Q&A（Q1：コンサベーション・インターナショナル浦口）

いろいろなスタンダードが開発されている中で、クレジットをどういう枠組にひも付けるかが問題になるだろう。タイとVCS で最近タギングがあったことについて、Naomi さんに説明をいただきたい。
(Swickard) In terms of linking different systems, the VCS announced collaboration with Thailand
last week, where the Thailand has a standard of its own, particularly focused at additionalsustainable development benefits that they would like to see layered on top of projects. The VCS
has a system for tagging the actual serial number of a credit to show that the project or that particular
unit has an additional certification.

We have added the possibility to tag a VCU with therequirements that exists in Thailand.

One option potentially in terms of linking a number of fragmented markets that we see emerging inthe region, might be to allow a third-party standard (whether that is the VCS or others) to provide
credits to national systems such as Japan or Australia for example, where those programs meets thehigh level requirements of a country. If additional requirements were needed for a particular country,
they could be layered on top of an existing standard to meet the needs a particular country andallowed those units to be used. That could create a lot of flexibility for a jurisdiction to use one
system that can then access multiple markets.
（Q2：林野庁田中）

Winrock International の Sarah さんが最後に述べた Result-based

compensation について、何が result として期待されるものなのか、compensation とはどういうことを想定されているのか。

(Walker) That is something that has to be defined. It is not something that is universally decided.
That is going to different at different places. I think experience will have to show what kinds oflevel of results are required. There have been different examples of that. For example, Winrock
worked on a PES1 Project in Vietnam where local farmers were encouraged to reduce deforestation.
If they prove that they had reduced their deforestation on their parcel, each farmer was responsible
for a specific area of land within their community.

And if that farmer showed that the deforestation

there had been reduced, they received payments over time. This was actually a water project. It
also has a carbon component, but it was mostly improve water quality crediting. That would be an
example of results-based payment. They do not get the money until they show that they have
1

Payment for Ecosystem Services

actually conducted the activity.
In terms of what the distribution and benefit is going to be, again that is going to vary a lot fromproject-to-project.

I think that is one of the things that we all have talked quite a bit about is notpromising local community members lots of money.

Because there are a lot of REDD project

activities, a lot of the benefits that are being conducted might actually be related around improved
agricultural knowledge, or improved land use planning capabilities, or getting rights to their lands.
The actual monetary payments component of it might be very small or in some cases might not exist.
I think that is going to be something that a lot of projects at the pilot level have really struggled with,is what can they promise local communities, and how to introduce this topic to them, when tointroduce the idea of carbon payments. Are they introducing this to the local communities as adevelopment program?

And only the carbon benefit payment system gets broadened over time.

When along the development of the program, does the benefit decision get made?

Because there

has been a lot of experience with projects promising money to local communities and that neverhappened. I guess we are all very familiar with. I think we have to make sure we do not makethat same mistake over and over again.

(Q3: Tokyo university *Celine*)

I have a question to Sarah. What is the criteria that you

showed for a country in your LEAF Project?
the alert system?

Another question is what is the methodology to makeFor example, this area is the camping for logging, and this area is fire. Whichmethodology do you use for making alert system?

(Walker) The choice of which countries are included in the LEAF project was a US AID decision.
To assist in predicting where an activity is expected to take place in the future, a number of spatialmodeling tools have been developed by scientists using GIS system. The idea is that it uses
different layers of spatial data. Land cover, roads, elevation, water, population centers, even things
like location of sawmills, location of agricultural distribution centers. Then, the model examines
the data from a historic perspective, so it compares different data layers to land cover maps ofdifferent time periods.

It analyzes different combinations of these proxy indicators to determine

which combination results in the best prediction of future activities.

For example, things like thelocation of sawmills, sometimes that is actually a very good indicator of future deforestation because
it integrates other drivers together, integrates where the roads are, integrates where there are people
who know how to do these skills, it integrates a number of things altogether in one factor. It can beused as a way of predicting where, for example, future deforestation would take place.
This spatial modeling method is often used by Winrock, , but there are multiple approaches that canbe taken.

Part of the decision to use a certain method will be the accuracy and precision

requirements needed in any projections. The method used will also be dependent on the spatialrequirements of the national or sub-national system developed. For example, a decision will need tobe made regarding whether a projection of the location of future activities is required and if so, forwhich types of activities.

(Nashanda)

Matsumoto was saying that you are thinking to develop REDD+ guidelines onbilateral carbon offset mechanism.

Are you considering both a market and fund-based or onlymarket?
（松本）

日本が作る二国間オフセット・クレジット制度の中で、オフセットになるのかクレジットになるのかはまだ明確ではないが、マーケットベースでの資金になると思う。

(Rahayu) I think we agree there is no disincentive scheme in the negotiation in UNFCCC. Whenthe sub-national has some kind of reduction and another sub-national increase emission, it means
you apply disincentive mechanism.

In my perception, in order to eliminate the disincentive scheme,they deserve to have the incentive as they get according to the reduction. I want to invite yourclarification.

(Busch) I understand your question is; the UNFCCC REDD system is not in place yet, so what ishappening in the interim time period?

In Indonesia, there is the case of the bilateral agreement with

Norway with the intention to take a first pilot province in Central Kalimantan, and then later scale up
to a second pilot province, and then after a few years to a national system.

I believe this would becontingent upon finance being available from the Norwegian government above what is been
provided so far. This that I have described would be equally applicable to a bilateral funding
arrangement as it would be to a full United Nations Agreement coming down the road.
It would be the decision of the Indonesian government about the revenue sharing, how much would
be shared between a site, a district or a province with the national government from reductions. I
know that this in the Draft National Strategy, this revenue sharing, the sub-national reference levels
are included in the Draft National Strategy, so each of these elements that I have shown are I know
something that is being considered as part of the government national strategy. I have seen in myexperience just a little of the debate that does take place between different parties in Indonesia withdifferent ideas of how to structure the benefit sharing. I hope that what we have provided can help
a little bit for that.

（Q6：広島大学 奥田） Participatory monitoring には大変興味があるのだが、QA2、QC3といったデータの質の担保は長期モニタリングを行う場合に一番問題になる部分だと思う。
Sara さんはデータのインテグレーションが必要だと言われていたが、逆にいろいろなところでいろいろなデータをいろいろな方法で取るとインテグレーションはもっと難しくなるのではないか。
Busch さんはリファレンス・レベルという提案をされたが、その場合は森林からも相当のCO2 が出ている。単に森林伐採をした量だけで CO2 の排出量に変換すると、森林からの排出をきちんとモニタリングしないとリファレンス・レベルという意味では比較が難しくなると思うが、どうか。

(Walker) You are right. All of those issues are very important to consider and think about. I
think this is a big issue for national scale governments. As you mentioned, there is different
players using different methods in different location within their own country.

The national

government is going to have to decide whether or not they are going to allow that data to beintegrated into their national database or not, they will have to figure out how they will decide which
methods can be used. If one project uses one field measurement method here and another uses
another there, whose responsibility is it to show that that is a valid method and they are just going toallow it, say ‘yes, I am sure you did a good job’ or do they have to meet some kind of requirements
to show that it does meet a certain precision and accuracy level. Is that enough?

Even if the data

was collected in a different way, if still has a precision and accuracy, can that still be integrated withother data or not?

I think that is a decision the governments going to have to make. I think it will

be important for the governments, the national level, to at least indicate to projects what they thinkthey might do because right now a lot of projects are spending a lot of energy on data collection andif they are not going to be able to integrate it to the national level, that would be quite a waste ofresources.
It is also the same thing with the QA/QC. I think the government is going to need to come up withsome regulations related around what precision requirements are going to be required for different
types of data. Then in terms of the degradation issue, degradation is a big issue in a lot of countries.
Selective logging is happening legally, and legally sometimes selective logging happening first andthen deforestation. There is going to be a lot of decisions that need to be made around what levelof data are we going to try to get at for degradation. Perhaps for deforestation the accuracy level
and the precision levels, are different than for degradation. A country may decide to allow larger
error bars in estimates of degradation emissions than deforestation, at least at first.
I think this is very important to think about in terms of the historic versus the future. Maybe in the2

Quality Assurance

3

Quality Control

future, we can have very good records of degradation, but they do not exist for the past. How willthose different precision levels be looked at when we are developing, deciding how many credits togenerate. In the past, you have very low levels of data on degradation. What kinds of proxies aregoing to be allowed for degradation?

I think that is going to be big decision that needs to be made.

For some countries where, for example, charcoal production is the main driver of the degradation,
can you use completely non-spatial proxies for degradation like the amount of charcoal an averagefamily uses, and then multiply that by the number of families.

I think we have to think a little bit

outside-the-box in terms of degradation, especially on the historic side.

(Swickard) I just wanted to add a couple of points to build on what Sarah said. The jurisdictionaland nested work that the VCS has been developing is aimed at creating the possibility to credit atmultiple scales. But at the same time, it does not have to be used that way.

As Sarah was saying,right now a lot of projects are absolutely desperate for knowledge from the national government orfrom the sub-national governments about what the plans are, and even if those are not a 100% any
indication of their data requirements, or what activities will be included, what pools will be included
would be incredibly helpful for projects to have now.

One of the options that I talked about was a

Scenario 1 where there is a consistent baseline and possibly other supporting policies in place, butnot crediting at larger scales. Even as a first phase, this step could help projects that are developed
now to make sure that they will be consistent, for example, that they are collecting data in a way thatwill be helpful to the jurisdiction going forward.

(Walker)

Sorry, it

was indicated that I should speak a little bit more about participatory

monitoring. As we go forward with monitoring, on thing to decide is who the actors are going tobe in conducting this monitoring. National scale governments cannot be everywhere, at every time;
whereas local people are living in their communities all the time. I think the need for long-termmonitoring is happening at the same time as a lot of advancing technologies. Therefore, the abilityof local communities to easily connect to higher levels is expanding very quickly. For example, I
think it is likely that smart phones, although still novel now, in 5 or so years might be extremelycommon worldwide.

Three years ago when I was doing fieldwork in Indonesia was my firstexperience withlocal people taking pictures of me with their phones.. Now, that would be quite
commonplace. The advancement of smart phones I think is going to play a very important position
in long-term monitoring systems.

There are so many different levels as I mentioned where local

people can supply long-term monitoring systems.

I think one of the big things is going to bealerting activities, that activities are taking place, so preventing deforestation from happening byalerting authorities even in the local scale that that is taking place, and therefore stopping it before itgoes further. Alerting authorities to fires that are taking place, or illegal logging that is taking place,maybe people coming into the community and making an arrangement with some farmer that they
can go log some land. In the past, there was not really a structure for how to do anything about that,
but through REDD maybe that will be an additional incentive to try to curtail those activities.

(Busch) I mean I do not think I really went in too much in detail about how the reference levels arederived, whether it is the historic emission, the future emissions and so forth. But, this could easily
be a flux. It could easily be emissions that of removals. With deforestation activity that isoccurring, it is important to keep in mind that the magnitude of the fluxes associated with thedeforestation at the present time and most places are much larger than the fluxes associated with theremovals and the carbon stock enhancements. It takes 50 years or 100 years for a forest to grow tomaturity in terms of carbon content, perhaps much longer in terms of biological representation. All
that can be lost in a single afternoon. Yes, I think it is important to move towards a flux accountingthat takes the deforestation out of the removals. But in countries where they are making choices
about what to move ahead with most quickly, I think the bulk of the emissions flux is in thedeforestation, and that is the most important thing to get accounted for when possible with theremaining fluxes coming when that capacity develops.

(Walker) I am also going to add a little bit. One of the things with selective logging, for example,
is there might be a lot of room for using non-spatial activity data.

For example, Winrock has beenworking a lot in different areas of world to develop emission factors not by unit area, but by volumeof wood extracted. How can you related, how much tree volume of timber is extracted, what doesthat result in terms of emission and the forest. Can that system be used as a way to monitor
degradation that allows data to be collected without adding that much more information. For
example, we have been working with developing a monitoring system for monitoring emissions
from FSC4 logging operation.

If a project is conducting logging that is under FSC, no additional

information needs to be collected beyond what is already collected under FSC. They just have togo and take some initial data to parameterize the models that have been developed if they want, orthey can use default factors. But then after that they just use the FSC data. I think that allows thetransaction costs of adding carbon onto any kind of project to be much smaller. That monitoring
module is just added to one of the VCS methodologies that Winrock developed with a number ofpartners.

4Forest Stewardship Council: www.fsc.org/