 Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, good morning, good afternoon, good evening. I'm very excited to welcome you to C4 virtual workshop on transforming red in Indonesia. My name is Levania Santos, I'm program coordinator at C4 and I will be your emcee on this event. This workshop is one of seven national workshop series that C4 organizing for its global comparative study on red. In coming November and December, we'll have fair tour workshop in GRC, Peru, Guyana, Brazil, Ethiopia, and a face-to-face workshop in Vietnam. Please visit C4 event website to mark the dates. The title of this event, Transforming Red, is based on the title of our book published in 2018 and has its intended double meaning. In 2007, red was envisioned as a catalyst for transformational change toward lasting climate mitigation in the forest and land use sector. And yet red itself has transformed over the past 13 years. In Indonesia, red plus payment for result achieve our final beginning to flow and there are diverse actor to the space who can help deliver on the promise of transformational change. We will hear from many of these actor today as speaker and also participants. Please write your comments and questions in the chat box to make the event as dynamic as possible. Without further ado, I'm pleased to invite C4 director general Dr Robert Nasi to give an opening remark. Robert, please. Thank you, Vanie, and we cannot welcome you physically on our campus. Then you are most welcome on the digital picture of C4 campus in Bogor, where it's currently raining. And I hope that when we will all pass this COVID crisis, we'll be able to meet again and have also the discussion in the hallways and the coffee break. But let's go back today and about this workshop on red. And it's, let me first I mean a sort of C4 has been working in Indonesia since this creation in 1993 and is the only international organization in Indonesia and the CGI center and we have had this, this program on red for for a long time. And this is something that we are very proud of and that's why it's very important for us to have this this workshop now, because we are reaching a very interesting time together with our partners from the ministry of underarmament and forestry and then here I have to apologize on the alpha park around the director general of climate control of the move, because he was supposed to deliver an opening address or so but has been called at the last minute to a very important meeting with the vice minister so he apologized and send us his good wishes for the success of the workshop and it will listen to the recording and the live stream. Now, if you think about red I mean a sort of it really took off in 2007 at the Balikop. And then it was sold by a series of cop postman Copernag and Paris. And here we are now in 2020 so 13 years after this this take off and we are seeing the first result based payment coming into Indonesia, one part of the little intense with Norway, another one from the green climate fun and for about a total of about $160 million. And so that that's very timely to discuss this whole issue and say okay, should we have this payment at the national or the sub national level. We used to be paid for and why are we paying people and and what will be the impact ultimately of such payment in terms of achieving the whole purpose of red plus. And also quite interestingly I mean it's sort of the, and this whole issue of payment for results in the context like climate change or reduce the mission from deforestation and fragmentation is the only issue of accountability. If you are doing all the efforts you can or in terms of reducing degradation. And if you're neighbor, whatever the neighbor is, it could be another Cabo pattern at the sub national level or another province or another country at the international at the national level is having such a behavior that it impact on your performance. Who is accountable for it and we need to be paid or not to be paid and how is it going to work and, and these things are very important and very interesting to consider in the whole issue of the, the governance of this result based payment. So, I would like to thank again, of course, our Indonesian partner but also the many partners that we have had along this long journey of, of the global comparative study on red. And most particularly I would like to thank Norway was been supporting us during these 10 years and without them we will not be there so thanks again and I hope you won't be disappointed. I'm sure you won't be disappointed. And we are going to have a very interesting meeting very interesting workshop. And we are in the good hands of Vani and Amy. Thank you very much. Thank you, Robert. Now we are moving to the next speaker. Please do invite Dr. Marianne Johansson, consular team leader climate change and forest at the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Jakarta to give a talk about bilateral red partnership between Indonesia and Norway. Marianne, please. Thank you so much. I hope you can all hear me. And also, thank you so much to see for for organizing this workshop. And thanks to all participants that I understand come from many places on the planet that have taken the time to to join the workshop here in Indonesia. So thanks to all. So let me start. So 10 years ago, when Indonesia and Norway agreed to form a partnership on red plus, we both committed to sailing an untreated sea. And this meant that we were trying something new and something innovative. It was bound to not be completely completely linear process. Rather it was, and still is a dynamic cooperation responding to challenges as they arise. I believe that in itself has great value. And earlier this year, we confirmed that the results based payment for Indonesia has reduced the first station in 2016 17 would be subject to results based payment. And with that, we are now moving into the first third phase of our partnership, which is of course very important step forward to us. So the government of Indonesia, and then primarily through the Ministry of environment and forestry has been very committed to improve natural resource management and its governance. And Minister city in Uruguay has reformed the merged ministries of environment and forestry and put forward a range of transformative policies. And importantly also has consistently implemented and further improve them along the way. And this is a crucial forestry, the permanent logging moratorium revision of the P regulation, the palm oil moratorium and the and the zero map are all examples of this. And clearly, this is a result of political leadership and not results based payments. And this is an important point. Reduce the first deforestation and sustainable land use come from transformational policy and their firm implementation with the current level of climate funding results based payments alone are no real economic alternative to unsustainable natural resource implementation. It is Indonesia's commitment to reducing deforestation that has created results. But still, there are many reasons why results based payments have an important role to play, and I will share three of them with you now. Firstly, results based payments are based on verified emission reductions. It is payment for a quantifiable global public good. It is not a gift. Secondly, substantial results based payments are an international recognition of a country's efforts. Recognizing hard work and good results is immensely important and brings highly deserved domestic and international attention. The money itself can also support existing reform processes and accelerate action on the ground, leading in turn to more to a more rapid decrease in deforestation. And the third point is that results based funding can create a chain reaction that leverage other funding. We believe that climate funding will increase with time and remain hopeful that more donors will come on board. But why we see the biggest potential is in the emerging carbon market. Countries that have emission reductions of high environmental integrity are likely to attract serious buyers that contributing significantly to accessible funding for national deforestation results. The implementation of the Paris Agreement with its modality to increase ambitions over time will drive this demand and red plus has paved the way. So let me finish by just underlying that the climate crisis is still here and it urgently needs to be resolved. And we also know that nature itself and especially the remaining rainforest is an essential part of the solution. Continued and strong support to countries like Indonesia for their efforts to protect forest and reduce deforestation is highly needed. And results based payments continues to be one of the most powerful support mechanisms to this end. Clearly they can add incentives and play a useful role where there is already political commitment to reform. As illustrated under President Joko Widodo and Minister Sikino Bayai here in Indonesia. Thank you very much. Thank you Mary Ann. So ladies and gentlemen after we heard the opening remarks and highlight from the bilateral partnership between Indonesia and Norway. I hope we are all ready to further discuss about result based payment in Indonesia, who to pay, how to set reference level, who should benefit and how red governance can be improved to enable result based payment in multiple levels. To give you insight of C4 Word on Red, let us see a short video of C4 Global Comparative Study on Red. C4's Global Comparative Study on Red Plus is the largest of its kind. The goal is to produce information, analysis and tools to promote what we call 3E outcomes in Red Plus design and implementation. So those are outcomes that are effective, efficient and equitable. And this is based on more than 10 years of research capacity building and stakeholder engagement activities in 22 forest rich tropical countries. And our theory of change for the project is focused on co-production of knowledge with diverse partners ranging from governments to civil society and private sector actors, research organizations and local communities. And really at the heart of what we do is generating and leveraging a very strong evidence base to help inform forest friendly policies and actions at multiple levels. Ladies and gentlemen, we will proceed with the next agenda. Result based payment Global Outlook and Indonesia, moderated by Dr. Amy Dushel, team leader of C4 Climate Change Team. Over to you Amy. Thanks a lot. In the meantime, I want to go now to the next session and we have three speakers who are talking about to give the global context of results based payment, as well as some some insights from Indonesia. So we will start with Mark, Mark Duma Johansson from the Green Climate Fund. The exciting news of the last few months was was the approved project from the Green Climate Fund to Indonesia. I know Mark has been spearheading that work in partnership with the government of Indonesia and many other actors. So congratulations. And we're going to hear more about that now directly from the source. So Mark, please take it away. Thank you. Thank you so much, Amy. And thank you so much colleagues. It's great to be here with you today. I prepared two slides quickly. So I had the opportunity and the pleasure to briefly share with you this this fantastic highlight as Amy said that the B26 meeting that took place a few months ago. Our board approved the largest red plus RPP proposal so far. And the first one in Asia in Indonesia, developed by UNDP and the government of Indonesia. So I'm quickly going to take you to the project itself. And happy to take any questions later later on today. Next, next slide please. Thank you very much. So before going into the details of the project you see outlined here. When we receive projects within the pilot program. We screen them across a scorecard we have developed and you see a brief highlight here on on the left side of the screen, where the volume offered to us goes to this internal review process that where we look mainly at the technical and technical annex and then score that and then we get a final volume which multiplied by $5 per ton is then the final payment. In the case of Indonesia you see here that 27 million were offered to us and after reviewing the proposal, we ended up with 20 million bringing us to a total payment of 103 million across four years of implementation but for results achieved in 2014 to 2016. We pay for past results that have been achieved between 2013 and 2018. And as mentioned this proposal was developed by the Ministry of Finance and UNDP. And in particular we were also very, very excited about the use of proceeds which we found to be very, very innovative and I have the next slide please where this is outlined a bit further. And just to recap the first part you see here a brief copy of the terms of reference for the pilot program. It's highlighted that the use of proceeds has to be reinvested in activities that are aligned with the NDC, the Red Cross Strategy and Flow Carbon Development Plans and also be compliant with the GCF policies. So Indonesia and UNDP developed this idea here to use this for two outputs. There's a lot of flexibility I have to say in how countries use the proceeds. So if they are aligned with what is described here above 1.14, then there's so much flexibility so it's an opportunity to be very innovative and we found Indonesia's idea very, very innovative. First of all to strengthen the national Red Cross architecture but in particular the majority of the funds are going into output two, which is to continue the support to decentralize sustainable forest governance. Mainly looking at two of the key units in place already, the social forestry program and the forest management unit, which are really excellent opportunities to work at the decentralized level and general investments and work directly with communities and eventually achieve future results. So we are very, very pleased with this and very, very, very excited to really have this disapproved not long time ago, first time in Asia and also the largest proposal so far in terms of volume and funding. And I believe I have maybe one minute left Amy so I'll be very quick just in the last slide please. Just before I say my thank you just to share with you colleagues that we have started to work on the continuation of the pilot program, either as a direct continuation or as a different phase that remains to be determined but this is being developed as we speak, and we hope to share more with which they call us with colleagues later this year, and eventually next year have much more details to to work with you on. In particular, we look forward to do expertise and to your ideas on this so we can make sure that we have the best possible continuation going forward. Thank you so much. Great. Thank you Mark and I already see questions for you popping up in the chat box so you can go in there and address the participants. Please do put your comments for Mark and the other speakers into the chat box that can be a dynamic forum for sharing ideas as well. So let's move on to the next speaker will have a question and answer in the chat box and at the end. This is Harold Engelson, who is a professor at the Norwegian University of Life Science, and a long term associate for C4. He's been talking to him from all of the red plus work he's done. He's edited our four major C4 books on red plus, and he's really been a thought leader, and partner for us on the red plus issue so he'll be talking about results based payment and the politics of numbers so go ahead. Thank you. Is my voice okay. Sounds good. Great. So next. First, I start with a kind of a definition of result based payment it has got many names payment for environmental services, open performance based etc but it's essentially the same idea and it's three main criteria. First, you make an agreement on predefined results you cannot come afterwards and say that. This was result based pain we should paid exposed. The second basic principle is to have recipient discretion in the way that that the agent those implementing are are kind of responsible and can have a great deal of freedom and how to achieve those results. And the third is some independent verification of those results, which is important. Does the current RBP funding meet this criteria only partially, I have to say there is not kind of a straight textbook but some modification of that, for example in recipient discretion and negotiation of result next. I talk about three challenges. The question of what to pay for have two dimension. First is where to pay along the impact chain from inputs activities outputs, etc. Corresponding to the red faces that we are familiar to its strong arguments for pay kind of as far to the right as possible outcomes and impacts, but it's also more difficult in terms of measurement setting reference level, sharing the risk because to the right, the less control the implement will have over the final result. It's a lot of noise and external factors. The second aspect is which outcomes just carbon or also non carbon benefits and if you have non carbon benefit should be included as constraints. For example, as he's done with safeguards or should it be in form of extra payment. Next please. I have come to the conclusion that okay the although the ultimate goal is to pay for results you need also incentives along the way from all the red, the red stages focus on carbon and many may disagree with me here but I think first of all climate change and and reducing emission is sufficiently important to be the main focus. I think an equally important argument is that it's largely compatibility between the different goals say biodiversity livelihoods adaptation etc, particularly if one uses payment for environmental services as as one of the articles in the book that came in 2018 by Amy and colleagues to clearly shows. Next please. The second is to the problem is to define the emission reduction and that is essentially the same as setting the frills or reference levels more generally I use reference level baseline as kind of interchangeably. The emission reduction is fine is defined as shown in figure between as a difference between a natural emissions, for example forest carbon stock and a reference level. Now, it has two meanings in the debate which is confusing what I call the business as usual baseline, which is the basis for assessing impact the counter factor what would happen without the red policy or project. And the second is the crediting based on which is the basis for to pay now they may not need to be the same. You may kind of have a tighter and crediting baseline than the business as usual baseline. Next please. Just to illustrate how important I used to countries a bit far from Indonesia but still the time period. The Amazon fund has a rule of setting the reference level equal to the average for the last 10 years and updating and you can see the lines here the yellow green and blue that how they have changed. Now in the UNFCC submission Brazil says that it should have a so called dynamic baseline starting in 1996 and then being updated or years are added. Now you see the difference here between the two in 2019 did Brazil reduce emissions well it all depends on the reference level to choose the Amazon fund reference level. The answer is no if you have the UNFCC submitted. So this is a clear case where kind of the time period matters enormously. But Peru is another example for how to set the based on where they use a trend. So they extrapolate doing some simple regression analysis here and they end up with a reference level that is higher than it's not saying what what is correct or not just that it matters next please Ways forward I think to clarify the key aspects whether it's for national or regional level to clarify what are kind of eligible national or regional circumstances, the time period to avoid this kind of gaming and third party independent review and the need also for governments to outsource some tasks to have kind of a third party to settle this next please whom to pay in an article also as part of the GCS we led by Cecilia literal we we defined kind of six potential recipients of the payment and I will talk more after on this. This is incredibly hard. And for example, if some deforestation may be semi legal and who owns the reduction from for example a palm out concession not granted or policy change. Next please. I think the ways forward, we need to balance this effectiveness efficiency there's no kind of correct way so eventually it's a political negotiation. My main principles is those that incur the cost the opportunity cost of not being able to convert for us to agriculture or other purposes and also the attribution of results who made it. So this kind of links to the two essential aspects of result based payment. It's a fair compensation to those that incur the cost, but it's also incentives to change behavior. They may not be the same, but I think these two principles should guide us. Thank you. Thanks a lot, Harold that a lot of food for thought there and please do put your questions for Harold in the chat box comments anything, we already have some good observations happening there. So, I will introduce our third speaker of the session this is moira mo leono moira as a senior researcher at C for and she'll be talking about some comparative work that relates to results payments from Brazil, Indonesia and Vietnam. Moira. Okay, can you hear me. Yes, perfectly. Okay, good afternoon. Thank you all for making the time to be here. I'm speaking on behalf of the whole team. I'm just going to go under to two fun and be more desaturated. So it's not my work alone. Next slide please. So I'm the topic of this workshop is results based payment in support of this, our presentation will show how different RED policy actors in Indonesia and Brazil and Vietnam perceive issues related to finance. To what extent they agreed or disagreed with standard statements on finance issues derived from earlier studies during two periods, the 2014 2015 policy network analysis to and 2017 2018, the PNA three. And this is a very shortened and simplified version of our findings to be done in five minutes. So first, most actors that we asked agree that RED plus should be a results based system. There was a complete agreement, although in the last agreement was this was not as strong in the earlier survey. Many actors disagreed or were unsure. Who should pay most actors in Brazil and Vietnam agreed that foreign governments should be the main sources of RED financing. In Indonesia, opinions are more divided as many actors think that funding should also come from the national government budget with RED and integral part of forest governance. In the earlier slide in the earlier survey in PNA two agreement that markets can make a major contribution was quite high. In the last survey, however, in the 2017 18, the slow development of the carbon market market has cost actors to reconsider. In Indonesia opinion shifted to disagreement, while in Vietnam many actors still agree that markets are important, but disagreement and uncertainty had also increased. On the other hand, there was a strong agreement. As the government there is weakening environmental institutions, many actors said that the only chance for RED within the country now is to strengthen engagement with the private sector and the market. Here on this slide, we are talking about what Ariel said earlier who should be paid. Well, in short, all actors agree that everybody should be paid, but the division is still unclear. There is no agreement on how. Next slide. So what does this mean. After more than 10 years of RED perspectives differ among countries, and even among actor groups in in one country, not only differ, but also change with changing political and economic context. Despite the differences overall actors accept RED as a results based payment scheme to be supported at least partly by foreign governments. Even while actors are somewhat pessimistic about carbon markets, they also feel that there is need for more efforts to develop and understand carbon markets, because funds are becoming more scarce. At the same time when it comes to implementation, all actors feel there is still need for a strong and most of all clear regulatory framework, indicating they perceive the existing framework is still insufficient for RED. The suggestion for improvement suggested by actors in Brazil, but also applicable to Indonesia and Vietnam is, is for local and regional authorities to have more autonomy to adjust and adapt to needs for implementation at the local, more decentralization rather than less. As said, however, perceptions differ and change. Now people act and decide usually based on their perception. Thus, while it is cliche, the bottom line is that there is no one size fits all formula to RED finance or indeed to the whole RED scheme with growing understanding but also growing scarcity of funds, coupled with continuous changes in political, economic and social context, there is need to remain flexible and adapt and adaptive and look for even more innovative solutions. Thank you. Thank you Moira. Thank you all. So we have some questions happening in the in the chat box here but I saw bring some of those into the discussion for the next 10 minutes. A really interesting question for Mark from the Green Climate Fund and it's it's not only about the Green Climate Fund payments but it's it's sort of in general about the issue of timing of payments so results are achieved and payments can come many years later. There was an issue in Brazil with this when the payment for the amazing achievement of reducing Amazonian deforestation came when Bolsonaro's government was taking over and and sort of ironically as he was rolling back environmental and social protections. Mark, others, could you comment on this timing issue of payments. I mean, thanks. Thanks so much for that question. We need a very, very good question and as noted in the chat box but also maybe just perfecting on what I mentioned before. The key part of the terms of reference is that the results that can be submitted to us have to be achieved between 2013 and 2018 within within that time period and and have to be fully reviewed and go go to a due diligence to to make sure that we have the best possible knowledge on how these results were achieved. And so of course it's it's there are many cases of course where there can be certain changes in in politics and government that that could raise certain questions and of course it's hard to know what the future brings and how they can impact certain results from the past but what is what is clear is that the use of proceeds has to be once once approved by the board. The use of the investments have to be fully fully aligned with what has been approved so it cannot be changed down the road to be something different it has to still be aligned with what was approved at the time that it was submitted to us. So that's that answer the question. Thank you. We had some other questions, you know for for Arald about similar you know so pain actors directly affected through foregone income but then again the results based payments are happening years after the effect. Can governments advance these payments without actually knowing if they will receive results based payment. That's a great question and an important one because landholders, you know, having incentives for their achievements is going to make or break this. Right. Should I think. Okay, you know it's a good question I start with a conclusion. I like to quote a colleague that you used to say that it's better to pay twice and get something than paying once and get nothing. And this is the limit, particularly for dealing with farmers or communities where you have to make some upfront payments to kind of make them into the getting a contract contract because its costs are now and benefits in the future in the form of result based payment. So some up front payment and then some payments at the end when the results have been achieved. So I think therefore in practice the pain what you have to pay, particularly when we're talking about pessimism at local level is much higher than just paying for the results you need to pay upfront, and you need to pay at the end of the day, but better to pay twice and get something then pay once and get nothing. So double payment but no double counting. So that's also another question about double counting and, and for example in Norway, or GCF are paying Indonesia, should they deduct the projects that have already been paid for say cutting down or whatever project in in a, in a voluntary carbon market. I don't think it's being done or but it would be interesting to hear from Marianne and and mark whether whether that is considered by them who do that. I don't think as I wrote it's a major problem today but potentially in the future. In the early red days, we talked a lot about countries nested approach, which is modeled by what's called the joint implementation under the under the, the computer protocol. In fact, our sono hard to know the lead implementer of the cutting gun project is here with us as a speaker in the sub national session, and we'll be discussing discussing some of those issues. So, so we'll hear from him as well during that. I do want to move to the question of carbon markets, because I think this is something that it's, you know, we're seeing increased demand of voluntary carbon markets there's different kinds of compliance markets that are taking shape. There are bilateral agreements under article six. It's, it's one of the most exciting elements of this process but it's also one of the most contentious. And I thought that Moira slide was interesting about how, you know, perceptions are evolving of carbon markets and and offsetting different countries. I think it would be interesting to hear from the speakers, sort of the opportunities and Achilles heels associated with these emerging markets. Moira could maybe start we haven't heard from her yet. Not that I know a lot about carbon markets. I know more about about the way the perceptions work. But it seems that there was a big hope that that it was very clear that that the carbon would be put on the market somebody was going to sell somebody was going to buy. And this whole process would work as other markets. And so people perceive that that was a good way to do things, and it was clear and it also brought you some equal standards in a way. So people looked at it as a, as a hope to, to solve the problem, but it just didn't work out because it's just too, too abstract in a way. It was like the farmer in, in West Kalimantan asking me, how do you, how do you package this carbon. It's just, is it in a can. So, if it were in a can he would have known how to sell it but because it's something that you cannot really touch and you cannot really see it is more difficult to imagine the market. And so in the perceptions, the first thought it was a good idea, but then nothing happened and you couldn't really sell it in the can on the market so finally people sort of lost interest in this. Still in Brazil because of the, of the different political situation. People are looking for other ways to raise money for their reducing emission and deforestation. Other comments from the speakers on this on this issue. I think the main thing to say about carbon markets is that they don't just appear from from from the kind of from the bottom up. They were the voluntary carbon market but it has remained relatively small though it has picked up bit in the last one or two years. But basically a carbon market is created by political decisions to put caps on countries or on sectors or on industries or even you and me to for how much emission reductions we can we can allow. We are allowed to have so it's a political creation and and it's created through caps on on the missions and I can meet my those restrictions by buying offset by offsetting buying a mission that's from others. So far there hasn't been much will to take on those caps and therefore the demand in the carbon market does not emerge. I think I don't see a kind of a quick kind of that markets will emerge it will probably be a few markets like the California like domestic markets in Brazil, perhaps with a new president, etc. That may be but most of them will be kind of markets like lower Norway and GCF are doing that you're buying based on mission reduction so it's kind of a market where you pay to buy a mission reduction paper. Mark, any thoughts. Yeah, thank you. Thanks so much for that question. And indeed we are monitoring that closely and making sure that if, if there is any progress in the future on that front that we can react to it in the best way. So the continuation of the pilot program and and we are we are we are looking very much into there to see how the private sector could play a more active role. This is still to be developed, of course. But we do hope to find a stronger role for them than we had in the current that we have in the current one so so hopefully that's that's something we can. We can share with you going forward but we definitely monitor this and see how we can. We can we can fit into to that development in the future. Thank you. I'll just I saw D'Arsono with his video on so I just want to put him on the spot because he's been dealing with this issue for a while. Don't give away what you're going to talk about in your presentation but D'Arsono would be interesting to hear from your perspective about the, you know, emerging carbon market opportunities for funding what you've been working on for a long time. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. Good morning. Good afternoon or good night for some of you. Thank you for putting you on the spot. For some of you who don't know me my name is D'Arsono Hartono. My name is D'Arsono Hartono and I'm the director of the Department of Agriculture. I think the fact is more and more people realize that we need nature for our survival. While we when we talk about cop 13 back those days in Bali, I think the actors are usually more of a state actors playing this but I think we start seeing a lot of this and I think we need everybody to be involved, meaning that the region, the GCF, you know, government, non-state actor, everybody had to be involved because, you know, they are benefit for protecting nature. We are excited. I think the market is really turning for a voluntary market. Of course, everybody's betting on compliance but like I said, like you mentioned, Amy, it can be very pretentious. Things can be quite complicated that way but I think, you know, we can have these two working in parallel and see how it goes in the next few years. Thank you D'Arsono. I'll just, I'll call on, I'll put Marianne on the spot now too from Norway because I think, you know, this carbon market issue it is, it's sort of the issue that we're dealing with now and I think it's the issue where we can agree on a lot of things and then suddenly we get to that and there's major fights and disagreements about how this should move forward. I'd be interested in hearing Norway's take on this. Yes, thank you so much for that. Yeah, no, I think it's quite clear that we have been interested in carbon markets for quite some time, both interested and concerned, I think it's a fair description. Yeah, we really, as I also mentioned in my speech, we really see carbon markets as the main potential for red plus finance in the future and I think I agree that we agree we also see development when it comes to demand the demand side that people or companies in particular is really interested to buy. Yeah, I think our point of view is that a carbon market needs to ensure or to have some certain elements and the most important part for us would be high environmental integrity of the emission reductions that are being sold. Avoid double counting to avoid leakage and to, you know, have reasonable reference levels, all these elements would need to be there. And also that I think from our point of view, it's important that the revenue of a carbon market it goes to the government and that it's a government regulations that and also that the carbon or the emission reductions is is the public good and should the revenue should be distributed back to the public. So, yeah, that's what I want to share about that. Thank you. Thank you. I think we have some nice comments and questions in the chat, you know that we're especially getting from Mark about sort of what the money will be used for and, and the importance of these payments in the national context. And, and maybe we could just, you know, Mark if you could talk a bit about that I mean how you're sitting in South Korea. How are you interacting with with national stakeholders about about these payments and and understanding where results based payments will will actually go. Thank you. Thank you. I mean that's that's an excellent question. So the way that we are, we are set up. We work through a crazy entities and now in the A's and and rely on the accredited entities that when they submit a project to us on behalf of a government that due diligence has been fully carried out that stakeholders have sorted. We're able to do that fully ourselves because of ours. So we rely on that that approach. And of course, you know, check that to the best of our possibilities and later on that is also check doing during evaluations and so on, and, and our annual reporting. So in particular case of these projects for the, the IPP projects we have a more simplified reporting, but giving that base that we are paying for for past results things that have already been achieved. And here we rely fully on on the country and on the accredited entity that what they have submitted to us is is indeed the best way because we, we don't want to be the ones dictating how the money should be used. In a very national context and there's no right and wrong way of using the proceeds. For all the projects we have approved so far, all countries have decided to use the funds very differently. And, and we are likely going to see also even more use of diversified use of the proceeds and the future so so. That's very interesting and we have two more, two projects coming up for the discount bought in a few weeks from now, where we will again see a very different use of the proceeds so so they are in. Indeed, it's exciting and good to see how how the accredited entities really work very closely with the government to to ensure that this is being achieved in the best possible way. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Again, please add your questions to the chat, because the speakers can continue to respond to you. I am taking a lot from the session I mean and one of the points is really the importance of high environmental integrity. And it relates to, to, to all of the presentations and including what Mary Ann's comments and, and, and, Arald's presentation about about the setting of the reference levels and, you know, interestingly, Arald's point about the focus on carbon how in fact that is really fundamental and at sea for you know sort of since the very beginning we took a very broad view of red plus you know that it's not only effective in terms of reducing emissions but it's also cost efficient and equitable with with a series of co benefits. And, and at the end of the day, we do need to go back to this sort of basic environmental integrity issue because it's at the heart of what red plus is if we think about it as a as a payment for a for results achieved. The importance of incentives, better to pay twice for a result than once for nothing I knew quote from Arald I like that we, we have our collection going and it's sort of interesting because it's not double counting results but it's rather making sure that incentives get to the decision makers and and farmers and landholders who who really need them and I think that's what's been lacking. Our work has shown so far, more real incentives for people who are making, making major changes on the ground. And then this importance of perceptions of results based payment and you know not only bilateral funding but also carbon markets and how that not only varies by country context but over time. And I think Moira, I really like this longitudinal work about perceptions over time changing red plus has evolved since 2005 2007, and, and, you know, in 2020 we're not in the same context that we were 15 years ago. And of course, perceptions of results based payment and incentives for reducing deforestation and forest degradation are also evolving. And, and we need to understand those to, to really be working in the national context and making sure that that these kinds of payments, even though they may be considered a drop in the bucket, can in fact have some transformational change and some big impacts. Marianne, you know, listed the intermediate milestones in Indonesia the big policy changes that that have come into effect because of political will, and because of sort of in the name of reducing deforestation and forest degradation. So, the evolving over time as well. With that I will close this global session. I will turn the mic back over to Vani who will introduce two breakout sessions where we will delve more deeply in the Indonesian context. Thank you all to the speakers and thank you to the participants for your engagement. Thank you Amy. Ladies and gentlemen, our next agenda is a parallel breakout group discussion. But before we move to the breakout rooms. We have a slightly adjustment on our agenda. We will have an interactive chatter for questions. After this, I will read two questions, and we'll ask you to write down your response in the chat box in the chat box in a maximum of five words. So again, each questions, you will respond your quest, you will respond the answer in a five words only and feeling that in the chat box. I will give some time for you to type your response, but please wait my signed before you enter the chat box. So I will count 123 send and all of us will send our answer. So let's start with the first questions. What do you think is the main challenge for effective and equitable red result based payment in Indonesia? The question is appear on your screen. I will read again. What do you think is the main challenge for effective and equitable red result based payment in Indonesia? Please type your response. I will give some time for you to think and type now. Not yet write down your answer. Okay, counting now. One, two, three, send your answer. Okay. We would like now move to the second questions. The second question is, what do you think is the main solution for the challenge? The challenge that you just writing down in the first questions. Not yet send the answer. Think a little bit right down on your chat box. I will count 123 before we all send the answer. What do you think is the main solution for the challenge? Okay. Counting now. One, two, three, send your answer. Thank you for your responses. Now we move to the next sessions, the implementation of red based payments. It's opportunity and challenges. We will discuss this topic in two parallel breakout groups, national and subnational implementation. In every second, there will be a pop up message on your screen where you are free to choose your preference topic of discussion. If you don't see a pop up message on your screen, please see at the below bar of your zoom screen and click the breakout rooms and choose your preference topic, national and subnational. Thank you for all of that questions, but I would like to read that again so that everybody can also follow the discussion and you can explain more details. So the question is how then are you get an access to result based payment from Norway, for example, or the Green Climate Fund. But Arsena, could you please respond to that? Thank you for the question. I think, unfortunately, the result based payment is still in an early phase. Therefore, as a company, we don't know how it's going to play out. Of course, we are very excited about the news that there is a result based payment. I think the key is to be on from a governance as well as the ecosystem or the system in place that the government have to make sure that whoever gets paid is the other parties that are making sure that there's no, you know, a mission happened. Right. So I think it was really go back and of course we're a company like us we have to prove that we work with communities and we did that. We are looking forward for the RBP right now. As you know, our project is currently marketed in the entry market because that's the only source of income as well as Avenue at this time but I think we are open for future RBP mechanism. As long as the key is we have to make sure that we are nested in the national registry that there is no double counting because we don't want that to happen. And I think it's also created the credibility that we can work. You know, as a project developers, you know, there are other avenue of income rather than just a voluntary market so we can scale up these activities and we can encourage other private sectors to be involved in this. Yeah, there's actually a follow up question to what you just explained but our son, there's a question and then how project and that's international and DC. Could you a little bit explain about the process and what kind of afford that you has been doing negotiation. We are working with a project currently registered in Vera, which is a VCS right now. If you know a lot of the credit that we have been selling or we have sold actually pre 2020 credit so it has nothing to do with NBC or any commitment of Indonesia. But I think if you look at the profile of all our buyers, these buyers are not government so they are actually not claiming credits. So technically, you know what we're trying to propose to Vera right now is you know our buyers are different compared to buyers so technically if, even though they buy our edits, the ownership of NBC of the credit still belong to the country of produce, because you know this these are corporates that are not claiming for for the emission. So that is the case and you can actually scale a lot of the activities of course government is, is worried about, you know, somebody else claiming NBC but I think if you read it carefully in the volunteer market there is no commitment or anything that say that, you know the credit will be transferred to another country, so it should, but of course this is something that have to be verified and confirm with their as well as the government so we can scale this. Okay, thank you for that so no, I would like now move to daddy professor daddy, you have several questions in the chat box I will read for you. Daddy based on your experience, how did you ensure that in both parties participate equally during the most is they call the levels. Yeah, that is very delicate questions. The system, the beneficiary mechanism, we spend more than two years in order to gather all aspiration or opinion of all parties. Well, socialist social social, I mean socialization of this document is very important in order to have a better was that basis for the distribution of benefit coming from the emission reduction program. There are many entity involved in this program, for instance, the indigenous people in the local community, the private sector, as well as the agencies with language sector. So all of those parties has been involved in the development of their benefit sharing mechanism. Okay, but the next question is, how would you suggest to use the payment, how did you be I suggestion on how to use the payments. Well, actually, we expected that the intensive incentive received by any entity can be used for program or activity with continuously support the idea of reduce deforestation and forest degradation. So, through governor decree, we will arrange what kind of activity or what kind of program is suggested to be done and use the incentive money. And later on, there are also systems to monitor whether the incentive received is used for continuous deforestation or forest degradation and how effective is the tool that you develop together with C for facilitating this process toward the national and DC process. Yeah, so far the DPI run the program without any consideration whether the process is already effective or whether the result is already a good result. So we need really a tools to do the assessment on, for instance, the process, whether the process is already involved all parties in the MSF, or whether the members of MSF has a good, was that understanding about the goal of the program to be achieved and about their role and including their resource. So the DPI tried to integrate together all resource owned by the MSF members and use it for activities which is already developed by enforcing them, the members, all the members. Thank you, Prof. Dadi. We still have questions of following up from audience based on what Fadar Sonu has explained. There is one question specifically asking, can you elaborate further how you are working with Kyle Hakka on nesting the project baseline with the National FRL. So this is a very specific, Fadar Sonu, could you give more explanation to that question? Thank you. I actually responded privately, but basically we have registered our project in the National Registry. So I think that's something that we do because we don't want to have any double counting to the system. We haven't been talking about how to nest it to the National Project or jurisdiction because right now there's really no, I guess, there's no framework to do that yet. But I think we'll be happy to do that if you know the regulation allow us or want us to do it that way. Okay. Thank you. I hope that also answered to all questions related to private sector engagement to the National NTC. So like now moved to Gita, do you have a question from Sivor actually, could you discuss red and forest carbon financed directly in the LTCH IL district, or is this less of a priority? Yeah, thank you for the question. So I also responded in the chat box, essentially from the secretariat perspective, the main purpose for us to exist in terms of secretariat is to help with three things for the district members. One is to help them build strategy as Padadi mentioned. And in terms of building strategy, there are five pillars that we are usually concentrating on the first one being the planning and goal setting. The second part is regulatory and policy. The third component is on multi stakeholders decision making or governance. The fourth pillar is on measuring reporting and monitoring. And the fifth pillar is actually having a clear action plan that is agreed by multi stakeholders or we're calling it portfolios. Now, when it comes to carbon finance, we're identifying multiple incentive schemes that districts can tap into. And in each of the incentives option, so the incentives sort of packages are divided into public and private and between private there's, you know, supply chain and on supply chain and public there's national budget and there's also development funding like FCPF, etc. And what we want to highlight is that within each incentives packages, there are certain rules and regulation. And when it comes to carbon finance, if you look at it from both sides, either it's directly to district government or it's involving businesses that operates in district area such as RMU, both mandates and authority are heavily relying on national policy. It really depends on how national government are allowing for this mandate and authority to trickle down. In a way, district can see themselves as part of a provincial strategy as Iskali Mantan just described, or they can see themselves as part of a strategy with force management unit, for example, those are the two most visible option. And for both options, this is something that we districts are seeking guidance from the national government. And the best thing that we can do as a secretariat is facilitating that discussion, because essentially the one that can help district answers those questions, how do you tap into red plus or carbon finance is the national government. So that's sort of our role is to connect and facilitate the conversation without jumping the gun and overlapping the mandates and authority. Thank you. Could you explain a little bit more who actually the central government that really take that really your stakeholder targeted agencies to proceed this this work and run smoothly helping facilitating the district level at the national. Yeah, so I guess I look at it at the secretariat we look at it as a complete set the aliphania we don't sort of pick and choose which one is you know have a bigger mandate but if you look at the five pillars, and you look at carbon financing and what it takes actually district needs to be able to prove that they can elaborate on those five pillars as Padadi mentioned, although it's very delicate you know, having a multi stakeholders dialogue having a clear benefit sharing mechanism, those things are not necessarily being held, or guidance that doesn't necessarily come from one ministry. So at LTKL we have five core ministries that sort of become the anchor, the first being the domestic affairs ministry because at the end of the day is the sub national government report every year their performances to domestic affairs ministry. We also have Bob and us and ministry of finance as the two other core sort of cross sectoral ministries. Of course for carbon finance it happily relate to ministry of environment and forestry but at the end of the day in terms of benefit sharing, we do have to take into account other ministries including the national investment board, the ministry of cooperative and small medium scale enterprises and the ministry of village empowerment. The reason being that if you want to craft a solid benefit sharing mechanism as what Padar Sona mentioned, you actually have to really dig down and try to match make the programmatic approach between those ministries so at the end of the day the benefit really trickles down to the people. Thank you. And our speakers, we have a questions to you all. I may welcome anybody who wants to answer it first. The question is, how do you deal with gender issue in your program or projects to promote equitable outcome for women and men. Any lesson that we can learn from this more advanced experiences. So, let's hear from Alteca Alforz and then move to East Kalimantan, and I would love to hear from private sector process on this engagement with gender issues. Yeah, so I guess it's heavily relate to all of the pillars in terms of representation unfortunately at district level we still see very little decision makers when it comes to government official being female. And we do need a female male balance. So, one of the standard that we are upholding right now is for example if we're attending events or we're hosting events there needs to be always three balance. Age balance and sectoral balance so it's not only about the gender it's actually about the perspective as well as the you know intergenerational collaboration so not all seniors and not all juniors you have something in between. So that is what have enabled us for example one example is in West Kalimantan in Sintang to tap into different ideas that are more innovative sort of speak. One example is a meeting that is hosted by the district government, but are looking for innovative way to reduce emission through tangible activities on the ground ended up becoming a project where we help the women of Sintang that is producing organic and different types of commodities to promote their recipes that are helping to protect the forest so it becomes sort of climate change recipes contest, and the winner of that actually won an expose in Jakarta's number one restaurant calm, where the recipe and their ingredients are being sourced and being cooked by, you know, top notch chef and be presented at the restaurant for a month and get lots of exposure because of that so we need to be creative in a way to make sure that it's not only about making sure that women is there and represented but it's actually about gathering ideas that you know women will be attracted to so that they will take part on the activities so it's not, you know, tick box is actually a more creative process to see women in Sintang what do they do so you engage in that activity so that's just one example from our case. But Adi, would you like to give us your experiences? Yeah. Honest speaking, the gender issue is still not well considered in East Kalimantan. The dominance of male is very high compared to the female or women. And that's why in this coming year the DPI plan one program to promote gender issue, yeah, in order to increase, to increase opportunity and to offer a possibility for them to be included in the development program in East Kalimantan, including in the multi-stakeholder forum such as the DPI. We hope that in the next future, well, gender issue in East Kalimantan is well, what's that considered. Thank you. Thank you, Adi. Please tell us a little bit, we are running out of time but I guess you have key information about gender in RME works. Thank you, Fani. I think for us, you know, when we basically spoke with all these villages, not only that we care about the gender issue just like Gita mentioned, but also the age as well as the diet representative. So every time we help them putting the proper governance system, just for example, we have signed all the MOU with the villages. We help create this institution on the village base where we, not only that we have representative from women, but we also have youth representative as well as the diet representative. Usually the women become sort of the treasurer because they are the one who really manage money well. And I think they are more credible than men. I mean, I have to say that, you know, my wife is better managing my money than myself. So I think automatically this was being designed, but I think the key is to have a collaborative effort, really believe in that. And we, you know, of course, it's not easy in a country like Indonesia where gender is still very imbalanced, but I think if you find right, you know, strength and the right each of especially women or youth, then you can actually have that and you can be very effective. So that's how we do it. And I think it's been quite well. And the fact is we have a village institution, we also mandated that it cannot be a Kepala desaran. So it cannot be has to be really governed and elected democratically in the system. And we have been doing that and this basically institution are the one who is getting funding from us in basically a grant or the benefit sharing and we build, you know, we do. We teach them about proper governance, opening up a bank account, reporting annual taxes and all this kind of thing. And usually, I have to say that women are the one that are doing much better work than men. So I have to say that it's not, you know, I think we don't have to be specific in terms of gender is just automatically comes out. All right. Thank you. So we're running out of time. It is now a quick turning to all speakers to give their final remarks on how we move forward to promote transformational change through national subnational actions. So we have a quick 10 second. I hope everyone we may start from you, Mela. Yeah, I think still many, many things to engage with the, I mean, like the rifle sectors on so and also the governments, how to make the sustainability deployment to become more with the partner partnership like what we found in our, our studies only five. Hi, partnership. So there is lots to be done to, to improve that. Sorry, I need to cut you. We are only 40 seconds before we need to bring everybody to the plenary. I really apologize for not being able to accommodate everyone. But please do speaker typing it, we will post it that information in the report of this event afterwards. But I would like to thank you all for participating we have three minutes left and we're going to end on time here. You know, so many things I actually saw many challenges when this event started and as I was hearing the report from the national discussion, I was in the subnational discussion but getting getting feedback from the national discussion. It actually struck me how much is advanced in the Indonesian context. I mean first of all the sort of the strength of the political will and the NDC that prioritizes forestry and land use. This may be changing with emerging priorities, especially with COVID. You know, we have to sort of keep our keep our eye on the ball of a forest and sustainable land use in light of changing priorities. Much more alignment between national subnational and local levels than I imagined. We have a lot of people who are well under development, local projects being integrated into the national registry to avoid double counting. A lot of really, in fact, quite a bit of alignment across scales in a country where there is a heavy reliance on the national level to give the policy signals. There's a really interesting discussion on gender in the subnational section. And I know that also in the national section about, you know, the need to connect climate finance to issues of gender equity. It's fundamentally important and interestingly at the subnational level, lots of experience with gender, ethnicity, age, sectoral diversity. New female leaders at the district level trying to get as much representation as possible. So tropical forests and our key to climate and development agendas, those are not going away. Indonesia is in the spotlight. Indonesia is especially in the spotlight with the with the new funds for results based payment. Red has served as a testing ground for innovative policies for forest conservation, and it's also created a global alliance that didn't exist before of many different actors working towards this common goal, including as we've seen from the participants today. Now we need to see, I mean, as a research organization, we're interested in monitoring the flow of those payments. What are the impacts, who is benefiting. Is this in fact conserving for us and we'll be intending to do that. So my last words are to thank all of the speakers to thank all of you in the audience, please turn on your cameras and give a wave I really, I would like to see you all this is the yes we put it on grid view so that you can see everybody who's here today it's it's really spectacular participation. I would like to thank of course the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, who has supported our work over many years. And I'd like to give a shout out to our Director General, Robert Nassi, who continues to support this agenda and prioritize this agenda within C4 and and this longevity. It's key to being able to develop good work engagement and capacity building over time. And finally, BMO is hiding somewhere in the grid but BMO is responsible for the event. Organize the logistics, the content. He's a senior research officer. He's a researcher. He's a scientist. He stayed behind the scenes today, but he really helped us with everything. So, thank you. Thank you partners and friends for being patient with our technology issues. Somehow this keeps, this is, it's our challenge of the virtual world but we are, we are going to continue to do our best with that. So, thank you. Enjoy your afternoon. Please visit our website and you will find the materials. We'll find the video that you can actually watch. You will find our publications. You will find our partners publications. And we look forward to continuing to engage with all of you. Thanks again for your time. Thank you Amy. Audience with that, we conclude of today's workshop. On behalf of C4, I would like to express our appreciation to all of you for making time out of your busy duties to attend the workshops. Please visit C4 website to get access of today's presentation and further information. See you in the next National Workshop in DRC on the 12th November. Thank you all.