Great, well it's very nice to see you all here. My name is Steve Panful and I'm a technical advisor for Red Plus at Conservation International based in Washington. And I think we've got quite an interesting and an exciting panel today about a subject that has been discussed for quite a while and perhaps isn't getting quite as much attention as it really should have. But following last year's Warsaw Decisions on Red, we're now really entering into the operational phase of Red. And one evidence of this is that we're seeing, we saw the submission of a reference level on Red by Brazil in June of last year. And here during this COP we'll see the submissions, presentations of at least four more countries reference levels. And I think that these are really exciting signs that Red is starting to move forward. And similarly on the funding side we're seeing some important progress as well. So you've probably heard about the very significant pledges that have been made to the Green Climate Fund, right around ten billion dollars now. And the Green Climate Fund also recently adopted a framework for funding results based, or making results based payments for Red. So things are really starting to move forward. And this is an exciting thing. But at the same time we're not at a point where national Red programs are set in stone, there are still significant pieces that are being implemented, developed at the national scale. And we thought we as organizers of this event, which include the CBD Secretariat, the Forest Carbon Markets and Communities Program of USAID, the UNAP, WCMC and Conservation International, we felt this is really a good time to try to bring up this issue of biodiversity conservation in Red again. It's something that all of our organizations have been paying attention to for a long time. It's one of the things that drove a lot of the interest in Red. Way back when Red was just beginning at the concept stage. And yet it is perhaps not something that has been getting as much attention recently. And so we're going to organize ourselves through two segments to this panel. And so I'm going to introduce first the speakers from the first portion of the panel. And we'll start with some introductory comments from each of them. I'll give them each about eight minutes or so, and then I'll ask them each a question or two. And then we'll pass on to the second segment of the panel, which and you'll see that the first part is perhaps sort of a higher level international perspective on this really important issue. And the second part is going to be going into a little bit more detail and some examples of how some of these synergies between Red and biodiversity conservation can be achieved. So for the first segment, I'm very pleased here to have Mr. Braulio Ferreira de Susad Diaz, who is the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity. We have Mr. Gabriel Quijandria, who's the Vice Minister of Natural Resources Strategic Development for the Ministry of the Environment here in Peru. And we have His Excellency Pajero Prasetio, who is the Head of the National Red Agency in Indonesia. So we'll begin with Mr. Diaz. Thank you. Good afternoon to all. So the discussion here from my perspective is to discuss the plus. So we talk about red plus. So it should go beyond just promoting actions to reduce carbon emissions and avoidance of deforestation, for example, in conservation restoration actions. But it should look at other co-benefits. So biodiversity is one of these co-benefits that we hope to see from red plus initiatives. And as you know, much of the biodiversity in the world is in forests. So there's a lot of opportunities for win-win solutions. But there's not always a coincidence of where you have more carbon and where you have more biodiversity. So we have to really take into account the best information available about biodiversity so that we can really explore these win-win opportunities. Two months ago in Korea, we launched the GBO4. So this is the latest information about the status and trends of biodiversity globally. And as you know, we are working to promote the implementation of the strategic plan for biodiversity, which runs to 2020, which is the global UN agenda. So this is not just the agenda of the CBD, but it's an agreed agenda of the other biodiversity-related conventions in all the UN agencies and also major international organizations. So IUCN, BirdLife International, WWF, CI, all these big organizations are also working and utilizing this as their framework. So this report has two main messages. One, that yes, we acknowledge that there has been an increase in efforts to implement the IHIBiodiversity targets. But the second and main conclusions is that current actions are not enough. So if we don't scale up or speed up the actions towards implementation, we will not meet most of the IHIB targets by the end of the decade. So we still have six years to go. At our last COP, we adopted a number of decisions to help increase the efforts. These were labeled the Pyongsheng Roadmap, which includes decision on resource mobilization, cooperation, technical and scientific cooperation, and other aspects, which the parties to the CBD agreed to enhance their actions. Clearly resource mobilization is one of the key elements to promote implementation. And the establishment of incentives, such as payment for ecosystem and specifically the REDPLUS, is a very relevant initiative for us. Just to mention briefly, REDPLUS, we believe REDPLUS could contribute to help us implement maybe half of all the 20 IHIBiodiversity targets. So we're talking about target two, which is to incorporate the values of biodiversity in national accounts and national policies. Target three, to review the economic instruments and subsidies, to reduce those with perverse impact and increase those with positive impact. We're talking about target five, which is to reduce deforestation. Target 11, to increase protected areas. Target 12, to reduce extinction of species. Target 13, to reduce loss of genetic diversity. Target 14, to safeguard ecosystems that provide essential ecosystem services. Target 15, which is to restore degraded ecosystems. Target 18, which is to protect traditional knowledge and the holders of these knowledge. So REDPLUS potentially could contribute to all the achievements of all these targets. At COP 12 in Korea, we adopted a resource mobilization decision to double international flows for developing countries by 2015, compared to the baseline of the years between 2006 and 2010. But also a target to increase domestic resource mobilization everywhere. And also a decision about safeguards in developing new financial mechanisms for biodiversity. So this is important because under the CBD, parties recognize the need to fully respect the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities in implementing new financial mechanisms such as REDPLUS. So I think the CBD has put in place a number of decisions and initiatives that can complement very much and help support implementation of REDPLUS. And I want to end by calling for all of you to help us raise the attention as we progress towards the Paris meeting in a year's time to highlight the relevance of the land use agenda to contribute to achieve the necessary targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So I believe that we have been paying perhaps too much attention to the agenda on energy, housing, transportation, which is important and perhaps not giving enough attention to the agenda on land use. And that's where the CBD, the CCD and other process can help contribute. And I want the help from all of you to highlight the opportunities for this agenda. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Well, I'm very pleased next to be able to introduce Mr. Kihendriah, the Vice Minister from Peru, to give us a little bit of a perspective about the country that we're in right now. Muchas gracias, Steve. I will shift to Spanish. En primer lugar, bueno, quiero disculparme, yo voy a tener que salir más o menos seis y veinte, tengo que ir a atender otro evento, porque el ministro está teniendo otra cosa. Pero quiero agradecer la oportunidad de estar aquí y de comentar un poco lo que hemos venido haciendo en el Perú en este intento de tener un enfoque integral respecto de la gestión del bosque y cómo evitar el riesgo que existe de carbonizar la visión del bosque y de entender al bosque únicamente como un medio para fijar el carbono y perder de vista los otros valores, las otras funciones que el bosque tiene que son igualmente importantes y que tienen, además, incluso convenciones específicas de Naciones Unidas que reconocen este valor, pero que eventualmente no han tenido suficiente engancho, suficiente búsqueda de sinergia hasta el momento. Desde el gobierno tenemos esa idea de entender el bosque como un elemento que está vinculado a una serie de servicios ecosistémicos, como la fijación de carbono, como la regulación hídrica, como la provisión de determinados medios de vida, como la generación o la aporte de determinados no solo servicios, sino también bienes ambientales y entender esa integralidad a partir de buscar articulaciones entre estas formas distintas de abordar el bosque. Deberíamos poder, en un mundo ideal, tener un acercamiento integrado y una visión que permitiese ver, eso sería lo ideal, las diferentes facetas del bosque al mismo tiempo, pero de alguna forma tenemos que poder cortar la realidad y darle alguna racionalidad, por eso es que tenemos convenciones dedicadas al tema de diversidad biológica, al tema de cambio climático, al tema de certificación, tenemos un foro de bosques de Naciones Unidas, el tema es entendiendo la necesidad de tener esta partición de la realidad, no perder de vista que necesitamos reintegrarla también a nivel conceptual y no perder de vista la necesidad de ver toda la figura completa. Nosotros este año hemos estado, además de la organización de STACOP, en un proceso de actualización, en simultáneo de nuestras tres estrategias de las convenciones de río. Un proceso que en alguna medida intentamos que fuese coordinado, que tuviese algún vínculo entre sí, no lo ha sido lo suficiente, ha sido más coordinado que los procesos de las versiones anteriores, pero sentimos que todavía hay la necesidad de generar esta conexión, esta interfase es cosido si quieren, o sea poder coser las estrategias entre sí para que tengan alguna lógica de continuidad. Estamos trabajando en ese momento, por ejemplo lo que tiene que ver en el vínculo entre cambio climático y diversidad biológica, una estrategia intermedia, una estrategia de bosques y cambio climático, que es o respondería a lo que en otros países se ha denominado estrategia red, estrategia nacional red. La idea es que esta estrategia pueda generar los vínculos entre los temas de diversidad biológica, los temas de bosques y los temas red, y pueda ayudarnos a mejorar esta coordinación, esta articulación entre estas visiones que tenemos al mismo tiempo, viniendo desde la diversidad biológica, desde la gestión de los temas de cambio climático también. Hemos avanzado también en algunas trabajos analíticos, justo en un evento anterior se ha presentado los resultados de esta publicación, con el apoyo de UNEP y de RedPak se ha trabajado en la utilización de mapas para poder determinar beneficios ambientales y sociales y cómo están, cómo ver la superposición y la coincidencia de valores de diversidad biológica con valores en el tema de fijación de carbono, en el tema de generación de otros tipos de servicios y bienes ecosistémicos y ver cómo poder manejar esta superposición y buscar estrategias que permitan potenciar, permitan la sinergia, permitan potenciar intervenciones orientadas a atender estas agendas que están muy fuertemente vinculadas. Eso no se ha quedado simplemente en el análisis, en realidad el análisis realizado ha servido también durante el proceso de formulación de un programa de trabajo en el tema red que se ha aprobado también el año pasado, es el programa de inversión forestal del Climate Investment Funds para Perú, donde se hizo un proceso de identificación de 15 zonas o 15 frentes de deforestación, hotspots de deforestación y utilizando parte de esta información se ha determinado finalmente el programa tiene una intervención sobre tres de estos hotspots pero parte del proceso de selección de los hotspots incluyó darle una importancia grande a las zonas de traslap con alto valor de diversidad biológica, con alta potencialidad para la generación de medios de vida y se priorizó la intervención en estos ámbitos específicos, alta concentración de carbono, alta concentración de otros elementos de diversidad biológica, alta concentración de alto potencial de livelihoods y además de existencia de comunidades nativas, de comunidades locales que utilizaban estos elementos, eso ha ido un poco por ese lado, esto un poco ha intentado reflejar esta lógica de ver al bosque de manera integral, sin duda estamos dando los pasos iniciales en este proceso de integración, pero creo que estamos avanzando en concretar esta visión y este mensaje de la integralidad del bosque, a partir de estas intervenciones concretas que son un primer paso, el otro tema y el otro reto con el cual tenemos que lidiar, tiene que ver con la fragmentación en la gobernanza de estos temas, el tema de diversidad biológica, el tema de los bosques en el Perú, estas competencias están alojadas en más de una institución, estamos trabajando muy muy de cerca ahora con el Ministerio de Agricultura en la idea de trabajar la agenda de bosques, pero además trabajar la agenda de bosques integrada a una lógica más amplia de paisaje, integrada a los paisajes productivos que rodean el bosque y que en muchos casos son los que generan la presión misma sobre el bosque y creo que ahí hay una ruta interesante de explorar y de escalar hacia el futuro, gracias. So now we're going to spin around to the other side of the globe and hear a bit of a perspective from another mega diverse country also of course extremely important in terms of the potential emissions reductions from red. Actually not that far, it's just across the Pacific. We are the east coast or the west coast and you are the east coast, right? Of the Pacific of that matter. Yeah, I think the issue that is put here considering biodiversity I was thinking earlier in terms of the biophysical matters, but now I realize when you mentioned that 10 billion has been put into GCF and then I wonder maybe the problem is can we get the money of the GCF for biodiversity issues because if that is a climate change money and this is biodiversity issue and we are still seeing it separately, then it is accumulation of fun in one pot that you cannot access when actually the problem is a combination of both. So and this is I think the issue here with talking about how to consider this biodiversity into that. We know that we are talking about red plus biodiversity. Then we say that actually we are talking about conservation, we are talking about management and we are talking about restorations. All three needs to be considered. If you are only talking about conservation and sustainable forest management, then you are not realizing that actually the elements of this red is actually sick. You look into the forest, half of your forest is sick. You look into the biodiversity, half of the biodiversity is sick and you look into the social equity and social justice of the people living in the forest, half of it is sick, maybe 60%, maybe 70%. Because in the past the rights and the presence of these people, the forest dwelling people was not recognized because they are not formal, then the sickness is because of the formality is a must. So you need to get from non formal into formality and then give the rights and then protect that rights and continue to make the development of the forest dwelling people in the red directions. So that is what I saw when I get into the issue of red plus in the first place. So for Indonesia red plus is from the beginning beyond carbon and more than forest. When we are talking about just carbon incentive for that and only red as a climate change agenda can access the GCF money, then I think we are half blind. We need to see with both eyes. So having said that, red plus in our context is basically beyond carbon, means carbon plus and more than forest is not only the forest but also the biodiversity inside it because it also includes the ecosystem services provided by it. It also includes the issue of the GDP of the poor that is living, the forest dwellers that is living in the forest. Then you have to see the forest in a holistic way. And red plus is the program that will make the governance of the forest better in such a way that moving forward you achieve sustainable growth with equity. Now that is the initial thought and that is what we are trying to implement there. Now when you get into monetizing it, okay, because red relates to money. Red relates to payment. People say that if you are doing an integrated approach to save and conserve the forest, it's not enough. You have this now financial incentive. So how do you capitalize? How do you monetize what you're doing? People in the world, I mean UNFCCC and others is still talking about the money, the amount, sorry, the product that the commodity that can be considered is the carbon. How do you now value half life of orangutan? How do you value the half part of the tiger or something like that? It's very difficult. So you don't have that yet. What is the value that you can give to the improvement of the development perspective of your forest dwelling people? The path that getting them into what they want later on. How do you value that? No figures yet, okay? Ecosystem services, there may be a way of paying that, but it's so diverse and so disintegrated. So we need to integrate that. Now, assuming that the way that you do that, monetize that, and the element that you can sell, the commodity that you can sell is actually carbon, and the question and actually the answer is, is the carbon that is coming from red the same value as the carbon that's coming from industrial pollution? Is the carbon that comes from the landscape affected or affecting emissions the same value as from transportation or from waste? So if you now say that no, the carbon that we are selling from the forest is actually considering also you have the element of the livelihood, you have the element of the biodiversity, you have the element of the ecosystem services, not only to that locations, but the rain that gets from the Amazon into the United States, valued as well into that, then what will happen is you have here a Tata Nano car and here a Ferrari, both red, see? So are you buying Tata Nano red or are you buying Ferrari red? My argument is, when you go into the carbon market, the red carbon must be a Ferrari red, not a Tata Nano red. I think I will stop there for now. Okay, great. Thank you very much. That's a nice image to thinking about that Ferrari. Well, I would like to take advantage of the time that we have here with the Vice Minister to go ahead and ask him the first follow-up question. And I think it's really quite interesting that here in Peru, it's not specifically a red program or I suppose there's a red program, but it's a red program that's inside of this much larger forest and climate program. But of course, getting to this point and ensuring that there is continued coordination between the red entities and biodiversity is a challenge and a challenge that many countries I think still have not answered yet. And I'm wondering if you could come in a little bit on the, what are the biggest obstacles to promoting some of the coordination between the people that work on biodiversity in your government and those that are working on red and maybe offer some other ideas about ways to overcome these challenges. Let's see, at least at the level of the Ministry of the Environment and there shouldn't be any bigger problems because in reality both the direction of biodiversity, the national direction of biodiversity and the national direction of climate change and the national conservation program of forests depend on me. They report on me. However, the reality is different. The dynamics of each one and the inertia that each one has depending on the links they have with their international constituency or with the response to the commitments they have makes that what one would think could happen spontaneously doesn't work and requires a specific intervention. We have this position in the strategy of climate change forests that allows us to make this bridge, this connection between these two two lines of action that have worked in parallel. Additionally, there is this that I mentioned earlier of the link with the Ministry of Agriculture, understanding also the Ministry of Agriculture as the responsible or the rector in the forestry issue in Peru with which the figure is more complex. We have been working on it through having for each Convention of the United Nations we have a national commission that is in charge of promoting the implementation of the specific national strategy for each Convention. However, we do not have a space of articulation between the national commissions that follow each Convention. We are trying to build it from a new perspective from an integration of multilateral environmental agreements that also include some of the other conventions related to biological diversity that are not in the Ministry. The International Convention on Migratory Species or several of the conventions that are linked to the marine issue that are in the Cancillary or the Ministry of Agriculture and that comes from a tradition prior to the Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry of Environment has six years of existence in Peru. There is still a lot of work to be done in trying to make these compartments work in an articulated manner. We believe that this strategy focused on non-red and not on forestry can help to generate this visagra if you want between the spaces or the channels of discussion of each subject. Thank you very much. Next question I'd like to ask is to Pajero. You painted this nice picture of the Ferrari. Of course there are excellent opportunities that red can contribute to biodiversity conservation. We also know that there are trade-offs and that the red program can be addressing many different things, livelihoods as you had mentioned. Could you talk maybe a little bit about the process for looking at these trade-offs and trying to come up with some sort of optimum outcome that can value the biodiversity and some of these other? Let me start by saying that if you start with understanding that your land, your forest is half of that sick and half is healthy and conservation management and restoration is the game then perhaps the trade-off can be done by trying to heal the forest. The graded land is there so that if you're talking about increasing the production of your commodity in the agriculture that needs land that originally if you're thinking business as usual you will cut the tree again to expand your land. You have to realize that we have sick land. I mean the sick land in the sense that the graded land opened forest already. In the case of Indonesia, I don't know in the case of Peru but in the case of Indonesia people say about 30 million hectares out of 100 million hectares, that is a lot. So what prevents the expansion into that direction given to that land already there? It's the law, the regulations is preventing that because the assumption that in that land there is still forest standing has not been corrected. So the first thing that needs to be done is correct the map, understand the locations and go back into the re-registration of your forest, say the boundary, what can be used and what cannot be used, but that is very basic. Start from the basic, get into that. While doing that at the same time make sure that what you are going into is a clear and clean land. What this means is that if in the past there is a sin from the government or from the economy to actually not giving the right respect for the rights of the people there, give the rights back. And so you can delineate in a better way what is accessible and what is not accessible, what is owned, what is not owned. That's the first thing. The second when you are trying to do that, consider the people that is dwelling in the forest not as disturbed neighbor because if you are doing your plantation and the people get put aside and then you are disturbed neighbor I will give you candies. No, not anymore. In the next red plus strategy of Indonesia, the forest dwelling people are partners. So you need to work together with them so that they will get the benefit of the red program instead of just giving in the safeguard epic things. Alright, I'll give you this because then you can live happily ever after with that amount of money. What is happily ever after? What I am happy with now will not be what I am happy with 15 years from now. So that development path needs to be made and agreed and planned together and implemented together and the red is the facilitator for that. So it is going to be very complex. When we are talking about that, what we are doing in Indonesia, Steve, is not only talking about carbon, not only about rail, not only about how to measure and MRV, but we are talking about green village. We are talking about green school, making the education of the children moving forward for the next generation better equipped and better infused with the concept of green economy. So that is that activity. Can that be valued in terms of the carbon tonnage? No. But is that more than just the carbon tonnage value? Yes. Because if we can do that, then we can assure that moving forward, the final objective of the combat against climate change will be achieved. And that is what the balance of the planet, the living planet, the living people, happy. So it will be necessary to get that money from the GCP. And one thing that we need to consider there, I am not so much Barulio to agree in terms of the co-benefit terms. I will be using interdependent benefit terms. Because what the benefit here is actually bringing the other benefit in, or when you are talking about this, and this is not well done, the other benefit suffers. So you need to see that as an interdependent benefit, I will put you on co-benefit into interdependent benefit. So I think with that, put that into the value of the Ferrari rep, then it will be worth the Ferrari rep. But how do you package that? How do you put that into the market offering, so to speak, is perhaps the next agenda of the scientists? Help us in terms of creating that value that is an integrated value of red. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, okay. So we will say goodbye, but with much thanks to Vice Minister Kihendriya. Oh, yeah, sure. You have my card, right? Okay, see. I really appreciate it. I'm taking the time as is obviously an extremely busy time for the Ministry of the Environment here in Peru right now. So I would like to continue with one more quick question to Mr. Diaz. And you and your position, of course, are working with many governments around the world and we're hearing a government perspective and some of the things that government can do in order to try to achieve some of these synergies. But I think that there's probably quite an important role also for civil society. We heard maybe the suggestion that there's an important role for additional science, but I would like to hear maybe your thoughts on how others in the audience here, we have quite a bit of civil society that participates in this event, can also be helping to build these synergies. Certainly. Well, I think in the end, if we really want to address these issues and guarantee that the solutions we will be implementing, including by using the funding for under red plus, to make sure that these solutions are sustainable, that they will survive year after year, we need to have good governance. So part of the problems that we face with deforestation, for example, is in many ways due to lack of good governance. So lack of recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in local communities, lack of adequate participation of different stakeholders in decision making. And so I think we have to address this. And even though Pajero is right, that maybe some of these activities that we might be funding through red plus might not be directly being converted into carbon, but they will ensure the sustainability for these actions to the future. So I think this has to be taken into account. So the issue of governance I think is critical and it was raised in the opening panel here. I'm quite encouraged, for example, to see discussions under the CBD and other forum an increased interest on the issues of governance. For example, under the protected areas program of the CBD we have been developing a number of capacity building regional workshops and guidance and tools. And we see a lot of interest in different governments to review their legal framework and to really put in place better governance systems. So during the last parks congress in Sydney, Australia, recently, we had a whole stream of events discussing governance of protected areas. And I was very pleased to see presentations from governments of countries like Madagascar, the Philippines, Iran telling us that they had reviewed their legal framework for protected areas, recognizing the whole range of categories and governance systems for protected areas. Because, unfortunately, many countries are still restricted. They have the old, just strict preservation of protected areas categories, which doesn't allow for adequate participation of indigenous peoples, local communities and to take into consideration their interests. So implementing the full range of these categories of protected areas is a way forward. We have examples in the local fisheries or inland fisheries, for example, in several countries, showing that by having innovative governance arrangements between the governments and the local fishermen communities, giving them exclusive rights for access to fisheries resources in certain areas, the communities then really start making decisions which are more sustainable for the long term because they see that any reduction in the fishing effort will reduce in benefits for them. And that's what we have been dealing with, is the tragedy of the commons. So the answer for the tragedy of the commons, which also affect the forestry area, is good governance. So I think by having a more comprehensive strategy for funding for Red Plus, including the issues of governance, including the needs and interests of local communities, indigenous peoples, I think is the right way. And having civil society participating fully and also helping to have an oversight to see whether things are being implemented in an appropriate way. Okay, great. Well, thank you. We are going to pass on to the second portion of the vent here with a couple of presentations that go a little bit more into detail about how some of these issues of biodiversity conservation and Red are being addressed. And at the end of these two presentations, then there'll be an opportunity for comments to any of the panel from the audience. So we're going to begin with Valerie Capos, who is the head of the Climate Change and Biodiversity Program at UNEPWCMC, to share a bit of her perspective sitting at sort of a global level and engaging directly with countries on how to address this specific issue. Okay, could I have the presentation, please? We have the... So what I'm going to tell you about is a little bit of work that we've done, in fact, in collaboration with the CBD Secretariat to ask this question of how far we're already taking account of the potential synergies between Red Plus and Biodiversity. Some of us have been talking about these synergies for quite a long time, really since very early in the process. And the question is... They're sort of obvious to many of us, but what's being done to really advance them? I always have a heavy finger for these. Right, Bradio gave us a quick skate through the Aichi targets, and he listed a lot more than I've put here, but I want to... And these are heavily paraphrased, and he may not like my paraphrasing, but they wouldn't fit on the slide, otherwise. So this is pragmatic. But I wanted to remind you that there are many obvious ways in which Red can support achievement of the Aichi targets, obviously, in the targets that specifically mention forests and carbon, but also in those that mention sustainable management, in protected areas, that address restoration. So this is not an exhaustive list. Bradio's list was much more comprehensive, but this is to remind you what we're talking about. People have acknowledged these potential synergies for as long as we've had the targets, really. But we've begun to think a little bit more about what those complementarities really entail. And the point is not just that red outcomes will help to deliver biodiversity outcomes, but actually that some of the things you need to do for red and for achieving those biodiversity outcomes are exactly the same things. You need some of the same kinds of actions. You need some of the same kinds of planning processes. And you need some of the same kinds of information to support decisions and track outcomes. We've had mentions from several of our speakers today about, particularly from the vice minister who's now left, about how siloed or compartmentalized or fragmented we are in the work that we do. And one of the things that we were interested to see was what evidence there is and maybe what can be done in future to try to promote a little bit more, let's call it operational synergy, between red and biodiversity conservation, so that we don't have these different processes going on in different ministries or different departments in the same ministry trying to answer the same questions. To look at how these potential synergies are being pursued at national level, there were two parts to our work with the CBD secretariat. We carried out, we had held two workshops with red plus and biodiversity focal points and we also did some national case studies of red and biodiversity conservation and national biodiversity strategy and action plan documents. I want to tell you a little bit very quickly about the workshops with the focal points. One of these was co-hosted by COMIFAC which was fantastic because COMIFAC being a regional forest coordination country membership organization had fantastic convening power and we actually managed to get in the same room for five days, red plus focal points and CBD focal points from some countries and in both that workshop and in the workshop which was held later in Costa Rica we had several reports that these were the first time these people had met each other much less spent time talking to each other. In fact, two of them, I won't name the country, spent a long time on an airplane together and found it very productive. So, you know, there's some really simple things we can do. We can lock people in rooms. It's really quite helpful. So, and what these workshops concluded and I can't actually see the bottom of the slide either but I'm going to have to make it up as I go along. But what we found when we got people into these rooms and they were talking to each other was that there was a sort of high level recognition of the potential for these synergies and that people realized that an awful lot of whether you could realize these synergies depended on what you do and especially how you do it and that therefore the role of safeguards whether they come from the CBD end or whether they are the proper Cancun safeguards and they're respecting and addressing respecting and addressing the Cancun safeguards. There's a very, very strong role there in helping determine how we take action for red or indeed how we take action for biodiversity and what the impacts those actions will have. But there are challenges and some of those challenges the participants in the workshop raised were that the different agendas preceded different rates within countries not only are they actually compartmentalized in different parts of government for example and indeed different parts of civil society but things are moving forward at different rates. If I can just remind myself what the last one is. The usual challenge which are resources including financial resources and capacity resources. That didn't work very well. Let's see where we are. Oh, okay. This has crunched up a bit. So those were some of the conclusions from the workshops. I'm terribly sorry about the formatting on this. I obviously had a moment. But when we looked in depth at individual countries and we looked at sets of documents that were both biodiversity documents and red plus documents. So we looked at embryonic red plus strategies or indeed completed ones. We looked at national biodiversity strategies and action plans many of which predated red but we looked at the update processes. And what we found was that there was a lot there was some good evidence that things were going in the right direction. There was for example a good inter-ministerial communication and participation in the Philippines that the red stakeholders were in the biodiversity NBSAP updating workshops and the biodiversity stakeholders were in the red plus workshops that in itself is progress. A few years ago that wouldn't have been happening. We also found that in a few cases there was actually explicit mention of particular actions. So in Central Africa protected areas are listed as a major red strategy. And they clearly coordinate with the national objectives that are going into those revised NBSAPs. So it's nice to see that explicit. Okay, my formatting has really caused problems. I wanted also to highlight work that's been done by colleagues at the forest carbon markets and communities program who reviewed in very great depth 14 national red plus strategies and found that half included general statements. So again, here we are this general awareness about biodiversity conservation and red plus and complementarities. But only two of those 14 national program documents reviewed those from Costa Rica and DRC identified specific policies and measures to conserve biodiversity within red plus documents. So we have a ways to go. We have a ways to go. There are possibilities, but we have a ways to go. Finally, my conclusions are very quick and they pretty much summarized what I've already said already. So I won't go over time, but we need more specific policies and actions on both sides. We need better communication between decision makers and actors. And in particular, we need sharing. We had participants asking all the time for continued sharing of experience and practical examples of activities, data and tools between countries. So not just between ministries, but between countries. Thank you. Great. Thanks very much, Val. One point I thought that was really quite interesting there is that you saying that within your own analysis of the national documents seeing progress that some good reasons for hope that there is increasing awareness and work towards synergies and in fact that FCMC study that you mentioned that I worked on also showed quite a similar thing and that the more advanced documents which in this case were the ER pins that were being prepared for the FCPF carbon fund were the ones that showed that greater level of detail and I think that is an encouraging sign. So our third presentation here is from Mark Declaro and again it's really great that we've got another representative from yet another mega-diverse country. Mark is the head of the red unit in the Department of Natural Resources in the Philippines and he's going to give us a little bit of a perspective about the red and biodiversity issues in the Philippines. Thank you, Steve. Can you hear me? Yeah, okay, good. I hope you will allow me to read some of my notes because I want to capture everything and I want to miss on very important points. We have the presentation? Yep. So I'll be talking about utilizing spatial data and mapping for red plus and nbSAPs within the context of the Philippines. So first the 2012 Philippine Forestry Statistics of the Forest Management Bureau showed that based on the visual interpretation of images of the Philippines taken from various Earth observation satellites like ALOS, Abner II, SPAT-5 and Landsat the total forest cover of the Philippines is estimated at 6.84 million hectares or roughly 22% of the country's total land area of around 30 million hectares. Before it used to be 7.2 million hectares in 2003 it has gone down to 6.8 million hectares right now. The management of the forest land falls under the jurisdiction of the Forest Management Bureau where I belong of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Oh, sorry. It jumped. However, while forest lands are managed by the Forest Management Bureau it is the Biodiversity Management Bureau who is responsible for the conservation and management of the country's considerable network of 240 protected areas covering 5.45 million hectares. So, two different offices. Many of these protected areas are actually haven for the country's flora and fauna which are among the most diverse in the world. Due to its geographical isolation, diversity of habitats and high rates of endemism the Philippines is one of 18 mega-diversity countries which together hold two-thirds of the Earth's biodiversity and approximately 70 to 80% of its animal and plant species. The Philippines is believed to harbor more diversity of life than any other country on Earth on a per-hectare basis. It is actually a paradise of biodiversity. However, the Philippines is also a country with a high number of threatened species making it a biodiversity hotspot as well. Deforestation rates in the Philippines have dropped significantly in the last decade while the country was among the top ten countries contributing to greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in the early to mid-2000s. According to the FAO, it had positive forest growth between 2005 and 2010. However, recent national analysis by Namriya indicate that there has been deforestation between 2003 and 2010 at a rate of over 328,000 hectares. We have annual forest cover loss of 46,954 hectares. So pressures on forests still exist including from lagging, pure wood-gathering and charcoal-making, agricultural expansion, especially kengen-making. It's the slashing and burning of the understory on trees as part of shifting cultivation and, of course, infrastructure expansion. In order to counteract the negative trends, the Philippine government has adapted a series of policies and strategies to address the pressures to forest and biodiversity. In 2010, it endorsed the Philippine National Red Blast Strategy which was developed with the participation of civil society and non-governmental organizations. The strategy encompasses a ten-year time frame from 2010 to 2020 consisting of a reddened space of three to five years followed by a gradual scaling up to a five-year engagement pace. The Philippine Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan is the primary instrument for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity at the national level and that was first completed in 1997. Following the 10th Conference of the Parties to the CBD in 2010, the Philippines has been updating its envisage on an ongoing basis to reflect the goals of the strategic plan and the I.G. Biodiversity targets. This process is actually ongoing. Furthermore, the Philippine government issued a lagging moratorium in natural forests through Executive Order No. 23. The President has imposed a lagging ban in all natural forest nationwide in 2011, the first in our history. This is to stop further depletion of our forests. Now to expand our forest cover, our President established the biggest forest station program in our history, the National Greening Program in 2011 through Executive Order No. 26. We intend to plant 1.5 billion trees in 1.5 million hectares in six years. We will plant more trees in six years than what we have planted in the past 50 years. Now action for Red Blast under the UNFCCC can contribute towards achieving the I.G. Biodiversity targets and vice versa. However, how national biodiversity strategy and action plans and Red Blast activities are ultimately planned and implemented is key to determining the extent of synergies and complementarities. For us as decision makers, maps can serve as useful tools as they can support spatial planning or often rapidly produced, customizable and easily communicated. Spatial analysis exercises can serve as a useful tool for exploring where actions for Red Blast may also complement or further promote the country's commitments under the CBD and help it realize the I.G. Biodiversity targets. For example, I.G. Biodiversity target number 12 was the ambition to prevent extinction of known threatened species and improve and sustain their conservation status by 2020. If spatial information on threatened species is available, a spatial analysis exercise for Red Blast could look at where areas of importance for Red Blast actions are in relation to areas which contain high concentrations of threatened species to see the extent of overlaps. Now the mapping exercises that are shown in the following slides aimed at exploring areas in the Philippines where there are likely to be synergies between actions which contribute to the I.G. Biodiversity targets and Red Blast. Now the spatial analysis of drivers of deforestation, biopysical and threatened species data as well as potential for multiple benefits was undertaken in the frame of the Red Pak project funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment. This was mentioned a while ago. The report as shown on the right, and this presentation are the Outconservational Workshop conducted by the United Nations Environment Program World Conservation Monitoring Center in October 2013 with the Department for Environment and Natural Resources. The workshop aimed to demonstrate how spatial data can be used by national decision makers to inform Red Blast could also help to meet the countries' biodiversity conservation targets under the CBD. We also supported the identification of priority areas for Red Blast actions that enhance benefits and aimed at raising awareness on the benefits from the forest. So those are the I.G. Biodiversity just to remind us. But... Yeah. Now... went back. So joint planning for implementation of the I.G. The point? The I.G. Biodiversity targets and Red Blast holds great relevance for a country such as the Philippines. Having ratified both the CBD and the Kyoto Protocol at the UNFCCC, the Philippines is currently in the process of revising its NBISAP under the CBD and has had a Red Blast strategy in plan since 2010. Now, since responsibilities for CBD and Red Blast implementation are held by different bureaus, FMV and BMV, within the DNR, the exercise to explore synergies between I.G. targets and Red Blast constituted an opportunity to increase coordination and enhance likely synergies and minimize any conflict. I want to show you some slides on some maps. Oops. Yep. Like this one. Reducing deforestation and forest degradation. These are information on past trends in forest cover alongside an understanding of the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. It can support both NBISAP and Red Blast planning. Additionally, Red Blast requires information in existing carbon stocks in forests. Now, you know what? Understanding the locations of illegal lagging in relation to carbon can therefore support planning for Red Blast and I.G. Biodiversity target number 5. I.G. Biodiversity target number 5 is specifically about natural habitats. So the illegal lagging hot spots indicate where there is pressure from forest degradation as can be shown in the slide. Map also shows relation to biomass carbon and illegal lagging hot spots to areas of importance for biodiversity which may therefore be particularly important natural habitat. So these data include important bird areas and areas important for other taxa which are identified as the country level and criteria. Now, in this next slide that I will show you it has something to do with reducing forest degradation. Wildfires pose a hazard in the Philippines, particularly in the summer. They originate from land being cleared for agriculture. So for example, came in making accidental fires that spread through the forest and human settlement next to the forest which have increased. The frequency and intensity of wildfires in the Philippines has also been linked to the global warming and the El Nino phenomenon. So the map shows the distribution of areas high threatened species richness in relation to the fire occurrence between January and June 2013 which falls mostly in the dry season in the Philippines. The species richness layer is based on species ranges of threatened mammals, amphibians and reptiles. The map also shows the boundaries of the ancestral domains recognizing the role of the indigenous people in the conservation of threatened biodiversity. So forest fires are an important concentration under any future national red-blast mechanism. Strategies which aim to prevent forest fire under red-blast will help guarantee the permanence of carbon stocks, reduce risk associated with forest regeneration and sustainable management of forest. So I still have a few more slides on reducing the effective management and extent of protected areas is the focus of the IHE biodiversity target number 11 and that by 2020 at least 70% of terrestrial inland water and 10% of coastal marine areas especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem service are considered to effectively and equitably manage ecological representative and well-connected systems. Now protecting areas the point is protecting areas of biodiversity and carbon which are also under threat and have large benefit for both benefits for both red-blast and NBESAP objectives. So the browner is the carbon. This map shows the locations of areas which are high in carbon important for threatened species and the location of protected areas. So red-blast actions including increasing the effectiveness and extent of protected areas for threatened species and which are high in carbon have the potential to contribute towards emissions reduction and IHE biodiversity target 12 which aims to prevent the extinction of known threatened species and improve and sustain their conservation status by 2020. So actions relevant to red-blast and the IHE biodiversity targets do not just include reducing deforestation and forest degradation the sustainable management of forest is also one of the five red-blast activities and closely related to IHE biodiversity target number seven at by 2020 areas under agriculture aquaculture and forest are managed sustainably ensuring conservation of biodiversity. The map provides an overview of the distribution of areas under the community-based forest management agreement in relation to key biodiversity areas it shows where sustainable management of forest could be implemented as an activity under red-blast in a way which also contributes to the conservation. So briefly put, spatial analysis can support planning for ecosystem services such as soil erosion control it allows exploring where existing forest play an important role in preventing soil erosion and forest restoration could potentially reduce soil erosion. The latter could potentially inform site selection under the NGP down to my last two slides last slide. Now initial mapping results guided the updating of the PBISAP, Philippine Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans which is likely to be published this December pinpointing potential priority areas for conservation, identifying critical areas for reforestation, bring up gaps in intervention and conservation actions. To conclude in the Philippines there are concrete opportunities for linking red-blast actions to those aiming at IHE biodiversity targets. Maps can support identifying and planning those actions by prioritizing areas important for biodiversity and red-blast planning for reducing deforestation sustainable forest management and planning for the conservation enhancement of ecosystem services. Finally, as planning for red-blast and the IHE biodiversity targets moves forward the implementation of NBISAP and red-blast activities will ultimately determine the extent to which synergies are achieved. So much as gracias Maraming Salamat Thank you very much. Thank you very much Mark. Great. Well that gives us a visual and we've heard several comments here about mapping and now we actually get to see what some of these look like in the flesh. So now it's the time that hopefully as you've been seeing these some questions have popped into your minds and we welcome any questions to come from the audience and for any of the panelists and if you can please identify yourself and your institution. I think we have a microphone. Good afternoon and thank you very much to all presenters. I'm Michael Buki from the European Commission Brussels. Thanks very much. It's fascinating to hear your talking and I would like to talk to the idea of the red Ferrari versus the red Tata. The catch 22 we are in is that everybody understands that we would rather drive the red Ferrari but we would rather pay for the red Tata. And of course that's because we don't see the benefits of the Ferrari or we see the price tag is too high and it's the benefits of biodiversity of governance and of course cannot be quantified in terms of emission reductions in a given year but over the time they can be quantified in the reduction of a risk and so what I mean is that we have growing evidence in Europe for instance that biodiversity forest are less likely to die back due to extreme climate events or that governance school means that people are more satisfied with their environmental ecosystems and therefore they are more likely to conserve them and not convert them. So this notion of risk of these elements that you call interdependent benefits that they reduce the risk of losing the carbon of just transferring the risk elsewhere like reducing the risk that people start importing food that they use to produce themselves or that they just migrate because they are not happy enough with where they used to live these elements are meaningful in terms of mitigation of sustainable mitigation. So the quantification of risk associated with bad biodiversity or bad governance I think is a fertile ground. I don't know if you had a look into that. Shall I answer street? Maybe we'll take another question or two if we've got it and otherwise you can be thinking of your question and what we can come back but is there someone else with a hand up here? There's one there. Great. Thank you very much Mito Mori from Japan International Cooperation Agency and I really enjoyed the same speakers presentation. My question is the IPBS I think is the very initial stage of the discussion and it has a lot of the linkage to the lead plus and I would like to know if you have any plan to how to integrate the discussion of IPBS to the lead plus or the biodiversity and also the other thing is the lead plus will be implemented after 2020 I believe the time schedule of the IPBS target is slightly different. How do you corroborate the time schedule of the lead plus target? Wow. Okay. We'll take one more and then we'll have some responses here. In the centre. Thanks. My name is Bobo Sullivan from FCMC and also from Terra. So one of the co-sponsors of this discussion was from the CPD secretariat and also from the others around what's been going on on the international level, which CPD decisions are also about what UNFCCC decisions are. We're at the negotiations right now. So I guess to all the panellists do you see there's a need for more decisions at the international level either under the CPD or under the UNFCCC between the CPD and the UNFCCC on biodiversity in red or do you think now we have enough of the high level guidance and now it's just getting down to the national level there's enough understanding what needs to be done it's just a matter of going ahead and doing it. So a general question to all of the panellists. Okay. Sounds good. I'm eager. Will the Ferrari run far? Or will the Tata Nano run further with the same amount of fuel? Well, I think that it seems to be the questions here in terms of the risk in terms of that sustainability. I believe that what we are trying to do here is half scientific and half experimentation. So when you're talking about doing this carbon market getting it on with the fund that is there public funding, private investment, facilitation, those kind of a combination of fund that we are talking about and the price of the carbon is just one element that put into the equation. Now definitely it is true that how do you actually measure the value of the biodiversity that you put into the tonnage of carbon? How do you really measure the happiness or the progress that is given to the forest dwelling people into the price of the carbon? Those are equations that is quite complex and my suggestion is that if actually some scientists can get together and make a model and just like when we get to Aceh after the tsunami and people ask where do you start? And we don't know where to start and we will start there and take the risk that is actually an experimental that will need to get proven but if you don't move you are not getting it. So my suggestion is actually having that study maybe not as robust as it should but make use of that component and try to do a transaction. My suggestion for that transaction it should be bilateral if you do that on the multilateral then the conditions from the 190 countries will prevent you from getting into something that is more productive. So my idea is that if we can do that and agree with our buyer in whatever form, whether it is a credit offset or is it something that is more in the public kind of funding into the future experiment and interaction then let's do it. We can go through the early mover, we can go to the understanding that works with a particular country as our partner and if we can do that then it is proven concept so you have a proof of concept and you can do the proof of applications when you have the numbers already accepted. It will be needing some of that courage and some of that willingness to think for the better good moving forward that we do that experiment. It's not 100% solution that is clean up front but you don't get into brand if you don't go from the real fossil fuel at the beginning. We can do that process of getting it refined moving forward. So I understand there will be a risk. Post 2020 is red only limited to if I understand the question right or what is going to happen after that. I don't know we are talking about Kyoto protocol, we are talking about Aichi target and we are talking about Nagoya and Japan but when you are converging it and you are talking about is Japan something that is shortsighted? I don't think so. Japan is talking about 3000 year kingdom. This is something that is talking about longevity and we are talking about climate change, landscape sustainable development that will go into generations. So if our mindset is only until 2020 2030 or 2050 New York declaration of forest, I think that is very myopic. You go to the Yosemite Park and see what is the size of that forest how long is it there? That is 50 years New York declaration of forest is still very young. You just have this tall of that sequoia forest. So it has to be longer. My perspective on that is that way. Great, thank you. So about this question of additional formal guidance or agreements, do we have enough in the international agreements to try to push these synergies or what needs to be done there? I want to refer to this and to the other questions quickly. I think we have quite a lot of decisions at global level. Maybe we have enough. However there's challenges in promoting the synergies at all levels. As we are discussing here in this global landscape forum most of the policies are sectoral policies. Most of the agencies are sectoral. So it's a challenge to bring together at the national level, subnational level, regional and global level to really integrate more the policies and that's what we need. So perhaps we still need to go further in developing appropriate mechanisms, forum whatever to support the synergies. So all the countries under the CBD for example they always agree we need to promote synergies but it doesn't happen. So it's a challenge. So we have to create some mechanism to facilitate for that. For example we are now in the process of preparation for the third conference on disaster risk reduction that will take place in Sendai in March and the UN will have the intention to prevention to reduce the risks and the intensity of the disasters. But most countries engaged in the preparations for Sendai they are only concerned about how to make the best use of the money available for relief action. So we need to make that change that requires a mindset change. So people are still in the old mode and we need to shift towards more prevention which is more cost effective and of course discussing prevention of disaster risk means investing in conservation ecosystem restoration reduction of deforestation is relevant. In terms of the higher costs associated with a Ferrari approach towards red plus we have to see this as investment not as cost. So there will be returns to society not only environmental benefits but social and economic benefits will be better capable of capturing all these different values of returns from these investments. And as was mentioned by the person that made the question there's other side benefits so of course having more biodiversity rich forests of course it means that they are more resilient to disasters and to climate change and they are more capable of adapting to climate change so these things have to be taken into account. The issue of the IIT targets being targets for 2020 and the post 2015 development agenda with the proposed SDGs being targeted for 2030 there's an apparently mismatch are clearly understood as just a first step in that countries would see that by making efforts additional efforts to achieve the IIT targets by 2020 that will put governments in countries in a much better position to achieve the SDGs targets for the next decade. So they have to be seen as complementary in the long-term process. So I see as completely compatible. Great. Steve can I comment to add into that just for the sake a statement of Gabriel was very interesting when he mentioned the difficulties of coordinating within the country, within the government and he said that each sector has their international partner. So with the sector of Ministry of Environment having connected with UNEP another connected with FAO another connected with UNDP for instance and their agenda is actually strengthening the silo from national to international that is very tough to have the ministry within the country to talk to each other I mean we better talk to UNEP and UNEP is saying no and this is FAO is saying no I mean and that is something that we experience actually in the real life so the UN red sorry the red plus program in Indonesia talk to the secretary general I need to have one UN service to us and that's why we created UN ORCID because by doing that we are actually limiting complexity of the extended silo so that we can have that and connect it. And that's why the post 2015 development agenda process is so important because once adopted it will certainly encourage each country to create a more integrated process to discuss sustainable development and integrate the different ministries in process. Okay just an addition. Thank you. Is this working? Can I come in? Can people hear me? I just wanted to come in with one more thing about do we need more decisions or more guidance. I think we've heard this week that we're very unlikely to get any guidance and I'm not sure that we need it I think what we need is sharing of experience we are seeing progress in places in fragmentary ways individual countries have individual successes and I think that if we can share those incremental bits of progress between countries in a rather more active way than we've been doing so far we've got a good way of getting guidance without having guidance if you know what I mean. Yeah. Thank you. Mark do you want to add anything? Yeah. Okay. So I want to comment on how to create synergies for example in the Philippines what we're doing right now some of us are attending the UNFCCC but the other group, the other office the biodiversity group is attending the CBD so but right now we would like to have some coordination so some of us will also attend the CBD just so that we could have an effective collaboration and also in our in the drafting of our safeguards framework and guidelines we have included therein already some of the IHE biodiversity targets and like for example in the environmental risk we have identified biodiversity laws so we are integrating the IHE biodiversity targets with that of the red glass activities so that's what we're doing I personally I believe that we should go beyond surfing jurisdictions and mandates and I think we really have to get our apps together and be united. Great. Okay. Well I know that we are after time and I know that this is right now at seven o'clock is when the knowledge sharing fair is happening here on the third floor I believe that there's a reception with some beverages that come with that so I don't want to keep you from that I do want to point out that the FCMC has a booth over in this area and some of the work that was referred to here is available there at the FCMC booth so I'd encourage you to go and visit the stand if you're interested in this I just want to point to a few of the topics or things that kind of jumped out at me as we went through this one Val talked about the value of having people that are just getting the people that work on red and biodiversity from the governments together in the same room and that in some cases just creating that space has turned out to be really very valuable so that's an example perhaps of a very cheap fix but then we also of course have to recognize that it's not just a matter of people working in a very siloed way for no good reason that there are these links to lots of other international obligations links to international institutions which make it a bit simpler than just putting people together in the room all the time Another thing that jumped out is about the importance of spatial analysis and the mapping and we saw some very interesting work that's being done in the Philippines to try to take advantage of that and those tools are increasingly being used I think by more countries in the prioritization of their red investments and we heard some really interesting comments about the need to have some courage I think to invest in the biodiversity benefits perhaps it's not possible we don't have the science necessary so just a few of the things that jumped out at me through this we are very thankful for the participation of all of our panelists here and also to you for your interest in the session today and we look forward to interacting with you here in the hallways of this event Thank you