Okay, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Actually, we're still waiting one of the panelists that he will join us later. So I think because the time is already limit, so we can start our session. So with this, I would like to give the stage to the moderator, Mr. Wahyuti Wardoya. So, Power Wahyuti Wardoya, the time is yours to start our dialogue. Thank you. Thank you very much, Belinda. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the sub-team one this afternoon. Good afternoon. I'm Wahyuti Wardoya, Senior Advisor to the Nature Conservancy Indonesia Program and also Senior Advisor to the Minister of Environmental Forestry. It's my honor to be a moderator this afternoon. With the title of our sub-team here, Forests in Nationally Determined Contributions. This afternoon, there are seven different speakers from several organizations, but I think we can divide it at least into four groups of them. First, from the government, here Dr. Parthama and Mr. Kaldiran, we are waiting for them, for him. And second, we are going to learn from the scientists here, Andrew Campbell from SCR and Professor Burr from Institute of Agriculture. And then we also have William Kodrits from the Nature Conservancy World Office, yes, from CSO, Civil Society. And then we also have a group of persons dealing with the funding institution and supporting system from the World Bank. We have Mark Seder from the World Bank. And the last but not least, we also have Ms. Likando from NDC Partnerships. Ladies and gentlemen, actually our goals of this sub-team is dealing with the, we already mentioned in our TOR. First, we are going to have a clear consideration in balancing economic, social, and ecological objectives in achieving NDC target. Second, common understanding of the role of forest and NDCs. This is our expected, but because of time limitation, we have a very, very short time. We have to be finished around three o'clock for the seven different speakers. So that's why I like to invite all the speakers to speak no more than eight minutes probably. And then I will give a key question for each of the speaker to give our, for your main target of the discussion. So without further ado, I'd like to invite Dr. Partama. He is actually the DG of Waterset Management and Protection Forests, but he also has an acting of Director General of Climate Change. So the topic from Dr. Partama will be roles of forest and land sectors in Indonesia and DG target direction and challenges. Actually there are two main question that I'd like to invite Dr. Partama to response. First, why forest? And why it is important for Indonesia NDC? The second question, what is the biggest challenges in putting the forest and land use into the NDC target and what would be the opportunities to achieve this target? Please, Putra, run. Thank you for your view. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Being just an acting DG of Climate Change Director General, I guess my answer would be how an acting DG can answer. Well, the question was why forest and why forest is so important to Indonesian NDC? I believe everyone knows the answer and it is very obvious. I guess I can put it this way. When we go back to the driver or the source of emission, we identify sectors from which the most emission comes from. One of them is forestry, we know that. The others would be energy, industry, waste and probably agriculture. So if we want to significantly reduce our emission, then we have to reduce our emissions. Reduce our emission, then we must put the source from which emissions come from as the priority. So in our case, in Indonesia, forest sector is the huge, the largest source of emission. That also relates to the size of our forest. We have 120 or 28 or 100 and sometimes we say 130, 125 or 135 million hectares forest. It also covers peat, swarm forest, mangrove forest. With that size, forest can be both very huge emitters and can also, if we do the right thing to our forest, can also contribute very significantly to the reduction of emission. So for that reason, forest is the most important, if not the most, one of the most important source, important sectors in our NDC. When we talk about forest, it's not only that we talk about the size, actually. The content within the forest is also important. And we know tropical forests like we have in Indonesia are the sources of biodiversity. And with that characteristic, our tropical rainforest is actually something that can help us to adapt to the climate change. So it's not only the mitigation issue, but also the adaptation issue is related to forest. The other reason is that because the double role, the multiple roles of forest play in our living. We all know that our forest remains one of the largest of our natural capital for the development. And for that reason, we need to find a way how to have a delicate balance between treating our forest as a resource for economic development and also for carbon emission reduction. So that's why I think it's very, very important for us forest in our NDC implementation. And like I said before, forest can reduce emission, but also forest can also remove, not only reduce the emission, but also forest can remove the carbon from the atmosphere or improve the carbon stocks. Having said that, what is the challenge? What is the prognosis of our NDC? There, of course, remains a lot of still mainstreaming this climate issue, climate action to the whole stakeholders, the whole components of our country. So I think it's already eight minutes. Thank you very much, Uttara. Thanks also for your time management. It's just less than one minute that I give you. The second speaker is supposed to be Mr. Calderon from the Philippines, but probably he is not joining with the ministerial meeting. So next, I'd like to invite Professor Andrew Campbell. He is the chief executive officer of the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research, or ACR. ACR is very famous in Asia Pacific region. The topic will be NDC target achievement and sustainability in form of food, water, energy, security, and climate resilience. I'd like to deliver my two main questions to Professor Campbell. First, how do you see roles of other land-based sectors, such as estates lands and other agricultural lands in contributing NDCs? While the land conflict with forestry may be an issue, the second question, what recommendation at country and regional scale do you think the best for Asia Pacific countries? Please, Professor Campbell. Thank you, Pat. And thank you very much to the organizers for inviting me to this event. And congratulations for putting on such an important... As Pat Putra has said, there are very good reasons for looking after forests and for managing forests better. I started my career as a professional forester and I still have a farm with 120 hectares of woodlots, so I have a personal interest in this subject. And I have a very strong belief that well-planned perennial vegetation has a crucial role to play across all land tenures, not just in the forest estate. And when you look at the nexus between food and water and energy against a backdrop of climate change, there are very few win-wins, but one of them is getting productive use of trees in agricultural landscapes. It's very important for both climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation. And sometimes I think we distinguish between those two words too much. In the long term, the best adaptation option is mitigation. So there are many ways of getting trees and shrubs into non-forest land, into agricultural land. Agroforestry, whether it's for grazing animals or products, farm forestry for timber or for energy, forest gardens for many food crops or traditional systems for shading, coffee or bioenergy plantations will become increasingly important as we decarbonise and move into second and third generation biofuels. And of course there's a significant role for reforestation and forest regeneration for biodiversity and watershed protection. So getting more trees into rural landscapes is intuitively and conceptually attractive. But that's been the case for a long time now, and yet we are not seeing the scale of up to, even in rich countries like Australia, there is still a net deforestation, not a net reforestation. So we need to ask ourselves why is that so? In ACR, my organisation, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, we have funded work on this previous career also. We need to understand that getting trees into agricultural landscapes has upfront costs, both in cash outlays, but also in the opportunity cost of the land and other things with their time. It requires higher levels of management skills. There is usually a gap between the time you plant the tree and the time you get a return from those trees of at least several years. Sometimes the perceived gap is larger than the real gap, but the perception is the important thing. There is an uncertainty around future returns and future earnings. People can't be confident that in five years' time or 10 years' time or 15 years' time they will get the benefit, especially if there is insecurity of land tenure or worries about being able to protect the trees from grazing or from fire or from incursions by other people. So if you put those constraints together, you need to come up with solutions that anticipate those problems and that deal with those problems. This means a clever combination of good incentives with the extension and training to implement them. And importantly, not just a focus at the individual farm level, but close attention to the community or social level because ultimately we need to change social norms and this has implications for the type of research or science or extension that we're doing. There's a natural tendency for the scientist or the policymaker to focus on the most degraded areas and to try and start in the problem areas. My personal view is that that is too hard and that you would get greater success in the long term if you start in the areas where the people are most willing where the land tenure is most clear and where you have the opportunity to make a good difference and improvement quickly or more of success. Pay really close attention to livelihoods. If people cannot make a living with the new alternative, they will not persist with it and anticipate the threats. Focus on interventions that improve food security and climate resilience. And I think there are solutions out there and the work of C4 and of ICRAF has shown many of those solutions. It's really important that we track the progress very closely and develop better measurement systems. If we're going to pay people for plus or environmental services, we need to make sure that those payment systems deliver and are comprehensive and where we do have success, we need to be much better at celebrating the success and promoting it really widely across multiple platforms, especially social media, and be ready to scale up and scale out from those islands of success. That scale up and scale out will almost inevitably involve the private sector and the non-government sector. We need to have governance to ensure that success is replicated and the overarching policy environment needs to be enabling and encouraging. So there's a menu, I must say, in reflecting upon that. The best sectors. So there are two questions I'd like to deliver to you. First, what are the challenges in implementing MRV for NDC achievement from Forest and NDC achievement in general? The second question will be what would be your scientific recommendation related to the MRV implementation for NDC from Forest? Please, before continuing, I'd like to inform you that on the side, there will be a kind of reminding time. There are two, one, or zero. That means if two, you still have two minutes and zero means stop. Thank you. Alright. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you, Pa. You need a chair. So now, actually, I will talk and give my views a bit on the issues related to the technical part of the NDC focusing on forestry and land use sector. As you might aware that Indonesia emission by 2030 is going to up to 2.87 gigaton of CO2, which is more than double of the emission level of 2010. And then if we look at what are the source of the emission that make the Indonesian emission will be very high by 2030 where at least 60% come from land use chain and forestry, in particular from pit land and also from pit fire. But of course, the deforestation is also one of the big source of the emission. And of course, the effort that we are going to do to reduce the emission from this source should be able to be monitored. And I think the result that we are going to report should be to be reliable. And I think this one of the big challenge, why I say it's become a big challenge because it will inform many aspects of it, institutional aspect including also human resources, human capacity and also of course the methodology itself. And we know that in the context of Indonesia many agencies are responsible for collecting data related to the action on mitigation action on forestry and land use chain sector. So back into the two question that has been mentioned and I think if you don't mind probably it's better to see the point that I just prepared so everybody can also see. So of course, there are three main issues related to that as I mentioned. One is of course about the institutional aspect of it. So what I include the institutional arrangement for measuring, monitoring and reporting the activity data. And then the second aspect it is on the issue related to the methodology. It is about including activity data and also about the emission factors and the search across related into the issues. Can you give us quickly? Is this related to the... Can you go up just quickly? Human capacity and financial resources. In the establishment of MRV institution in Indonesia it is very clear that everybody are actually welcome. I mean to report the contribution in regard into the effort for reducing emission from the forestry station and also from action related to mitigation on land base. And then it could be based on jurisdiction. It's meant that jurisdiction can report but can also individual, can also be private, can also communities. But the challenge is how actually they are going to report the data. And I think these are the big challenges that need to be solved. And I think if we go into the principle and under the COP decision it is very important that the methodology is being used in developing the baseline emission and methodology is being used for reporting the result should be consistent. And of course we also need to be transparent and also need to show what are the improvements that we are going to make gradually in order to reduce the uncertainty. And then if we go back into the way that the systems now operate actually the source of the uncertainty is still not really in place yet. And so it's very important to understand what are the key source categories that contribute into the emission from land use base and forestry. And I think we have done some of the activities on that and then we have evaluated what are the key source of the emission come from land base and forestry. Of course as I mentioned before there are two big source of the emissions. One is come from the pit fire to speed the composition and the other one from the deforestation. And the waste data is being collected some of the data will be able to be monitored to the spatial but another one the system that we are having now is not good enough to look at more detailed type of land use category data that can capture the contribution of the activities related to the mitigation on this sector. So this way there should be also methodology to be developed how we can combine the data on spatial based data with the point based data. And I think this one is also a big challenge. And of course we know that the National Forest Monitoring System is already in place it is very good infrastructure that we have now but we also understand the capacity of the system in order to disaggregate the data to a level that which is able to capture many initiative implemented by many sectors related to the land base is also not it's not yet there it's not there yet. So based on that I think what we'd like to recommend how actually we can improve the MRV system in order to be able to monitor and track the result of the impact of the implementation of the mitigation action as you can see just we go quickly and I don't think I need to see this just go quickly. So one back into the issue of the institution institutional procedure in reporting the data. We know that for example there are many initiatives that contribute to the emission reduction in the private there are technology for example reducing impact logging as one of the initiative from the government Indonesia but still not very clear how the data is going to be collected being reported and being used for measuring the result of the implementation of that program. And we also have a number of policies related to the mandatory of certification whether it is related to palm oil or so we live at the sustainable forest management there are also impact of this policy but again the active data that connect into this kind of policy is not really identified yet. I think the big point and the big issues that need to be to be implemented is to do it in the assessment one on the estimate related to key source and then the second to understand what are the connection of the activity data with the mitigation action is being implemented. So what does that mean? So all the stakeholders need also to understand which part of the program actually contribute into the mission reduction by knowing this actually they know what type of activity data that need to be collected what are key accuracy procedures that need to be implemented and what are the procedures for reporting and I think regulation on this also need to be in place and I think we have many regulations already there but I think there are some still many gaps that need to be filled in in order to allow for everybody and for any entity who actually contribute into the implementation of mitigation action on the land base can report their activity data and at the end go into the registry system that has been developed by the government. And I think for the time being so I just would like to end on to that but one of the most important one actually for the key source activity the uncertainty is very crucial and I mentioned before it is very important also for the agency in charge for reporting to really I would like to end and then we can have open discussion later on on that we can share also the experience that we are now having with the World Bank in developing of RPD for East Kalimantan with also with the TNC of course. Thank you very much. For the next speaker will be William from TNC the topic William is Director of Climate Strategy the Nature Conservancy World and he is going to say dealing with the role of biodiversity conservation linking to the NDC achievement from forest the question will be what will be the role of biodiversity conservation linking to the NDC achievement from forest and the second question what will be required at minimum stage to exhibit the biodiversity conservation roles on the NDC achievement. Please William. Thanks and thank you for the introduction and thanks to the Government of Indonesia for hosting all of us here it's a fantastic event and it's a really great opportunity for people to come together and learn and share experiences so thank you I'm going to come to the issue of biodiversity but I just want to offer a few reflections at the beginning about NDCs I think it's been emphasised here by a number of speakers but just to re-emphasise the simple truth is we can't achieve the Paris Agreement goals without forests it's just that simple we don't get anywhere near if you look at the modelling you don't get anywhere near the staying below 2 degrees let alone 1.5 degrees unless you're putting every single opportunity on the table and making the most of all those opportunities including sustainable management and protection of forests in fact my colleagues at the Nature Conservancy released a report last year a peer-reviewed report showing that the full potential in the land sector what we call natural climate solutions including farming forestry and wetlands could deliver around 37% of what's required to keep global warming below 2 degrees so it's a major part of the solution sadly to date it's still an under-realised part of the solution it's inspiring to see what's happened in the energy sector in recent years with the dramatic increase in the investment in renewable energy and the dramatic decrease in the cost of renewable energy has really unleashed a new wave of investment globally we haven't seen that happen yet in the land sector with respect to tackling climate change we looked at it and I think the Minister from Australia this morning Josh Frydenberg said it was the end of the green bond market at the moment we looked at the media coverage of the land sector in the context of climate change it's about 2% of the media coverage so it's not getting the share of the conversation that it needs it's not getting the share of the investment it needs and I think it's really up to all of us to help change that it is really encouraging though in Paris that quite a lot of governments did put what we call natural climate solutions into their NDCs and it was even more encouraging this morning to see the Indonesian government issuing a strategy for implementation of their NDC that level of detail doesn't exist in all countries yet so it's encouraging to see Indonesia doing that and taking a leadership role there and in fact that's one of the key recommendations from my point of view is we do need to see that next level of detail about how governments will be implementing those NDCs it's also critical just a few other sort of broad remarks I think to be taking an integrated approach should not just look at it as the role of forest but also looking at all the different competing demands for land use including infrastructure and the role of infrastructure planning urbanization agriculture energy demand and livelihoods and we see too often I think that we fail to take that sort of integrated approach when addressing this issue we look at it through a siloed approach or a particular lens around just the forestry sector which is important and it's critical but you've also got to look at the other pressures on the landscape I want to echo Andrew's point around the importance of adaptation as well and getting carbon stored properly in the land sector and improving our management of carbon in the land sector can also help us to address other issues for example watershed management if we have an increased investment in reforestation and forest management in watersheds you can reduce flooding you can improve water quality and water supply for cities and other regions so critical part of the dialogue it's not just about carbon it's also about many other benefits that we're pursuing the other one that is often sort of ignored or not looked at is the role of mangroves mangroves store a huge amount of carbon in the land sector and also provide a whole lot of other benefits for coastal communities for resilience but also for food security in the more immediate term I want to say as well just about the to date I think one of the challenges in this space has been that it's been a little bit of a conversation between climate policy people and we need to change that we need to have a conversation that brings in the private sector that takes the conversation to something to a level that's relevant to the landholder so it's often not relevant to a landholder to be talking about carbon it's more relevant to be talking about something they're dealing with in a day to day basis and in some instances it may mean not talking about the carbon benefits talking about other benefits altogether with respect to the biodiversity issue I want to start actually by saying that as an environment group we often people assume that we're interested in the environment and I think it's critical to emphasise that actually people are critical and we need to make sure that whatever we're thinking about in terms of implementing a carbon project or implementing a biodiversity project that we're first and foremost thinking about how is this going to impact on communities and people and how do we bring them along in that journey how do we make sure that communities individuals, marginalised groups and others are part of that that benefit from it because I think the history to date shows us that unless we're doing that you don't get the biodiversity benefits and you don't get the carbon benefits because people are not part of that deal so to speak the experience from the Nature Conservancy with respect to capturing biodiversity I think one critical thing is taking a landscape approach to management of carbon including through spatial planning and one of an example that was done in Barau in Indonesia actually was looking at basically assessing all the opportunities in the land sector for managing carbon for facilitating and supporting the growth of agriculture for logging or forestry management and doing some assessment of the cost effectiveness of different strategies and what it showed is first and foremost it's a lot cheaper and a lot more efficient if you do look at it as an integrated landscape and you look at it as a whole rather than just looking at the carbon or one particular intervention so taking that integrated approach is not only smart sort of from an academic point of view it's very smart from a business or an economic point of view as well it also taking that jurisdictional approach also allows you to address some of the concerns around carbon leakage so you're not only getting potential benefits for biodiversity but also for carbon and also risks fragmentation so avoiding a situation where you're having a highly fragmented landscape which we all know is suboptimal from a biodiversity point of view but it's also suboptimal from a carbon point of view I've got to wrap up, I've got one minute so I'll just finally come to the issue of what's the sort of minimum level that we need and I want to in order to assess the biodiversity or deliver the biodiversity benefits and I think we do need to acknowledge that the Paris Agreement is not prescriptive so it doesn't tell countries exactly what they need to be doing or how they need to be doing it it's up to countries to come up with that however there are opportunities over the next coming years within the Paris Agreement context to bring in the conversation around biodiversity and there's a lot of conversation going on about linking it to the Biodiversity Convention to the Sustainable Development Goals and getting that cross-linkage happening across the different frameworks which would be encouraged but the transparency rules under the Paris Agreement will encourage countries to bring more to the table and so it would be great to see governments being willing to share their lessons around the biodiversity benefits that they've achieved through improved carbon management and vice versa and starting that process of sharing but it's not prescriptive it's going to have to be driven increasingly by the governments themselves Two final points a critical one here and this is actually very relevant on a day to day basis is do no harm so make sure that in the pursuit of carbon you're not having unintended consequences on biodiversity that should be a minimum level and it is something that's emphasised by national agreements sometimes reflected in national laws but when it comes down to a project level sometimes you lose sight of that and just one final point before I wrap up is if we're going to achieve both biodiversity or put pressure on governments to achieve both biodiversity and carbon benefits we do need to be making sure to result that the MRV is affordable you don't want to be in a situation where it becomes so costly there are multiple benefits from a project that the project is no longer viable or the activity is no longer economically viable so you've got to be looking for cheap or affordable and cost effective ways to measure biodiversity and carbon Thank you The next speaker I'd like to invite Mr. Mark Sadler practice manager climate funds management the World Bank the topic will be climate finance and NDC target achievement land sectors in developing countries because then question is dealing with two topic and NDC which really are differentiated by finance that flows to you because you are undertaking economic activities that ultimately will result in climate co-benefits or positive outcomes to climate and then the results based finance which is really you gone through an activity and then we are able to establish and prove what it was that the climate outcome actually was and of course the big difference is and this is actually sort of the chicken and egg conversation is the idea of course the results based payments is to create the incentives for those economic sectors to move and deliver the big challenge quite often is where is the actual financial flow of that activity to occur to be able to deliver in the future and I think that's been one of the challenges given that these markets and all this type of finance really started off with going out and looking to purchase carbon but as we come through and towards Paris the pivot there starts to become more about climate action and necessarily the climate results and actually how we deliver and we are seeing that financial map and the change and the thinking around it change as we move forwards but as it relates to forest specifically and maybe get the next slide up there are some real challenges or questions as we move in that transition between red plus and Paris agreement and so obviously red plus is based in and around emissions reductions and the use of MRB and other approaches to actually show how the reduction deforestation is actually driving and that was really captured under Paris in article 5 which obviously referred to the importance of forests natural based solutions in moving forwards and was really very much an acknowledgement of the red plus system that was already in place and then immediately we get to article 6 about the difference between 6.2 and 6.4 which is effectively international bilateral trade between governments versus a new market mechanism but what we importantly established in Paris is to put a marker in the map of where red plus was and the fact that it is ongoing and that it has learnt an enormous amount that will actually be relevant to article 6 but there will be post 2020 a transition point, an inflection point about how emissions reductions actually relate to the trading environments that are seen under article 6 so that's a question that's really ahead of us, let's put it that way I think the second thing on the question of NDCs and climate finance is where the public sector liquidity in this space is really needing clarity between conditional and non conditional pieces of the NDCs so if you are effectively delivering on non conditional that isn't where public sources of funds are able to actually interact, it becomes around the conditional space but as you go through the NDCs and over a hundred of them mention land use and land use change as part of the NDC you start seeing that there's still quite a lot of work to be done A in definition of the conditional and non conditional B in terms of the actual allocations across them and so we really do need to do that work to be able to then get better clarity about where public sources of climate finance will actually be able to engage with the NDCs or not as it relates to forest and ultimately of course the red plus under Warsaw we've set up some very very tight stringent guidelines and requirements in and around environmental and social integrity of these projects the question then comes ok how will this fit ultimately under whatever approaches taken under article 6 in relation to the various different approaches but the different approaches to accounting base lining and inventories how this will actually relate you've got a very structured system of course under red plus and how is that actually going to fit and then maybe last if we could go to the next slide there was this question about what have we seen or what have we learned in and around results based payments and I think one of the things that's interesting is when you look at the non land use non forest sector and you look for what innovations we're seeing there what development we're seeing in climate finance the interesting thing to note is the changing role of carbon so increasingly in energy efficiency, renewable energy a whole bunch of different spaces the question financial flow is very different it all very much started out as what is the price of carbon and that is my return financial structure so the question becomes how can the value of carbon the price of carbon unlock finance and increasingly in some of the other funds that we manage that are just there on forest mechanisms that's exactly what we're seeing cook stove project in Rwanda effectively the risk in the financial return related to the cook stove project made it effectively unbankable it's a private sector project but when we brought in the emissions reductions that related to the cook stoves not even to the reduced deforestation but just the actual ultra-efficient cook stoves themselves it created a future revenue stream that the project developer was then able to pledge to the commercial bank and all of a sudden it unlocked the finance it basically drew down a large chunk of the risk created a new revenue stream to the project that made it bankable and so increasingly on land use side is becoming actually the key to unlocking question to all of you forest carbon actually look like in those structures and of course ultimately we've got a real challenge in there about what is the financial business return for pure conservation major challenge and I think that remains part of how we've got to actually change the dialogue it's fine to note that 1% of green bonds go to the sector, 2% the dialogue goes here but those are challenges that other sectors face when they started out and how they got the 99% and 98% is they started putting solutions on the table that were financeable and that really remains the challenge in this particular space and it's in land use as well it's not just in the forestry but what are those financial packages look like and how do we actually move them forwards and then climate finance will find relatively easy ways to flow the missing middle in terms of commercial liquidity looking for opportunities is very large it's a factor of global interest rates the risk profile of some of these projects remains challenging but that risk is most of those risks really are managed public sector risk most of this stuff we can actually put to the market domestic currency risk remains a major challenge of course thank you the last but not least a workshop in Mongolia and we were able to bring in the Mongolian bankers association considering that we have difficulties or that we still need to get some traction from the private sector we consider this as a small feather on our cap then is a partnership is a match maker match demand with supply demand means government requests for support or national projects related to NDC implementation supply means services and resources that our international partners are bringing in we engage in three primary areas the first one being technical assistance and capacity building through country engagement second one knowledge and learning third is finance currently the partnership has more than 70 countries and over 15 international institutions as members within Asia and the Pacific we have 16 countries Indonesia, Philippines Fiji they're one of our early members next slide please both of our work focuses on country engagement this means we come in and we dive deeply into the country based on the government's request we facilitate support through a value chain of services one, policies, strategy and implementation two, budgeting and investment the third, monitoring and evaluation we have a country engagement strategy that guides our work but it is flexible to country context what we're doing is not rocket science it is however practical there are five steps to country engagement the first one being is that we need to receive a request from the government on what they would need in terms of NDC implementation we don't plan to solve the whole NDC problem per se but we would like to contribute to implementation of some sub sectors stage two of the country engagement focuses on rapid assessment this means gap analysis stakeholder mapping prioritization of needs and sectors and alignment of the NDCs with national development plans SDGs, green growth strategies etc now the core of our country engagement work focuses on the partnership plan it is a results based framework that shows the demand which I mentioned earlier and the supply of services from development partners from the demand side this plan brings together line ministries and sectors and captures the work streams in which they have agreed to coordinate and focus their efforts on from the supply side this plan brings together international partners who are undertaking to take activities responding to the needs showing who does what when how and at what price the plan is used as a tool for coordination and transparency now some countries we are working with such as Vietnam already has a plan for coordination same as with Pakistan they had a plan for coordination which they have requested us to help them revive what we do is we don't try to create something similar but we try to piggyback or build on existing frameworks and mechanisms through this partnership plan one can see the gaps whereby nobody or a small amount of partners are supporting the needs from the recipient countryside they use this framework for resource mobilization and from the implementing partner or donor side they use this to guide their future programming the fourth stage of the country engagement strategy is focused on implementation of this partnership plan and the fifth is review of the implementation basically looking at what works what does not why, why not and in what context common support areas that have been requested from us across Asia and Pacific consist mainly of development of NDC road map by sectors NDC mainstreaming development of investment plans or bankable projects support to national MRV system design and implementation and strengthening GHG inventory now one of the questions that I've been asked is what is the partnership for C sustainability in supporting the NDCs the first being country driven we believe that to advance NDC implementation race ambition and sustainability of the NDCs we must address country realities aligned with existing processes and frameworks and government ownership is paramount number two not only through international funding but also domestic and private sector financing this means we need to mainstream work in existing systems bringing ministries of finance budget and planning on board one ministry can solve this problem the principles for tracking progress and learning are at the center of the partnership plan which improves accountability and efficiency now the forestry sector warrants particular consideration in fulfilling country ambitions under the Paris agreement taking hold of this transformative potential we not only need the whole of government approach but a whole of society approach and this will only be achieved through a concerted and coordinated response thank you ladies and gentlemen our time is very limited but seems to me that there are still around 15 minutes to give the floor to raise the question for the speakers so I would like to invite please three different speakers different questions very short and please raise your hand or raise your question for the gentlemen ladies and gentlemen here sorry I didn't see Dr. Hoekma first and second Dr. Faisal Faris and sorry ladies there so please Dr. Hoekma from ITTO thank you thank you very much moderator I like first congrats to the outstanding the speaker and the presentation to Park Putra within the NDC for three in Indonesia what is the status of addressing or including the subject of reducing emission from post degradation such as fire and unstable logging and etc so I would like to know since we're here in Indonesia I think as has been highlighted by colleagues earlier one of the critical forest ecosystem are the peatland ecosystems and I think that in Indonesia a lot of work has been done but I'm just looking at the NDC strategy for Indonesia and the peatland issue and peatland emissions do not seem to be particularly highlighted in the strategy in relation to the agriculture plantation and other emissions and also for the NDC partnership you mentioned you're dealing with many countries across the region and globally that have very significant peatlands and peatland emissions and from what we have seen peatland has not really been highlighted much in general international level in NDC processes and I think what lessons are there that can be learned from the experience here in Indonesia and applied to NDC processes elsewhere thank you thank you and the third question will be sorry it's Nutsuk thank you Virginia Young I'm with the Australian Rainforest Conservation Society in Australia but working on a global project that includes case studies in a number of developing countries aimed at protecting local and indigenous communities based on forest protection and in particular based on protecting what I heard Dr Okma mention is only the word fire actually very clear to me so I guess he was asking what's the importance of forest fire and what Indonesia will be what's the strategy in order to achieve the NDC given the danger of forest fire that's my guess but yes forest fire, peat forest fire is very crucial to us in Indonesia because it contributes a lot of emission, Dr. Risaldi Bur mentioned how our emission increased significantly in 2015 because of that forest fire so it's a part of our priority in how to suppress how to rearrange our policy on the peat management in which we rearrange the land use of peat concessions part of the previously peat land used to be cultivated for plantations now many in many concessions become protected peat land so that's I think a very bold policies and it start to give result and also the technical action undertaken like rewetting the peat through canal blocking and also prevention early prevention of forest fire so we believe if this continue then the forest fire will not possess very great danger in our achievement of NDC if this policy continue I think that's what I can share thank you the second question from Dr. Rizal who wants to response is dealing with sequestration and so on part of our land dealing with sequestration is issue probably I'm trying to back into the issues that I just raised but important of MRV to make sure the achievement of Indonesia in releasing the emission I also highlight mentioned by Mark but transition issues just about baseline greenhouse gas inventory and also with the reference level and I think this other thing that's one of the challenge so if you would like for example looking at the risk of fire for Indonesia is quite high and then we know the capacity of Indonesia nowadays for estimating the emission from the fire still not good enough to reach a level where actually the estimate is considered as reliable even though there are many methodology has been done and I think we know actually we have a number of initiative about methodology like price on developing methodology how to monitor the emission from pit and I think this actually the progress and update of knowledge and methodology should be adopted I think by the government and how actually we can really tested a number of methodology has been developed recently to be able to measure that and that should be taken into one of the official approach and how actually we can really estimate that and again back to the issue of MRV and then back into the issue of reference level and greenhouse gas inventory and then if we know that if we go back into the annex one country for example this will be the look at the greenhouse gas inventory but in the context of Indonesia developing countries it should be difficult if we just rely on the greenhouse gas inventory and as I mentioned in my talk there are so many source of the data inconsistency in the data and sometimes for some of the key source the data is not available and then we do using a rough estimate and sometimes the same type of data come from different sources might also have different numbers because the ways the data is being processed is not the same and I think that's why we call that's why we need to have set up reference level using more reliable data and then so very rigid process how we can really use that one as a benchmark to see and evaluate the achievement and we go back into the issue of rail for example for the fire that we go back into the issue of fire we're talking about what other reference period we need to adopt and then again under the World Bank for example the case of the World Bank at CPF the methodology of framework mentioned only just 10 years but in the context of Indonesia we use longer one and then again the challenge when we go into the registry system that has been sell by the government and how are we going to treat that so in the country itself have a problem in terms of how actually we can distribute this looking at a different way in defining the the reference level and then this is one of the challenge that now being addressed by the government how are we going to deal with this and then the context of jurisdiction approach for example if there is initiative and then jurisdiction for example register that well have the activities as result based payment activities and then the reference level actually different from the one submitted by the national government into the UNFCCC and then we as you might also aware that the government also now going to allocate the national emission reference level into sub national into your jurisdiction then now actually create kind of an approach is one of the regulation that need to be developed probably so in the case for example if the amount of the emissions allocated into the jurisdiction it is higher then the reference level just developed by the FCPF for example how are we going to treat in terms of the payments resulted from the activities and this other thing but also in the opposite situation for example the allocation of the emission is lower than the one actually set up by the FCPF for example so these are also another challenge and of course there are many ways how actually we are going to solve this one of the approach actually okay if we know that for certain of activities it might be effective in terms of the payment starting in year 2018 for example and then we know that under the national submission actually we start the result on 2013 so between the period 2013 and 2018 we still can refer into the allocation of the emission so there are many types of approach and strategy going to be set up and I think this is also very important to understand I probably Lee Kendo, Mark Seder or Will regarding with the last question on communities, landscapes and resilience resilience issues please question on lessons learned on NDC processes yes so the NDC partnership has only started its full operations last year so we haven't been in this country engagement business for a very long time but we have several lessons learned already one of which is that we need to bring the whole of government approach meaning we cannot work with only one ministry but we need multiple ministries what does this mean we cannot only work with a ministry of environment but also we need the ministry of finance and the ministry of planning now we realize that in a lot of countries when the NDCs were developed it was done or developed in a somewhat least manner either by one agency or that there was no full consultative process so one of the things that we have learned is that we need to find a way or an angle that will bring various ministries and sectors together how do we do this what we do is we look at the NDC we look at alignment between national development plans green growth strategies and other and more medium-term development plans in some countries that we work with we we see that the NDCs are handled by a specific agency or a specific ministry and our question basically is how do we bring the ministry of finance or ministry of planning on board now we look at an angle that will sort of align the process together and one of them would be the green growth strategy or the medium-term economic plan through this the stakeholders will realize that they have a stake in the NDCs another lesson that we have learned is that communication is important we do talk a lot but we do need to talk and ensure that everybody is aware and have an understanding of what we are doing how do we do this we facilitate workshops we facilitate bilateral meetings consultations I think the reason why I'm here is because this is a problem that has been existing for the past 20 years but we try anyway we try to coordinate better we try to communicate better and I think that's one of the ways I think Virginia's point was that biodiversity shouldn't just be seen as a co-benefit but actually a core benefit and I think it's a very good point and I think we do need to also be acknowledging that perhaps to Mark's point to shift away from assuming that carbon is sort of the end goal of a particular initiative but it can actually be the vehicle to finance improved biodiversity outcomes or any other sort of outcome as well the mix rather than the core I was just thinking whilst everyone was talking what I think that we're seeing that's different as opposed to going after forests as being a specific thing where we've actually seen interesting financial structures come together it's where forests have been providing a service to another part of the economy one of the particularly well known examples is actually the New York Water Authority which realised that if they actually put money into the forest they would actually spend less money cleaning up the water that's the very short version of that story and hence they put a financial structure together to actually invest in forest conservation another sort of example which I think is interesting is on the adaptation side was a structure that was done recently whereby we managed to bring together hotel owners to be putting together a financial structure with a major international reinsurer for coral protection because basically the coral was providing a natural barrier which was actually reducing the risk to the hotels of A, losing the hotels but B, their beaches during particular storm surges so the natural capital became worth an enormous amount of money it actually ended up making their reinsurance for the whole hotels and their loss of business much much cheaper but it came from people trying to protect the coral reefs what they did is they came up with a tourism solution so the question around forestry is what are the solutions that you're putting on the table apart from being the biggest carbon sink on the planet thank you very much gentlemen and ladies so I think we have already finished our time but before finishing the conclusion of the session but more as the takeaway messages from the sessions first message is forest is enormously important and we would not be able to achieve forest agreements without forest and forest and forest also take a role not just on regarding with the carbon but also for life support system and livelihood the second point is dealing with the MRV MRV is crucial and those are including focus on institutional arrangement and regulations human resources and methodology third climate finance is very important and we have already asked to Mark and he gave a kind of good information about us that there is no issue on chicken and eggs anymore dealing with the climate change finance he mentioning about the lesson from forest sector through red plus is a kind of good start and then NDC partnership is a good platform to start with to help country to deal with technical policy and support achieving NDC requires partnerships requires collaboration among agencies and stakeholders these are our points as a kind of takeaway messages from the session and please give the big applause for the speaker here thank you very much and before closing the session I'd like to invite Belinda Marcono please come Belinda she is very very give our support very important significant rules in this session and also please give applause to Belinda as well lastly I'll give you back the time thank you very much the moderator and at least I will ask you to stay on the stage because there will be a souvenir that will be delivered to all because we really appreciate that that is a really good opportunity for us to learn to each other and for the souvenir to pass the souvenir I will invite Dr. Putara Parthama as our acting DG for climate change so I will ask and thank you for the audience for the very valuable conversation so I hope what we have learned so far will be benefit for all of us thank you very much we will keep the one that belong to Mr. Putara so we close our session right now so I hope we can see for another conversation please stay for photo session and please open the souvenir thank you


So, the set on the second line, the number of elements in that set, is simply the number of C values so that S naught minus C F naught gives a valid Y value, meaning its coefficients are at most K. Okay? So second line to third line is just reinterpreting this count. And now we have to compute this, and this is where the magic happens. So it's not really magic, it's very elementary algebra. How many C's are there, with very small coefficients, remember, such that S naught minus C times F naught has coefficients that aren't too big, that are at most K? Well, it kind of depends on what S naught and C and F naught look like, right? But let's analyze this quantity a little more closely and try to figure out how big its coefficients are. So, what is the largest coefficient of S naught minus C F naught, where S naught is fixed at the beginning, F naught's fixed at the beginning, and C is some polynomial with zero plus minus one coefficients? Well, the largest, the absolute value of the largest coefficient is less than or equal to the sum of the absolute values of the largest, this is a triangle in equality, right? Now, let's think about, and the parameters are important, that's why I set things carefully initially. C, remember, has zero plus one minus one coefficients, right? F naught has zero plus one minus one coefficients, and a coefficient of the product is essentially, you're taking a vector of coefficients and taking the dot product of a vector of coefficients.  I mean, it's likely to be much less, this is kind of a random walk, you'd expect it to be more like square root of N, but okay. So I actually did this in two steps, in general the largest coefficient of a product is no more than N times the largest coefficient of the first times the largest coefficient of the second, but C and F naught have coefficients that are at most one. So these two terms are one, and also remember the S naught, remember the rejection sampling step, that's crucial, the only S naughts that get released have coefficients at most N minus K, or K minus N. So the S naught has coefficient at most K minus N, this has coefficient at most N, so the largest coefficient of this difference is at most K, but that means this difference is in this box of size K. In other words, this condition here, the S naught minus C F naught B in the box of size K is vacuous, it's always true, doesn't matter which C you take, it's always true. And that makes this numerator very easy to compute, right, because the condition's not there anymore, it's just a number of elements in R of 1. So the probability we're trying to compute, which I've just repeated this from the previous slide, we found that this condition here is completely irrelevant, because it's always true. So we simply get the number of elements in R of 1 over the denominator, but the number of elements in R of 1 cancels the number of elements in R of 1, and we just get one over the number of elements in R of K, which is 2K plus 1 to some power, if you think, 2K plus 1 to the n, I guess, roughly. In any case, this number doesn't depend on F naught, and it doesn't depend on S naught either. So the probability of getting signature S naught, if your private key is F naught, doesn't depend on your private key. It actually doesn't depend on the S naught either, each S naught has an equal probability of appearing the way we've set it up. And if you go back and look in some sense what this is doing is it's created a common box for every private key, and the signatures that get through rejection sampling are sitting uniformly distributed in this common box, and therefore different keys give the same distribution of signatures. Okay, so the final step, and I'm probably not going to have time to do this in two minutes, right? There's the practicality. If I have to generate a hundred million signatures to get one that I'm willing to use, it's completely impractical. So once I compute the probability, again, if I choose a random C and a random Y, what's the probability that the signature I get is actually less than or equal to K minus N? You know, it's coefficients. Well, you see, the C times F, remember, the coefficients of C times F is the sum of plus or minus ones and zeros, and I said, well, that's no more than N, which is true. But it's normally more, it's almost certainly no more than, say, five square root of N because the plus ones and the minus ones tend to cancel out. If you've taken probability and done random walks, if you take a random walk, 50% chance go left, 50% chance go right. After N steps, you're likely to be roughly twice square root of N, I guess, from the origin. So the probability that Alice finds a signature that's good is bigger than the probability just for the Ys that the coefficients of Y are no more than K minus N, say minus five root N, which is how big this thing is. Again, this is just a triangle inequality. And I can just do, I can compute that as counting the number of good Ys versus all the Ys. The boxes, well, I mean, the denominator, how many polynomials have coefficients between minus K and K? Well, each coefficients between minus K and K, two K plus one choices, N coefficients, two K plus one to the N. So this is actually two K plus one to the N, and this is similarly this quantity to the N. And I simplified it a little bit. And as long as K is bigger than N squared, this will be roughly this. So what one does is one chooses K to be maybe like five N squared or ten N squared. And then this probability will be very, very close to one, this quantity. So that's how you can make the thing practical. Okay. So your final exercise is to recognize the quote at the top of the page here. This is the end of our week's introduction to Lattice's and Lattice-based cryptography. I put a few thank yous here. I want to thank the graduate school organizers, so Jen, Bjorn, and Ashka for inviting me to speak here. And I want to thank PCMI for running this great program. It was an amazing program with this many people. And most of all, I want to thank all of you for coming and listening and asking questions and being inquisitive. So thank you very much.


Hello Burlington, Vermont. I am Navarro Justino Dodge This you're with Olivia and this is change and we are right now at Community kitchen and we are interviewing local Burlingtonians About the value of the community kitchen Yes, so let's get ready right you ready chance. Okay. Yes. I am Make sure you lock it Like and subscribe on our YouTube down below. Let's go What is the community kitchen to you? Yeah, so the tiny community kitchen We're just a small business located at 156 North Wyniski and what we pretty much do is we bring in a bunch of chefs small home-cooked chefs and provide them an outlet for To cook in basically, you know, we understand that Burlington has quite a high reputation for high rent and so we kind of are Providing these local chefs with an outlet to cook their food and given Burlington a variety in itself What do you think the value of a community kitchen is just uh, yeah, I think the name Says it itself, you know, we're trying to build something here in the community I have a place not only where people can come gather, you know, but have good times have new food You know food really brings people together. So that's what we're trying to do here. Oh, you know, I think it means a lot I think that having in a state that you know Normally has a lot of big box businesses around and being able to look out for those who you know have the same dedication and and And you know have the same pride in the work that they do it's very important to be able to have access to these Kind of places. So yeah, it was great that you know that they were being that this space was actually being able to be offered For such a, you know, a wonderful thing such as Empress kitchen. So I think it's awesome I've only been here a couple times But I love that like different people in the community can come and share the food that they make and there's always Really yummy food here So yeah, I love it. Oh, baby. The first of all the food is Fantastic. Oh, I wasn't supposed to say that right and bleep it. Okay But the vegan ribs is my favorite the piss the potato salad is the BES T And everything else is good too, but those are my favorites and I love Community our community is blessed to have and firstly by so full because Nobody can't compete. Why? How is the bomb the best and if you didn't know now, you know Oh, that's my sister too, by the way, I Think it's so important because it gives an opportunity to People who are just starting out in the food industry or have been cooking for a very long time like Empress But don't have the same access to be able to you know, rent their own space. It's it's you know wait for that to pass the Rent here is so expensive. The landlords here are so greedy They charge so much rent and so the tiny community kitchen is pretty cool because it makes it more accessible for Incredible chefs like Empress to sell their food Why do you think do you think it's hard to create something like this in the community like Burlington? I think that opportunity is the biggest thing Right, so I believe if you got a passion for it all you need is the opportunity and I think that's one of the most important things Is here in Burlington how Burlington is a small, you know Knit community. I think that as long as there is passion behind the cooking and if there's a space for it I think that anything can be done if You were to change Like if you were in charge of this that this thing that is starting our community or something you would change like to improve To make it better in our community Hmm. Um Like I said, I've only been here a couple times. I'm not I don't only have anything that I would change. I guess maybe Just make it so that More people know I don't know. I don't know how many people come here But it seems like there's not always a ton of people. So maybe just making it Yeah, I can't I can't I live in this area, but even know about it So having a bigger space where more people can come and gather and cook and stuff And they can be more of like a staple in the community and so my last question Just what's your favorite food here, man? You know, I'm I can't wait to get my hands on these ribs Hey, you know, yeah, I've been I've been vegetarian now for about six years Growing up. I was a meat eater and I love barbecue But since that transition I haven't had a chance to you know to eat anything that is even close to barbecue So when I found out that I got ribs on a menu, I've been licking my lips and every all day all week long I've been waiting for this. So, you know, that's that's really that I might have to try that too soon I think you And then why do you think it was important to start the community the community kitchen? Come on. It's my second. It's my sister's second time being here It was fantastic the first time and everybody loves Empress Levi so food because it's all vegan and She worked very hard to cook this fantastic food for the community Everybody knows and loves her and this space is fantastic. It was started by a black woman You know, but she left the state and I'm so happy we still have a purpose for it Because everybody loves to eat vegan food It is so popular and it's good baby them ribs is everything if you haven't had them You need to try them Why do you think that landlords in Burlington, especially South Burlington charge such exorbitant rent prices? You know So there are a handful of landlords who maybe they're old Maybe you know, they can't really work anymore and they're just trying to get by That does happen sometimes But the vast majority of landlords are rich and greedy and they're competing with other landlords So even if you try to be a nice landlord the way that capitalism works is that if you're not a mean landlord You will get out competed by the other landlords So part of it is a choice like you choose to be a landlord and you choose to be greedy But once you're participating in the capitalist market for housing and rentals You are going to be competing against other people and so to out-compete others. You have to maximize your profit that's how capitalism works and so Landlords both choose to be greedy because they choose to be landlords and also as long as the system of capitalism is in place People are going to be competing against each against each other to essentially be as greedy as possible So because of this like capitalist system How does this allow for like a place like the community kitchen to show up which kind of goes against all the competitive Mindsets that capitalism breeds You know there are good people in Burlington who care about the community and they care about helping each other out And I think that that love will outlive greed How do you get involved with the community kitchen? Yeah, so you can Hit us up on Instagram at tiny community kitchen. We're active there pretty active there Just shoot us a direct message and we'll move from there. We got a pretty good operation going now Oh, you know, so I'm actually here local in a space, right? So I'm known and I feel like I do I do a lot of community work in this area So I'd normally you know try to support the community when I hear about things that come up such as this opportunity today Definitely I have multiple friends who are chefs in Burlington and You know, it's it's a struggle for all of them to be able to afford their own place and to have a place to be able to cook their food and Do you know to cook and sell their food and this place is um Like I said really like providing that access providing that venue and it has a name recognition too People hear the tiny community kitchen. They're like, okay, whatever it's here.  So I think all those things are great. So what's the Instagram name? So people can follow you guys. So this is Empress Levi soul food and you can put it on the screen Make sure you follow that. Yeah. Well, I think we had a great day here And it was very nice to learn something that's happening in our community good thing in our community, right chance Yeah, it's we did and then I really love it and the food is so smell good That we're definitely gonna come back to try this new food right lover Yeah, yeah, we don't know wait for it was so good for no reason. You should definitely have them Yeah, yeah, um, thank you so much Burlington


Well, first of all, thank you very much, and good afternoon. It's a great honor for me to be here. Before I begin, let me take this opportunity to thank the organizers of the UNU wider for organizing this event for us to present our work. The topic that they choose, learning to compete, is also very timely and closely related to the line manufacturing in Africa project at the World Bank. The project is conducted by a team of researchers and I'm the head of that group. But I must say that this work, if there is any credit, it should go through the whole team. And I'm just presenting here because they're not here. Today, I will talk first a bit about the fighting of our project, which has culminated in a number of books which have been published or about to be published. Two of them, I brought two of them here, but you can find them online. And I'll give you the website that you can access for free. The project objective is to find practical ways to help Africa grow the manufacturing sector. Again, I first will talk about the background for the project. Then we'll talk about the methodology and the findings. And then illustrate the analysis with the example of the latter sub-sector in Ethiopia before turning to policy lessons. First, the background of the study. And that's the outline of my talk. I think from this session this morning, we don't need to really reveal why Africa needs industrialization. I think John and his colleague this morning have given very good rational why Africa needs industrialization. But quickly, it's the fastest way to raise per capita income. And secondly, no country in the world has become an advanced economy without going through industrialization, especially the production of live manufacturing. And even the resource-based countries need manufacturing to create jobs and prosperity. So with that in mind, how is Africa's performance in industrialization? Well, we know that in the past decade, Africa GDP has accelerated to 5.2% per year compared to minus 0.8% in the previous decade. And per capita income grew at 2%. However, most of this growth comes from the commodity exports because, as you know, commodity prices have gone up in recent years. Africa investment remains very low, less than 15% of GDP. And 80% of the workers remain in low productivity jobs. So the recent economic growth is not likely to be sustainable. And more importantly, it doesn't generate the guide of jobs that Africa would need, especially the one that the younger African would aspire to. On the other hand, simple labor-intensive manufacturing have been shown to offer employment creation and structural transformation for many Asian countries. And this is the right time because real wages increased in China are forcing many enterprises over there to start looking abroad for possible relocation. In our study, we look at five sub-sectors. We look at apparel, leather product, wood product, metal products, and agri-business. And the case study is Ethiopia, Tanzania, Zambia. We use China as a benchmark, and Vietnam as a comparator. For more details, I would invite you to go into the website because we have close to 1,500 pages of detail information on our study. And because of the time constraint here, I will not be able to go into detail in many of this. The key contribution of our study is in this methodology. The study is based on five different sources of information or surveys. Four of these are original work done by the study team so that they generate original and new data for the analysis. In the qualitative surveys, we went over to all five countries. We interviewed about 300 enterprises, both formal and informal, using the questionnaire designed by Professor John Sutton at the London School of Economics that you heard this morning. We went to the flow factories. We visited the showrooms. We went to see private bankers, government officials. And here's a picture of our visit in China. Then we have a quantitative surveys that was carried out by Professor Marcel Fabchamps and Simon Quinn of Oxford. That covers about 1,400 enterprises again on the same five countries and covering five subsectors. We also have the comparative value chain and feasibility study carried out by GDS, a consulting firm in Reston, Virginia, based on in-depth interview of about 300 enterprises, medium size, again on all five countries and covering the five subsectors. So we use exactly the same team, same methodology, covering all five countries. And in that analysis, we are able to compare across countries across both Asia and Africa. We also have the Kaizen study carried out by our colleagues at GRIPS and Professor Tessushi Sadobe here who participated in that. That study covers about 550 SMEs in Ethiopia, Tanzania, and Vietnam. Finally, we also have the World Bank Enterprise Survey. But that survey is fairly common. So I won't go into any of this stuff. Basically, four out of five of these are new and original data generated by the world. On the basis, so let me quickly go over the main findings. On the basis of the evidence, we find that Africa indeed has the potential to create millions of productive jobs. On the basis of, first of all, low wages. Ethiopian wages are about half of the Vietnamese and one-fifth of the Chinese in the latter subsector with roughly the same productivity in well-managed firms. Africa does have natural resources, excellent weather that produces good leather. And I will talk a bit about that later on in terms of the inputs to the leather industry. We have a privilege access to high-income markets for exports and finally growing domestic and regional market propelled in part by the good recent economic growth. However, the industrial structure of Africa is currently characterized, especially in the countries that we study, by a large number of low productivity, very small informal enterprises, which exist side by side with a few medium-large enterprises, mostly FDI and SOE. What that means is that for structural transformation to take place, the productivity of both types of enterprises could need to be improved. At a broad level, furthermore, we have a vicious circle of pervasive poverty and low industrialization. Even under the most optimistic scenario, most African countries can only meet modest targets in infrastructure needs after 20, 30 years. And part of the problem is not just the poverty, but also the geography of Africa. You have low population density, low rate of urbanization, large number of landlocked countries, and numerous small economies. So you need to break out of this vicious circle through a targeted approach. At a broad level, and in the three African countries and across the five sub-sectors, we find the six major constraints as a binding constraint for the lie manufacturing. These include input costs and quality, industrial land, finance, trade logistic, entrepreneurial skills, and worker skills. These constraints vary by country, by sector, and by firm size. So policies to address these constraints have to be specific. And you cannot have one size fits all. It has two implications. First, policy makers need to do the work to find out what the specific constraints are in each of the sub-sectors in order to design policies to remove them. Second, once they identify the constraints, the list of these constraints becomes very small in numbers and can easily be addressed, which can lead to reform momentum, which can then lead to further reforms. This is in contrast with the past studies of Africa growth potential, which inevitably come up with a long list of constraints.  We believe that narrowing this analysis through our approach can make the reform agenda much more manageable within the financial and human resources constraints of most African countries. In this slide, we show how using this approach, we can come up with a matrix of binding constraints for Ethiopia by sub-sector and by firm size. The red cells indicate the critical, the most important policies, the most important issues that you need to resolve in Ethiopia. Yellow one means important, which is the next order of priority. And then when you have a blank cell, means you don't have to worry about it. We won't have time to go in detail into these constraints. But I advise you to go through the book on Ethiopia that this is the book on Ethiopia, which provide details on these constraints and how to address these constraints. With the time limit that I have, let me quickly go over to the second row, which is a ladder product. A ladder product here is one of the input industries. And as you see, it's critical for both smaller and larger. The ladder industry in Ethiopia employs 8,000 workers with $8 million of exports. That's back in 2010. Ethiopia also has the second largest livestock population in Africa after Sudan. But you compare that to Vietnam, that currently has, well, for the same year, has 600,000 workers and exports of roughly $2 to $3 billion. That was back in 2010. Right now, in 2013, that number is about $6 billion a year in terms of ladder products. Ethiopia labor costs are lower than Vietnam. And as I mentioned, Ethiopia does have the second largest cattle population. So the most binding constraints for Ethiopia ladder industries are the three factors. First, there's poor disease control that affects the quality of the skin. Second is a lack of the quality processing of the raw hide. And third is a trade policy that affects the availability of leather. Once you find out these three basic constraints in the leather subsector, then solutions come almost immediately in order to treat the ectoparasite, which is a disease affecting the skin of the livestock. The USID has come up with a scheme that can reduce the incidence of this ectoparasite from 94% now to 5%. And the total cost per annum is roughly $9.5 million, which is not big. I mean, if you think in the scheme of the exports that Ethiopia could easily get to Vietnam level of $23 billion a year, and $9.5 million treatment is not large. Second, on the lack of quality processing, the case of Ramsey footwear product in Ethiopia shows that with some technical assistance from the Indian Institute of Leather, which provide technical assistance to seven factories in Ethiopia, one of them, the Ramsey factory, then was able to trip on production within 18 months and was able to export to the Italian market. So this issue of the lack of quality processing of raw hide can easily be rectified with some technical assistance. And third, the trade policy on processed leather, we believe that if Ethiopia allow export and imports of raw hide and processed leather to help alleviate this constraint, this would solve the problem. And we had a discussion with the government last year, and they basically agree with that. So that's the leather case. In terms of policy implications, again, as I mentioned before, because the Biden constraints vary by sector and by firm size, policy makers need to identify, prioritize, and remove the most serious constraints. They need to target policies selectively in line with the comparative advantage and capability. But let me now go over to some of the policy lessons from our study, which comes out in a different book. In fact, the book is called Tell from the Development Frontier, where we study how China and other Asian countries have resolved the Biden constraints specific to line manufacturing. And in that book, we discussed the general solutions, which is industrial parks, industrial clusters, and trading companies. For each of the constraints, China also had some specific solution, which we also discussed in this book. But then I don't have enough time to go into details, but let me quickly mention that and I'll give you the reference. So probably what are the major policy lessons from our study on Asia? First one is we need to create a supporting environment for manufacturing. And by supporting environment, I don't mean the same terminology that's been used over and over again, the so-called doing business and that type of thing. And I completely agree with John that this type of thing is really useless because if a country is able to solve all the problems in the doing business, then it would become a developed country overnight. So why talk about industrialization? Second area is a fueling knowledge and financial gaps through direct foreign investment and network. Third is using substitution policy and sequencing. Fourth is starting small and building gradually. And finally, establishing islands of success by keeping targeted policies selective and within the country's limited resources. So again, I'll go quickly on each one of them. I'm creating a supportive environment for manufacturing. First, we believe that it's very important to have a public endorsement of private sector initiative. And so it doesn't cost the government much, but it's to come out and to say openly that it's important to have a private sector initiative. And how important it is to have a private sector growth, that's very important because the risks are extremely high in developing countries. So for a private investor to start doing business, they need to have their risk reduced. We also find out from the China study that the Chinese actually did not pick winners, but they basically back winners. They let the private initiative start first and then they support the one that wins, the one that seems to have, seem to be doing well. Competition is a key in our study of China. And again, I mean, this is a cliche, maintaining conducive macro and trade policy. It seems like a cliche, but it is indeed very important in the work. In fact, we study roughly 30 cases of industrialization in Asia and Africa in that book. And virtually this confirms the need to maintain discipline in macro and trade policy. And finally, this is, I think this comes back to many of the discussion we had in the last two days. Neither the private sector nor the public sector can drive the process independently and success require public and private cooperation. FDI, I mean, you could talk about how China actually industrialized through FDI because all of these ideas, all of these knowledge coming from Hong Kong and from Taiwan. In fact, there was a study that says that you could look at the correlation between, you could actually determine how fast China moved by looking the distance it is from Hong Kong. So just to show you how important it is. Substitution policy and sequencing. Economists, especially in the West, don't want to look at second best policy. These are second best policy. And they actually work in Asian countries. And there's no reason why they don't work in Africa at all. The industrial part, the industrial cluster, and the trading companies. Again, and another study, another finding that we came up with was that there's a need to look at the final goods first rather than looking at the upstream and downstreams. Take the case of Zambia. It does have a comparative advantage in the production of cotton. But should you go into the upstreams activities of cotton processing? Not yet. I think the most important thing is to have the garment sector first in order to create employment. Then gradually, you could go into upstream or downstream because these are more capital intensive. Starting small and building gradually, this is very important. Again, I give the example of Ethiopia. And that's also illustrated through the development of China's lie industry. Establishing island of success. The work that we did shows clearly that production and exports of lie manufacturing can expand without solving all the problems of a developing country.  You can't solve all the constraints in a developing country. And this approach allows the government to design concrete packages of specific, feasible, inexpensive policy to term start industrialization. And we apply that approach in three countries. This is the book on Ethiopia. In about four weeks, there's two other books coming out on Tanzania and on Zambia. And then in August, the book on China will come out. So we have at least three books along the same, within the same project. Thank you very much. And this is the website that you could go into to provide information. Thank you.