 Global comparative study on red is Seaford's efforts to support red policy arenas and practitioner communities with information, analysis, tools. Are we making you all dizzy by this back and forth? There's a timer in the system and we don't know how to turn it off so it's a little odd. But so the objective is to provide research results that inform the way red is implemented and the way policy is formulated so we can achieve what we call 3E outcomes and these are effectiveness, efficiency and equity. And it's not just equity in terms of share of money or share of responsibility, but we want to see net benefits accumulate to key forest stakeholders who are being asked to do things differently in the way they access, use and manage their forest resources. So this is the objective of what we're trying to achieve through the global comparative study. And we have four modules in the study, four technical modules. One looks at policy outcomes at the national level. Another one looks at red plus project activities and demonstration activities at subnational and jurisdictional scales. Module three looks at measurement, reporting and verification systems. Module four looks at carbon management at the landscape scale and we have a cross-cutting module on knowledge sharing because the knowledge that we generate as this diagram shows is aimed at, first of all, informing national red strategies and policies and informing national, a subnational level project activities and we do a lot of our work through the global red arena that's being organized within the UNFCCC but our key objectives are to achieve change or support change at national and subnational levels. We're now in phase two and have been since 2013 looking at generating new knowledge to inform and facilitate the transformational change as countries move through the different phases of red and begin to move from phase one, the readiness phase into phase two, which is the early learning phase. This study is being carried out in 14 countries and we've been working on it since 2009. The countries that are spread out fairly evenly between Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, South and Southeast Asia. And the idea is that red is an urgent need of change in national policy arenas and this is where change has to begin. And we talk about the idea of transformational change as a shift in discourse, attitudes and power relations and a deliberate policy and protest action that leads policy formulation and implementation away from business as usual policy approaches that directly or indirectly support deforestation and forest degradation, okay? So the idea is it's not just about, it's understanding some of the mechanisms and pathways to change are through discourses, through attitudes and through power relations. Examples of these transformational change include changes in economic regulatory and governance framework that include devolution of rights to local users, removes of pervasive incentives such as subsidies and concessions that serve selective economic interests and stimulate deforestation and forest degradation or reforms of forest industry policies and regulations that effectively reduce unsustainable extraction and move this extraction to a sustainable footing. And we frame the policy framework in terms of four I's. We had three E's at the beginning as for our outcomes but we look at this framework to bring about this transformational change through four I's and these I's are institutions, interests, ideas and information. And in the center of this diagram you'll see an oval that says actors and the whole point is that these actors need to have incentives to do things differently in these landscapes, to go from the business as usual to the type of transformational change that is the objective of the policy process, in this case, red. So this policy process has outputs and policy decisions that affect broader policies and institutions because what happens in forest policy has effects in other sectors. On the day we have specific policies and measures around the forest resource itself. We also need administrative and technical information to implement policies because it's not just policies that count as it's being able to take policies and implement them effectively. And so the outcomes we wanna see are in terms of emissions reductions and removal and enhancement with respect to carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. We wanna see some outcomes that benefit livelihoods of local stakeholders, that benefit biodiversity and that increase administrative and technical capacity. And the way to do that is through these four I's, through the ideas, the interests, which influence how actors make decisions and act on their resources. Also information, this is an important area that research among other sources of information can contribute and we understand that the institutions frame the national policy framework. And when the case of red, this national policy framework takes place not just within the country but also within a global context of the international negotiations on red. So this is a bit the theory of change that we've been exploring within this program is understanding how ideas, interests, information institutions formulate the support for the status quo but also how they can be used and acted upon to bring about the types of transformational change that countries are saying they want to achieve through their national red initiatives. So how do the four I's hinder or enable change? Well, this is what we call institutional stickiness where formal power typically rests within the stickiest organizations, the organizations that are able to resist change and that have enough influence to resist change while new institutions and actors are often ignored or remain isolated. And so ministries responsible for natural resources are some examples of institutions that may have interest or may provide resistance to change. Ideas, if we look at the state's interest in social and economic welfare, that can fall short if a lack of autonomy from interests that drive deforestation and degradation. So for example rent seeking, fraud and collusion, corruption practices inside bureaucratic system all lead to situations that hinder the transformational change that we're trying to bring about. And overcoming these putting in place incentives that reduce the rent seeking and promote the action of these actors to act on behalf of the whole society reduce this stickiness and enable the transformational change. With ideas that it's related to discourse that affects policymaking, they frame the problem, how the problem is presented and they present a limited choice of what is reasonable and what's put forward as what's possible. Okay, so for example red benefits for those who contribute to efficiency and effectiveness is one of the discourses that's out there versus a benefits to those who have moral rights to be based on equity considerations, right? So you hear a lot of discussion in the international community around who should get the payments? And is it, should we be paying actors that are currently acting in negative ways that are degrading the resource or should we be paying those who are the good stewards of the resource? So to begin to understand some of these relationships and sort this out is another objective of what we're trying to do through our research and understanding of ideas. Then there's information. There's facts rather than speaking for themselves are often selected by different actors to support their own positions and their own interests. And so research can help put them in contests in ways that reflect the interest and information of the provider. And if we can understand how the different stakeholders are using these ideas, we can not only validate their positions within these policy frameworks and policy forums, but we can begin to examine them and have them examined by different stakeholders to try and promote not only understanding but a basis for common understanding which would lead to the types of change. I just wanna point out that C4 has published its third book in our series of our edit series on red. And it was released in the middle of last year on analyzing red, which is the results of the research that has taken place within the global comparative study on red. Our two previous books were more prospective. This one is looking at what our research results are telling us as the community moves through it. Thank you very much. Now I'd like to introduce the panel. So to my right is Monica de Gregorio who is a professor at the University of Leeds. And Monica will be presenting some work on the challenges and opportunities for countries to progress with red and some of the results that we've looked at on countries that have been successful or less successful in moving from phase one to phase two. Moira Moellino immediately to my left will be taught as a C4 researcher. We'll be talking about some of the challenges across levels of governance, across sectors in achieving red and coordination and bringing in some of the perspectives with respect to the landscape approach where it's not just what happens within the forestry sector that's required to achieve the types of changes but really how forests interact with a whole host of other players and interests in landscapes. Pa Iman Santoso will be talking about the experiences that Forda has had and that have been had within the Ministry of Forestry on the one map and the map issues associated with deforestation and land use in general in Indonesia. Pak Darsano-Hartano will talk about project challenges, financing issues and problems with performance measurement at the project level. So we'll hear some international comparative analyses, some national comparative analyses and some subnational experiences in the sets of talks. Each speaker will have about 10 minutes to present and then we'll move to a panel discussion and we'd really like interactive discussions with the audience. So if the discussion fails, I will ask some questions but I would really prefer to have my intervention limited to what I've just already said and then facilitating the rest of the discussion. So let me ask Monica to kick off with her presentation and you have a microphone. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Lou. All right, so I will try in my time to give you a little bit of an idea of the results from the comparative analysis we did on national policy processes. So we started to look at, first of all, policy context within red plus countries to assess what the institutional conditions or policy conditions were that could facilitate red. Then we looked at a much more detailed analysis in 12 countries and we used qualitative comparative analysis to assess progress in terms of policy progress and which conditions and determinants actually are most important in determining progress in these countries and we identified both institutional so remote conditions that are difficult to change in the short run and more proximate policy conditions that relate to actions of policy actors. And the third type of comparative analysis was to look at public discourses on red and see the extent to which policy makers and policy actors speaking in the media, what kind of ideas and solutions for red were they actually advocating and to what extent are these actually driving towards policy reforms that are needed for effective equitable and efficient red outcomes. So I start with some results from the policy context analysis and I will give you some results from a qualitative comparative analysis and I will close with some results on the media analysis. In terms of policy context analysis, we investigated seven different countries. We looked at drivers of the frustrations and we looked at the policy landscape. We looked for policies that are potentially supporting red and here we have the results for the three Asian countries and one example that was mentioned this morning already for Indonesia that is a supporting policy is for example the moratorium on granting new licenses in primary forest and peatlands which has been implemented in 2011 and has been now renewed until 2015. Similarly in Nepal and Vietnam we also find policies supporting red. There is a law in Vietnam on payments for environmental services related to forests and there are a number of subsidies for energy efficiency and to try to reuse firewood collection in Nepal for small holders. On the other hand, there are big challenges that are linked to development because we have a number of policies that actually clash with red objectives and these are for example Indonesia regulations that support the power and paper industries, the regulation that allow mining in protected areas and fiscal and non-fiscal subsidies for food estate, biofuel development and oil palm. In Nepal, these clashing policies are more linked to agricultural modernization and infrastructure development and the same is true in Vietnam. Infrastructure development is the biggest if you want challenge for implementing red. So clearly to actually have effective national red policies we need a state that is able to harmonize these policies with red objectives and this will happen if we have a state that is relatively autonomous from special interests in the economic sectors. And in the fourth column we assess the level of autonomy of the state to the vis-a-vis these interests and for all the three Asian countries we investigated we found quite high, medium to high levels of lack of autonomy for different reasons. So we are starting from a policy context which makes transformational change quite challenging. So this is the starting point. Now next we looked at, well, assessing progress in red countries and we compared 12 different countries. To assess progress we need an outcome variable. What is progress on red in national policy processes at the moment? We can't measure outcomes in terms of emission reduction at the moment but we looked at countries that have moved from phase one to phase two and that is having national red plus strategy in place and starting the implementation process. Out of the 12 countries that we investigated so far, three of them were judged to actually have achieved progress and these are Brazil, Indonesia and Vietnam. And the way that we define progress is the establishment of comprehensive policies that are targeting transformational change in red plus policy domain. So what are the determinants of these progress? So we tried to look at which variable can actually explain the different paths that all these 12 countries have undertaken to achieve or not progress in red. And this is based on country teams, policy context analysis that took a couple of years and a series of workshop where a number of indicators were identified. We started with 30 and we then through expert advice arrived to six key indicators, three of which are linked to institutional context and these are the pressure on forest, effectiveness of policy governance and the existing of pre-existing policies that reduce deforestation or that tackle climate change. Three other variables relate to policy processes. So the actions of policy actors within policy decision processes and these are the level of national ownership. So the extent to which domestic actors are driving red policies. The presence of political coalitions that are driving for transformational change and policy reforms and the level of inclusiveness in policy processes. And the results in terms of remote conditions, if you look at the red area, Indonesia, Vietnam, Brazil and Bolivia actually were able to satisfy most of the pre-existing conditions. Brazil and Bolivia satisfy all three. Vietnam does not have very strong pressure from forest but satisfies the other three and Indonesia still has lack of implementation in terms of forest governance. But what we see comparing these institutional conditions is that what is key for progress is number one, pre-existing policies that address or want to reduce deforestation or that are linked to climate change objectives and in addition to that, either high levels of deforestation and pressure on forest or a certain level of effectiveness in forest governance. So when these institutional conditions are met, it is easier for countries to actually make progress in terms of national policy development towards red. In terms of the proximate conditions, as I said, we have national ownership, inclusive policy process and the presence of coalition for change and Brazil is the only country that actually satisfies all three of these criteria. Vietnam does not have very inclusive policy processes but has quite strong national ownership and also coalitions for transformational change. And the same is true for Indonesia. So strong ownership and coalition for change. And what that tells us is that enabling institutional conditions are not enough for progress towards effective red policies but if institutions are in place that support red, then what is crucial is to have domestic actors leading the process and transformational coalition. So political coalition that push for policy reforms. Just a few words on the results of the media analysis. We investigated, we looked at articles in the media in seven countries and looked at statements by policy actors, so either quotes or paraphrases on red and looked at how they portrayed and understood red and what kind of policy directions that we're suggesting. And what we found is that by far the dominant discourse, not just at the start of 2007, 2008, but even today is still about simplistic win-win scenarios about red. And the concern for that, about that, is that public debates around the drivers of deforestation are missing in many ways and these are really the debates that should happen to move red forward. On the other hand, what is encouraging is that there is quite a lot of debate on the need for institutional governance reforms. Now, discourses on transformational change do exist in public discourses, but they are minority discourses and the actors that mainly put them forward are domestic, non-governmental organization and civil society organizations. And what they highlight are the risks and the trade-offs that red might entail in terms of trade-offs between red and economic development, but also the possibility of limiting resource access and affecting negative livelihood strategies at the local level. And so they draw attention to the need of ensuring safeguards, for example. And the second aspect that they look at is they question existing power structures. They ask for empowerment of groups that have not much say in policy processes and warn about the power of particular economic interests. And so to conclude what these comparative studies show are that first of all, relative autonomy of the state towards specific economic interests that drive deforestation is important to be able for the state to discipline the sector and revise if you want policies. Existing policies and commitment of governments to address deforestation and concerns about climate change facilitate the development of red policy, especially in countries where you have high pressure of deforestation or where you have some effective enforcement of forest governance. National ownership is key and political coalition that push for policy reforms are necessary to actually move forward the process. And so just two key messages that we draw out of these studies is that, number one, we need to draw back attention to the drivers of deforestation and how to address them in policy reforms. And to do that, we need to now start that we start having some red plus strategies to actually look at how to integrate red aims into sectoral policies. So policy harmonization and policy integration. We also need to bring to the table and to the debate actors that are actually driving deforestation and forest degradation. And we have not seen in our policy analysis that these actors are engaged or were engaged in the first place in the development of red strategies. And we need to engage them in order to be able to have compliance as well as for these red policies. And finally, a call from mainly the NGOO sectors and concerns about trade-off, about ensuring equity and safeguards at the national level. And so for those that are interested here, there are the studies that you can, if you're interested in reading more. And just a word of acknowledgement because comparative analysis would not have been possible with country teams in 12 countries. I can't read all the names, but it's been a global effort, I can say. Thanks. And... Thank you, Monica. But it is indeed quite an effort. And I think it's interesting to see what has predisposed certain countries to getting through the readiness phase and being sort of the early enters into phase two. I guess some of the interesting questions now are how do we attack some of these challenges that you've raised that the need for countries to get realistic about the drivers of deforestation to engage constructively with those actors. I think that brings us very nicely to the next presentation from Moira Moeliono, who will be talking to us a bit about the cross-sectoral and challenges that are cross-sectoral and challenges that are across levels of governance in countries and how countries are dealing with them within the red mechanism. So Moira, I'll turn it over to you, thank you. Thank you. So my talk is, like I said, like Lou said, it's about the challenges to the how of RADD, to the cross-sectoral and cross-scale information arena. First, I would like to talk a little bit about the background, and then I go into three examples of cross-level information exchange. And then I'll close with the discussion. We are all here because RADD is not a simple thing. And if it was simple, we wouldn't be here. So I call the RADD a wicked problem, a problem where the boundaries are not clear, there is no one solution, and it requires a coherent effort and an integrated effort. So a climate change itself is a wicked problem, so RADD within it becomes also a wicked problem. And in a wicked problem, which requires multi-stakeholders, we need an information to bring all the stakeholders together. And the collection and sharing of data for the information is actually the nut and bolts of the RADD mechanism. So again, information is key. The first example is about the cross-scale information flow. The cross-scale here means a national, the provincial arena of information flow. So on the right is what happens at the provincial level, on the left is what happens at the national level. In the policy network analysis, we have come up with eight clusters, which you cannot really see, but it shows that within the information exchange, the one that plays the biggest role are state actors. Is this, is this? Yeah, yeah, but I mean the pointer, there's no pointer. Okay, no pointer. You just have to believe me when I say that state actors are the most important people and that NGOs play an important role, but they are not important in policymaking. We are too modern. But there is a gap between the information flow between provincial and national levels. But there are people that play, or actors that play a brokerage role that pass on the information between these two levels. And in this picture you can see these numbers, which, I forgot my English, which coincide with the figures, with the explanation below. And it shows that the minister of forestry is one of the most important brokers. The nature conservation and the FFI are two big conservation NGOs. They play also a big brokerage role. And in the provincial level, most of the information on RADD will be passed through the provincial office. The Kalimantan planning office, which sits in the office of the province. However, like I said, state actors are the most powerful actors connecting across scales. So we depend on the government to give information to other actors on RADD. NGOs play an important brokerage role, but they are not very powerful. They are not really influencing policy. But they keep other NGOs informed. While the domestic non-state actors, the NGOs which are on the domestic level, the local NGOs, they do not have the capacity to really access the information which is at the national level. But because of that, because of the control of the central and provincial state actors in information flow, they carry with it a responsibility to make sure that this information is passed to the non-state actors. So again, to have a multi-stakeholder forum, to have everybody informed will be the responsibility of the state because they play the brokerage role. Then we have another example which talks about sectors. And we use the example of a piece of research that we have recently done on the integration of adaptation and mitigation. Synergies between adaptation and mitigation is something now everybody is talking about and is needed. And we use the studies of Vietnam and Indonesia comparative study to show what is actually happening, where the policies are in place and where they do talk about integration. In both these countries, there are different policies and as you can see, they are often split into adaptation policies and mitigation policies, but also in both, which cover both adaptation and mitigation. We are not going to read all these things, but the point is adaptation needs to be synergized with mitigation. The actors think that it's necessary. Policies are in place which really say that policy needs to be integrated with adaptation, but there is no clear guidance and emphasis to integrate these two. So it's set, but there is no guidance for it. And furthermore, in practice, they are seldom addressed jointly because political priorities favoring one approach or the other. So in Vietnam, they talk more about adaptation in Indonesia, more about mitigation. And while there is a lot of effort to bring the two together, in practice, they are not brought together. Then the policies are often done by different agencies. Mitigation is at one agency and adaptation in one agency and even if they are within an agency, they are in two different departments. And both at the agency level and in the department, there is competition and weak coordination. And again, this is a matter also of information flow not happening. Then there is low uptake of national political commitments on adaptation and mitigation at a local level. And what is more important perhaps is difference in a funding stream. Because in Indonesia, we have a national strategy which really said that adaptation is to be mainstreamed, but the funding for adaptation and mitigation is still different. The last example is information among policy actors. The example taken from these two publications. What we did was doing a policy analysis network asking actors with whom they exchanged information on a routine basis. And then we analysed the reciprocity among these actors. So if one actor said they exchanged information, we asked for confirmation of the other side. If you look at it, then it turns out that there are three different clusters of where information exchange happens on a reciprocal basis. There is the Donor Transnational and National NGO clusters. They are sitting together and talking among themselves. There's the National Government cluster which also sits together and talks a lot with themselves. There is the local NGO, the Civil Society Forum for Climate Justice which is a forum of different NGOs. It's logical that they also talk to themselves. And then there's only two private sector organisations which are a bit isolated. And within these two big clusters there is two organisations which forms a bridge. So they play a role to cross information, to bring information from one cluster to the other. The NGO has information been exchanged and we are all in agreement, right? We all know about that and we all do it. And who is then actually missing? We saw that only two actors of the private sectors were visible. And who are they? Actually they're both a little bit of communication forum like the Climate Centre of Justice. But what we are missing is the palm oil and mining companies whose activities in practice continue to lead to deforestation forced degradation, although there is an effort like we heard this morning to decrease it. There are also companies who just pursue business as useful where climate change is not part of their policies and maybe they don't care or they don't know. But there are also the green strategists who develop environmental friendly program as part of their corporate social responsibility strategies and there are more and more of these kinds. But there are also the carbon money makers who seek opportunities in the carbon markets. And then there are the consultants or the researchers. CIFAR is not really a business company but we can be included in this part. We provide advice on how to build and work with REDD. So in short in our research we see that all actors say they exchange information with others and there are so many workshop meetings on REDD such as these and there is a lot of funding. And so there are opportunities to build networks. But in all these talks and all about the information exchange, the prominence of government agencies is still very high. So we talk about multi stakeholders we say inclusive development but when it comes to making a decision we look to the government. Then there is a clear homophily where organizations talk only within each other government with government business with business and we are wondering why this is so and it might be because we are aware of each other in the terms of aware of each other's activities in REDD or they are not considered that important in the decision making. So whether they give us information or we give them information doesn't really matter. Or there is also something which is there is no respect because in practice the government really doesn't really respect the resources and capabilities. So what are the challenges? One of the big challenges is that there are different funding streams for each sector or actor. So if the funding is not the same we don't exchange information. So NGOs because they are dependent on one donor sometimes or often are required to exchange information. There is a lot of talking in this discussion about integration, about the effectiveness and multi-stake holdings but this is not really realized in actions, not even in information exchange. Nevertheless, there is progress at the national level and there is also integration at the local level but it's still not enough and there is the progress at the one map policy the moratorium, the institutions. But again when information is not fully within actor groups can then collaboration exist, real collaboration and does it mean and what does it mean for transformational change? Because transformational change require the information which up to now is still not exchanged fully and that is it. Thank you. Thank you more. Well we have very good. So informational exchange is incomplete at the moment and very necessary and I think the next presentation will talk a bit about a major effort to exchange information. The one map policy within Indonesia has been a major component of the national red actions to try and put land use and land use planning all across ministries, all in the same footing, all working with the understanding of allocation of land resources. So Paimon Santoso will share with us some of the Indonesian experiences at information sharing to build some of these cross institutional linkages that we've just heard are very important for success of a national red policy. Paimon. Have your presentation. It's in the back. Do we have any tweets that have come in for any of the speakers so far? Any questions? Not yet. Do we have any questions from the floor for anything that you've heard so far? Let's take one over here. Thank you very much. My name is Thomas Endes. I work for UNEP for the UN red program and I'm based in Bangkok. My question is basically for the first speaker. There's two issues. One is when you look at the progress that you showed us in some of the countries, I'm wondering whether you also looked at the role of donor funding because some of these countries have received a lot of funding. I'm doing some work in Vietnam. There's a lot of money. There's a lot of money here in Indonesia and I think some of the other countries you have looked at have not received that. So in the country there's not that much interest would be my hypothesis. And then I think I hope I didn't misunderstand that you had a slide there on policies clashing with Red Plus and supporting Red Plus. And I think for Vietnam you said that actually land allocation is clashing with Red Plus if I didn't misread that slide. Could you clarify whether I either misread that? Because we in the UN red program in Vietnam are supporting land allocation so I'm now wondering whether we are making a mistake. Thank you. Thank you. We didn't specifically look at the amount of funding for different countries but clearly countries that have received a lot of funding have better opportunities to move ahead with red because they have the fence and they have the opportunities even building capacity and so on. And certainly Indonesia and Vietnam have received a lot of funding. Brazil on the other hand has really started red by themselves with their own system. That said, they also have collected quite a lot of international funding but what we see is that governments are serious about red and are actually driving the process. In countries where it is the international community that is driving the process and governments are not so convinced yet. Progress is much slower and so it's not going to happen especially when we think later on implementation. And it is also in part linked to lack of capacity in certain countries and what needs to happen in order to build more capacity. But national ownership seems to be more important than the actual flows of money. In terms of the Vietnam case what I said in terms of policies that are clashing with red is mainly the idea of self-sufficiency in food and so the need to use food internally. Actually the land law was I think listed as one of the laws supporting so that was in the other column. There is less pressure from logging in Vietnam so that is because Vietnam is one of the few countries that is actually reforesting and where there is very little logging going on. Thank you very much. I think some of the logging is just happening in the neighboring countries but I now have a microphone which I would like to pass on. I think we are ready now for the next presentation. We will pick this up shortly but I think these questions are interesting but we wanted to come back now to the question of information sharing and sharing information across government agencies and across levels of governance. I will start with the one map policy which is as I said an integral part of what Indonesia is doing the measures that Indonesia is putting in place to implement red. Thank you. First of all I would like to explain that it's not from the result of the research but it's what I'm going to present in this moment is that it's from my experience with mapping units and what I hear from the workplace. For this my presentation which will not as systematically presented as Moira and Monica did but I'll try to do my best by trying to explain what's happened behind the issue that's now to some extent is not supporting to the implementation of the red. It's began in the late 1980s when there is no comprehensive spatial plan in all province of Indonesia. When the competing land use is very high we have development of transmigration for more than 5000 Kepalakwarga our family to be transmigrated to outer island of Java and we also have a problem with food and development of estate crop and also the concession for timber etc. and we need at the time that we have to save our forest and then by then the ministry of forestry sorry the ministry of agriculture where the director general of forestry is under that ministry have the policy to have the consensus among land based development institution in the province to make a claim of the land that should be maintained as a forest land and fortunately it is mandated by the Forestry Act number 5, 1967 so by this mandate forestry sector has to other sector land based sectoral development to make a consensus which of the area within the province to be reserved as a forest area that's the start of what we call Tata, Kuna, Hutan, Kespakatan or consensus consensus forest land use plan and the consensus have decided that we have to conserve protection forest and conservation forest which have been allocated in the Dutch administration era because we believe that the allocation is right and there is no complain from the other sectors and no complain from the community and the second we also realize that there are many areas that has a steep terrain by using a very simple criteria of protection forest which is we include the variable of terrain soil type and rain intensity we categorize some area as a protection forest to protect the water and soil system and then by law we have to maintain the logging concession that is legally been there so that kind of area that has been granted for logging concession is maintained as a production forest and the other forest that is suitable for other uses were allocated as comfortable production forest which is allocated for other development the map of the consensus forest land use planning we consider it as a very macro and indicative in the sense that it is based on the best available data and techniques at the time in 1980s we have only map from the aviation map from the US dated 1948 that is the best map we have at the time and also topographical maps that is administered by the army Indonesia and we don't have remote sensing technique and we still using typewriter instead of computer so there is very limited resource and limited technique as a time but we have to make it because if not we will lost our forest and it's only in the scale of 1 to 500 thousands and no preliminary assessment it's just only map study on the study no checking in the field and not accurate of course but this is the best solution in the absence of spatial plan and we proud of that because of the existence of consensus forest land use plan it's something like supporting or making the idea of we should have a spatial plan in province and national level there are some issues on that the first is that many wrong classified as forest area while those that suitable were not included in the forest that's the unaccurateness of the map and then there is after that in the 1990s abundant and more accurate data from fierce immaturist has improved the quality of information and scale of map but on the other hand the updated information raised a different scale and created different interpretation so there are many trade off in the development and conservation things that was that has not been raised before now after we have accurate and good information and resource for the mapping we have some dispute some debate on this next the other things that is not good in the sense of the social things community land are not depicted and their right is less appreciated by that land at that time there is no there is no one protest on this but now we have a problem with the conflict in the field because of the community land is not appreciated in the planning and other things mining is not included in the special plan meaning that the sector has the right to exclude it's only excluded in the conservation and protection forest of course it there is a debate and dispute over forest area boundary between district and central government community and consistent holder and among adjacent local government there is a raise on that because it will something like hindered the good planning in the future so there is need of course a protocol to all new information to review or refine the special plan residency we see that the agency will have function to broker and bridge the actors and debate and dispute and of course there will be a good opportunity for other agency to develop new schemes of special plan new framework and new paradigm on the forest and to ensure that the performance of that once we are going to implement it it's a need there is a need of another consensus on the measurement techniques because some of the development now is to some extent is not fit with the actual condition in the field and one my policy should be implemented and it will be used in the all jurisdiction for measuring performance indicators and green development that is the summary that what I feel in the field and also in the work that I have done regarding the maps in the relation of the implementation thank you very much very interesting challenges and I think very useful experience I think other countries are wrestling with similar types of issues and improving technology improving understanding and trying to get everyone on the same page our final talk is sort of the next level down in spatial scale and perhaps the next level up in complexity we will talk to us a bit about project level experiences where all this actually comes together on the ground to achieve a change in the way forest resources are being used on the ground so where all this national policy process all this information sharing comes together some things really have to change on the ground and this is where the quality and the difficulties with financial flows the difficulties with interest the difficulties with getting things to change compared to the status quo so we would like to hear your experiences and the lessons that you are drawing from your experiences that could be taken on by others so not everybody has to reinvent the wheel thank you good afternoon ladies and gentlemen it's an honor to be here today I think given that I was I'm given the opportunity to speak last and hopefully I can get some whatever everybody said which I think it's a very interesting because I know I was told that I have to put this 4I together the institution, the interest the idea and information I think since we are the only here, we are the private sectors we are from a company from a company called some of you have known basically we are the red plus project developers I have started this business in 2007 so this is my 7th year now I guess this presentation today I want to tell and share with everybody the challenges that we have in terms of getting a red plus project together as you I mean everybody's I'm sure now compared to 6, 7 years ago people know what red plus is so if you look at in terms of the opportunity to do red plus is people like which I still believe is to actually do it in peatlands where it contains the most carbon stocks it's under a lot of pressure and threat for conversion and it should create more benefit because given the biodiversity that it has and if you look at the key fact that Indonesia have 22 million hectares of peatland or approximately 12% of its land but it's amounted almost half of the emissions so if we can actually basically conserve our peatlands we should be able to reduce our emissions significantly so I'm just trying to give you the picture here is if you look at the peatlands in Indonesia the eastern board of Sumatra the southern part of Kalimantan and some part of Papua but our project itself this is still a picture the zoom in that center Kalimantan and the area itself the company is called the area is about 200,000 hectares so just to give you in comparison 200,000 hectares is about three times the size of an island of Singapore and the percentage of the area all of this area is production forest and it's a peatland forest as well as Pa Iman mentioned there is a production forest that can be converted earlier so basically there's a yellow color and an orange color seen here the orange color sort of like a pinkish color that's the area that is considered this zone as convertible production forest this is an area that can be converted into palm oil so if you look at in terms of the forest cover itself it's still in very good condition only about 12% that are non forest and it's located in center Kalimantan it's in the district of Kota Waring in Timur and Katigan so if you look at the two river system on the east and on the west that's where the whole area is so if you look at the basis of as usual scenario it's quite simple the pinkish color that you see can be converted to palm oil the northern part of the area that I show you on the map there are a lot of mining activities that's ongoing that's another things that happen so basically there's a large scale forest conversion into palm oil or pop and paper as well as mining just want to give you an example an illustration of this is studies that WWF did in terms of the forest cover in Borneo or Kalimantan this is in 1985 and this is year 2000 this is year 2010 if you look at some of the area and then this is year 2020 that projected which I think is much given that we have all this red plus activities and in the next volume it's much better it should be much better than this but I want to show you a picture this is 2010 where I sort of zoom in where it is if you look at 2010 versus 2020 which I'm going to show you next that area is gone so hopefully with our activities what we want is to have what we call ecosystem restoration license and get this license we are not allowed to log until we reach basically a stable condition it's still not defined properly but that's the illustration that I can show you and again the license itself it's called ecosystem restoration license it was a law was created in 2007 revised in 2008 it's actually for a private sector this is a very good regulation in terms of policy for Indonesian have created this policy was created prior to Bali call so Indonesia at that time were in the forefront basically trying to protect and conserve for us it makes total sense from a private sector perspective because it has that 60 years of permanency in terms of licensing and then it give the company the rights to manage the area I also stated that it's called carbon credit and then we don't have to log we can always conserve and restore so this is definitely a good and very effective policy for a red plus project developers so it showed the additionality because of the production forest as well as the permanence because it's 60 years and possibility of 35 years extension the first concession was given to Harapan Rainforest that was I believe in 2008 but what I want to share with everybody today is basically from the licensing perspective Indonesia I think as a private project developer we need to get a license to manage forest land so the journey start for us for me personally in 2008 where basically we start applying for the concession in terms of the policy to protect, to conserve and you think that you should get the license very quickly if you want to get it to do the proper thing unfortunately we have a problem just like I mentioned institution we have interest, we have idea we also have information these are the things the challenge that we see so if you look at the we submitted application in May 2008 by year later 2009 finally the minister has designated an area as a concession basically what we call what we do is the minister assign to give us an area that this can be allocated for concession or ecosystem concession so if you look at the process the next process as we move in May 2009 as well we give our presentation to the ministry of forestry basically we are applying for 200,000 hectares for everybody from each cross from the director general of production forest and other director general as well that are present they are present at that time and we give a long presentation and then our proposal is approved in June 2009 in June 2009 the minister wrote us a letter saying that you need 150 days to do what we call a partial environmental assessment report so this is this is a challenge that we are facing what happens is typically if you have a logging concession or you have a plantation concession you have to do a full environmental assessment report but given that this is a restoration that has no negative impact then the minister told us to do a partial environmental report then the problem begins the local government the provincial government said no no no we don't take that environmental assessment report then there is a problem in communication already information is not flowing well the mandate was clear unfortunately it took us about a year maybe 9 months to finally get that partial environmental assessment report sort of approved to be processed after the fact that the minister of environment have to send a letter to the governor saying that for this particular license you don't need full environmental assessment report so then you know then we have so we thought that okay we clear that hard roll we want to move forward and then next thing you know once we want to do that partial environmental assessment report the district government said no no no we have already allocated some of the area for palm oil which is a very typical thing in Indonesia the district government is not talking we are in between so finally not until the moratorium map the moratorium has been signed by the president the district government said okay since this is moratorium then I'm going to go forward so that's where we are if you look at the middle top February 2012 so we think that when we have a problem with the district now once we're done with that part we get our partial environmental assessment report approved and then our application sent back to the minister of forestry then you think that it should be walking the park should be easy you know because it's supportive minister of forestry you know all these things so if you look at February 2012 our recommendation from the ministry from the district of provincial level arrived actually in Paimon's desk but the same month Paimon did that what he did he he actually wrote a letter to another the director general to start writing the map so things are moving very fast then February 2012 April 2012 basically the director general people a lot of people are supporting us from minister of forestry including the director general of production forest like Paimon Planology so by June 2012 we already managed to get our application with a map of 200,000 hectares sitting in the minister's desk but nothing has been done since then if you look at the time just one signature is from June 2012 till October 2013 so if you look at the thing it literally takes one year four months to get it done just one signature so again this is about policy this is about policy and being more transparent about what the policy is unfortunately in the regulation there is no time limit for the minister to sign or not to sign there is a time limit for the director general to push the application but not until when it's in his desk I guess that's something that we have to start thinking about being more transparent about policy the governance of all this policy going why does he finally sign it in one year four months later and now it's the fact that after there is a media exposure and media pressure then he signed it so again you know this is not out of the blue suddenly one month one year four months I signed it because it has been sitting there for so long and you said okay well finally because people start picking up about our project there is no exposure out of it and you say well this is great right you finally get what you want even though you have to wait one year four months apparently not the concession was signed in October 2013 but what happened he only signed half of what he's supposed to sign so this is the thing not only that we've been following all the procedures but it's not but this is real challenge of what we're trying to do here in terms of licensing there should be better governance and this is the issue that we have been facing for five years now so this is a small example in terms of the licensing problems that we have which I don't blame anybody because there's a lot of things that need to be disseminated in terms of information there has to be a proof of case that we can be successful so more applicants should be granted license like us so just to summarize what the reality check is these are all the challenges that we have I mean you can see that there's a lack of understanding of red plus itself I mean we have been doing this for seven years but people still don't understand some people just don't understand and then there's no clarity in division of role and its responsibility between central and local government this is another thing and I hope that the new red agencies can be just like the bridge the broker that Iman mentioned and I think the most important thing is there's an accountable process I just don't think that they're transparent enough in terms of getting all these things going being more transparent is actually better for us because we don't have to worry about things so from the market itself in terms of getting this carbon credit or the finance the credible baseline data is not there and then of course there's a short-term and long-term return problem that we have because the market is uncertain there's really no real I have to say there's really no example that funding or we have received carbon credit or sales or anything like that at all but even that with that I think as we are thankful to be part of the global comparative studies but I think we have to put the theory into practice just like Lou said showing what we can do and breaking the myth that all these things that actually we can go for better governance we can go for better transparency then we just have to develop a proof of concept we have to make these things happen only if we are successful then finally we can sit down and say yes we can do it so I think there are a few things that we can recommend by developing the proof of concept we can actually have some kind of fun for early supporters like us but I think it's also important to build the technological capacity and now just to give you information our cutting-edge project would work with at least 12 stakeholders because working together with institutions like C4 even with Mesoforestry with private sectors NGO, local NGO I think that's how we can actually succeed in trying to make this red plus work so I think that would be a great recommendation very interesting challenges and I think that we have a nice progression through the talks here before we take questions from the floor do we have any comments or questions from the online audience technology combination of three questions mostly for Moira it seems like the success of red plus is linked to the information flow and the possible solutions or suggestions that came one from Brazil they're up very early in Brazil how about linking funding to the information flow no talk, no ciao no talk, no money so forcing or embedding in the funding the condition of exchanging information with other parties second solution from Kenya how about doing the same as what the UN did in humanitarian situations go to the one UN solution all of the funding through one common channel and then from there on at the national level divided or there was a solution from a Twitter user from Indonesia how about increasing the efforts on perpetulations itself thank you I think that's an interesting solution just to force people to talk to each other although it doesn't really work you cannot force information flow by requiring it because it is already required it is already a part of being transparent it's already part of being accountable but people, the actors also should realize that sometimes they talk a different language and they need an interpreter and so one of the solution might be to have better interpretation among these different groups does anybody else want to comment on it? do we have some questions from the floor we have a gentleman here and a gentleman here we'll take two or three questions and then go back to the panel so please go ahead go ahead now my name is Bill Collier I worked four years as an advisor to the national land agency in Indonesia and now two years at Bapinas on another project I'd like to ask about the Kawasan Hutan forest zone which how does one map policy actually impact on the forest zone and as you know the Kawasan Hutan in Indonesia covers 70% of the land of Indonesia but recently there's been a constitutional court decision that stated the Kawasan Hutan did not fulfill the four requirements for a Kawasan Hutan that's in the law and so far have only gazetted 14% of the Kawasan Hutan plus within this Kawasan Hutan apparently there are 41 million hectares of land that does not have a forest cover so who really controls actually who really controls the land of Indonesia forestry government and how does all of this impact on the map thank you can we take the question from the gentleman here in the front thank you my name is Haradan Bunik I am I have two questions one to presenter second presenter regarding the monetary actually local community depends on forest and today also I have and they if we impose the monetary how is it possible to execute in the community level because they want to get something from the forest and third presenter about map issues it is very difficult map in Bangladesh also boundary issues we are not to the buyers so how we can solve these problems thank you very much would you like to take the it's very interesting question about the Kawasan Hutan or state forest area but first of all I would like to explain to you all that not understand very much about what Kawasan Hutan is and what Hutan is Kawasan Hutan or permanent forest area is an area that is intended to be maintained and reserved as a permanent forest because of its bio physical nature that could be something like production supporting system or life protection system so we need to protect it as a Kawasan Hutan even though the area is not forested and it is the responsibility of the government to rebuild the Kawasan to be again back to the nature of the forest and yes it's true that the Kawasan Hutan of Indonesia is almost 70% of the total land of Indonesia this is what I always say to my colleague in the NGO or in the government sector Kawasan Hutan or forest in Indonesia is very very important land because no living creature in the planet can live without stepping in the land and there is no production process that is not in the land so very often I said to my colleague that we have to change from the traditional forestry that's only giving emphasis of production of timber protection of flora and fauna and also protecting water and soil system but we have to think the context of forestry for Indonesia which is it should be maintained as the production supporting system because 70% of the production 70% of the living site is on forest area so there is need a safe of Paraitan how we see in the forest and then yes it's true that the cassettement of the forest as mandated by the forestry egg it should be cassetteed until all of the boundary is marked by the poles and so on but it's very very long and costly process so that's why before it's cassetteed fully we cannot say that the Kawasan Hutan has been a permanent Kawasan that's why in the former egg of the forestry egg set that Kawasan Hutan is Kawasan is located and are cassetteed as a forest but unfortunately in the mahkamah constitution what's in English? constitutional court it's considered as non-precise words for legal product so they only say that the Kawasan Hutan if not cassetteed yet it means it has not been permanently decided as a Kawasan Hutan that's the problem in forestry that's why with the enhancement of the technology I always propose that we have to treat the Kawasan Hutan as the sea we have no border we have no boundary in the sea but we have the what's that? GPS and so on to say that you have been trespassing or something like that so if we can use that kind of policy there is no need to cassette the forest in all forests of Indonesia because it's very costly and it's very long process that's the phenomena of the cassettement in the Kawasan Hutan and about one map policy we did the one map policy in the Kalimantan Tengah Central Kalimantan when we are implementing a red preparedness in that area what we did there is we try to have the one basic map that should be used and should be accommodated by all land-based development there will be no map other than that basic map that is issued by the Pakus Hutanal all what's in the last name, PIC but done in geographical information agency that should be the only agency that issued the basic map that's the first basic map should be used by all development agency and then on this map all the plan and existing investment should be depicted in that map so there is no map of Pakus Hutanal map of forestry, map of mining but all investment should be depicted at that map this is the purpose of hindering the overlap in investment and also overlap of Maksharakat and also other investment unfortunately again we have satisfied with that achievement but has not been implemented in the sense that not all agency knows about that so what I said to the colleague in the Kalimantan Tengah the map should be circulated to other agencies and it should be a sort of socialization on what is the purpose of the map and how to use it and how to update and to correct the map that's why as I mentioned before need to have a protocol in updating and correcting the map thank you very much we're just about out of time but do we have a quick answer on the community rights issue thank you I have a question the idea is I realize I have a banking background I used to work in Wall Street and then I came back to Indonesia in 2004 I realized that somebody actually my business partner was sitting here told me I'm doing this business called triple bottom line basically you have profit, people and I said that's impossible that was seven years ago when I see him but I think throughout the journey of our Kalimantan project I realized one way to get this succeed is to have full support from the communities so community rights should be listened and then should be followed that's for sure so therefore the past as a result of what we believe in the past five, six even when we've been consulting with the communities so we have to be transparent that we are a company that are transparent basically we are equitable we have to work to show the equitability to the communities because they are the one that have the impact and they are the one who actually support and actually save the forest for us and then thirdly whatever we do whether it's private companies they're accountable so with that transparency equitability and accountability and a good communication we can actually do this so I realized this is the first time that we start seeing a business model that actually give benefit to everybody not just to the private sectors not just to the government but also the community and to the environment unfortunately it's easy and in theory it should work but it's just not as simple as that it's through a lot of process basically with the four eyes that we talked about there's a lot of different actors that has to be involved but I'm personally very optimistic the idea is we have to have a good success and communities will be the key stakeholders probably the most important stakeholders for us to be successful even though we are private sectors so equity is an important issue it's not an intractable issue but it's an issue that requires some serious effort and serious attention in order to overcome we're about out of time ladies and gentlemen so I want to thank you all for coming before we go I just want to do a little bit of housekeeping for those who are interested in climate change issues within the forest Asia conference there will be another session in here just after the coffee break sponsored by UNEP on building natural capital how red support a green economy and just after that in the final session also in this room there will be one sponsored by UNOrchid and the UNRED program on seeing green and red sharing experience in equity and economics of red plus pilot projects and also in the next session just after the coffee break there will be downstairs in Suda Wasey room a section on managing mangroves so a lot more to come on climate change in this meeting and please feel free to participate but I'd like to now thank all of our panelists for the stimulating discussion and thank the audience as well for the questions and the stimulation of the discussion thank you very much all