 In thinking about this session, I was reflecting back on the past year, and in my job as Senior Forestry Officer with FAO, I go to a lot of meetings around the region, often a lot more meetings than I wish to go to. But all of the first part of last year, virtually every meeting I attended, there was discussion about the upcoming Paris UNFCCC COP meeting. And everybody was wondering, you know, would we actually get a climate change agreement coming out of Paris? What would it include? How robust would it be? Would it have any teeth? And at the same time, the countries of the world were busy meeting in various negotiation sessions to discuss the Sustainable Development Goals, the so-called 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. And again, people were wondering how many SDGs we would end up with. We have 15 or 34 or 27. How detailed they would be. What kind of indicators we would have to try to monitor and track them, these sorts of questions. But pleasantly by the end of the year, we did have a Paris agreement on climate change, including a very strong focus on forestry and forests and the land sectors. And we had agreement on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. We also had most countries coming forward with serious commitments in their nationally determined commitments. So then the calendar turned and the new year started and people started asking the difficult question. Now that we have this, how do we put them into action? We find countries in particular scrambling, struggling in many cases to put into practical application what their negotiators had committed to in Paris and other negotiating sessions. So as Minister Freydenberg mentioned this morning, it's really the question is how we can maintain the momentum that was generated with the Paris agreement as we move forward in forestry sector and natural resources. Do we have the right institutions and governance in place? Do we have the policies and regulations that can drive action in the directions we want? What financing do we need and where is it going to come from and what will be the roles of the various players, private sector, government and others? So these are some of the questions that our panel will address this morning. And just to outline a little bit how we will operate for the panel session. First we will have an introductory presentation from Ibonur Masripatan. So used to calling Ibonur only Ibonur, struggle with the family name. Then I will invite the panelists to have initial thoughts and perspectives on the topic overall and we'll have some give and take and panel discussion and hopefully have room for questions from you from the floor before closing. I would like to first before Ibonur begins with her presentation to very briefly introduce our panels. We've been invited to keep the introductions very short because they're all included and you can access them from the internet, the website for the conference. But Ibonur is the Director General of Climate Change Management with the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in Indonesia. To my immediate left we have Justin Lee who is the Deputy Head of Mission to Indonesia from the Government of Australia. And next down the line is Mr. Henning Hortlen Johensen who is the Minister Counselor and Deputy Representative to ASEAN from the Norwegian Embassy based in Jakarta. And finally as you already were introduced this morning and know well Dr. Peter Holmgren who is the Director General of the Center for International Forestry Research. So to get us started I would like to invite Ibonur to give us a short presentation on this topic overall, introduce us to the issues. Thank you Patrick, colleague, good morning. Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. It's always good to see familiar faces and new people in occasion or meeting like this. In trying to address the issues that need to be covered guided by the organizing committee I will start with the introduction, let's see the situation in ASEA Pacifica forest. With 740 million hectares of forest area or 26 percent of global tropical rainforest and also with 4.4 billion people, about 60 percent of the region will play an important part of NDC in many countries of our region. When we talk about negotiation in forest or role of forest and climate change our attention or our mind will be brought to first about CDM. And we also learn how we end up with CDM and of course we don't want to have a red plus and like a CDM forestry. So let's see how we have gone through with 10 years red plus negotiation and piloting. Forest has been played an important role in the climate negotiation since the past 10 years. We also look at that situation. The reason was the alarming rate of devastation and forest degradation in developing countries on one side and in another side is the important role of forest both for national development and also in livelihood for millions of people in our region. This is also one of the reason why forest has been a place as important sector in the climate change agenda since then. 10 years we have negotiation under UNXCCC as produce sufficient guidance for both red plus countries also for our partners in supporting the result based of red plus implementation. And in this same period we have a lot of experience in piloting with red plus at various skills and approaches. And with this piloting experience also in negotiation has set light on what issues to be addressed for red plus implementation. And more importantly in the context of Paris agreement red also provided concrete example and valuable lessons for developing transparency framework that is very important part of the Paris agreement. If you look at the support for red plus since the beginning of the negotiation of red plus after Montreal 2014 certain record number of record on red plus finance one of the record from center for global development recorded that there has been about 9.8 billion in which almost 90% of the pledge originated from public sector. We can understand why mostly from public sector as we know that red plus so far mostly is still in a region or transition phase and also when we talk about red plus result is finance that is still based on non-market approaches. I also recorded additional 5 billion pledge by Norway, Germany, UK in Paris. The challenge now is how to effectively incentivize red plus countries with the existing rules including Warsaw framework while preparing implementation of Paris agreement from 2020 onwards. We know now that still very few countries that got the incentives through result based payment. That's the challenge in red plus. Then role of private sector. We know that role of private sector has continuously again increasing attention. In Paris, role of private sector is formally recognized under the decision that within the role of non-partistic holder where should enhance the role of non-partistic holders including private sector. There is a role also co-presidencies, high level champions and non-party or non-actor, non-state actors, a zone for climate change action. This is also the room for recognition of private sector. However, internationalization or internalizations to the national context should be in accordance with national regulation, also national circumstances policies so that we could integrate, the word integration, integrate our effort to be one integrated national effort and global effort. Then what is the positive impacts to forest governance? We look at the efforts done by developing countries. We are talking about Asia Pacific region. We have shown a lot of progress in the effort of strengthening a governance system through various policy intervention. Some example clearly in the forest sector certification including the assurance of sustainable source of timber being imported and exported. This is very important strengthening a trade cooperation that could provide sufficient incentive to sustainable product from forest. In our case, there are a number of policy interventions that we do, first about one map policy that to encourage the compliance and also the compliance to the special plan, the compliance to use the same base map for our policy decision and also a number of policy reform in order to restore our degraded pitland and improving our pitland ecosystem management. Our contribution, in our INDC Indonesia committed to reduce emissions by 21% to 41% by 20% 30% compared to business as usual. With this commitment, like all other parties, we have to communicate, we have to form our long-term carbon development strategy law, carbon development strategy. There are three principles that we put there in INDC implementation, enable economic growth and put people welfare as a priority and the second support protection of poor and vulnerable communities and environmental conservation and also focus on the intervention that reduce emission and strengthen policy framework. This is the last slide, opportunity for collaboration in the region. With the diversity of our national circumstances, capacities and also capabilities, this open opportunity for wide range of area for regional cooperation. If we talk about the forestry sector alone, investment in sustainable forestry, or if we talk about the broader scale in landscape approach, investment in this and this is part to undertake and communicate ambitious effort on mitigation, adaptation and also providing means of implementation as well as transparency of framework. Under Paris Agreement, we know that transparency framework will play a critical role in assessing both collective and individual contribution to the global efforts in achieving the climate convention objective. Asia Pacific countries could collaborate in building and implementing the transparency framework, both for excellent support, including in addressing the methodological challenge on forest oil and sector accounting. That's all that I could say this morning in order to address the question that we need to discuss under this panel. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Eva, excellent introduction to the issues, presenting a lot of things for us to think about and to dig in more deeply. With that, I'd like to invite each of the rest of the panel, the other panel members to share their ideas and perspectives on how we go forward, just with a general question to start with, to share ideas and then we can dig into some specifics as we go along. Justin, would you like to start and give us some of your ideas? Thank you very much and thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I'm based in Jakarta and I have responsibility for Australia's development corporation projects there and particularly our cooperation with Indonesia. I'll just probably touch on perhaps five things to say around this area of collaboration. I think first is to highlight the importance of the sector, of the forestry and land sector and how welcome it was that the Paris Agreement in Article 5 recognized the importance there. Especially for countries in the region as it was reflected in the INDCs, the forestry and land sector is very important for countries' strategies. I think for Indonesia it's around 63% of the total emissions and for a number of other countries in the region, it is a very important sector. I think first point that I would emphasize is the importance of taking a holistic policy approach. I think many of the challenges that we see in addressing forest degradation and deforestation also relates to other issues around agricultural practice, atmospheric pollution, development. So clearly there's a range of policy issues that need to be considered together and I think for governments to consider them in a holistic way is important. I also think that there's opportunities in that. I think as we see in everyone in this country in Indonesia that the energy picture is also important in this and for countries like Indonesia to make progress in addressing greenhouse gas emissions from the forestry sector will not only help in achieving its INDC but will also provide opportunities to meet its ambitious electricity generation targets as well. So again, considering these policies in a holistic way I think is very important for governments and there's a range of benefits that can come from this both in terms of environmental governance and economic governance so it is a very broad issue. The second point I'd like to make and I've kind of elevated this in my own thinking over hearing people speak but it is the importance of engaging with people and the people's participation and with the private sector and I think in many ways we need to put people first in this. I think again the good thing about the Paris Agreement taking a broader perspective of the forestry issues and the potentials here means that we are thinking about broader development policy as well. Without the buy-in of small holders of people in these areas without the buy-in of the private sector it makes it very difficult to achieve what we're aiming to do. I know if we look around the world today ordinary people are often talking about the various economic policies that are being developed for them and at times expressing frustration that they're not seeing the benefits of economics or I think what's called trickle-down economics. I'd like to introduce the term trickle-down environmentalism as well. I think sometimes if we are prioritising environmental issues and climate change we're asking people to see the benefits, trickle-down to them of those environmental actions. I think again by putting the people first in that we need to very clearly demonstrate that by mainstreaming climate change and environmental policies and forestry policies into our national development policies show very clearly what the benefits are to the people in those areas and we get much stronger buy-in and much more success of our policies. So I think that that is the second aspect I'd like to emphasise and know that's a focus of this conference and with later sessions. My third point and it's only three of five is around a coordinated approach. Again having so many different policy areas involved is fundamentally important for governments to coordinate both horizontally and vertically the different ministries that are responsible for the different policy areas and also engage at different levels of government from the national level down to the provincial levels and local levels. I think that's fundamentally important. And also have coordination for international partners that would like to be involved in our case Australia, Norway, other countries that we're still engage in this area and cooperate. Fourthly for the international community that looks to engage in this and to say a little bit about Australia's approach we are an approach where we're looking at partnerships with countries certainly through our development cooperation program in Indonesia which deals with economic governance and with environmental governance. We are looking at an economic partnership and what we are aiming to do is to leverage the resources that are available. So our approach is one of providing technical assistance and technical advice that can work with countries in the region to leverage their own resources which in many cases are very significant, multilateral resources and also resources from the private sector and local communities. So I'd like to emphasize that point of technical partnership in order to leverage resources that are available. In this sector Australia has considerable expertise in monitoring, reporting and evaluation in the MRV and to strengthen the transparency systems and we're very pleased that our minister this morning was able to reiterate that we will be looking at a further cooperation with Indonesia on its in-casts on its national carbon accounting scheme and also through other global initiatives such as the GFII, the Global Forest Observations Initiative. We hope that again we can help in that MRV and transparency side with governments that are interested and more broadly strongly supporting sharing of information again in our own instance through our In Emissions Reduction Fund which has developed a number of methodologies for reducing emissions including from the land and agriculture sector and restricting those in legislation. And finally my last point is probably just around speed and urgency of action that clearly we don't want to move precipitously quickly just doing things for the sake of doing things but clearly this isn't an important challenge we do need to deliver on our INDCs and I think for the Red Plus activities we've been talking about what we can do and we've been developing ideas but there's lots of new institutions that are being developed around the world to address climate change. We've got the GCF now up and running. We have also the World Bank and other multilateral funds. I think it is important that Red Plus activities stamp their mark as it were that there will be competition for funding, there will be other sectors that will be developing activities and I think it is important that start to develop those solid methodologies that will continue to attract finance from those resources that are available that really wish to take those opportunities that are there because it is also a competitive environment so I think that pace of operating is very important. I think those are some things I'd like to emphasize things. Excellent thank you very much Justin. I'd really like to come back in a few minutes to your points about putting people first and I like very much the points, your last point about the urgency. I think many people have talked about Red Plus being one of the last best chances for forestry if you will. We've not always performed so well in the past and we have a great opportunity now. We need to perform and deliver on these expectations while the opportunity exists. Could I skip down to Henning and invite your perceptions and perspectives to start with? Yes, sorry. Dear Delegates, Friends, Honourable Ministers, Norway was one of the first countries in the world to ratify the Paris Agreement and our strong supporters of committed international cooperation to make sure we do not cross the one and a half centigrade threshold. Since 2010, Norway has had a big climate and forest cooperation with Indonesia which as you are all aware of has the third largest rainforest in the world after the Amazon and Congo basins where we also have cooperation and the point being that we need to continue to work on verifiable emission reductions and we are very happy to see that these issues are taking into the Paris Declaration, Paris Agreement. The Norwegian Prime Minister and the Norwegian Minister for Climate and Environment have both visited Indonesia recently and both reiterated that this pledge of approximately one billion US dollars to Indonesia in this area is standing. While cooperation between governments are of invaluable importance in order to ensure the goals of the Paris Agreement are met, it's clearly we need the help of the private sector and that they are in the front line to these contributions. The World Economic Forum conducted a survey among 750 global experts earlier this year and the environment came out as the top challenge for the world economy. This is something that I'm sure everyone in this room is already aware of but the survey shows that it's also now becoming truth and something that the world as a whole is getting aware of which should make it a decent time to ensure that the private sector gets on the rolling and pulling. I think that all that is to voluntarily improve practices and reduce emissions to serve credit. And we as representatives of governments then need to make sure that these pledges can work more easily. Whether that is by reducing red tape or in other way making sure that any voluntary improvement of practice does not end up costing the businesses more than it would have cost to continue as usual. And private business and private sector stands for about nine out of ten jobs in developing countries and without a continued economic growth and raising people out of poverty the people will not accept to be a part of and working in favor of improving the environment and working for climate. For my own part being Norway's deputy representative to ASEAN I would also like to highlight the potential of this organization as an actor also in the fight against deforestation and climate change. ASEAN's ten member countries have a considerable amount of forests which do not only work as enormous greenhouse gas sinks but which also provides a place to live and a source of income for indigenous people, a habitat for innumerable species of animals and plants. The ten countries might have different approaches and motivation for addressing the issues of climate change and deforestation but ASEAN could evolve into an even more important arena for these discussions and get the centrality that I think that they deserve. Even if the slogan on climate, at least back home, has for years been think globally, act locally, I do believe that there is a very clear advantage to including a corporate regionally into that. It might reduce the slogans catching us a little bit but without working together there is no way that we're going to reach these goals. So thank you. Thank you very much. I noticed the next session panel's discussion will include the strong industry and private sector focus so I'm sure they will pick up on many of these aspects and look forward to hearing their perspectives. And now finally I'd like to invite Peter Holmgren to share his perspectives. He also always has some very interesting and thought provoking ideas so he saved them from his opening keynote addressed so we can still keep on the edge of our chairs. Okay, thanks Pat for raising the expectations. This panel is a bit interesting. Four out of five are based in Indonesia at Jakarta and four of us are northern males so I don't know what that says about diversity but let's move on. Now my country, my home country is actually Sweden and I want to refer to a survey that was made not so long ago about the importance of forests and why forests are important and the Swedish citizens answered this question. They got three choices. The highest mark was for mitigating climate change. 78% thought that this was an important function of forests. Only about 40% thought that forest products and the forest industry was important. And this is Sweden one of the most intensively managed forest countries and the forest industry since many, many years. Now to me this represents both a tremendous success and a tremendous risk. It's of course a tremendous success that we've managed to up the awareness among the public that climate change is important and serious and that forests play a big role in it. But on the other hand we've also reached a point where the climate change debate around forests sort of dominates so much so that other benefits from the forest are less visible and this is the risk in my view and this is also where I think this discussion is going at the moment. I'm coming back to my thoughts on integration here and if you read the Paris Agreement it actually starts off by a lot of text around in the context of sustainable development. This is a key formulation that appears several times in the first paragraphs, first articles. And conversely the sustainable development framework includes a goal on climate change. This is good integration in my view and it is an integration that hasn't always been there because within the UN the different institutions and processes have also acted in isolation and we now see some movements towards more integration at the political level. This is good and I think this should also spill over on how we handle forests and climate change and forest and sustainable development. So if we then zoom in on forests and the Paris Agreement we are there is a kind of for us as a research organization and for many others out there that want to make a difference in the world. We are in a bit of a difficult stage at the moment because a lot of the efforts, I think Pat alluded to this in his introduction, a lot of the efforts leading up to last year's agreements on sustainable development and the climate were so focused that we in a way perhaps lost perspective of things. And if we talk about forests and I'm part of this I think we over the past decade if in any international debate forests have been equivalent to red at least in the developing world context. This has been good again it's been a tremendous success to raise the issues of deforestation of forest degradation to this level we've had heads of states meetings where this has been debated fiercely. I remember the first time I met Howard was actually in the UN General Assembly where we had 14 heads of states and heads of government debating red. It's fantastic. But now we are beyond those agreements and we need to get back to that perspective. How do we now integrate and how do we provide a holistic approach to forests and climate change? One way perhaps to look at it is that instead of talking about co-benefits of climate action we should see that it is the climate benefits that are the co-benefits of sustainable development actions. Then we begin to approach a holistic and integrated approach to forest and climate change. The Paris Agreement also talks a lot more about it's a lot more global in nature than earlier agreements and protocols on forest. Fair enough the Kyoto Protocol was of course addressing Annex One countries. So those are some of my starting points and I'd like to end this by coming to three areas that I think we could take where we could take things forward. The first one is to move the debate and the action out of the preservation corner. I'm the first to argue that we need to conserve forest worldwide to a much larger extent than we do today but we need to get the perspective of other benefits and uses of the forests as well. The second is again integrate that I mentioned that already we should perhaps look at climate benefits from forestry and landscapes as co-benefits of all those other things we need to achieve and that might be a more palatable approach to the stakeholders on the ground as well. At least we should explore that. And the third one is and and I think this is perhaps something that has been disappearing over the past decade. I think we need to go back and embrace and enhance the use of wood and biomass in our economy including for energy purposes. Otherwise we will perhaps not realize the potentials that the photosynthesis gives us in terms of providing for all sorts of goods and benefits and value change that we need. And actually I was pleasantly surprised to see some exhibitions of wood products at this conference outside and that's a good sign in my view. Again this does not say that the climate change threat is real. We need serious action to deal with it. But I think the movement now is perhaps to see that in a bigger perspective. Thank you. Thank you very much Peter. I think everybody realizes that the real action in all of this has to take place at the country level and down on the ground and international organizations and national governments and other organizations have invested a lot of effort already in red readiness and preparation for moving forward including FAO and other partners under the UN Red Program. I'd like to ask especially Ibu Nur who struggles with this at the national level and maybe then Peter because I know C4 has looked a lot at the experience with some of the initial red piloting. What really is the one or two biggest hurdles that you are facing right now to moving forward at the country level or getting things moving on the ground? Maybe you have more than one or two but maybe you can highlight the most serious ones that you consider. Yeah I think learning from our experience the most challenging part in our case is preparing the funding instrument to enable us tapping the finance that are available at the international level. Through our bilateral cooperation with Norway actually both of us are struggling on how we could have the best and the most feasible institutional setting for red plus finance in our country but we have to work on the existing regulations and we know that there are a number of conflicting arrangements that we find there. So we really are struggling and thankfully that Norway then from time to time trying to understand how we are struggling with that situation and now we are preparing the draft regulation and hopefully we could solve that's really this is the the most harder things. The second is about the technical and methodological aspect not because we don't have an expert there but how the methodological instrument that we are preparing prepared by expert could be implemented by the practitioner in the in the region later on in the implementation. I think this too. Thank you. I think these are our very valuable perspectives and I also have been a bit frustrated over the years that we may be making things too complicated and in the case of Indonesia we have financing sitting there and and not only in Indonesia but potential to access from GEF and now Green Climate Fund but sometimes we make things more difficult and complicated than they need to be in order to motivate action so I think this is one of the issues that is coming to the forefront. Peter I know that C4 has done reviews of some of the experience not only in Indonesia but elsewhere on this experience to date so have you come up with some commonalities or some key hurdles that countries are struggling with? No thanks we've been entrusted by by many including Australia and Norway to work on research on on the the red opportunities around the world and we've worked both at shall we say higher policy levels and looked at the the institutional arrangements and we looked at the capacities for MRV we've also looked at the local level and seen how do efforts pan out if you apply them in in a community or a province. I won't refer to all of these different results that that would be it's been a major part of C4's work over the past seven or eight years and hopefully it's been useful for the for the governments and other stakeholders that need to make decisions. I think it's it's fair to say that a commonality in in our results particularly when we look at the impact locally is that the difficulties to both integrate the red effort and at the same time keep it separate so that it fits into the mechanism that's being designed is a major area of tension integrating it because how do you make it a significant part of reality for people on the ground it is it is not obvious that the the benefits of of a red action is so significant in comparison with all the other benefits that that need to be harnessed and harvested and this on the separation issue it's obvious that it isn't as clear cut as it may sound in the negotiation stage that you can separate out the actions that lead to mitigation and therefore can be accounted for and therefore can be paid for when you go down to the local scale it all becomes somewhat blurred on what is what and therefore again both of these observations are arguments for finding moralistic approaches and better ways to integrate action with with the rural economy at at large so those are those are some experiences i'd like to also take one example and that that's the unfortunate fire and hay situation we've had repeatedly in this region but particularly last year and it's an example both of the integration and separation aspects integration because when when the fire started and the haze was choking people in singapore and elsewhere the news media first reacted by saying that oh this is a serious threat to the climate but it took some time before the reporting and the awareness also talked about millions of people having health hazards thousands of people being being ill from the smoke businesses suffering and and agriculture outputs being being reduced so the point here is that yes it was it had effect on on the global climate but it also had a lot of other effects on on the local situations so i think that this is this is an example that argues for taking a more holistic approach indonesia is making lots of efforts in this area and it includes the climate change issues but it also includes all the other sustainable development aspects of how the resources are managed i'll stop there thank you okay i'd like to come back to justin's point about putting people first and i think give henning and justin particular opportunity to comment on this but there have been various concerns in and some experience in some places with initial red plus activities or planning that tend to perhaps threaten the the the livelihoods or the life of indigenous people or local people in general and there's concern of the the potential negative impacts of some of these climate change actions so negotiations have put in place certain requirements for safeguards and this is a concern of how to make these effective as well so maybe the two of you could comment on this and i think it also ties into peter's comment about turning things around and looking at the climate change benefits being the co-benefits really if we're really putting people first thank you again patrick just on the climate change as a co-benefit and i think i very much agree with with peter there of again what we've talked about more broadly around also mainstreaming climate change policies and environmental policies into many other government policies particularly economic policies i guess of course now it's a caveat that goes that goes out having to say it specifically but of course you don't want to lose the lose the climate change in that i guess there's always a risk that when you do make it second as a co-benefit that somehow along the way you might lose the focus there or you might lose the importance of it as an issue and i think it goes out saying that that's certainly not the intention and so i think that's just worth worth noting in terms of the putting people first again peter i think has drawn very relevant examples on how that has resonance particularly in the smoke case issue of last year i think what's very relevant is the next discussion around financial models of some of the activities that are being developed clearly the financial the livelihood systems that are being developed be they for small holders be they for the private sector where they're coming from whether and ideally they'll come from the private sector with cooperation of others but they clearly need to be as profitable as what is occurring at the moment so i think they need very sound financial basis because clearly if if lands are of certain types of it necessarily being taken out of production or alternative livelihoods are being proposed they need to have that same clearly profitable and and financial benefit so i think that that discussion is is fundamentally important i do think that much of it there's much focus on the on the multilateral funds and there's focus on on grants those funds are important and again as i said i think those funds are important for leveraging for for doing R and D but ultimately i think the the financial systems that are being developed again will come from the private sector will come from people themselves and so i think that that cooperation is very important but they need to have a very we need to have a very sound sustainable financial as well as environmental basis and i think you will need to tap into those much more extensive sources of funding that are available in the private sector Henning yeah i agree and the idea of putting people people first is it is it's so obvious that it's sometimes easy to forget and and it comes from both sides and both from Norway as someone pledging money to a cause and to the people the indigenous people living in the forests being afraid of their income and their livelihoods and their their places of living becoming conserved and that they are not going to be allowed to be a part of the growing economy i think that there are definitely options and possibilities of finding a way of making sure that it is income for people making sure that the people actually living in the forests will see the benefits of the work that is done and at the same time showing to the people that ultimately say pay taxes in order to put funds available to see that this these funds are being used for the benefit not only of some high theoretical goal of combating climate change which unfortunately to a lot of people seems a bit out in the open and away there but instead showing that this is something that can benefit individuals and it can benefit everyone making sure that the work that we do that we do not put up a perfect ideal option as the only option finding options that are practical and that can be achieved is more important in order to solve the issues than to find the ideal option that will never work for anyone except one party anyway thank you so far i haven't heard anybody mentioned this morning i don't think and not on this panel for sure the word adaptation and there was a significant shift in the emphasis coming out of the Paris agreement and certainly reflected in the NDCs to put a lot more attention on adaptation and maybe i can invite any of the panelists who want to comment on how we move forward with adaptation but especially ibu noor i think coming from the perspective of a developing country most of the developing countries have emphasized the importance of support in adapting to climate change yeah i think from Paris agreement actually we have a strengthened political momentum there on the adaptation issues and in fact we also have loss and damage there and another issue is if in the past adaptation was considered as a national issue now become the global issues and we have a global goals indonesia is one among countries that include adaptation component in the NDCs especially because as archipelagic countries we are and also located in the ring of fire we are really vulnerable to climate change and other natural catastrophes and we also see the importance of the role of ocean both on adaptation and mitigation i think why i didn't mention about adaptation in the presentation in fact that's because it's too much complied to the guidance of the question that suity address by panel in fact when we talk about the red plus we have a lot of non-carbon benefits and if you look at there many adaptation related the benefits that we could get so i think from time to time we could not separate the adaptation and mitigation issue in this this is exactly what i was hoping you would bring out that the that these can go hand in hand the benefits from good forest management and utilization and things like agroforestry and sustainable land management are certainly a part of both mitigation as well as adaptation or can be any other panel members want to comment on that before i ask the audience to pose some questions peter yeah this is really an interesting topic because if we now talk about climate action in the context of sustainable development then the whole adaptation debate kind of moves into that direction too because what is adaptation if it isn't improving the the opportunities for improved well-being and livelihoods and then you end up in a situation where it's difficult to say what is adaptation to climate change and what is beyond that investment in sustainable development of course if you discuss it in a convention context it becomes more an issue of funding and losses and damage compensations and and and so on but if you if you look at it in the in the broader perspective it might be different like to refer to report from the world bank's office on disaster risk reduction that came up came out not so long ago they had calculated the increased costs due to increased risks when it came to water supply and they had looked specifically at the north african near east region and they had looked at the very various set of issues they had looked at climate change they had looked at infrastructure they had looked at consumption patterns they had looked at other other aspects and then calculated that the cost will be about 1.6 trillion i don't know over what time period but that's not the point here the point is that when this study was referred to in media only the climate change factor was mentioned and then and and the headline became 1.6 trillion is needed to to deal with the climate change risks so we are again living in a blurred reality here what what are we talking about when we talk about adaptation and are we even going so far as to say that climate change is the problem rather than lack of public investments in infrastructure and water supply system that would have been needed anyway so it is a very interesting debate there is no doubt that adaptation need is needed and that investments in in in forest and landscape can help that but we also from a shall we say more theoretical perspective need need to analyze this thank you okay thank you now could i invite some questions or very brief comments from the audience please we have microphones placed strategically if somebody jump up and get things started give us your name and where you're from and who you want to direct your question to yes please in the back good to have someone start and then please a few others follow hello okay my name is Muhammad Yusof I'm from my Chobhi Center, so first let me congratulate our Honorable Minister for the successful organizations of this summit today so I've got a few questions here so the first the first one I want to highlight here is the issue of illegal logging I didn't hear anything from the three panels four panels they mentioning illegal logging that contributing to the climate change so perhaps how this illegal logging incorporated incorporated into the climate change initiative secondly I'm at national perspective we have been putting our forest aside for the sake of climate change and we are managing our forest in a deficit way because we get revenue from our forest just a little for the sake of environmental protection so how this can be become global issue because I like the word the first set by the lady paddle day national issue is not become a national it's a global issue now so can I put this national issue into the global issue that managing it for us is something that we have to consider it's a government burden to us so is there any any program that this climate change summit in Paris consider the amount that we have to pay every year to manage our forest for the sake of climate change so and third question is there any economic program that to support us to do our forest in the in a way that we can also support our national vision 2035 that we have to have support our economic growth so this is very important for us we cannot just wall up our forest for the sake of economic growth we have to consider the global communities also we have to give good environment to them so this is our our good national policy that we have that we have to be good in our neighbor we have to be good in with the global communities we are giving good environment to them so any any return that we can get from the global communities and all the forest to maintain protect our forest for the sake of the global communities I just discussed with my friend here from the PMO about the the the Paris agreement what I had is just carbon trading they focus on very very poor country only so to me that's not very fair for us because said developed countries their preference is to the very very poor country so so so my questions here is there any opportunities that developing country also have a chance to have a carbon trading in the future and the most disappointing statement that I heard from them is that we are categorized as developing countries once come to funding we are categorized into developed countries developed country so to me this is a double standard so perhaps this panel can so for us in a general context and also a global context thank you very much okay thank you many questions posed there I tossed to any of the panel members who would like to respond some of it was commentary some of it was question maybe somebody want to take the first one in because quite a lot has been already initiated to deal with illegal logging as part of the part of the issues or any of the other Ibu Nur I think you're you'd like to come any yeah many question yeah first of all illegal logging I think you know that there are there have been a lot of efforts both at the national and regional as well as international level at the national level for example that the effort of Indonesia I just give example with the certification scheme or with SVL scheme assuring the the legality and sustainability of the origin of the timber that we exported and exported to other countries I think in the context of climate change I think because we talk about the climate change here what is the the impact of illegal logging we know in the in the forest will increase the forest degradation and vice versa the improving the governance tackling with illegal logging is part of the resolving or mitigating the climate change I think one more that I want to respond actually this about the carbon trading things I think for about the developing countries in the past with trading with offset the mechanism we sell the whole part of the credit overseas we have we didn't have any commitment in the past now I think that we need to to consider is how far we will go for that the trading with offset the scheme as we also have commitment under our NDC I think the issue of Brunei I can I can see that because we have experience for example but we we don't have I don't have an answer also maybe at the panel have answer when we get a sponsorship with our event we cannot find in Singapore and Brunei because it's considered as develop developed countries among us so I think the question to the panellistic about the return from international communities I think if we look at the how we interpret the Paris agreement learning from our our experience how our minister translating but Paris agreement we have international responsibility but also national needs where we have to do something for our national effort international community I think I see that yes of course there are a lot of climate finance available but that's not always easy to access that there are that's that's the issue not the issue I think the a fair treatment in international trading scheme I think that's also one thing that we have a lot of straddling especially for developing countries I think this issues there are many for at the panel thank you thank you