 Let me quickly introduce the speakers today. Our keynote speaker is Peter Minang. Peter Minang leads the Alternatives to Slash and Burn program hosted at ICRAF, the World Agroforestry Center. Then we have Carol Saint Laurent. She is the Senior Forest Policy Advisor International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Coordinator of the Global Partnership for Forest Landscape Restoration. After that, we will have Valentina Ubriglio. She is a scientist working at the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture in Jaunde in Cameroon. After that, we have Michael Duczke. He is the Chair of the Global Conservation Standard and finally Manuel Sobraufilio. He is the former Executive Director of ITTO. So, I have to make some housekeeping announcements before we start first. The voting questions which will be done after the discussion, so after the presentations there will be some time for discussions. These questions will be appearing on the screen and I will be reading these questions out to you and then you will have another 10 seconds to press the button so that we get an immediate response. And I'm also supposed to tell you that there is an Internet Wi-Fi in all venues. It's a plug and play and the password is Durban 2011. Everything in lower case and written together. So, I'm going to hand over to Peter Minang. Peter, please, you have the floor. Good morning everyone and welcome to this event. Maybe I'll ask the control to please put up the... Thank you, thank you very much. I'd like to just present to you some kind of overview of the thinking and some key bullet points around thinking about the agroforestry, reforestation and reforestation in Red Plus this morning. The presentation with some colleagues at the network. Can you hear me? Good. Thank you. So, I'll just try to do it this way. Thanks. Okay. Hope you can all hear me now. Thank you. So, I'll just try to give you some highlights that will set up the discussion for everyone. Not all the points just trying to go through a number of key points that would help us lead the discussion. So, the starting point that we take here is that agroforestry, reforestation and afforestation constitute very relevant strategies for alleviating pressures around forests and significantly contributing to co-benefits in a landscape approach to Red Plus. And what you see to your right is the main policy brief that summarizes this set of messages that we're trying to put across today. So, you can pick one from out there or you can get from the website. And basically what we're trying to talk about is the fact that in the natural context, in the dominant reality, in the landscapes that we're talking about is actually mosaic landscapes that constitute different sorts of mixes of land uses. This is a landscape in Indonesia. Large, different pieces of land uses, rice and a bit of banana and robber, all in almost the same setting with quite a lot of interactions and in the decision making of the land uses. This is what the Rift Valley looks like in Kenya in most parts. And so this is just an illustration of what the dominant landscapes look like in the different countries. So what do we interpret landscape approaches to be basically from two perspectives? One is an analytical frame through which you try to understand the drivers of deforestation through which you try to look at different scales of interactions, the decision making at individual level, running up to community level, and then to sub-national level and national levels. The second side of the landscape approaches a perspective that has to do with defining the implementation approach to landscape to red plus. And this has had to do with different kinds of articulation of jurisdictions of red plus at the sub-national level. Examples you have DRC that has said, okay, we do a sub-national level by province in the country the way it's being articulated, but also Vietnam where they take the view that we do it by district. But on the other hand we've got a number of red pilots that have read demonstrations that are going around protected area landscapes or around community managed forest. So that's just to set up the frame around which thinking of what we try to articulate really means. So I will give you four sets of messages during this presentation that fall within the main slide that I showed you. And the first one is that basically agroforestry, afforestation and reforestation can be part of red plus depending on the definition of a forest. And what do we mean by that? Now, we have this policy brief that we put out that basically lays out the arguments that we make when does agroforestry, reforestation and afforestation become red or not be part of red strategy for achieving red plus. Now if you look at... I don't want to touch into that because I think you are all familiar with the parameters for the UNFCC definitions which go by a range of canopy cover of 10, minimum and 30% maximum, three diameters specified between two and five meters and also the area of land that is being referred to of forest that should be 0.5 hectares to one hectare minimum then that you can classify. Countries have to choose between... There are other parameters that are written into the definition such as the fact that it is a discretion of the country and the institutional definition of a forest as to whether that area is only carved out as a forest and supposing that if it is temporarily not forest it could potentially in situ be converted to forest in the long term. So those are the parameters that you find and it has a number of inherent contradictions in it. What it means to your left, to your right, sorry, is that natural forest that converts to logging, different cycles of logging and then eventually fast wood plantations and then it means it's virtually no deforestation within those definitions actually but it could in a way be degradation so that will fall in the second lead. The second part of it is that most crop production systems especially three crop production systems like coffee, like cocoa, some of them largely will eventually be forest because they represent a lot of these dimensions that you have specified to your left. The third part of the argument is that stable shifting cultivation follows that are five years, 15 years old will fulfill the criteria that you have to your left and so will technically be seen as forest in those instances or if they remain the way they are for five years and 15 years then they will not be considered deforestation in a technical sense. Just to give you an example of the margins of a minimum area of 10% and 30%. If you look at Uganda, this is some analysis that was done by Bob Zoma and a few other people within the institutions that are shown. The implications of if Uganda chose a minimum value of 10%, then only 2.8% of the land area qualifies as forest. If they choose 20% then it goes up to 14.9% because it does include then all the many tree-based systems and if they choose 30% it goes up because of the sort of tree-based systems that are involved in the country. So depending on what you choose in your definition, actually what we are now referring to as agroforestry, reforestation and afforestation not part of red would eventually be part of red. Just to give you another idea, if you look at this is some analysis done by Bob Zoma as well and some scientists at ICRAF it shows you the percentage of forest cover on agricultural land globally. And what you see is that more than a billion hectares of land, agricultural land actually has a minimum tree cover of 10%. That is actually what is referred to as the minimum that you can choose for the definition of a forest within the UNFCC. Particularly if you choose 10%, these areas that are officially classified as agricultural land could be considered forest land actually. Then the second message that we want to talk about this morning just to lead the discussion is the fact that agroforestry and tree-based systems can support programs to control deforestation as a sustainable intensification strategy. I think Bob Schultz spoke this morning about the relevance of sustainable intensification. If you look at the definition of intensification that we've spoken about which I will talk about in a bit. If you look at what has been said to as the Bullock hypothesis that if you intensify forest agriculture and then people will get by producing more on the same unit of land, they wouldn't need to clear more forests to meet the demands that we have in the world. And that, this graph on to your left shows you that if you, you need three conditions to be able to do that. If you increase your yield, basically the cultivated area technically should drop but for that, for it to spare forest, technically you need to have a corresponding reduction in prices because if the prices go up agriculture becomes more profitable and people go in for more forest land to be able to meet the demand for agricultural products. But under different circumstances, intensification when it's sustainable will counter this because we expect to have many more benefits. And so just to run through this is what do you consider intensification? The initial analysis that we've done so far on the Bullock hypothesis has been based on cropping systems intensification, a little bit of livestock intensification but very little literature is emerging on tree-based systems driven intensification on us the emerging part of the emerging concept of sustainable intensification. So this just gives you different perspectives of what we would consider within an intensification frame. This is, this photo is actually from some work done by ICRAF in Indonesia. If you look at the photos in Jambi province in Indonesia where you've had a lot of dynamic land use changes what you see here is that in the 1990s it was dominated by logging activities and more extensive rubber plantations but what you've seen, what you see is an evolution between 2000 and 2005 of more profitable tree crop systems. In terms of forest cover and in terms of carbon, frankly it doesn't make too much of a difference and it does meet the minimum requirements the maximum requirement for forestry of 30% in terms of what you find there but all of that is referred to technically as agriculture but in fact there are strong carbon implications and productivity implications within the systems. What you heard a bit this morning from Bob as well is just to point to the fact that sustainable intensification from a tree crop perspective will be and remains important if you look at the African context compared to the Asian context. This is some report from the World Development Report I think in 2008 by the World Bank that shows you that Africa, if you look at Africa Africa has basically increased production through an area index so by increasing area of production basically that is the only way they have increased yields but if you look at Asia on the other hand the yield increases have been largely I mean the yield increases have been largely due to yield and rather than by area so they are intensifying agriculture producing more in the same units of land or without expanding agriculture in a very strong way so this is sort of and this sort of correlates in some cases with the sort of increases in forest areas that you have in Asia. First, basically natural forest what you see is that on this part if you look at Africa and the wood the wood extraction is increasing but Africa in the same periods that are being referred to has been experiencing significant deforestation which means that you have the increasing demand is hitting into the the increasingly smaller portions of native natural forest that we have and if something is not done and the demand for the population will continue to increase 2 billion in the next 50 years then we will have but if you average across the world on this block what you find is that the wood removal in forest is almost 50-50 in terms of timber, industrial wood and in terms of wood-fuel and that's a very significant thing because the wood-fuel needs some sources to meet and I'll show in another example where people are increasingly going for wood-fuel and for timber. Below you find that planted forests only constitute 7% of the forest of the 4 billion hectares about 2.250 million that's significant but these planted forests are growing at 5 million hectares a year in the period that is being reported here according to the forest resource assessment 2010. Now this graph that you find here shows you the green graph is the the legal timber in Cameroon from the forest areas that is considered legal and the red dots considered the informal sector timber that is assessed in the markets and what you find is that there is informal timber is overtaking already the formal timber sector in terms of the domestic domestic market and all of this timber is coming, most of this timber in the huge urban markets which is about 75% is coming from on-farm timber basically although it is still informal and technically illegal I think Valentina will say a few words about that but the construction is extremely important this shows you some of the key species that you have and the distribution of their sources what you find is that well maybe some of the huge hardwood species still come from the forest but some increasingly perhaps not so important value timber that is consumed in housing in construction is still coming from fallows that are part of agriculture by technical definition at the moment but which could technically become forest so the fallows and perennial crops and annual crops if you look at them the fallows dominate in terms of where the timber is coming from the last message is that establishing three systems in themselves forestation, reforestation, agroforestry by the systems themselves is not enough you do need policy packages that respond to investment needs that respond to the legal rights challenges that go with it because in some places these systems don't develop because the rights to the trees are not very clear and that's why the Cameroon example is considered to be illegal in a sense you know in that sense and there is no need so we need to in the landscape approach we need to find and make sure that we respond to all the environmental services that these systems produce because red in itself we heard from a number of sessions this week that the carbon price does not necessarily cover and motivate sufficiently the running and maintenance of these systems so we need to look at from a landscape perspective multiple environmental services and I must point out that one of the things that we increasingly advocate for is the adaptation side of the equation associating that to mitigation one of the main reasons being that these people do this on the ground there is no difference between mitigation and adaptation and the challenges are there yet the funding from mitigation is separate the funding from mitigation is separate they are all not sufficient and we could optimize adaptation and mitigation funding to be able to get the systems there because they produce the best services that will require as good enough you know for us to to work with them just an example when you plant a tree in the agroforestry systems it takes you three years or two to get out of it how do you justify that investment in the initial period what you need to do maybe you can justify using adaptations funds to pre-fund in the cases where carbon funds are not sufficient to pre-finance the systems and just a couple of last words I think we cannot say that there are no challenges in running the systems in terms of technicalities in terms of seeds in terms of you know market systems the market infrastructure that you require what I showed you in Jambi what I showed you in the different countries where timber on farm timber and agroforestry is making headways because the market infrastructure is relatively more developed compared to Africa even in Cameroon it is because of the proximity to the urban areas that on farm timber is becoming increasingly significant I'll rest my case there and the panelists can follow on with building on this point thank you thank you very much Peter I'm going to now hand over the the microphone to Carol first and she will have four minutes the other speakers will also have four minutes to make a couple of remarks we have very behind time as you know and then we'll have some time for questions and answers please Carol thank you Henry it's great to be part of this event on such an interesting and important topic and with such great co-panelists we've decided to sit here to save some time and make this as smooth as possible for everyone if we're squinting at you it's because there's this bright spotlight right in our faces not because we're even more confused than we usually are I will look at things at a broader policy influencing and communications level how can we persuade the world about these landscape approaches so first of all let's address the question right away about what is in the scope of red plus there's certainly scope in the Cancun decision for agroforestry afforestation reforestation and a whole suite of strategies that involve using trees to transform landscapes so it's there in writing it's on paper what we're not so sure about is whether these kinds of opportunities and approaches are going to get the attention and investment that they really deserve and need so how can we make the case for landscape approaches for landscape restoration landscape management first of all I suggest we need to build the evidence of the opportunity and one thing we've done is that we commissioned an analysis of the global opportunities for landscape restoration we found that there are two billion hectares of lost forests and degraded lands that offer opportunities for landscape restoration that's an area the size of South America that doesn't mean that every one of those hectares is ideally suited for restoration it means that it's worth taking a look at where those opportunities really are by delving down at the national level to further focus attention on this opportunity we and our partners led by Minister Norbert Rutgen have issued the bond challenge a target to restore 150 million hectares by 2020 deliberately designed as a contribution to the CBD target 15 and the red plus goal another area that needs attention is better under achieving a better understanding of the costs and benefits of these landscape approaches and communicating those for example we did a IUCN did a very preliminary study of the benefits of restoring 150 million hectares and discovered that this could generate 85 billion US dollars a year in benefits and values yesterday I learned that in the Niger 2.5 million people were fed through a restoration initiative involving farmer assisted natural regeneration it's a great piece of information in Shinyanga Tanzania household income was doubled above the national average through the application of landscape approaches there's multitude of such examples out there and incidentally all of these even though they were not designed in this way did sequester some carbon so here you have carbon as a very important co-benefit of these initiatives that took place and were driven by completely different motivations there's a couple of knowledge gaps that suggest that we need to fill one is what are the governance and institutional implications of scaling up to the landscape level it may be that the institutions we have are not ideally suited to dealing with how people are actually implementing landscape level actions on the ground we need to take a fresh look at those institutions how can we enhance collaboration another aspect another knowledge gap or maybe just a challenge of bringing together wonderful information that's already out there is what are the small policy changes that can be made to trigger transformative change across landscapes so again to mention Niger yesterday I heard about how giving farmers ownership of the trees on their land triggered a huge change in China in the Miwin watershed which provides the water for the inhabitants of Beijing there the small policy change was the experimental lifting of the logging ban which allowed people to participate in and implement sustainable forest management all those examples are out there how can we pool them in a systematic way so that we can wield more influence and communicating them to the world and just one final suggestion which is can we change the way people look at landscapes so as they're walking, driving, riding, down roadways and looking around can we get people to look not at what's missing what's been lost from the landscape being degraded but look at those landscapes through a lens of opportunity instead and start imagining what could be there delivering the benefits that people need if we can combine that new vision with this evidence body of evidence that we're building I think we certainly could promote these landscape approaches in a way that's never been seen before thank you thank you very much Karla I just I'll just hand over quickly to Valentina so she can make her statement please Valentina okay thank you Henry and good morning I'm going to present you a very practical case that I hope will help to understand the importance of landscape approaches Peter has just presented some recent results of research work conducted by colleagues in SIFOR and Tropenbos that has shown the importance of the domestic sector in tropical timber exporting countries as Ghana and Cameroon and most of that timber comes from rural land so what is what are the challenges how what are the reforms that are needed to avoid that once those resources are finished people won't move into the forest what will push farmers to adopt practices to plant trees we have seen from our analysis that at the national level in the rural mosaic trees are diminishing because of logging of course even if it is selected but also because agricultural intensification in countries like Ghana and in Cameroon the adoption of full sun loving cocoa varieties or the shortening of fallow or the introduction of new crop that doesn't like don't like shade is really leading to a shortage of trees resources with consequences on the resilience of the agricultural matrix and consequences also for the capacity that farmers have to adapt to change we know from studies that started in the 80s from Robert Chambers that trees are very important for farmers to meet households contingencies so we know on one side they are cutting them and on the other side they become much more vulnerable so what we think is that we need to get to integrate at the interface between rural and forest land we need to integrate agricultural and forestry policies in order to enable farmers to become active actors in the forestry sector we know that the forestry sector and in particular the institution in the forestry sector exclude farmers as timber producers they have no clear rights on their trees they have no clear rights on the land they crop and also they are not informed about the market on the other side they are pushed by measures that won't increase productivity to reduce the timber to reduce and make space for intensive agriculture so also on that we need to develop policies for trees based intensification there are cases in Ghana of for example associated timber and cocoa production system of Taunga system where timber trees are associated to crops they are very promising but they will need to be evaluated in the long term because farmers are adopting it now but will they keep the trees for 30 years on their land under the pressure that they are experiencing now to increment land productivity that's my point thank you very much Valentina we'll move straight on to Michael Duczke please Michael go ahead hello thank you for inviting me and thank you for the interesting presentation so far I want to inform you on a new standard that is based on landscape approach which is the global conservation standard it is different in many ways from any other land use related standards that we are looking at like reforestation like red and also sea and others because each of them are only looking at only one modality of land use whereas the global conservation standard is looking on a landscape level and is defining its project area by the existence of a conservation area and the existence of what we call commercial buffer zone and the idea is that the existence of the conservation area is being paid by the investor who is receiving credits that do not offset any emissions in other places purely voluntary action and we are at the same time a system that monitors valuates carbon standing carbon landscape or other environmental services and also a system that distributes the benefits to the communities and one pillar of our system is what we call the stakeholder fund in every single project situation independently from its size where communities local NGOs and local governments participate and find the most suitable use for the funds coming in why is that attractive to the private sector it is attractive because it brings multiple benefits to the investor it is one that sees our values for its social responsibility but also we are looking at any opportunities that arise within our project area which is conservation in other parts which can be used for forestry in different forms of forestry for agricultural uses these benefits will arise from agricultural or forestry products from the sale of fruit and even carbon we will identify opportunities for carbon within our project areas but we are starting off by selling the CCUs conservation credit units only and with that money we start implementing the project and developing it this sounds very simple and it is much easier to understand than any carbon offset methodologies we have been developing so far as you know a red project may take you two or three years before you can start implementing it as opposed to that a CCS project will take you around three months before it can be implemented and that means we are setting up the stakeholder fund we are also setting up a monitoring system and while we are implementing the project we have more elements to it and we may have a red module in it that benefits from the existence of the monitoring system and that will distribute its benefit to the communities and to the investor we are looking at investors that are interested in rural development of the area because what we see and one of the reasons why forests are on a constant threat is that protected areas around protected areas on many occasions the poorest of the poor live and they lack capital and they lack capacities to what you say identify the potentials of their land so they make the worst possible use of their land degrade it and then move further into the forest and this is what we want to avoid by giving them by raising capacities by giving them capital to improve the use of their land and to intensify land use and thereby add to nutrition to well-being within the commercial buffer zone so that they will no longer be opposed against any protection area but on the contrary see the benefits and see the value that every single tree brings them while it's standing and we have been developing the standard over the last two years we're now in the face of rolling it out we have two projects that are very close to implementation and we have a framework contract with the Peruvian National Park Foundation that will over time and as investment comes in implement this standard in all the national parks of Peru helping them to increase the size of their policy target is to increase the size of the national parks in Peru from 20 million hectares to 40 million hectares within the next five years and we're looking into discussing with other standards and other NGOs in order to build an umbrella where other certification systems come into play and increase the value of the products and services from our project areas that basically I will be here all day and for any details you may invite it to address me thank you very much Michail I'm going to hand over to Manuel please thank you perhaps I will initiate my comment just by reminding all of us here that we are still losing a lot of forest mostly in the tropics many of you may be surprised to hear that in boreal and temperate forests in most of these areas there is actually an increase in volume of wood so we need to of course focus on the drivers of deforestation and when we have the question posed by the organizers of these events which Peter elaborated on on the role of agroforestry in red I would join him and the other colleagues in the panel yes there is a rule particularly because what we see is that in the natural forests in the tropics and in other areas in developing countries the natural forests are not very competitive with other land use in generating income for instance natural tropical forests produce one cubic meter per hectare a year while if you go for plantations monoculture plantations in the tropics you can reach a 40 or 40 or even 50 in some recent clones of eucalyptus for instance so we need to increase the income of the populations that live in and around these forests in order to reduce deforestation consequently emissions and one of the ways to do that is in land that is already deforested or at least in part of that land deforestation with agroforest for instance generating income will in an intensified way in agroforest or in deforestation will of course reduce pressure on the remaining natural forests and not to mention the buffer physical buffers that can be created too now of course we have the problem of financing and then public policies have to be put in place to give financing and concession of terms and also with long grey spirits I give you an example in Brazil right now the plantation programs to restore land that had been cleared and has to be restored by law enjoys lower interest rate and the grey spirits of even 15 years 15 years which is quite a lot and again then we have this dilemma of competition do we restore using the forest restoration landscape concepts or we go for monocultures or agroforest unfortunately the market forests are directing land owners to use monocultures or agroforest because there is a greater remuneration it's not very much the initial cost of restoring the land with the landscape concept or the initial cost of the plantation but how the benefits that come later on by harvesting or by getting whatever the restoration effort you give to you so these are points that we really have to consider I do not really think that we have a competition between agriculture and red I think what we have is really a competition among many different land use and we most find ways of remunerating the land use that we want to favor which is keeping as much as possible natural forest thank you thank you very much Manuel ok I'm going to ask those who have any questions to make their way microphones here in the middle and while you do that I will just give a very brief summary of what I heard about this and then we'll take three questions at a time and we'll have some answers from the panel at the same time so please make your way to the microphones if you have a question so from Peter I think we heard four messages and the first one is about the need to look at landscape approaches in order to address deforestation in an integrated way because we're looking at leakage we have we're at the margin of forests and we cannot only look at forests in isolation the second point is that agroforestry, afforestation, reforestation can effectively contribute to deflecting deforestation and then we also heard from Valentina the on form timber can produce significant amounts of products that are already coming out of the non forested areas and that this can contribute significantly to reducing deforestation and finally that we need policies beyond the implementation of red and other instruments but these policies have to include value chains and efficiencies and equity so and from Carol I think you know she's shown a couple of evidences and the need to provide the vision that we have to look for a more sustainable way of managing all the landscapes and not only the forests as well from Valentina the need to improve our institutions that can provide the background in which these policies and measures can take place and Micha showed us this global conservation standard of his and I'm sure there will be more interest in that and I think Manuel's final words about the need to increase the income of forest dwelling and people living at the margins of the forest and doing that in an environmentally sustainable and biodiverse way I think this is very very pertinent so we have a couple of questions at the microphones right now we'll start at the beginning please introduce yourself quickly and your institution please thank you thank you very much I'm James Meyers I'm from IID thank you very much for a great keynote and really good comments from the panel and this question I think picks up one of the points you were just making Henry it seems to me that there's great developments in this thinking quite coherently about landscape approaches and there are clearly huge opportunities particularly on the restoration side and as Carol said some of those opportunities are sometimes triggered by relatively small changes in decision making but when we think of the big bad deforestation context the changes required are perhaps on a hugely greater scale we need pretty much wholesale reforms of governance systems what the landscape approaches really tell us there because there's a danger that they become great analytical tools but could even get in the way of the hard boiled business of renegotiating power to address some of the drivers of deforestations I'd be very keen to hear any comments about those sort of context with these approaches excellent thank you very much we'll take two more questions please sir in the back thank you very much chair and I'll address myself to Carol introduce yourself please sorry I beg your pardon the name is Michael Peter I'm from Forestry South Africa we represent the commercial timber industry plantation industry in South Africa I just wanted to thank Carol for clearing up what I think has been a real debate about whether a deforestation and reforestation does in fact feature as part of Red Plus or whether it's provided for elsewhere and I know the literature has been very confusing about that so thank you very much for saying it emphatically I think it is important but I think also what we heard earlier on at the launch of Forest Day 5 from all the speakers was that what comes out of these working groups helps to shift the negotiations at the COP and I would move for an adoption by this working group of firstly the recognition that a deforestation and reforestation obviously does perform part of Red Plus but that secondly there should be greater recognition for it in terms of the UNFCCC processes because at the moment it's not adequately provided for there is a scope for plantations in terms of CDM projects but they're limited to 1% and there's only one country in the world and that's New Zealand that has such an emissions trading scheme so we're delighted that it forms part of Red Plus notwithstanding the fact there isn't a funding mechanism as of yet for it now beyond the voluntary carbon market and I would argue that we should move as this group to get greater recognition for it through the KP and the LAC mechanisms. Thank you. Excellent question. Thank you. Please, sir, at the beginning? Thank you. My name is Albert Ackerst. I represent the Green Ticket. I have, I want to respond and ask a question and it's with regard to question one and four and that is why do we never speak about alien invasive species especially when it gets to reforestation, reforestation, agroforestry because the very definition for forests for the subcontinent in Africa says that all our alien invasive stands, extant, are considered forests. The irony is that is the very, the very death of our landscape in terms of reduced water, reduced nutrition and soils, erosion and floods. We are using these in reforestation projects in Africa and especially in Kenya with respect to Kenya, the photograph I illustrated was of alien invasive stands. It was eucalyptus and wattle which burned easily and which also denudes as well and causes fires, floods, erosion. Can't the definition consider alien invasive species in subcontinent countries? That's a question. Thanks. Thank you. I think I'll hand the word over to the panel now. Maybe Peter would like to address the first question and Carol was specifically addressed in the second question. Valentina, maybe you can answer. Oh, maybe somebody else can answer that question. Okay, Peter, please. Thank you very much. Very pertinent comments I think. I can't see some of you but with respect to the first question regarding landscape approaches being a more analytical rather than a more implementation driven tool, I think that in many cases you're right because we have not challenged ourselves enough to answer some of the pertinent questions that we have at the moment. One of the big questions as I said in the second part of the landscape approaches and that I said it can be a useful analytical tool but the other part of it is that could it not become a more important implementation tool? I'll give an example. What is the basis for setting a province as an implementation, as a sub-national level implementation scheme for a country when in fact the drivers of deforestation that should be the entry point in fact beyond provincial levels? So the whole question would be how do you link the analytical results to find the appropriate sub-national level where implementation would make sense? How do you cascade a number of layers of complications in the drivers of deforestation analysis to be able to determine where is the appropriate level of implementation in terms of a landscape be it political, be it agro-ecological or be it a catchment area of deforestation of drivers of deforestation? So I think that we have challenges but we have to be able to do that. If we don't do that until landscape approaches as an implementation tool then we will eventually fail. The third part I think I will go to the third question because the second question I think I fully agree with the speaker. The third question about invasive alien species I did mention in my last slide the fact that one of the technical challenges is looking at invasive species and I recognise that it's an important issue to address but part of the problem if you refer to eucalyptus in Kenya for example scientifically the number of species varieties that we have of eucalyptus some technically scientifically argue that they are not environmentally unfriendly some are more environmentally unfriendly so you need to find what is the right species to be able to do that it's not yet scientifically conclusive that eucalyptus are not environmentally harmful I think that is an important point to note but if you look at the FRA 2010 it actually addressed that question a bit and it said that almost 90% of the reforestation are not necessarily linked to alien species actually so there is a 10% problem that we need to address but we can't blacklist the whole activity because we have a challenge that we have to fight so I recognise it but we need to recognise that it's a problem and we have to deal with it Thank you Excellent Khaled do you want to take a few minutes to answer the second question? I might add a point or two about the first question as well I think if you look at landscape approaches combined with red plus they can act as a trigger for having a national conversation about land use no matter what else will come out of red plus but I think in particular linking it with the landscape approaches allows you to start looking at what people need and want from their landscapes and scaling up that conversation to the national level and also can be a trigger for looking at your governance arrangements because really working at a landscape level is all about negotiating among stakeholders what they need from those landscapes and so that too can result in a national level policy change with respect to Peter's question or Michael's question, the second question about afforestation and reforestation in red plus it's not spelled out in there obviously that would fall under enhancement of forest carbon stocks that's what we would expect I think it's pretty clear that plantations were in the mind of the negotiators in some way because they made a point of adopting a safeguard which explicitly states that red plus action should not lead to the conversion of natural forest ecosystems into plantations so it's there, it's not spelled out we don't have specific definitions of each of the elements of red plus I think they will all become clear as countries just move ahead and begin implementing red plus actions Excellent Does anybody else want to make a comment to any of the questions that were raised so far? No? Okay, so the gentleman in the back please You had a question Check Thank you very much for this excellent presentation I think it's so relevant talking about agroforestry, afforestation and reforestation My name is Bremli I come from the state of Megalaya in northeast India We quit global plantations and we're doing organic agroforestry projects in Asia, Sri Lanka, India and Malaysia Through experience I think it's very important to understand that most people in these developing countries don't have resources to actually develop and validate these projects It's nice to hear that it's a new standard that only takes three months before you can start a project but there are other standards out there that take much longer and cost a lot more My question is how do you actually validate and make these costs, especially for community-led reforestation projects more cheap, more economically viable for them and also how do you address the rights for the carbon who owns the land and how they trickle into the actual people that build those forests that maintain the land in the long term because I know these projects have a ten years cycle before they have to re-evaluate the baseline for another ten years regarding red and I think it's different for AR projects where you go up to 30 years or 50 years with the buffer because I know of a very interesting project that community forestry international is developing in Megalaya working directly with the local chiefs in 63 villages but obviously they're doing it in a voluntary manner and it takes a long time to raise money and make it sustainable I'm wondering if there are any stories from other countries where you have a best practice to show that communities by themselves developing these projects and keeping the costs for overheads down and when the money comes back it actually trickles down through the people at the grass root to benefit them in the long term Thank you very much Thank you very much, Rami Sorry, please Hafiz Yameel Noir and NGO working in public afros station efforts in Sudan I have been expecting or I would that if this session this session would have addressed the issue of of sand yoke fixation because we are our farms in Sudan are endangered by the encroachment of forest because Sudan is just lying on the southern edge of the great Sahara African Sahara so farming there needs to be protected from sand yoke fixation encroachment and sand yoke encroachment always causes problems to the farms there so I have been just expecting this issue to be or should have been addressed by the people here Thank you very much Sir Does anybody else have a question in the meantime I will ask first Michael probably because you were addressed particularly and then anybody else to answer the question of this gentleman here Michael please Yes Let me try to answer your question Yes, the global conservation standard is a fully fledged standard and it is monitored, reported and verified annually so what we are doing is we are basing on our experience in the carbon market and using the same monitoring technologies and even improving those for the communities the most important thing perhaps is exactly what you say getting the communities in the driver's seat we give them money for trees standing there and we are looking at starting with projects that with kind of low hanging fruit there are so many national parks in the world that are mostly on paper so this is where we are starting and we install the institution of our stakeholder fund there because they will ultimately be the ones to decide where this money coming in will be used and whether it's going to be used for afforestation or for agroforestry or whatsoever which best opportunities they see and we also try to educate them on the potential they have on their area because much of that isn't known by the communities or even the NGOs themselves so the big benefit is that we are paying up front so our investors pay for the first year of the carbon standing there and we are talking about standing carbon carbon stocks, not about carbon flows like in the traditional carbon market sense we pay for what we see we don't need a baseline for that we pay every year the forest is still there we pay we have a methodology that based on IPCC values vaguely quantifies the carbon stocks for the first year and after that we will have monitoring results and so we can really once if we find an appropriate investor we can go ahead immediately and while we are going we can use part of this money to develop carbon offset projects depending on the baseline we can assess there there may be for instance part of the conservation area may be actually on the thread not necessarily all of it so we would develop a red project for this particular part or we could have activities forestry activities like sustainable forest management in our buffer zone or afforestation practices that would qualify under the criterion of additionality and then we would use part of the money for the development of these projects but as we are monitoring from the first minute onwards we will have the the data available to sustain a backward crediting as soon as the carbon offset project has been validated and approved so this is the big benefit as opposed to starting project development, methodology development project development waiting for verification for validation and only after so long time implementing your project is what we are trying but I also see that there is a huge fixation of the market on carbon and I wouldn't bet too much on carbon because as you see we don't have much prospects on what the carbon market will be for how long it will be there and we are talking about long periods our projects last a minimum of 30 years and we don't know what the carbon market will be in 30 years but we do know that in 30 years from now we will have nearly 9 million the population of 9 billion inhabitants we will have a huge increase of demand in demand for food and for biofuels and and therefore when using areas now in a more intensive land use we can produce food and cash crops for the communities and also the investors who will benefit from the existence of these projects because they get multiple benefits they get their CCUs first which are purely an image factor it sells the good idea but then they may get carbon they may get revenues from the production of goods and services in the area and this is what a forward looking investor should look for it's not only carbon you can't eat carbon and communities don't know what carbon is try and explain a local community what the baseline is I bet you will fail but they know what a tree is and they know if you tell them you leave this tree standing I give you a dollar per year that's something they can calculate upon Thank you very much, that's excellent illustrations of the question would somebody want to answer the question about the encroachment of sand dunes in the Sudan I'm really sorry that we didn't address that part of the equation we see there is this great green wall project program within the EU and in Africa something that is trying to look at that sort of thing I don't know if we can call it a landscape approach but that would be something that can start addressing what you are talking about but sorry we couldn't see that need but I'm sure we can try to think about it Thank you Peter Does anybody have another question we do have some more time Madam, make your way to the microphone we still have time for one or two more questions so please, if you have a question make your way to the microphones please introduce yourself My name is Francesca de Gaspers I'm the Europe director of the Green Belt movement and thanks so much for the very interesting interventions by each of you I was particularly interested in the global conservation project and I think what I wanted to talk about was that we know that intact ecosystems are required to create buffers to prevent desertification we know that invasive species are reducing the ability of intact ecosystems to function correctly so I think while I respect what Peter was saying about we're not knowing all the science yet for communities we really need to give them guys that they can work with so we're not held back by science so we can really move forward and the Green Belt movement produced a report for COP which talks about our experiences with CDM and other climate finance projects and I urge you to read the report it talks about the challenges that we have it talks about the fact that upfront funding isn't there a lot of the things we know but really these projects cannot be delivered in the way they are currently structured and we do need to take this very seriously if we want to be effective on the ground thanks so much thank you very much since there is no other question does Peter or Michael also you were asked to answer thank you I can only support you in that I've been working on carbon and land use for 15 years now and I think the basic problem is that you're only looking at one land use modality irrespective of the situation it is in and we know that each situation, each forest is an individual and it is determined and structured by its socioeconomic insertion and therefore I would I see opportunities for afforestation projects within project areas within landscapes that makes sense but you have to look at how they are working who is living there what they can live on and who is leading the process and this is where I see the need for a kind of a metastand for an umbrella under which these activities can be carried forth I think I do respect that perspective one thing that I think we need to keep in mind I think is as Michael mentioned there are opportunities out there I mean right now we are not talking about NAMAS at all I agree that they are not fully developed, we don't fully know what they are but we need to be forward looking that provides us an opportunity to define how we want to look at not only one mechanism which is the CDM, not only one mechanism which is REDPLUS looking at a basket of opportunities within the NAMAS if you take Indonesia for example I think those of you who follow how RED is evolving in the countries if you look at the countries that are going beyond that are further on in the process in RED they are now discovering after thinking about the RPP processes that if you disconnect this what you call forest from the rest of the landscape you basically will not answer the questions so we need to be forward looking to look at what opportunities do NAMAS give us to bring these things together and that is where I think landscape approaches will become most useful in the next five years for example I think that that gives us an opportunity also to mobilize investments beyond RED and combine a lot of investment streams across sectors to be able to invest in landscape approaches so I still remain really relatively optimistic as far as because I think people would eventually get there at some point and we would have to try to understand it otherwise we may not reduce any emissions at all I'm sorry but thanks thank you Peter okay so there seems to be one more question here and we'll take that because we are requested to stop earlier due to the late start and I'll try to do this by quarter to one and we also still have to do this voting things which is new for me so let's see how that works out so please madam introduce yourself hello everybody I'm Natalia I come from Peru and I started at TU Dresden in Germany so my question goes to Mr. Ducke and I want to know how this global conservation standard is going to cope with some conflicts that they are in the buffer zones in some national parks in Peru especially with mining activities nice and short question thank you please yeah we actually have short answer too of Peruvian projects in the pipeline that have been submitted to our technical panel I can't give you details on those in this moment but what I know is that mining is a semi-legal activity in Peru and as it's always the question how you do it and in this semi-legal status with no capital or very low capital is doing the the biggest possible damage so if you if you capitalize the sector and if you get in companies that know how to deal with the environment and that for instance do gold digging and gold processing without mercury you can improve the land use even for mining operations and these companies are very interested in having a secure water source and to be seen as environmental responsible so these can actually and we're talking to one company in particular these will actually be a domestic source for the sale of this type of conservation credits okay thank you very much this gentleman is standing there this is the last question I will take thank you my name is Faisal Parish from Global Environment Center in Malaysia I'd just like to raise a couple of experiences from Southeast Asia relevant to this firstly in Sabah there is between two national parts Kinabalu and Crocker Range national park there's a large area of community lands with about 70% tree cover but only a relatively small portion one could say is still as forest natural forest the rest are community rotational cultivated lands but still with tree cover and I think that it is important to provide some mechanism to engage such in maintaining the relative tree cover on the areas but I think the constraint in that area is a relatively small area would be classified as traditionally as intact forest and therefore from a normal red approach you would only be looking at maintaining that and not looking at all of the on the community lands the second issue is in some of the peatland areas if you move forest cover from the peatland area you're actually leaving 95% of the carbon store which is in the below ground but because the forest cover has gone normally you will say this is non forest area so that would not necessarily fit into the red mechanism so I think it's imperative to have this broader landscape approach that these very high carbon can still be incorporated somehow into the process so the question for the panel is do they if they're aware of the process please please repeat the question what mechanisms may there be or any move towards what was discussed about a year or two ago of red plus plus where you would have this broader landscape approach and that you would be able to rarely look at the carbon stock on the adjacent agriculture community lands thank you does anybody want to answer the question this is indeed a very important question and it has to be addressed because as he mentioned the peat forests in Southeast Asia contain a substantial amount of carbon below the ground of course since red is still under the discussion there is a room for consideration of these aspects I would like to take the opportunity to mention also that we should not lose sight to the fact that the carbon balance is not all we have to to give wage to some other aspects that are significant when we reduce deforestation for instance conservation of biodiversity when we talk about the natural force and when we talk about the restoring force with the landscape concept we favor biodiversity conservation and of course if we only talk about making payments on the base of the net carbon that we avoid emission it does not take the whole picture I don't know how that could be considered a red mechanism but that is something we should not lose sight of thank you so I would like to thank everybody for their questions and comments and also the panel for their answers and their comments and particularly for Peter his excellent keynote speech now before everybody runs out please take these devices that are lying on your chairs and I'm going to ask the technical staff to bring up the questions on this screen here in the back and I will read them out that will ensure that I'm not taking too much too little time and then you will have another 10 seconds to answer the question so break down of the audience this is easy choose the option that best characterizes the organization that you represent at forest day 5 private sector, NGO government international organization, academic or other excellent so we have 10% private sector mostly NGOs lots of international organizations and 20% academics 21% government what a pity next question to what extent do red plus negotiators recognize the importance of landscape approaches in red plus not at all somewhat very well please okay a majority goes for the middle option, thank you very much 65%, next question to what extent do red plus negotiators recognize the importance of landscape approaches in red plus as strategies for addressing drivers of deforestation and forest degradation as an integral part of the red plus mechanism both A and B above such activities should be included in a separate mechanism please make your vote now okay so this is fairly well distributed so this is fairly well distributed okay sorry the question may not have been done as clearly as it should have been okay thank you very much next question should red plus funds be invested in agroforestry, afforestation and reforestation as part of strategies for achieving red plus not at all, a little or substantially please overwhelming thank you okay I don't have to comment that next question which of the following has been the greatest challenge for the inclusion of agroforestry and climate change mitigation strategies so far the lack of finance the exclusion of agriculture from the CDM and red plus the lack of technical capacity by program implementers UNFCCC negotiators negotiations and procedures rights and ownership issues like land, trees and carbon tenure, please vote now okay so most people think the second question exclusion from agriculture from CDM and red is the main reason and then we have three times around close to 20% lack of finance negotiations and rights and ownership oh that's very diverse thank you the lack of technical capacity seems to be the issue that is least doubted for the reason okay I think this next one is the final question it's a long question which of the following is likely to be the most useful contribution to red plus landscape approaches intensification of production through agroforestry as a strategy to reduce deforestation increase timber production on farms or in woodlots as a strategy to reduce forest degradation increased fuel wood production on farm in woodlots as a strategy for reducing forest degradation and landscape approaches as a means to enhancing synergies between mitigation and adaptation for example in ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods benefits please vote now I hope you understand the question okay alright number four overwhelming 65% two-thirds for landscape approaches as a means to enhancing synergies between mitigation and adaptation that's a very good result I think and second 20% intensification of production through agroforestry that's also very good thank you very much for this effort and your time and listening before you all leave I would like to ask my boss Tony Simons who has made his way here to just make a few final remarks he doesn't know about this so caught him off guard maybe he's finally found his way from the press conference that introduced the new challenge the CGIR research program on forest trees in agroforestry maybe he wants to say a few words about that Tony thanks very much Henry and sorry to keep you from your lunch yes very briefly the vice president of the World Bank Rachel Kite the director general of C4 Francis Seymour and myself launched the CRP6 this is the CGIR research program on forest trees in agroforestry it is an ambitious 10-year program there's a press release in the main hall about it now it involves 22 institutions work on five substantive areas smallholder production systems the forest and tree resources that support forestry in agroforestry on environmental services on climate change mitigation and adaptation and lastly on trade issues it was very exciting to see the support of the vice president to this initiative we recognize first funding program of $230 million over three years is actually only a fraction of what is needed however that is the amount that we hope to leverage others to join the partnership to come together refreshingly and excitingly still is the fact that this issue you've been debating here this afternoon on landscape approaches to addressing these issues is firmly embedded in that and endorsed in it so I won't take up any more of your time and thank you for your engagement in this particular session