 Thank you very much for the interview. Perhaps if we could start, if you could give us an update on what has happened since COP16 in Cancun? In Cancun, as you know, REDD Plus was essentially launched, agreed upon. The approach to preventing deforestation and forest degradation or reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation was adopted by countries in Cancun. The safeguards were adopted, the concept of providing policy incentives and supporting policy incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation was essentially adopted. But three outstanding things remain. And the first is, from a political point of view, the decision on finances on how REDD Plus will be financed was postponed to Durban. And then there are two technical issues that have to be elaborated and then adopted, which is guidance and reference levels, which is how countries will essentially measure, report and verify the emission reductions and the levels from which they start that MRV. And safeguards, guidance on how to implement what's called an information system for safeguards. So we're discussing that. So since Cancun, what we're doing now is to discuss and negotiate and try to arrive at agreement on these guidance, and that's happening in SOBSTA in the UNFCCC. And for the finance discussion, that's happening in the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action or what's called the LCA Group in the UNFCCC. So where are we now on safeguards? There's agreement, broad agreement on safeguards, on the principles, on what those safeguards should be. They're essentially social safeguards, protection of indigenous peoples' rights, of community rights, of the rights of stakeholders, right to information, those type of things. There's governance safeguards related to transparency, accountability, anti-corruption. And then there is environmental safeguards related to environmental integrity, to protection of biodiversity, etc. That's agreed. No need to do anything else for that. But what's not agreed or what's not developed and therefore agreed is the system in which countries report how they're implementing safeguards. So that's being negotiated now. And over the last nine months before Durban or the last since June, but essentially and up to Panama, we've had discussions both within the process but also outside the process to expert workshops to actually elaborate this. It's not as easy as it looks. What kind of reporting countries will do? Who will do the reviewing? Obviously there's tension between the countries. There are those who say, well, countries should just unilaterally report what they're doing with safeguards. Others say, no, no, there needs to be some kind of format for reporting, some kind of review. So in Durban in the next two weeks, the parties will look at this again, will get the information and the discussions or the sorts of discussions during an expert workshop that was done in Panama, and then they'll decide. Hopefully they'll adopt what's called a guidance document and then give it to the conference of the parties, for the conference of the parties to officially adapt, ask the guidance for countries on how they will implement and report on safeguards. Where are we on MRV monitoring, reporting and verification? And the debate between REL, reference emission levels, and REL, reference levels. That's less advanced than safeguards, not because we didn't pay attention to it, but it's a much more complex and difficult issue and it's a technical issue. And the truth is that many countries are not really prepared to implement an MRV system, to engage in detail technically on these issues. In Durban, there was an initial discussion on what countries thought should be. No consensus emerging about all the different issues, but a really honest frank exchange of what needed to be done to get to where we want to be so that we can implement Red Plus. And just this month in November, there was a meeting in Bonn of experts to try to elaborate this further. And the real key question is not so much, I think, REL or REL. It's really how countries also politically now will choose their baselines. Because that is not going to be a technical question, right? I mean, there's technical issues around it, but that eventually will be a political question. How do you take into account national circumstances, you know what I mean? Unique circumstances. How do you compare? Do you actually even compare between countries? There's been some good technical work. I mean, I think the Meridian Institute, for example, I think with the support of Norway, has developed this document on reference levels. I think C4 itself has produced a number of papers to assist countries in doing that. But that needs to trickle down to negotiators to be able to make that decision. So we see, I think there's some uncertainty of the extent through which we can adapt a decision on reference levels by the end of Durman. But with hard work, given the importance of this to launch the mechanism to really implement Red Plus, I feel confident that countries, the parties will be able to adapt this guidance document. Tony, could a failure to agree on the rules for MRV in Durban delay the widespread implementation of Red? Well, it will in the sense that countries will be on their own on how to design and develop their MRV system. So it adds uncertainty, right, in the next phase. Ideally for me, especially if we resolve finance as well in Durban, ideally for me, countries should now actually really fast track in 2012. The development of the Red Plus systems and programs, right? And it's not going to take a year. It's going to take two or three years to really put that up. So it's not like, you know, so the less uncertainty it is, the better for countries. And the better also for donors, the better for investors. Where are we on financing? Do we need a more lateral framework on mitigation to move ahead with Red? Or can we sidestep that process? You know, finance is an interesting, it's in an interesting stage on Red Plus finance in particular. On one hand, you know, one can see the hostage of the overall sort of UNFCCC climate finance jam, if you want to frame it that way, or hurdles that we are facing given the magnitude of what's needed and, you know, and the willingness of countries, you know, develop country partners to put up the money that was promised. So that kind of thing, it's in a way held hostage to that and the rules. So in our finance discussions in Red Plus countries, some countries have been, you know, very frank that we love Red and we want to move forward in this, but all of this is dependent on what happens in the overall finance structure. I would say that there are enough parties, I mean a majority of parties, both developed and developing country parties, that actually see that Red Plus doesn't have, you know, many of the problems that are crapping up in other climate finance issues, you know, as long as we deal with safeguards properly, many parties feel that we can actually move forward on Red Plus finance. So in answer to your question, I say, you know, I mean, I think you can do a double track, not even a triple track approach to moving forward on Red Plus and financing Red Plus. I mean, in fact, that's the essence of the discussion so far that I've been having in the group that I facilitate, that people are saying, you know, look, this is Red Plus. Red Plus is a menu of activities. There's also a menu of financial resources available to finance those activities. So you can have the multilateral windows, the green climate fund, you can have bilateral funds, you can have national funds, and there's even parties that say there's even an opening even at this stage, at the early stage of private sector finance, you know, not necessarily markets. We always clarify that, not necessarily markets. Probably, you know, the world is not ready right now. I mean, we certainly not with a full-blown carbon market or Red Plus carbon market. That's only possible if there's a full-blown overall carbon market, right? So that's not going to be there for a long time. But private sector finance, I think, has a role to play as well. I mean, so the challenge in the negotiations is actually finding the framework and agreeing on the framework that allows this multiplicity, and I mean, I would call it, you know, to borrow from Mao Chitung, right? I mean, a thousand flowers blooming in, I mean, and multiple trucks of financing, multiple Red Plus type of activities as well. That's the key. With doubts high that we're going to get an overarching mitigation framework anytime soon, what is motivating the private sector to get involved? Market is just one part of the interest of the private sector, you know, in the area of Red Plus. Certainly, at some point, the carbon market might have, will have a role, but because I see that as a theoretical question for now, given the lack of a strong mitigation framework, strong targets by countries, you know, you shouldn't derail an agreement on Red Plus finance just on the single issue, right? So I'm more in favor of broadening the discussion around private sector finance in general and what might motivate the private sector to come in from anywhere from corporate social responsibility to predictability of products that can come out from forest because of, you know, I think that the problem, I think, is we're trying to lump all private sector as the finance institutions, right? And so therefore, and that all their interest is about the market. I think it will be a mistake to have the discussion focused just on that. Tony, how optimistic are you that in the medium term, the world is going to get anywhere close to the $17 to $30 billion each year that UNEP says we need to slow the rate of deforestation? It's how close we are. I mean, I think the answer to that is to resolve the pending issues, right? I mean, we will be closer if we are actually able to, well, the two things already earlier mentioned, right? So advance the implementation of preparation plans by advancing the discussion on reference levels, settling safeguards because that's so key to getting people to be confident that this is a mechanism that will work and that will not, you know, dispossess people and not bad for the environment. And this, we need to settle, I think, and I hope we can do that in Durban. This idea that dread plus finance should be financed from multiple sources. The $30 billion will not come from national budgets, you know. Neither will it come from the private sector as if it's like a faucet that the money will just come in. I think we have to be creative in those sources and might have to launch various processes, not necessarily within the UFT policy to get the amount that's needed. And I think that's the key. With the negotiations at COP16 in Cancun almost derailed because of the objections of a small number of countries, how can we make the process of negotiations more productive this time around? It's been a pleasant surprise, but this year has been a good year process-wise. Parties have really engaged with each other, brainstormed on each other, you know. We had a bad first meeting in Bangkok in April, which was an agenda meeting for one week. But that was necessary because I got parties to look at themselves in the mirror, I suppose, and the people responsible for the negotiations to look at us in the mirror and say, well, no, this is not going to work if we do it this way. So I think everyone hunkered down to work and Bon was very fruitful and Panama was very fruitful. So I'm actually confident that from a technical point of view, we advance this to the best that we can. The technical negotiators would be able to advance it to the best that we can. Red plus finance, particularly, you mentioned a number of countries that had difficulties, but we haven't seen that in these negotiations. We have seen people take positions, of course they have to, but they're willing to listen to each other. So I'm actually confident that we will be able to find a solution specific for red plus finance. Really, the overall challenge is in the overall process, right? And in particular, what you do with the Kyoto Protocol. For us in developing countries, that's like a test, right? A line that we cannot cross to be able to accept that the Kyoto Protocol will die. We do not accept that and we cannot accept that. But how do you extend it? And that's a serious question that's, as we say, beyond my pay grade to answer. So that for me, South Africans come up with some kind of legal mandate to negotiate a new thing. What does that mean? Do we mean we basically go back to Bali and restart this process while keeping the gains now and moving forward on the decisions that have already been adopted in Cancun and now in Durban? And maybe, as I've always said, as invested as I am in this process, I've been in this process for nearly 20 years, I'm one of those really open of saying, this is a good process, it has a role to play. But maybe there are other processes we should consider to solve various parts of the problem of climate change. And that we have to consider. And for forestry, I think that's true. The red plus finance framework in the UNFCC is important and it's there. But to think that everything on red will happen under the UNFCCC, I think it's not desirable, even from a financial point of view or a practical point of view. I think it would make sense if we actually identify all the different other processes and other venues as you would put it to advance this whole approach of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. And that for me is we're on the tip of doing that once we actually agree on the red plus, overall red plus framework, including the finance framework for red plus and safeguards. It's like a tree, right, and the branches and they go off. And it's actually good that they go off in different directions. What is the problem so huge and so big as you know that we're better off if it actually branches off. But it has roots in a very clear policy framework that all countries in the world have adapted. What are your thoughts on the suggestion to include agriculture in red? Would it make the mechanism too complicated? No, you do it in faces. I support the overall concept because for the Philippines, for example, agriculture and forests are essentially the same already. In other words, you cannot draw a boundary, so it benefits us. And that was negotiated actually. That was discussed in the run up to Copenhagen, which I also facilitated. But because precisely of the complexity of just doing, you know, forest, if I remember, it's all started as red, just deforestation and forest degradation. The plus means you include conservation, sustainable management of forest enhancement of forest stocks, right? So you add that, that's why it's called a red plus mechanism. And then you include agriculture and you have red plus plus, right? And part to say, you know, the thing is that we're ready with red. And there's lots of work already on red plus. But we really haven't done a lot of work on agriculture yet. You know what I mean? And particularly among developing countries, you know, measuring emissions, you know, figuring out how to mitigate emissions from land use, soil use, etc. We don't have that kind of experience yet on measuring, reporting, verifying and intervening to get that done. So you can do this in sequence. So the Cancun decision actually says that parties will have to discuss this, not for Durban, but for next year. So there will now be discussions not in Durban, but in the next year, leading possibly to a recommendation in 2012, in December 2012, in the next COP after Durban on what to do with agriculture, whether to launch a program in a red plus plus program by the time. And you can develop these systems differently at first and then eventually integrate them to each other. But agriculture would have it easier, right? Because they would have learned from their forest experience. What impact is the financial crisis going to have on negotiations in Durban? Our partners have not really used the financial crisis as an excuse not to deliver what they have promised, right? But we know it affects budgets, right? What countries will be able to commit over the long term? So for me, the real impact is not so much the numbers, but it's the psychological impact that we realize that there's really not that much money for this. Although the cynical part of me says that there's a lot of money for war and for other things and these sort of things, right? So this is really just a pin-ups compared to other things we spend for us. So I would like to think that if we had a political will, we can find the money. The psychological impact though is if you cannot rely on national governments and the budgets of national governments, where else do you turn to? And that's why it's important for me, not just for red plus finance and not just for mitigation, but even for adaptation. How do we get, how do we involve the private sector? And in a way, there are safeguards as well. That's key to be done. That's my last one from the red plus negotiations, that you can actually move forward on something where stakeholders, the poor, the indigenous peoples are involved, the private sector could get heavily involved. So therefore, that's a recipe for potential disaster, right? But you can actually move forward if there's agreement on the safeguards that parties can use to ensure that perverse outcomes are not met. So for me, if the COP in Durban is able to resolve, able to have a framework on private sector participation in climate, you know what I mean, in a way that is transparent, accountable, just that would such be, would be a big advance. We can really have a broad possible progress on that, is because any rational human being looking at the situation will know that the money is not there, or the money is difficult to find from national budgets. And if that's the case, we have to be innovative and creative. In the past couple of weeks, California has adopted a cap-and-trade system and a small amount of that money can go towards red. What message is that sending to the world, and in particular to the negotiators at Durban? What's happening in individual states like California, you know what I mean, I think that has to be heard, and I hope people, not necessarily the US government, but those who are involved in these initiatives will actually share it with us. But this is an example of what I said earlier, you know what I mean, that the more diverse and innovative our sources and our approaches would be, the nearer we will get to the 30 or so billion that we need to really, you know, maximize a red plus approach to both climate and the forestation, and forest degradation, you know, and dealing with forest or forest challenges. So for me, that's an example of, you know, if you have multiple things like this going on, plus the big red plus will be in GCF, the green climate finance part of the mitigation, hopefully later on they will create a red plus window. If red plus is going to be in bilaterals like with Norway and other countries doing red plus finance, if it's with the banks and FCF and all the different, you know, and individual states like that, and private companies, I mean, the thing is to multiply that and count them so that you get to where you want to be. From your perspective as somebody coming from the Philippines, do you see the voice of developing countries becoming louder and louder in these multilateral negotiations? No, definitely. I mean, first what's called the basic countries, the big developing countries, China, Brazil, India, South Africa, they certainly have a very big and influential voice now, particularly on mitigation. Both I think and I support overall their approach and I mean, offering to do things that they can do, and we know very well how much China is doing in mitigation and Brazil and India, you know, so we know that and so sort of the strategy of both offering what they can do but at the same time making sure that historical accountability, you know, remains a principle, that I think is being heard and being very influential in the process and I guess agreement with the United States and the developed countries will depend on how that issues are solved. Oh, on adaptation, I think countries like the U.S. countries, countries like the Philippines have had a very strong voice, have really led the work on adaptation, which I think is really the new thing in this round of negotiations and I mean, adaptation is just as important now as mitigation. People forget how big a victory that is for developing countries. Adaptation was not, I'm telling you, not in the agenda in the first ten years of the climate change negotiations. Now it's equal to mitigation. So that's a big, that's why for me, the Bali process has been a success, a huge success because adaptation is now as important as mitigation. We should have done that in 1992, you know, and we wouldn't have lost time in getting countries to prepare for what was coming. It was in 1992, regardless of what we did, climate change impacts were going to come. You know what I mean? The ones that we're facing now, we're already committed to do this in the 19, we're committed to this kind of impact way back in the 80s and 90s. So morally, I think countries should have invested already early on in adaptation. Anyway, you know, it's late, but it's finally there. And then on Red Plus, this is driven really by developing countries. You know, the Coalition of Forest Nations, Brazil, Indonesia, Norway is an important driver. It's been very influential in this process, I would say. But for me, that's why I have no qualms about pushing this further and getting this to agreement as much as earlier because this is a developing country-driven, you know, process. And thankfully, the developed countries like it. And they have not posed obstacles and have been very cooperative and have been very engaged with developing countries and doing that. So yes, I would say that compared to certainly where we were when I first attended the first conference of the parties in Berlin in 1995 when it was all about mitigation commitments of developed countries or even the Kyoto Protocol in December of 1997 when it was all about, you know, emission reductions of developed countries I think were very much advanced than where we used to be in terms of developing country ownership and participation in this process.