 For my today talk, I'm going to present the, actually this is the result from my info brief with the title, Thinking about Red Plus Benefit Sharing Mechanisms. Lesson learned from community forestry in Nepal and Indonesia. In today's presentations, I'm going mainly to discuss the main hand lights from the comparisons of community forestry implementations for Red Plus Benefit Sharing Mechanisms and assess them in terms of the effectiveness, efficiency and equity. And this can be adopted in a different context for implementing the Red Plus Benefit Sharing Mechanisms. Experience from Nepal greatly contributed by Dr. Paudel, which most of you probably already know. And considering the last incidents of earthquake in Nepal, I just want to mention before I start that my praise and heart goes to the people in Nepal and hopefully they would have, you know, a speedy recovery in the near future. So, community forestry's experience provides a valuable lesson for Red Plus Benefit Sharing Mechanisms for three reasons. First, because the community forestry institutions have established benefit sharing mechanisms and this is usually recognized by the National Law. And secondly, because the community forestry, as you might already know, generates benefits, not only for timber but also from other benefits such as ecological services and also carbon sequestrations. And the third reason why community forestry can provide a valuable lesson for benefit sharing mechanism in Red Plus is because community forestry provides forest management options in implementing Red Plus on the ground. Before I going to explain further on the lessons from this comparison analysis, first I'm going to explain in terms of the community forestry scheme included in the analysis. In Nepal, we are focusing on the current or existing community forestry schemes and also on the Red Plus piloting projects that are implemented for three years, since 2011 to 2014. And FECOFUN, which is the Federation of Community Forestry Users in Nepal, was the main project partners in this pilot project. And this project was set up based on the existing community forestry schemes that has been widely implemented nationally since 1990s and the community forest user groups is the main actors in this implementation of community forestry. In this Red Plus pilot project, the project had objective of reducing emissions and also enhancing the local livelihoods and it made payments against two main criteria, first the biophysical criteria and also the social indicator that I'm going to explain more later towards my presentations. On the other hand, Indonesia, the two most relevant community forestry schemes that I thought with a clear arrangement for benefits sharing mechanism is the community forestry or Indonesia we call it the Hutan Kemasa Rakatan or HKM and the second scheme is the community company partnership schemes. This actually implemented both of the schemes in most state forests in Indonesia in which deforested and degraded forest areas occur. So the main objective of community forestry scheme is to increase the participation of local people, especially in forest management and also in restoring the state forest conditions and also to resolve the conflict over encroached forests. And for the partnership schemes, this is initiated by companies since the 1990s widely implemented in Java, Sumatra and also in Kalimantan and companies use this strategy in resolving long-term conflict inside their concession area. And the company guaranteed the shared benefit from timber that are planted collaboratively by the company and also by the community. So based on these schemes, we analyze the comparative between all the four schemes in Nepal and Indonesia and at least there are four key lessons that I'm going to present today but for more detailed discussion you can read it in the C4 info brief number 112 that is available at C4 website. Okay, the first key lessons is that we understood that from the initiation to the implementation stages there are three approaches of benefit sharing mechanism being implemented. First, the rights allocation base, the input base and also the performance base. Each of these approach has specific and complementary roles in ensuring effectiveness, efficiency and equity of benefit sharing mechanisms. So the rights allocation base approach has been commonly used in the initial phase of any community forestry schemes and under this approach rights have been allocated so community have legal rights in managing and also to get the benefit resulting from forest management or from development interventions. And then under this right allocation based community forestry, the Red Plus project in Nepal has been implemented and they try to shift from the right allocation base to more performance base but in the beginning the input base approach has been used basically to get the project going and the payment criteria as I mentioned earlier is different from the existing benefit sharing mechanism under community forestry. First it's based on the social indicators. It's weighted by 60% to actually share benefit to the poor women and other marginalized groups and the other 40% weighted indicators are based on the bi-physical factors. However, to date there has been no example of direct payments based on these verified indicators of carbon enhancements. And the second lesson that I would like to highlight is that cost sharing is similarly important to benefit sharing since transaction costs are potentially high in all schemes in most of the community forestry schemes both in Indonesia and also in Nepal. For example, because the challenge due to the economic outscales in community forestry forest management and this is applied both in Nepal and in Indonesia. For example, in Nepal Red Plus pilot projects, this project cannot afford the estimate MRV costs at the current scale of an average of 85 hectares per community forest user group's management. The third lesson learned that it's important to highlight is that for equity and long term commitments, opportunity costs are important in deciding how benefits are shared, particularly if land use competition is high. As probably some of you know in Nepal, opportunity costs perceived to be low compared to Indonesia that have high opportunity costs of the community managed lands and labour because of the alternative land use for small holder rubber plantations and also from oil pump plantations. So taking into account this opportunity cost is important, especially in maintaining the long term community commitment and also to have more interesting shared benefits offered under the Red Plus benefits sharing mechanism. And as the fourth of the last lessons that is important to focus in ensuring the equity by allocating payments to public and social infrastructures and also providing economic opportunity to those who are landless. I think this is actually from a Nepal case can reveal that revenue are divided between funding developments and also this is especially for community infrastructures, facilities and social services. And also the other payment is a direct payment to individual households. So in this way, even though who are landless can benefits for having a better social and community infrastructure including health and education services. So from Indonesia, opportunity costs, because the high opportunity cost is important and also to provide the economic opportunity for those who are landless, especially in the area where the community and company partners can be implemented. To conclude, I think in addition to the lesson-learned mentions above, I think it's important for scaling up the legitimacy of process is required, especially in ensuring the efficiency, effectiveness and equity in the long term especially under the Red Plus benefits sharing mechanism. For example, in Nepal, the legal basis for community forestry provides sufficient ground to secure community share of Red Plus funds. I think, thank you. Thank you, Ani. Does anyone have any questions for Ani on this very exciting topic? No. Okay, then let me ask the question. Is there someone? I think you have to stand so that you are on camera as well. Great. I'm just curious. We hear a lot about community forestry being important for Red and conversely also Red being very important for community forestry. Is this always a win-win or what are the trade-off between these two things, sort of complementing or feeding off each other or helping each other? Okay. I think the most example that I can tell is from Nepal case because there where the Red Plus piloting project is built on the existing community forestry. There are mixed results especially from the experience that shared by Dr. Paudel that actually payment from Reds provide or consider as the complementary payments or bonus for community forestry. And it doesn't really directly causing the change of behavior in their existing long-term forest management practices. So in a way, without payment from Red Plus, they will continue what they have been doing for a long time. And actually there are some preference among those who are involved and especially also in Indonesia that people would prefer have more development projects rather than payments that are not really comparable to the operative cost of doing their management practices. So it has still to be proven by having more probably involvement of community forestry in these Red Plus schemes, I would say. Now just because as I see it, you have at least two broad categories of beneficiary mechanisms, some are more or less regulatory as part of Red for instance and others are purely voluntary and based on the willingness of companies to deal with the communities and conversely. So I was wondering whether we can assess major differences in terms of impacts whether it's regulatory or purely voluntary. I mean all of these beneficiary mechanisms or agreements that you mentioned with companies in Indonesia are voluntary. So do we see a big difference in terms of impacts whether they are regulatory or not? Okay. Well, I don't see really any voluntary beneficiary mechanisms being applied widely for community forestry schemes except probably under the Red Plus pilot project in which by design it's, you know, try to develop more participatory criteria for sharing the payments. Probably I can say that the mandatory benefit sharing mechanism is basically under the rights allocation base under the community forestry, you know, a benefit sharing mechanism in which that's regulated by the government. For example, in Indonesia, you know, there is a division between 70% for timber of land to be allocated, you know, in their management practice and the other 30% for intercropping or for non-timber forest products. So that's basically the mandatory, you know, benefit sharing that's where the community forestry groups can get their legal rights to manage and offer the benefits, you know, coming from those area. But if there is enough funding especially to compete with the alternative, you know, land use that's similarly at least to the opportunity cost, the rights allocation base is more effective in the long term. I would say for the sake of having, you know, a fair benefit sharing for the local community the main interest or the main motivations for the community forestry program or HAKA in Indonesia is basically they want to get access to the state forest so they can do the intercroppings or to collect the non-timber forest products. So that is the lesson learned from the experience. So along this line, let me ask one question. As we know, Indonesia is really ramping up its social forestry programs and I think the minister recently announced that there is new intention to allocate something like 20 million hectares of forest to local people small holders communities and so on. Where do you see within this flux of potential social forestry programs where do you see kind of red or other types of environmental incentives fitting as a way to mediate or how would it work within this influx of social forestry programs? Okay, thank you Grace for the questions. I think considering the, you know, the dynamics of the policy and also the land use changes in Indonesia as we also discussed in our info brief that in the beginning red plus beneficiary mechanism or red plus pilot project could work if in the area with a low opportunity cost. So probably, you know, in this government goals for having more social forestry as the main forest regime in Indonesia it could be targeted for the nature reserve or conservation forest or national parks. So that could be a start-up point I would say because in Indonesia there are different forest classifications and the production forest really have to compete with alternative land use for expansion, you know, from coming from the expansion of oil pump plantation and also from rubber plantations that are really relevant for the community. So I think for start-up if, you know, red plus pilot project would be implemented it should be focusing in the area with low opportunity costs. But there is a threat of that we have to consider whether it will be effective in halting the debris stations and degradations but I think most of, even most of the protein forest and national park areas of Indonesia has been subject for encroachments, you know, especially in Sumatra and also in Kalimantan. Thank you. I have more practical questions related with these ideas of including this red plus into the community forestry. Many of us trying to get more access for community, for state forest and we heard from the governments they allocated already 20 million hectares. Actually, long time ago the government has allocated more about 5 million hectares but still in the reality they are not so much land already access because of many regions. One of the, because of the bureaucracy, the difficulties in processing land but also from the allocated land, still very few of the land really cultivated or used by the community. So I think the reality is managing forest or growing timber is not attractive for small holders, for the people. So my question is whether this red plus benefit can be added into increasing incentive for people to be more involved in this forest business. Is it allowed, for example, for community timber plantation, not for hakaim? Because there are so many community forestry schemes in Indonesia. I can see that this looks like similar with the certification experience, timber certification. We always say that there are a lot of opportunities but then in reality the transaction cost is much higher than the possible benefit if small holders want to invest by themselves in the certification process. In reality again we can see that all the process has to be initiated by external parties who may be taking the benefits from this process. So again how can we use this kind of incentive, this kind of opportunities to really provide incentive to community to invest more in managing forest or growing timber. Thank you for the questions. I think Adela you have touched very complicated issues here because we are referring to the Indonesian situations. There are many programs including the program that mentioned by Grace earlier that was mainly top-down and it's not based on the actual maps that really reflecting the situations on the ground. So that's another challenge. For example in community-based plantation programs or HTR, the Hutan Nanaman Rakiat, it's very difficult to find a clean and clear area that actually can be allocated rights for developing the community-based plantation programs. Even though in the map that used by the Ministry of Forestry it's eligible, it's a production forest, it's allowed to be developed as a timber plantations but if you go to the site it's actually been converted to other land use like oil pumps and probably some district government giving the mining concessions to some private companies. So I think there is now under the new ministers, they are committing to develop a one map policy now. They are now committing to develop one map as the basis for integrated planning between departments involved in natural resource management. So we are looking forward to have that to be implemented soon because I think there's been a lot of efforts in doing that. So I think that's an issue. And the second issue is that the procedures to get this right is very complicated. Not only for HTR, the Hutan Nanaman Rakiat, the community-based plantation programs, not only for HKM, the community forestry programs, but for all of the community-based forestry management in applying the rights, the community has to go to these complicated procedures. They have to attach the actual boundaries of the proposed area, they have to develop the proposal, they have to do the socio-economics baseline survey. So unless they get assistance or are facilitated by NGOs, the local NGO, national NGOs, and in our project site including, you know, facilitated by C4, there is no opportunity that community can do this by themselves. So that's why this has caused another constraint in developing the community-based forest management because of the high transaction costs. And the community usually doesn't have the capacity to put all this together by themselves. And I think for where we can see this red plus can be implemented by involving community forestry. I think the important thing is to find the right incentive from the carbon markets. I mean, you know, if we want to talk about the incentive, we obviously have to relate it with the market. So do we know where is the carbon markets that potentially can, you know, provide incentive or buy this from Indonesia, for example, from Indonesia Forest. So, and part of this is to also identify the right carbon pricing, I would say. Because, you know, even though to involve the private company, they would like to know what is the carbon pricing that will have to apply in their, you know, carbon trading. And probably this is not the silver bullet, but I think having more encouragement for public-private people partnerships, that would be another solution. So engaging more with the private sector who are interested in buying the carbons, and it doesn't have to be a forestry-based company. It could be, you know, those companies or private sector who are reliant on natural resource for their metro material, that would be an option. Okay, we are coming to time now. So if there's a last question, a burning question from the audience? No? Okay, in this case, thank you very much, Ani, for the talk.