 government's home for GGGI, low-emissions development is a pathway, it's not underneath it at all. And we found that we've provoked a great deal of residents with the governments we work with by signing on immediately upfront to the rule of economic objectives of those governments. When I say economic, almost always those objectives include crucially social and environmental goals as well, but in every case I think of growth is a sign of development, a sign of progress of delivering prosperity for people. So for GGGI it's no accident that the second G is the third G is in some ways the most important, it's all about growth. There are two consequences that we've found of starting with growth with the broad economic objectives of most governments. And those two consequences are really important in delivering to the sorts of areas that you've mentioned. One is that immediately you attract strong political commitment from the government you're working with, because you're serving their objectives, you're not attempting to persuade them of a set of new objectives which have been delivered from on high or from some external source, you're working inside the context that they, so you've got strong political commitment that creates a very positive dynamic for change because you immediately have a good prospect of attracting champions who matter in the country, the economy that we're working in. And for us that in GGGI that's been very important in Indonesia where the President has been a sponsor of the approach that we've been working in Indonesia on and in Ethiopia and in other countries we work with. So it creates momentum by promoting support for the government. And then, and again this is not for you, I've said it mentioned three or four times this morning. And I'd like to now pass the discussion on to Dr. Mitsuo Matsumoto. You're running a research program on red and if you would share with us some of the things that you're learning, the lessons that you've learned. However, the Japanese government is promoting the ODA support to developing countries. So I think a combination of ODA and GCN is very important to implement this combination of red plus. Because sub-national or national level MRB system is very, very difficult to develop and we need a lot of cost. So for such a big level, ODA is very good and effective for such very big large scale. However, on the other hand, at project level, GCN is a very good and effective for implementation in each project level I think. So I think a combination of ODA and GCN is very, very effective in your companies. So just to follow up very quickly, within this joint, the GCN, the joint credit mechanism and you're using ODA, what sort of safeguards do you put in place to ensure that the money that's going into this is actually achieving some of the ODA objectives of what you're doing? Do you have something similar to the safeguards that we're talking about in the international level, again, for example? Yes. Self-guider is a very, very important for red plus activities. However, discussion on self-guider is not much at the present level. We are discussing how to deal with self-guider in GCN. So we are just discussing that. So you think some of the lessons that you'll learn through that could actually facilitate how the red mechanism might eventually function? Yes. I'd like to move on now to ask Pooja Sahenita to offer us some reflections. Pooja has coordinated the regional hub for Asia Pacific on adaptation and some of your thoughts as to how adaptation needs to be implemented, how it can be facilitated and also what are some opportunities to bring the financing streams together so that what's done in adaptation, reinforces what's done in mitigation, it doesn't work in cross-purposes and vice versa. Thanks for the opportunity. Well, I'm the exception here. Today, I'm the only woman on the panel. So thanks. And secondly, I'm the only one here who's going to talk about adaptation. Since yesterday, of course, we're all here. We've been hearing a lot about red plus since yesterday. But adaptation plays an equally important role. And what I'm going to step back and look at the larger picture and not just talk about red plus as such, but red plus into linkages between mitigation and adaptation and why we need to look at both the issues of adaptation and mitigation. So as we're all aware, very well, since we have been either working here or we've been here from this part of the world, that climate change is intrinsically linked with the existing production processes and consumption patterns in the world. There's nothing new there, of course. But the Asia Pacific region specifically is more vulnerable to climate change due to its high population growth rates. There's extreme poverty in the region, as we all aware. And also at the same time to confound the problem, there are low levels regarding climate change and its impacts in the region. Despite the fact that there's a lot of effort that is being made to create the awareness. I have a sweeping generalization for me, which not everybody could possibly agree with, but be from the adaptation field, that mitigation alone in itself will not be able to solve the problem related to climate change. As some of the thresholds have already been crossed, and some are fast approaching. However, adaptation too on its own cannot solve the problem related to climate change. Reliance solely on adaptation is likely to lead to a magnitude of climate change in the long run, where effective adaptation is no longer possible. And therefore, both adaptation and mitigation need to work parallel at the same time. So that's one of the main messages that I want to give across. So the three points that I'm going to touch on today is discuss a little bit about what climate risks mean and why we need to adapt to the climate risks. What is the importance of addressing both mitigation and adaptation together as an issue and why there is a need to strike a balance between mitigation and adaptation. And why there is a need for low emissions development. So in terms of the issues of risks, in the IPCC reports in the past, there has been a mention about risks. But in the latest version of the IPCC report, there is an explicit mention on the issues related to risks, which are associated with the climate change impact. And here the risks have been defined as anthropogenic interferences with the climate system, which essentially refers to the activities of man. So the risks which are related to the climate impacts, of course, creates a lot of vulnerability and creates hazards in turn, which exaggerates the risks. So if we are not able to manage the risks properly, the impacts of climate change will be exaggerated and therefore the vulnerability of the human population would be increased. All the questions regarding the importance of addressing mitigation and adaptation together, even though as I already mentioned that even the most stringent mitigation efforts cannot avoid the further impacts of climate change in the decades to come. And this will make adaptation unavoidable. However, without mitigating at the same time, a magnitude of climate change is likely to be reached that will make adaptation impossible for some natural systems, while for most human systems it will involve very high social and economic costs. As already mentioned that there are limits and barriers also to effective adaptation, which occurs from the interaction amongst climate change and the biophysical and socioeconomic constraints within which the human society works. Therefore both adaptation and mitigation are now essential in reducing the expected impacts of climate change on humans and their environment. The implications of adaptation can be positive as well as negative. For example, aforestation, which is part of a regional adaptation strategy and also of course for mitigation, makes a positive contribution. However, if adaptation action requires increased energy levels, it would obviously lead to negative impacts. The AGCC has identified four types of interrelationship between adaptation and mitigation. One is adaptation actions that have consequences for mitigation as I pointed out just now, and mitigation actions which have consequences for adaptation in turn. Then decisions that include trade-off or synergies between adaptation and mitigation is another important aspect that needs to be emphasised, as well as the processes that have consequences for both adaptation and mitigation at the same time. So as you can see, we are not really aware of it, but they are both closely related. The AGCC recognised the importance of addressing both mitigation and adaptation and presented new concepts for addressing the interrelationship between adaptation and mitigation as far back as the third assessment report of the Working Group 2. The report noted that the linkage to mitigation when discussing climate change impacts and adaptation in selected sectors primarily those related to land use, agricultural and forestry. So there was a special mention of those keeping red in mind. And Chapter 5 of the report noted that afforestation and agroforestry projects designed to mitigate climate change may provide important steps towards adaptation. So the adaptation at the mitigation side already recognises why it is important to incorporate adaptation practices too. And as we are discussing about red here, red also provides an opportunity not only to mitigate but also to adapt because we are looking at livelihoods issues too. So there is an importance to also adapt. As Professor Howard had already pointed out, why there is a necessity? Well, low emissions development is not a goal in itself, but it's a path leading ultimately to sustainable development. But the thing is the concept is still really new, especially in the field of adaptation. I've been talking so much about that. Therefore, I would just like to touch a little bit upon why we feel that there is a necessity or need to actually embark on this low emissions development. And a low emissions development pathway would, of course, on one hand, if you put a little bit of emphasis it will help to reduce and in some cases also lower the need to adapt. So the more the low emissions development that there is the need to adapt on one hand and on the other hand it would also reduce the rate as well as the magnitude of change and certainly increase the time which is available for adapting to the changes to climate. What low emissions development requires though of course is a more concerted effort also at the national level. So in case of mitigation we are talking about the NAMAS, but in case of adaptation we are not talking about the national adaptation plans, which is the NAPS, which provide an opportunity for the individual countries to also take action both in terms of adaptation as well as also to integrate mitigation. Thanks to the previous IPCC report, as I mentioned the AR3 report, which this has now brought adaptation also at power with mitigation in terms of dialogue at the international level. So now what really is required is the focus on the local level which is the national level and a more participatory approach which is driven by the country which looks at both the mitigation as well as adaptation. In the end therefore I would like to reiterate that a sustainable and prosperous economy requires the implementation of both climate change adaptation as well as to start on a pathway which leads to low emissions development. Though the challenges exist we know in mitigation itself which we've heard a lot and also in adaptation the interlinkage of course poses an even greater challenge, but that is something that we need to keep in mind and therefore embark on a path that would lead us to a development which would address both adaptation and mitigation which would have significant co-benefits of course. Just follow up very quickly with a question. So for example in red we have this idea of safeguards and among the seven safeguards there are safeguards that are specific about social impacts and about environmental impacts, biodiversity and things like that. Should we require adaptation funding to have also a low emissions component to it, a safeguard in the opposite direction built into the way adaptation is funded so that adaptation funding actually does contribute to low emissions development which in the end feeds back to help it solve the problem. Well if you see what is happening at the moment that's not really happening right, it's also new that we are thinking about linking adaptation and mitigation together. I'd like to pass the microphone to Moria McLeish now and ask him to talk a bit about, Moria is the director and technical advisor for sustainability and climate change at Price Waterhouse Coopers and then could you share some of your experience from the financial side? I've been asked to talk about low emissions development on the ground, that's the topic of this session. So I'd like in the next five minutes to distill and share with you some lessons from my experiences in trying to make the landscape approach a reality in various places at various times over the last several years that I've spent in Indonesia. Much of what I'm going to say has an Indonesia focus but there are lessons for any country in the world. The landscape approach, low carbon development, low emissions development, the green economy, I think these are all terms we've been using over the last couple of days and they're all largely interchangeable. We all know what we're trying to get to so I will use them probably interchangeably. But they do have one thing in common, the landscape approach, I'm going to say three things here and if you only remember three things from this talk, please remember the three that are coming. The landscape approach is about people. The landscape approach requires a plan to be implemented and we need to exercise flexibility in dealing with the practicalities and the difficulties in implementing that plan. So it's about people, it needs to follow a plan and we need to be flexible in dealing with the practicalities. I'll go through these briefly. Yesterday in a session I was listening to Uri from the FAO said the green economy is one that is low carbon, that is resource efficient and that is socially inclusive. Now I think these are all inherently people-centred factors and so the landscape approach is about forming living landscapes that encompass and respect people and ecosystems and that deliver improvements for people, improvements in health, education and economic opportunities. So I think it's important that we start with people. We don't start with the landscape or the trees, we start with people. I've never seen a rural economy that's become successfully developed. I've seen many that have been changed or destroyed but I've never seen any successfully developed simply through the brute force of external demands for a commodity such as timber or a service such as carbon storage. Rather rural economies become successfully developed by building from the grass roots up. So if we start from people instead of from the trees, then this different perspective allows us to really see the challenge that we have to tackle and then we have to take the chance to look at local people's demands for goods and services and how that changes over time instead of an external demand for a resource or a service and the whole thing looks a little bit different. So we need to take a holistic approach to both the physical space, the trees, the rivers and the minerals and also to the economic potential of an ecosystem, the forest products, the food and the fuel and we've got to put people at the centre of all of that. Secondly, the plan. The landscape approach has to follow a plan. Sky from the Climate Policy Initiative yesterday summed this up. She said the right land use allocation dictates who can own and use land and that's critical. The correct land use allocation dictates who can own people, the participation of local people and especially so in a rural economy or a forest agriculture matrix. How important when we are talking about a forest to make it closer to the finance and more exactly mention about green economy, right? So my question to Matsumoto. We know the TCM as you explained. This is under UNFCCC discussion, various approach. You mentioned about combining ODA and TCM as a good for RATD plus or I say that forest climate change. We have several years of feasibility study and informed private sector. What do you think how far the private investment will come or will come back to the forest in terms of GCM and to a whole world, probably you still remember, we met in Paris, major economy oil 2008. My question is same, how far do you think that when talking about the forest and how closer to the topic of financial investment or market. I believe that Australia has plan of 2015 market previously and probably being refueled and what is in the future for that one. Thank you very much. But it is government and I am talking about starting on RATD plus and GCM so we start coming next year. So I have to finish the RATD plus guideline in this year. So maybe after starting RATD plus GCM it will take two years or three years until credit. So maybe I guess the first credit from RATD plus and GCM will be 2016 or 2017. That explains and will be very, very good for the new framework before and after 2020 framework. So I guess only some projects, some countries will start RATD plus activity and the UNCCC and at 2020. So other countries will start after 2020. So we will have enough years to develop our practice and our methodology for the new framework on RATD plus and the UNCCC. With your understanding, I won't make any comments about Australian government policy at present time. At least in this forum I would be very happy to have a chat to you in a few minutes when we conclude about that. But in terms of financing for RATD, it has been a year or so since I have been involved in any concentrated focus discussion on RATD plus. And I'm a bit perplexed still but of course we all know the reason that we still talk about this activity as one that's dependent on funding from governments. Because we all know that there isn't enough funding from governments available for RATD plus to be implemented at the scale that's needed to resolve any of the issues that the mechanism is directed at. So we won't do that until we have a market and we know at the moment I think globally why we don't have the sort of market that's required to stimulate that activity. They're big problems and they have to be resolved beyond the sector I think. So we don't have enough time now to get into that but there's a very big issue there and it's the same one that requires the global solution that is better than it's all to be here. Do you have another question or comment? Yes please. Thank you. My name is Zorin from Australia National University. I have two questions to Mr. Matsuo Masumoto. One is I really appreciate what you did in the field related with forest carbon monitoring. So I wonder if you have any plan how these results can be used to improve the MRP system in Indonesia and which organizations you work in the field and is there any plan for transferring the knowledge and technology to the Indonesian stakeholders? And the second is the GCM. Is it the new form of the Japan aid or is it different to the Jaika project in terms of the funding resource? Thank you very much. We will expand our techniques to other countries. So however we did not try to examine peat soil area. For example the oil farm farming area. So we did not have such an experience in such areas. So Indonesia is a very important country. However I don't have enough experience in peatland here. And the GCM already Jaika is managing some projects and also other Japanese companies, private companies project is going in Indonesia. So GCM is a framework to integrate an early feasibility study and early project into one framework of GCM. So Jaika and private companies and we will go into the same goal. So we often talking about the good result of our project and early project and also GCM project into a further one goal. Does it make sense? I think we have time for one more question. Yes please. Thank you. My name is Ihrsaleh Aswan from the private sector. I just want to ask for the panelist program. When we come to Agenda, it's about the climate change and our low-mission development on the ground. Finding the fact that talking about the REDD or even a low-development mission is not the sexy issue anymore. Even the work of REDD is not, is phobia for the important stakeholder in the ground. For the governor, for the head of district or even for the local communities. They want to hear, they don't want to hear about the REDD anymore. Because few years ago, four years ago for instance, many people come to them and they promised to give money. And now the money never come and now we are talking about the finance. The finance never come to the solution. Now we raise another issue with the landscape, the safeguard and so many things. And how do we handle this kind of thing in the ground? That is my question. Would like to take that. REDD is more complicated and slower than we expected and people are discouraged. Who would like to take that one? Well look, I just totally agree. I think there's five things in my, with my own eyes, I've seen exactly that sort of response. I'm not suggesting that it's the only response. But it has been part of the reaction of communities that have had expectations raised only to have them dashed. And I go back to my own initial perspective which is that partly that was, partly it was because we had some blim people who thought the issue was going to be solved very quickly and very easily. But partly it was because we're trying to fix a single problem in isolation from the rest of the, not just the climate change response, but the rest of the development task in countries. So that's led me to the view that the approach that GGGI takes in its work can be very productive if you start indirectly and you deal with REDD and other mechanisms for response to climate change in a broader context where all of the people who have to make decisions which will determine the success or failure of individual sector activities. Where they understand the strategic purpose and they can see that REDD is a part of development process which will deliver the objectives that they want and that they have promised more broadly to people. So in other words I think it's not, I'm not suggesting this is the only way but I'm suggesting that on occasion it can be, it can prevent the sort of disappointments that you've referred to if we approach these individual sectoral tasks in a broader context making clear that they are dependent on a whole series of associated activities and that they're not a silver bullet magic solution, something that will happen very quickly and very easily because none of this is easy. If I may compliment, I think you are right that there have been great expectations for what REDD can do, maybe they have been too big and as I pointed, tried to point out during my intervention I think one should be most likely a bit more modest by what one expects indeed from REDD, it's only providing an enabling environment but as I said it has to be complimented also by other policies. I think that is very important because if the policies are not addressed, REDD plus itself cannot do the job. But then I would also like to end with a more positive, optimistic note, I think also in the international negotiations we have made a lot of progress in enabling that REDD plus can be implemented better through the rules book that has been adopted last year at the Basho conference, I think the rules to implement REDD plus move into performance based payments that really is a milestone and I believe that this will help, Norway will help other developed countries to deploy it, the funds they have implemented for REDD plus in a better way in the future. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen I think we are going to need to stop here, I have been asked to read a quick statement, unlike yesterday lunch will be served in the Saria room which is outside near the pool and that is where we will be holding the Landscape Issues Marketplace where 10 organizations will be presenting their work and sharing experiences. It is a great venue for networking and meeting new people. To get there you go through the main hotel lobby and down the escalator and outside the pool. There will be volunteers along the way with signs to guide you. I think we had a fairly wide ranging discussion today, I think we have hit on a lot of topics and we have been able to dig deeply into a couple of them. I want to thank the audience for the participation, I want to thank the panel for taking the time to think deeply about these things and bring some good ideas to the table for people to begin to think about. We have another half day of meeting and the people who are in front of you will be around for the rest of the day. Please feel free to approach them and continue the discussion during the coffee breaks and during the lunch. Let's give them all a round of applause and thank you for all their contributions.