of the attempts to date to look at green development have very much sort of occurred at a project level or more so on specific initiatives. But in switching over to a jurisdictional approach where we do things on a much larger national scale, that presents some very different challenges, many of which we haven't really thought through yet or were just for the first time starting to address. So the part of the point of this afternoon session is to really look at what are some of the important challenges and opportunities that shifting from a national approach, I mean, sorry, from a smaller approach to a jurisdictional approach actually presents. So on the basis of this, I'm gonna hand over first to E1 to open up the presentations. And feel free to do it over there or do it here. What have you learned? We'll be standing here. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm happy to presenting here because there's some familiar faces, there's some old friends, colleagues, so hopefully you will be nice to me in the discussions. Okay, so let's start about how we in Indonesia start thinking about the jurisdictional approach. And I think the NC as a host is like kind of the old friend when we developing jurisdictional approach through program in Brau. So yeah, when we talk about the jurisdictional approach, we talk like how Indonesia implementing Red Plus. If you aware that in many international forum, we're calling that Indonesia will implement it, the Red Plus at the national level with the national approach, with the sub-national implementation. There's no, till today, there's no specific definition on what we call as sub-national. It can be from province, it can be districts, it can be forest management unit or Kapeha, or it can be in a project or combination, all of that. So yeah, jurisdictional support is implemented for Red Plus at sub-national level based on the jurisdictional area as a basis. I think that can be very fluid definition, but that's what we trying to do to make things more clear that what we call as a jurisdictional. And then also, this is the second point is like to answer, like jurisdictional approach is accounting unit for now. And then when we talk about implementation, we will doing it at Kapeha, at the community forestry, Hutan-Desa, Hutan-Adat, and different kind of intervention. And then when we talk about jurisdiction, reference emission level, we're playing key roles here. So the reference emission level at jurisdictional level or at sub-national level will be part of the national one. And then the other point when we talk about jurisdictional approach, there's a lot of potential to integrate it, everything under one jurisdiction. It can be like a project in Kapeha, project in Hutan-Adat, Hutan-Desa, so we can bundling it and then develop a common reference emission level. Yeah, and then now when we talk about jurisdictional basis, now Red Plus agency start working in 11 provinces, and then you will question like, why not all the provinces, why 11 provinces? Based on our calculation that these provinces represent like 70 to 80% of Indonesian forest. So we started working on these provinces first. Please, yeah, we start at Central Kalimantan and then now we working at East Kalimantan, Jambi, West Sumatra, and also already have cooperation like in Central Sulawesi, soon will be in Papua and West Papua, and also for the rest of 11 provinces, for this year and the next year we will move to the all of the rest of provinces in Indonesia. Please, yeah, yeah, okay. Yeah, this is the status of let's say the readiness that we already have like 11 strategy and action plan at the provincial level. They have a different approach, they have a different situation, have different challenges, but yeah, at least we have a strategy at 11 provinces as a basis. And if you know that, please continue. Yeah, this is the phases we following. Right now, if you see that from 2013 to 40, actually start from 2010, we starting especially in the context of like what task force doing and then we now at the phase 2A, and then hopefully by the end of 2016, we can saying that we graduated and then ready to be implemented all the full implementation phase, result based payment, we started from there and then we hopefully by now and then up to 2016, all the instruments needed for entering phase 3 will be ready. Please continue, yeah, please, yeah. And then this is one of the initiative that we want to highlight it, how important the having integrated data, one data base on forestry and the other sectors, especially for the licensing as a basis for developing the jurisdictional approach. Yeah, please continue. Yeah, and then this one also we on the process of making basic map at, we started for previously at the five provinces, now we trying to six provinces for this year. Hopefully by the end that we will have a wall to wall good data to understanding better of Indonesian forest. Yeah, please continue. And then previously I'm also talking about how we dealing with the Khutan Adat as a consequences or follow up of the MCA 35 that we need to working and then how we can put Khutan Adat in our forest map and then how we can recognize of their rights. And then another infrastructure that we want to see is like how we can build our capacity to facilitate conflict, how we can develop conflict resolution process and then we will start it at the five national parks. We in partnering with TNC and then also colleagues from WWF who working in the national parks, how we can develop standard operation procedures to solve conflicts, especially at the forest area. Yeah, and then now we entering the district wide approach. That's if you see that we also working at the provincial level, that's why we developing our strategy at the provincial level also, but we also have a good case at the district level. Why district? Because if we talk about the autonomy setting in Indonesia, the key authorities are in the districts. Like give a license. Also let's say give a recommendation for the license from the national government. Recommendation for like what you call as a Maserakat Hutan Adat, also from the districts. So there's a lot of real authority in the districts. So working at the district government level is key ingredients for our jurisdictional approach. And then, can I lower it a little bit? The one before, yeah. Oh no, the one before. Okay. So in the district also right now we already have some initial initiative that already works as a modalities for us when we develop jurisdictional approach that there's a lot of process that will be done at the district level. We in the BAPE Red Plus developing a Freddie funding instrument for Red Plus in Indonesia. And also there's potential from the local budget in term of like funding. Also when we talk about the Burahu and Kutai Barat we have also like the FCA program. So we have a lot of modalities to start with working in the district level. Of course the challenge is like how we can ensure that all the design from provincial district we can arrange in the right way. Maybe it's like a nesting from national provincial district, Kapeha into the other level. And then yeah, the district wide program is part of the national frameworks and then how we can ensuring that all of the intervention are aligned with the national priority. Please. Yeah, and this is some examples like we talk about Brau as a beginning and then sorry for the other district maybe that I keep mentioning Brau because this is a very good case for us when we talk about the jurisdictional approach at the district level. And also Kutai Barat as one of the samples now they divided into the districts one about Kutai Barat and the other one is Mahakam Ulu. But now we also working at the other five districts because as maybe you aware that we have a plan to submit it our ERP for a FCPF carbon fund. And then we after selected from more than 20 districts at five provinces that we come up with agreement like yeah, these seven districts it can be part of our ERP of carbon fund. So we, the other district is like Bungo and Merangin in Jambi, Kapwas in Central Kalimantan, Donggala and Toly Toly in Central Sulawesi. That's what we have for now but it doesn't mean that the other district is not important but we need to thinking the whole framework especially for the result-based payment frameworks. And then we want to see that reward or incentive for the positive actions from the district government or provincial government. Yeah, please. And then I wanna close in that that I think we can identify more than three points but what we wanna do is like at least we wanna providing support and facilitation process for provincial and district to build their readiness. And then the other one is like there's a lot of district thinking that we are ready to implement it right plus on the next phase. And then I think we need to start creating result-based payment frameworks and then creating incentive scheme from the national government to provincial district up to the community. And then the important one also is like how to align jurisdictional approach with Kapeha. If you interact with the Bapenas colleagues they will saying that no Kapeha, no budget. It means it will be national policy and then we need to considering this as one of the key intervention when we developing jurisdictional approach and I do believe that jurisdictional approach it can be like framing and also it's like a bridging to aligning those intervention into more integrated way which is we will be not sketched and busy to maintaining project to another project. So we wanna working in the big scales with the big ambitions. So J.R. or jurisdictional approach is one of the approach that we can use. Of course this is not the only one. Thank you for that. Hopefully. Okay, thank you very much, Owen. Lex is gonna present next. Thanks very much. Can't really tell if that's working. I think that's working. Yeah, so my name is Lex Hovani. I work for the Nature Conservancies Indonesia program and I'm gonna present today based on some of our experiences supporting Red Plus and jurisdictional programs in Indonesia as well as in other places. TNC is in working on forest and climate programs for about the last 20 years and working on jurisdictional programs for the last four or five years. And we've been working really across scales. In Indonesia we've been working a lot with the national government, provincial government Denise Kalimantan and the district government in Borau district. And I think that perspective has been useful for understanding this kind of the complexities of this. And so I'm gonna try to share some thoughts on basically near-term and mid-term opportunities for moving forward with jurisdictional programs even though there's a lot of uncertainty about how Red's gonna work and how green development and NAMA frameworks are gonna work in Indonesia and in other countries. So just a moment on definitions. This is taken from a document that we did several years ago with Baker McKenzie. We're talking about national level jurisdictional programs, subnational level jurisdictional programs and also nested programs where subnational jurisdictions are nested within national programs. And basically the idea is that if it's a jurisdictional program that there are carbon finance benefits and emission reduction payment agreements or performance evaluations done at the jurisdictional level and whether or not those are nested to true up to a national program. So four years ago, TNC started supporting the development of a jurisdictional program in Borough District. And the reason was, it's pretty obvious if there was any chance of reaching a national scale green development or red program that districts would be key building blocks of that based on the fact that they control land use to a large degree through licensing, through spatial planning and things like that. And so a lot of uncertainty about how it's gonna work but Borough and East Calimantan were kind of key places based on their high carbon stocks and a lot of good interest among political leaders. And so what we did was we brought together a group of stakeholders from across sectors and from across levels to design this program taking a pretty kind of broad approach. And the idea was, there's a lot of uncertainty about how red was gonna work. And first thing's first was to focus on getting a lot of land under effective management. And also to keep in mind the wide range of objectives that exist in the landscape given the fact that you can't just focus on the mission reductions without knowing something about the payment for a mission reduction. So better to create a broader framework. And this is what you can see there. And this program has been moving forward. The stakeholders involved in that design were again a bit skeptical about carbon finance. Some of them having been through the CDM process where they were told they were gonna get rich from red or not rich from red, get rich from CDM projects. And so they basically wanted to take a more cautious approach. And so what they came up with was this, which was to basically focus on building the jurisdictional program, the capacity to do spatial planning and development planning in line with mission reduction and green development targets to develop outcomes, to frame certain management outcomes on the ground that could be framed in a way that was somewhat generic and then could be later customized basically for different land managers. So there's a lot of commonality among the challenges and the opportunities for reducing emissions from natural forest logging, for example. And so there's an ability to compensate or to customize rather those incentive agreements. And then the idea was that if the program was able to influence emissions across abroad, swath the landscape by putting a lot of land under effective management, and if selection of sites was done in a good way, that would lead to emission reductions that could be verified. And then that would enable the district to basically interact with a broad range of different sort of compensation frameworks where it could be that the jurisdiction was interacting directly with the market or was receiving incentives from the national government. And so this initial kind of caution and framework turned out to be good because in fact, four years later, it's really kind of the same situation. The program has moved forward in Borau to try to build out some of these components. And I'll mention some of those things. There's also been a lot of new additions that weren't really anticipated, including Indonesia's quite ambitious NAMA commitment of reducing 26% of the emissions and called the rod gear car. And so you've got a lot of government agencies mobilizing around emission reductions. You've also now got incredibly ambitious commitments from some of the biggest industrial causes of emissions in the pulp and paper sector and the oil palm sector. So you've got companies committing to deforestation free palm oil. And so what I'm gonna try to do is to kind of talk through how this approach and what we've been doing can be adapted to try to take advantage of the good progress that's being made by Indonesia in working towards NAMA commitments and try to also frame these sustainable supply chain commitments in a way that really contributes to an overall jurisdictional program goal. I guess first thing I just wanna highlight what we've observed in a bunch of different places, which is that there's been a really significant focus on readiness and on policies and institutions that need to be developed for red and on MRV and things like that.  And how would you measure emission reductions? How would you set reference emission levels? But those middle sections, the government, what I'm calling governance outcomes and management outcomes, I would argue have been not emphasized enough and that's making this process a lot harder and it's gonna make it a lot harder to align these different interests and efforts. And so just to give some more examples, I mean governance outcomes, for example, legal recognition of adat claims. So there's lots of focus on how would you do this, making plans and government may have a plan for how to do this but actually achieving it, you can observe whether it's been accomplished or not and so that's a governance outcome. Developing forest management units that are gonna be on the ground, managing forests, overseeing concessionaires, establishing them is one thing. I would call that a readiness output but a governance outcome, something that's really gonna lead to better management results, is that forest management unit operating or not? And so defining what does it mean for it to be operating effectively, I would call it governance outcome and I'd say that's a really, really key thing that hasn't been focused on enough. And so until we can get that result chain really clarified in particular places, we're gonna have big challenges but it can also present an opportunity because by looking at it this way, I think we can find that there are management outcomes that people can agree on, even though they don't 100% agree on the framework of RED versus NAMAs versus supply chains, et cetera. So I guess, again, one of the challenges here, the readiness phase, there's been good emphasis. For governance outcomes, there really hasn't been much focus on how you would monitor whether or not governments are doing the things that they say they're gonna do or that they plan to do or that they would need to do in order to really secure good management results. And at the management level, I think that we haven't yet been specific enough about for all the different land uses out there, what would need to change and how would you go about implementing that? And we certainly haven't been good in Indonesia or in Barau yet about designing investment programs that can really be scaled up based on those outcomes. And I'll just say quickly that on the impacts level, Indonesia and a lot of places have a big challenge in terms of not having a consistent framework for evaluating emission reductions, where the NAMA framework that's been developed and the RED framework are not compatible yet, they really need to be and there also needs to be a much bigger focus on nesting and clarifying how jurisdictions would be part of a coherent national program. So that paper I mentioned before that we had done previously put out a proposal on how that could be done. But so far, no countries have really made a lot of progress on that as far as I know. So again, for me, when I think about what are our big opportunities, given the fact that RED is still very much in development and NAMA frameworks are still very much in development, I think for jurisdictional programs like in Barau where there's a fair amount of mobilization and resources and capacity to focus on these management outcomes in both production landscapes and in protection landscapes, really defining clearly what are those outcomes that we wanna see? What are the governance outcomes that are necessary to enable those? How do those contribute to emission reductions? We just, we haven't done it yet. And I think that's really something that can be done in Indonesia to help to make all the investments much more effective as to work towards this more integrated results framework. A couple examples from Barau. There's been, Pak Ewan mentioned a forest management unit. There's a forest management unit that's in development in Barau, it covers almost 800,000 hectares. There's a major effort from GIZ and from others to try to build up the capacity of that. Ministry of Forestry and Bapinas have been very supportive of that as well. And that's gonna enable real major strides in achieving management outcomes within that Kapiha landscape. A lot more work needs to be done, including defining what would a well managed Kapiha really or forest management unit really look like? What does it need to be able to do? How would you evaluate it? Those discussions are starting, but they have a long way to go. Another one is for communities. So communities present complexities in red because of the issues around land tenure. But it's very clear they need to be at the center of a jurisdictional program and the center of any real solutions. And so we've been working towards defining some of the governance outcomes that need to be achieved, including how communities can be involved in program development and program oversight, including how village planning frameworks can be redesigned to achieve low emissions development or green development objectives. And then at the management unit level, within lands that communities manage, what are the outcomes? How would you evaluate success? So we've made a fair bit of progress and have some good tools there, which we could talk about later if people were interested for how you would replicate that. Another area that's been a source of pretty big investment is looking at sustainable natural forest logging concessions where they cover about 40% of the landscape. And there's already management outcomes that have been defined through government certification systems, through FSC certification systems. So there's a lot of context for this. But at the same time, when we looked at this in detail to see, are these concessions that are FSC certified really reducing emissions compared to those that aren't? The answer was no. And there's a combination of reasons for that. But what it did was it led us to try to articulate what are the specific things? What are the specific management outcomes that you would need to achieve to actually make sure you're having those impacts of emission reductions that you want to have? And so we developed working with Tropical Forest Foundation, VCS methodology for how you could do that in a relatively simple but credible way. So that's in development. But this could lead to significant emission reductions. It's a good example, though, of this idea of really focusing in and getting it right about what are the management outcomes that you want being specific and then trying to figure out, well, how are we going to scale that up? How are we going to incentivize people to do that? Blending potentially multiple sources of finance and investment. So just to wrap up, I think tried to make the case for focusing on these outcomes in the middle. I'd also like to make the case for trying as much as possible to think about how you could for jurisdictional programs develop multi-phase agreements that capture investments from the readiness phase to the payments for emission reductions and that would ideally include results-based payments for governance outcomes and management outcomes. The reason being, those are incredibly important to making this work to actually getting the emission reductions. Getting those outcomes is incredibly important to the sustainability of those jurisdictional programs. And it's also a lot easier to communicate about what are those outcomes to local governments than it is to communicate about emission reductions, which can be a bit abstract. And so I think that's something that there are no carbon facilities out there yet that do this. And so I think what we need next is that jurisdictional programs can try to start figuring out how would you blend multiple financing mechanisms to create that kind of integrated framework where different financing mechanisms are potentially financing results-based payments targeted at different phases as appropriate. It would take a, it would be a challenging thing. It would need to be done across scales. Also, given the fact that no jurisdiction can really control land use completely, even though districts have a lot of control, they don't have complete control. So this would be a complicated process, but I think it's pretty necessary. And it would be a critical step on the path towards a point where jurisdictions were able to actually make long-term agreements and commitments about protecting carbon stocks with confidence about the permanence of those agreements. So I'm gonna stop there. Thank you very much. Okay, correct, okay, no problem. Where do you want me? Wherever you want me. Wherever you feel comfortable. I've already finished my presentation. Thank you. I can go back, sit down. Good afternoon. Good evening. How's everyone's energy level? Good? All right. First of all, I come from a regional project based out of Bangkok. I'm very used to speaking after Jack Hurd. Those of you who know Jack Hurd, now I have the privilege of going after Lex. So I am also a friend of the Nature Conservancy. I used to work for the Nature Conservancy for several years under the RAF program. Helping some of the models that Lex just alluded to on reduced impact logging plus carbon. I'm gonna talk a little bit about what's happening in Vietnam at the moment. If you look at me, I don't look very Vietnamese and I apologize for that. We were supposed to have a colleague of mine from VN Forest actually present the national level and I was going to present the provincial level equivalent to what's happening at the national level. Unfortunately, he was unable to join us. He wears two hats, one for the VN Forest, the red unit, as well as now the government counterpart for UN Red phase two. So he's quite a busy man. So he sends his apologies. That means you have the unfortunate privilege of hearing me try to represent both sides of the picture here. And I will do my best, but I am definitely not an expert on Vietnam national policies. So with that precursor, let me just say that what's happening in Vietnam is quite a unique endeavor. They've learned from a PFES experience that's payment for forest ecosystem services which was initialized under another USAID funded program, ARBCP. They actually over the last few years have recognized that decentralization is quite a unique and opportune Vietnamese context. In particular for them, they have what's called a social economic development plan and a forest protection development plan which are done at the provincial level and that Red Plus provides a unique opportunity to align within those two planning cycles, the same kind of provincial Red Action Plan as Lex alluded to is also, and our colleague from Indonesia is happening here in 11 different parts, 11 different sites or provinces in Indonesia. There's a recognition that within those planning cycles that these may actually be separate documents, standalone documents, or that the PRAP would be an actual annex to those documents. I don't really care personally how it comes out but I personally think that the voluntary aspects of PFES have been very interesting in Vietnam, the quote unquote voluntary components. I put it in quotes here because when the Vietnamese government asks a provincial government, please do this, it's voluntary. The reality is the governments actually do turn around and do it. So the planning cycles, while they are indeed mandatory, Red Plus is very much voluntary at this point. Any country that doesn't want Red Plus doesn't have to take Red Plus. It's a voluntary mechanism at this point. Maybe in 2020 we'll have a compliance based regime but at least for now. The next point I wanna talk about is about national forest inventories. Sorry, go back. Yeah, national forest inventories and I'll talk about the devolution of responsibility and the harmonization of data sets that's happening in Vietnam at the provincial level and what that means for the national context as the country goes through its national action plan. Everything that we're doing in Lamp Dong is a participatory approach, very similar to Borau, what we're trying to do is build capacity of the local institutions to take ownership of this PRAP process. It doesn't matter that I work for a project and we're providing technical inputs, we wanna make sure that this PRAP process is owned by the government and is indeed a participatory approach. UN Red Phase II, if you talk about multiple sources of financing, right now UN Red Phase II is the primary mechanism that the government is looking to finance six provinces and these provincial red action plans. The site-based planning that UN Red Phase II is implementing is actually testing out various strategies. Those are being done at the district level and those were identified in UN Red Phase I, Annex G, which districts were so-called low-hanging fruit, low-emission development strategies that they're trying to test in this next phase. Next slide. Another area of very interesting dialogue right now going on at the national level is about the National Red Plus Fund and what would a fund look like, what would incentivize different sources of funding to come in, whether it be bilateral or multilateral donors, the UNFCCC Red Plus Mechanism or even private sector financing into this national red fund? And would that fund actually then disperse directly to the provinces or the districts where site-based activities are taking place or would there need to be sub-national funds actually set up for those disbursements? So there's a lot of interesting dialogue happening right now. LEAF is providing technical support, so is UN Red and UNDP on the dialogue that needs to happen at the national level but also at the provincial level because it will affect how disbursements are distributed. The overheads of course with a national fund and the overheads affiliated with multiple provincial funds, those are all issues that are being discussed this month, next month in Vietnam, we hope to have a decision fairly soon. Next slide please. The other recognition is that there are local agents of change. Next slide please. We've actually looked in Lam Dong Province using a forest cover change assessment. What are the drivers of deforestation? What are the drivers of degradation? Here's a list of some of them for Lam Dong Province. Next slide please. I mentioned that this is a participatory approach. There's a lot of capacity building that has taken place in terms of building up the institutions that are needed at the sub-national level for Red Plus to really function. The Provincial Red Action Plan, as I mentioned, is a planning document. So it at first has got a framework that's been approved by the provincial government and there's a timeline here for UN Red Phase Two and for LEAF to provide technical inputs but the government wants this PRAP to be completed by December 2014 exactly when the national PRAP, sorry, the national RAP, National Red Action Plan will be finalized. I don't have a timeline there but I can tell you that what's happening in Lam Dong is actually driving what's happening at the national level. Next slide please. This is similar to what Lex called a broader framework. This is a broader framework that we are using across various provincial and district level interventions across the LEAF portfolio of countries to look at a low emission framework. At the Lam Dong site, we are basically, I know this is hard to read but we're basically gone through the first three steps of this cycle and we've gone through the stakeholder consultations, the environmental, social and economic data needs, gap analysis, the capacity building around those data sets and we've gotten to the point of actually modeling different interventions to see what the province can come up with in terms of emission reductions by using its existing social economic development plan and its forest protection development plan as well as adding red plus interventions into those existing plans. So this is a scenario planning exercise that we're doing with the provincial government and it's been quite useful for them to look at various scenarios and figure out which interventions they may want to put into their PRAP and which interventions they perhaps will push on for some later day when financing may be there. The idea here is that in the absence of carbon finance we wanna have good land use planning and we wanna have good interventions irrespective of whether they're gonna be financed or not. So this is the very important part of this framework is getting the buy in from the local government that the good land use planning that they're going through right now is a good investment for them irrespective of whether red plus materializes or not. Next slide please. Here are some decisions that have been made at the provincial level. I mentioned that what's happening at the provincial level is really driving the national level discourse. So some of the discussions are things like the definition of what is a forest? What are the pools and gases that are gonna be measured? The link to the national forest inventory obviously yes. We wanna make sure those things are linked. The time is running so next slide please. I mentioned the national forest inventory. We wanna harmonize basically the data sets. There's two separate data sets that are involved in land use planning in Vietnam. One is a forest stratification data set and the other one is more about land use demarcations if you will. So we wanna make sure those are harmonized. So we're talking amongst the various ministries about the same landscape with the same overall stratification. The NFI certainly is useful for that but we have to recognize that it's not the end in all cases. Next slide please. Some examples of activities. This is similar to Lex's slide. Some interventions that are being considered in the province and specifically where in the province are looking at these. Next slide please. And then the measurement and monitoring. I think that what's happening right now is in the absence of a national system. The provinces are taking an active role of doing at least the monitoring. The national level measurement system is in place but the monitoring for emission factors as well as activity data is starting to happen at the provincial level to quantify what the carbon emission benefits from various strategies in that particular province. So that's a very important, let's just call it reality check of what the emission reduction opportunities may be in that province. Next slide please. So some quick challenges. Lex, I still got a minute. Thanks. I mentioned the national red fund will need to consider the benefits and funding flows and whether to set up these subnational bodies in the overheads affiliated with those administrative bodies. What type of grievance mechanism will there be if someone doesn't like the process? F pick wasn't quite enough and they're upset with the deal that the district or the commune already lined up for them. How do you go about a grievance mechanism? Is that gonna be a national mechanism?  These are issues that need to be resolved fairly quickly. We can talk a little bit about nesting architecture, what the implications are for looking at nesting as opposed to a subnational level approach as Lex called it. So these are some of the challenges. We're working through this. The government I should say is working through this in Vietnam. And it's a very interesting time for them because they're learning a lot from their neighboring countries and vice versa. And ironically, we as a regional program we're focused on sharing lessons learned. I feel like a lot of the lessons learned are not at the national level. They're not at the regional level. They're at this subnational level. So this is really where the rubber meets the road and that's where we need to focus on effective, low emission land use planning, what is working, what's not working. And happy to take questions when we finish the panel. Thank you. Okay, thanks very much, David. Now final speaker is Mike Dwight from Seafall. So thank you everybody for sticking it out this late in the day. I'm not gonna be presenting results from our specific project. So in that sense, I have the advantage of having a lot less evidence to get through. So I hope we can get into discussion relatively quickly. I wanna return to one of the issues that has come up in a couple of the presentations, which is framing and definitions because in doing some scoping for this, we've had conversations among ourselves about the extent to which this is red focused versus more general conversations about jurisdictional authority over land use and land use decision making. And if you talk to people in Laos who are working on these issues, you tend to get fairly different answers if you frame it in terms of red. And if you focus within red on jurisdictional approaches, you tend to get answers of the sort that say, well, there's been a lot of groundwork in the sense of laying plans, but a lot of things are really up in the air. The National Red Task Force met in January. They're meeting, I think, again, tomorrow. And a lot of the actual decision making will, as far as jurisdictional-based red, will flow from decisions that have yet to be made or at least shared. So in that sense, there's a lot that is still very uncertain as Lex was talking about and questions remain about what is yet to be, both not only internationally but locally as well. On the other hand, if you talk to people about anything that's not red specific but related to jurisdictional control over land use and specifically district and provincial-scale decision making, you can get a torrent of information and people will talk to you about that for days, weeks, hours, there's a lot to talk about. And so in that sense, Laos has been going through some of the types of discussions, policy makings, and some intra and inter-institutional struggles and cross-scaler debates about the very kinds of issues that ultimately shape the outcomes of these kinds of projects, and that has been in the works for, I would say, over 10 years. And I'll show you a timeline in a minute that's gonna help put some of these things in context. So what I wanna do is to start out by giving just kind of a quick 15-year history or so which shows red as the latest in a longer discussion about the relationship between national-level policy and the decision-making over land use choices by provincial and district governments. And then focus even more quickly on two areas for collaboration to watch as things unfold in the future. So first slide, please. So what you see here is just very quickly, basically 20 years of the development of zoning-type legibility at the national scale when it comes to Laos' forests. 1983, you have very loosely defined areas where the state forest enterprises were doing production forests. In 1993, you have the establishment of Laos' protected area system, which you see in red. Then formalizing the production, the timber production activities that had been going on within the state forest enterprises, you have the gazetting of production forests which, as far as I know, was really only publicized in map-based form around 2006, 2007. And then you really have, over the last couple of years, seen a real flurry of filling in the white spots on the map in what I would call the era of red, and that's where you see these blue areas, which, as you might have heard from the vice minister's presentation this morning, now number about six and a half million hectares. In 2010, they numbered about three and a half million hectares. So really within the last three years, you've had a massive gazetting of state forests as part of the, I would say, as part of the red planting process. Excellent. Putting these in context, I want to argue that there's a lot of this process is a response to decentralize both as a fact and also to some extent as a process, decision-making over land use. So the national economic mechanism generally dated in the late 1980s involved, among other things, the devolution of control over state forest enterprises and specifically the capital and facilities involved in timber production and logging to provincial level authorities. One of the problems that that then created was a logging boom in the late 90s, which the formalization of both conservation and production forest areas over the next couple of years was the first sort of regulatory pushback on that. There was a very important decree in 1996 that's the first instance of a process that is still going on today and that's driving Laos' National Land Policy Development Process, which has been going on since 2012. And that is an effort to formalize the process of granting concessions. So concessions have been very much in the news since 2004 or five, six in Laos because of the concession boom, but actually the efforts by the central government to formalize the process so as to control it a little bit more date back to the mid-90s. The land and forest allocation program, for those of you who know the situation in Laos, has been a village-scale zoning process that has created a whole other level of maps that I'm not showing here that exist in many villages and in some places are still around and in other places have been forgotten, but that adds another layer to this zoning process which has to be worked out when you get down to localized implementation of jurisdiction and including, but not only red-type projects. In many ways, that was also a response to try to formalize the process of land use a little bit more. And then just to close out this line of this first point, there have been three moratoria that have been issued on land concessions since 2007, one in 2000, first in 2007, the second in 2009, which was ruled out only a few weeks after the previous moratorium was lifted indicating quite a bit of ongoing debate and then again, in 2012, a third moratorium. So there's this ongoing conversation which is now in the process of being formalized in the rewriting of the land law, the rewriting of the forest law and the development of a national land use policy, all of which are wrestling with the question of control over land use decision making by different levels within the nested jurisdictional control over land in Laos. It's not specific to red, but red is very much wrapped up in this. And so if you talk to people who are working in the red world, they will tell you, we've taken this quite a bit, but we have to wait on the national land policy process because that is driving what happens next at the provincial level. Next slide, please. So this is a quote that I'm gonna read from a red specific jurisdictional approach, but that I think resonates in a very specific way in the context of these ongoing debates about the control over decision making of land use. So under a jurisdictional approach, this is here we see the tension between jurisdictions as a measurement area versus jurisdictions as a governance area. It will be necessary for the government of Laos to take a much greater role than under the previous project level approach. The program must be seen as an approach demanded and undertaken by the province itself. And for such an approach to work, outside assistance must break free of its project image and be seen as supporting and backstopping government led initiative. High levels of provincial leadership and ownership of this new approach are thereby necessary in order to achieve performance. This is recognizing just the importance that provincial level authority plays in driving all of the decision making that red and the wider national land use policy process is trying to deal with next slide. So I'm gonna close with two areas to watch for actually previous slide, just without the text. Yeah, thanks. Before I get to those two issues, this is just a slight zoom in on the northern part of the landscape that I showed you before with an approximate configuration of the degree of spatial precision that we're starting to see in specifically the red world in Laos. There's a very large jurisdictional area that you can see in the solid polygon that covers much of four provinces. This is an area that is being developed with World Bank money from the Forest Investment Program and that is working in the production forests and in the National Biodiversity Conservation Areas and the Watership Protection Forest and the non-forest areas to do various types of interventions. The other two areas in the dotted lines are two of the projects that started out at project scale and have scaled up or in the process of scaling up to jurisdiction based approaches focusing on coordination at the provincial level but probably focusing their interventions at specific districts where the greatest types of impacts can be had. Next slide, please. And then finally, the two areas that I think are especially important to watch. First is the relationship between spatial transparency with respect to investment and the ability to calculate different development scenarios and therefore counterfactuals to what's actually observed. This is a transparency in concessions goes back to that 1996 degree that I was talking about and the effort to formalize concession making and have a documentary evidence base that is then shared within government and can then be used in order to help understand previous patterns of land use change. One of the major challenges in doing reference emission levels is differentiating between what is likely to happen in the future because it's planned and what's likely to happen in the future because it's unplanned and the types of data that are available to the people who are doing the calculations will have a major impact on the degree to which those reference emissions levels can be calculated in convincing ways and I think there are probably many ways to do it. All of the point is that the degree to which the process can be populated with real data on land use concessions on land concessions for investment is not something that can be taken for granted and it's something that people will probably have to push for in order to make the counterfactual scenarios more convincing and therefore the impact more convincing. The second thing to watch is the debate about the formalization of property rights that's been going on for some years. It's been especially strong in Cambodia. It's trickled over into Laos and this is the question about where land titling happens when and why. One of the major things that's come with the red agenda and specifically with the jurisdictional approach to red which is now targeting areas outside the forest estate is the formalization of communal title and so this is a process that's been piloted in the Numton two hydropower project area but there's not really consensus as to whether a sufficient legal basis exists in Laos to keep going forward with this but this is the type of thing that provincial and district authorities can have a major influence on and in terms of experiences you see things going both ways. So I wanna keep it brief so I'll say these are just things to watch as things go forward. Thanks. Okay, thanks very much, Mike. We've had four very good presentations which have raised a host of issues and I just wanna touch on a couple of them before I open up to the audience. I think, Mike, you may be responsible for making sure that red at a jurisdictional level is actually implemented. So you've also raised the point about conflicting tenure challenges there and others of you have raised points about the need to manage conflict between different groups where a government is really the interface between jurisdictional red, how does a government ensure that it's actually able to represent all of the stakeholders within a particular jurisdictional approach when you have, for example, in an Asia constitutional court decisions about at that community right. So I'm interested, when you're looking at a project-based activity, the parameter is fairly defined, but when you move to a jurisdictional approach and governments who are not traditionally in the business of overseeing many, many individual moving parts of a project, how does a government actually implement that? Any of you feel free to respond? Lex, do you wanna kick off? Sure. Yeah, I think that's, it really is the key question. I mean, to what degree can any particular jurisdiction control land use, control management outcomes? I think Mike did a great job of putting red in the context of a long discussion, and in Indonesia it's absolutely the same, where the decentralization process has been unfolding, the recognition of audit rights has been unfolding, the spatial planning regulations, et cetera, and policies on how licenses are given out and who gets to check on those things have been evolving, and so I think, yeah, that's kinda what I was trying to emphasize there with working through, and to me, on these management outcomes, that at a jurisdictional level or within a country, it'll probably be pretty consistent across that they need to get to the point, eventually, where it's clear who can control those management outcomes, and it's gonna, to me, it's unlikely it'll ever be 100% granted over to any particular jurisdiction, but that you might have enough clarity about the roles that you could make a range of multi-stakeholder agreements that say, look, for the purposes of this project and this time period, the national level is gonna stop giving mining concessions within this jurisdiction because they have this agreement, so if you can get the different management outcomes that matter, clarified, I think you can package them up in a way that allows jurisdiction to make an agreement, even though they don't get full control at a single time, it's more of a composition of multiple kind of arrangements. That's the way I would tend to see it. Yeah, thank you. I think I just wanna adding what the point I already mentioned by Lex, especially like when we talk about Red Plus Indonesia, relation between national government and subnational government, I think the jurisdictional approach is one of the opportunity how we can involve the local government in the whole discussion of the Red Plus. If colleagues who are familiar with the Indonesian context in the beginning of the Red Plus development in Indonesia, there's a lot of critics that Red Plus development is mainly happened only at the national level, but not yet going into the subnational level. And I think it's about time that we seriously taking some actions to involving more and more subnational government, especially province and the districts in the Red Plus debate. And I think this is one of good point to entering that and involving those local government in the Red Plus debate. Of course, maybe when we talk about the approach or intervention to the field, it's, I think, I do believe that maybe Brau intervention or a program it will be different like what we have maybe in Jambi, for example, in Merange district or Bungo districts. So the jurisdictional approach, I think also it can give opportunity that we can accommodate some local specific aspects in the provincial or districts. Thank you. Yeah, I just, I touched on what's needed to strengthen some of these local institutions. And I also brought up the whole issue of a grievance mechanism, whether it's needed at a national level or a subnational level. Ironically, I asked Tepteba just two weeks ago in Hanoi, there was a global meeting of indigenous groups funded by NORAD. But the Tepteba group was, I asked them the same thing. Well, do you have any concerns about how indigenous rights may or may not be taken in the consideration with the development of subnational Red Plus strategies? And ironically, the group came back to me and said, well, there's plenty of United Nations grievance mechanisms that are already out there and are quite functional for human rights issues. And there's really no need for Red Plus to start its own new mechanism, but this comes into place also with national, social, and environmental safeguard systems. We have to figure out what exists out there and we don't need to reinvent the wheel. And if there's already good systems in place, I mentioned the NFI. How do you turn an NFI into a national forest monitoring system that is more inclusive of carbon and multiple benefits affiliated with these interventions so that we're not just looking at above ground systems but below ground systems and different carbon pools? So these are things that I think we typically like to say, oh, Red Plus needs this, Red Plus needs that, but I think there's plenty of existing mechanisms already out there. I would echo that as well in just saying, I think the leverage that exists to shape the types of consultation processes and stakeholder processes are likely to come in through standards and safeguards because simply the message that's been coming out of the practitioner world has been coming up against walls rather than making more suggestions of things that we can do. And I think that that message also comes out of the international policy debate as well where I heard this in the earlier session on investment where the, I forget his name, but the man from the gold standard was saying it doesn't actually help when you get very country specific sets of standards and requirements for what has to happen because then that starts to create credits that are not really comparable and tradable. But on that point, isn't that inevitable given that California having particular standards, gold standards different to the VCS? Isn't that like gonna happen anyway? Somewhat, yeah. And I think the answer to that question when it was posed earlier was the standards are, they sort of need to come together to the extent that they can and that's obviously an open question. Okay, in the presentation, all of you, I think except maybe one, all of you talked about the World Bank and the World Bank financing. So I would like to put a hypothetical to you. Imagine you're currently advising your government today and you're about to sign an LOI with the World Bank's FCPF. And the FCPF, if you have a look at the methodological framework and the LOI for Costa Rica says that in signing that LOI, you will guarantee legal title to the carbon that flows to the bank and you'll guarantee a risk of reversal. And imagine in your jurisdiction, you have challenges of illegal logging and private companies taking the forestry out. Do you think that any of the jurisdictions in which you've worked are in a position to sign an LOI today with the bank for a transfer of funds where you can guarantee that transfer of title and you can guarantee that risk of reversal? Sure. This... Either on a very small jurisdictional, jurisdiction, a very small, and where as an example of where you could actually see that working now? Oh, I was gonna answer the question for districts for a district where I worked and that's not necessarily a district where I could see that working out. So I would say plausibly to the extent that the district government actually does have a fair degree of control over how the timber gets used, how the timber decision-making gets used and the tenure regimes get operationalized and rolled out. I don't know that I would advise them to sign it. Well, obviously, certainly details would matter, but I would say yes, the capacity could possibly exist. But that's a very tentative... But it reinforces the point that you made about the government being a backstop. Sure, and I think... I would have expected your question to focus on, if you were advising the national level government, what would you do? And to me, there, the choice is a lot, I would say it's much more of a gamble because the national level government then has to essentially take a bet on the ability to reign in decision-making by local governments. And to me, that's the bigger challenge, at least from what I've seen so far. I went all out. Yeah, yeah. I think your question is very right, and I think you as a lawyer can advise us later on. Yeah, it's... To be honest, that's kind of questions that we need to answer when we're saying that we are ready to submit our plan. And then make local government understanding the consequences. But I do believe that as long as we put everything on the table, let's say, what's your plan about forest concessions? And then that's a part of the design in our jurisdictional approach. I think that's possible and workable for us. Of course, there's a lot of legality works that need to be done in that context, but we have a lot of modalities to start with, especially, let's say, if we were working at the district levels, so make sure that we put the design of the production forest. So that's why, like the Brown case showing Kapeha is one of the intervention here because Kapeha also, or Forest Management Unit, consists of protection forest, production forest, concession forest, so everything is there. And then let's work under jurisdictional, as let's say, are we want to put it as a counting unit or management unit? That's fine. And then makes local government be part of that process is kind of the mechanism. Maybe guarantee is too strong language, but at least we can put that on our management plan. I think we were really talking about a sub-national jurisdiction's ability to control forest loss or forest degradation in that jurisdiction. And in the case of Vietnam, there is a historical context with these socioeconomic development plans and these forest development protection plans where you can actually historically go back five years and see what they had set up in terms of that planning cycle, what actually happened, the efficacy of that plan and the implementation of that plan. Because it's a command control system, there's a high level of confidence that when there was a plan put in place, it will get implemented. So from a purely, yeah, I'm not representing the government, I'm an outsider viewing this particular system in Vietnam, I would feel comfortable signing that LOI based on the historical context. I don't think you can do that in all the countries in Southeast Asia because you don't have a planning cycle that where you can actually look at the five year plan compared to what was actually allocated and implemented. There's certain countries, you can do that. And I suggest we look carefully at the historical context in developing the reference level and how the planning cycle can be used as a mechanism for designing future intervention strategies. You know, it does and I think a very good point is that a country like Vietnam is where you have planning and you have more controllers, a lot easier than countries which have conflicting claims of the land and possible contention. So I think it is, but yeah, true, but not to the same degree. Can I change my answer? Seriously, I've been thinking, it's stewing about it. I think that I think, I don't know that much about Vietnam but I would tend to agree with the kind of thing that David said, but I think that there's also a tendency to group Laos into that command and control box and I don't really think that that applies in a lot of circumstances related to land use based decision making. The things that I was also thinking of is I think there would be, I think again, the word guarantee is fairly strong and I think there would be conflicts with the central level when it came to legally guaranteeing that and I think that the conflicts with the province level would be potential at least to the point of disrupting a guarantee when it came to the decisions over timber. Okay, then I have one final question before I open to the audience. I think, David, you talked about the funding flows and setting up the fund in Vietnam for these funding flows. Can I ask all of you, given that most of the donor countries are saying that their commitments to Reda fairly much in terms of developing the frameworks but no more, where do you see the funding flows actually coming from to finance Red in the shorter, longer term? Bearing in mind that at the project level at the moment it's very difficult to get Red Finance, it's at a jurisdictional level where we're talking very large scale Reda other activities. Where do you see the funds flowing from to actually finance those activities? Yeah, I think for now we relying on the public fund. To be honest, that let's say two or three years, let's say, or even next five years, that we will depend on the public fund. But like in Indonesia case, we develop this scenario when the trajectory that public fund will be diminishing. That's why public fund become the main thing because in these stages, we are preparing a lot of infrastructures for it plus implementation and things. It's not so interesting for private funds to be part of that because this is part of the investment of the governments to be there. So in our scenario also it's we not only depend on the donor fund but also our domestic fund must be part of that investment. And yeah, like let's say cooperation between Indonesia and Norway is a part of that public fund support. But in our scenario when we designing our funding instruments, we hopes that the next five years maybe it's like 80% of funds from the private fund. But the key question is like how we can make that investment on this kind of sectors in Indonesia is the interesting one. Because when you talk about incentive, you talk about, if you talk about investment, you talk about the performance, the result base. And I think that will be the key for attracted new funds outside of the public funds. Thank you. Well I can just revert back to my slide because I had three sources of funding there. One was the multilateral, bilateral mechanisms which are currently functioning. The second one was the future compliance mechanism and the third one was private sector and I don't think we spent enough time whether it's discussing carbon financing in relation to Red Plus or a low emission development strategy, green growth strategy discussing the private sector and in particular how to incentivize the private sector to make investments that are compatible with what the trajectory or the, let's just call it green growth strategy for that province or that district. So I think the decisions that are being made at a national level and where the funding could come from is an interesting one in the case of Vietnam, they've made it quite explicit. They don't see domestic trading system as a potential future mechanism to fund their low emission development strategies. But I think that a lot of emerging economies in this region need to be thinking about domestic sources of funding to promote their green growth strategies and not just expect bilateral, multilateral or a compliance regime to fund these commitments. So I think there are some examples in China. I know Malaysia and Thailand have talked about it but there is one case in Southwestern China and the TNC folks in the room could probably speak to it better than I can of where they're looking to a domestic emission trading system to help finance their green growth strategy and their emission reduction commitments. Yeah, I'll just echo what Baku Yuan said. I mean, I think the risk of sounding naive, I do think that there are lots of opportunities to protect for us in a way, protect for us that are in the interest of Indonesian stakeholders without extra financing and I imagine that's true in other places where either communities rely on forests for certain needs and to the extent that they're given authority to protect that they'll be protected. That there are forests which have incredibly valuable watershed protection services associated with them and that if that information is well understood and incorporated into decisions you would see a significant expansion of areas that are protected. And I do think that, like David said, pushing on the private sector. There's been a lot of commitments about deforestation free palm oil, et cetera. So far it's not clear to me that a company saying we're gonna commit to deforestation free palm oil is also gonna contribute to protecting carbon stocks. You can do one without leading to the other and that's a huge challenge and I think that governments and consumers can start pushing on that to try to translate and say, look, if you wanna be part of this deforestation free palm oil, it means protecting carbon stocks also and so if that happens, based on those commitments or expanded commitments, I think that's a big opportunity and also think compensation for impacts, sort of net positive impact commitments that companies are starting to make could have a big influence. In the long term of climate finance, I think we have to be a lot more creative because of the market opportunities of starting to look a little thin. Yeah, I just forgot one point that when we talk about market, usually we look outside and then we talk about the financial potential, we also look to the international donors. But like the case for Indonesia, we not yet properly discussing about the potential to get fund from the domestic market. Let's say for the private sectors, there's a lot of big companies that actually if we try to take a look at their emission architectures, maybe they can be part of the company who must reduce their emission domestically. But this is also not a political decision from the government. Let's say for the next government to saying like, have a decision to create demand domestically, saying like 50% of Indonesian emission reduction maybe must be achieved from domestic sources. So it's a great demand. And then after that, the company can, private sectors can moving and doing some investment related with that. But again, this isn't a big step political decisions. And of course a very good policy works to make these things possible. But if you're asking about where is the potential, we not only talk about international potential but also domestic potential. So we need to doing these kind of works like analysis or doing some policy works, how to make things happen. And I think the example of that is in China, three of the pilot schemes do, in fact encompass domestic forestry carbon or planning to do so. Okay, we've got about 10 minutes left. So I just might open it to the floor for any questions you've got of the panelists. And we've been working for the past few years in jurisdictional red as well. But we have observed a lot of tensions between the national and sub-national governments. And it has to do with many different reasons. Some reasons are the sub-national governments or jurisdictions can move faster sometimes that the national government and can make decisions faster. Sometimes national governments want to move forward with red and trying to push jurisdictions to move forward but they are not ready. So I mean, it's different reasons. But I just want to ask you if you have any lessons on how to deal with these tensions because I believe that we're going to be seeing this a lot in terms of benefit sharing as well when we move forward to phase three. And the other question I have is to Iwan. You said that the Indonesia government has narrowed down now to seven districts to move forward probably with an earpin to the carbon fund. But seven are too much to work with and to submit to the carbon fund. There are too many districts. So what is the plan to narrow down to a lower number and ask you if you plan to submit to the carbon fund in the meeting in June or later in September and happy birthday to Iwan. Yeah, firstly thank you for the birthday notes. Yeah, when we start the process we started with like more than 20 districts out of five provinces. And then we narrowing down into seven. And then last week we tried to narrowing down like two or three districts. But there's a good point from those districts coming like when we coming back to our government that saying like we not succeed we are not part of the scheme. Those districts will be disappointed and the head of the district will say, forget it Red Plus. We will not talk about Red Plus anymore because it's not real, it's a wasting time. So that's kind of the quote unquote consensus among us. Let's make this seven district fly in our ERP and because we selected this district with certain criteria based on the carbon fund criteria and also that even there's analogy from those district reference I was saying like seven district is too many. No, if you're comparing to out of 500 districts. So that's the mandate that we have that they're requesting us to please working with the seven districts. The challenge is huge, especially due to the timeframe what we have and then we also need to open a public consultation later on which is there's a lot of criticism on this but we were saying that yeah, let's working with the seven districts and let's see how far we can move and let's find a way on that and we working on a more optimistic way like we can work with the seven districts because the seven district is not started from zero at least for the floppy reference emission level they have some data they already started with that. So we can work with the seven districts but if your question like is it economically more viable maybe it can be yes or no but what we're aiming now is like to get more district on board working on the red plus that's more important rather than just like let's say working two or three district to make it more substantial chunk of incentive for example. So yeah, it's a challenge for us but we have no options, we working on that because this is the mandate and agreement we got from those district from for provinces. Thank you. My quick answer to that is I think just based on my experience I think that when you have conflicts between national level and local level government it's often about money and I would suggest posing the question of tenure and the types of taxes and revenues that come out of land ownership and it's sort of a perpendicular approach to the question but I think that by bringing up those issues you might get actual movement on the types of things that are at stake if they are economic and if they're not then that should come out in the process too. Yeah, I think that's a great point. I mean I think thinking about it as sort of a negotiation where there's a bunch of interest on each side like expanding the list of interests that you're talking about and being honest about the scope of things that really come into that complicated discussion. I mean it could help to get that sort of cooperation going. Okay, Gabrielle? Hi guys. I wanted to just take a moment to recognize Lex and TNC and Barrao for really being at the forefront of jurisdictional work on red. I think it's great and it paved the way for a lot of other people working in the area. Interestingly, as we see developments occurring in jurisdictional work, we get in 2012, we start to see standards coming out from BCS, from American Carbon Registry, from other places and as we were talking about earlier we're now even starting to see a development of those standards themselves beginning to merge when you look at the MF under FCPF and kind of the dialogue that's happening. So I think when Barrao first started out one of the big questions was where do we begin? What's the methodology? How do we approach these things? And now we have these standardized approaches that are being recognized and converging. So I'm curious from the panel, what do you see as the role of these standards for jurisdictional programs going forward, especially in Indonesia given the context where Indonesia really wants to create its own thing but also lives in a world where they want the credits or the commodities or the ERRs that are being created to be internationally recognized? Yeah, I mean, personally, I think that they're extremely important. I mean, we've been involved with FCPF for a long time. We're investors in the Carbon Fund. We've been heavily involved in the development of the methodological framework and tracking that in various places. Now that Barrao is potentially gonna be one of the places that is included in Indonesia's submission, it'll be a great chance to get serious. And I think it's an incredible learning by doing to see how big is the gap really between expectations, which I think the FCPF, I think reflects international expectations pretty well. So trying to put that on the ground and having to be detailed and having to go through that is incredibly valuable. I think we've been thinking about that, about VCS and whether we can support Barrao and move into those directions over the last couple of years. And I've been hesitant because of the fact that Indonesia has been still in the process of developing its own kind of approach about how to provinces and what's the role of provinces, what's the role of districts. And really, our goal is to help support the development of national programs or running off and seizing an opportunity to sell credits from a jurisdiction, even though it'll be a great learning experience. It's only great if it's done together with the central government. So I think now that the red agency, the Ministry of Forestry have decided they want to go ahead with the FCPF, it's a great opportunity. And I think the smart thing, kind of as you're mentioning, is would be to sort of in some way incorporate some of the J&R stuff into that process as well, even if it's not part of the ultimate documents. I think it could be a really good learning opportunity. Yeah, I think continuing from that is like, yeah, learning by doing is a safe answer. But the reality is we are on that stage now. Even like, beside when we talk about the model of following carbon fund, of course, in terms of methodology, we will follow the standard on that carbon fund. That's one model. The other model is like, what the paper at Plaswana developing is like, how we will develop a jurisdictional approach at the provincial context. I think that will be totally different things like what we have in the district level. Maybe in terms of like the number, it will be more simple because let's say, we're dealing with 11 provinces rather than like 60 districts. But given the authority of the provinces more on the coordinating, maybe like having a function like registry or like aggregating emission from those districts at the provincial level, maybe workable at the provincial. So for now we will developing several approaches related with that because another challenge now is like how we will put the especially the recent development of the forest management unit or Kapeha in the whole design of the forest governance in Indonesia. The interesting part from the jurisdictional approach is like you can touch the area of forest outside of legally decided as a forest. That's one of the additional point from jurisdictional. So yeah, we still struggling on like, is it district, the best options, provincial, or like we can combining all of those depend on the situation on the districts on the province. Thank you. I just have a cracker. One of the issues is that the VCS and VCUs are the default mechanisms for red. So if you want to finance red at the moment and you want to get products that are to buy it, the VCS is really the major play in town. One of the challenges then becomes is that if you put over the top of that a jurisdictional approach on projects that have already occurred to what extent are those projects grandfathered? Will the jurisdictional government grandfather them or will the VCS allow them to sit side by side? The VCS will not allow them to sit side by side if the jurisdictional government is also claiming that. So where we may see real challenges is I see in two areas. One is where you have a jurisdictional approach and that jurisdiction sells the carbon to someone like the FCPF under that arrangement or sells the results. And then somebody wants to do a jurisdictional red project you can't double sell the carbon and you can't double sell the result which is one problem. The second problem is where you actually have a national government try to do something but the land is owned by the state government. So the national government wants to do a jurisdictional approach with the state saying well actually we can do a VCS project right now and get someone to buy those credits immediately and that sort of conflict arises. So I think those are the sorts of issues that just haven't really been I guess thought through yet. We'll have to wait and see how that's played out. I think we've got time for one more question as a gentleman up there. All right I know it's getting late so I'll make this real quick. My name is Luke Pritchard and I'm with the Governor's Climate and Forest Fund and the GCF is an association or a network of 19 subnational jurisdictions that have been working pretty hard over the past five years on Red Plus and just generally low emission development efforts. And I think if you look at some of these subnational jurisdictions and some of the panelists have talked about they're really the quick movers. They're the ones that have achieved the most over the last five to 10 years. I think what we've seen in jurisdictions in Brazil has been probably the greatest climate achievement of our generation. And yet as we look at climate finance particularly related to Red Plus it's almost all gone to the national level. So our jurisdictions haven't seen much in terms of capacity building certainly little to nothing in terms of results based payments. And we haven't seen a lot of results from what's gone to these national level governments that money has been slow to be mobilized and we just haven't seen much. So I'm wondering just conceptually moving forward if the donor community which is really driving things right now needs to perhaps reassess. And I'm not saying that we obviously know national governments are important but we know that it's taking a lot longer than we anticipated. And if perhaps more financial incentives and flows and capacity building efforts need to occur at the sub-national level and just kind of if that's gonna require shift in paradigm from the donor community even if we look at the FCPF carbon fund they're looking at sub-national areas but those agreements are all being signed with national governments and we don't know how much of that's actually gonna go down to the jurisdictions. Leave it to Luke to ask the tough questions at the end of the day. You know in the case of UN Red Phase II it's pretty clear that the work is focused on six provinces and while there's national capacity building it's really focused to build the right local institutions for the PRAP process to really materialize, lead to implementation and then hopefully there'll be a phase III which will then finance a lot of the implementation plans or you know the phase II is more about testing out strategies. So I agree with you you know to some degree that you know the nice analogy I like to make given that I'm from California is that and Andrea you could probably speak to this better than anyone. You know it took a long time for the California cap and trade program to get up and running and now that it is running people are like wow this is great why you know why wasn't there a national system at the same time. Well initially the intent by Governor Schwarzenegger was to push the agenda so that there would be a national system and you know fortunately in the United States there's enough state sovereignty that this system can actually continue to run and to my knowledge there's not that many lawsuits going to the federal court basically suing the state government for creating this new cap and trade mechanism. I think that in a lot of the countries you mentioned early movers these provinces, states, districts, whatever jurisdictional unit you have they are pushing the envelope in a similar way to what California was doing and is doing and I also came from the Barrao School of Training before I joined USAID's LEAF program and I always felt like the rubber met the road or meets to meet the road at the sub national level and that's where we're going to have some significant gains in terms of low emission strategies, proper land use planning so forth and hopefully the governments whether they're the ones signing the agreements or not they're recognizing that there is specific need at this time frame to incentivize those early movers to make sure they don't all of a sudden lose all hope in Red Plus or their green growth strategy. I'll just pick up on one point there I think red is, I think we probably underestimate red is extremely complicated. It involves many new concepts. It deals with many things that haven't really been implemented at domestic levels before. It also, there's also an expectation that land tenure on other issues will just be resolved which isn't the case. So it's a long process and I think if you take the view that we're building on what we've learned today projects and then a sub national and national level the reality at the end of the day is that every red project must be implemented at a very small localized level. I think one of you was talking about at the village level that's really where it has to be done so the real thing that we've got to avoid is what ultimately is a failure of integrity and activity. So if people are trying to rush national level too fast and ends up that there's large scale reversals and there's large scale conflicts then you'll end up actually harming the whole process of jurisdictional red. So we need to do it in a sort of mythological and careful manner I think. All right, given it's quite over time I'm gonna end it there. I wanna thank very much Ewan particularly your birthday for being here David, Mike and Lex. And I also particularly wanna thank TNC who have sponsored the today's session and thanks very much to Lex for putting it all together. Finally I've just got an announcement here to make from the conference organizers which is that following this event at seven to eight tonight in the Java room the FAO have a side event. It's the side event will inform participants the key findings of the first state of the world's forest genetic resources report which will be released in the summer of 2014 and the associated global plan of action for the conservation sustainable use and development of forest genetic resources. So that's on in five minutes in the Java room for those who are interested. Okay, can I just ask you to thank all the panelists for their contribution today. Thank you.