 And let me first introduce myself. My name is Ariel Engelsen. I'm a professor at the Norwegian University of Life Science. And I'm also an associate of C4. Now, one of my capacities in the department is the head of the recruitment committee. And there is a story about three applicants for a job, an accountant, an economist, and a mathematician. And they were called for an interview. And they were just asked one question. And the question was, what is 2 plus 2? And first, the economist comes in and he says, well, that's very easy. 2 plus 2 is 4. And then comes the mathematician. And he's asked the same question and said, well, you know, it's a good question, actually. It depends a lot on the assumptions you make. But in most cases, I would say it is 4. And then comes the accountant. And he got the same question. And he looks around and see if all the doors are closed. And he said, well, it depends. What do you want it to be? And this also goes for accounting in of carbon emissions or forest stocks or money flows. It's not an exact answer to all of this. What do we want the number to be? And the answer quite often depends on what we want the number to be. In this session, we are going to look at the red performance in the landscape. And most of the, or not most of them, all the four speakers here that I will introduce in a moment are part of this global comparative study on red that is headed by CFO and involving a large number of partners. So just a few words on that project and what we hope to get out of this session. And so the purpose of this project is to get started one at a time. And the purpose of this project is for to support red policy arenas and practitioners and communities with both information, for example, a number of countries studies, country profiles that have been useful, to analyze and do research and publish of that and also provide some tools that can be used in the implementation of red. And we developed this 3E or 3E plus outcomes in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and equity and co-benefits beyond the carbon benefits. So as a general framework. Now, it's four major components now in this phase, two that started this year. Is it possible to only get one? OK. The first focus on national policy, the politics and the policies, at primarily the national level around this. What is needed to get the transformation change? The second, looking at red project activities, mainly at local levels and 20 plus pilot projects in six countries being the focus of that. The third, the MRV, including reference level discussions on how to set this and how to help and assist and provide good inputs into the MRV development. And the fourth, a new module on carbon management at the landscape level. And some of this, I just put up one of those who were published in the book last year by Maria Braco sitting here and myself is a chapter, it's a figure from that of these four eyes that we introduced. You know when you get older, it's nice to intervene some rules of them. So we have the three, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and the four eyes which are that on this arena you have actors and each of these actors, they have a particular set of interests. They have the ideas, including ideologies. They have certain information and all this is taking place on an arena where there are certain rules of the games or institutions, leading to policy process and outcomes. So it's a good framework to help you understand what's happening in there. And that also is true for data. There is the politics of data generation. We just saw yesterday some news published in data in science presenting quite new deforestation or rather forest covered change figures that will certainly spark a lot of debate and being used selectively to whatever, to fit certain interests and ideas that different actors have. These are the countries working in and even more being added. I don't need to list them all, you can read. Three volumes that have been produced, synthesizing and is available, of course, for free download at the website. Just to acknowledge those who have sponsored this, the governments and aid agencies of Norway, Australia, EC and UK, and there are also other grants but these are the four majors. Plus literally hundreds of people that have been involved in that and farmers and others sharing information. Now for this session, we look at red performance in landscape and these are the presenters that we will see starting with Martin and then Fair Naya and Daniel Atlas to give the introduction and I'll introduce each of them when it comes. But just the focus that we have, we do the accounting for a purpose. Very few of us, I mean there are some people like Martin Harold that have a pleasure in measuring in itself but for most of us it's a tool for the next step. So we use, so what's the purpose of this? Now, two purposes that I think it would be nice to focus on and I hope you also can help and get involved. One is to do the MRVing for implementing a landscape approach. For example, that we can analyze the actors and the interaction among different sectors and actors that operate in the landscape. And the second, the process itself of MRV generation for I think we'll hear some of that from Nepal can contribute to implementing the landscape approach. So data is not just a product, it's a process. And the second is MRV as a basis for a performance-based system, which is I would say a core original idea of RED that it should develop these performance-based systems. So can MRV be used to support or form the basis for that? Get involved, there's a few of us here but we try a new thing if you've given the chance to speak up but we'll also distribute some cards that you can write down. See, Lee and a couple of others will distribute them for you. And then there's something called Tweets. For those over 40, it's something, it's twitter.com and you get your account and you can say whatever you want and maybe someone will read it too. If you want to tweet, you're welcome to do it. We have the general hashtag forum that is GLF COP 19 and it's also a particular one for this session called hashtag DF3. So three ways of communicating by card, old-fashioned, well-proven technology by Tweets or just standing up and speaking in the audience after we have heard the presentations. So with that, I'm happy to introduce Martin Harald, the first speaker who will try to give a, I'm not just trying, I'm sure he will, give a broad overview of MRV systems before we have the three countries studies. Martin is professor at Wageningen University in the Netherlands, professor of remote sensing and geoinformatics. So, welcome Martin. Thank you very much, Harald. Good afternoon, everyone. There are more things that excite me than measuring, first of all. And among of them is speaking in a classic old university hall like this. You don't see many of those around anymore. So this is really classic. And so that's something that I find exciting among other things. So, and as part of that, I'm trying to start off thinking a bit about monitoring RED Plus landscapes. And as we, we're here at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties and we've been following a bit what has been discussed and negotiated in terms of monitoring for RED Plus on the UNFCCC arena, knows that most of it has been focused on modalities for monitoring and MRV for RED Plus to support countries' abilities to report to the international level. So a lot has been about the IPCC good practice guidelines and about technicalities, capacities and these kind of things to bring country up to speed to actually do that. And the technical community has been trying to provide some input to that process, which is the technical, one of the technical source books that has been put out. It's available, some of you may know it and I don't want to say a whole more about it except that we'll have a new set of training modules alongside this that are becoming available early next year that if people want to use the tool and want to use that guideline that actually becomes a bit easier and can be used more for training than it has been in the past. But what I'm not gonna do today is talk about these national capacities and national ways to report to the international level because what we are seeing now is that RED Plus is moving into phase two. And phase two is that the payments for performance is moving much more into the center of attention. And just as one example, those are some of the countries that have put forward proposal to the carbon fund that like to get started on actually getting paid for performance. And you see most of them have actually sub-national initiatives, usually some kind of jurisdictional dimension. And what we are now seeing is that these payment for performance and these need to actually create emission reductions because performance has to be based on emission reduction or removals or increased removals that this is actually getting much more important. And that of course raises other things than just reporting on carbon to the international level. One of the first things that if you want to stimulate activities to reduce emissions or increase removals of carbon is that you have to think about so what is changing my forests. And we all know the debate about trivals about approximate drivers with direct cause of deforestation. There was a report that was put out at the last COP in fact where some scientists, C4 and partners have looked into what are the most important direct drivers of deforestation and that is not news that it's mostly agriculture by a large amount that is driving deforestation. So what SUBSTAR has done, so the negotiating body that negotiates these technical things under the convention has actually proposed a decision on drivers of deforestation and just gonna go through some of these things that have been put forward there. It's up for decision at this COP in fact. For example, that it notes the complexity of the problem in terms of drivers, different national circumstances and multiple drivers at work that countries should address drivers when developing and implementing their national strategies for Red Plus that it requires participation of relevant stakeholders. It's important to take into account different sectors and that they have to be involved for addressing drivers. That international collaboration can contribute to that process because some drivers are international drivers that countries cannot deal with them on their own. It encourages parties, organizations, the private sector to reduce drivers and it notes that livelihoods may depend on drivers and there are implications when addressing drivers, when it comes to economic costs and domestic resources. So just by, and that's about what SUBSTAR has can say about drivers. It's rather general if you think about it but basically it gives countries some ideas on how important it is first of all to address drivers and that is that you have to think beyond forests and you have to think about many other dimensions than forests if you actually like to address drivers and address them in a way so you can actually reduce emissions. In the global comparative study, we have done an analysis to look into the way countries have tried to address drivers in their readiness proposals. So this is a graph that is based on, for 43 countries based on 98 readiness documents and we have grouped the countries in those that have actually taken on board that have assessed the drivers and developed their planned red plus interventions out of the drivers and those that have just listed a red plus intervention without considering drivers. And so what you see, the countries that have done a clear, developed a clear relationship between drivers and interventions that are shown in red, the other ones are shown in blue, that the ones who have basically not taken drivers into account as much, they mainly propose forest related interventions such as sustainable forest management, protected areas strategies, our forest station and reforestation. There are a couple of interventions that are really, they're basically both country cases are equal such as agro forest re plantation establishment and dealing with fuel wood and fuel wood efficiency. And then if you look at the areas where the red, the country shown in red here are most prominent, those are the ones where most of these activities are actually outside the forest such as agricultural intensification, livestock management, sustainable mining and so on. So basically the countries that have analyzed the drivers and planned their interventions based on the importance of specific trials. What they point at is there's a lot of activities actually outside the forest that do affect it and that has to be taken into account. So what can we learn from this analysis? Well, first of all, that many red plus interventions are actually outside the forest. And if you do think about changing the way agriculture is done to reduce the pressure on the forest, it can actually be quite hard to link it to a specific forest carbon impact to let's say which type of which forest has been saved and how much forest has been saved because of this activity. The second thing is that if you do want to monitor the activities, these outside forest area activities as part of your red plus implementation program, you have to monitor quite a few things outside the forests and that is something that has to be taken into account. Still, the national forest related greenhouse gas impact has to be assessed on the national level to be reported. But the internal monitoring within the country does has to think far beyond forest to actually, well, to be used as a policy tool to support red plus interventions. The other question is that as I said, most some activities are outside the forest and it will be hard to relate these activities to specific forest carbon savings unless you want to get every stakeholder on every land owner to be a red plus project on his own. It will be very hard to pay them based on forest carbon performance. And so basically what that means, we have to think about different ways of actually sharing, generating and sharing benefits in these contexts. So if you think about objectives then for red plus monitoring on the national level, besides meeting these international reporting requirements, it needs to underpin and stimulate strategies and priorities for red plus implementation. It has to track performance of red plus activities and their impacts which include carbon, both non carbon and non carbon. And it has to support the generation and the sharing of benefits. And that's basically a broader, a much broader objective than what you have as it comes to international reporting. If you take into account the sub-star guidance on drivers which highlights multi-sector issues, the involvement of stakeholders, the importance of livelihoods, it is clear that we talk about red performance in a landscape context, thinking about more holistically, thinking about more integrated. So basically we're talking about an increase in monitoring and assessment needs and that certainly raises the questions versus simplicity versus complexity because if we think about landscape and we think about monitoring the multiple impacts of red plus and the links to benefit sharing, we're talking about much more monitoring that has to be done. So if you think about them performance on the landscape scale and some examples to meadow and that's a slide I borrowed from Peter Holmgren, we have to then actually think about something to measure and monitor that is easy to understand that applies to any scale and any location that can actually be done and that can be done not only once but sustainably. So if you think about, for example, the different objectives like livelihood provisions, sustained ecosystem services, pollution and resource efficiency and food and non-food products, on the outside you see some examples of things that could serve as, well, at least simple or starting proxies for these different dimensions of red plus on the landscape performance in terms of livelihoods, it can be related to amount earned or return or things like GDP, in terms of ecosystem services, the tons of biomass in the landscapes, in terms of pollution and resource efficiency, the amount of CO2 emitted or the tons of products delivered in both food and non-food context. So it is one important objective also for the monitoring community to take these multiple dimensions into account to assess the impacts of red plus also in a broader context. So this idea of having simple measurable things is at the core of that. And as I would mention, some of you have been aware or are aware that three days ago a paper came out in Science by Matt Henson and colleagues that looked at or that provided a global annual assessment of forest cover gains and losses for 2000-2012. And this is the map that has been produced, in fact, you can view it on the web. And one of the questions is, so is that one of these simple indicators that we can use to help us to monitor red plus on the landscape scale? Well, first of all, what you see is, from a very broad perspective, where do you see the most red dots on this map? The ones I see mostly are in the Canada and somewhere in Russia, all right? Those are the ones that I pick up. And in Canada, those are also in Russia, those are mostly fires, all right? Those are fires that have basically reduced the forest cover and that's when he picked up. And in Canada, it's also linked to harvesting operations. The things that have been, those are plantations, things that have been harvested and replanted as part of rotational harvesting cycles. So it is a measure of forest cover gains and losses. It doesn't tell us very easily what is actually behind that. Besides analysis like this, because the detail of these analysis is quite good, it's 30 meters spatial resolution. This is very detailed. It's the scale that we are thinking in terms of landscapes and human interactions with the landscape. So in that sense, it has the right thing. And in fact, it is an advertisement of what remote sensing and global remote sensing can actually do today. We do have to be careful when interpreting these things. For example, gross forest cover loss or the loss of forest can be natural causes. It can be human causes. It can result in land use change. It can regenerate to forest. It can succeed to non forest. So the signal that we get in terms of forest cover gain and loss is not easily attributed to specific human activities, which is in my sense a problem when it comes to assessing landscape scale performance because red plus, for example, is about human induced changes. So it is an interesting measure and it provides a consistent global picture, but it will have limitations or people have to understand the limitations of using the data and applying the data for specific frame, for specific context, for specific accounting framework, for example. And so the paper doesn't, the scientists don't claim that what they're providing is deforestation, although sometimes it is understood that way. So to sum up that landscape thinking is inherent to red plus, in particular now that we move to phase two and that this issue of addressing drivers and thinking about impact in a broader scale are really coming up. That national red plus monitoring goes beyond forests. It includes drivers, carbon non-carbon benefits and it has to provide some base to share benefits. Monitoring red plus landscapes has to look for simple and measurable indicators and that is very important. And I'd see that as a charge for the monitoring community. And one way that we start to have to provide an answer for that is because red plus is moving to phase two now with the performance based pain as part of the carbon fund or for other donors that are now really starting to take shape. Thank you. Can you hear on this? Yes. Happy to introduce the next speaker. Fé, as I know her some, but her full name is Maria Fernanda Gebra. She's working at the Rio Federal University of Rio among other places and also being actively involved in this project to update us on Brazil. So welcome. Thank you, Arut. Thanks actually to all the organizers for being here. It's a pleasure for me and it's very inspiring to be in such a meeting, especially in this room, as Martin noticed. And hello everyone. I am here to present some of the social and political dimensions of financing, MRV and benefit sharing in Brazil. And I will start with some red context in Brazil. So in 2003, a group of NGOs proposed to the UNFCCC compensated reduction where developing countries would be compensated by emissions reduction from deforestation. At the same time, the government of Brazil started to construct the plan to reduce deforestation called PPCDOM, which was published in the next year in 2004. After that, in 2006, the government of Brazil proposes to the UNFCCC a voluntary regime for red. In 2007, a group of NGOs signed a zero deforestation pact and promoted it in the National Congress. And at the same time, the state of Amazonas created the Bolsa Floresta program. In 2008, the government launches the National Plan for Climate Change, also created the Amazon Fund. The first red project started to be implemented, the JUMMA project in the state of Amazonas. In 2009, the government launches the National Policy for Climate Change, establishing voluntary targets for mitigation. And also the governments of Amazon, they start the Amazon Governors Forum. In 2010, we submit some national mitigation actions to the UNFCCC. Also, the Ministry of Environment creates different working groups to start debating the red national strategy. A group of NGOs, led by IMA Flora Institute, Research Institute in Brazil, created the principle and criteria for red. Also, the government launched two important plans, one to reduce deforestation in the Cerrado, is the equivalent of PPCDAN, is the PPCRado. And also, the plan to reduce emissions from the agriculture sector, the ABC Plan. Finally, in 2011, the government created the Interministerial Working Group for Red to discuss the national strategy. And also, we had the red NPS bills being discussed and some meetings to start constructing the safeguard system, sorry. In 2012, last year, the states created a task force for red. Also, the government made available the first draft of the national strategy for civil society. And the FIP investment plan from the Forest Investment Program was approved for Brazil. And also, the last version of the forest code was published by the government. Finally, this year, we proposed for the 1FCCCC some guidance on red technical issues in Bonn. And we have many subnational initiatives, including state laws on red. And also, more than 50 projects that relate to red being implemented in Brazil. And this is a figure of some scenarios for future deforestation if all these actions weren't in place. So this is what would happen from 2006 until 2050. Mainly the deforestation, of course, near the rivers and the roads. So from the draft of the national strategy, and this is being discussed between the ministries and is led by the Ministry of Environment, so it may change. But the main objectives would be reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation by 2020 according with what is established by the National Policy for Climate Change. Also achieve zero net deforestation in 2020. Maintain and restore ecosystem services and other functions of forest ecosystems. And also promote the sustainable development of fractions with forests. So going to the financial mechanisms at the national level, we have the Amazon Fund, which receives donations from Norway, Petro Barais, and the governments of German. And also the National Climate Fund, created by the National Policy for Climate Change, which receives donation from Petro Barais as well, which is our national agency for oil exploitation. At the sub-national level, we have some state's climate funds, such as the State of Amazonas Fund. Also have some agreements between states, such as the Acre and California Agreement and some local funds being developed, such as the Surui Fund and the San Felix de Shingul Fund. And there is also the Biodiversity Fund, which receives donations from Jeff, the Amazon Fund and others and some public budget being available for rent as well. At the international level, from the bond proposal that Brazil submitted in the middle of this year, Brazil is betting pretty much in the Green Climate Fund and it suggested two axon to financing, one for directed for the national governments, another one directed to other actors and subject to a non-objection procedure by national authorities. And finally, expulse payments to be dispersed according to mitigation results. Neither of these options preclude or nor exclude others according to the proposal submitted, including market-based approaches, but they say in the proposal that these discussions are not yet mature and it come on understanding at the international level. The proposal also suggests a national authority that would be responsible to recommend proposals and consult other proposals and also be responsible for presenting proposals under modality A of what they suggested for the Green Climate Fund and applying for grants under modality C and for the non-objection procedure under modality B. This national authority would work in close coordination with other national authorities and maybe even the same if appropriate. In terms of monitoring, Brazil is one of the most advanced countries in the world in capacity to monitor its forests using remote sensing and GIS technologies. At the national level, we have the National Institute for Special Research with four different initiatives to monitor deforestation and degradation, including one which is the project that they launched recently a mission model to monitor GHG emissions as well. And also the National Institute for Environment, producing also data on deforestation levels at the national level. And at the sub-national level, we have partnerships between the Ministry of Environment and States. At the local level, we have the partnership between Surui and Google to monitor the Surui lands and other initiatives by the civil society institutions such as IMAZON, IPAN, and the Federal University of Minas Gerais. Going to reporting, the BOM proposal made in the middle of this year established is that reference levels would be determined by a focal point at the national level, but following NFCC decisions. And also this would be based on projected emissions for 2020, determined by the National Policy for Climate Change. And these emissions were projected based on historical deforestation levels. Results would be approved at national level first and then at the international level. And consultation process and analysis would occur at national level, but with greater detailing at the international level. Verification and performance for Brazil verification is to ensure transparency and funding. So the government believes that verification is therefore domestic and this generated a great discussion in the last COP in Durban, where Brazil was arguing that no developing country will have international verification of its sections because it could cause disadvantages against other sections and also add some additional obligations. And I think Aerude can give some inputs on that as the main opposer to this position was Norway. And they were arguing that they were willing to pay as long as they could be sure that they are paying for actual emissions reductions. I'm not sure if this discussion was solved already by this meeting now, but I hope it will at some point. And the indicator would be the tone of CO2 equivalent maintained or reduced it. And this would be verified by a technical scientific committee at the national level created by the national strategy. And they believe it's possible to consider other indicators, but it still lacks a wider global debate. They also proposed in bone an international verification tool which wouldn't be centralized and results after being endorsed by COP, they would be published at the UNFCCC website indicating the country, the year, the reference levels, and if the country was paid or not. And also for them, international level results based payments can best support using a national jurisdiction such as scale as reference, sorry. But in an interim basis, subnational reference levels could also be used. So the way that this draft of the strategy relates MRV and finance is in financing is like they suggest the creation of executive authority at the national level which would be responsible for approving the MRV process and reporting back to investors. And also they would generate a red unit and this unit would be the one responsible for payments by results. And this would allow the financing process and also after that, the resources would be distributed to beneficiaries. So going to benefit sharing at the international level, Brazil believes it should be determined independently to recognize the whole of different sectors. And in relation to the Green Climate Fund, they suggested that disbursements should occur based on total results over a period of time rather than in a fixed monetary value. At the national level, the government doesn't have yet a clear position on how it works. They suggested the Amazon Fund as the main instrument. Also, they suggested the use of economic instruments and the decentralization from the Amazon Fund would occur implementing new instruments and types of financing, but they were really the strategy, this draft of the strategy is really vague and doesn't mention any examples of the economic instruments of these new instruments they aim to create. So I brought here some initiatives from the local level. I don't want to go through all of this because of time, but it's just to show some examples and how projects are investing resources in terms of benefits. And as you can see, there are many types of benefits. Some of them relate to readiness activities and from the examples I took, just one of them is using direct payments, which is the Bolsa Floresa program. Going to the safeguards, Brazil in 2010, as I mentioned in the timeline, led by IMA Flora and other groups of NGOs, they launched the Red Social and Environmental Principle and Criteria, and it was constructed with great participation from different actors from civil society, including local actors, and also it's been used as a model by many countries and also by the Ministry of... It's guiding the Ministry of Environment's debate on the construction of the system for safeguards. And from this debate, from these meetings that the Ministry of Environment organized during 2011, there were some safeguards that were suggested to be included in the national strategy, including governance, monitoring, transparency, benefit sharing, and others. The Amazon Fund also established some safeguards in accordance to the UNFCCC decision, but there is no monitoring of the implementation of these safeguards. So going to the conclusions, in terms of challenges, I would say the nesting activities from subnational and local levels to national level to guarantee accountability is one of the main challenges of Brazil. Also the attribution of results, how do we really link the MRV with the performance and the benefit sharing in order to have the results-based payments, improve monitoring and measurements of Amazon Fund's results, and monitoring safeguards. And key lessons, I would say, that advanced monitoring systems are not enough to guarantee performance. Therefore, performance indicators are critical, and we also need to think about the policy scape. And by that, I mean, it's really important to look at the landscape, but not alone. I think we should also look at the mix of policies that are acting in a specific landscape, especially when we deal with such a big country like Brazil. There is totally different, even in the Amazon, we have totally different realities. And I will leave you with this picture from an Indian trying to hit the development bank in Rio during the Rio Plus 20, because I think this reflects pretty much this conflicts of bread implementation because this bank is the one responsible for managing the Amazon funds, but at the same time is responsible for funding many of the initiatives that are causing deforestation in the Amazon and in other biomes. So that's why I think it's really important to look at this policy scape and not be just looking at the policy from the forest sector and try to look at the whole landscape and policy scape. Thank you. I'd like to move from the largest rainforest country to the tallest country in the world. Of course, that's Nepal. That's my students telling me that, okay, it's a small country, but at least we are the tallest. Naya Pandel, working with Forest Action in Nepal and being involved in much of the red activities and also the GSS project. So welcome. Thank you, Ariel, and welcome, everyone. As Nepal is not yet there in terms of developing its MRV and other required studies like reference and other things, and it's just developing its red national red strategy, but many of the knowledge gaps are still there. So we are much behind in terms of sharing the experience of landscape-level activities in terms of MRV. So what I would bring you here is a more kind of process, particularly starting from Nepal's very successful community forestry and other community-based natural resource management schemes at the community level, at watershed level, and slightly moving up to the landscape level. And how does those lessons from the natural resource management conservation can be actually paid in to the development of MRV? So that would be my emphasis, particularly bringing two cases. One, the experimentation or practice with natural resource management, and second, some of the piloting with the raid and also pace, and then drawing lessons from those practices. I will start from community forestry, because this is the only area which we can confidently share, as we have done something good in Nepal. Otherwise, in terms of politics, economy, we are in a failed state almost. And for the last 10 years of political conflict, violent conflict, and then followed by almost four or five years of still ongoing political transition, waiting for another election, and waiting for a new constitution. So it's the only proud thing that we can share. And the community forestry in Nepal is not only in terms of coverage of the population, also in terms of its economic and social and environmental benefits, but also it provides a lot of other relations to generate or to build on either for raid or climate adaptation or other democratic processes, starting from these grassroots emerging institutions. Why this is so strong community forestry experience there is primarily it has a very strong policy and legal foundations, very robust institutions at the grassroots level. And the institution and the policy and legal framework fits very much with a kind of traditional socio-ecological setting of the country. That's why it has been very successful. And I think we can learn a lot from these experience, particularly in the context of raid, as through raid we certainly wanted to protect forest and reduce emission. But moving up from these small forest patches that are managed by small communities, we also have experience of managing watershed or a small protected area. There are several examples starting from late 80s and 90s. But we have observed some asymmetry in terms of managing these watersheds, particularly asymmetry in terms of the political and administrative unit and also the civic institutions are on the one hand. And the second hand, we have these ecological units, ecological boundaries. Two of them doesn't fit quite, but at least in terms of these watershed management, we are trying to develop institutions at that level, which are in a way federated local institutions or coordination among government agencies and government agencies and private agencies and civic agencies. But still, there are some gaps in terms of the institutional robustness and also in terms of the environmental gain. These are not that much successful as we have community forestry. But moving up from these watershed level experiences, we also have several projects in terms of trying to manage the resources at the landscape level. So both in the northern, I'm just trying to juxtapose these two here, two different maps, which doesn't fit well. But there are some landscapes where different conservation projects are operating this time. But we can see these red little bits down there in the western side, which are protected areas and some corridors and then other settlements. And you can see this area is divided into different political and administrative unit. And there is no institution at the landscape level. Either political level or the administrative level or at the civic level. So because there are no or there are differences or there are asymmetries between these political administrative and civic institutions and the initiative to manage this landscape level resources, mostly these are managed by central level entities trying to pull people from different sectors and then set up some kind of project management committee steering or coordinating. But these institutions doesn't fit well with the existing institutions there. So there are some level of latent conflict or lack of coordination or lack of authority exist there. So when we go up from these small patches of community managed forest to what to say to landscape level, certainly we have faced different institutional challenges. And when we go up to the national level, I'm just bringing up here one of the recent analysis on the drivers of deforestation in Nepal, which shows a range of approximate drivers up there and then underlying causes of drivers. And given the Nepalese government's capacity to deal with these various economic and social policy or corruption oriented and other issues, it looks like that the government will almost be unable to address the drivers at the national level. So there is an implicit tendency from within the government that we may not be able to address the drivers at national level. So we should find some particular landscape where we can better focus or we strategize our whole resources and efforts so that we can show some results. So the complexity of drivers and the complexity of dynamics has also no kind of encouraged government to take these landscape approach, but then there are still some challenges. Now I will slightly go to the red piloting. Well, in terms of the national policy process, the government is, we have this red sale within the ministry of forest and this particular entity is coordinating national red readiness process through the support of World Bank FCPF program. And there are also other agencies working in the periphery, but the process is very slow and we are not yet in the second phase, we are still in the first phase. But there are parallel piloting going on at the watershed level where some kind of experimentation is going on, on benefit sharing, creating some kind of forest carbon trust fund and then the national advisory committee there and then down we have this watershed level red net and then down trying to bundling our number of community forest user groups which are small passes of 200 actors, 300 actors, 50 actors, the average size of Nepalese community forest are 85 actors. So trying to bundling these different groups into that watershed level network and then trying to develop monitoring and benefit sharing within that watershed level. But then we have observed a number of challenges at the landscape level initiative in piloting red, particularly when the new institution that was introduced as a part of coordinating body of these local groups. So the introduction of these groups has created a slight latent tension with the existing ones because the existing system is not operating at the watershed level. It has the administrative unit is at the national level, the district level and the local level. The watershed level doesn't fit either in the district or in the local level so it is in somewhere in between. So these watershed level units, they can't coordinate with the district level, they can't fit at the local level. So there is some kind of misfit between the existing political administrative units and the ecological units that we are trying to experiment with. There is similar another piloting on payment for environmental services in one of the hydropower scheme. So we have this hydropower scheme that pays 12% of its revenue to the local governments. And then out of that 20% goes to the upstream communities and the whole intent is to protect the watershed upstream of the hydropower. But because of the existing legal system, the money goes through local government to the village development committees without the local governments at the lowest level and these bodies would spend that money particularly in construction road and which is one of the key drivers of deforestation and causing shiltation and sedimentation. So the whole purpose of protecting the watershed is not working here. So with these two, no kind of piloting, both at the rate and also for the pace, we can see that the very grass root level institution, community forestry organization or other community based organization, they are functioning very well. But once you gradually go up from that level, there are some challenges in terms of the institutional robustness, in terms of the symmetry between the existing political and administrative units and the new institution that we are promoting and also the kind of needed coordination between different institutions. Now in this context, the government is also trying to develop a project at the landscape level. While the national process is going on, it is also encouraged by a certain, I think part of the support from the World Bank is developing a project at the landscape level. But I see some problems there. One, because there are no institutions at the landscape level to actually define the tenure, to maintain the data, to monitor and maintain the data and to actually one and kind of take the accountability or responsibility to protect or to manage sustainability of that area. So the pace of piloting or going through this landscape level project and the actual preparedness in terms of the institutions and other preparedness is not there yet. So some of the messages from my presentation here based on the community forestry and watershed level management and in landscape level management and the rate piloting is that the local level institutions which are very strong, robust and managing forest well for the last 20, 30 years. So how can we build on from that local level experience when we go up upper level, higher level without losing the institutional robust net, without losing the tenure security, without losing the kind of ownership that the communities and other institutions are taking up. So that is one challenge I can see. The second, when most of these conservation initiatives went up to the higher level and the world, the landscape is being used just to refer that the larger scale of resource but not adequately bringing up the diversity of actors and institutions and dynamics which actually we would like to see within the landscape debate. So that it's because the diverse forest, sorry deforestation are not only within the forest sector and that are other strong actors. So how to integrate these different actors at the landscape level so that we can have a better successful rate. So I think the simple one conclusion I would like to draw is when we move towards a landscape based rate we must focus adequately on the institutional aspects whether that can support landscape level or not. Thank you. Just to be reminded that about the cards where you can write questions if you would like to or send it more in the, is it working? Yeah. So tweeting DF3, hashtag DF3 plus there's a GLF COP19 hashtag also or the sheets if you would like to write but there will be a Q&A session just after this. So let me introduce Daniel Mordiasso, a red guru from Indonesia and guru in Indonesia means teacher and he's not just a guru, he's a big teacher, a guru besar which is professor of methodology also and has been a long time involved in both the MRV work and red work in general Indonesia and the policy process and from a more scientific point of view. So an excellent background for your presentation on the MRV and performance based system in Indonesia. Welcome. Well, thank you Ariel. Talking about guru, I'm also talking about students which really associated with this room. Martin said about the sentiment about the room. When I was student the room was like this in the sense of the flipping seat you have and that's also signified when the student were satisfied with the lecture and it was not so depressing they can squeeze, move out the room very quietly. But if it is very depressing they can go out and bang the seat. So I will MRV you the way you bang the seat when you leave the room. Anyway, so the talk I'm going to share with you here is our observation as far as Indonesia is concerned in implementing red but putting landscape into the context is quite a challenge. It is an ongoing kind of processes very quick and fast process in the past six or seven years or so. Okay, so I will set the scene by telling the story about the forest governance in Indonesia and then the way red was accepted and process at national and sub national level in the last few years and how can I think this is the topic of the day how the MRV is really presented so that the credibility is secured and in a broader scale it's not project but landscape level. And then the story about the financing which is still a work in progress at the moment and it's also associated and closely related with what is being discussed and negotiated in Warsaw here. And we will take some message home what's happening after this and expectedly especially if there are colleagues from Indonesia or those who are working in Indonesia can have some lessons here. It's a long story of forest governance in Indonesia started off back in the 70s. It's very much centralized, governed by national law, very strong and included in that process is the permitting and issuance of license. So a lot of activities going on in the 70s, the 80s, very fast deforestation occur for the development of the national economy. So forestry has been the backbone of national economy in the past 20 years. The national revenue is somewhere around six or seven billion US dollar a year coming from forestry sectors related activities. And of course most of the activities are goods related activities. Surfaces is not there in the agenda. Even climate change is way from the forestry activities in Indonesia. And then very recently in the early 2000 the government is very much decentralized but of course without problem. There's a lot of problem with regard to the capacity in the regional or district governance. A lot of issuance of permits of forest related activities issued by the local government and with low capacities in doing that of course the associated calamities including emission of greenhouse gases is extensive. It's happened everywhere in the region. The use of fire is very prominent and as the local government is trying to catch up with what is going to happen in the local level. And it leaves a lot of gaps in term of capacity in various aspect and looking at forest in the landscape now is it going to be forest in the future? This kind of setting in the landscape is being discussed now where the oil palm will be part of forest. So it's a huge challenge as far as research and also the implementation by local government the player, the private sector looking at the changing landscape in Indonesia where most of the development are based on forest and forest land which is at the moment governed by one single ministry. So when red was introduced a lot of actors play in the role and various initiatives was implemented including very early stage of multilateral engagement with donors to try to understand what was the underlying causes of deforestation. People start to consult with each other a lot of activities going on with regard to trying to understand what red is all about. And that started off soon after Montreal when red with single one D was discussed. So basically people were talking about deforestation or even avoiding deforestation. So various sector within forestry was trying to understand what is the implication for plantation, what's the implication for pulp industry oil palm expansion and also agricultural sectors. And then the activities year up towards a better understanding of real activities to try to help the deforestation by developing the so-called demonstration activities. Try to understand what is the baseline was from the previous experience when the CDM was implemented. Is it the same? Exactly the opposite, the baseline is trying to measure the addition of carbon in the landscape while CDM was trying to understand the reduction. And then Safeguard was also discussed during the implementation of the so-called Kalimantan Forest Carbon Partnership supported by Australia. And also UN Red in various districts in Indonesia. And then even dealing with Norway was very monumental in terms of involvement of stakeholders while carrying the experience from various initiatives. A lot of things happened in the past three, four years when the letter of intent between Indonesia and Norway was signed. Activities including the development of national red strategies, very intense consultation, development of pilot province, whether it was pilot or district, there's a big debate about that in the process. And then the MRV and finance mechanism. So in the past six or seven years, the curve of the learning is really very steep and people are confused, people are understand better and various different kind of interest in that process. And it's getting bigger and bigger in terms of involvement or interaction between agencies, individual NGO and also private sector. So at the moment, people are waiting for what's going to happen here in Warsaw or 2015 with regard to MRV and the mechanism, the modalities or red will be implemented. In the onset of this process, the national red strategy was published last year and it contains exactly what we are discussing here. Looking at red not only from project-based activities but very much looking at landscape level. It's not forestry-oriented only. It's looking at other activities dealing with sustainable development at landscape level but still trying to understand how to move this beyond what is currently or business as usual implementation in forestry sector. So with the development or establishment of the red agency, very recently, this process will likely going to move forward and the MRV institution will be in place to help out with the process of financing the red activities. So at the same time, a lot of project activities going on in the region while the capital, the central government is busy with that process in developing the strategy, a lot of activities in Sumatra, in Kalimantan and also in the eastern part of Indonesia, even in very less least forest cover region, red-related activities are happening. So how about the MRV in this various project with different stage of development, different capacity, different way of doing it, different partners, that's what the red agency is going to tackle in the near future. And as far as MRV system is concerned, the main issue here while we are here in Warsaw being discussed here is the credibility, how the measurement is really following the rule and it is secured in terms of methodology, in terms of the numbers. We are talking about the politics of number, which reference level is going to be used, that's highly debated at the moment. When people talk about deforestation rate of, I don't know, 2.3, 1.5 million hectares and the government number is about 1.6 and then recent publication as it was mentioned is almost three times higher in term of deforestation rate. Well, it's a good proxy in term of what's happening on the ground, the deforestation rate, but more important is the emission rate because most of Indonesian forestry sector activities right now is happening in Pitland. Out of 20 million hectares of Pitland, only 3 million are protected. So the rest, the majority of it is already licensed. So sooner or later, this ecosystem will be converted for something else in the landscape and the emission is no longer sensitive to area but the intensity of carbon in that landscape. So looking at Pitland is very strategic. Looking at high carbon reservoir is very important in order to have a better MRV and credible MRV. And again, the estimate so far is based on mainly stock chains when it is going to be improved, flux approach would be desirable. Of course, the IPCC is not meant for developing project. It is a tool to do the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory but at least the good practice guidance is there that countries can refer to so that the credibility of MRV can be contested. So as far as the financial mechanism is concerned, it is an ongoing progress looking at the financial financing rate in Indonesia. It's called FREDI, so it's like the Amazon fund. It's a grand making, it's a trust fund. And basically it's not one single source of funding to develop this project. It's multiple and a broad array of activities and opportunities from small scale community base to large scale corporate operation, et cetera. The good thing of this framework is that it has a guiding principle and safeguard is included in that mechanism and the governance system is secured by the presence of what is going to be the board of trustees of this FREDI. So how the benefit will be shared? That's a big question. So with regard to different size, different modalities of project on the ground, it has been discussed the possibilities using the so-called nesting approach. If there are various projects in various sub-national level, it's got to have a marvy system on its own. It might have different reference level or using national reference level and then compare the performance based on the national reference so that the crediting or debiting of carbon can be made. The question here is how one will have to attribute this to attribution is a big question here. Right, so is nesting like this going to be the likely process? It looks very fragile, but it will deliver if someone is going to do the right thing, it will deliver the offspring. Or is it going to be very rigid, very jurisdictional in term of boundary which might also create some challenges in term of attribution. So still going on how the distribution or sharing of the benefit will be. So the key message to take home here is that we should not wait. The momentum is there and Indonesia can proceed with the existing rules if it is going to be the kind of example the IPCC can be the surrogate of the process. And if that is the case, countries has the experience. There are a lot of people who have the experience of being the national, what do you call it, data compiler in term of sectoral emissions including forestry sector. So numbers are there. It's a matter of securing or promising the credibility. So nested approach might be the way of paying or sharing the benefit, but it's a lot of things need to be thought about it. Thank you. Thanks to Daniel. We're going to open up the floor in just a few minutes depending on how long. But I just want to have a small first round of questions that came up as we were talking here to each of the three or four speakers. It's important to know how to count. As they say, there are three types of people in the world, those that can count and those that cannot count. Martin, I just wonder you have worked in a number of countries on MRV in Guyana and advice for example and several other countries. But I just, and from many of these countries we're starting really from scratch. So my question, my simple question is to you, what could have been done more and you can maybe take some examples. What could the countries and the donors and others have done more if we had better monitoring systems in place? How has that hindered us? So what could you have done differently if it was? So what has been the cost of not having invested more in that for decades? Okay, thank you for the question. The first red plus phase as it's called readiness was really the objective is just to get countries ready and started to move eventually to phase two which I think we are now on the edge of moving to phase two and one of these investments that have been made in the readiness phase is to invest in monitoring capacities and improve data and take for example Guyana as a case that had started with almost no systematic observations of the forest moved into a system where they went to annual reporting on forest related changes and emissions to Norway and it's actually getting compensated based on that. One of the things that, and I've just been talking to Guyana two weeks ago about this and one of the discussions that came up and the person from the Ghana Forestry Commission told me, oh, you know what? Our deforestation rate for mining went up last year and we were really worried about this and I said, well, I mean, it's not good that your deforestation rate went up because of mining, but at least you have a tool that tells you that your deforestation rate went up of mining and then she said, yeah, and then there was all this public debate in the media and all of that and I said, this is exactly what you want. If you have the information and you have the data that it's not only about deforestation, but it's deforestation of mining and we know it's not so easy to deal with the mining sector in some of these cases. That is the kind of tools that you have to actually start the engagement of multiple stakeholders, the public of all kinds of actors to actually stimulate that debate. This is a very important lesson that at least I can share from the Guyana side. What I see in country readiness, in country readiness plans as there were and I think I showed the example of analyzing these in terms of how to address the drivers is, I think some of them could have gone a bit further in these thinking that I think we're discussing here today. So what are the drivers? What can we do about it? And who needs to be engaged and stimulated to participate in that? And that, depending on the driver, usually requires a lot of broad thinking and you know, multiple sectors and all of that. And that is I think something that that's still some kind of, at least a little bit behind of actually getting to that point. And that is because Red Cross was very much seen as a forest related activity. And from a greenhouse gas point of view, it is still very much a forest related activity. But from an implementation point of view, it is much broader. And I think that's where more data on that or more information on how to link understanding of drivers to doing things differently and to stimulate that transformational change. In fact, that is needed to make Red Cross work and that has multiple dimensions. And if you read some of the CFO publications on that, that's I think the monitoring could have done a bit better and actually monitoring and using the data could have done a bit better on. Fernanda, I got a question on tweeted on hashtag DF3, to remind you, but in the context of Red and perhaps also MRV system that you have in place, how the protection of the land rights of indigenous communities, how that has been integrated and incorporated? In terms of MRV? Or in the context of maybe broader, the Red, how protection of indigenous land rights, how they have, that has been taken into account? Yeah, indigenous rights are protected by the constitution. We have one of the most advanced constitutions in relation to indigenous rights. But recently in this government, in the Dilma government since 2010, we considered that there was a, like going back because she wants to change some of the norms that are in the constitution through some measures that she can, through decrees and specific presidential measures that she can do. And one of them is specific in relation to the demarcation of indigenous lands. So this was one of the reasons why there were a lot there were a lot of protests in Brasilia recently about this, what they call the PAC, the amend to the constitution, proposal amend to the constitution. And, but it's still under debate. And going to the Red debate, I would say that there is already some views from both from the FUNAI, which is the agency that regulates indigenous, that looks for the implementation of these indigenous rights. And they actually did, like a statement saying that they believe that the carbon rights and the rights for negotiating this carbon belongs to indigenous because of this constitutional norms. And also there was also the public ministry, they also did a statement in relation to that because of some cases of carbon cowboys in Brazil in last year, 2012. And also they also considered the same opinion of FUNAI where they should have these rights protected because they already have the right to the use of fruit of all the benefits of their lands in the constitution. So that's why they believe in this. Come from the birthplace of community forest management at least that's what you claim. And I think it's correct. Just one, you said that the kind of interesting that you have at the local level, you have okay decent good institutions and perhaps something at the top also you are developing there the national, but it's really at the intermediate the landscape, the watershed level. So I thought, can't you just scale up the community management or cannot you, are you looking for something really qualitatively different from or is it just as we also often see in the debate why don't you just scale up community management or are you looking for something very different? I think not completely different. There are some practices where the community forestry management not only operates in very small scale like 100 hectare, 200 hectare, in some cases we have like 4,000 hectares community managing and it's not only a few hundred families, 200, 2,000, 3,000 households also managing. But I think there is not adequate impasses to look into it and learn from how the community forestry, there are groups are making innovations in terms of managing relatively larger landscape. And just we are trying to copy from protected area system or the other system and not adequately looking at and then drawing lessons from community forestry groups and how these lessons can be scaled up. I think this is part of the government deliberative choice or the choice of other actors as well. So my point is, yes, there are lessons not completely, we cannot completely replicate it but certainly we can draw many of the things from these grassroots institutions and can build up to manage larger landscape. But certainly we need a more stronger political will to recognize and to build on from there. Good, Daniel, Indonesia is a very diverse country. Also when it comes to national deforestation figures and national deforestation maps and you have gotten some more maps recently. Now, and this has been a major issue I know in the Indonesian debate about different figures from Ministry of Environment, Forestry and so on. Now, is this a real problem or is it a convenient excuse for not doing more? Well, I think two things here associated with your questions. One is the history, as I said. The way people perceive these activities is very much related to forestry sector. If you're implementing red, that's forestry. That's the history. But changing the history overnight is impossible and that is associated with the awareness about data and data quality and also clarity. So everybody is trying to perform right because they use their own perspective in term of deforestation rate because forest is defined as such and such from their perspective. In other perspective, it's defined different way. So the numbers come up with different figures. So moving from one history to another or mindset from one to another is an important step to make in order to address the issue of landscape, the issue of productivity, the issue of climate change. So it's not a simple answer. We have to agree on such and such hectare or million hectare per year or ton of CO2 per year but let's come to a consensus what we mean by deforestation and which definition of forest we are going to use. So set back a little bit and then we make a consensus. That's my suggestion. With the risk of sitting for a while and agreeing on data before we implement policies is that a real risk? That I mean you can, these discussions about okay was it 1.6 or 2. whatever and then that's delaying the whole policy process. I guess it already has done that. There's this number of political. So if you are settling with this there will be less noise later on. So it's important to sit and set back a little bit and then agree to agree. So sit back but not for too long. I would like to open the floor now for questions. You know I don't see very well and also the cards that we can use and submit to those who walk around. At least we have one gentleman here. Hello, my name is Krithon Arsenis. I'm a member of the European Parliament. The Rapporteur on Forest Protection and Toulouse. We just decided in the European Parliament to allocate a fund of 1.2 million for research very related to what we discussed here. How the absence of roads can lead can work as an early success indicator for RETPLUS projects. And I would like to ask our friend the scientist from Brazil. You said that all the upcoming deforestation is very related to roads and riverways. Has there been any discussion of how you can address these drivers of deforestation there? Thank you very much. Thank you for the question. I think there are a lot of discussions, especially under the Ministry of Environment, but I don't know, I think since the 70s, there is always this conflict about development and conservation in relation to the Amazon. So at the same time that we have all that measures that I showed in the timeline and everything, we have other things going on in other sectors, especially in relation to infrastructure and also in the energy sector, that are kind of anti-mitigating these other measures from the forest sector. So at the same time that there are discussions, there is always the question about what is more important, development, or conserving the forest. So I think it's more or less that. And I don't know if you saw it, but recently there was this new about the levels of deforestation, the raise of the levels of deforestation. So it's mainly because of infrastructure projects as well. More questions? You're welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Till Neve. I have a question for Daniel Modiarzo. This is a question related to your presentation when you talked a lot about the nested approach where you showed the slide with all these projects that are already going on in Indonesia. And I wanted to pick up on one of the sentences that I've seen on the last slide that you showed where I believe you wrote that results-based payments through the nested approach may be feasible. I think your vote may be feasible or something very similar. And what many of us like to read in that is that they are feasible. But what you're implying also is that they might just not be feasible. And one of the other things that you said in your presentation is that there are capacity gaps at places when it comes to Venus gas inventory systems at the regional levels. And I'm just wondering what you believe will happen in Indonesia during the next years. How likely is it that this famous multi-level MRV system would be built up that will allow for consistent estimates between national level, project levels, provincial levels? Or is it more that we are headed towards a situation where much of the investments that have already been undertaken with the projects are likely to just go out of the window? Thank you very much. Right, well, the key message I put up there is very much related to your questions with regard to the various type and size and also initiative on the ground. Because there will be, people imagine, there will be no single bullets that will satisfy all this different model and no one size fits for all. So that's why the Freddie scheme is trying to be very flexible at the onset. And perhaps it will take the ship in few years until they really learn the lessons from what's really the real project is on the ground. Because with regard to that demonstration activities, most of them are locally initiated and very likely they have no sustainability in term of continuing with the project. And it has to be tackled very carefully compared with, for example, the bigger one with large investment, large support from bilateral scheme and strong NGO to help. So the various kind of project that may be able to enjoy the existing interim Freddie scheme. But at the end of the day, there should be a system that can satisfy all these possibilities. The second question is not too clear for me. Can you put it in a shorter version? Or anybody can help here? Do you want to take the short one liner of your question, the second question? It's okay. I got one question from here on the floor, particularly in Brazil and Nepal, where would you cover as many forest policies, success stories prior to red? So the fundamental question is, for example, in both countries, how do you distinguish, is it really to the credit of red and red maybe understood as the international initiative starting from 2007 in Bali, Copin Bali. How do you distinguish and is it really the good policies or sorry, the positive development we have seen in both those two countries? Can it be attributed to red or is it more of the accumulated long policy history? So maybe Naya first? No, for us, I think we don't have any direct link with the red yet to measure the forest improvement. It's the 20, 25 years back, community forest history started since later 80s and the red piloting is just in a few, well less than 100 community forestry user groups out of 18,000 user group. So in terms of rate contribution to forest conservation, it's almost insignificant in that way, both due to the very small size and also because of the very short history. So I think we can't link the community forestry and its development with the red. It's long term policy legal and certainly a lot of international aid support and then a strong community institution that we can attribute. I think in the case of Brazil, there is a link because as you saw in the timeline after red, many policies came up in the national level and also the Amazon Fund was created after Bali and the national climate policy with voluntary targets. I think it's all related to the international level debate in general, not just with red, but the main emissions from Brazil come from deforestation. So this would be the link with red and also some of the plans that are included in the national climate policy they were launched after red and there was this after the international discussions, they kind of like get kind of slowly as well in the national scenario. We saw this is slowing down in terms of decisions, important decisions. But from what I've heard from a meeting that there were some government representatives there, they actually believe there is not a link with red. They believe it's more related to the historic policy, the history of Brazil and they also think they were already in the redness phase before redding coming up in the international negotiations. So the first one is my personal opinion. The second one, it's what the government thinks. The main representative, so thanks. We can have some more questions. I have also a question here, but if some more from the floor. So one question to any who would like to answer here is about the question is how big an issue is the sufficiency and predictability of funds, I mean international funds in the coming years. Given that the funds internationally that have been committed are not fully, well they are not fully committed. They are more vague promises and we know that everything that is promised is not in the end delivered. And second voluntary carbon markets, they are weak and volatile and to get a compliance market, it still hinges on we getting a good strong Paris protocol in 2015. So the question is how big an issue is this and given that it may not come, the big funds that maybe one envisioned just a few years ago, how big an issue I mean to keep the momentum is to have the big international money flows to the countries. Is that on Daniel if you would like to start? That's a good thing of the landscape approach. So people like gamble these days. So what's going to happen if nothing happened? And a lot of preparation have been done from both sides have spent a lot of time and money to prepare and get things ready but the global process is declining or getting downward. So the landscape approach and which is also in the document of the Indonesian red plus strategy is looking at broader kind of views in term of managing the landscape. So deforestation will continue to my opinion will take place but maybe in different kind of way and a development of land is still going on because most of the land have already been licensed meaning that the tenure is there and it's long-term tenure. So I think if the market, the carbon market swing towards red the current preparation should quickly adjust the situation and if it's not there is a no regret kind of policy with regard to landscape wide policy in managing the land nationwide. So red plus is one of the component to reduce the emission and again specific for Indonesia if pitland and mangrove other high carbon reservoir is managed properly or development is done carefully the emission reduction target which is the pledge of the nation is very likely going to be achieved because this is the most important ecosystem that can contribute to that emission reduction target. The remaining land like secondary forest upland forest is already gone in term of carbon stock above the ground in term of emission but pitland even though the forest is already gone the emission is still taking place how water regime will be managed those kind of thing are in the strategy so if this kind of thing is implemented whether or not they will be red mechanism the emission reduction will be achieved. Just a small story from Nepal. ECMORD has had a piloting project in three different watersates and it provided I think $100,000 to different three watersates for three years and now the project has closed and the people in these watersates are now expecting what would come next year. It's not only these people in three watersates but also other communities who are trying to get local technicians and measuring forest taking forest inventory and then in a way waiting for more money to come in the community and they don't know that the ECMORD project has closed and the piloting the communities in the piloting area are also not getting that. So not only the people working in the piloting area they are terrible in a difficult position including ECMORD's parents but also people working in other areas they are facing a kind of challenge so what you tell to the communities tomorrow if the money is not going to come. So I think we are already creating a huge expectations among the communities and possibly we will all particularly those working on the very direct interface with the communities would be in trouble. But they're quite boring questions compared to the reference level, reference letter. Just one question Indonesia for Daniel. I mean everybody represents themselves here and our research is not the government but you talked about many sources of funding for a nested approach. We would like whether you also have established system for to raise funds from national sources to fund that that would meet the cost of building this capacity for long term MRV. So it's kind of mobilizing national resources for MRV for the cost of that. What you have done in that area. Well with the various source of funding and vision this trust fund will likely to pioneer or start jumpstart with what is happening on the ground maybe with something quick and dirty thing but certainly will be a lot of lesson to learn in terms of financing mechanism. As I said it is still ongoing work with regard to how to finance the activities related to the MRV. So the numbers got to be right here and the monitoring aspect is very key to get the numbers right. So capacity building in that area is very crucial. In various level including the small scale. I didn't mention much about the small scale activities. Usually it's been eliminated in terms of well if you do it with the local community it's going to be cheap. I don't believe that. Cheap in terms of what? In terms of measuring the diameter of trees maybe not but in terms of their involvement, their ownership, their sense of belonging is going to be tedious and could be expensive. The 10-year-old system should be secured. So if they are measuring something they are measuring their own thing, not somebody else's. So that kind of capacity need to be in place. Just keep the microphone. The oral exam continues. And I want a yes or a no answer to this question. Now in Indonesia and Brazil and Nepal or these countries you had a number of red projects. Have these projects had any impact and made a difference? Yes or no? Or? It's like another exam in the year one. No but a little bit more elaborated. Well certainly people start to talk with each other asking what red is all about at least. In the old days people don't talk. If you're talking about national level ministry of environment and ministry of forestry, they don't talk about common language and other ministries and also at local level, especially when the authority is decentralized. This is a new kind of burden quote unquote for them and try to understand the language of people from Jakarta, from the capital, what is this? They're busy in implementing their day to day activities but it's a new agenda of climate change. But this event make them realize that one has to talk with each other. So yes it makes change in that sense. So if I were to translate it for my grandmother it would be something like well I hope and think it will make a difference in the not so far future but it's hard to say that it has done it so far, something like that. And maybe Nepal has made a difference? Made a difference in terms of awareness raising, particularly bringing the issue of tenure rights of indigenous people, of women, of different sections of community because of a lot of grassroots capacity building type of activities. Yes, this has not been adequately conducted before rate. So with rate a lot of different, these small projects so that kind of awareness and knowledge and information that has gone down to the community level, yes. But I think the most beneficiary, you can remember last time in Oslo I was saying that the readiness process is particularly for the Kathmandu based in Zio and couple of government people and consultants they have benefited the most than others but also to some extent communities, yes. I think in the case of Brazil of course it's always difficult to say because these projects they have more or less like three years or something and you can't really measure impact but I would say that for the sub-national level I think they kind of pushed the state governments to create some laws to reduce deforestation but at the same time these policies they don't really create new incentives and different instruments to reduce deforestation. They just, they are very, very general and they aim to create more resources for reducing deforestation but they don't really create incentives, they don't really specify and they don't, I think they don't create the transformational change Martin mentioned here. So I would say it's more like a bandaid than really going to the real problem and changing behavior and this would be my thoughts about the impact. Yeah, maybe it's important to mention also from national level a big change happened back home in Indonesia with regard to the ruling of the customary land very recently by the constitutional court. This is the highest possible process that you can expect in the law of forestry. It has been mentioned and always believed that customary land is state land but it's been overruled. So that's a big change. So and this process happened when we are discussing red nationwide. Secondly on the issue of the possibility of probing corruption. Again, the entire corruption commission is involved in this process. So there is a way of looking at forest governance in different perspective with regard to the issuance of permits and things like that and when the red is discussed at national level, this thing come up in the picture. So yes, it makes a lot of difference. Thanks and some of you are, I mean it's been two long days and maybe weeks for some. So I think we'll wrap up maybe a little bit before in about 10 minutes or so. So and so you can start the countdown. And I have one question here from the floor. Chris Meyer from the environmental defense fund. I have a couple of questions. I was just wondering when I saw landscape I thought jurisdictions. Is that, are we talking about the same thing here or is that something different? I mean it was interesting, I think the comments from Nepal of course on how to symmetrical aligning of let's say different ecosystems with political boundaries. Second, I really enjoyed your presentation. Very good overview of the Brazil proposal. And what caught my eye about there is you also talked about how there's 50 different projects being developed in Brazil but then the Brazils also said there's gonna be one focal point that would be handling all money, MRV reporting, et cetera for the country. Is that understood by those projects who would then I guess of course be having to go let's say to the Amazon fund or another that focal point for that money. And at the same time that of course Brazil is very outspoken at the same time about not having any red from Brazil being able to claim for international offsets and not even access the market. So what are project developers and thinking about that at least in the distribution of benefits let's say in Brazil? And maybe the same, how are, same thing for Indonesia, how are all those, how are those projects taking consideration that we're probably going towards one big jurisdiction or national system if things go like we all hope or maybe some of us hope here in 2015 and the new red mechanism in 2020 where there'll be significant amounts of money not the small amounts in the voluntary market, thanks. Yeah, I think this is the big question. We all made this question for government representatives when we had this last meeting with civil society between civil society and government representatives and I think the issue of the market it was also always an issue because Brazil had this position against carbon markets and markets based approach and there is this pressure from civil society that we should have this initiative, we should have funding from coming from markets because there are many projects, there are already in the voluntary market and they are using these strategies so how they will consider this in the national accountability and they argue that okay, this will be the voluntary market, we are not into it and this is something different than the UNFCCC negotiations and so on but at the same time I think if there is a decision about markets under the UNFCCC then Brazil would need to adapt to it and this is what the proposal they've made in Bonn says, it's kind of like oh it's not against markets based initiatives but still needs a wider debate and everything and in relation to the project I think this is the main question as I said in the challenges slide how they will really make these projects accountable in the national level especially the voluntary ones they say they wouldn't be but they would try to make it accountable but they don't give details about how this would happen so that's for me it's the big question not just for me You also had a question about the landscape versus jurisdictional approach and I perhaps it's not my role to answer but just to clarify what I think is a jurisdictional approach you really look at political and mystery borders whereas in a landscape approach you would more look at the natural ecological borders for example watershed so it's just the unit of analysis or unit of focus is slightly different and not necessarily overlapping whether you have ecological versus political borders in your unit and that the jurisdictional approach can be at any scales which is important point I think not just the sub-national we got a few questions and I think I have to draw the line for those a few of two sets basically one concerns the landscape approach and for example one asks that development priorities are the highest on the agenda and how can red and the landscape approach fit when you know development is really the key and also related question on how the lessons we can learn from social environmental principles to integrate that into this approach and the third which is also I think an important one how we can link the landscape approach to the national level because when red started out it was supposed to be at the national level and that we need national policies to really get to the big changes and not just focus on the more localized project level which is important but the big national policies may be also critical so I don't know if any would like to comment on that both I mean the different objectives environmental social development and also this horizontal linking if any would like to comment on this how it can be done within landscape approach yeah well the key word here is the implementation at sub-national level with regard to the jurisdictional sub-national like landscape is kind of a vague boundary it can be sub-national in term of government administration it can be areas or ecosystem so in term of size again it's very relative in one place it can be very small but complex or can be very big but simple because not many people live there for example so my look on this is that the policy the approach should be national because at the end of the day it is the national government who are accountable in the international processes but the implementation is at that sub-national level can be you know district or can be a watershed can be anything which is smaller than national but it has to be workable kind of size for local government to work together in that sense the complexity can be reduced and from the MRV point of view maybe the uncertainty can also be reduced with less involvement of various actors in it so it's a challenging kind of issue in term of defining what is your project boundary for example it's unlike a factory producing tire emitting greenhouse gases it's a big entity which you know people coming and going and things are exported, traded, etc so it will be more complicated so the smaller the size the less hectic would the process be just one to eight or one point some of the civil society organizations in Nepal they are when the government is now promoting at least one couple of landscape level project documents the some of the civil society organizations are skeptical because at least at the national level the civil society and other known state actors would be able to create, advocate pressure to hold accountable the government to ensure the more transparent and accountable process follows but when you go to this sub national level and landscape level that level of effort to make the process fully accountable, transparent, participatory all those things may not happen and then possibly government would have and would take a more non-transparent, non-participatory that kind of process at the level of landscape where the civic action is not developed at that level which is developed at the national level so there is one skepticism is there, another is now while the country is not fully developing its policies, legal system and also in terms of knowledge everything and there is a kind of pressure from possibly donors or some experts to go to the landscape level and the skepticism is well probably once you focus to the certain landscape level you may forget or you may undermine the national process so there are two, these issues are there when countries which are not well prepared at the national level and trying to go to the national, sorry landscape level and some level of doubt suspicion is there The last set of questions is I think a very good dilemma here one question, what design options can be proposed to link MRV with benefit sharing and financial compensation after successful emission reduction now the other one is kind of related, well different handwriting so not the same person I presume that is well we want to link MRV and benefit sharing and financial and perhaps other types of compensation but shouldn't we do benefit sharing before that system in place, so how are we going to do this benefit sharing before we have a decent MRV system in place assuming none of you think that we should not do anything in terms of benefit sharing and benefits before those are in place, I mean the MRV Any takes on that dilemma? Maybe I can start, we clearly have a timing issue here in terms of we do want, now that phase two is starting, we do want to stimulate activities we do want that plus to happen on the ground including all the different things we've talked about here today the actual carbon benefits may take some time just to generate in the biophysical world and then to be accounted in the financial world so just by that if you want things to start to happen now you cannot do it based on carbon performance because that's just something that will take time if you plant some trees they just take a long time to grow before you can actually pay on these things, if you do change agricultural practices you have a hard time anyways to attribute the times of carbon savings to that so in fact it may be worthwhile to think much more of an input based system of benefit sharing to actually think for activities and to some extent assuming that the benefits will come hopefully but at least that's an approach we should definitely take in the demonstration phase which is starting now in phase two and see how much that can actually work I think yeah there are mainly two types of benefits the upfront benefits that would be used for readiness activities as you said and then the payments for our results and we can't disconcerter the first ones because they are sanctions for the second ones and especially when you are dealing with countries that don't have an MRV system a good MRV system and also don't have land properties defined so these are benefits as well so we can't really disconcerter these upfront benefits it's a very short one we've been going through a study related to right and responsibility so I think if the attribution of the benefit is based on those two aspect or element we need really to measure what the responsibility of the actors on the ground so without that I think it will be very problematic so it might create conflicts rather than agreement amongst the players on the ground so people have the rights but also responsibility in doing things good there's a few social media reporters here I think I should close I promised otherwise I would break my promises a few social media reporters here and you know tweet 140 characters I would like to have one tweetable message from you and that should be this you worked in this business for a while and what is the most important thing related to the topic that you have learned over the last five six years you have 140 characters including space Daniel the most important thing you have learned related to the topic of today the last five years well switch the thinking of forests into bigger kind of entity like landscape move from forestry to landscape so for me I think the institution and tenure is they are the primary whether we talk raid or conservation or sustainable forest man anything so unless we put emphasis on the kind of institution and the security tenure security that these people have we wouldn't have any rate and we just be measuring but not increasing carbon institutions I would say that complex challenges call for complex solutions and sometimes we deal with this challenge with easy solutions so I don't think we should go for the easiest way because it's more less expensive or something like that sometimes we choose the easiest way because of the costs but we need complex solutions those things have been said I would suggest that landscape thinking is broad and holistic and that's good for us to work or we manage complexity to keep it simple so it works that is a challenge I guess if Albert Anstein was here he said do things as simple as possible but not simpler I'm not going to make a long summary but just a few points that I think I've noted down during this this debate here and presentations it's not trivial what you count because what you count one you can be held accountable for that and that's in the red negotiation or general there you have to see in negotiations account or counting is political because you are be held accountable for that and it's also very much it gives a policy focus and debate and Martin mentioned Guiana and of course Brazil is an excellent example and the other countries as well that the debate that is generated by data by information is critical and has policy implications and thirdly that we didn't touch more than just at the surface is related to what the data you have the systems you have in place and the reliability of those system it really depends what you can do we touched upon this about performance based system that we may not have the ideal system in place if the data pool we have to go through some courses system and maybe more in their direction of rewarding inputs than emission reductions that is on the end of based measures in the end the world is complex we try to simplify it a little bit but not too much but I hope that that you take with you some some good questions and dilemmas and that you didn't get some simple answers if you if you got some they would probably have been wrong so I hope it's a good stimulus for your coffee discussion and your post gf so thanks a lot for attending thanks to the four speakers and for the debate for those sent questions thanks a lot