DAY1
Session 3

Q&A session

Session3 Role of business and civil society in promoting effective financing for REDD+Q&A Session(Q1: WWF, Ms. Awano)

My question is to Mr. Eickhoff. My question is that your presentation pointed

out that there is a big gap between so-called donor-driven approach and voluntary-based approach.

Inthis context, in your view (it is a really political discussion) is JCM playing a sort of role of bridging thisgap? This is because, as Matsumoto-san presented, JCM is basically aiming at engaging the private
sector for reducing the emissions in developing countries.
sector.

The expected major player is the private

In this context, JCM might be called a bridging type of scheme.

However, honestly, in my view, it is not.

It is rather similar to what voluntary-based approach wastaken because this is really the development methodological things and it is not really filling the gap.
your view, if JCM could play that kind of role, what kinds of things are necessary?
to the deforestation drivers aspect at all.

InIt does not address

I would like to have the kind of insight from your side andswitch to Japanese.
I have another question to Dr. Matsumoto who introduced REDD+.

Having listened to thepresentations by Mr. Graham and Mr. Eickhoff, I think the discussions concerning the role of theprivate sector have been quite different.
the global level.

At the Japanese level, if it is compared to the discussion on

I appreciate your view on this after having listened to presentations by Mr. Grahamand Mr. Eickhoff.
(Mr. Eickhoff)

I am not an expert on JCM, but from what I understand JCM is looking at theestablishment of both its own methodologies and exploring other existing methodologies and standards
that exist in the marketplace today. It is looking at both.

In the context that it goes with one or bothor opens itself up to international standards in addition to its own, I will say that it could provide abridge between donor and between private sector, but only to the extent that larger fund-based
mechanisms are willing to purchase offsets or credits that come from the JCM.

That is the first point.

The second point is that Japan or other countries are willing to put in place a cap and trade stylesystem within which there can be a domestic market and/or an international market which would create
demand for those things.

If funds are not willing to buy from JCM and cap and trade systems do not

go into place that are going to create demand then, no, it does not bridge anything.
end.

It creates a deadUnder those two assumptions, yes it can create.

(Dr. Matsumoto)I am not sure whether I am in the right position to answer this. There is one thingthat I failed to mention.
manages it.

One of the special characteristics of JCM is that the joint community

In the initial phase of the subsidiary, half is guaranteed. That is unique.

REDD credit

DAY1
Session 3
will be paid quite later.

In the initial phase the budget is ensured.

That was a big challenge.

Therefore, in the initial phase of JCM, the subsidy, or the funding for the initial phase of JCM is very
attractive. Also, as was discussed in the morning if you can combine with other fund facilities, JCM
can be very unique in its mechanism.

I explained the guidelines, so if you just think about the contentsof the guideline maybe it is almost same as VCS.

You might have that sort of impression.

However,if you look at the entire mechanism of JCM, it is quite a unique methodology.
REDD+ platform was introduced, and, yes, as Ms. Awano said, in order to support JCM probably theobjective is too much focused to support JCM.

The current trend of the private sector in the world israther expanding or combining different things and looking for a good integration with something new.
That may be a new trend of the private sector.
much focused on JCM.

If you think about it, REDD+ platform may be tooAs a general discussion not just JCM but also if we could gain the win-win

business, generally speaking, that might be something that we should look at from a big picture.
（Q2：PASCO

Mr. Bhuwneshwar） My question is to Dr. Matsumoto.

First of all, I would like tothank Dr. Matsumoto because of his very dedicated and long contribution in this REDD+ especiallydeveloping the methodology, notably the REDD+ Cookbook.

Now we have JCM standard

development for this joint credit mechanism for Japanese government and the recipient country.
In this regard, I would like some clarification.

You have mentioned that joint credit mechanism maycover several aspects of landscape that an earlier speaker has mentioned that reduces the greenhouse gas
emissions, and one of them is REDD+. I think this understanding is correct, but I would like to knowit.
Then there is joint committee between Japan and the host country.
different countries might have different ideas.

A joint committee from

This standard for this development of proposed

methodology for REDD+ might vary from country to country, or it will be still same for all therecipient countries?
(Dr. Matsumoto)If JCM does REDD, although there are different circumstances in different

countries, if the REDD+ methodologies are too different, then JCM as a whole, the government wants
to use it for national emission reductions.

If there is too much of a diversity of ideas between

different countries then that might be improper.

We showed common ways of thinking here.

However, as I mentioned, in my country we do not have fire, you might say or there is not muchnatural disasters in a country, or the country is quite safe and secure so we do not have that sort of risks,
then the 30% risk may be lowered to 20% instead. Maybe there are discussions like that, but the main
discussion point may be those numbers. However, instead, the basic ways of thinking may be in linewith IPCC and those of VCS and UNFCCC discussed items are considered totally to create theguidelines. There are not many different variations or gaps among different countries.

In the key

Q&A session

DAY1
Session 3

point, maybe we need some subtle adjustment, but that might be all.
Overall JCM rather than answering myself, we have some people concerned, some stakeholders whowill be able to say a word about JCM.
(Forestry Agency, Mr. Hori)

Is there anyone from the Forestry Agency?

I do not know if I can cover all the questions, but one thing, Mr.

Matsumoto, I just wanted to say that the answer should be ‘yes, we are flexible’ but we need to keepsome basic concept as is written in your presentation.

Details have to be negotiated with different

countries, but the basic thoughts should be there. Outcomes in the end and the details will be different
each country. This is kind of the things we are going to consider.
I am not really expert in JCM either, but one thing I know that JCM is not for REDD+.
those possible emission reduction things.

It is for all

This guideline is covering only REDD+. Please think, if

you want to know about JCM, you have to have broader information.

We are only talking about theREDD+, so this is the only thing I can say.
(Q3: Korea Forest Research Institute, Ms. Seol Mihyun)

I am from the currently working in theREDD+ team in the department of climate change studies.

My team and I are currently focusing on

REDD+ safeguard studies as a non-market incentive to promote REDD+ project in developing
countries.

I want to ask about what you think about how hydrological facilities or water resourcesmanagement or agri-business help facilities can work as a non-market incentive to attract local people to
be involved in REDD+.

I put this question to Mr. Eickhoff.

Do you think it is enough market

incentives or big carrot as REDD+ has added to business as value?
Also, I pose the same question, but expecting another answer, to Mr. Graham.

Does the WWF haveexperience to this kind of incentives to promote to people and mingle with local people and try tocommunicate at the local level as you mentioned about the five stages as a NGO’s role?
(Mr. Eickhoff)

The answer is, as always with REDD, yes and no.

It depends on what scale we aretalking about.

If we are talking about trying to reduce the types of deforestation that we see in places

like Indonesia, then small-scale incentives at the village level are going to be hard to maintain if you
want to reach scale. We are talking millions of hectares a year here. That is not being driven byindividual villages one by one.

It is being driven by much larger things.

However, those types ofactivities, those types of incentives can definitely play a role when you are trying to do certain types ofmitigation activities depending on the driver in other countries.

It depends on the scale.

Yes, I havedefinitely seen places where that is a suitable and sufficient incentive to get communities interested andengaged before you go on to the next step.
(Mr. Graham)

I will just sort of segue from his answer to complement it a little bit by looking atDAY1
Session 3
potential results-based payments for REDD+ as a way of shifting the margin; from an economist’s
point of view of the value of a project that is focused on healthcare, for example, or water quality.
That is an easier one if you are looking at watersheds and the value of maintaining stable hillsides andall that sort of stuff in terms of overall costs.

Maybe the carbon value that might be attained canchange the business case to feasible from not feasible in order to attract other investment.
You asked about WWF experience.

I will have to say that, since I joined WWF in November, I

spent half the time in Peru at the COP after that, I am still learning about exactly what WWF has been
involved with in terms of specific programs or projects.
may be able to follow up.

However, my colleague from WWF Japan

I would say that, in the type of community level actions or activities that I

am aware of at WWF and other NGOs have been engaged in, for me it comes back to this question ofscale and sustainability.

We have experienced some success working small scale and achieving successwithin a short period of time.

However, being able to sustain that and scale up to jurisdiction,

sub-national and national levels, depending on the activity, requires complementary action, in some way,by government and other, broader groups of stakeholders including businesses. That is our challengeright now, which is often trying to scale up in different ways; scale up through government facilitation,
policies and enforcement, and scaling up through sectors, for example the agriculture sector.

If youdeal with a problem through improvements in management practices here, how do we get that to workon the landscape or in the jurisdiction or broader?