So basically people were talking about deforestation or even avoiding deforestation so Various sector within forestry was trying to understand what is the implication for Plantation what's the implication for pop industry oil palm expansion and also agricultural sectors and then the activities year up towards a better understanding of Real activities to try to help at the deforestation by developing the so-called demonstration activities Try to understand what is the baseline was from the previous Experience when the CDM was implemented. Is it the same? Exactly the opposite the baseline is trying to measure the addition of of Carbon in the landscape while CDM was trying to understand the reduction and then Safeguard was also discussed during the implementation of the so-called Kalimantan forest carbon partnership supported by Australia and also you and red in various district in Indonesia and then even dealing with Norway was very Monumental in terms of Involvement of stakeholder while carrying the experience from various initiative a lot of things happened in the past three four years When the letter of intent between Indonesia and Norway was signed Activities including the development of national red strategies very intense consultation Development of pilot province whether it was pilot or district is a big debate about that in the process and then the MRV and finance Mechanism so in the past six or seven years the the curve of The learning is really very steep and people Confused people are understand better and Various different kind of of interest in in that process and it's getting bigger and bigger in term of involvement or Interaction between agencies individual and you and and also private sector so at the moment people are waiting for what's going to happen here in Warsaw or 2015 with regard to MRV and the mechanism the modality so red will be implemented in the onset of this process the National red strategy was published last year and It contains exactly what we are discussing here looking at red not only from project-based activities, but very much Looking at landscape level is not forestry oriented only it's looking at other activities dealing with sustainable development at landscape level But still trying to understand how to to move this beyond What is currently or business as usual implementation in forestry sector? so with the Development or establishment of the red agency very recently This process will likely going to move forward and The MRV institution will be in place to help out with the process of financing the red activities so at the same time a lot of Project activities going on in the region While the capital the central government is busy with that process in developing the strategy a lot of activities in Sumatra in Kalimantan and also in the eastern part of Indonesia even in in very less Least forest cover region red related activities are going happening so How about the MRV in this various project with different stage of development different capacity different? way of doing it different partners that's what the red agency is going to tackle in the near future and As far as MRV system is concerned the main issue here Well, while we are here in Warsaw being discussed here is the credibility how the measurement is really following the rule and it is Secured in terms of methodology in terms of the numbers. We are talking about the politics of number Which reference level is going to be used? That's a highly debated at the moment When people talk about deforestation rate of I don't know 2.3 1.5 million hectares and the government number is about 1.6 and then recent publication and as it was mentioned is almost three times higher in term of deforestation rate Well, it's a good Proxy in term of what's happening on the ground the deforestation rate, but more important is the emission rate Because most of Indonesian forestry sector activities right now is happening in Pitland Out of 20 million hectares of Pitland only 3 million are protected So the rest the majority of it is already licensed So sooner or later this ecosystem will be converted for something else in the landscape and The emission is no longer Sensitive to area, but the intensity of carbon in that landscape So looking at Pitland is very strategic Looking at high carbon reservoir is very important in order to have a better MRV and credible MRV and Again, the estimate so far is based on mainly stock chains when when it is going to be improved Flux approach would be desirable Of course the IPCC is is not meant for developing project It is it is a tool to do the national greenhouse gas infantry But at least the good practice guidance is there that countries can refer to so that the the credibility of MRV Can be contested So as far as the financial mechanism is concerned it is an ongoing Progress looking at the Financial financing rate in Indonesia is called Freddie. So it's like the Amazon fund. It's a grand-making. It's a trust fund and Basically, it's not one single source of funding to develop this project. It's multiple Broad array of activities and opportunities from small-scale community base to large-scale Corporate operation, etc. The the good thing of this framework is that it is it has a guiding principle and safeguard is included in that mechanism and the governance system is is is secured by the depressions of What is going to be the board of trustees of this Freddie? So how the the benefit will be shared? That's a big question with regard to different size different Modalities of project on the ground It has been discussed the possibility as using the so-called nesting approach If there are various project in various sub-national level It's got to have a marvy system on its own It might have different reference level or using national reference level and then compare The performance based on the national reference so that the the crediting or debiting of carbon can be can be made the questions here is how One will have to attribute this Attribute attribution is a big questions here Right. So it's nesting like this going to be the the likely Process it looks very fragile but it will deliver if Someone is going to do the right thing. It will deliver the offspring or is it going to be very rigid very Jurisdictional in terms of boundary which might also Create some challenges in terms of attribution So still going on how the distribution or sharing of the benefit will be So the key message to take home here is that We should not wait The momentum is there and Indonesia can proceed with the existing rules if it is Going to be a kind of Example the the IPCC can can be the the surrogate of the process And if that is the case countries has the experience there are a lot of people who have the experience of being the national What do you call it data? Compiler in term of Sectoral emissions including forestry sector. So numbers are there. It's a matter of securing or Promising the credibility So nested approach might be the way of paying or sharing the benefit but It's a lot of things need to be thought about it. Thank you Going to open up the floor in just a few minutes Depending on how long but I just want to have a small first round of questions that I that came up as we were talking Here to each of the three or four speakers. It's important to know how to count As they say there there are three types of people in the world those that can count and those that cannot count and Martin I just wonder you have worked in a number of countries on MRV in Guiana and advice for example and several other countries but I just and for many of these countries we're starting really from scratch so my Question my simple question is to you what? Could have been done more and you can maybe take some examples What could the countries and the donors and others have done more if we had better Monitoring systems in place. How has that hindered us? So what could he have done differently if it was so what has been the cost of not having invested more in that for decades? Okay, thank you for the question The first red plus phase as it called it's called readiness was really the objective is just to get countries ready and started To move eventually to phase two, which I think we are now on the on the edge of moving to phase two and one of these Investments that have been made in the readiness phase is to invest in monitoring capacities and improve data And take for example Guiana as a case that had started with almost no Systematic observations of the forest moved into an System where they went to annual reporting on forest related changes and Emissions to Norway and is actually getting compensated based on that one of the things that and I've just been talking to you and out two weeks ago about this and one of the discussions that came up and there was been the person from the Gunner forestry Commission Told me oh, you know what our deforestation rate for mining went up last year and and and you know we are really worried about this and And I said well, I mean, it's not good that your deforestation rate went up because of mining But at least you have a tool that tells you that your deforestation rate cups of mining and then she said Yeah, and then there was all this public debate in the media and all of that and doesn't this is exactly what you want If you have the information and we have the data that it's not only about deforestation But it's the deforestation of mining and we know it's not so easy to deal with the mining sector in some of these cases That is the kind of tools that you have to actually start The engagement of multiple stakeholders the public of all kinds of actors to actually stimulate that debate But this is a very important Lesson that at least I can share from the Guiana site What I see in country readiness in country readiness Plans as they were and I I think I showed the example of analyzing these in terms of how to address the drivers is I think Some of them could have gone a bit further in these thinking that I think we're discussing here today So what are the drivers? What can we do about it and who needs to be engaged and Stimulated to participate in that and that depending on the driver usually requires a lot of broad thinking and you know multiple sectors and and and and and all of and all of that and that as I think something that That that's still some kind of at least a little bit behind of actually getting to that point and That is because red bus was very much seen as a forest related activity And from a greenhouse gas point of view it is still very much a forest related activity but from an implementation point of view it is much broader and I think that's where more data on that or more information on how to link understanding of drivers to doing things differently and to stimulate that transformational change in fact that is needed to make red plus work and that has Multiple dimensions and if you read some of the C4 publications on on that That's I think by monitoring could have done a bit better and actually so and monitoring and using the data could have done a bit better Fernando I've got a question on Tweeted on hashtag DF3 to remind you but in the context of of red and Perhaps also MRV system that have in place how the protective the protection of the of the land rights of indigenous communities How that has been integrated and incorporated Or in the context of maybe broader the red they how protection of indigenous land rights how they have that has been taken into account Yeah, in indigenous rights are protected by the constitution We have one of the most advanced institutions in relation to indigenous rights but recently in The this government in the Dilma government since 2010 we consider that there was a like going back because she she wants to change some of of the the the norms there are in the Constitution through some measures that she can True decrease and and specific presidential measures that she can do and one of them is a Specific in relation to the demarcation of indigenous lands So there this was one of the the reasons why There were a lot of protests in in Brasilia recently about this What they call the pack the a manned to the constitution proposal a manned to the constitution and but it's still under debate and Going to the to the red debate. I would say that There is already some Views from both from the FUNAI which is the the agency that that regulates indigenous that looks for the implementation of this indigenous rights and they they actually did Like a Statement saying that they believe that the carbon rights and and the right for Negotiating this carbon belongs to indigenous because of this constitution constitutional norms and Also, there was also the the public ministry They also did an statement in relation to that because of some cases of carbon cowboys in Brazil in last year 2012 and Also, they they also consider the same opinion of FUNAI where they should have these rights protected because they already have the the right to to the use of fruit of all the benefits of their lands In the constitution. So that's why they they are they believe in this Naya you come from the birthplace of Community forest management at least what that's what you claim And I think it's correct Just one you said that the kind of interesting that that you have at the local level you you have Okay decent good institutions and and perhaps something at the top also you are developing there the national But it's really at the intermediate the landscape the watershed level I thought can you can't you just scale up the community management or cannot you are you looking for something really? Qualitatively different from or is it just as we also often see in the debate Why don't you just scale up community management or are you looking for something very different? I think not completely different There are some practices where the community forestry managers and management not only operates in very small scale like 100 hectare to extract 200 hectare in some cases we have like 4,000 hectares Community managing and it's not only a few hundred families night 200 2,000 3,000 households also managing but I think there is not adequate impasses to look into it and learn from how the Community forest user groups are making innovations in terms of managing the relatively larger landscape and just we are trying to Know copy from protected area system or the other system and not adequately Looking at and then drawing lessons from community forest user groups and how these lessons can be scaled up I think this is part of the government deliberative choice or The choice of other actors as well. So my point is yes There are lessons not completely we cannot completely replicate it But certainly we can draw many of the things from these grassroot institutions and can build up To manage larger landscape, but certainly we need more stronger political will to recognize and to build on from there Good Daniel Indonesia is a very diverse country Also when it comes to national deforestation figures and national deforestation maps and you have gotten some more maps recently Now and this has been a major issue. I know in in the Indonesian debate about different figures from environment first and so on now Is this a real problem or is it a convenient excuse for for not doing more? well, I think two things here associated with your questions one is The history as I said The way People perceive these activities is very much related to forestry sector If you're implementing red that's that's forestry That's the history, but changing the history Overnight is is impossible and that is associated with the awareness about data and data quality and also clarity so Everybody is is trying to perform right Because they use their own perspective in term of deforestation rate because forest is defined as such and such From their perspective in other perspective is defined different way. So the numbers come up with different figures so moving from one history to another or mindset from one to another is an important step to make in order to address the issue of Landscape the issue of productivity the issue of climate change So it's it's not a simple answer We have to agree on such and such hectare or million hectare per year or ton of CO2 per year, but let's Come to a consensus what we mean by deforestation and which Definition of forest we are going to use So set back a little bit and then we make a consensus. That's that's my my Suggestion with the risk of sitting for a while and agreeing on on data before The implement policies is is is that is not a real risk? That I mean you can this discussions about okay. Was it 1.6 or 2. Whatever and and then that's delaying the whole policy process. I Guess it already has done that Yes, this number of political So if you're settling with this There will be less noise later on So it's important to sit and set back a little bit and then and agree to agree So sit back, but not for too long and I Would like to open the floor now for for questions You know, I don't see very well and also the cards that we can use and submit to those who walk around at least We are one gentlemen here Hello, my name is Krithon Arsena. I'm a member of the European Parliament that are put on force protection and to lose it We just decided the European Parliament to allocate a fund of 1.2 million for research very related to what we discussed here how the absence of roads can lead can work as an early success indicator for red plus projects and I would like to ask our friend The scientists from Brazil you said that all the upcoming deforestation is very related to roads and riverways Has there been any discussion? Of how you will you can address these drivers of deforestation there. Thank you very much Thank you for the question. I think there are a lot of discussions especially under of the Ministry of Environment, but I don't know I think since the decade of The 70s there is always this conflict about development and conservation in relation to the Amazon So at the same time that we we have all that measures that I showed in the timeline and everything We have other things going on in other sectors, especially in relation to infrastructure and also in the energy sector that are kind of Antimitigating this other measures from the forest sector So at the same time that that there are discussions There is always the question about what is what is more important development or Conserving the forest. So I think it's more or less that and and I don't know if you saw it but recently there was this new about the Levels of deforestation the rays of the levels of deforestation So it's mainly because of infrastructure projects as well. You happy with that any more questions Welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Till Neve. I have a question for Daniel Murdi Arso This is a question related to your presentation when you talked a lot about the nested approach and Where you showed the slide with all these projects that are already going on in Indonesia And I wanted to pick up on One of the sentences that I've saw on the that I've seen on the last slide that you showed where you where I believe you wrote that Results based payments through the nested approach may be feasible I think your vote may be feasible or something very similar and what Many of us like to read in that is that they are feasible But what you're implying also is that they might just not be feasible and one of the other things that you said in your presentation is that there are capacity gaps at places when it comes to greenhouse gas inventory systems at the regional levels and I'm just wondering what you believe will happen in Indonesia during the next years Or likely is it that That this famous multi-level MRV system would be built up that will allow for consistent estimates Between national level project levels provincial levels or is it more that we are headed towards a situation We're much of the investments that have already been undertaken with the projects are likely to just go out of the window Thank you very much right well the Key message I put up there is very much related to your questions with regard to the various type and and science and also initiative on the ground because there will be People imagine there will be no single bullets that will you know satisfy all this different model and knows one size fits for all so that's why the the Freddy scheme is trying to be very flexible at the onset and perhaps it will take the shape In few years until they really learn the lessons from what's what's really The real project is on the ground because with regard to that demonstration activities most of them are locally initiated and Very likely they have no Sustainability in term of continuing with the project and It has to be to be tackled very carefully compare with for example the bigger one with large investment large support from bilateral scheme and Strong NGO to help so the various kind of project that may Be able to enjoy the existing interim Freddy scheme But at the end of the day they should be a System that can satisfy all these possibilities The second question is not too clear for me. Can you can you put it in a shorter version? Or anybody can help you do you want to take the short one Liner of your question the second question It's okay and I Got one question from from here on the law and pick Brazil and palm where Would you cover as many forest policies success stories prior to red? so so the fundamental question is is for example in both countries to How do you distinguish is it really to the credit of red and red may be understood as the international initiative starting from 2007 in Bali Cop in Bali How do you distinguish and and is it really they're the good policies or sorry the Positive development we have seen in both of those two countries Can it be attributed to red or is it more of the accumulated long policy history? maybe No for us. I think we don't have any direct link with the red yet to measure the Forest implement it's is the 20 25 years back community forest history started since late 80s and The rate piloting is just in a few well less than 100 community forestry user groups out of 18,000 user group So in terms of rate contribution to first conservation It's almost insignificant in that way both because of both Duty the very small size and also because of the very short history so I think we can't link the Community forestry and its development with the red it's it's long-term policy legal and Certainly a lot of international aid support and then a strong community institution that we can attribute Thinking the case of Brazil There is a link because as you saw in the timeline after red many policies came up in the national level and also the Amazon fund was created after Bali and the national climate policy with with Voluntary targets, I think it's all related to the to the international level debate in general not not just with red But the main missions from Brazil come from the first station so this would be the link with red and Also some some of the the plans that are included in the national climate policy They were launched after red and there was this After the international discussions They they kind of like get kind of slowly as well in the national scenario We saw this is slowing just slowing down in terms of decisions important decisions but from what I've heard from a meeting that there were some government Representatives there they actually believe it. There is not a link with red. They believe it's more related to the historic policy history of Brazil and They they also think they were already in the readiness phase before Reading coming up in the international negotiations. So The first one is my personal opinion the second one. It's what the government thinks Presume your mainly represent yourself Thanks We can have some more questions. I have also a question here, but if some more from the floor So one question to any who'd like to answer here is about the The question is this how big an issue is the sufficiency of and predictability of funds I mean international funds in the coming years given that The funds internationally that have been committed are not fully well They they are not fully committed. They are more vague promises and we know that everything that is promised Is not in the end delivered And second voluntary carbon markets, they are weak and volatile and and to get a compliance market It still hinges on we're getting a good strong Paris protocol in 2015 and So the question is how big an issue is this and given that It may not come the big funds that maybe one envisioned just few years ago How big an issue you mean to keep the momentum is to have the big international money close to the countries So I don't know Daniel if you would like to start That's that's a good thing of the landscape approach so People like a gamble these days. So what's going to happen if nothing happened and A lot of preparation have been done from both sides You know spend a lot of time and and money to prepare and get things ready, but the global process is declining or Getting downward So the the landscape approach and which is also in the document of the Indonesian red plus strategy is Looking at broader kind of views in terms of managing the landscape So deforestation will Continue to my opinion will take place, but maybe in in different kind of way and A development of land is still going on because most of the land have already been licensed meaning that the tenure Is is there and it's it's a long-term tenure so I think if the Market the carbon market swing towards red The current preparation should quickly adjust to the situation and if it's not There is a no regret kind of policy with regard to landscape wide policy in in managing the land nationwide so red plus is one of the component to reduce the emission and again specific for Indonesia if if pitland and mangrove other high carbon reservoir is managed properly or Development is done carefully The emission reduction target, which is the pledge of the nation is very likely going to be achieved Because this is the the most important ecosystem that can contribute to that emission reduction target The remaining land like secondary forest upland forest It's already gone in term of carbon stock above the ground in term of emission but pitland even though the The forest is already gone the emission is still taking place How water regime will be managed those those kind of thing are in this strategy So if this kind of thing is implemented whether or not they will be red mechanism The emission reduction will be achieved just a small story from Nepal you see more has No, has had a piloting project in three different watersates and it provided I think a hundred thousand dollar to different three watersates for three years and now the project has closed and The people in the in these watersates are now expecting now what would come next year It's not only these people in three watersates, but also other communities who are trying to get a local technicians and measuring forest No, I'm taking forest inventory and then No in a way waiting for more money to come in the community And they don't know that the issue mode project has closed and the piloting the communities in the piloting area are also not getting that so Not only the people working in the piloting area They are terrible in a difficult position including issue modes parents But also people working in other areas. They are now facing a kind of challenge So what you tell to the communities tomorrow if the money is not going to come So I think it's we are already creating a huge expectations Among the communities and possibly we'll we'll all particularly those working on the very direct interface with the communities would be in trouble A few more looks like love letters, but they're quite boring boring questions compared to the reference level reference letter Just one question Indonesia or for Daniel you Europe's I mean everybody represents themselves here in our research It's not the government and but you talked about many sources of funding for a nested approach We would like whether You also have established system for to raise funds from national sources To fund that that would meet the cost of building this capacity for long-term MRV So you can mobilize the national resources for for MRV for the cost of that What you have done in that area? Well with the various source of funding Envision this trust fund will likely to Pioneer or Start jump start with what is happening on the ground Maybe with something quick and dirty thing But certainly will be a lot of lesson to learn in terms of financing mechanism As I said it is still ongoing work with regard to How to finance the activities related to the MRV so the numbers got to be right here and and the monitoring aspect is very very key to To get the numbers right so capacity building in that area is this very crucial In various level Including the small scale. I didn't mention much about the small scale Activities usually it's been alienated in term of well if you do it with the local community It's going to be cheap. I don't I don't believe that cheap in term of what in term of Messering them the diameter of trees, maybe not but in term of their involvement their ownership their Sense of belonging is is going to be tedious and could be expensive The 10 year old system should be secured So if if they are measuring something they are measuring their own thing not somebody else's So that kind of capacity need to be in place Just keep the microphone and The oral exam continues and I want to yes or no answer To this question now in Indonesia and Brazil and Paul all these countries you had a number of red projects Have these projects had an impact and made a difference Yes or no or It's like another examine Maybe you want no, but a little bit more elaborated. Well, certainly people are Start to talk with each other Asking what red is all about at least in the in the old days there are people don't don't talk You know if you're talking about national level ministry of environment and ministry of forestry They don't talk about common language and and other ministries and also at local level Especially when the authority is is a decentralized This is a new kind of burden quote-unquote for them and Try to understand the language of people from from Jakarta from the capital. What what is this? They're busy in implementing their day-to-day activities, but this new agenda of climate change, but This event make them realize that One has to talk with each other So yes, it makes you in that sense So if I were to translate it for my grandmother, it would be something like Well, I hope and think it will make a difference in Then not so far future, but it's hard to say that it has done it so far something like that and Maybe Nepal has read made a difference made a difference in terms of No Awareness raising particularly bringing the issue of tenure rights of Indigenous people of women of different section of community Because of a lot of grassroots Capacity building type of activities. Yes, this has not been adequately Conducted we didn't before rate So we've read a lot of different these small projects So that kind of awareness and knowledge and information that has gone down to the community level. Yes But I think the the most beneficiary, you know, you can remember last time in Oslo I was saying that the readiness process is Particularly for the cat for new based in zeal and couple of government people and consultants They have benefited the most than others, but also to some extent communities. Yes Thinking in the case of Brazil, of course, it's always difficult to say because these projects they have more or less like three years Or something and you can't really measure impact, but I would say that For the sub-national level, I think they they kind of pushed the state's governments to Create some laws to reduce deforestation But at the same time this this this policies they don't really create new incentives and Different instruments to to reduce deforestation. They just they are very very general and they aim to to create More resources for reducing deforestation, but they don't really create Incentives they don't really specify and they they don't I think they don't create the transformational change Martin mentioned here. So I would say it's it's more like a Band-aid then then really going to to the real problem and changing behavior and and This this would be my my things about my thoughts about the impact Yeah, maybe it's it's important to mention also from national level a big change happened back home in Indonesia with regard to the ruling of the customary land very recently by the Constitutional court. This is the highest Possible process that you can expect In the law of forestry It has been mentioned and always believed that Customary land is state land, but it's been overruled. So that's that's a big change. So and This process happened when we are discussing red nationwide secondly on on the issue of The possibility of probing corruption Again the the entire corruption commission is involved in this process. So there is there is a way of Looking at forest governance in in different perspective with regard to the issuance of permits and things like that and When the red is discussed at national level this thing come up in the in the picture. So yes, it makes a lot of difference Thanks Some of you are I mean, it's been two long days and maybe weeks for some so I think we'll wrap up Maybe a little bit before in about 10 minutes or so. So and So you can start the countdown and I have one question here from the floor Chris Meyer from the Marano defense fund a couple questions. I was just wondering when I saw landscape I thought jurisdictions is that are we talking about the same thing here? Is that something different? I mean, it was interesting. I think the comments from Nepal Of course on how to symmetrical aligning of let's say different ecosystems with political boundaries Second I really enjoyed your presentation very good overview of the Brazil proposal and I What caught my eye about there is you you also talked about how there's 50 different projects being developed in Brazil But then the Brazils also said there's gonna be one focal point that would be handling all money MRV reporting, etc for the country Has that by is that understood by those projects within I guess you of course be Having to go let's say to the Amazon fund or another that focal point for that money and At the same time that of course Brazil is very outspoken at the same time about not having any Red from Brazil being be able to claim for international offsets and not be in the access to market so What are project developers and thinking about that at least in the distribution of benefits? Let's say in Brazil and maybe the same How are the same thing for Indonesia? How are all those fit? How are those projects taking consideration that? we're probably going towards one big jurisdiction or national system if You know things go like we all hope or maybe some of us hope here in 2015 and New red mechanism in 2020 where there'll be significant amounts of money not the small amounts in the voluntary market. Thanks. I Think this is the big question We all made this question for for government representatives when we had this last meeting with civil society between civil society and government representatives and I think the Issue of the market it was also always an issue because Brazil had this position against carbon markets and markets based Approach and there is this pressure from civil society that we should have this Initiative we should have funding from coming from markets because There are many projects there are already in the voluntary market and they are using this strategy So how they will consider this in the national accountability and they they argue that okay This will be the voluntary market. We are not into it. And this is this is something different than the the UN FCCC Negotiations and and so on but at the same time I think if if there is a decision about markets under the one FCC then Brazil would need to to adapt to it and And This is what the proposal they made in bone says it's kind of like oh, it's not against marked based initiatives, but still needs a wider debate and and everything and In relation to to the project I think this is this is the main question as I said in the challenges slide how they will really make this projects Accountable in the national level Especially the voluntary ones they say they wouldn't be but they would try to to make it accountable But they don't give details about how this would happen. So that's for me. It's the big question Not just for me. You also had a question about the landscape versus jurisdictional approach and I Perhaps it's not my role to answer but just to clarify what I think is a jurisdiction approach You really look at political and mystery borders Whereas in a landscape approach you would more look at the natural the ecological Borders for example of watershed. So it's just the the unit of analysis or unit of focus is slightly different And not necessarily overlapping Whether you have ecological versus political borders in your unit and that the jurisdictional approach can be at at any Scales, which is important point. I think not just a sub national We got a few questions, and I think I have to draw the line for those a few of Two sets basically one concerns the landscape approach And for example one ask that development priorities are the highest on the agenda and how can read and the landscape approach fit when You know development is really the key and also related question on how The lessons we can learn from social environmental Principles to integrate that into this approach and the third which is also I think an important one how we can link The landscape approach to the national level because when red started out It was supposed to be kind of at the national level and that we need national policies to to Really get to the big changes and not just focus on the on the more localized project level, which is important, but The big national policies may be also critical So I don't if any would like to comment on that both I mean the different objectives environmental social development and also this horizontal linking If any would like to comment on this how it can be done within landscape approach Yep, well the key word here is the the implementation at sub-national level With regard to the jurisdictional sub-national like the landscape is kind of vague Boundary it can be sub-national in term of Government administration it can be areas or a color ecosystem So in term of size Again, this is is very relative in one place. It can be very small but complex Or can be very big but simple because not many people live there for example, so my Look on this is that the the policy the approach should be national Because at the end of the day, it is the national government who are accountable in the nice international processes, but the implementation is at that sub-national level can be You know district or can be a watershed can be anything which is smaller than national But it has to be workable kind of size for local government to work together In that sense the the complexity can be reduced and from the MRV point of view Maybe the uncertainty can also be reduced with less involvement of various actors in it so It's a challenging kind of issue in term of defining what is your project boundary for example It's unlike a factory producing tire emitting greenhouse gases It's a big entity which you know people coming and going and things Export it trade it etc. So it will be more complicated. So the smaller the size the less Hectic with the process be just to one to eight at one point and Some of the civil society organizations in Nepal they are when the government is now Promoting at least one couple of landscape level project documents the some of the civil society organizations are skeptical in because At least at the national level The civil society and other known state actors would be able to create educate pressure To hold accountable the government to ensure the more transparent and accountable process follows But when you go to this sub-national level and landscape level That level of effort To make the process fully accountable transparent participatory all those things may not happen And then possibly government Would have and I would take a more non-transparent non-participatory that kind of process At at the level of landscape where the civic action is not developed at that level which is developed at the national level So that is one skepticism is there another is now while the country is not fully developing its No policies legal system and also in terms of knowledge everything And there is a kind of pressure from possibly donors or some experts to go to the landscape level And the skepticism is Probably once you focus to the certain landscape level you may forget or you may undermine the national process So there are two these issues are there when Countries which are not well prepared at the national level and trying to go to the national sorry landscape level Some level of doubt Suspicion is there the second the last set of questions Is I think a very good dilemma here? One question what design options can be proposed to link mrv with benefit sharing and financial compensation After successful emission reduction now the other one is kind of related while different handwriting. So not the same person I presume and That is well, we want to link mrv and benefit sharing and find financial and perhaps other types of compensation, but Shouldn't we do benefit sharing before that system in in place? So how are we going to do? This benefit sharing before we have a decent mrv system in place Assuming none of you think that we should not do anything in terms of benefit sharing and benefits before those are in place I mean that the mrv any takes on that dilemma Maybe I can stop. I will clearly have a timing issue here in terms of we do want No, that fast phase two is starting. We do want to stimulate activities. All right We do want that plus to happen on the ground Including all the different things we've talked about here today the actual carbon benefits may take some time just to Generate in the biophysical world and then to be Accounted in the financial world. So just by that if you want things to start to happen now You have to cannot do it based on carbon performance because that's that's just something that will take time If you plan some trees, they just take a long time to grow before you can actually Pay on these things if you do change agricultural practices You have a hard time anyways to to to attribute the times of carbon savings to that So in fact, it may be worthwhile to think much more of an input-based system of Benefit sharing to actually bang for activities and to some extent assuming that the benefits will come Hopefully but at least that's an approach We should definitely take in the demonstration phase, which is starting now this phase two and see How much that can actually work? I think yeah, there are mainly two types of benefits the upfront benefits that would be used for Redness activities as you said and then the payments for our results and we can't Disconsider the first ones because they are sanctions for the second ones and especially when you are dealing with countries that don't have an MRV system A good M of resistance and also don't have properties land properties defined So these are benefits as well. So we can't really Disconsider this upfront benefits. It's voluntary. It is very short one We've been going through a study related to right and responsibility so I think if if the attribution of the benefit is based on those two Aspect or element we need really to to measure what? The responsibility of the actors on the ground. So without that, I think it will be very problematic So it might create conflicts rather than agreement amongst the players on the ground So people have the rights, but also responsibility in doing things Good There is a few social media reporters here. I think I should close I promised otherwise I would break my promises and a few social media reporters here and you know tweet 140 characters I would like to have one tweetable message from you and that should be this you're worked in this business for a while and What is the most important thing related to the topic that you have learned over the last five six years? You have 140 characters including space Daniel The most important thing you have learned related to the topic of today the last five years well switch the thinking of Forests into bigger Kind of entity like landscape move from forestry to landscape So for me, I think the institution and tenure is they are the primary whether we talk red or conservation or sustainable forest man anything so unless we put Emphasis on the kind of institution and the security tenure security that these people have We wouldn't have any rate and we'll just be measuring but not increasing carbon institutions I would say that complex challenges call for complex solutions and sometimes we deal with this challenge with easy solutions, so I Don't think we should go for the easy easiest way because it's more less expensive or something like that sometimes we choose the easiest way because of the costs, but we need complex solutions Those things have been said. I would I would suggest that Landscape thinking is broad and holistic and that's good for us to work Or we manage complexity to keep as simple so it works That is a challenge. I guess if Albert Einstein was here. He said do things as simple as possible but not simpler and I'm not going to make a long summary but but just a few points that I think I've noted down during this This debate here and presentations one It's not trivial what you count Because what you count one you can be held accountable for that and that's in in the red negotiation or general There you and F2C and negotiations account or counting is Political because you are be held accountable for that and it's also very much It gives a policy focus and debate and and Martin mentioned Guiana and of course Brazil is an excellent example And the other countries as well that the debate that is generated by data by information is Critical and has policy implications and thirdly that we didn't touch more than just that at the surface is related to What the data you have them their systems you have in place and their right reliability of those system It really depends what you can do We touch upon this about performance based system that we may not have the at least the ideal system in place If the data pool we have to go through some courses system and maybe more in their direction of Rewarding inputs than than emission reductions. That is at the other end of output based measures so in the end the world is complex and And We try to simplify it a little bit, but not too much But I hope that that you take with you some some good questions and dilemmas and that you didn't get some Simple answers if you if you got some they would probably have been wrong. So I Hope it's a good stimulus for your coffee discussion and Your post glf life. So thanks a lot for attending Thanks to the four speakers and for the debate for those who sent questions. Thanks a lot


If you choose to hire a migration agent to help you apply for a visa, it's important to check they're registered with the Office of Migration Agents Registration Authority or MARA. It's against the law to provide immigration advice in Australia unless registered by MARA. To ensure you are dealing with a registered migration agent, go to the MARA website and click on Search for an agent. Enter your agent's details, including their unique migration agent's registration number. All registered agents are listed on this website. There are many benefits to hiring a registered agent. They know about Australia's immigration law and procedures and can provide immigration advice and recommend a suitable pathway. They will lodge a well-prepared application with all required documents which can make it easier and faster to get a decision on your visa. They're bound by a code of conduct and must provide accurate advice. They must also keep your money in a separate account until the work is performed and they must inform you about your visa outcome in a timely manner. You can make a complaint to MARA if you're unhappy with a migration agent's service. More information is available at www.marra.gov.au. Beware of people claiming to be migration agents who are not registered with MARA. They may have limited knowledge about Australia's immigration law and procedures, give incorrect advice, make unrealistic promises or take advantage of your situation. They may not handle your money properly. Some unregistered agents have give fraud at large amounts of cash from clients. They may misplace your important original documents and they may not inform you about your visa outcome. If you know of someone involved in migration fraud operating illegally as a migration agent or if you're a victim report it by calling 1-800-009-623.