 Good morning. Thank you very much. I feel pleased and very honored to be here with you in this Forest Summit Asia. Let me say that after I've heard the numbers of 2,000 people here, 3,000 more in the live stream, and I don't remember how many people through tweets, I'm completely afraid. But I will try to make my reflections around the topic of forest, climate change, the climate debate, the debate of development, and the COP20. So I'm going to move around these four topics. And let me say that we are in a special time. We are in a time in which we should take decisions. We are in a time in which, through these kind of sessions, we are building momentum. We are building momentum because we are short on time to take decision. And we have a goal we need to have by the end of the next year an agreement, a new agreement that deal with the climate change consequences that can bring to the new generation's hope, that can bring new kind of measures to deal and to address the consequence of the climate change. So let me give this speech, this plenary speech, talking around seven or around seven questions or seven topics, seven items. The first one, the climate debate as a development dialogue. And the question is, how much do the forest is already part of the development debate? We are in a time in which, in many countries, even in the developed countries, we are living economic, finance, and ideological crisis. We are in a time in which we are discussing new ways to orient our development, the world development. So this is the time in which we can raise topics or issues as sustainable development. The topic of sustainable development has been developed by around 25 years. It was in 1987 that through our common future, the report raised the topic of sustainable development. 20 years after that, this is the momentum of that topic. This is the time in which we can, through that, focus through that topic, we can develop new ideas, new visions, new ways to orient our development in many of our countries. So how much the forest is part of that? I think that not too much or not too enough. So how can we move to that? In the UN system, there is a debate of the post-2015 ODMs or new ODMs. And as part of the ODMs, we are discussing the SDGs, the sustainable development goals. So what is important is try to identify how much the forest should be part of that discussion. What kind of indicators we need to include in the SDG debate to be part of what we are going to measure in the future? How much we can bring the forest to this discussion and how much we are building in that debate that kind of considerations? Also, in this debate of development, we are talking about green economy. And what does it mean, the green economy? It means that we are going to rethink the way in which we are measuring our growing. We need to include into the GDP more natural considerations. We need to include in the GDP the natural infrastructure issue. And we need to develop our economy with low carbon emissions. So the forest plays a very important role in that green economy discussion. And many of our countries are currently discussing the green economy or the green growing because as it has been a mandate of the Rio plus 20 document, the future we want, every country based on its own reality needs to create the basis for the green economy policy. Many countries in Latin America, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, has already developed the green economy policy. Peru is working on that. But we need to include more forestry consideration into the green economy, mostly based on what it is a reality. The reality is that in many of our countries in Latin America, the biggest source of greenhouse emission, it is deforestation and land use change. So if we want to have a very clear policy to deal with that problem, we need to include in our green economy discussion the consideration of the forest. And also, we have this discussion of the tip, the economic of ecosystem and biodiversity, in which we should recognize that for the development, we don't need only artificial or human infrastructure. What we need to consider, it is the natural infrastructure. How can we consider as part of the policies to creating growth in our countries the natural infrastructure? So what I think is that we need to put closer the forestry discussion in all this big debate. The post-2015 debate, the SDGs, the tip, the green economy, among many others. So it is a very big challenge and should be our goal to bring the forest to this discussion. This is my first point. My second point, it is what is the situation of the climate debate now? And let me say that we have already developed the diagnosis. Probably Dr. Pachaudi is going to say us what has the IPCC has already identified. We know that the current trend is moving us over the two degrees threshold. And we know what are the consequences of that or what will be the consequences of that. We have already identified the objective. We need a new agreement. We need an agreement that can deal or can address that problem. We need to take into consideration that everybody has responsibility on this issue. We also have received the mandates. We are close to be more than 20 years discussing the climate change topic. Since 1992, we are close to celebrating the COP20. And we are putting as a goal to have in the 21st COP an agreement. And we recognize that there are some milestones to fulfill with that mandate and to reach the objective to have that agreement. We have the next bomb meeting in June. We have the Secretary General Summit in September. We have the COP20 in Lima in December. We have the COP21 in Paris. So if that is as clear as I'm describing, why we are not taking decisions? What is failing? Why we are still thinking that we are in the same road that we had in Copenhagen? How can we change that? And for me, there are some important issues that can deal with that situation. First, we need to integrate the discussion. Currently, we are discussing finance in an isolated way, red mitigation, adaptation. But we are not integrating the discussion to try to bring solution. Second, we should be very clear that we are not going to repeat Kyoto. Kyoto had their time. And now we are going to have a bottom-up agreement in which everybody can recognize their own responsibilities. Everybody needs to take measures. Everybody needs to take domestic actions. So it's not going to be as it had been Kyoto. We are going to have a different kind of an agreement. Third, what we need to recognize is that there are many actors, different sectors, and different countries that are doing things. And that countries, and that sectors, and that actors are seeking for recognition. We need to recognize the role of the business sector. We need to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples. We need to recognize what civil society is currently doing. And it's very difficult to bring what it has already done into an agreement. But that is a challenge. What we need to put in the agreement is success stories. The business sector is trying to say to us, please recognize that things are moving. We are not in a year zero. We are in a time in which the business sector and different actors are bringing solution. And also the forestry sector. And also we can recognize that the only way to bring solution is through recognizing the realities, the different realities. So we need to reinterpret that CBDR, common but different responsibilities. We need to recognize that we should include that principle, but in a new way. In a new way in which everybody has their own responsibility. So that is important in the current climate debate. Let me move by third reflection, the forestry issue. For me, the forestry topic, it is still the younger brother of the climate debate. Because the forest consideration in the climate debate has been developed mostly as a mechanism, not as an objective. So how can we bring the forestry as an objective? So let me, in this third point, moving from the domestic reality to the international debate. First, we need to strengthen policies, forestry policies. And in that sense, what we need to create is competitiveness around the forest. We need to create conditions to have competitiveness around the forestry sector. Secondly, for that, we need to have enough information. We need to monitor our forest, the reality, the quality, the health of our forest. Also, we need to solve the land use problem. And the land use problem, it is related to incentive. It is related to this big discussion of property rights, concessions, tenures, and many other topics. And fourthly, what we need is to deal with the decentralization processes in many countries. In Contrias in Peru, the contradiction between the national policies and the regional policies is creating a lot of conflicts. So what we need to do is to recognize that probably in the local sector, it's going to take better decisions but framed by a national policies. And we need to create the conditions to fit both of them. The decentralization, it is an important part of the discussions around policies. My second point, it is rights, titling, and tenure around this idea to strengthening the forestry sector. And around of that, what we need to recognize is rights of settlers and mostly of indigenous peoples. Taking into consideration that currently, because the forestry markets of carbon, people are losing trust and confidence around that mechanism. People are thinking that that can create conditions to lose their lands, that that are not recognizing the rights over the land and over the forest. So as part of the safeguards that we need to develop, we should recognize that rights of the people who live there. Also, we need to create ways to solve conflicts because there are a lot of conflict over the forest. Not only because rights, but also because economic activities. When we live in countries as in Peru or in the Amazon basin, in which currently the new big threat, it is the illegal mining that is creating destruction of the forest, what we need to do is to create conditions to solve that conflict based on the overlap of different rights for oil, for mining, for forest, for tourism, among many others. And in that sense, the landscape focus can help a lot. Also, we need to revise our legal system because when we try to develop forest based on our legal system, we will find a lot of problems. We need to create some new ways for that good management of the forest, but we need to go deeply in the legal system discussion as part of what we need to do to create that good management. And finally, what we need to create is rules, enforceable rules. We need to have ways to enforce the rules because part of the problem regarding rights, title and tenure, it is the lack of enforcement of the rule. My third point in this third reflection, it is around the incentive. How can we bring the private sector, the business sector, to manage the forest? What kind of incentive can we create to bring the business sector to the forest? How much this initiative of Unilever is a good example of how the private sector can play a more active role regarding the forest? How much this initiative of this oil palm company in Indonesia or in Malaysia, sorry, I don't remember, can help to look at new ways to bring the business sector into the forest. But on the other hand, regarding incentive, what we need to do is to address the problem of the value of the carbon bonds around the forest. The current price are creating lack of interest. The current price of the bonds of the carbon is creating this incentive to have the business sector and investor more close to try to the forestry sector. And we need to recognize and use the consumers to have the companies using the supply chain as part of what it is the solution to protect the forest as a landscape. So, and finally, regarding the incentive, what we need to do is to try to put together all the pieces. Country as in Peru has a lot of projects, a lot of initiative, but we are not looking that as a big or as a one piece project or program. We are looking the forest in an isolated way. We are looking the forest just through project, through program, through cooperation. But what we need to create is good conditions and in that sense, what we are doing fulfilling the mandate of Warsaw to prepare the national contribution can help a lot. My first reflection is, how much can we build based on mandate toward an agreement? As you know, Warsaw had as an advantage that solve many of the discussions around red, not everything, but some of the discussion has been already addressed and has been already solved. So we have some mandate, but we need to go deeply to some point. First, how can we bring the forest discussion into the finance discussion? So how can we build through this mandate of results based finance in a realistic way? What are the measures that we are going to take to fulfill with the results based finance to have a fit between our goals and the money? Because there are a lot of untrust between who are going to put the money and who should do the homework. So what we need is to create some kind of indicator. What does really it means results based finance? How can we fit the finance with what it is our own objective? And for that also, it is obviously very important the capitalization of the green climate fund. But the capitalization of the ECF is going to be a political signal, but it is not going to be enough. It's going to bring more trust in this discussion, but it's not going to be enough. And in the finance discussion, the big debate, it is what we are going to count. Just public and public new funds, or yes, the typical fund for the assistance for development, or we are going to count private resources, or how much the public funds can create leverage to private funds, how much the new bonds market can bring more money to deal with what we need to do. So that is one important point, bring the forest closer to the financial discussion. The second point, it is a mandate, it is also a mandate. We need to identify locally the focal points, the focal entities, who is going to play that role. And probably what we are going to have in many countries, it is the discussion between finance minister, agriculture ministers, environmental ministers, among many others. So how can we build new entities? How can we build new ways to coordinate among these different entities? We need to have a very strong focal point, but for that we need to think in a new way to create good condition, to have a very strong focal point in that sense. Also, one mandate is to create a national forest monitoring system. But for that, we need to have our own methodologies. In the world, there are a lot of different methodologies. There are competence between the different sectors, companies, universities that are used to offering different kinds of methodologies to monitoring the forest. But the challenge of the countries is to try to receive that, but based on that, to build their own methodology to monitoring their forest. Because when we see in many countries that different kinds of methodologies, the critics of one to the other, we recognize that we need to create our own. Based on that experience, but it is important to have a very trustable system to monitoring the forest. And finally, there is a mandate to work around drivers of deforestation. And drivers of deforestation means to understand the forest as a landscape. That is what CIFOR is currently doing, is look the forest as an ecosystem. Look the reality of forest not only around the tree, but around the people, around the landscape, around the reality, around the agriculture issues. It's bringing all the discussion to try to identify drivers of deforestation. My fifth reflection, it is around the securities. And let me say the importance that the global canopy group document has in this discussion. It is about securities on the Amazon because climate change. When we talk about securities in this case, and this is a very important document, we are talking about water security, energy security, food security, and health security. And when we discuss the security around the tropical forest, we are able to bring new actors. Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, different actors that are not necessarily working in the topic. So it is a way not only to recognize what would be the consequences of the climate change over the tropical forest, but it is the way to create links between the different sectors and the different actors. So the topic of securities surely could be a good way to move this discussion and to raise it in our local and economic consideration. I think that the securities, it is an important way to create more awareness of the role of the forest. My sixth point, it is what it is really a suggestion. I don't have the answer, but if we have into consideration that we are talking about the SDG, why, and I give to CIFOR that challenge, we don't discuss an SDG. Forestry development goals. What do we want to measure? What kind of indicator do we want to include in this discussion? What do we think are clearly the indicators are going to show us that we are improving the management of our forest? I think that we are on the time in which we can do that. We can develop an SDG. Let me tell you what happened to me some weeks ago. We were discussing with the business sector in Peru around a campaign that we are developing as part of the COP20, and one of the guys who was there told us, when we discussed about growing or the economic performance of a country, it is very clear the indicators. GDP, excuse me, I don't know how can I say in English, Balanza de Pagos, and two or three indicators. When we talk about the social sector, we are used to talking around the line of poverty, nutrition among others. But when we talk about environment or when we talk about forest, we really don't know exactly what we need to show, what we need to measure, what we need to prove. So it is important to have indicators and probably try to have SDGs. It could be a good way to move forward in this discussion. So because I'm taking too much time, let me move to my last reflection. Really, let me say what we are doing as part of the organization of the COP20, what we are doing as the next host country of the COP20. First, let me say that we are very confident. We know that we are able to do something. We know that we are able to move this discussion toward an agreement. We know that it is a big challenge, it is difficult, it's complex, but based on the Latin America position, but also based in the partnership with country as the Southeast Asia countries, we can do something. And for that, what is clear is that we need to have an output and for Lima, the output should be, must be to have a very strong draft agreement to be signed in Paris. And for that, we need to move in the formal process, recognizing the role of the ADP, but also in the non-formal process so we can take advantage of the September summit that wants to bring political will to the negotiation process, try to bring the leaders of the world to offer and put on the table what they are able to offer to the world. So we have that, the ADP, we have the September summit, we have meetings as this in which we are discussing the forest sector. So based on that, we can deal with our objective to reach a draft agreement by the end of December. But that is not the only objective that we are seeking. The second objective, it is trying to bring some content to adaptation. We are used to talking about adaptation, but not necessarily with a clear content. What does it mean resilience in adaptation? What are the roles of the forest in adaptation? What it is our agenda as developing country to recognize what does adaptation mean and how much we can put the adaptation discussion into national contribution and into the final agreement. So that is our second goal. And for that, we have received some mandate. We need to revise the guidelines that are the base for the national adaptation plans, NAPs. So that is one of our mission. The third objective is trying to move the finance discussion into an improvement into some results. And as I've already told to you, the capitalization of the Green Climate Fund, it is important. And for that also, our fourth mandate is to bring information that is going to be part of the national determined contribution. And we think that the balance between finance and the NDCs is a good way to create trust, to have developed country putting money on the table and to have developing countries identifying their own action, not only for mitigation, but also for adaptation. We are ready to organize the COP. We are moving quickly. We are doing what are doing our biggest effort to have the countries on the table taking decision by the end of the year. So let me finish saying again, how pleased I am to be here, how pleased I am that even though this is a discussion around forests in Southeast Asia, I think it is very important to have this region of the world as part of a discussion to try to raise the forest discussion and to not continue to be the younger brother of the debate. We need to have political decision, political solution to the forest as part not only of the climate debate, but the development debate. Thank you very much.