 Equality is probably one of the hottest topics at the moment in the debate on benefit sharing and incentive mechanisms. It's all very well saying that we want to include equity and to ensure equity, but we really need to ask ourselves what we mean by that. What exactly do we mean by the term? Most discussions of equity involve some notion of fairness of justice, and immediately those two terms are pretty controversial and incredibly contentious. Thinking about equity as opposed to equality and the design of incentive mechanisms immediately involves us favouring certain groups. This requires some kind of consensus over who and which of those groups is the most deserving. In a sense, that's where the problem comes. We in C4 carried out a review to look at the different discourses around this question, particularly in the red debate. What we find is that there's a number of often very conflicting discourses around, or justifications if you like, about who should benefit. For example, the most common assumption that we make when we think about equity is that benefit should accrue to the poorest or the most marginalised groups. In the forest sector, this is linked to the idea that those groups who have been particularly successful and protecting forests should benefit. For example, some indigenous groups. But both of these again are quite problematic when we start to think about performance-based market mechanisms, because in fact those mechanisms are based on the notion of rewarding those who have provided an environmental service. It's not always the same groups that are marginalised. Another strong discourse in this whole debate on environmental services is that of those who are incurring the highest cost should be compensated. But at the same time, there's an equally strong discourse about tenure, and that it's those with legal rights who have the right to accrue benefits. The legal debate is equally problematic because it excludes all sorts of groups who have weak claims or whose rights have not been recognised. Finally, there's a very relevant debate which we're seeing at all levels, which is about what level of profit should accrue to the state, or to private sector operators who are acting as facilitators of these mechanisms, of the implementation of red, for example. This debate is related in a sense to the degree to which that environmental service is seen as a national good from which citizens or the nation should benefit versus the argument that it is a private group from which private landholders or community groups could benefit. As you can see, this is just one of the issues surrounding equity, these definitional issues. There's a lot of challenges even in that question. So I look forward to exploring this issue and a whole number of other issues which I'm sure the speakers will raise. So on that note, I will move on to introducing our speakers. Who we've got here today to discuss our topic is Mr Swayset, who will talk about a national development model that promotes small holder farmers in Myanmar. This is a really excellent opportunity for us to think about the way incentive and mechanism and instruments can fit into a picture of larger national development. We can learn from this approach in terms of an approach which cuts across a number of sectors in a country where there are a lot of exciting local level initiatives emerging in a context of quite significant larger scale development. Mr Swayset is the governance manager at Action Aid and he's an active member of the land core group in Myanmar. Next up, we have Mr Pham Van Joong, who is the Senior Program Officer in the Vietnam Administration of Forestry and part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. He works on the PES scheme, so he will bring us lessons from the implementation of this scheme. Vietnam is a country where some of the most sophisticated thinking about PES is actually taking place, PES and equity in particular, and I'm really delighted to have this opportunity for us to hear more. And our next speaker is Dr Naya Paudel, who's a Senior Research in Forest Action in Nepal, and he will bring us lessons on benefit sharing and community forestry systems in Nepal. And as you all probably know, Nepal has probably the richest history of engagement and thinking over decades around equity in the community forestry systems. And bringing up the finale, we have Mr Iwan Wibisono from the Indonesian Raid Agency, and he will bring us some hot off the press lessons from the benefit sharing system, which the agency is in the process of designing both at the national level and the sub-national level. Okay, so the format of this session is that each speaker will talk for 12 minutes, and during that time please collect your burning questions because what we'll do is actually have a discussion at the end rather than intersperse the presentations with discussions, and just a reminder to turn off your mobile phones, which I forgot to do in the last session. Okay, so with that, I ask you to join me in giving your full attention to Mr Sir. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I came on along with the fact that I need to prepare for the presentation on national development, more of the most small holder firma in this summit, but it's all about forest, and I will try to touch upon how it is linked with forest situation in Myanmar, but I almost prepare for the land grab situation in the reform process, as you may be aware that this morning our minister has already introduced to you all that Myanmar is in its transition and implementing its current reform processes. So this is my outline of the talk. I will talk about small holder firmas, they are backbone, and how land grab is happening in the country, and on the rise of how land and security is happening, and impact of recent reforms, how it is contributed, and how it is not clear to the people of Myanmar at the moment, and farmland law and wasteland law, and it's in fact recently formulated in two years ago, but still there are many questions on these two laws and its implementation and growth of industrial agribusiness that is government supported, and how it is linked with the forest consumption in the country, and why small holders are better, this is what we stand for, we are standing with the small holder firma, and what Myanmar needs to do, and two, three slides recommendation, and what Myanmar has been done so far. And 70% of Myanmar population are rural population, and most of them are farmers, including fisher farmers. So that's why 3 fourth of the population, about 40 million people, still live in rural area, and heavily rely on farmland and forest for their daily needs and livelihoods. And agriculture in this sense is very much contributed to national GDP, which is about one third of the GDP still, and 15% of the total export earnings and employs over 60% of the nation's labour force. So farmers and land in this regard is very important to us, and Myanmar economic, political and social and cultural reasons. And then how land grab is happening. Over the last decades, land has been confiscated for various reasons by different actors, but farmers were not able to raise their voices. But right now, along with the reform process, there are many spaces provided, but farmer voices are still limited, because they do not know how to engage with the media and how to raise their voices, and they are not yet fully informed and educated on how to raise their voice. In the past decade and increased in land grabs for infrastructure development like road construction, dam construction, and especially economic zone, especially in ethnic nationality areas, which border areas are next to China, Thailand and India, especially in those three countries, and state-sponsored agricultural projects, which is run by SEE, state enterprise. And military condomin is one of the factors for the land grab, and since 1991, there is a waste land instruction, which gives private sector to own land for industrial agriculture. And the idea of industrial agriculture is introduced in this time. And then the risk of land tenure insecurity is increasing, and in that, there are other factors to lose the land. For example, human conflict wars and natural disaster, and here I would like to put more focus on climate change, which is a wicked problem to our countries. In terms of formulating national development model, which should be beneficial to people, especially poor people, climate change is still a wicked problem of how to take account into our development, comprehensive development plan, still quite challenging. Then land governance is still poor, not clear yet. Only one department, two departments mainly, one is settlement or land record department, and general administration department at the local government level are managing and administering land allocation before the two new land laws was formulated. But after two new land laws were formulated and introduced to the country, and it was supposed to be implemented by 2013 for the land registration. But it was not quite clear to the people, the procedure of registration and how they will get their rights, for example, a holding rights and they can mortgage or not. It's not quite clear yet. In weak support system to farmers, they have very limited access to credit, and that got capital, and also not affordable technology they have. And they have very much less inform on market information. And most of, in many cases in the country, broke our game to the community and just exchange. And pharma, especially from the remote area, access less to the market. And speculation of hot money trying to make a quick profit or unregistered sales of land. This is a very common problem. There is a patch of land, which we think the waste land, but it is not. And the land market is already happening in the country with unregistered sales of land. And the increase of risk of losing land and therefore increasing land tenure insecurity. And especially in ethnic nationality areas, they have their own customary land and their practices. But the two law do not recognize their practices. And this is discontent national and rural. And media reports land conflicts along with the reform on a daily basis increasingly. But there is no such a kind of concrete solution provided not only to the people, but by the media as well. In every area of a household farm, plots have been decreasing in some area. And of five acres, it is below subsistence, especially in dry zone, for five members of family, they own one acre, sometime point five acre. And in the extended family, and also migration in relation with this, since they cannot give land to their children, their children migrate to the urban area. And they are less educated at the moment. And food insecurity is a major issue, especially in Chin state, which is next to India. And landlessness and land war household on the rise, especially for women, had it once. And women entitlement in our country is not clear. There are some old practices that women can entitle the land, but there is no such a legalized or officialized land entitlement clearly stated in any law. Especially a problem in conflict areas near the border. That means ethnic nationality, northern east and northern west of the country, China, Thailand, and India border. And new lands and policies have been and will be passed that will increase pressure on farmers than how. Because of unclear procedure and limited time, the farmers are informed to register their land again by the end of 2013. But the procedure is very, really complicated. The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation is the focal ministry to do so, but especially in the conflict area, how to register the land. And those coming back who run away from the country for conflict, this procedure is also very much not clear and could not envisage in the two new landlords. And in Cuyen State next to Thailand, they have their own legal framework for the land entitlement and land rights. But when it comes along with the peace process, when they come into mainstreaming, political mainstreaming, which legal framework will be applying? And the local people who return to the country are not very clear which legal framework they have to apply. So that sort of impact, and vacant fellow and virgin land law, which were formulated in 2012, and special economies as is a law, especially in ethnic nationality area, with this law, there are a lot of special economies which grab more lands, including forest land. And in another ministry of forest, this particular area is protected or conserved forest area. But in reality in the ground, people are living out there, which is a kind of land encroachment issue. The ministry of forest has been addressing in a way with a mechanism or community forestry mechanism over the last three decades already. But there is no such formal acknowledgement in the law that the community forestry is useful for the people. And there is no forestry management scheme in our country, which is now I'm sure the government is still considering to take action. And they are very much positive to adopt that kind of forestry management. And for investment law, this is very much a particular problematic in our country. Along with the reform, while we are inviting foreign trade investment, investment from the regional countries, the most problematic law is this, because it is related with land. And the investor usually ask for the land, but they assume, Myanmar is said Asia last resource frontier. And the investor assuming that there might be a lot of land. But in reality, the land is already, people already lived for decades and generation. And the thing is that we have a poor record system. So the foreign investment law is now under review. And we have national investment law. These two laws will be combined in the revised version in the parliament. That is trying to legalize land use titles. And it should explain rights to transfer and mortgage, inherit, gain from legally permitted use, et cetera. And in the land entitlement program, that what I have already a weight already on the upland area, upland shifting cultivation, we call sheep downtown are not recognized in new law. And their land entitlement is not sure. And they cannot entitle according to the law. And to buy and sell land use titles on the market is, like I explained along with the foreign investment law, companies will be able to lease land for up to 50 years with two 10 year extension. And whatever the land, the budget land, the waste land, they said, but in reality, people are living out there. And lands without official land use title can be given to private sector. And pharma that have cultivated on paid taxes for waste and for years have never been granted UBI, which is, in fact, cut down trees in their former generation. And they plug and they grow trees over there. And then this is called UBI, but it never be registered. And by the law came into the scene and they had to re-register their land and their entitlement is not sure yet, especially in the nationality and upland area. So Ministry of Agriculture called in their 30 year development plan to cover, to convert 10 million acres of waste land. But in reality, there is not that much for private industry agriculture with this industrial crops, palm oil, jettrofa, raba and cassava and sugarcane. And in this town in the south, our palm oil is very much problematic right now and rubber is the second problematic in our country, which contribute to the climate change, which is we get to national development, comprehensive development plan. So this is in fact a kind of figure that is, and I just would like to show you in kitchen state and in the IE, which is north part of the country and down south of the country, where many of the acres are grabbed by the companies for this industry agriculture. And this is 2011 and data and and then and you might be hard of this kitchen conflict and that increase attention of the land and Tanya security and that questions a lot. And it's part of China, especially in the northern part of Myanmar, China's European drug substitution program, create a lot of landlessness, food insecurity and land erosion because they remove many of the people, local people and substitute with this situation, with this opium drug substitution is mainly with rubber. But local people do not know how to grow rubber and less technology is provided to them and they have no market information at all. And this is in fact that and this 2012 data that I got from TNI research, a financial dis-opposition in northern shan state in Myanmar. And these are the acres of land granted for the companies and government organizations. So the industry agricultural morale that the government is trying to support will allocate wasteland to businessmen and the farmers will lose their land and they will also love their livelihood and they will become wages, labourers and extremely they are venerable because they do not know how to cope with this situation and they have very much less access to services provided by the government. And why is more order than can be better, they can be more economically efficient than the industrial farms if provided with affordable credit technology and that has to be reflected in our policy formulation. And they can contribute to national economic development and food security. Food security is a special issue in shan state and that and small dark farmer can promote social stability. This is I think the civil society standpoint especially in a thinning nationality conflict prone area and malty cropping is much better for the soil. And that is what Myanmar needs to do. We have to have a kind of affordable capital loans to the farmers and technology should be affordable and extension services should be affordable and accessible by the farmers and improve market access including for export and freedom of crop choice. We have almost no freedom of crop choice. We are asked to grow this particular crop by the government and we have to and we have to pay tax for the crop and that is in fact in discussion with the government and government is increasingly acknowledging on the freedom of crop choice and fair legal resources for land disputes. Now at the moment centralized ministry has been settling the land dispute but with the parliament we have been trying to have a kind of parallel body to settle the land dispute and market based compensation for land taken in the national interest and this is in fact I have already done to recognize customary land rights in land laws and we have done land symposium in 2012 with the lead of ministry of environmental and conservation and forestry and which recommend government to be to invest and safeguard pro poor livelihoods and also forest participatory forest management and foreign investment is reviewed that I have already talked and spatial plan sectoral plan is has been participatory according to the president instructing it has to be people's centre which is at the moment a hope to promote development model that promotes more order farmer and that should be beneficial and that will include all participatory way that people can participate their concerns and needs and those especially people who encourage to the forest what is their rights etc can be discussed and can be integrated into the plan so this is um and of my presentation thank you thank you very much yes and thank you for opening this session with the big picture um and locating it within um and if you like the picture of the cross sectoral national development I think that's very useful um and yeah the acute problem of inequity of access if you like but maybe we'll come back to some of your um the measures that you are suggesting or you have experience of um I think you you had a lot to say so it'd be nice to come back to that in the discussion okay um I'd like to move on now to um introduce um Dr Mr Chung and he will talk about um payment for environmental services in Vietnam do you do you want to stand up hello everybody uh very nice to meet here over here I would like to present on the implementation of payment for forest environmental service in Vietnam the content of my presentation includes background mobilisation of the PFAS payment current status equity and channels uh I should say that Vietnam is the first country in Asia to initiate a national wide PFAS scheme uh we have Vietnam Forestry Development Strategy 2006 to 2020 and then government issues a degree number five on the forest protection and development fund and after that issues the government issues a decision 380 on the payment for forest environmental service and pilot in two province two province London province and Shona province and after two years we have degree number 99 on the policy for PFAS apply national wide about the relationship uh on the PFAS policy the first is uh relationship with buyer and seller applied to the direct payment the second is the traditional relationships on controlling of the forest quantity and quantity outside of the PFAS scheme number three is relationship on the monitoring and evolution for PFAS implementation number four is relationship on signing the contract for the PFAS applied to the direct payment about the payment uh sources we have a power plant water supply industrial production tourist and carbon sequestration aquaculture for the hydro power plant have to pay 20 vietnam down per kilowatt hour and water supply have to pay 40 vietnam down per cubic meter and for tourist facility have to pay one to two percent annual income and for the rest uh natural sorry industrial production and carbon sequestration aquaculture is under development for the guideline and hopefully it will be implemented in the coming year uh about the PFAS revenue until now uh we received around 147 million uh US dollar in the around eight 98 percent from hydro power plant and around two percent from clean water and around 0.1 percent from tourist facility uh the PFAS about the utilization procedure the PFAS user will pay 100 percent to the vietnam forest protection fund it's a central fund uh in uh there we keep 0.5 percent for administration cost and uh 99.5 percent transfer to the provincial forest protection development fund uh as there they keep maximum 10 percent for administration cost and five percent for contingency and 85 percent transfer to the forest owner and if the forest owner is a household or individual they can keep uh they can yield 100 percent of receipts a mile and if the forest owner is organisation they can deduct 10 percent for administration cost uh about the impact uh economy impact uh i should say that implementation of the PFAS policy is increasing the contribution of the forest sector in national economy uh until now we started 281 in charge contract with hydro power plants uh water suppliers and tourist facilities and uh 35 fund are established annual revenue uh about 50 million US dollar about the environmental impact uh violation case from forest management and protection have been reduced about 40 percent uh as you see on the table the violet has since 2008 it uh more than 3 million hectare but it's reduced into um around 700 uh a hectare in 2013 and about 4.1 million hectare were determined to implement PFAS in there around 3.6 million hectare will contract for forest protection and in uh the 2013 around 2.8 million hectare will receive the PFAS payment uh i should say that the implementing the PFAS policy is contribute to increase the forest coverage in the Vietnam for example in 2008 the forest coverage around 38.7 percent and in 2012 it increased to 39.9 percent i would like to talk about equity regarding the cave coefficient the total payment to the forest owner per year uh equal to every unit payment per hectare of forest multiplied to forest and managed for service multiplied cave coefficient in cave coefficient we have a for sub cave portion for the cave one is the forest volume stated for example the one cave one is the rich and 0.95 is medium forest and 0.9 is the poor forest and cave two if for the forest function and cave three for the origination and cave four is the level of difficulty of the forest protection about the application of the cave coefficient according to cycle 80 issue in 2011 by Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development on the method to determine for PFAS the people committee of povins will base on the specific condition of their povins uh to specify number of the sub cave factor applicable to their respective povins uh i actually the cave coefficient have not fully applied due to the lack of forex inventory information and the povins have just applied applied cave two and cave three coefficient and apply in cave equal to one in some povins in 2013 we have a occasional paper report from c4 i should say that it's a very good report so far and there are some finding and some recommendation relating to the cave coefficient uh poison but the using cave uh using different cave coefficient is approached but it is difficult to explain the system to committees and can revoke conflicts between committee members and due to the lack of forex inventory data so local committees have not agreed on the value of the cave coefficient and uh from my point of view i i think it's very good recommendation is that policymaker must answer work to what developing a functional monitoring and mne system actually about the mne in in in for the past it regulates in some related policy but it's not concentrated in the one policy about the mne system so i hope that in the coming time we will develop a very good mne system in my country is the electricity selling price increased but the payment of buyer have been unchanged so far for example electricity price in 2008 is that around 900 vietnam dome per kilowatt hour but until 2013 it's around 1.5 000 vietnam dome per kilowatt hour there are different level of payment for the forex owner the average level of payment in in whole country is around 10.6 us dollar per hectare per year the finger in 2013 and there are two different level of payment amongst basins in shampoo vins such as zalai i'n bai a nach ddung a cwntwm ffobin et cetera for example in the table you will see in London bovins the payment level from 14 to 21 us dollar per hectare per year but in zalai it's so low around 0.1 to 10 us dollar per hectare per year and in i'n bai from 1 to 22 for solution we are now implementing the national forest inventory program period from 2013 to 2016 and one of the very important objectives of the program is supporting to the PFAS payment and maybe we will propose to revise the degree number 99 on a policy for PFAS and strengthening capacity for government officer and improve communication related to PFAS to the local communities and also finalize the policy related to carbon sequestration et cetera and improve the monitoring and evolution system. Beside the achievement so far we still have a lot of challenges such as direction for the PFAS implementation is not timely mechanism level of payment for forest owners are not realistic and payment of hydro power plants are still delayed like up guideline for the aquaculture carbon sequestration industrial production facility. Okay thank you for the attention. Thank you very much. Really fascinating to hear your some of the challenges you faced in operationalizing thinking around equity. We might want to come back to discussion about the coefficients because I think there's been some similar work in Nepal so maybe we could come back to that in the in the discussion. Continuing on this theme of actually operationalizing equity we now have Dr Paudel who will talk to us about experience in the community forestry sector in Nepal. Thank you. Thank you. I am trying to bring some of the experiences from last 30 years of community forestry practice in Nepal and this is part of our comparative study to see a study between Nepal and Indonesia to see how the relations from community forestry in benefiting benefit sharing can be you know can inform the current debate on climate change and particularly rate and how those relations can be translated into designing or articulating benefit sharing mechanism within rate or pace. The question why we look for community forestry why why we should revisit community forestry to learn something for rate is certainly the most important is because community forestry has incentivized local communities to preserve forest to conserve forest and that is what we want in rate or pace and anywhere. So there is already a in build system in community forestry benefit sharing mechanism which has incentivized local communities and what can we learn from there. Second is the system that is being developed there is legitimate you know almost all people involved in there have respected it and it has been recognized by the national laws so we can we can learn a month from there and can translate it into the rate mechanism and third important is in community forestry we are not only protecting or conserving timber or not only biodiversity not only so whole range of ecosystem good services we are protecting there and if we want to rate plus certainly a lot of lessons from community forestry could be important. We will be highlighting here how the tenure arrangement particular kind of a tenure arrangement would be helpful to understand the community forestry and why those lessons from community forestry is useful for rate if we were to incentivize local communities. So our focus is primarily on state land managed by the local communities and how the benefit distribution between a state and community and within community works in those context. Now I move to Nepal's community forestry which has a very good successful history of last three decades and it involves a huge number of people it's a government's major program almost 25% of the forest is now under community forest system and it's been seen as a successful initiatives in terms of supporting local livelihood in terms of regenerating the already degraded hill forest and providing a lot of diverse benefits including in these days carbon. Now if you see the the tenure arrangement within community forest the land still belongs to the state the government but the government has transferred certain bundle of rights to local communities so that they can manage use and exclude non-members and benefit from whatever comes from the community forest. So the law the below says the district forest officer can hand over any part of national forest to the local communities and then who can manage based on their one operational plan one management plan to manage to sell to use their products fixing their price everything. So there is a very strong legal basis policy support and also institutional support towards this community forestry and I think I will come later why this is very important when we talk to community forest sorry benefit sharing. The current benefit sharing in community forestry allows 100% of the benefits coming from the forest to the community well there is an exception for two spaces of timber for which they have to pay 15% of the revenue to the government that is only two spaces certainly the these are mostly used timber spaces and the 15% is also only when they sell it outside the group not within the group and despite all these benefits goes to the community state still provides service in terms of administrative, regulative, monitoring and capacity building and the renewal of the management plan. Now within the group the benefits goes different there is a different system for different type of products like for forest product mostly for field wood, fodder, grass, non-timber products. So it's based on availability in the forest and also the traditionally used by different households if a member of the groups and their need. For timber it's usually the group collects the timber from the forest and then distributes timber according to the demands or needs and request by the members and for the funds whatever funds is collected in the community forestry user groups fund that is usually invested in community infrastructure including drinking water or roads school those things and the cash is not usually distributed to the individual households though there are programs to focus on some of the income-generating activities for the poor. Now I just want to bring two slides for aiding up raid there within the community forestry benefit sharing system in last few years there are some piloting going on to design benefit sharing system within raid and they have at the national level forest carbon trust fund advisory body and then at the middle level sub national level no national level there is a program management unit and at the sub national level there is a watershed level network of these community forestry user group and then the benefit that flows up to the user group level. This is important the raid piloting has put two criteria one certainly the carbon carbon sequestration annually and the second they have also bring some social criteria including active involvement and benefit sharing to women to various marginalized groups like the leads that we have in south Asia particularly in Nepal and indigenous people and those who are most vulnerable poor. So we have both biophysical criteria carbon and also social criteria and then calculating based on their forest based on their carbon increment and also based on their involvement of women or indigenous people or those then they would pay according to their combined criteria. Now we can see a lot of innovations in community forestry in terms of developing equitable benefit sharing system there. At the procedural level at the governance level we have these community forestry user groups at the local level and their network goes up to the national level as a national federation we call it FECOFON and in FECOFON they have a strong provision that there must be 50 percent women in the leadership in all decision making bodies and there must be one out of two major posts like the chairperson and the secretary either the chairperson or the secretary must be a women and that goes from top to the bottom level and the national community forestry guideline has also supported these inclusive criteria. You must spend 25 percent 35 percent to the proper activities you must have 50 percent membership of the women you must have 50 percent leadership of women in the key decision making posts so that is there at procedural level and at the substantive level there is a practice in almost all community forestry to to conduct this well-being ranking based on locally developed criteria category A category BCD based on your financial economic status and that category is then integrated into any beneficiary scheme within the community and that includes forest based employment and more importantly allocation of community forestry land into individual households to those identified poor households for a tenure of let's say 20 years 15 years so that they have access to whole community forest but also specific to to that allocated smaller pieces of land where they can grow various non timber forest products or fodder and they can benefit from that smaller pieces and most importantly these days is a number of community forests and user groups they have developed a system of differential pricing system of for the forest product like one piece of timber one cubic meter of timber would cost different to category A household to category B household to category C household and the poorest group would get cheaper and the richer group would have to pay more for the same piece of timber and having said of these innovations in community forestry at the local level we still have a lot of issues at different level particularly at the national level and there is a ongoing contestation between the government and the communities regarding the revenue sharing government wants to increase that 15 percent to 50 percent so that the the nation could benefit from this valuable forest there are debate whether the value of forest should go only to local communities or the total nation should benefit from that valuable forest so the the argument from the state part is we need you need to pay tax more tax so that from there other people can benefit and also the state has a claim that if we were to support you in terms of capacity building in terms of renewal of management plan and so on so on so you have to pay for this but what local communities are saying is we are generating preserving environmental public good so it's not we pay for you it's better you support us we are protein forest and similarly government seems a bit reluctant to expand community forestry in the low land bordering to India where there is a much more valuable forest in terms of market price so there is ongoing debate whether government should expand community forestry in that area or only to limit in a relatively poor forest areas and also government wants to know prescribe some management guidelines some benefit distribution guidelines and to the local communities and they are saying that we have the autonomy to manage our forest and to distribute our benefit as per our one rule so who are you to enforce us so so there is a ongoing debate on related to the autonomy of the local groups in terms of sharing this benefit in terms of developing their one rules so and so so a number of debate around community forestry sorry around benefit sharing is there but at least at the local level and within the local communities and the communities are implementing their one system their one rule then their one decisions so I think from from our experience in community forestry I could draw three key lessons one the benefit sharing arrangement is very closely linked with the tenure arrangement because the law allows law is very strong in favour of local communities that's why the local communities are very strong in defending their share from the forest management there are other forestryism as well which are not that strong and that's why they are not they are not enjoying that level of benefit and the second is if we only focus at the local level that would be almost impossible to have to enjoy that benefit so because the community forestry users they have their national networks up to the national level and because there is a strong law to ensure the 50% thing the inclusion of women the indigenous people the distance users so and so on that's why these provisions have made possible to share the existing benefits equitably and the third thing because different people are depending or relying on different components of the bioreast ecosystem forest biodiversity and the benefit sharing system is so much sophisticated that if you translate everything into cash everything into single item I think and that would create some problem currently because different people are benefiting different way not all people are asking for timber not all people are asking for fluid so they rely differently on different products and if we only target single product like carbon in red possibly that would know that wouldn't be able to address the equity issue as currently they are managing because they are using variety of products from forest I think that's my all thank you very much that was fascinating we've also got a lot to learn from what is it three generations of lessons around community forestry in Nepal is it that long I think it's really interesting to see the degree to which the debate is now become a national debate around the rights of non forest dwellers as well as forest dwellers okay so now we'll move on to Mr Iwan Wibisono who will take us on a journey through the latest thinking and workings around benefit sharing of the radar agency in Indonesia thank you thank you it's very interesting to listen to all of three speakers and then hopefully you're not fell asleep because I'm the last one for the session yeah it's a when we talk about benefit sharing for red plus especially in Indonesia I'm always will open with these slides and I think it's also elaborate quiet detail by the other speakers like how we want to see a benefit sharing process in Indonesia will be designed or will be implemented on the first one it's like we don't want to see that when we dealing especially for red plus at the community level we don't want to put community as that disturbed neighbor that they that we need to compensate them with let's say eggs amount of money because they maybe some of their rights will be disturbed or some of their rights will be not recognized by the project so we want to working on the red plus that community is a part of the red plus itself they are become owner the shareholder the co-owner of the program and then when we talk about benefits mainly we discussing from the perspective of cash there's a lot of questions is it possible to distribute the benefit from the red plus in terms of cash if there's the case of the questions we say it's possible but I think when we defining the benefit from red plus we not only about talk about the benefit in terms of cash but I think there's a lot of things will be happen if we conducting red plus one of the stronger element that we want to see is like when we talk about the defining benefit from the red plus is like how we can recognize the community rights as a part of the benefit that we can deliver from red plus for Indonesian case I think this is a very relevant one we have MK35 decisions that recognizing rights of Hutan other so I think we need to working on this and then I think this is a part of the benefit that we want to see from red plus and then the last one when we start discussion on the red plus of course we start with how we can reduce the emissions which is that's related with the carbon but we are in the baby red plus we're saying that that's not enough for us because if we only talk about the red plus only about the carbon we will not including the whole landscape of the forest what about the other environmental services the cultural services come from the forest so I think we also want to see that benefit from forest is not only about the carbon it can be social benefit it can be ecological services from many interaction with the community actually what they request or what they expected from the red plus is not only mainly it's not about cash or money or something like that but is it possible through red plus it can improve our forest management is it possible to strengthen our rights yeah I think there are several elements that important to be discussed when we defining the benefit from the red plus and also like how we will defining beneficiaries because it's also reflected how we dealing with the equity concepts in many discussion with the c4 colleagues is always delicate when we try to balancing those aspects like in my previous slides like when we talk about benefit in several process there's some strong recognition saying that red plus is a bonus at the end of the process but on the beginning we need to defining what is the other benefit of course this is one of the key element when we started the red plus and then when we talk about the non-carbon benefit it can be anything I think it's important also for us to defining what we call as a non-carbon benefit in international process under UNF triple C they started to discuss about non-carbon benefit but I think it's important also for us in Indonesia to defining okay what we call as a non-carbon benefit and then one of our proposal is like let's talk about strengthening community rights as one of the benefit from the red plus and then the third one that we identify is like improvement of forest governance of course this is the big titles but we don't have options that we need to improve our forest governance and then the red plus is one of the tools red plus is not the goal but I think this is the tools to an opportunity for us to improve forest governance in terms of transparency the participatory process for examples and then I think we also recognize that beneficiaries is very varied it depends on like what their interest it can be from government when we going to the district or province they expected that red plus also can become part of their additional revenue the additional income and for community of course they want to have like kind of supports capacity buildings improving their livelihood improving their rights that's a part of the discussion and the private how we're dealing with the private sectors that will be playing key roles when we're designing Freddie our funding instruments we have a scenario that in the futures that the source of fund for the red plus will be like for now maybe 80 percent is come from the public sectors but in the futures 80 percent of that it will be from private sectors and then it's important to dealing with them and then ensures that red plus become the mechanism that can benefit for them and of course there's another civil society start working on the red plus in Indonesia like let's say like five six or seven years ago that they have become a key promoter of the red plus and then want to see that red plus will working properly in Indonesia and then the second element I want to highlight is like how we developing our process we want to see when when we start discussing about the red plus we talk about a lot about the safeguards how we creating open process full participatory process transparent inclusive process this is a very good things but build the bridge from the let's say from the national level up to the implementation level on the field is a challenging one when we developing preside it's not easy there's a lot of interest need to be accommodated when we start to developing our principles criteria indicator on from for preside it's like creating a shopping list there's a lot of expectation that red plus can improving a lot of things but we can say that red plus cannot solve all of the problem but will be part of the solution and then it's important also like usually when we talk about the benefit from red plus we talk about payment for performance we're thinking at the end but I think if we can defining that benefit is not only coming at the end of the tunnel but when we start of the red plus process and then we can start to defining what will be the benefit from the whole process I think also it will be good to see that benefit is not only about how we can get the payment for performance from the carbon why I keep mentioning this because there's some frustration I think from few stakeholders saying how long we need to waiting for the carbon money will coming and from our experience that we want to have like what we call as like I forgot in English the name is that we take spatial side affirmative actions that we want to like give a spatial approach especially when we talk about the community based activities we want to in like in paper red plus when we developing program we find out that there's a lot of huge potential in the community based activities and then I think this is we hope hope that this is will be like one of the the main ingredients when we discussing red plus in the future so developing the process in the second one and then the the third one especially this is the the road map on how paper red plus want to work seriously on how we will follow up the decision a constitutional court decision number 35 that we hope that in the future that there's will be recognition to the claim of the community for their forest and then we hope in the future there's a more lower conflict especially the tenorial conflict of course there's a lot of challenge in this this context and then I think there's will be a lot of works need to be done in the future and then yeah I think several country have a different context a different mechanism and then mainly when we talk about the option for channeling the benefit the the the the question is like do we really need a spatial mechanism or a channeling process for red plus what we already identified that we have a PNPM maybe related community as one of the platform for channeling the benefit from the red plus and also like when we talk about the performance base how we defining the performance maybe based on the emission reduction and then input base is like how the government provide enabling condition for make us ready to implement it red plus and then the last one how we safeguarding all the process implementation of red plus this is one of the last slides is like how we move forward the first one we do believe that now our policy and regulation especially related to the red plus benefit sharing is not yet in place so we will working on these matters seriously and then also clarity on tenorial and then defining who own the carbon or I think more basic question is like who on the forest actually and then yeah implementing safeguards in term of like implementation we also have a works to integrating our preside with the system information safeguards I think this is to very good works that we have now and then we have intention to integrated those become one system and then yeah how the capacity institutional capacity to managing a red plus benefit from the national into the sub national up to the site level and then how to make sure that benefit can contribute in addressing drivers of the forest stations especially creating incentive the positive incentive for who perform well in Indonesia because if we know that actually the formal title of red plus in international process is like a positive and incentive so we need to proving that red plus is one of the positive incentive for improvement of forest governance in Indonesia I will stop there thank you thank you very much that was quite overwhelming to hear and to think about all the aspects that you have to consider when designing a national benefit sharing system as opposed to a local one um okay I'd like to open the discussion to the audience um and I can I suggest that if you have a question I'll probably take three or four at one time and can you stand up because you're a really long way away and mention who you are and where you come from and keep your question short and to the point to make it easier for the the respondents okay anyone willing to start uh okay there's a gentleman over there and maybe this lady at the front anyone on this side you're all a bit quiet if not I'll take you in the middle thank you so much I'd like to thank everybody I'm Deepak from Nepal but currently doing masters in Australian National University of Syria I have kind of curiosity about the carbon money beneficiary mechanism especially relating to the presentation of Dr Naya Sarma well according to the carbon money flow mechanism that you have sold in your presentation it seems almost 100% carbon money goes to the community but currently Nepal's European has been selected if I'm not wrong that is for around six million dollar is coming to Nepal but I have heard that that European project is going to be implemented in the southern part of the Nepal with that you have said that's the more economically important forest but very few community forest users group are formed so in this scenario I'm not sure whether the current money our beneficiary mechanism that you have shown in your presentation is owned by government or not and do you see any challenges to ensure the 100% or more benefit to the community in the European present implementation area thank you thank you um lady in red the front thank you for all the interesting presentation and I have one question and that is for Vietnam about the incentive mechanism the PFAS and I just like you to give us more of your opinion how invincible of the payment when compared with other land use alternative because the information you provides is like the payment is 20 us dollar per hectare per year how it's going to be like when you compare it other land use conversion for coffee plantation rubber or oil plantation and also if it's not how what would be the strategy to make this payment is more economic variable thank you thank you um hello yeah my question is for my name is Joshua from the Jakarta group my question is for Mr Neyar Sharma from the community forest just now and my question will be how exactly can CFs experience help forest conservation efforts in Indonesia I mean what concrete ways or rather specific ways can you think of when you talk about helping Indonesia in its forest conservation efforts thank you okay so we have three distinct questions for distinct people um do you want to start Dr Podell the question about the carbon money coming into the higher value forest in the tarai and what challenges you see for the model you presented um I think um here again the question of tenure and benefits very closely related because in tarai or wherever where there is no community foresty we don't have clear mechanism to benefit or to ensure the benefits to local communities because uh in rest of the like if 25 percent forest is with the communities that means 75 percent forest is with the government and those people um living in and around those forest they don't have any legitimate legal formal ways to claim benefit from those forest so that means if any rate money comes to those forest we don't have any mechanism how to benefit the communities or people living around those forest and that means um we can't get their support to protect those forest so we have only provision for community forest because there we have existing system of benefits sharing but for all communities in non-community forest areas there is no any um existing system and that puts the rate in a risk because unless we have any established system to ensure benefits to those communities we wouldn't have rate in those other forest so certainly that applies to valuable forest in tarai because currently we don't have any scheme to benefit those communities um the second how napal's community forest experience can was your question to dr padel yeah yeah yeah um no i don't have very no other prescription for this used country with the diverse forest tenure regime here but simply from there from napal what i can say is no we have a very exon proven experience that if you transfer rights to use to manage to exclude others and to benefits from a range of forest product certainly you should you would be ensuring the protection of forest so even there is no rate or anything we have already protected forest in those areas so that is a lesson for any other countries from napal thank you um and maybe to move on to the second question would you like to to take that the question of can the the level of payments from the pfs actually match the opportunity costs um for land thank you for the very nice question uh i should say that for the water cesspool section services is a high opportunity cost of converting forest to the other land seal for example the conversion to the maze or coffee or cassava et cetera so um uh we should we will combine we will should propose to combine pfs which are the uh government and also non-government program uh it's lucky for our country that now so many international organizations it uh uh regards about the pfs policies such as iucn c4 and the ass and um and uh window international et cetera so the pfs uh the combining pfs with other program to get more resources of funding for forest protection um actually there is a um it's very challenging that's uh two different level of supplement uh so uh in the quarter three we will organize the workshop on the three-year implemented pfs in vietnam and then may be we will propose to revive the policy for application with uh in the current situation thank you okay thank you um okay are there any more questions burning questions there's a burning one here someone far at the back and anything else and one at the back on the left thank you uh hello um my name is lucas from c4 i would like to know a little bit more about the ownership system in miamar of forests so that we can understand the process by which uh there have been some impacts in the livelihoods of the people is it related to land privatization thank you for the opportunity my name is didi from climate and development knowledge network my question is simple uh if we are talking about the payment for ecosystem service and that is for water would it make sense to also consider pfs for renewable energy i mean this water also provides power for micro hydro and the local people can benefit from electricity it can help them with their livelihoods is there is electricity so renewable energy and maybe also protection from from floods and other disaster can it be made for ecosystem service my question is to the gentleman from nepal because you already have a lot of views thank you thank you my name susie i'm from for the solo ministry of forestry i have two questions if you don't mind the first one is to mr pham phantrum i'm very impressed actually because uh vietnam successfully reduced degradation by approximately 40 percent however i'm wondering how you how you fulfill the timber demand in that situation and while you mentioned your forest area only approximately 40 percent with forested land and the second one to mr iwan you mentioned non-carbon benefit that is strengthened community rights my question is how about the other rights is the scheme can ensure that the community rights be stronger than the other rights uh i think you know what i mean uh the second one is uh you if i'm not mistaken that the we are still waiting when the money for carbons will will come um my question is have you calculate or how much money have been spent on research or other activities other than direct or indirect benefits for forest owners or forest guards in this term community thank you thank you what a nice audience you are you've provided one question for each respondent um can we start with miamarr on the some background ownership forest ownership system thanks for the question in the usually forest are managed by the government ministry we use forest so community use forest but community never own the forest land but there are many there has been many land encroachment issue within the forest area and for us uh in 1992 the forest law was promulated and we realized that there are many people already and cruise the land and get down the tree and uh in the morning presentation i noticed that uh Indonesia had the same experience in recording the land because of the technology we do not have in 1980s around in Indonesia they did not have remote sensing in order to record how many acres of land covered by the forest and and how many are not covered by the forest etc the same problem we have been facing and we have known such a kind of specific data that much area is covered by the forest and not that much area is covered by the forest and um we keep the data from the i mean very old age in even from the british era it's around like 100 years ago we we keep that as it is that's why we're trying to change the data at the moment and in terms of demarcation there are two government departments responsible for land utilization uh for rural land and agricultural land and urban land is uh rural land and agriculture land is done by a ministry of agriculture and irrigation urban land is managed by a ministry of home affairs and apart from that land all the forest area is managed by the ministry of forestry so in terms of ownership we hardly know who owns a forest and come it is a common property and in dylan unless we do not uh uh produce kind of timber for and logging from the forest only the private business huge businessman can produce timber from the forest of the country and no community member can produce like this but we we regard that forest is our own our own common property we have to protect but uh not for the businessman they do as as they want thank you thank you um the next question was to napal and the issue of um whether pests in terms of renewable energy or issues such as fraud protection makes sense um thank you i think the the hydropower based pests in community forestry is interesting uh we have a very um bad example um bad in a sense no we have a provision that uh wherever there is a hydropower plant uh the local government would get i think 12.5 percent of the profit from the electricity sale and that money goes to local government um uh whose mandate is actually development and then the local government invests the money in building roads in the naples you know hills and that is actually you know contributing to the degradation siltation landslide of the watershed which were meant to protect by the incentive given by the hydro electricity company no so here is a mismatch between the intention and the outcome because you are giving money to protect the watershed to intense incentivize protection of watershed but actually the money go went to the through the local government and their mandate is not primarily resource conservation but primarily development and they invested in uh constructing road and that contributed to the degradation of the watershed so unless we have uh some mechanism to target the particular institution with the mandate to conserve the resources uh we wouldn't get result um but until now we don't have uh the legal framework that community forest user groups uh getting benefit from hydro electricity uh money uh but in in volunteer sense in some of the cases not in hydropower case but in drinking water case where there is a municipality nearby the community forest so there is there are uh internal understanding between the forest user group and the municipality and the municipalities are paying money to forest user group but these practice are not yet coded in the legal language thank you um and the question for you was okay yeah uh thank you that uh what we uh i'm trying to understand what your question is like if we uh strengthening community right it means we weakening the rights of the others i think we will not put it that way because why this idea coming is like because we have a long experience working under concessions and then until the day we don't have proper and enough platform especially for community let's say to to verify their claim so that's why i think to working on this area will help us also to understanding which area have community claim where is the other claim and then also we can provide it the platform how to facilitate this claim to check this claim to verify this claim and then i think if we can succeed on this case i think that's one of the biggest benefit that we have from the red plus and of course uh i think the private sector for examples when working in the concession have much better capacity to make things become clearer at least under their boundaries but when we talk about the community it's very difficult in many cases to make them claiming their rights and then if we talk about these rights it's not only about the land rights but also like how we can use a forest to strengthen community cultural identity because if we go to kalimantan they not only use a forest like for take non timber forest product but also for practicing their culture i think in that context we need to put that how we can strengthening their uh rights i think i think i will stop there was one second question from the lady about have you calculated how much has been spent on the the readiness aspect to yeah i think uh specifically calculated like the the breakdown is not but if we see like there's so many uh readiness initiative in Indonesia i think that's uh i don't know compared to the other country i think Indonesia is one of the biggest recipient for readiness fund from fcpf in Indonesia and Norway and then the other uh commitment is related also for now for readiness and like for examples if we can see that one of the initiative under baby red plus is like creating one map initiative that's also one of the benefit that we want to see that in the future Indonesia have a better database have a better information on the forest and then at the end the people will use the same map because in many cases when we talk about Indonesia data people will asking which data you use and i think this is also a readiness benefit we got that we have a better information we have a better data and i think with or without right in the future we will need it anyway so yeah if you asking me about the exact number it's quite difficult to answer now but i think it's important i think we can encourage colleagues from c4 to have a research on that like how the influence of readiness efforts in Indonesia can improving let's say forest governance in Indonesia so we can say that red plus is a good one for Indonesia because we got a lot of benefits not only carbon benefits thank you okay thank you and there was one more question i think it was for vietnam on um the issue of timber demand who was the who was asking this question oh another the lady from Forda how you deal with the the with the supply of timber is that correct yeah thank you for your question um you know in vietnam we have a 13.5 million hectare totally until now it's 13.5 million hectare and in general one four point one million hectare it will determine for implement PFAS uh actually we have a regulation for the local committee to use a timber in the forest in the the PFAS um in the within the PFAS policy we already give out the the coefficient for the K1 is the regulation for the quality of forest but actually until now we still not add fully applied for the coefficient so we hope that in uh after 2016 because we are now implementing the the the the program of the forest inventory as a time we will have a finger information or data about the forest and maybe we will implement forest quality relating to the coefficient yeah thank you for your question okay thank you i'm under pressure to wrap up the session now but before doing so i'm going to ask each of the speakers to come up with one key message tomorrow morning there's a high level panel and the rapporteur will need to take messages to that panel and to make her job easy um i'm going to ask you to give a one sentence if you can do it in 140 um characters so it can be tweeted immediately even better uh okay over to you who's ready to go you look ready to go like i explained at the beginning i i became to aware that that kind of uh red blast mechanism forest application and forest submit but the presentation i prepare from the perspective of uh land land land use um uh land use then uh my key message is uh for mea in terms of our emission we have uh i would say less responsible for that but we have to balance now at the moment for the country development between um development and sustainable equitable for the poor so we are in in terms of key message we would like to convey that we have to be our policy formulation has to be comprehensive and pro poor whereas we are welcoming we're inviting more development technology and also you know direct investment your thank you vietnam i should say that's for the key message is uh implementing the policy relating to the pfs should be strongly support or committed from all the level from the local community to the central authority yeah well from nepal experience it's uh if you have clear comprehensive and secure tenure rights supported by strong policy law and institutional framework that would certainly incentivize conservation what we are looking under page or read or anything i think that is the key listen tenure tenure and tenure rights yeah thank you i think for Indonesia that we want to see that red plus will working not only uh for carbon but also how we can strengthening the community rights the second one is like how to incentivize who perform well so i mean it's a positive incentive and then the third one if like how to make sure that that plus can addressing the effort of the forest station and improve the forest governance in Indonesia i think that's thank you very much um okay i'd like to thank everyone i'd like to thank the speakers for a really fascinating discussion many levels and many sectors um i'd like to thank the audience and um yeah will you join me in giving the speakers a random flaws thank you very much