 What kind of the title is transforming red and we need to transform red to be transformational? And we note that there are a few changes in the Our global environment that has made it we have the Paris Agreement with the national Determined contributions that are at the center stage need to incorporate them into that. We have chapters looking into that We have the change in global political climate that you all know without Going further into that is climate in irecy in high offices that makes the gap between what we should do and What is seemingly politically possible to do that gap is is is widening and We have read itself. We have learned a few things about red But less than we hoped so there is also need for some expectations management For parts of the book first looking at the building blocks particularly finance We look at the national politics and coordination problems Which was centered because red was supposed to be more than project It was supposed to be a change of national policies and being that type of transformation change a third part assess The impacts has read works or not Both at national and the sub-national projects and then we look at for evolving initiatives related to jurisdiction approaches to the private sector pledges that has been made Climate smart agriculture and also forest and landscape restoration But just where to summarize red a lot has been done compared to the Pre-red period talk about One to maybe up to three billion US dollars per year in international funding In on top of that, of course, or maybe not on top Maybe at the really the basis is all the costs that are covered by red Governments and the communities that is normally not accounted for or credited in the debate At the same time result-based payment, which was supposed to be a the key and innovative feature of red has largely been Untested at scale. There's not been sufficient funding and to make a result-based payment system is extremely Complex and there are many issues and it may be subject to some political Gaming in the way that that you are cherry-picking numbers to generate results. We also have a chapter looking at that And on the There's maybe the main success of red I would say has been in in in the in form of a number of intermediate outputs and outcomes It has of course gained a lot of prominence on International at COP meetings and at national policy agendas more than 50 countries both have Have national red strategies and also include red into their their policies and A number of projects. Let me just go quick in the impacts. Maybe to summarize that the main story there is modest but Overall positive impacts of both policies So modest meaning that the effects are smaller than we thought and theory suggests and we hoped But they are still on the positive side overall. It seems at least in those areas We are work. We have avoided this kind of This large and negative effects that one sometimes hears stories about and sometimes fear So we have what what isn't in development aid literature is known as the micro macro paradox that we see a few small positive stories on the ground at local level, but they don't aggregate up to really be a game-changer and a shift in in in in the in the overall deforestation trends And How do we explain this modest outcome and that is a very very kind of important debate? Are we to blame red? Are we to blame say that it has been too little? Or do we say that the kind of using the medical metaphor that the disease has progressed too far? In the way that the economic interests in continued forest conversion are so strong And we have not been able to really address those underlying drivers or a more optimistic view recovery is possible, but just give the patient a little bit more time To assess that argument in one way you can say that words are cheap and and we have done a bit of the wording and Making nice policy documents but towards comprehensive action. We haven't yet fully started on that Just Some up. How can we make red more effective? I think we are seeing the limits of projects of sub-national So what is needed and we call for is big and bold initiatives That that really changed the underlying incentives for for that that kind of leads to continued forest conversion examples are Brazil's drastic deforestation reduction post 2004 that was due to a number of National policies that changed the basic incentives in terms of stronger enforcement of protected areas Agriculture credits that were changed India psychological fiscal transfer is another one that has Where you base the transfer to the to the sub-national units based on the forest cover and therefore create a strong incentive for them to conserve them Finally a positive exciting narrative on forest the iron law of climate policy says that if there is a conflict between climate and economic development Climate loses. So how can we build this a couple of points? About a fifth of the income in forest Communities comes from forest. So they are important for economic development for livelihoods We have also had some exciting last ten years or so on bio pumps or aerial rivers that forest causing rainfall and transport transporting moisture from the oceans to the interior land and The final is a plea to be brave and assess the impacts impacts assessment Requires a certain bravery because you as a proponent You are not in control of the conclusion and we were kind of surprised how little impact assessment that has been done We need to know more about what works and what not and we still do not have the evidence for example to tell which policies are more Effective than others. So be brave and dare to assess impacts is one of our conclusions Okay Thank you very much error We go directly to the second presentation and then we take questions Afterwards so Nikki please the floor is yours. Thank you. I just want to highlight some key messages from the chapter on information and a policy change So I lifted this sentence from the book because I think it shows very well what this chapter is about So we we're basically saying well information itself can be a tool for transformational change You know its generation the presentation the use are part of a political process and often a power game So We chose a specific case on information on drivers of drivers and underlying causes of Deforestation because we think this information is very can be very valuable in a policy process For example to identify the key causes to to look at different policy options and their impacts And there is a lot of new information technologies that offer new opportunities But they also come with diverse implications and new risks and you know always having more and better information does not necessarily Guarantee that there's more transparency participation empowerment of certain stakeholders or more accountability So what we would also came out of this ten years of research is that you know There's a powerful influence of of dominant business as usual Actors that have certain interests and they determine what and how information is generated and what is what is visible in the policy arena And what is on the agenda basically? Actors of course have also different capacities and resources to access process and provide information But also you know they have different capacities and resources to contribute to policy decisions about red plus And what we also see is that if you're looking at national forest monitoring systems and what they do beyond the the technical Activities is you know There's a lack of mechanisms to really ensure that there is coordination and data exchange between ministries and sectors But also, you know, what are the roles and responsibilities of different actors, you know Are there mechanisms in place for transparency? Is there timely access to information? But also are there mechanisms in place for stakeholder participation of course for example So we think that we guidance and also financial support is needed to really move from technical data to actionable information and ultimately also effective red plus interventions and like I just said these monitoring systems also need to address these participation transparency accountability and coordination to counteract these differences in the capacities and resources and also this Difference in decision-making power and political power of these various stakeholders This will not happen on its own just by having more and and better or sufficient information So I think that's some of the key messages from this this one chapter Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much So this is really a very very short overview of Of the book and particular of one of the chapters on drivers As I said before for those that have come a bit late We have a few copies of the book in the back and also there is a flyer where you can find the online Modality to download it in in a QR code So if you are interested in the book and you don't want to carry a lot of weight Then just download it from the from our web page I'd like to open the floor now for questions and comments from the audience There's one Hello, my name is good from a planet Amazon. It's a French NGO. We're working closely with indigenous people from Brazil and We know that some NGO and the government and with the help of the German government as well Implementing red project red press project at the moment and there is a big concern there about the way this project is our dividing community as well and I don't know. Have you heard about what happened with the surui people in Brazil? So do you have that concern also about the fact that red project can be something that can divide the indigenous communities? Is it explained in a book? I want to know if you if you was you have stood it with this this concern Somebody wants to answer this or maybe we also have a few of our other editors in the room if I want to take the Mic yeah, Amy. I'm Amy Duchel from C4 and I was one of the editors of the book I think your question really highlights especially with the surui project really shows the limitations of red plus projects actually because in that case that project was really not able to Overcome the major drivers of deforestation and degradation in that region and so even with the best intentions the most participation Kind of actually a pretty good project when you think about it relative to many others It still was not able to overcome sort of these bigger changes that were happening I think that's what it really emphasizes the importance of these jurisdictional approaches where you're really you know government led bigger scale At at subnational national level so that that that that is a really important lesson I think from that project and the other thing about dividing communities I mean, I think that is a really important issue and it's not only limited to red projects I think any sort of conservation intervention that's a you know affecting local people Will does have the potential to to you know communities are heterogeneous We know that and a lot of the work that we've seen is that those who participate most in Conservation interventions are those who are my They're they're better articulated. They're often wealthier the poor often the women in the communities are not completely engaged in these things So I think you have a very important point about addressing that heterogeneity on the ground in any intervention Thank you very much for that question any other comments or questions, please the lady in the blue Yeah, you are mentioning the oh, I'm a student from Singapore year-on-year as college I'm you are mentioning how the information the framing of information is a political process And I'm wondering like how did you choose to frame the information for your book like? What kinds of narrative that you hope to kind of tell to the book? Yeah So the question is what kind of narrative we are promoting in a book given that the data Information generation process is a political process. Yeah, I think Part of it is also bringing together the technical community with the community that is more worried about things like stakeholder participation and accountability and transparency and I Come more from the the technical side is the satellite monitoring and working within this global comparative study on the red plus I work with political economy scientists and it made me realize that you know, it's there's really implications to technical decisions that are made and You know, there's this very optimistic view or just let's generate more information That's that's not gonna solve certain problems. That's not necessarily gonna empowers more people and I think that's the narrative or the message that we want to get out there It's just be aware that also in if you have an MRV system or a monitoring system is that? You know, you have to involve not only the technical experts You have to involve a wider range of stakeholders and really think about you know How who is accountable for what? Who has what role but also how are we gonna coordinate this? How do you balance these different powers and different decision-making? Processes I think that's the the message that we want to get out there We are just to add to this we are we are making the case of course that an error It has said that that there is very little evidence so far about the performance of red plus unfortunately because not many Actors out there want to do this They don't know to do is they don't have the funds to do it or they don't have enough understanding how to do it right? And so we need more data and at the same time Everybody needs to be aware that data of course are also the function of a political process So you need to look at the data you need the data But you need to look at them also with with care and with understanding Thanks. Thanks for your comment. I think there was a somebody in the back. Yes Hi, my name is Claire Bass. I work in in UNDP's climate and forest team I just have a question regarding the if you were able to look at Exciting people talk about red plus and and not necessarily are talking about the same thing There are the project level forest carbon project interventions that are linked to the voluntary carbon market They're the subnational Approaches that are at the state level and that look at leakage in a very different way than Project level intervention and they are the national work that are doing things that are perhaps very different They're looking at the policy framework They're looking at the drivers analysis at the national level and building up monitoring systems at a national level And I think one of the key mistakes have been worked this for the last ten years The one of the key lessons is that we've been talking about these three levels of interventions as they were the same thing And they're definitely not and and I think it's very important That the scientific community contributes to clarifying these differences and and to to really put it out The lessons in a differentiated Manor I think there's been a lot of progress at a national level, of course There's been we're still far beyond the the targets of really addressing drivers as we should But there's been a lot of progress of building up national monitoring systems For instance in more than more than 30 countries have really have a concrete progress And that's different that what's happening that the project level would we have seen over and over that? You know it's not cost-efficient to build a project level monitoring system and that's an important lesson And we should already start, you know Talking about these issues after so many all of these years. Okay. I'll stop there. I Take that mainly to be a good comment and I agree with you There are these three or maybe four levels if you take the jurisdiction of subnational between the national and the local level and It's not always easy to to kind of just you say we should experiment the project level and what are the lessons for national level Because it's a different set of policies that that are relevant at the national level compared to the local level And what we have seen for example is in the tenure chapter tenure and writes that look at a lot of Projects have tried to address the tenure issues But if you don't have then the national framework in place you you quickly realize their shortcomings of that So in the ideal world These are working in synergies. So so you have national policies enabling and supporting the local action and and vice versa But I think your point is generally well taken. I agree So there is one comment here in the front is there anybody else who wants to make a comment we Okay second. Okay. So please go ahead. Hi. Good morning. I'm cock chung from Singapore a quick question on What do you see to be the interaction between red plus and article 6 especially on it most like for example How are the lessons from red plus influencing the rules that are being sorted out in article 6? And how are the discussions in article 6 influencing what sort of reforms that are needed in red plus I mean, I'm not an expert on the on this negotiation going on here and Are the lessons being implemented and ruled and informed Partly but I think for example in the result based payment chapter where we kind of call for a clearer rule book on how to set reference levels and how to to review the national submissions and I Would say that the main constraint when discussing article 6 or all the elements of the Paris is is that you are You are into a very kind of sensitive minefield where the political consideration for example countries Submit the reference level and we have some discussions of that that there is at least a strong incentive to inflate those reference levels and Within the UNFCC you don't have a you should have kind of a technical review to see all carbon pools are included But not kind of questioning the methodology for example the reference period that has been used some countries Take the deforestation trend and extrapolate into the future. Is this a reasonable assumption? so I would say in this Negotiations going on in this place There there are too many of the of the lessons learned that are kind of too sensitive to really bring into the debate and that's Kind of a role as researchers try to push a little bit for that and try to ask some critical questions So that's what we also hope with this book I'm getting science that we need to wrap up. So Julie. I'm sorry. I'm going to Ask you to put your questions later to to us so because the next group is already standing in the doors and So I just would like to say thank you very much for being here. So this is a a new book on red plus 16 chapters 62 authors we have been going through a very rigorous quality assessment process with About 50 reviewers looking so at each chapter has been reviewed between six and eight times To make it a really short and crisp and and a good read for everybody who's not in the In a matter so much and wants to have a quick understanding of what's going on where red plus stands and So please grab up a copy of in the back here on the table or find it online in the C4 website Transforming red plus. Thanks for being here. Have a good day. Thank you very much