 Thank you to all our panelists for taking time out of your very busy schedules to be here and sharing with us some of your thoughts and experiences. I think it's testimony as to how important people see this particular session given the number of people here, given that we have other competing events, so I think that in itself is testimony. As, you know, I don't want to take too much time. We'd like to have our panelists speak to us to share with us some of their knowledges, their passion, their experiences. I'd like to sort of highlight the fact that in the bank we look at this aspect of adaptation-based mitigation as being quite critical to many of our developing country partners, communities and stakeholders. And in many, many of our countries we get this request to not forget about the importance of adaptation and resilience building in our landscapes. And countries see and claim the fact that they get good carbon, they get secure carbon, they get tradable carbon because of good management in the landscape. And I think that's an interesting and an important point to make from the point of view of stakeholders in many of our developing countries. So I'm going to invite Bianca to come and share with us her vision, her passion, her knowledge and experience and what she's been doing and her communities have been doing. And then we'll take it from there. Bianca, please. Or you can stay there and talk with us, whichever, whichever. Good morning. Buenos dias. Un bon jour. Je sais qu'il parle français. Thank you, Digi, and thank you, Eric, for your kind words. Good morning, ministers, distinguished guests. It is a privilege and a great pleasure to be here. I would like to thank Pro Four for inviting me and it gives me really a great pleasure to see you come here to hear us. And I know you have a lot more important things to do if you choose to come to this forum. As you may know, I was born in Nicaragua, a land of lakes and volcanoes lying between two oceans at the center of the Americas. Nicaragua has the largest tropical rainforest north of the Amazonia, home to thousands of species of rare flora and fauna. My mother first opened my eyes to the beauty and wonders of the natural world. I inherited from her my commitment to the environment and she taught me the incalculable value of the rainforest and the importance of preserving biodiversity. For over three decades, I have campaigned for human right, social justice, and environmental protection throughout the world. I founded the Bianca Jagger Human Right Foundation, BGHRF, in 2005 to be a force for change and a voice for the most vulnerable. I would like to mention, even though it's not part of what I'm supposed to be telling you, my great sadness to learn today of the killing of one of the important leaders, indigenous leaders in Ecuador, Jose Isidro Tendesa of the Shuar community, who was a real opponent of the concessions that were given to the Chinese in Ecuador. I do make an appeal to the president to find out what happened to him because I feel that we cannot talk about the forest if we do not care about what happened to indigenous people. Everyone in this room knows that climate change is the greatest threat we face today. 2014 will probably end up being the hottest year since records began in 1980, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We have already matched 1998's temperature, which held the dubious honor of the warmest year on record. Time is running out. Inaction will lead to severe and irreversible damage. Climate change will affect everyone, everywhere and in every nation and in every echelon of society in the developing and the developed world. We will all suffer the catastrophic consequences of rising sea levels, desertification, food and water scarcity and political unrest. But some of the most vulnerable communities in the world are bearing a disproportionate burden of the harm without having significantly contributed to the cause. This is a terrible injustice. In 2015 is the year in which we all hope for a new binding resolution in global climate negotiations. We do hope and I know that you all hope that something will come out of this COP20 that will lead us to that legally binding treaty in 2015. Through adaptation-based mitigation, we could tackle the catastrophe of climate change. Through one approach, we could only forestall destruction, but also actively make our communities safer, healthier and more prosperous. Adaptation-based mitigation, where feasible, is not just as Rachel Kite puts it, a no-regrets option, it is a no-brainer. Restoration of degraded and deforested land represents perhaps one of the best opportunities for adaptation-based mitigation in nearly every region of the world. Restoration is the bridge between mitigation and adaptation. The global partnership on forest landscape restoration has mapped around two billion hectares of degraded land across the world, an area the size of South America, which offers opportunity for restoration. In 2011, leaders from around the world launched the Bond Challenge, a global goal to restore 150 million hectares of land of degraded and deforested land by 2020. In 2012, I was appointed Bond Challenge Ambassador to IUCN. I took on this role because I believe that the objective of the Bond Challenge is critical and, more importantly, it is achievable. Frankly, it is one of the most important initiatives now trying to reduce CO2 emission and improve the lives of people. According to IUCN, achieving the Bond Challenge goal could sequester up to one gigaton of carbon dioxide a year, reducing our current emissions gap by up to 17%. That is really a very important advance and a port from the restoration program. In many places where members of the global partnership where restoration of the degraded land has been predicted to sequester carbon more costly effective than many competing mitigation options. If sequestering carbon were the only benefit of welcoming trees and shrubs back to the degraded land, some would think that that was enough, but it isn't. But we know there are many more reasons for restoration. There are dozens of examples in places like China and Brazil where massive scale restoration has been accomplished. Not just to toward climate change, but to deal with natural disasters that our communities are now facing at an increasing pace and severity every day. China has restored millions of hectares of the forested land in order to stabilize water flows in its arid regions and reduce some storms and floods. In 2012, while participating at the UN Conference on Sustainability at Rio Plus 20, I visited the Tingua Bocaina Diversity Corridor TBBC initiative outside of Rio de Janeiro created and run by the Institut Terra de Preservation Invental, ITPA. The story is inspiring, a sterling example of this kind of restoration initiative. Large areas of Atlantic forests outside Rio were devastated by centuries of exploitation and deforestation. The area contains the Guandu River which provides 80% of the water to metropolitan Rio and 30% of the city energy supply. The deforestation comprises water quality, energy output for 7 to 10 million people in Rio. The area has a high proportion of endemic species and these species were unable to migrate from one area to another. Over the course of 6 years, the ITPA has restored and reforested over 190,000 hectares of land, creating a biodiversity corridor which preserves the quality and quantity of water resources for Rio de Janeiro, balances the microclimate, helps biodiversity and curves soil erosion. This initiative has also generated many new jobs, making this effort one of the largest employers in the upstream watershed area of Rio de Janeiro. During my visit, I planted a sampling king tree. I hope to come back and see it in years to come when it will be part of a forest hillside. This spring we will be seeing the launch of the second phase of the Bonn Challenge, Bonn 2.0 in Germany. I expect that we will be able to announce new and significant commitments at that event, not only commitments of hectares to the global world, but perhaps more importantly to partnership for implementation. Already more than 51 million hectares of land have been committed to the Bonn Challenge from the following countries. The United States, Rwanda, El Salvador, Costa Rica, the Brazilian Mata Atlantica Restoration Pact, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Niger, Colombia, Ethiopia and Guatemala. In fact, we announced that in New York that we have pledges for 51 million hectares of land already as part of the Restoration and the Bonn Challenge initiative to restore 150 million hectares of land by 2020. Some of this commitment, like those made by the United States, have already resulted in restoration activities. In the U.S., these activities have created thousands of new jobs, millions of dollars in restoration income and hundreds of thousands of hectares of new habitat for wildlife. They have also created significant hectares of carbon sinks and made vulnerable communities more resilient to climate change, particularly through the better management of forest land. At the September climate summit in New York, the City of New York declaration on forest supplemented the Bonn Challenge Global Ambition to aim to restore an additional 200 million hectares of land by 2030. That declaration was signed by over 100 national and subnational governments, corporations, indigenous peoples, organizations and civil society. As you can see, not everything is lost. It is true that governments have not come forward to do what is necessary. It is true that we don't have a legally binding treaty now. But if we continue with initiatives like the Bonn Challenge, we will see a difference. Forests are essential to our future. More than 1.6 million people depend on them for food, water, fuel, medicine, traditional cultures and livelihood. Forests support up to 80% of biodiversity on Earth and play a vital role in safeguarding the climate by naturally sequestering carbon. Landscape restoration is an adaptation-based mitigation measure which has proven track record and a growing global movement. We know the goal and the means. Now we just need to do it. Let's push land restoration to the top of the political agenda. This is a unique opportunity to renew our forest landscapes. Our faith and the faith of future generations depend on it. And I continue to be able to support this initiative and to do what is necessary to make it a reality. Thank you. Thank you very much, Bianca. That was an inspiring talk. Thank you for your time and your vision. Yes, as you wish, sir. Am I on? Yes. I have my presentation materials, please. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is a great pleasure for me that this morning I'm standing in front of you to address this issue of moving forward with adaptation-based mitigation. When I go into this issue, I was looking into the definition of mitigation and adaptation that is made by UNFCCC. And this is what if we need to recall ourselves in terms of what is this? The adaptation is meant by UNFCCC to reverse the adjustment in ecological, social or economic systems. This is basically systems that need to be adjusted in response to actual or expected climactic stimuli and their effects or impacts. On the other hand, mitigation is defined as any anthropogenic intervention that can either reduce the sources of greenhouse gas emission or enhancement of their sinks. One is in terms of interventions, the other is adjustment of the systems. So when you're talking about adaptation-based mitigations, you're talking about interventions that recognize the need for adjustment of the systems. That's my understanding of that. So it was a very great pleasure for me to start and offer to you the start from the real beginning. People say that the climate change is so much dominated, the discussion on climate change is so much dominated by the issue of energy, fossil fuel for the very, very core. But when you're talking about that, it's actually getting from the planet what is inside moving out and burning. And that is the issue. But when you're talking about land-based landscape, then you're talking about more upper-level. You're talking about the surface. You're talking about the landscape. And when you're talking about the landscape, what will be the icon that we can say that the landscape is actually also very active in terms of producing climate change? Let's see this picture if I can move this quickly. In the year 1997, ladies and gentlemen, a big mega-fire happened in Indonesia. This fire and the haze was so strong that it broke the ozone. It is taken from a high-level satellite and it is claimed that scientists said that the emission that happened on this occasion of 1997 had emitted 3 gigatonnes in one year low. How can we say that actually landscape is not or less important than energy in terms of creating and actually needs to be addressed when you're talking about climate change? Indonesia is a country that is both highly vulnerable to climate change because we have long coastline, large agricultural dependent populations and an important contributor to climate change through emissions from its Lulu CF. Achieving both mitigation and adaptation at the same time is prerogative for us and I am glad to participate at this event which recognized this. So that is 1997. What happened before 1997? I don't know if that's related or not. Indonesia declared that for the sake of food security, we need to open 1 million hectares of peatland to change that into paddy fields, to change that into providing food for the country, providing food for the world. So you see there that the food security drive the policy to open up the peatland in 1996. With El Nino coming in 1997, climate change gets into its peak. See the relationship. This is serious. This is serious relationship. 1.4 million hectares of peatland was opened for the sake of food security. Now is that all that is happening? Does it stop there? Does the Indonesian people and the world get to the senses and stop that? Not so easy. This is what happened when I flew over the area nearby that the 1 million hectares of peatland that was opened. It's not only plantations that is coming up but also and mostly mining. So this mining company small and big are searching for minerals and making use of chemicals and you see how the land is so pockmarked because of that. Very bad. I don't know if that happens in anywhere in the world but I believe that it may actually happens in different places of the world. Now after that mining we also say look we have opened the peatland. Now let's put plantations on that. So this is the picture whereby you see the plantations open on top of the peatland that is still forested on the other side. And what happened is that there are built a lot of canals to clear the water so that people can plant on top of it. Disaster. That ladies and gentlemen is part of what causes the 1997 mega fire in Indonesia. Yesterday I mentioned that when you're talking about climate change and you're talking about the sustainability of the planet you need to know and you need to accept that the planet is sick. This is the planet that is sick and we want to move that into something that is healthier. So when we are talking about trying to make it more healthy then what you need to actually do is to start thinking how to combine. If you are talking only about mitigation then you are talking only about one half that interdependently actually drag down the adaptation. Let's see this picture. This is what's happening on the ground day by day. That people clear their peatland for plantations, make the canal and on the other side you still see the forest that is standing and every day you have the temptation let's cross the canal. So how are we talking about mitigating the move, mitigate the move or adapt for the results? We need to adapt for the results. If the result happens how do we adapt to that? So that is the combination that I was really very concerned about when looking into this situation. Too often we see adaptations and mitigations discussed separately. Even in the green climate fund for instance which there is still so much left to discuss the single clarification that has been made is the division of funds for climate change mitigations and adaptation activities. For many countries this makes sense. Those at the most risk for rising sea level contribute negligible amount to climate change. But for large country like with complex ecosystems like Indonesia, like Brazil, like India and like China it does not make sense. Mitigation and adaptation for a country like Indonesia is a prerogative. It's not something that you can do one after another. Adaptation based mitigations aligns well with Indonesia's vision of beyond carbon more than just forest. It allows for the contextualizing of development within a broader paradigm shift towards sustainability. Indonesia's Trident, this is actually a picture where Indonesia and Brazil is working together on the ground for the same issue in 2011 as you can see. There you go. I will say that Indonesia's Trident key performance indicators, this is what we are trying to achieve through REDD Plus. Not just climate change mitigation, not just climate change adaptation but a whole new approach to human environment relationship. If you look into that, one of the axis is sustainable development with equity. The other axis we are talking about reduced emissions and increased carbon stock. And the third axis conserve and maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services. When we are talking about conserve and maintain biodiversity and ecosystem services, ladies and gentlemen, we are very cognizant that we have not done justice to the rights of the people who actually guard the land. And we have changed that and with our constitutional court last year has made a statement that the land of the Monsha Rakat Adat, the indigenous people, is actually the land of them and not of the state. So a lot of practices that was based on the thinking that the land of the indigenous people was actually the land of the state will need to be changed. That is a big sustainability agenda that we are pushing there. Now if we use this, how do we apply that in the locations on the ground? That is our dashboard for RETPLAS moving forward whereby that national target and what is happening in the province, what is happening in the districts will be monitored and controlled by the RETPLAS agency. Even with that kind of extensive effort, ladies and gentlemen, there is no guarantee that RETPLAS will achieve adaptation based mitigations. Interpreting RETPLAS as an incentive to create mono plantations or of carbon sequestering trees will not contribute to adaptation, nor will it likely create the sustainable growth with equity. Rather, it might destabilize environmental resilience, put at risk local livelihoods and resource dependence. We must keep the straight offs in mind in order to create a version of RETPLAS that delivers upon its potential for win-win solution for people and planet. An important question is financing adaptation based mitigation in the context of RETPLAS. We need to continue to talk about non-carbon benefit. We need to continue to talk about it difficult as it is. If we are only rewarded for carbon sequestering and reduced emission, this is just mitigation. And a very narrow approach to mitigation at that. We need support for sustainable landscape management as a whole. And I think that the options that are emerging, the Atalia funds, the biocarbon fund as well as our own Freddie Plus construct looks like we recognize that. Agriculture, ladies and gentlemen, is a crucial element and test for adaptation based mitigation. It is an area characterized by perhaps the starkest straight offs between environmental, economic and human well-being. I think that illustration of the looking for food security and looking into the peat land and say we can do it without the necessary follow-up, the necessary costly preparation is actually a disaster in waiting. It is the trade-offs between environmental, economic and human well-being. We must find ways of doing agriculture sustainably at scale. I hope that we can do that 1 million hectares of agriculture, new land at scale. For instance, with the Palludi culture on peat lands. I think that will be one of the solution that we need to have. We need the right institution to support adaptation based mitigation. This is by no means simple. Governing sustainable landscape is very demanding in terms of technical and human capacity. Given the number of elements at play and their interrelationship in Indonesia, I think we are moving in the right direction with the right concept of forest management unit. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, I mentioned that red plus is actually a hybrid of the agenda of climate change and development, because it is happening in the developing country. Red plus is a hybrid of climate change as well as development and making use of the landscape and forest and living theater. Living theater continuously alive. And because of that mitigation or adaptation based mitigation initiative is prerogative, because one is not addressing the living nature of the forest and the landscape itself. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Park Haro, for that very insightful regional presentation with the fairly global outreach. Would you like to either stay or come to the podium as you wish? Good morning everybody. I'm on? Yes. Okay. Good morning. I will present to you, if you allow me, a program that I am leading from the African Union and NEPA side, that is called Terra Africa, which is actually a global partnership on sustainable land and water management. And you will see that by default, this program, this partnership is doing adaptation and mitigation combined together by itself, without mentioning it or stating it formally. So Terra Africa was a project that was born about 10 years ago, following some lesson learned from previous program support to Africa. And the idea was basically to scale up the land and water management in contributing to the development of Africa. So Terra Africa was born in 2005, and now we are entering the third cycle, the third extension for the third cycle. The first one was focused mainly on agriculture production and land. And then after the first cycle, it was agreed to move to more sustainable land and water management. And there was a big program that was agreed upon called SAWAP, SAEL, and West Africa program. And you may have heard about the Great Green Wall initiative, which consists in re-greening the whole SAEL strip from Senegal to Djibouti, but not only doing restoration and conservation, but also having a strong agroforestry initiative, especially targeting local communities, farmers. And this program can be easily labelled as adaptation-based mitigation program. And now we are entering the third phase, which will start this coming year, by giving a beginning of answer to this question. If we have development in mind, rather than trying to have this silo adaptation mitigation, it becomes clear that when you do adaptation, you can find mitigation aspect there. It's that we don't project developers or maybe government when they are planning for adaptation activities, don't systematically measure the carbon component of an adaptation project. And I think this is the mind-shift that we should have. For instance, in my country, in Senegal, there is a lot of mangrove planting and restoration along the southern coastal zone in Kazamaz. And we only look at the moment, the adaptation part, that it helps to fix the coastal soils and give livelihood to some communities there. But the next step to make it mitigation-oriented is to measure the carbon that was captured in this adaptation, primarily adaptation-labelled activity. And we have to explain or to assist our developing countries. Mr. Minister from Indonesia mentioned China, India, that this separation doesn't make sense, but also for African countries and developing countries in general. That when you make, when you do an adaptation project, have a specialist or an expert on carbon measurement to come and do that work. And you can have your adaptation benefits that goes directly to the population, to your population. But you can also enter the carbon market by, if you go through this rigorous process of CDM or other market mechanisms, you can even get access to CERs. So I don't think that, especially for countries which need, you have to say it straight, who need development first, this separation can be seen as artificial, really. And that's why we, when we work with countries in preparing their investments from work on sustainable land and water management, we advise them not to look only to windows, financing windows that target only land restoration or land degradation, but also to prepare their project in a way that the carbon component will be taken into account. It might require extra expertise or extra work, but I think it is worth of it. And in Terra Africa, in addition to supporting countries to prepare investment framework on sustainable land and water management, we are now developing with World Bank, which is one of the main partners of this initiative. We are developing training that will go online very soon to have a very simple way of calculating the carbon content of each of activities or project we are undertaking. And I have colleagues here in the room who are specialists on that side of our world who can easily, from you can easily liaise and they will tell you about the next coming online or face-to-face training where you can calculate your carbon, the carbon content of your project and then also tap into the mitigation part of existing funding. This is what I wanted to say that for negotiation purposes it could be much more easier, but when we do development projects, we have to take into account adaptation and mitigation in the same package. And this way we can access the new upcoming funding like the Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund which is now operational, the LDC Fund and the Special Climate Change of the UNFCCC processes. Thank you very much. I will stop here. Thank you very much. Thank you for reminding us that adaptation and mitigation have done right essentially two sides of the same coin and so that is important. And that is a perfect segue to Mark who is going to talk about finance and much of the finance talk as you will hear is how do we get this to scale. A, we need lots of money and B, how do we get these very valuable local participatory initiatives scaled up in the sense that they mean something to our financial markets and where do we access this capital. Thank you Mark. Thanks very much. I would just like to tell you a story listening to everybody who is far more knowledgeable of myself being a financier. I'd just like to tell you a story about the forests and I think this is important. All the forests that you've seen in all the videos have shown these dark green temperate rain forests. Now, the map that you saw of Indonesia and the fires showed a little bit of Northern Australia and there are schemes that are taking place that deal with adaptation and mitigation and I don't say this just because I happen to work in my third retirement for Credit Suisse but there is a project in Northern Australia that encapsulates everything that all of my fellow panellists have been talking about. There's a thing called the Fish River Development which actually deals with adaptation and mitigation of 10 million hectares of not forest in the way that you typically have been looking at it but in low rainfall savanna and high rainfall savanna in the Kimberleys which is just north of Arnhem land and then in Cape York which is in Queensland and this is 10 million hectares where there are 16 indigenous tribes and this land has been degraded by beef farming for generations and of course if you go back before white settlement the indigenous peoples took great care of their land and every year burnt off in the winter certain parts of this savanna Now what happened with unregulated farming practices that took place 100 years ago was that there was enormous build up of feedstock so that in the middle of summer there was enormous fire not unlike the sorts of fires that you've seen in 1997 and of course this was catastrophic in terms of the regeneration of the plants the generation of the grasses, the biodiversity but not only the land management so into this has come three elements one a recognition that this is bad management but what has happened is that a mining company, the largest mining company in the world BHP Billiton has decided that this is the major project that they're going to finance in Australia and they are working with another well-renowned group, the Nature Conservancy Group and I have to say that Great Suisse has made a modest contribution but this is to scale up sustainable land management practices by indigenous communities across more than 10 million hectares of land in the Kimberley, Cape York and Arnhem land and this is by the control of wildfires firing the land at the right time and actually trying to revert back to the practices of a thousand or so years ago it's actually incredibly simple when you think about it but it's incredibly effective now it's a fantastic story because it also is a self-financing story because the amount of carbon that is captured by these enhanced management techniques can actually be sold for carbon credits that self-perpetuates this process of land management and that's a really good story and I think it's, you know, we talk about land use and forest this is 10 million hectares of Savannah wetland which is a forest in my, and of course the aim is to take that example down into the Kimberleys where of course you've got the low rainfall Savannah which you still have the same problems with catastrophic fires so that's a really good story about what you can do in the very essence of what we're talking about here but what is the problem in that? the problem in that is it's actually financed by philanthropy because carbon credits on their own will not actually finance this particular development so what I'd like to say just in some opening remarks which I haven't taken much longer for you but is that having been involved in this whole agenda through my own interests and my relationship as a special advisor to UNEP and having seen as a member of the G20 for Australia for some time all these issues being evolved I'd say two things to you the first thing is that in the finance sector as Paul Paulson said in a speech early today the tipping point has been reached and there's no question that for the sorts of commitments that you need from the finance sector around the world the money is there, the question is how do you actually get it and we spoke earlier in the session when we were talking before we came here about this is an innate frustration because the money is there the awareness is there I think the other point that came out of this morning is that with social media the sort of pressures that will come upon financiers and corporations and the business community from all the stakeholders that the consumers, the investors, the retirees will actually drive people to attenuate all of the things you talk about here into the way they do business but the key thing for me is that you're going to have all this terrific driving focus to try and get the financial community which controls tens of trillions of dollars to actually start to finance the environment in a better way in a more sustainable way and the sort of issues we're talking about but the question is how do you deal with the fact that mitigation and adaptation is at the small scale it's not even SME, we're talking about microfinancing so how do you get the trillions of dollars or the 40 billion dollars that are raised by Greenbonds this year which will go to 100 billion dollars how do you get that through to the small people who are doing the right thing with respect to how they're adapting and mitigating in their farming techniques and what they're doing in Indonesia and Africa and that is the big question I think that needs to be solved by people far cleverer than I am because if you look at what's happened in small businesses it's been the investment banks to be perfectly frank that have led the securitisation of large amounts of money to be able to enable intermediaries to finance others because large amounts of money are available but they're not available in the form of small loans to people so if you understand what I'm saying, what I'm saying here is there's these trillions of dollars there's 40 billion dollars of Greenbonds but they are all going into identifiable large scale infrastructure projects that obviously deal with mitigation but the next key is how do you get that money down in some form of package that is identifiable and registrable that's the big challenge if I could say of the people over the next four or five years is to get the money down to the people that make the difference thanks very much thank you very much that was an exciting range of presentations, comments, insights the way I'd like to sort of carry on the next I think we have about half an hour because we started late so let's try and use that as efficiently as possible so that the audience here can ask you some questions I have some questions here but let's go to the audience because I'm sure they're anxious to communicate and then we can come back please identify yourself which agency or country you come from and then keep your question brief please so that we can get as many as possible thank you, any questions from the audience? yes please I need a mic here morning, Jill Blockus from the Nature Conservancy I'm curious if any of the panelists have had experience with impact investing and given the last speaker's comments maybe that is one way forward in terms of accessing additional finance I agree green bonds are very very important but thank you for all your range of presentations I have plenty of other questions but I'll stick with that one, thank you thank you so that's the impact investing question have you had any experience with it? yes let's take a few and then we'll come back to that question and if you're addressing your question to anybody in particular please identify yourself this is a question to the panel, Steven Leonard from C4 in the current climate negotiations there's been mitigation, adaptation, synergies emerge in the context of REDD Plus and some discussion in the Green Climate Fund as well as the ADP but the issue hasn't managed to get much traction despite the realities that are occurring on the ground I'd be interested to know from the panel what you think would be useful in terms of international policy development to create the incentives to move mitigation or more integrated and synergistic approach forward could you repeat that because I think just the last bit it was difficult to catch okay sorry, in terms of the international policy development what do you think would be useful to create more incentives to move forward with a more integrated approach to mitigation and adaptation incentives for integrated approach to mitigation, anybody else? okay let's start and then as people warm up we'll come back and anybody wants to take the first one about impact investing any experiences that you might have had? I haven't had any direct experience of impact investing but I'd just like to say one thing which is generic to your point and that is that the frustration with mitigation is that it's quite hard for a financier to contemplate how you finance mitigation you can change behavior if you look at the insurance industry 20 years ago there went through a horrific period of not understanding climate change and not understanding what was happening and they nearly disappeared and since then they've dealt with the future and if you look at what Governor Carney said at the Bank of England about two months ago whereby he asked all the insurance companies what their plans were with respect to the managing of their investments in a 30 to 40 year time horizon you attenuated sort of focus on that impact investing it's quite hard to see that's very hard to finance I mean I'm talking about lending, I'm not talking about actual investment first anybody else? maybe I can try to say something about that you see the picture that I showed in terms of the 1 million hectare speedland that was converted to plantation for food is actually a case in point in my mind study that's been done on that 1.4 million hectare actually it's 1.4 million hectares and the problem with the peat is that there has been a lot of canals that make the peat dry and it tends to burn when it is there you know the peat is actually a young coal so when you burn on the top the fire gets inside and even if you then have rain the fire is still inside your heart so when the air gets dry the fire comes up again never ending fire so you need to manage that because that is a source of emission that is so bad but on the other hand we need the food security so there are parts of that 1 million that can actually be converted into agriculture for food the question now is that how can we use the concept of adaptation based mitigations to generate the financing that will make the canal blocking happen and also the study and also the strategy that make that 1.4 million hectares not only sequestering more carbon not only getting the enhancement of carbon stock but at the same time produce food security as the first place it was intended now some people will say that carbon is high risk because the market is not there and all those things but the peat land is there the land is there and the sustainability of the development on that land is there with the right epic with the right safeguards including the forest welding people in the equations and actually we have a business case for financing that is not that risky and because of that adaptation based mitigation is perhaps the first argument to make financing happen in this kind of a sustainable development with equity concept there are many cases like the case of the peat land of Indonesia in the world I think we need to package it that way I think what has been done by Artelia and Peru with SEMA Cordelia Azul is one part of the possibility that we can do but that is just a small one we need to be a bigger one and I think the drive moving into that is theirs but if the green climate fund is actually so much defeat into the patients and mitigations then perhaps we are not getting closer to the holistic solution Thank you, I think just before you go ahead Mark I should come back on one point on impact investing an optimistic note I just want to go back to the point I made about green bonds green bonds at the moment of financing infrastructure that are really unbelievably important but I think that we should be aspirational and I was bold enough to say it another forum in terms of impact investing that we ought to think in four or five years time a green bond that finances a specific whole ecosystem and the obvious being Australian for me is a $1 billion green bond for the barrier reef that's the sort of thing that we need to move to whereby investing is a generic term but I'm talking about a bond that actually helps the development of that obviously it has served so I think that I am optimistic it's just a question of skyline Yes, I think there was a study not too long ago done by the Rockefeller Foundation that actually went to some of the fund managers and sort of said okay on the one hand you know as it was highlighted we have billions of dollars of demand or offer of funding so ODA has been about 150 billion over a long period and it's unlikely to increase anytime soon you might be talking of 100 billion plus of carbon funding available in the near future but on the other hand you've got at least a trillion dollars in demand for sustainable food systems if you look at water supply and sanitation globally it's probably another 2 trillion and if you want to really get into the infrastructure you're talking of the 3 trillion so in essence you're talking several trillion dollars on the one hand and a fairly small offer in terms of financing on the other and I think this is what has created this very interesting space of how do you access this tremendous amount of capital that's lying in the insurance industry in the capital markets I think the point that has been made is there is clearly a playing space for agencies you know what the fund managers apparently reported in their survey that A they weren't finding adequate projects of sufficient scale B they were sort of lacking technical assistance technical know-how sources and C they were looking for guarantees or guarantees the kinds of guarantees that MIGA provides for example from the World Bank for various governments and so clearly there are potential opportunities to be had here if we are able to bring the right parties together and sort of put in place opportunities we had one more question which was the policy instrument right how to look at integrated adaptation mitigation anybody wants to take a look at that take a look at that I will come back to this question on how to create more incentive for mitigation investment I will reverse the proposal that this based on the latest figures we have that out of the climate funds or investments we calculated that 70% are dedicated to mitigation already even if they are low compared to the trillions that are available out there this is one another point so 70% for mitigation 30% for adaptation so now the proposal if you reverse it is how to show in adaptation project activities the mitigation potential to also bring some of the investment in adaptation because we know that most of the adaptation money is from ODA and we know that it is decreasing since more than a decade so now how to bring investors private sector to be interested in adaptation activities and I think this is and link it to development of course and this is a huge challenge that as a community we will be facing in the coming years that maybe because mitigation is more of an interest of donors, investors that are in developed countries but we have to bring this interest in adaptation and one of our challenges in the new terra Africa cycle will be to do analytical work to do advocacy work to show to investors private investor that the investment framework of countries in Africa are worth to get investment so this is the next challenge on how to create more investment more incentive for investment in adaptation Thank you very much Mamadou you know an interesting anecdote here it's actually a fact Costa Rica, I managed to Costa Rica from the bank side Costa Rica's forest carbon partnership efforts and they are currently the first country to sign a letter of intent to supply emissions reductions equivalent to about 63 million dollars this is from the carbon fund the principal objective or goal of that distribution of that 63 million dollars will be to enhance their world famous payment for environmental services program which is already put in place that's being financed by 3% tax on the gasoline tax or 3% cut from the gasoline tax that Costa Rica gets so it's a very interesting approach whereby you take money revenue from fossil fuels you channel it into payments for ecosystem services environmental services good behavior, modify, behavioral change and then you supplement it with additional funds that are coming from essentially mitigation program I think this is fascinating it's one model it's relatively small in the bigger picture I think it holds out hope an optimistic way to look at it I wanted to go quickly to Bianca to talk a little bit, you mentioned the bond it was very interesting would you like to comment some more about how this is panning out at the national level for example some examples the bond challenge is helping to crystallize opportunities in countries and even recognition to existing domestic for example in Guahamala it has increased mental restoration including for the development of restoration initiative system for small Londoners and communities as well as for large Londoners in the matter Atlantica which I spoke before Restoration Pact in Brazil and has given global recognition and added impetus to an existing multi-stakeholder restoration initiative so you see in these all over the world well they have already initiated the bond challenge in Ethiopia for example the construction to the bond challenge is reinforcing restoration programs aimed at improving food and water security and attracting more international interest in this program one of the main things about restoration is that this is not simply about planting trees the greatest thing about the restoration initiative is that includes the communities and the communities have a say as to how they wanted to be implemented and for example in the Salvador and Buranda and elsewhere it has contributed to the bond challenge is unlocking finance for implementation which you wouldn't get maybe anywhere any other way in the Democratic Republic of Congo it is bringing useful focus to the country's red strategy and helping to unlock related funding and the exact impetus for an impact of contributing to the bond challenge defer in each context so the bond challenge initiative of restoration is very different in different countries even within Latin America or within Asia or within Africa or in the United States but it is really an extraordinary initiative that can really be a tool to combat climate change Thank you very much I think we have some more questions can you please identify yourself Good afternoon everybody Thank you for this interesting mix of views that we have heard I would actually like to pick up on a little bit I actually wanted to make a comment which Eric very eloquently put I was saying that as a model the PES system it could be one way to say how the money trickles down all these billions which are there trickles down to the communities and that is a model to be tested and seen particularly given that when you look at the PES there are two ends of the PES system but I think I will change my question a little bit to talk about the business engagement in this landscape approach when you are talking about adaptation based mitigation I think during this course of yesterday we heard a lot about the public and public private policy and the financing so perhaps if the panels have any views on the how to make this business lucrative for the investors so what is it that we are trying to do in the enabling environment is probably the way to go for the investors to be interested in actually going to the grassroots and investing that money so any views on that would be very much appreciated Thank you How do you create the enabling environment and I think you are getting to that Anybody else? Yes please Mark is caring from the CISDL the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law I have a question about adaptation based mitigation because we are struggling to accommodate fundamental rights and human rights of the affected communities in these schemes wouldn't adaptation based mitigation make it even more complicated and add another layer to the complex issues That is a very interesting question This is wouldn't adaptation based mitigation make it more complex in terms of if I understood you correctly in terms of the rights of people to access resources the land I think that we have seen not only here the adaptation in the discussion that we are having but in all the negotiations of the Red Plus where it has been so difficult to include in the safeguards respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and for their culture and in particularly one of the big obstacles has been because the necessity to recognize the right to their ancestral land and so it is very complex and the big question that we have is will indigenous peoples local communities and the people who are not the big players be able to have access to these fundings and I feel and I fear that we still have not really established the mechanism for them to have that access and we are here in Peru we saw that there were four indigenous peoples who had recently killed we now learn today about the killing of a leader in Ecuador and if you look at the whole of Latin America and many other countries we see the struggle of indigenous peoples and not just to to access finances but simply to survive then if they ask would it make it more complex right yeah it's getting more complex of course and you add all these elements just like what we discussed yesterday that what is being paid it being paid is the gigaton of carbon and how you include all these elements that is talking about a deaf patient thing into that market offering okay so within one gigaton of carbon there is instilled into that the value of sustainability the value of the rights of the indigenous people the value of the ecosystem services the value of that so if you're talking about PES is one model yes but it is very rudimentary model because you need to add the other element as well so that's coming from the two ends the first one end is the carbon end the second one is the PES end you need to combine and suddenly you see oops I still have a big hollow and what is that big hollow that big hollow is the biodiversity the big hollow is the right of the forest dwelling people the big hollow is this and that so my thinking in terms of regulations or directions toward that is even if that is imperfect let's start with that in the base of that is something that is not in the terms of the financial market is not depreciating now that is getting more complexity again because you need to create and establish the value of your natural asset your landscape value is not depreciating if you take care of that and put the right value on that so basically it's a safe investment but what is the market offering is carbon because it's already established but then you need to put in the value of the PES you put in the value of the cognitions and protections of the rights of the indigenous people you even had the value of that and suddenly you said the market offering the unit that is being traded is perhaps five times the unit of carbon in the original form so basically you create that concept and the government may need to put the directions toward that but waiting for the government to finalize that at a national level may be too difficult and too long so I will encourage that projects can be put that and start getting finance in a way that even if that's imperfect that will be the first step toward a perfect system in the future and again because adaptations is about changing systems this is one of the system that needs to be changed Can I speak? Go ahead I'll just say an answer to the anchor the point that made the example gave of the fish river and the 10 million hectares there were nine indigenous separate indigenous tribes Aboriginal tribes involved and one of the priorities of that or the priority was the empowerment of those people and if you look at the photos pre the fish river project and post the fish river project you see people who are now proud, fully employed in charge of their own environment and obviously that took money from a major mining company it also honestly took the government to actually acquire some very large cattle lands to give them back I'm not denying any of that but the equality of opportunity and recognition of the rights of the indigenous people was a priority as well as restoration and adaptation and carbon Thank you very much There was another question about enabling environments for investors and then we'll come back Go ahead Anybody want to take that? Payments for ecosystem services of course it's the having the legal and even more justice environment that makes that if a certain area is exploited this natural resources use the benefit come back to the to the recipients or to the people living there This is the first part and we talk about indigenous rights but this is valid in general for all the natural resources that the country has oil and then should make sure that the benefits come back to the population It's the same approach here we talk about environmental benefits Now, to me complexity is not the issue the climate change itself even the biophysical aspect is complex already this is a complexity is not an issue and when we look at the evolution of the climate change process so in the late 80s when the negotiations started we are not talking about mitigation, adaptation now we have this separation and we move for instance to give another example we used to Lulusev land use, land use change and forestry and now in Bali we had the red that was and we put them in a parallel so in the climate change process you have negotiation on Lulusev and red, another complexity now we move to CSA climate smart agriculture and we are having the landscape new, relatively new concept that goes and we spend or the community spend years to understand the semantic already and this delays implementation especially for countries that need development activities right now so complexity is not an issue the issue comes when you get a country especially developing countries who goes and to look for support for mitigation and is told that this is adaptation you cannot access this funding because it's only for adaptation the complexity thank you in the interest of time unfortunately we take one more question because we have a gentleman there thank you very much Robert Chimambo Pan-African climate justice alliance I don't know what my young brother says there that there is no complexity because I see complexity right across this whole thing but just listening to the plenary especially from the river and my brother from Indonesia the issue of separation adaptation mitigation starts from the convention itself that historical responsibilities and the rest of them so this is where we coming from that those that are responsible for you know causing climate change must be responsible for the rest of it so we can't run away from that but I think it is good that this concept has to be explained you are saying Indonesia is big China is big and that's where the suspicion arises that we see China, Indonesia are you linking up with the polluters leaving all of us floating away small countries so there is a suspicion I know what is happening in the negotiations right now there is the other issue of individually determined and the people who wanted to run away with mitigation and the countries like mine are saying no but it must be a package so I think it is a complex problem let's accept it and there is a suspicion there is a suspicion about this thing but just from my friend on the financial sector the way we understand this thing is that it is climate change I mean it's happening already in the Philippines people are dying that's the big picture how I heard the CEO from liver brothers saying how do we get the financial sector to put a human face in the financing instead of looking at it from a mayor quarterly and the political end of five year terms that climate change is going to be with us for a long time and people are going to die how do we use the resources financial resources to help to mitigate to save lives I think that's the context that financial people like you should put this I think if it's put in that context not just to make money but to help save the globe generation to come it will help and you will find a lot of support from if you put it in that context because what I get here especially come from a justice angle is that people are going to make money but people are dying I don't know how the financial sector would do that what we got from the CEO liver brothers was very good but that's the start the philosophy is changing it's not just about making money but about saving lives generations of youths and so on thank you very much anybody wants to take that can I just say one thing I've heard from the universities and WNF said that there needed to be 200 to 300 billion dollars a year a year invested in sustainable development to deal with the issue you talk about so that's the amount of money that's a lot of money so and you make the very good point that at the end of the day governments and philanthropists can only do a tiny portion of that you then have to ramp up the amount of money I'm not talking about carrots I'm talking about direct investment so we're talking about direct government investment direct philanthropic investment in sustainable development and all the issues we talk about here today so to actually get the sort of money you have to ramp that up by 25 to 30 times that means you need the private sector that means you need the people that I represent but not that I represent particularly the people that have the global investable funds now to do that they are unfortunately businesses they all want a return but people want a variety of returns there are some people who are prepared to have social bonds that will have negligible returns there are people that are prepared to invest because they've got some form of carrot and carrot comes in all sorts of colours carrot comes in a tax deduction carrot comes in a mandated investment carrots comes in the way that actually frees up investors to look at sort of climate type investments so all but I just like to say that that I am optimistic that might be an age thing with me but I'm optimistic and I think that you are what was said in the conversation earlier you are at a tipping point where social media is going to drive an accelerated form of attenuation in terms of investment and support through the financial sector but I think the other thing is that you know sustainable development is economic growth is profitable development it's not one or the other so I'm optimistic the money will come it's very frustrating for people that want it it's a large scale investors I'm an investment banker but you know the private sector needs to be critically involved in going forward and I'm optimistic I'd like to say something with regard to sustainable development sustainable development is a contradiction in itself I don't know that there is such a thing as sustainable development but if there was we could only have sustainable development it encompasses the principles of respect for human right and good governance and unfortunately as somebody who was born in Nicaragua and who has a human right organizations that works on social justice and environmental issues I could tell you that the the race to develop many of our developing countries have left behind a trail so much destruction and harm to the environment and harm to people that if we really want to go forward we need to change our understanding and our concept of what development should do and we need to think very carefully that we are at the tipping point that we are facing catastrophic climate change and that we need to protect our communities our indigenous peoples and that if development is going to go ahead it cannot go ahead any longer the way it has gone until today okay thank you very much I think we'll close thank you very much to all our distinguished panelists this was very very interesting as well I think and thank you to all for your patience and your contributions to the session