 I'm not going to present research findings. But instead, I will address a number of issues that are associated to the implementation of these zero deforestation commitments. And because they represent an emerging trend in the conservation of remaining forests in the world. So the issues that are going to be briefly discussed this morning are not supposed to be comprehensive either. They reflect the thinking of the governance portfolio actually at C4, which is investing time and resources now in the study of this issue. So this is very much a collective work. And that includes people such as Pablo Pacheco, Sofia Gnitch, Christopher Bidzinski, George Neveld, our research director, Steve, and myself. So the origins of this movement can be linked to the relative failure, or at least slow implementation of a number of policies and mechanisms and initiatives in the past. You can think about RADD. You can think about fleck deep processes, the establishment of protected areas, a number of certification standards, and others. The origins are also linked to the rise in agricultural commodities production as a major cause of deforestation in the tropics. And the origins can also be linked to a very high, actually an increased intensity of campaigns by NGO against major corporations in order to change the practices on the ground. So to make a long story short of an introduction, I would say that the private sector is now seen as the most effective target to reduce deforestation right away as companies make these decisions on the ground. And they are easy targets of campaigns that affect the image among consumers. And so this is a very specific characteristic for this movement. And as targeted companies include processors, traders, retailers, consumer goods manufacturers, beside producers, of course, these commitments are also commonly referred to as deforestation-free supply chains, because it's all about cleaning these supply chains. So there's been commitments now for a few years. You may remember Nestle, that was one of the first in 2010. But these commitments have clearly increased in intensity over the past two years. And it's important to also mention the New York Declaration on Forests that was signed in September 2014, last year. And it can be seen as more or less a breakthrough with the signatures of the major groups, but also governments and NGOs and other stakeholders. So according to this declaration, the objective is to cut natural forest loss in half by 2020 and to end it by 2030. And since that time, there's been literally an avalanche of commitments. So Indonesia that I'm going to study today has been at the forefront of this movement with two sectors primarily involved, opam and pulp and paper. These two sectors have been historically, traditionally involved, associated, I would say, to large scale deforestation to give way to the establishment of opam plantations or pulpwood plantations to supply the meals. These commitments have multiplied impressively recently, but still a number of issues have to be addressed to make sure that these commitments are sustainable, equitable, and I would say even effective, which is not demonstrated yet. So the scope of these commitments is important. And we observe clearly a tendency to move beyond zero deforestation. In order to include peatland management, but also conflicts with local populations. So it would be misleading to think of these commitments of this movement as only concerned by the sourcing of crops of fiber from deforestation free areas. Yet, as this remains actually the core of these commitments, it is also useful to note that zero gross deforestation is usually considered and applied as opposed to zero net or zero illegal deforestation. It means, in practice, that the compensation of forest conversion somewhere by deforestation elsewhere is usually not permitted as part of these commitments. The question of definitions is, of course, also central. Indeed, stopping deforestation implies to define what is a forest, which in turn requires to have the tools to identify these forests for conservation. There is a multitude of potential definitions of forests, depending on your perspectives. Could be biodiversity, could be density of tree cover, and so on and so forth. But for these commitments, two tools have been primarily used to identify what we call no-go areas that won't be converted. These two tools are high conservation value, HCV, and high carbon stock, HCS. So with regards HCV, it looks at the range of values in terms of biophysical, but also cultural aspects, along with environmental services, and also interactions between ecosystems. High carbon stock, HCS, on the other hand, looks more specifically at biomass per hectare. And it was more recently designed as part of the commitments and discussions around mitigation of climate change. So in that case, the measurement of biomass is used as a proxy for the condition of the forest cover. It is important also to note that these tools are evolving very rapidly, they are modified, they are refined, and the way forward seems to be actually a combination of both in order to be as comprehensive as possible in how you identify forests. So although the movement is based on the assumption that the private sector makes commitment for its own sourcing of crops and fiber, we see a future for greater involvement of the public sector, as corporate commitments in practice can hardly stand alone. We observe in Indonesia, unfortunately, that a number of companies have faced resistance by the government in the implementation of their commitments. In particular, problems were identified with open plantations, concessions, where the areas when the areas set aside based on HTV or HCS assessments were subsequently removed from the concession and reallocated to other companies for further conversion. It can also happen that when the completion of these assessments is too long that concession licenses are eventually withdrawn and reallocated to other companies as well. So for these reasons, it seems obvious that the movement, we have to move to what we call more hybrid forms of governance with the support of governments. For instance, in order to solve social conflicts with appropriate law enforcement and the identification of legitimate versus abusive claims to land, this cooperation between public and private could also translate into more jurisdictional approaches at the district or provincial level as was attempted by RADD as well. I would also mention initiatives such as the OneMap in Indonesia that are also welcome in order to avoid overlaps between permits issued by different bodies. In terms of issues, smallholders are also identified as key actors for the success of the movement on the ground and its sustainability. Indeed, the risks that pledgers occupy very large areas of land and that decisions to set aside forested areas while cultivating the rest lead to very restricted access to land by smallholders. In other words, occupation of land by the big groups. This risk is intensified in Indonesia and for the open sector because of the multitude of land claims associated to uncertain land tenure and because of smallholders actually represent an extraordinary dynamic sector with a great variety of actors with different characteristics. In addition, with an increasing share of the private companies committing to zero deforestation, there is a risk that smallholders suffer from restricted access to markets but also to processing units, which is something we label as market fragmentation. Therefore, they have to be involved in a way or another and the future efforts might have to focus on how to make smallholders eligible to these deforestation-free supply chains. Legacy, legacy is another key issue and can be understood as a fact that many committing companies have been involved in environmental destruction and abuse of people's rights in the past. So that they might have to go beyond these zero deforestation commitments in the future. They might have to go beyond simply stopping deforestation and violating the rights of people. So this, in practice, can translate in several ways, including the restitution of land to communities or into additional investments in forest restoration. We can actually already observe a number of efforts made by the main pulp and pepper groups to move to a landscape approach with concrete investments in the system of ecosystem restoration concessions in Indonesia. And these should probably be encouraged. So these are just some prominent issues that C4 is interested in for further examination. We're working here on living material and this is work in progress. We don't know exactly yet about the actual outcomes of this movement. So to summarize very briefly, we actually see great potential in the emergence of this movement for concrete. That's important and sizable action against deforestation in key countries like Indonesia, but it could be also Brazil. But there are also a range of risks, especially with respect to small holders and also the necessity to rely on the support by the governments to be truly effective and sustainable. So the way forward, one of the ways forward, might also be a consolidation of standards. There's been a proliferation of commitments and standards. And a united industry, government, and civil society front, as well as a more inclusive mechanism to ensure more growers can participate. And I will stop here. Thank you, Steve. Thank you, Romain, for those comments and observations. So we've got some time now for questions and comments from colleagues. I'm sure they're Kristoff. Yeah. The last point, one of the last points you made about possible solutions to the United Front of private sector and the government, could you maybe just elaborate what do you have in mind exactly what kind of United Front? What would that be? Is it some kind of fora? Or what does this involve? What is this United Front? So, well, yeah, I think it can take different forms, actually. When I mentioned very briefly the possibility to have, for instance, jurisdictional approaches, that would be a way to actually have the private companies. But also the governments, also subnational, actually, authorities walking together in order to define some areas that would be free of deforestation. The problem is what we see now is that you have a multitude, you have a multiplication, actually, of these commitments that go in many different directions by all of these private companies. And even worse, I mean, these companies operate at different levels. They could be producers. But I mean, the innovation is that many of these companies are not producers. They are traders. They are retailers, which is actually a way to include more actors. So the problem is you have different definitions. You have different standards. You have different kinds of commitments, with different kinds of starting dates, methodologies to identify forests and everything. So that having something done as a jurisdiction level with the implication of the authorities might actually be the way forward and a way to give even more credibility and effectiveness to the movement in practice. So the government, in order to be involved in this movement, will have to show willingness to participate. And that might depend on the countries. But as we look at Indonesia today, it looks like the problem is you may have conflicting objectives, actually, between the government and these companies. The thing is these commitments actually go beyond the legal framework, the regulations. This is a point. And so there are potential conflicts between the laws and the objectives of the government in terms of development. And the strategies by the company, in order to save the reputation, in order to respond to these campaigns. So in order to deal with that and to solve these potential conflicts, I think that all of these actors have to actually sit together and work out solutions together. And that might be done at the jurisdictional level. It's a possibility. OK. Yeah. Other comments and questions? Fanda? Thank you so much for your presentation. I wonder, you said that the experience in Indonesia could be replicated in Brazil. But I understand Brazil. OK, I will clarify. And I wonder, because Brazil didn't sign the declaration in New York. And also, I would like to know what do you think about Brazil's position not to sign the declaration. OK. Yeah. So maybe that, I mean, I would like to involve some people in the audience as well. And Pablo, for instance, if you want to comment on that, because you are the one who knows most about the situation in Brazil. But in terms of replication, no, it's not what I mean. It's actually interesting to see major differences between countries in terms of what is done as part of the zero deforestation movement. When we look at Brazil, I mean, we see something that is more in line with the regulations. Actually, I mean, there's been a number of articles written about these commitments in the beef industry. And it looks like these commitments, labeled zero deforestation commitments, were in response by some action by the government, the federal government, or even states in order for these companies to comply with the regulations, and especially the environmental cadastre. So in Indonesia, it's completely different because the government is actually kind of unwilling to step into this process, as I understand. Because there might be these conflicting objectives. So it's interesting to see. I mean, we are very early in the process, and it's difficult to draw lessons and conclusions. But it looks like something that looks very simple on paper. The very rational of the zero deforestation movement and commitments can be applied in very contrasting ways, depending on the countries where it takes place. So I would not personally draw lessons from what happens in Indonesia for replication in other countries. That's what I could respond. Other questions? Dan? From my understanding, there are various NGOs working with the companies. There are other international organizations like ourselves who are also looking at zero deforestation. This is a relatively new thing. Who, amongst all these players, is sort of emerging as sort of a leader in this field? C4? No, I wouldn't say it's very difficult to say. And I have a very distorted view, I would say, and even maybe biased. But I think as far as Indonesia is concerned, I think it's important to look at Greenpeace, for instance, and the Forest Trust. These are two different kinds of actors. So Greenpeace is this NGO that everybody knows about. TFT, the Forest Trust, is more like a consulting or auditing firm. And so they play different roles. And they've been very influential, actually, in how some of these open companies have defined their own commitments, and especially how they have defined the tools that are going to enable them to identify the forests to be set aside, which is actually the point. If you have different kinds of methodologies, you may end up with different kinds of forests set aside. And so different outcomes from an environmental perspective. So I think Greenpeace and TFT in Indonesia, but in other countries, it might be completely different. In terms of research centers, actually what you see is a proliferation of initiatives with websites and everything that are supposed to keep track of all of these commitments. In order to keep track of the scope, to keep track of the implementation. So it seems to be a very competitive environment. And I personally don't see one main and prominent actor. It's more like a proliferation. It's like a proliferation of standards in order to reflect the views of all of these stakeholders. And before you agree on one good standard, it's kind of the same with all of these websites and organizations that try to keep track and monitor the implementation of these commitments. Who knows in the future who is going to be seen as a reference? Yeah? Can I just follow up question, Dan? Yeah, follow up. Would the private sector of the companies that are working in this space that have pledged their net deforestation, would they welcome one standard? Well, I'm not in the heads. I think that so far they might feel comfortable with their own standards for obvious reasons. It's kind of an open field. So you can make all of these statements about your policies, to avoid deforestation, to solve conflicts with people. And if you're able to, at the same time, define the games of the rule, then it's even better, right? You will play with your own rules. And so the implications of having one standard is actually that you don't decide of the games of the rule anymore. So I don't think that it is really in the interest of these companies to have one standard. But at the same time, I mean, this is very new. There is going to be more and more scrutiny by a number of actors, including ourselves. And so maybe that in the end, I mean, these companies will have no other choice than agreeing on one standard that will give more credibility. As well as I said before, that working with the governments might give more credibility to all of these commitments, having one standard might be the same. Otherwise, it's a jungle. And it's also a jungle, because many of these statements and policies are announced, but have not started yet. The starting date might be in 2016 or 2020. Especially in the open sector, because that's really jungle, because you have so many groups, so many companies, you have small holders and everything. In the pulp and pepper sector, it's kind of different. You have an oligopoly with two main groups, and they have actually already established the policies with different names, Sustainable Forest Management for April, and Forest Conservation Policy for APP. And that started already in early 2013. And they have actually already been evaluated, assessed, by independent assessors. In one case, Rainforest Alliance. In the other case, KPMG as an auditing firm. So in that case, I mean, for pulp and pepper, it's less of a jungle. It's really easier, but at the same time, they don't want to have their common policy. They don't want to have their common standards, because it's kind of a race. It's a race in terms of communication as well. So, but I don't know about the future. Maybe they won't have a choice. Can we take one more question? Pablo. Romain, you mentioned something, but I would like to ask you about if you can elaborate a bit more about the indirect effects of these commitments that can be indirect. Well, the direct effect seems to be obvious, but the indirect seems to be less obvious. Like, for example, leakage effects, segmentations of value changes in the capacity to compete of these different groups. So if you can elaborate a bit more on that. So, well, you named it. So leakage, for instance. So to make it clear, I think once again, because I think it's important to understand that potential loophole in this movement, it's about supply chains, and it's about all of these individual companies and everything, so that leakage is actually an obvious risk. You have a number of companies that commit, they make sure that they source the fiber or the crops from the first station-free areas, but it might actually, you know, displace, or it might displace a problem to other areas. So that's kind of obvious, but that's something that is quite similar with, I would say, with RADD, but at a different level. If you assume that RADD is applied at a country level, you might have leakage with displacement of activity in other countries. In the case of zero deforestation commitments, you might have leakage and displacement of activities just to other areas. And that's something that was illustrated by the examples of these opal plantations that undertaken these assessments and decided to set aside a number of areas. But then the licenses were withdrawn, or the set aside areas were just withdrawn from these concessions, removed from these concessions and relocated. So leakage is an obvious problem. At the same time, so if you look at pulp and paper, I mean, as almost all of the sector is involved, is included and actually has committed, leakage is less of a problem because it just controls the entire estate. In the case of opal, it's more worrying. It's a more tangible threat indeed. But that's the point of having actually commitments at the level of traders. I think that you have about, if I remember well, like in Indonesia, 96, I mean almost all of global trade of palm oil production in Indonesia is covered by these commitments. So actually what is not covered is just production for domestic consumption, for domestic markets. And this might represent about 20% to 30% of the production. So indeed, there is a risk of leakage for that. In terms of indirect impacts, you mentioned also indeed the question of smallholders. So we see there are several problems. There are problems associated to land claims. I am not sure, though, that this would be specific to these commitments. You have the problem of tenure in Indonesia is extremely prominent. And you have it with the expansion of productive activities, with the expansion of plantations. So I'm not sure that this is made even more problematic with these commitments. But the problem is that if you control these large areas, large concessions, and you set aside, let's say, 30%, 40%, even 50% of the land sometimes, as is the case for some of these pole pool plantations, then you have to produce in other areas, right, in order to supply your meals. You have your capacities. You just decide to not use the full potential of your land, of your concession. So you have to produce from elsewhere. It can actually be a risk, but it can also be an opportunity, depending on the sectors. In the case of all palm, I guess it would be a risk, because then you have to apply to other land to get permits and to develop your plantations. And then you end up with increased pressure towards smallholders that will have a restricted access to land. In the case of the pulp and pepper sector, I would almost actually see that as an opportunity, because you already have the systems in place. You already have the regulations in place for smallholders to get access to the forest estate in order to establish their own plantations, so that in the end, if the main groups want to increase the capacities, processing capacities, and need to access to other sources of fiber, then I have to rely, actually, on these smallholders that might benefit from support from the government, at least in terms of new rights to the land, usually use rights for 35 years, or even incentive sometimes. So it's not actually very clear, in terms of indirect impacts, whether these are going to be purely negative, but also represent sometimes opportunities. It's very early, and it's very difficult to conclude on that. So there's so much interest in what you're speaking to, Romain, that we're going to take at least two more questions. Bambika and then Peter. I just had a very simple question. So what are the incentives for the companies that comply? So the incentive is not to be blacklisted. I will give a very short answer. No, I mean, that's the point, right, of having these NGO campaigns. I mean, you can remember KitKat campaigns, very visible. You can remember that even Barbie was dumped by Ken, because the producer Mattel was accused of using natural forest to produce packaging products. So they're really everywhere. You can see these campaigns on television. You can see these campaigns on many media. And so they have to react in some ways. Otherwise, they might have reduced access to actually the markets. You as a consumer, me as a consumer might decide to go for different products. I would say it's kind of a theoretical risk. I'm not so sure myself, not so sure that studies have been made that actually demonstrate the impacts on consumers of having these campaigns. But at least what we can see is that the companies take it seriously enough to take action. And this seems to be a massive trend. This is to be a very heavy trend. So at least the companies make the assumption that they will lose market shares more or less if they don't react to these campaigns. Isn't it more concrete than that? And that many of the major consumer goods companies insist that the products that they buy have been produced sustainably and against certain standards. If you don't meet those standards, you can't sell on those markets. You can't sell all those companies. And we can come to Brazil at some point and talk about the soy moratorium where companies pledged in 2005 as a condition for getting access to European and American markets that their production of soy would not contribute to any additional deforestation. And research undertaken last year, nine years later, established that there was only a 1% increase in deforestation on land covered by the soy moratorium compared to a 35% increase in deforestation in areas where soy was produced under the supervision of the Brazil forest code. So it's that the market is imposing. It's just not reputational sort of campaigns. It's very specific requirements established by consuming companies. Home Depot in the US will not purchase any timber that hasn't been produced to FSC certification. So it's a government, what we call increasingly in governance portfolio. These are non-state forest governance arrangements. And they're really about the interaction between civil society, companies, and markets. I'm sorry to intervene at such length, but Peter. Thanks. Thanks, Roman. This is a really interesting new big topic for us and for many others. And I have a number of concerns just like you have and just wanted to point to a few of them. One is actually coming out also what Steve just said. What we're seeing is a tremendous new trend that at least in some of the rich markets, goods should be sustainably sourced. That's good. And that's what's behind the New York Declaration. Everybody was holding hand and thinking this was a good idea. Problem is that sustainably sourced has been equaled to no deforestation. Which means that as long as there is no deforestation, everything else is okay. That is a clear danger that we're approaching that kind of situation. And so one concern I think you are addressing is that the concept of zero deforestation is monopolized in the sustainability agenda in terms of land use, forestry, landscapes and so on. That's a big concern. The second concern I have is that we're talking about zero deforestation oil pump, for example. Does anyone know how much deforestation is caused by conversion to oil pump plantations today? I haven't seen any number of that. So I don't know what we're chasing. And considering that deforestation is going down quite rapidly in most places, I think even in Indonesia. I would, of course, have known those things had I been a CEO, signed in the New York Declaration that this is not a big deal. I mean, we can achieve zero deforestation and still get our products out there. So are we chasing a white elephant here? So on the first, actually, yeah. I mean, this is a criticism that was I think before addressed to RODD as well. And kind of a focus on deforestation, conservation, and leaving aside all of these pitlands and leaving aside Cerrado in Brazil and all of these other ecosystems that was important. Okay, so I will, yeah, yeah. You're right, but I will go back to that. And so that's a problem. And that's actually, as I understand it, Pablo might confirm or in film. That's why Brazil was not signatory actually to the New York Declaration last year. Because they didn't want their development agenda to be prevented by these zero deforestation commitments. They thought it's wiser actually to be able to do land use planning for development at the national level and then still keep the options to convert some pieces of forest into something else, because indeed. So I think maybe that's more or less your concern, but and then on the social side, on the pitland management side, I would actually emphasize that these commitments actually go beyond purely a pure conservation. And they have to deal with social conflicts. And as part of many of these commitments, companies have to undertake to apply the free and prior informed consent methods in order to make sure that people who live in the areas are aware of the development and agree to the objectives. So, and you also have these policies labeled no deforestation, no pit, no deforestation, no pit, no exploitation. And in that case, that involves labor rights and everything. So I wouldn't say really that these commitments are just about conservation. They might go beyond. And they might go beyond even more in the future because of the pressures by the NGOs. We had this first dialogue, the first dialogue recently in Rio and range of stakeholders, many, about 30 of them, NGOs, firms and everything. And social issues were really at the center, I would say, of these discussions. Sometimes even more than deforestation. Your second point was? The first is deforested, what are we chasing? Yeah, so no, I'm not sure that this is a ghost, that we're chasing or a white elephant. No, I think that all time is, as I understand, there's been studies about the development of oil palm in Indonesia and clearly it is a threat. As I understand, I don't have the figures, maybe Christoph has, but I think it's a real threat that is worth being addressed. And then you have the question of companies. Sorry, I have to clarify my question then because obviously expansion of oil palm has been in forest land. But looking forward, is anyone looking at this, how much are we talking about? You don't have the figures, who has the figures? No, no, I don't have figures, but what we see as part of our project, when interacting with local governments, as a district of provincial levels and the companies, I mean, a lot, I mean, actually most of the licenses, if not all of the licenses for agricultural development on the first estate for oil palm. And we have this project in East Kalimantan with these Mahaka Mulu District, where you have maybe 95% of forest cover. And all of the new licenses for agricultural development are allocated to oil palm companies. And people don't even ask a question, it's kind of obvious. There is some sort of craziness about it. And I think it's not going to stop. This is really maybe the major sector to address as long as the first station is concerned. Pulp and paper, maybe we don't have time now to elaborate, but pulp and paper is, it's also understand just very briefly. Because I say that the two prominent sectors were oil palm and pulp and paper in Indonesia. They are completely different. They pose completely different challenges that can be addressed in different ways. Oil palm is actually, I would say, the major threat now. Pulp and paper has really tried to engage in a change of the practices. And the current capacities can actually be supplied more or less by existing plantations. So that the threat to natural forests is kind of limited with current conditions. And they also have more flexibility in terms of how they apply these commitments because they are subject to these forestry laws. Which is not the case of the oil palm sector. Which is subject to different kinds of laws. Which explains why the government, there is this neglected lands act that was issued in 2010. And that's actually the legal basis for the government to remove part of these concessions that are set aside in oil palm concessions. That doesn't exist for pulpwood plantations. They have a requirement to develop up to 70% of the concessions for the plantations. And in many cases, they develop only 40, 50% of the concession. And nobody, no questions asked. Nobody complains at the government level about that. And another reason why it happens is that contrary to what many people think, there is a lack of investments in the pulp and paper sector in Indonesia, especially in the timber plantations. And the government is actually struggling to have its own development objectives being achieved. We have about 10 million hectares of industrial timber plantation concessions in Indonesia and maybe three million hectares developed. And the government is just unable to change that. And so they are actually craving for investments. And so they have to be more flexible in how these companies operate and apply the zero deforestation commitments. Which is not the case for oil palm. Oil palm is just, you know, anybody wants to invest in, maybe you want to invest in oil palm, Steve. Okay, well let's thank Romain for this very interesting discussion. Thank you.