 Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for coming and welcome to the session Building Natural Capital, How Red Plus Inc. Support a Green Economy. On behalf of our co-hosts, the UN Red Program, I'd like to welcome you to this discussion forum. My name is Tracy Johns. I work with Wildlife Works. We are a private Red Plus project and program developer working around the world to implement red and to take our projects to scale. My focus is on the development of subnational red programs, and we work to nest our individual projects within emerging programs in red countries, including in the DRC, where I've been focusing, which, along with then haul from this part of the world, was just admitted to the pipeline of the carving fund of the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, which means if we do our job right with DRC, the DRC's program will be able to take advantage of carbon finance to support its national green economy transition and forest protection program. This is great news for the DRC and for the other countries who are admitted into the carving fund, but it is partly because these kinds of carbon finance opportunities are so limited in comparison with what it did that we are here today to explore the connections between red plus and the broader green economy. The title of this session comes from a report developed with the support of UNEP and the International Resource Panel, in which I participated as a reviewer. I'll be using the results of this report as a frame for our discussion today, and I encourage you to pick up a copy here in the back or to download a copy from the UNEP website. As those of us in this room know all too well, based on the links of our work with land use and forest, the symptoms of climate change are having an increasing impact on issues such as the cost of food and energy and the outlook of availability of other natural resources. Increasingly, outside of meetings like this, these challenges are being recognized as connected. In essence, that is what we are here today to discuss quite simply, but also quite seriously. How can we improve human well-being while addressing increased demand for natural resources within a low carbon or climate constrained context? Today, you and our distinguished panelists are here to discuss how red can contribute to and provide a foundation for our green economy based on these principles. The opportunity and challenge for red in this training is to demonstrate the value of natural capital in the global economy. That's all order, certainly, but one that we hope our panelists today can shed some light on. I'd like to highlight a couple of key conclusions from this report and use these conclusions to set the stage for our panelists' comments and for our follow-up discussion. But first, let me introduce our distinguished panelists today. First, we have Pat Peruf Asetio, who is the Deputy Chairman of the Presidential Unit for Development, Monitoring, and Oversight. Peruf Asetio holds the post of Deputy Head of Planning and International Relations in Indonesia's President's Delivery Unit for Development, Monitoring, and Oversight. He was also a member of Indonesia's Red Bus Task Force. Prior to this, he was the Director for International Relations of the Executing Agency for Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Ache, and EAS. Peru has extensive private sector experience as well, having been a consultant for more than 15 years, and served as Country Managing Director for Indonesia at Accenture in 2002. On the other end, we have Mark Burgos, Vice Chairman and Advantage Director for Credit Suisse, Global Investment Banking. Mark has had a 40-year career at the Investment Banking, and as an Australian Treasury nominee, he has attended all of the B20 G20 summits since 2010 as a member of the Finance Task Force. He has been the Principal Advisor in some of the most significant and groundbreaking transactions in media and banking, and has also advised on sovereign default. Mark is a Dendrologist, an Environmentalist, and an Adjunct Professor of Finance at the University. Back to the left again, here we have Ekha Aghinti, who is the Founder, Commissioner, and Former President and Director of PT-Rembaraya Conservation. The Rembaraya Biodiversity Reserve has over 64,000 hectares of carbon-rich, tropical peat forest, with extensive biodiversity, and a special commitment to the protection of the endangered, warnian orangutan. Ekha has also experienced in business strategy and management functions, in technology, tourism, financial climate change industries. He has worked in strategic management consulting, commercial and investment banks, and the world's largest software company. Then we have Sheila Whitley, Research Fellow for Climate and Environment at Overseas Development Institute, ODI. Sheila's research is focused on private climate finance and private sector models for development. Prior to joining ODI, she worked in the carbon markets on clean energy finance and climate policy development within the public and private sectors. She has worked on the origination, execution, and financing of a range of low-carbon projects in regions including Asia, Africa, and North and South America. And then finally, here in the middle, we have Havan Sukdeb, who's the CEO of GIST Advisory, which provides sustainability consulting services to governments, corporations, financial institutions, and civil service organizations. Havan is a recipient of the 2011 McCluskey Fellowship of Yale University, as well as the 2013 Gothenburg Award for Sustainable Development. He was previously special advisor and head of UNEP's Green Economy Initiative, lead author of their Green Economy Report, and also a study leader for the Economic and Ecosystems of University Report. A career banker, Havan took a sabbatical from Deutsche Bahn to lead these two environmental projects for Havan. While at Deutsche Bahn, Havan has founded and then chaired the Global Market Center on Buy, a leading edge front-off as an offshore company. Havan has also chaired the World Economic Forum's Global Agenda Council on Biodiversity and was a speaker at Davos in 2010 and 2011, so I'd like to upfront thank our distinguished panelists for their participation. The Building Natural Capital Report covers several key findings and recommendations, and I encourage you to take a look at that and go through the website or pick up a copy in the back. I've selected five of these findings and recommendations that I think will serve as a good framework for our panelists' remarks, as well as for your questions following their remarks. The first of these findings is that an enabling environment should be created through greater coordination between governments, international agencies, and the private sector. One way of building a stronger economic base for red plus is to highlight its potential links to numerous other sectors, but in fact, as many of you have shown, this has been difficult to achieve. Making demand and supply-side interventions mutually reinforcing will enhance the possibilities to affect the drivers of deforestation. Pakharu has extensive experience in both government and private sector. Perhaps you can elaborate a bit on how this enabling environment can be created to achieve these long-term goals. The second point from the report that I'd like to highlight is that fiscal and sensitive frameworks that encourage harmful practices, such as fossil fuel and certain agricultural subsidies, should be harmonized with red plus and green economy objectives. There's actually a full-out in the report which graphically demonstrates the importance of this point. In addition, policy instruments that promote green innovation and investments in support of red plus and green economy should comprise a mix of measures which can include institutional reforms, regulations, including safeguards, risk mitigation tools, and pricing policies that get the incentives right. Sheila's work on incentives related to red plus and green economy is highly relevant for this point. Sheila, perhaps you can touch on this in your comments as well, how we can get these incentives right. The third point from the report is that red plus needs to give greater attention to non-carbon benefits. In order to make a stronger case of the forest conservation, to policymakers who are outside of the narrow and red plus policy making of our realm. It also needs to divide the new ways for financing and protection of these non-carbon benefits. The costs for the loss, the costs of the loss for decline of forests based on their system. Services as a result of deforestation are estimated in the tens of billions of dollars annually, but these costs do not currently show up in balance sheets in a way that incentivizes change in the forces driving this destruction. Pavan, your work in speaking and writing about the concept of the invisibility of nature and this is highly relevant for the deployment. I hope that you can address this point in your remarks. Regarding how we can incorporate non-carbon benefits into a stronger case of forest conservation. The fourth point from the report is that donor countries must fulfill their role in financing reservoirs as part of a mix of possible funding options. Creating the right enabling conditions and rules of engagement for large-scale private sector investment on the basis of strong safeguards is part of this responsibility. Donor investments in red plus should support private sector investment by addressing market failures in the future. And mark with your experience of large-scale private sector investments, perhaps you can give us your thoughts during your presentation on what tools can be most useful to unlock this large-scale private investment. The final point I'd like to raise from the report is that red plus must build support on a wider variety of stakeholders by ensuring equitable share in those benefits. Thus increasing the number of people sharing those benefits, thus increasing the sustainability and impact of the initiative. This includes local communities and forest-building people who are key for successful and long-term implementation on the ground. And at that base on the work on the ground and conservation, perhaps you can highlight for us the more thoughts on this point of how to ensure equitable benefit sharing and how to use benefit sharing as a means for ensuring sustainability. Now we can't go to iron out all of the issues of these expansive topics and red pluses in the economy in the time given in this session, but we do want to hear a diverse range of perspectives on what can be done going forward. So now I'd like to move to 500 opening marks for each of the analysts. Following that, I have a couple of medium questions for the analysts. And then after those questions have been answered, we'll move to questions from people. So I'd like to start opening the marks on here followed by Mark, then Ekka, Sheila. Because in December, the president assigned me the responsibility to be the head of the national agency here in Indonesia after being part of the task force that is assigning what we need to decide here. I will have to make a confession. When I get into this game of red pluses, my knowledge was the forest, my voice was the last, my team is close to zero. And because of that, I will be jumping into this game and free writing in terms of not having any established reference to work part. So when you're talking about reduction of emissions here, and suddenly after studying, talking to the people on the ground, talking to the Masyarakat Agha, the customary people, and Gigo's exploits the enemies. And others, I realized that actually, red plus and green economy are actually the same thing. At least from my perspective, in the sense that you can only do red plus and you embrace green economy. And you say that green economy was basically talking about, as we look into what this means defined here, that we're reading out. Results in improved human well-being and social equity while significantly reducing environment risk and ecological staffing to me, that is red plus. The reason why I say that is that because red plus, that it was introduced, was very much influenced by the discussion in climate change. Climate change is a global problem that means global solution. And I have to implement red plus in a national context. So when I'm trying to context that in a national situation, the president's promise of 96% reduction of emissions is talking about the national development. But if the whole world is equally concerned about climate change, then they will contribute for this reduction, which is actually our contribution to the reduction of emission per hour. Now, having said that, that we look into the issue, how can we do that national development at the same time in using emission? And that might fall right into the green economy period. So I will not say that red plus, what is red plus contribution for achieving the green economy? What will be the red plus steps moving forward into green economy? Green economy is the prerequisite mindset to do red plus properly. And so when people talk about red plus and doing this investment and covering this forest, 100,000 hectares and no cutting of the trees, and then I get payment without thinking how to make this equitable for the people on the ground. Without thinking that how can we do this sustainably without conflict on the ground. Then I think that that's not red plus. To me, red plus is sustainable development and with the president said this morning, but more than that, it has to make use of the concept of green economy to the heart. Now, what does it mean? It means that red plus and green economy face the biggest challenge. And the biggest challenge is a simple business as usual. So we are all thinking about business as usual, what's the business case for that in the way that we calculate what we account for, which is the way that we account for. And that is the biggest challenge. It's a mindset issue. So you asked about what type of a neighboring condition that needs to happen in any country. Number one, you need to improve the institution's capacity and mindset in terms of their sickness. You need to revise the regulations that was designed for the ground economy. You can apply that for a green economy to find the concept. So you have to change that. You need to change the paradigm not only of the government, but also the price of tax on. This is what a green bonds, nothing terribly complicated about that. Bonds have been around for 700 years. But bonds, green bonds themselves are a relatively new product. Interest in them has been growing rapidly. They've been issued an increasing number by a whole series of players, governments, development banks, the European Development Bank, and more recently, corporates. Most recently, Unilever for the 250 billion pound bond issue, which I'll talk about later on. An interest has also moved from the retail sector to some of the world's largest investors, including the future fund for a number of world-owned countries. Now, the finance sector, which I come from, they've taken pretty much the research with and underrated them, subscribing to them to get their private funds to invest in them. I've been a Swiss who I worked for, the sign of green bond principle. It was set out about a year ago by 12 banks. It's now been signed up through a 24-banks party for that. But it's signed at this space of development. Now, why are they used? What are the attractive attributes of green bonds? Well, bonds are the largest pool of capital in the world. And given the strands of relations of public finance, it's clear that when it's tapped into these bonds, if we're going to get the sort of money that's needed to support more sustainable development. Now, what we need in a green bond is a mechanism that the institutions that invest might understand are comfortable with the makes more sense. Green bonds reduce until preference between investments and also green-based strategies that have a business as usual. So that you actually get a priority because of what you do. Now, this will require standards. So there's acceptability and basically understanding what it is that you're investing in, understanding it's green and having independent verifications of these standards. Now, there's really important to understand there's a difference between a set of standards and someone indicating yes or no whether that is a green investment. We're not seeking to choose winners or losers here. We're seeking to get standards to which people can comply with their or that will attract the investment. Now, that makes life easier for the investors. They reduce the risk that's actually agreed to a green investing. They make product selection simple and standardised for investors. And they outsource the solution in the environment that you deal with to credible third parties. Rather like the much-discharged rating agencies in the United States, but at a different level. That is both in terms of policy and financial service towards plans and productive investments which will provide on to a leader on stimulus. Now, when you develop the green bonds, you're also uncovering a large-scale investor appetite that is in the marketplace. Now, the next thing I'd like to say is these green bonds are actually quite timely by the scale of world investments. Last year, we talked about 10 billion dollars which is a mere nothing. We need to scale up green bonds and to create the green economy, we need a blueprint. And for this, we need carefully planned green-growing strategies that have forest-friendly growth at their core. We all tend to think these investors repeatedly say that they're not bond issue size of at least a half of a billion dollars or more. Doing this allows them to invest with their existing mandates that require liquidity and creditworthiness and open up a vast pool of capital. If you look at green bonds, it's rather like an emerging industry. To start with, they were for specific projects, they had no liquidity, the credit itself had to be sort of forthcoming and applied to certain people. When you get into green bonds, the sort of things I'm talking about, they are holistic, they are much like government-guaranteed bonds but not government, obviously government-guaranteed. But with the sort of intervening I'm talking about, where there are credible standards to differentiate what is green and what is not and especially in complicated areas such as forestry and agriculture, these standards need to be verified by credible external third parties to make sure the fund-raised for the bonds they're helping are not hindering the development. And also, when interviews, public funds could be to lower the cost of capital, the thing about using tax incentives has certainly been incredibly successful in terms of scaling up the order gas industry after the past three or four decades. I'd like to stop there much, I'll say one thing that I think is really important in terms of my own personal narrative. That was that some two decades ago, I was mandated by the Australian government to keep it the top right, the private move from the Australian superannuation industry, which is compulsory superannuation industry. That is now $1.6 trillion. 20 years ago, as much as I'm from investment bank, we thought of actually mandating the spend of investments. We thought of actually saying that 20% should be in bonds, 20% should be in cash, 60% in entities. As we decide not to do that, Australia has probably the least developed bond market in the world in terms of its economic and financial position. There's a review coming as we speak of the Australian financial system. And when you look at the Australian financial system, this is going to be a pool of money in five years, which will be about three trillion dollars. It will be three times the capitalization of the Australian stock market. That money is going to be looking for a home. And what I said earlier, that green bonds, both are a tool for sustainability, but also a tool for getting your message across to the financial world as to what you are doing that does make money, that is sustainable, that does actually help the planet. There are great tools of money that are looking particularly in the Asian area for a home. And I just recommend that the banking system can work with you. They can develop products that can be given, the seal of good housekeeping, but put that way. But not in a way to differentiate or actually dictate what product you invest in that would be a facilitator who is great at talking about. But there is a great future here. There are large pools of money, there's a matter of access in that, but an access in that you also need to tell the story correctly. Thank you. Thank you, Tracy. Thank you for a great introduction. And I'd like to thank also the committee for inviting me up here to share a little bit about what we have done in Rebaraya conservation. This will be briefly, we have a conservation area of about 64,000 hectares in central Kalimantan, in which we're using to conserve forest also for home of orangutans repatriated to the wild and commercially we are generating carbon credits. And I think the biggest, the most important thing in here is that for a company like ourselves, we're not an NGO, we're a fully commercial company. For a company like ourselves, we view the relationship with local community not like your typical resource based company. Many of you here are probably familiar with, say, mining companies or in Obama companies in which local communities are perceived as a post-production CSR type of relationship. It's managed through CSR. Now, for a company such as ours, for us, local community relationship is beyond that. Local community relationship is, we view them as critical to the production of the company. So it's a factor of production, much like our capital as well as our normal amount. Why is that? Now, let's look at the operational of the company, like Rebaraya's. For us to be able to generate our product and in this case, cargo credit, we need to be able to show, we need to be able to maintain that we need to prevent deforestation from occurring. We need to prevent destruction of the forest. Let's take one example. This is an eco-logging of forest fires. So we need to be proactively in preventing the eco-logging from happening. We need to be proactively doing the work to prevent forest fires from happening. And the best way to do that is actually to engage directly with the communities within our area or surrounding the area of our current conservation. Now, in the case of Rebaraya, there are seven villages around our conservation area. And we do need to pay close attention to the importance of the forest for the airline people. So if by conserving it, they can no longer do something that is what used to be providing for the airline people, then of course it's not going to work. So we need to find ways, we need to work with them to ensure that whatever we're doing is actually aligned or if not we're providing other than the airlines for them so that the pressure to prevent, to create forces that will prevent production from the generation of carbon credits and not take place. Now, there are two, we work quite a lot with community leaders as well as with the NGOs that have been working there. I like to, one NGO that we have been working with closely from the beginning is the Orangutan Foundation International. OFI, led by Dr. Vrute Galica has just worked in the area for the past probably around 40 years or so. So they've evolved to local communities, they hire hundreds of people from local communities to help take care of Orangutans in their care center and the local communities are also the ones who help in releasing and training your Orangutans to be repatriated into the wild. So it's a very deep relationship already in the local communities. It's not like we are helicoptering in, a few guys from Jakarta or a few guys from California drop in and then you don't see them for three months and get out of that sort of exercise. That will not produce quite a result. That's one. There's another NGO that was working in West Kalimantan that is really doing a great job, name is Health and Harmony. They've done, it's led by a couple of doctors who have been wanting to graduate with Yale. She's been spending a lot of time in the forest. One of the things that impressed me that they have done is coming up with a model about how illegal logging is basically an economic activity that can be substituted with healthcare. So they've come up with a figure of how much these local villages would actually generate from illegally logging and what would be their demand for healthcare and sort of offset the needs by encouraging local villages to not do illegal logging in exchange for free healthcare. And that works in the areas that they have been working on in West Kalimantan and that may be something also that may be working in the area that we open. So those two are examples. I think the key thing here is that the notion that the local community before in any resources industry are treated as CSR post-production traffic sharing. The issue is not so. They are part of, we were talking about equity. This is even beyond equity. This is the same, we treat them as the same level as ourselves there as shareholders, as the equity, as the capital that we're putting in, as to know how that works. Now, having said that and having done one, the challenge for us now is can we replicate this? 64,000 hectares is a very small micro. I was very comfortable when I heard that the chair of the R&D sandcast in Indonesia talking about the big picture about the macro level. Yes, that is exactly where we should be going. Now, the implication for small players like me is how can I help me bring one part of the solution, creating one part of the solution and scaling it up? If people can make billions by creating Twitter and Facebook, why can't you make billions by conserving for us? So, I think that's different now. In the R&D case part, I was intrigued by the three little dollars that are available in the fund market, but probably that's not accessible for companies like this, also. Because if I look at the return profile that we see in companies that are doing this course conservation for micro-trending model, there's a lot of uncertainty. The biggest one that banks always demand from us when I'm shopping around and trying to pitch this next idea, it's not even a fresh idea. We got our funding for the fresh idea from some, some, you know, wild institution in the world. But, you know, this is replication. And, you know, we got questions about other demands. Other demands, what would be the return profile and all that sort of stuff. Which people don't ask when you're asking for $25 million to build the next Twitter. It's not, you know, maybe what we should be looking at is a venture capital model. Or some other models that would enable us to replicate more and we can scale it up, we can create 22 million hectares worth of conservation that could be worth $20 million, or at least for the next 30 years, we'll be concerned. Now, that's something that we as a business grapple with and hopefully, you know, there's more life force to solution as we then, you know, work all the time. You had already invited me to speak. I'm going to just try to speak as quickly as possible about some research that we're doing, which links, I would say, the role of the private sector and the public sector in the context of green growth. I particularly work on the questions of private finance or private investment. Initially, I was on the issue of climate change, but I think what you'll notice, maybe, in discussions about the sustainable development goal or discussions about green growth or discussions about red and this idea of mobilizing private investment. I think we hear it quite a lot. But I think oftentimes we hear about mobilizing private investment. There's a focus on innovative instruments or de-rescuing investments, which is important, but I think also it's important to look, I guess, beyond the role of private sector and private finance and investors alone, and also look at the role of governance in shaping investment. So basically, one of the things I think that I've become aware through my research is that government actually has a lot of tools that it can use to mobilize the private sector to cover less private finance. We've divided these tools for our research into three categories, which are regulatory instruments, economic instruments, and information instruments, and economic instruments will include things like bonds and interest and provision of debt and equity, but it looks, in corporality, at the range of incentives that governments can provide. Some people call these tools an industrial policy, and this concept of industrial policy is in the gaming ground again, and it can be very unsexy, and they think they're getting a bit sexier again. But the tools are very broad and, I think, well-established in a number of sectors, and so the question is, how do you use these tools in new green sectors in a way that they're already used across an economy, and that's some of the work that we're doing. I worked in the corporate markets for about six years, and I think you can see how, when there is a rating towards signal, where there's a cap on emissions, you can see how private money moves really quickly. It didn't move into the course very at speed, but it definitely moved into energy, energy projects, industrial projects, and so I think we can see how private money can be moved. This is the question of how often governments, either together or at a national level, can use these tools. And, I guess, part of our research has started off with looking at fossil fuel subsidies, because I think they're one of the best documented examples of where governments are using significant resources to direct private investment in one direction. We've done some work to compare fossil fuel subsidies with climate finance, which is some of the money that was agreed to help in Haiti towards addressing the climate change issue. If you look at it in comparison between fossil fuel subsidies globally and what's going into climate finance, it's quite stark. So, depending on who you listen to, because there's lots of different fossil fuels such as the estimates, but if you look at what the IA is estimating, they're saying it's around 600 billion a year in fossil fuel subsidies. You have estimates actually from the IMF that are higher than that because they look at mispricing of carbon until they're talking about one to two trillion a year. And you can compare that with climate finance as we know is meant to go up to 100 billion a year, but right now it's about 10 million a year. So, what we need to think about, I think, is not really recognizing that we use these tools or governments use these tools. And this shapes our economy and it also shapes private investments. So, how do we use these tools differently? So, we've started to do some research not on the kind of pressure of energy and on fossil fuel subsidies, but specifically looking at this pressure in the context of red. And we wanted to get it to see if we could do a similar analysis. Can you compare climate finance with finance for red with subsidies that may be driving the polarization? We know that climate finance and finance for red right now is about one billion a year. So, we wanted to see what can we say about these other intentions that might be working against the finance for red. And so, our research is based around an analysis looking at four key commodities driving the forestation in two countries. So, we're looking at Brazil and Indonesia, and we're looking at palm and turmeric, Guida and soy and cattle in Brazil. The research is about halfway done. So, if anyone's interested or has any inputs, we would like to guide you rather than having to speak with you after this. But what we've done so far is that space research, trying to look at industrial policy tools or incentives and subsidies in these key commodities in these countries. And I guess what I would start off by saying is that there are no international data sets on this. So, we're very fortunate when you want to look for fossil fuel subsidy members. Now, the IAEA has just put out a report this year. The IAEA has done that for the past three years. When you look at agricultural commodities, we don't have the same international comparable data sets. I wouldn't say that fossil subsidy data sets are perfect, but we don't have that for these commodities. I should say agriculture in two groups. So, what we want to do really at this stage and I think is sort of important to think about is more about just trying to identify these incentives and which ones are working for or against red objectives. And then in the ODA versus development systems, all of this could be used to support, to create quality of incentives or to support reform of these incentives. So, what have we found so far? They said it's very early days still in our research, but we identified 56 subsidies or incentives. So, if you want that number for what we can compare to the 10 billion, it's quite difficult because we don't have a lot of quantification that's happening currently. Some of the interesting findings are that actually, a lot of these subsidies or incentives are actually not directed towards that specific commodity. So, if you take Commonwealth, for instance, you'll actually have a lot of subsidies or incentives that are actually directed more generally to agriculture, significant subsidies that are directed towards that specific commodity. Significant subsidies that are directed towards biofuels and some subsidies that are directed towards plantations. The question is, what are the outcomes that are we wanting to increase in incentives and subsidies? And perhaps, if you retain them, or if they're made more exact, you can get the outcomes you want made for rural development, economic growth, social protection. You can get those things alongside avoiding the forestation. The other is that most subsidies come from federal governments, but some also come from foreign governments. So, we've got subsidies in Brazil and in India that are coming from the Indian government, that are coming from the Chinese government, that are coming from the EU. So, subsidies in those countries that have a big impact on these commodities. We haven't looked at development finance for export credit, and I'm sure if we looked at those, they'd be much more significant. And we will enter into this work. I think the other, yeah, sorry, there's a call out about the, and I think another thing that's interesting is to see how some different researchers are also looking at opportunities for reform or new ways of using fiscal policies. So, this week, a study came out from the National Academy of Sciences which was looking at cattle in Brazil, and what they found was that they are saying that you could reduce global forestation emissions by 26% through cattle intensification, and they're proposing specific taxes for cattle raised on low-intensity pasture, and then specific subsidies for cattle that are produced on semi-intensive pasture. So, how you can use taxes and subsidy in a way that's around your neutral to actually encourage cattle intensification and reduce the forestation. So, I guess that was all that I wanted to talk about was to really be the fact that my understanding in that the U.N. has had enough of a country assessment and that in 60% of these assessments, what was found is that there was a very urgent need to look at existing laws, policies and practices that provide incentives that cause the forestation. And so, I think there is a recognition of this issue in the red community, and I think it's more that it needs to be raised on the agenda and that all the resources need to be put to bear so that we have a better understanding of these incentives and what their impacts are. I'll talk about red plus and green. You can't be the first animal to go out to this planet. Just to sit down with you. This has a revenue model. So, I think that the issue of water is not that the spread that you would normally come out with those of the U.N. leaders spread. Oh, it's funny, it's funny, it's funny. But when we talk about the U.N. economy, as I mentioned, it's a revenue to do as well to improve social equity and thus to live out the rest of the environment, the risks and the ecological disparities, transportation, but it also includes four sectors which pertain to natural capital. And these are forest agriculture, fresh water, and fisheries. Now, typically when one begins thinking about red plus and the connection would be economy, one thinks, well, it's basically about forests and it's about carbon. So just the carbon sequestration services of forests and how to measure them, how to value them, how to price them, how to implement a system where communities, provinces, and countries can benefit from better conservation of carbon. But the reality is, firstly, it's not just about forests. Secondly, forest harm just sticks to carbon. It's a lot more. So we are here now, expanding what we need by red plus as we go forward. We are expanding it along both axes. One is not only about forests, but it's about all terrestrial carbon, for the sake of our country, including carbon in approximately landscapes which include agriculture, about the ground as well as the low ground, I think, soil. So you're looking at overall carbon storage on soil and on land, not just forest carbon. And then you're saying, well, it's clearly not only about just carbon services, but other ecosystem services. What about fresh water cycle? After all, if there were no other conservation problem, or is how will we have today's water cycle? If there were no bees, how would we have conservation? And then cultural services and then a whole range of regulating services. In that fashion, then clearly, you need that one map that you mentioned as well, you need the finance that you mentioned about. Because at the end of the day, it's not just finance at a convenience issuer point which is a big uneven or a big country. It could be financed down in the project on one of your kind of decisions. And you need to have a nesting arrangement so that success in one part is rewarded even though it may be compensated by three in one part through appropriate provisions that are made along this stream. And all this sort of becomes quite interesting and quite complex very quickly. But the challenge is the balance, how do we not allow too much complexity and yet move on with small models in places where communities are working together, are trying to create a green economy of the kind that we want. Looking at these key areas of natural capital, forest, agricultural landscapes, fresh water, and a better management of all the things in order to create a green economy. I know this sounds challenging, but it is. In fact, a friend of mine once described red plus and the big red plus that they love me about as the most complicated intellectual challenge of my life. And he said, ah, God, you're telling us we have to solve it? And I said, yes, this is fun. Do it because it is fun. And also because if you don't, then you're dead. So that's the spirit that I want to inject out here. Let's just do it because it really is possible that it is very complicated and yet it's not been fun and we are going to succeed. Thank you very much. I'd like to move now to a few questions that I can compile to start the conversation going. So I'll ask you to the panelists one question and we'll get their response. And then following that, we'll move to questions for you. So, Mark, I'd like to start with you. Sovereign wealth funds are often mentioned, as you mentioned, sovereign wealth funds are often mentioned as a large and increasing pool of capital. Do you think that sovereign funds will be buying green bonds? What would you do to have it to this potential of the Chinese? So about this large pool of capital, certainly in terms of where I come from, sovereign wealth funds will be made in the simple features of why sovereign wealth runs right around the world. I'm not talking about the alleged example of the calling investors. So nature of sovereign wealth funds, buying green bonds, also leads up to replicate the example. I just want to make one thing quite clear. When I talked earlier about green bonds, the early example was about 2% easy, about 1.5%. People look at that from a business perspective and think, this is going to allow my cost of capital change. That would be fantastic. We also get into this. Obviously, the market price is risk. All I'm talking about is the definition of a bond that they've green bond. And some intermediaries say that is a green bond. What that project is or what it does is a matter of complete differentiation. I mean, Unilever has got all sorts of benchmarks that people need to meet to qualify for the sort of money they've just raised. But I think that once you have green bonds taken up by sovereign wealth funds around the world, taken up in a major way by the sorts of investments that the Australian Subannuation will lead, and when the pool of savings in the world has a designated portion of it in green bonds, it will one drive the sorts of economies that we're talking about here. But it will also change, and I think this is the most important one I want to make from a financial, from a banking perspective, it will change the perception of what the green investment is like. That's the most important thing of the loss because the world really doesn't quite understand about what the green economy is. And everybody in the world that I come from, I've been doing this job for over 40 years, which is depressing, but the world that I come from equates green with risk and you need to de-risk the word green. And if you've got sovereign wealth funds that have the responsibility of saving for the future of those people, it's part of what they do. One, it will happen, but two, it will be the initiative of the driver of a whole lot of other actions by other investors taking up these bonds. And we should look forward to the environment this time where there are two or three trillion bulk dollars worth of green bonds of all various denominations for all different sources of things with all different descents of interest according to risk. Becca, thanks for following me for the next, maybe following up from Mark's answer. How much of an issue in your work is the lack of a large-scale long-term demand or the financing that you can to expand your work? And how would your work and your approach change if this kind of demand is realized? Yeah, I think that's one of the critical question that we face whenever we talk to someone from the financial world, I mean, is there demand? Yeah, and I think that falls on all of us, too. If we want to see this model succeed, we need to be able to somehow raise demand. I've been talking to Paolo, for example, here, and also to anybody who wants to listen in Indonesia. For example, if we have the Norway fund who's supposed to be talking about payment for results, some of those funds to be able to say, okay, we're gonna allocate X amount of dollars to guarantee purchase of carbon-credit products. I think that would do great in terms of our ability then to raise money. On a smaller scale, we've also already done that in our first project in which we got contracts from some of the largest European companies who would say, once you produce, we're willing to buy X million tons, small amount, and X dollars, and then we can take that to a bank and say, hey, here's already an off-take agreement. Now we have the risk of regulation and the risk of production. And they are usually, on the risk of production, it will be more or less the safest risk of production of COO or CDL. They will be comfortable, and on the risk of regulation in financial industries, for example, I've already invested quite a bit in Indonesia, would also already understand that. So in short, yes, that's one thing that we really need at the moment, and having that would make this kind of project sale a lot of money. Sheila, I can bring to you next. In your research, have you come across any good examples of whether incentives have been structured to produce a sort of double dividend where it's disincentivizing damaging behavior and incentivizing positive behavior? I think, I mean, most of my research so far has been in the question of fossil fuel subsidies. I think there is, there is definitely work that's been done on reform and processes for reform. And I think we've started this work looking at subsidies to keep bodies, I think the reform processes will let you be similar. The barriers and the challenges that are faced are fairly similar. Often there's been other context discussions about data and information. I think a lot of this work is about sort of modeling and understanding the impact of these incentives, then being able to communicate those and being able to have transparency around those. And then also communicating about how the reform process would work. In the fossil fuel subsidy space, there's a very strong and obvious price impact. And I think there's increasingly investors in, let's say, renewable areas who are saying, there was a renewable energy company in India who's saying, what we need is for coal subsidies to be removed because that has a significant impact on the price of the kids. People will invest in that as opposed to renewable expansion and now is saying, okay, we still want access to that resource, but we only wanted it to come in from sort of technical sources. So there are some examples that we're seeing and we'll show within our reasons that there's historic subsidies that have been reformed over the processes now that's under table. I know that you have recently written a book of Corporation 2020 that presents new approaches to measuring the real cost of business and appropriations obligation to society. Can you explain that maybe some of the approaches that you lay out in your book and how they can be used to lay the ground for a private sector that is engaged in low carbon resource efficient and essentially piece of property? Sure, Corporation 2020 is about the business of mobility. The central one thing is that today, two terms of the economy and jobs are essentially private sector and if you want a different economic direction, a different kind of resource use, then you need a different kind of engine to drive that for the company and that means there's a cooperation effect. Some of the DNA of tomorrow's cooperation is already here, but it's nicely mixed into the DNA of yesterday's cooperation which is still the dominant DNA. And what you need is change and like any species, the cooperation will change in the system in response to its environment to change in the case of cooperation policies, prices and institutions. And one of the issues of that change is the way it acts. Today, our taxation thinking is basically about tax the goods, no tax the bags. So hard work, hard work, income tax should be taxed out. Private sector ingenuity and entrepreneurship, generating corporate property tax and cooperation tax. But when it comes to resource use, especially in the scarce resources, or resource use as a very resource, which is causing a problem but huge potential to probably imagine there's a kind of change, we don't tax that. So this whole idea of property taxing was going to be not taxed, so here's completely, I must say, passed by the case. So we pardon the French. The second reason why it's so difficult for governments to think about is that today, those governments, some of the deep end people actually think that they can plan the next 10 years and meet their fiscal gaps by raising more cooperation tax at a time when we still aren't out in the session and companies are making less profits and lower models. And those who don't think that they can raise income tax because despite recession and its impacts and the fact that people have lost jobs and are involved in this high and new jobs are pricing in lower than low jobs, they think seriously, they need to have that once, they're thinking about where it's exactly. So I think the idea that governments can still do the old model of taxation and move forward in the next 10 years is seriously wrong. They need to think about resource taxation as not a good environmental initiative, but as the only survival mechanism they have for balancing their budgets. So that's why I think this will happen, I think. That's where the economy and Red Cross come straight in. Because here we are presenting an alternative way of asking corporations to be involved where they are contributing to the economy. They're investing in this new model and hopefully governments will be able to get some offsets, some offsets numbers. If you purchase Red Cross credits, if you invest in these, here's some relief on the investment side, here's some relief on the operation plan side. These are the initiatives and mechanisms that we need to dialogue with governments. So what's happened is that that plan got burned and burned and burned again every year. Even when they plan for a new rubber, the reason is the plan got burned and the reason to grow, not that made the plantation itself, okay, because I had planted it. And then we came after research done with the Ministry of Agriculture. So we provide them the plantation of the rubber together with the pineapple. The pineapple generated in calm quicker than the rubber itself. And then we improve the fabulizing, we improve the water management. One hundred hectares of that. And what happened was that people get much more income, much more happiness, and much more socializing between them because they get to that, and no fire. So that is actually getting what they want in a very good way, together with the people. If you have just done it for research, then it's just getting out of the benefit. And for the community, you are actually getting the economy-proofing. I think that is really important in a way, right? Now, when we try to measure the income of these people and talking about GDP for the poor, because normally we calculate GDP on the macro side, okay? But when you're talking about GDP on the poor, it happens that those communities haven't taken far enough in a half million group yet of income every month. But 75% of them, 76% of them, they become in the form of in-kind, not in cash. And this in-kind is actually getting from the forest, from the river, from this. So when I go to a green thing and say that, all right, you got in a half million now in this kind of composition, and get that view in 10 years, is this people getting more? Is this people getting 7,000, 7 million, 10 million? Where is the partnership that you are offering for these people in terms of getting them the benefit by being able to consider that not as a laborer, but as an owner? Because that is the essence of this green economy. Now, when I say that and you're trying to answer your question, how do I connect that? How do you, how do I, can you repeat the question? You've spoken before about how the private sector is a driver for the rest of us. Of course, that's why I mentioned about ECA. I'm not saying that. ECA, the Ecosystem Restoration, is having the mindset to actually doing that, improvement of the protection of the forest, as well as improvement of the economy of the poor that is living there. And to a level that's faster than the growth of the economy of the nation, that is where I'm living on the driver. That's progress. Of Red Cross. And Red Cross, in my definition, is using green economy as the backbone. And I'm a little bit of a loose question of ECA, if you might be using the money from Norway. I went to Norway, I talked to the parliament, I talked to the people there, and they say, this is the money, the public money from the people of Norway, from the people of Indonesia. The government of Norway, the government of Indonesia is just a middleman. But it's people to people. No offset please. And they're just coming from the people that managed to provide the public fund. So when they talk about public fund, and it's getting through this, not the private investment that is separating, the public fund, the management of this fund, by the government that is receiving this fund, for the purpose of development of the trust, even that is payment for itself, it's actually for development. Now this is something that we may use to analyze how can we then restructure our taxation. So again, the government being the regulator, create the environment, create the regulations, that is actually directed toward green economy, and doing that, that last time they could figure out. Another set of questions then I'll revert back to additional questions. Please also know if your question is for a specific panelist, or it's just a general question for the panelists. Okay, I see one here. All right, I'll turn to the guests now. This is a question for our lecturers. Considering the extensive knowledge you have of the banking and private sector, what would be the broad advice to give to environmental policy makers in terms of keep policy signals to unlock financing investments. So your question was what policy initiatives would you like to give? Exactly. Well I think it's very simple. The most important thing is transparency. I think that the investing in green requires a length, it requires certainty, it requires legal certainty. It's, the point I'm trying to make today is that there is no difference in investing in the green sector, in financing the green sector, to financing anything else. The problem is the green sector has been perceived as somehow being a risk sector. And that's actually wrong for the oil sector by tax incentives or whatever. Providing you've got transparency, providing you've got certainty, when you look to advising the green sector on what they should do, they should be, it should be transparent, it should be certain. And the point that I was making earlier in terms of the bond, it is not for people to choose winners, but for people to designate what is green and what is not. And I really, I sit here and I'm arrogant enough to say to you that I'm certain that if this conversation were held in five or six years time, you'd be talking about a green bond market of several trillion dollars and you'd be talking about a renewed interest in green investments because a whole series of countries will relook at how they actually allocate their resources in terms of tax revenue and I think incentives will change. I'm an optimist. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Topo Kalerne from Ardra to Yaro Forest measurement company and we're heading well in this Nepalese reference level calculation that was endorsed by the World Bank, just like with the RC. My question is directed to Martin Kampavan, both of you. I guess in normal bond markets, you're sort of the ultimate investment because there's some perception of a buyer of lost resort, let's say the subprime crisis. Eventually the central banks ended up buying likewise in euro crisis. So who or what entity would you envisage to play that role in case we ended up having a green bond bubble as involved? Well, I don't think that I don't think there's going to be a green bubble. If you abide by the very rule that I just put out earlier, if you look at what happened in the Lehman crisis, there is one fundamental problem. There was a lack of any understanding of what in fact were these bonds. So if you go through my premise of the ability to see through the sunlight test, so you actually see what the asset is, I don't see there going to be a bubble in green bond. I think it's a misnomer. And certainly I don't see any concept of a government underwriting green bonds. That is another fallacy. Green bonds stand on the run. They do not need a government guarantee. Using too much leverage or just abusing leverage. And this lack of control of leverage has been at the heart of each one of the last four financial crises. And we're all going back to the American debt crisis and say this is a loan crisis, the Asian debt crisis in the most recent one. So the question is, what is it that makes us not control leverage? Is this blind belief somehow that markets will do that for us? And somehow that your 2020s fund manager sitting out there is a conscience keeper of the world, I find difficult to believe. There's nothing wrong with controlling leverage. There's nothing wrong with stating the purpose of the loan. There was a time many years ago when stating the purpose of the loan was essentially what could be something the consortium of bankers or a company would agree was worthwhile, appropriate, a lot of appropriate. And if it was appropriate and worthwhile, they would compete amongst each other to lend it to that company. But the purpose of the quantum were understood. A green loan will have a stated purpose. It is to bring the economy defined appropriately and measured by someone independent. So I think this is actually an improvement on the kind of credit discipline that we have today, Mark, where we don't question purpose. And I think therefore even less reason to look for lenders of last resort or final fallout catch, catch all sugar daddy, which usually is a central bank, which is usually supported by the government, which is usually paid for by you, the taxpayer. So the real answer to the question, who's the sugar daddy, it's you sunshine. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay, transparency equals credit words. Transparency equals credit words. I like the little bit of a devil's African here. Suggesting that what's wrong with a green bubble? I mean, if you look at the... Everybody has a step-up on you making this. Yeah, if you look at the e-commerce, I mean, I'm a computer scientist, I'm also very misplaced here. Now, if you look at the e-commerce, the internet bubble, a certain bubble number one, 95 to 2000, where everybody riding in the back of a napkin can get three to $5 million of funding from a venture capital, some of those funding actually materialized. Some of those crazy projections by eBay, Amazon, and Nyan, who actually get realized while some of the pets.com went into the dustbin of history. Now, if we try to do that for green economy for environmental services, you know, we might end up having a Google Yahoo eBay solution, which is how I see it. We want equality. You can have a couple of eyes on me. Even at National Local Point Bangladesh, I have some questions and observations. Actually, the red victims are the local people. So say they want to get something from the red management. If we invest money from the bank, so they need to repay the loan, is it possible to the private sector bank to invest without interest that is for their social responsibility? Sheila, she suggested that in red mechanism, government should invest money. Actually, the government is very much burdened with several activities. And so, how can we improve the government to invest money in the red mechanism? And Mr. Pawal shook that he said about the tax. Those private companies invest money in the red sector, maybe government impose more taxes. So my solution is that, is there any possible to tax people, those who invest money in the red sector? And another to proceed to, that is okay, we invest or we are working for the red, but for the interest of the people, in the interest of the people, we have to sell the carbon to the market. Is it possible to sell the red carbon to the market? Thank you very much. Yeah, sure. I'll give a short answer then on this. In answer to your question, yes, it is actually possible to change taxation structure. Today's taxation for a corporation is a corporation tax. But if you think back to the European Union ETS, the emissions trading scheme, they were actually paying more tax than just their corporation tax because they were having to buy carbon credits to offset their emissions so long as they were higher than the capital and so on. So it was a kind of tax. In the same way, if we could ask companies to purchase green carbon credits, in other words, red plus credits, they would do so, that was the rule. And then you could say, if you purchase green carbon credits or red plus credits, then your corporation tax liability goes down by X. We could also give them investment allowance. If they invest in these, it's not directly involved, but just as your financial investments in red plus credits, then they can get investment allowance. So there are ways in which we can structure these assets and these investments in red plus into the tax system by creating tax assets. That was one. And the other is, yes, you can have green carbon markets. I mean, we've had a sort of market, the EU, ETS, the EU emissions trading scheme, was a market place for 2,500 companies who were involved in buying and selling amongst each other. Sadly, there was no linking directive between our world of green carbon and their world of carbon credits. So the link never happened and therefore forestry guys could never be sold into the EU, ETS. But of course, that's just history. Let's not be guided by history. If we move forward, we can think of ways of doing that. So it is possible. Did you have a question for Pakiru? Sorry, we're having a little bit of trouble with the sound. Is that an answer to all of your questions? Actually, he said that he's saying about the green economy, that is the forest national investment. But my question is that it is very difficult to save the country. You see, about 3 years we from Bangladesh we tried to sell carbon, but it is very difficult. We are not selling the carbon, finger bone carbon, the biggest menopause in the world. And also in a wildlife sense, we sell the carbon and we try to sell in the voluntary market. But it is difficult. So my question is that we are doing everything in case of rain, how can we save the carbon in the market? So to continue my answer, in the case of Bangladesh, if you were to introduce in your cooperation tax system an element that a further amount of investment in red plus credits is required by companies based on how much profits they have made they must invest X percent of it. It's like a tax. And then give them relief from the cooperation tax. You will suddenly find that you have created demand for this instrument called red plus credit. Now the challenge to me is on the origination side how will you structure that instrument in a sound way so that it is what it says it is and that somebody is checking it and somebody is verifying it and that the instrument actually represents some real value added for Bangladesh from the forest generally or for carbon storage in the world. To me this is, I think intellectually in terms of complexity I think structuring the tax size is less difficult structuring the origination of the instrument needs a bit more effort. My question is that how will you build the carbon? Not this. This is my question to our agency. Did you want to? I had a question but maybe I missed it. You had a question about how governments can impose on basically how governments impose investments in red that's what I had understood. I think this sort of on bills I think what you see now is that governments already have tools that they're using so if you talk about subsidies there's two sides of that. There's budget expenditure so governments are already spending their own budgets on all sorts of things including fossil fuel subsidies but other subsidies. Also governments provide tax breaks so they are not collecting tax revenue from certain things like you're saying these are resources. Buying computers, you get a tax rate. You can shift these. So the money doesn't have to appear out of thin air. The money is there it's a question of where you collect it and where you spend it and it's changing those. And to be honest having worked in the carbon market for six years I don't think this is to me this is an overly complex mechanism if you can use the tax base and your expenditures which is something that all governments are doing and is a much more straightforward and direct signal which requires less intermediation even though I know that it was there were a lot of people who benefited from that in the carbon markets there are similar mechanisms to move the private money around. A couple of minutes left so we can maybe take one or two more questions. Thank you very much. My name is Mahmood I'm the Red National Focal Point for Pakistan. I'm just repeating a question that was asked by me in the another session downstairs after lunch and I was advised to put it to this forum because we didn't get the answer. And it's very simple I'm rephrasing it now taking looking at the history of the private investors coming to the red markets there was an episode of what we call Red Cowboys but had there been some checks and balances some people think that the red plus market would have boosted a lot and are there any safeguards or any country has developed especially in Indonesia some procedures and standards for private sector investors to come in the red markets get a hold of the credit sell them wherever they want and there should be no problem like Bangladesh is facing it's their responsibility to sell it so is there any system of checks and balances because what you say will be helpful for me back home in Pakistan Would you like to respond to that? Sure sir safeguards as well as how to protect the community and people in large from the act of the Carbon Cowboys actually the Carbon Cowboys plays a very important role in terms of creating this notion that there is a benefit protecting the forest but of course it has to be checked it is now the responsibility of the government my responsibility is very difficult to convince the people that is actually not only about Carbon not only about Carbon this is about development this is something that you can gain benefit from but that is action after and so I go to the forest in Kalimantan or Sumatra or Papua we always say I have protected my forest where is the money and that was because in the beginning the campaign was for the economic benefit and the economic benefit is a short term you protect the forest let the tree standing and money will come it is not that easy it is not that easy and because of that the safeguard that we are applying for protecting the people from the act of those unscrupulous what do you call it Cowboys but actually applying this is how you deal with this business here our safeguard in Indonesia is called Preside which is basically not only social safeguard not only economic safeguard but also environmental safeguard at the same time and treating the community and the people as partners instead of disturbed neighbour too many activities whereby you get into a location and as you are going to be disturbed then this is a compensation for the disturbance not anymore we have to deal with that on a conceptual basis with everybody as a partner but the notion that this is quick money protect the forest we get the money we will still be there for a long time so we need to position that into the development especially when we deal with the public fund for that private funds, private money then you have taxation as a game plan that you can play with we are unfortunately out of time so I would like to thank our panellists again for your fascinating interventions sharing the work and experiences that you have with us today this is a vast and evolving topic and I would like to also thank UNEP for having made this first attempt to begin to address it in their report which I mentioned before is in the back of the room ask you to pick up a copy on the layout or download it from their website they will be following up in the coming months so stay tuned for future work on this thanks again to all of you and to UNEP and to the UN Red Program for hosting this event thanks for your attendance and participation