The Future of REDD+ under the Paris Agreement

Panel Discussion

Panel Discussion: The Future of REDD+ under the Paris Agreement
Moderator: Ma Hwan-Ok (ITTO)
Panelists: Maria Jose Sanz-Sanchez (Basque Centre for Climate Change)
Kenichi Shishido (JICA)
Naomi Swickard( Verified Carbon Standard)
Novia Widyaningtyas( Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Indonesia)
Yasumasa Hirata (FFPRI)(Dr. Ma)We have had a very fascinating day from the morning until now.

I think we have very

dynamic discussions through a wonderful and fascinating keynote presentation and also several
country presentations.

Now we are here for a panel discussion.

Matsumoto about the objectives of this seminar.

We heard in the morning from Dr.

It is very clear to me that the two objectives were

almost achieved, but this panel discussion may re-highlight some key points, particularly on theeffective development of the REDD+ strategy, particularly in connection with the establishment ofreference levels as it is an important issue for the future of REDD+. So I hope our panel will go inthat direction.
Particularly in the morning we recognized that last December in Paris the UNFCCC concluded alandmark agreement, the Paris Climate Change Agreement. We are very clear that this has marked a
new area of global climate change cooperation.

We recognize the Paris Agreement strengthens more

universal participation, and also the acceptance of the responsibility of all the countries.
learned that the Paris Agreement exclusively endorses REDD+.
the panel members except Kenichi Shishido from JICA.

Also, weI believe that you are aware of all

Shishido-san is the deputy general directorof the forestry and conservation group in the global environment department of Japan International
Cooperation Agency.

In my organization, ITTO, we have the pleasure of working closely with JICA.

I believe he would also share a lot of information on JICA work as it is one of the vehicles to promote
many capacity building projects including REDD+.
forward to sharing your thoughts.

217

You are welcome to join this panel and we lookPanel Discussion
Three Questions: The Paris Agreement and REDD+, Financing, and Reference Levels(Dr. Ma)I prepared three questions that our panel members may address, share their views on, andthen also I will bring out questions from our audience.

That is my plan for today’s panel discussion.

The first question is how would you like to characterize the focus of REDD+ under the Paris
agreement?

How do you see REDD+ within the intended national determined contributions andwhat about the next step in conjunction with nationally determined contributions?
The second is that as we learn that the biggest issue is finance, it is focused on financing.

Are thecurrent financial resources provided by global, national, and regional initiatives sufficient? Whatwould be a long term strategy? What would be best ways for more active participation of the private
sector in REDD+?
The third question is related to the issue of constructing reference levels. I think we can revisit
this issue as a key element of our discussions.
levels?

What are the key challenges of constructing reference

What would be the best strategy for the least developed countries that have limited capacity?

How do they can catch up?

How can they follow such an important element towards theresults-based payments?
Also, perhaps members can share views that can contribute to the promotion of REDD in the
coming years.

Due to time concerns, perhaps I would encourage each panelist to briefly answer oneof the three questions. You don’t need to answer all of the questions, but please emphasize or
highlight a certain important subject.
It is my great pleasure to invite Maria to answer first.
About the Paris Agreement and Financing(Dr. Sanz-Sanchez)second.

I think I will touch base a little bit on the first question and a bit more on theI think it is clear that the Paris Agreement is providing a very good house for REDD.

The

INDC process in each of the countries will put REDD into something which is broader and a much
longer term view on how to contribute to mitigation in the forest sector.
management and land use as a whole is a very good basis for that.
just provided to REDD with what it was missing.

I believe that the Paris Agreement

The other thing which was missing, obviously, isthe finance at this stage, which everyone is mentioning.
day.

Of course integrated

We all conveyed the same message along the

Is there enough financial resources provided by the existing initiatives?

probably not enough.

It is true that it has been very difficult to coordinate all the initiatives in order

to be much more cost-efficient.
sufficient.

So far, no, there isThis could be one of the reasons why the finance is perceived as not

However, on the long term strategy for finance, it is obvious that you have to count on avery diverse landscape of financial means, as I tried to explain this morning.
room for the private sector in there.

Yes, definitely, there is

I think we are much more mature today altogether, including theprivate sector, to understand where best to fit private sector finance and get the revenues and therecognition that private sector probably needs to be more stimulated to continue to be engaged.

218

The Future of REDD+ under the Paris Agreement

Panel Discussion

Definitely Paris has been a huge advance for REDD.

The INDC process is going to be evenmore because it will in a way endorse broadly REDD as well.

The financial issues are complex, but I

think we are starting to be mature to probably define much better the financial mix that we need.
Hopefully in the coming years things do not get blurry and we continue to have a much clearer path
towards all these challenges.
(Dr. Ma)

Thank you very much, Maria, for your very concise and valuable insights.

I have one question from the floor that I would like to ask you.

Could you let us know if the

discussion in the room regarding upfront payments (not results-based payment) was proceeding?
Also, where can we get information on upfront payments?

Is there any evidence of something taking

place regarding upfront payments?
(Dr. Sanz-Sanchez)

That is an interesting question, countries need investment resources formaterializing the actual results or the reductions that would be paid for.
that way.

I understand the question in

Upfront payments are being portrayed through demonstration activities a little bit.

However, until very recently there has been not clarity on how to fill this investment gap that is very
key for achieving results-based payment at the very end.

I was very pleased to see the presentation ofAlex this morning because he was saying that, indeed, the bank initiatives are now allowing a way thatthey can cover all these steps for finance.
(Dr. Ma)
costs.

We recognize REDD+ readiness phase has faced the main challenge of securing upfront

I think this is also a continued challenge for all stakeholders to tackle for the effective

implementation of REDD+.
Next, I would like to invite Kenichi Shishido to share JICA’s experiences and lessons regarding
REDD activities.
From the Perspective of JICA and the Private Sector Platform(Mr. Shishido)

As the emcee introduced, now we are extending technical cooperation for developing

countries, working in more than 15 countries all over the world, mainly for supporting capacity
building for later stage of REDD+. Also, in some countries we are extending some pilot project.
As you saw in the previous presentation, some in Lao PDR or some other countries we are extending
bilateral activities.
Our current challenges are how to get international funds or private funds to realize the REDD+
project.

Therefore, we are closely working with private sector as well as the international funds.

This is our challenge to keep the sustainability of the project after JICA technical cooperation.
that, I am promoting the private and government partnership and platform.

To

If you see some logo in

the panel, we organized a recent platform together with FFPRI 1.5 years ago.
Back to the question from Dr. Ma, I think when we are reminded of the Paris Agreement we are219

Panel Discussion
very much encouraged because of it.

After the Paris Agreement, it encouraged us.

the importance of forest it is highlighted.

We can say that

The most exciting statement is very ambitious in theobjective to keep the balance in emission and also absorption by end of this century.

Maybe if we

consider sinks of carbon, maybe role of forests is more and more important.
I want to comment about the finance of the REDD+ project.
trying to work with funding mechanisms such as FCPF.

As I mentioned, now we are

As the colleague from the World Bank said

this morning, we are working in Vietnam.

We are supporting to make this provincial in the REDD+

action plan in some provinces in Vietnam.

Fortunately, we have JICA’s loan project in Vietnam, so

this activity can become an upfront activity of REDD+.

We have very good combination with JICA’sloan as technical cooperation, as well as because of carbon fund results-based payment.
said, one of the problems of REDD+ is maybe upfront funding.

As Maria

Therefore, we are now promoting

the distance collaboration with other funding agencies in other countries such as Ethiopia as well.
Also, my comment is, for the private sector, of course the participation of the private sector isvery important.

My idea is that, as Kanematsu Company mentioned, keeping the future sustainability

and business of the local community people is very important as a safeguard.
just getting the carbon credits.

In that sense, this isMaybe creating the employment or business in the community, maybe

the introduction of private fund in the sense of creating job opportunities is very important.

This ismy opinion, but to this host country, as Naomi-san made a very good presentation, I was very much
impressed with your option.

Maybe the important thing is that host government is expected to makea decision as to which option, so it heavily depends on the decision making for private investment.
Thank you very much.
(Dr. Ma)

Thank you very much for your wide response by introducing many REDD+ projects, andJICA’s role and lessons as well as the Japan public-private REDD+ platform that was introduced two
years ago.

Can I ask you regarding this platform’s current activities that are taking place? From theposter presentation I was very inspired with the engagement of many NGOs, including MoreTree. As
the role of civil society is so important, I believe this platform is becoming an important vehicle toshare the information, particularly with the private sector.

Can you share what kind of activities you

are planning to promote REDD in the coming years?
(Mr. Shishido)

As I mentioned, when we established this platform, it was November 2014. At thattime, we started with about 40 members including government sector, as well as private companies,
consulting firms, and also some research institutes as well.
members are participating in this platform.

Now, more than 70 private companies andIn recent days, there is so much communication from theprivate sector that increased after Paris and COP21.

Maybe attention from the private sector isincreasing month by month
We have three main activities. One is sharing the information among our members because theREDD+ mechanism is not easy for these newcomers, especially for the businesspeople, or someinvestors.

This is so research institutes and some researchers can share the information and220

The Future of REDD+ under the Paris Agreement

knowledge and also the discussion in the international conference.
Yesterday we had a very big event regarding REDD+.

Panel Discussion

The second one is public relations.

We invited one of the most famous journalists.

Yesterday, 500 people came to the event to share about REDD+ and the importance of forest
conservation.

The third one is formulating business models.

Three companies are leading thisactivity to discuss what kind of sustainable model for the private sector.
make one comprehensive project by participating different sectors.
(Dr. Ma)

This year we are trying toThat is what we are doing.

Thank you very much for your additional information on the Japan private-public REDD+

platform. The things we are talking about are post-2020, and I believe that in Japan the year 2020 is an
important year for the Tokyo Olympics.

Personally, I look forward to this platform to place someinteresting and innovative REDD+ related activities for public awareness, maybe in conjunction withbig events such as the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.

That might be complement to the implementation of

the Paris Agreement. So we look forward to more innovative and interesting activities from the various
stakeholders, particularly this platform as one of the vehicles for transforming.

Indeed, we lookforward to JICA’s continued contribution to move this platform from Japan and also other countries.
Next, I would like to invite Novia Widyaningtyas, head of the REDD+ division of the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forestry of Indonesia.

Which one is you interested in discussing here?

The Perspective of Indonesia(Ms. Widyaningtyas)

I would like to try to respond to three of them, but very briefly.

Regarding thefirst question, I would like to say that Indonesia is happy with the outcome of COP21 seeing that
REDD+ is well articulated in the Paris Agreement.

We see that the balance between the role ofdeveloping and developed countries because it says to put action, implementation, and support.
means that for those countries that still in the process of readiness can get going.
developed countries they will need to provide support

This

Also, for the

Regarding the REDD+ within INDC, I

think Indonesia see that REDD+ is important part in our INDC and REDD+ is conditional
contribution in our INDC.

It is very important part of mitigation actions for the country.

next, I think pre-2020, we would like to move REDD+ forward for full implementation.

For theAfter that,for post-2020, we are looking forward to see the REDD+ exist or still be there.
For the second question, this will be difficult to answer whether the REDD+ financial resources
provided by global initiatives are sufficient or not, because I think it is relative.

If you see thefinancial resources by global initiatives from the quantity aspect, we see that there are a lot ofopportunities and a lot of money there.

However, the problem is, for example for Indonesia, thedisbursement of the money is still facing challenges.

Internally, we are still struggling with ourfinancing mechanism nationally. At the international level, I agree with Maria that, coherence infinancing the forest and REDD+, we still need to work on that with GCF and many others.

On therole of the private sector, I think there is possibility since we have great opportunity for the private
sector as part of non-state actors since New York declaration.

221

Then in Paris there was a high call forPanel Discussion
private actors to be involved as part of non-state actors.

However, I think that the private sector is

not the only one actor, and they cannot play all, so there is need of collaboration with many othernon-state actors including local governments, NGOs, and local communities.

The private sector canplay as a leveraging agent in financing REDD+.
Regarding the third question, one of the key challenges in constructing the FREL is the data.
Anything related to data is a challenge, like the availability of the data, how we comply with theprinciple of transparency, accuracy, consistency, comparability, and completeness.

I think it is very

challenging. For the least developing countries to catch up their FREL, one of the first things to do
is to understand the national circumstances, to understand the national situation and condition.
There is need of capacity building in doing this.

It is very important to understand the nationalsituation in the context of defining the forests and defining the scope, the activities that you want tomeasure, and also defining further strategy to establish the FREL at the national or sub-national level.
Finally, what is my organization planned to scale up?
(Dr. Ma)

This is very challenging.

I will ask another question from the floor related to forest fires. What is the plan toinclude forest fire in the reference level?
forest fires as forest degradation?

What is the plan of Indonesia regarding the inclusion ofWhat is the plan for the establishment of, emission reference levels

focusing on forest degradation in addition to deforestation? Are there any plans or information thatyou can share?
(Ms. Widyaningtyas)

I think the most important plan is to see the availability of the data.

Now weare in the process of receiving the data including the data of forest fires. We need to know exactly
the emissions that come from forest fires.

We can use many methodologies, but now we are in theprocess of selecting the most developed methodology.
(Dr. Ma)

It is all about the data.

This is a very difficult challenge of how to establisha reference level including forest

fires because sometimes there is irregular data collection.
(Ms. Widyaningtyas)

There is maybe one sophisticated method, but it is not cost efficient.

That isthe problem.
(Dr. Ma)I would like ask another question to you.

For Indonesia and Japan, collaboration for thejoint credit mechanism is taking place, and there is also a current project in Sulawesi going on.
are your expectations on the inclusion of this project in the joint credit mechanism?

What

Can you shareyour own expectations?
(Ms. Widyaningtyas)

It is a very difficult question to answer.

because we need to think about two different things.

Personally, this is very difficult

One is on the REDD+ itself.

It has been very

mature in terms of international guidance, but when we talk of the joint credit mechanism, that is222

Panel Discussion

The Future of REDD+ under the Paris Agreement

another discussion.

It is related to market and so on.

JCM as market or non-market.

We are also in debate whether to treat thisStill we have no clear answer on this.

When we come to thediscussion on REDD+, it will be more complicated.

Therefore, I think we need to be patient on thisbecause it is very different to JCM on other sectors.

It is my response to JCM, but we can keep

discussing on this.
(Dr. Ma)

There is much uncertainty, but I believe the joint credit mechanism initiative of Japan is avery innovative initiative to be further developed under the Paris Agreement.
development will proceed.

I think more

Through more collaboration between scientists and policymakers, they

can work together for the realization of REDD+ in the joint credit mechanism.

We look forward to

REDD+ collaboration with more countries in the context of JCM
Now, I would like to invite Naomi Swickard, director of the land framework of the Verified
Carbon Standard.

She already provided a very nice presentation on the roles and engagement of theprivate sector and the importance of nesting the REDD projects from the sub-national jurisdiction
toward the national jurisdiction.

Which question are you going to focus on here?

Regarding Financing(Ms. Swickard)
from me.

It will be primarily on the finance question, thanks.

There are two main comments

One, to echo Maria’s point about fragmentation and diversification, I think we see that notjust in finance, but in activities, in scales, and in actors involved.

That makes a very complex world.

I think there are a couple of challenges or needs that need to be focused on going forward.
One is making sure that we design these emerging mechanisms in terms of cooperative
agreements and in terms of market efforts in a way that can try to harmonize and bring together thesedifferent actors, scales, and finance in a way that makes sense and leverages their efficiencies to theextent possible. One way to think about that is, on the finance front, that public sources of financemake sense for certain activities.

They make sense for readiness, for policy, for enabling frameworks,

and in terms of getting the private sector engaged, very importantly, what the public sector funds can
do is reduce risk.

Whether that is offering some kind of advance market commitments, price floors,

or guarantees, that would help unlock a lot of private sector finance.

The other thing that would also

unlock private sector finance is more certainty on the mechanisms.

Therefore, I think we will see thatemerge as we start seeing subs to get into the details of how we operationalize the Paris Agreement.
That is what the private sector needs.

They need certainty and they need to reduce risk.

The second point for me in terms of what we are doing moving forward is that I think we need tostart thinking about REDD as part of a broader effort on landscape sustainability; really trying to lookat how do we engage the drivers of deforestation, the agricultural production primarily.
where the money is at, A, and B, those are what really drives forest change.

That is

Focusing only on the

deforestation around the forest sector I think has really left out a part of the problem.
One of the other frameworks that VCS is focusing on right now is what we are calling the223

Panel Discussion‘landscape standard’.

It is going to be a framework for assessing improvements and sustainability at alandscape scale that can tie to emerging additional sources of finance and demand looking at zerodeforestation commitments, for example, or sustainable supply areas.

Cocoa was brought up earlier

today, and we are working very closely with Ghana on their forest cocoa program in terms of being
able to look at that sustainability of those cocoa efforts and linkage to these diverse sources of finance.
I would say in the end that two things are needed, trying to harmonize all these different actors andscales and finance mechanisms in a way that makes sense, and two, in doing that, really look broadly atdiversification of finance, not pure carbon finance, and not just international and donor finance, butmarket finance and leveraging investment in a variety of activities that have an impact on thelandscape.
(Dr. Ma)

Thank you, Naomi Swickard.

I would like also to ask one question from the floor.

The

question is, how do you nest the REL/RL of the existing REDD+ project into the REL/RL of thejurisdictional (sub-national)/national level REDD+ project? How do you allocate or handle thecredit obtained between the project and sub-national/national level project?
(Ms. Swickard)

My whole presentation in the second half of it was really looking at what are someof the options, very practically speaking, methodologically speaking for how you nest.
through that quite quickly.

We had to go

I do not really have time to elaborate further at this point either.

Foranyone who is more interested in those options, and technically speaking, how do you actually nest,
please be in touch with me.

I am happy to have a conversation.

The other piece that we are working on at the VCS is a guidance document that will really go into
detail on each of these options.

How do you operationalize them?

What are some of the plusses

and minuses of each option, and how can countries actually make a decision on this and work withprojects to resolve the issues?
three months.

We expect that to be out at least in draft form for comment in the next

I would be happy to circulate that broadly to anyone here who is interested.

I am not clear on the second question.
(Dr. Ma)

Is it about benefit sharing?

When you scale up to the national level, there is some development for a benefit generated

at the national level and provincial level. So please provide some ideas of beneficiary mechanisms at
the two different levels.
(Ms. Swickard)

There are a number of issues to work out there, whether you are talking about

benefit sharing from projects to local stakeholders, and that is somehow being also nested in higher
level safeguards and beneficiary mechanisms.

A big question arising for us right now is the INDCs.

How do projects, and any trading that happens from either that scale or sub-national jurisdictional
scales, relate to the INDC?
There are opportunities.

It is an open question.

I do not think the Paris Agreement resolves that.

Maria was talking earlier about using the own effort commitment and thenthe additional effort or sort of leveraging increasing ambition by using markets for that component.

224

The Future of REDD+ under the Paris Agreement

Panel Discussion

I think the text actually very clearly states that there is an opportunity to trade even within the INDC
own effort commitments.

However, it is not clear what that is going to mean for a developing

country that needs to make good on their own INDCs, and then the ability to trade that to anothercountry? What would be the incentive?

There is definitely a financial incentive, but is there an

incentive in terms of being able to meet your own INDCs?

There is a lot to think about and a lotthat will be further discussed and elaborated over the coming years.
(Dr. Ma)I believe that Indonesia also has had a lot of discussions about this benefit sharing from thejurisdictional and national level.

I believe this issue will be continuously discussed. Thank you foryour contributions.
Now I would like to invite Dr. Hirata, director of bureau of climate change of FFPRI.

We arealso very pleased to see many REDD+ publications published by FFPRI, particularly the REDD
center, which produced a famous book, the REDD+ Cookbook.

I learned many things from the

REDD+ Cookbook. Hirata-san is one of the authors of the REDD+ Cookbook and published many
scientific REDD+ papers through his extended knowledge.

I would like to invite you to address oneof the questions.
About Reference Levels(Dr. Hirata)

Thank you very much for the kind introduction.

I would like to make comments inJapanese to avoid miscommunication. For me, I would like to talk about the reference level, which is
the main topic for the seminar today.
questions.

I think others have primarily responded to the first and second

We are a research institute, so I would like to try to answer the third question.

My point

is threefold.
One, regarding reference levels, many countries have already submitted the reference levels, so
how can we increase the reliability of the reference levels?

I think that is the key for success.

Currently, we work together with Cambodia and Mr. Chivin has made a presentation, so Cambodia is agood example.

In Cambodia, I think in 2000, the definition of ‘forest’ has changed. The area offorest cover appeared to have decreased in Cambodia, but this does happen because already there aresome maps that had been published previously, and if you try to define a reference level, that becomesa big challenge. How can you maintain consistency, and how can you maintain reliability?

That isactually a major issue.
Secondly, that has to do with scaling up or scaling down.

Bottom up is the term Professor

Amano used, or scale up and scale down were the words that Mr. Suzuki used.
the private sector, it is probably useful to start from the project level.

In trying to involve

However, as was mentioned byProfessor Amano, if you try to scale up from the project level, and if there are various projects
existing at the same time, each project may have varying reference level definitions.
try to scale them up there can be a conflict.

Therefore, if you

However, if the national level has all of the data and try

to scale down to the project level, is that effective?

We thought that that would be convenient.

225

That

Panel Discussion
was our initial thinking.

However, in trying to assess a project, the reference level set at the national

level may not have a small enough mesh or resolution.

Therefore, sometimes it cannot justifiably

assess the achievements made in the project. At the project level you will have to be more refined.
You have to have a finer mesh in assessment of the projects and reference levels.

Otherwise, you

cannot duly make the proper assessment.
My third point is actually beyond what we are talking about today, but for example, Ms. Asada andMr. Yazaki, you both had pictures, so when we think of reference levels or credit in the context of
REDD, there are always two lines that we have to look at.
the more realistic line.
more realistic line.
line?

This is projection.

Up to 2030 you have two lines and the second line is the

The bigger the gap, bigger the credit, but the second line, how can we draw that

Is that going to be a goal that we need to set?

actually is a very important point.
is generated.

One is the projected line and the other is

How can we utilize reference levels?

That

Just because you have the reference line does not mean that credit

You have to have the second line, and where do we set the goal for the second line?

You need funds to achieve that goal.

You have to bear that in mind and try to fund the REDD

projects.
Takeaways from Today’s Seminar(Dr. Ma)

Thank you very much, Dr. Hirata.

We recognize the importance of projecting the secondline so that we can anticipate expected payments based on reference level.
I am sorry I could not accommodate more questions from the floor.
generated very interesting discussions.

I believe this panel

I would like to talk about two or three points that I havelearned during the course of the day.
I would say there are three ‘I’s.

The first ‘I’ is integration. We understand that there is anincreasing need to integrate sub-national levels into a national level within the INDCs.
integration would be an important point for results-based payments.

This

We have a bottom-up approach,and then a top-down approach, but it is time to integrate them in a more valuable governanceframework.

Integration is something I could catch as an important key word.

The second ‘I’s is inclusiveness.

I caught that we talked about the importance of multi-

stakeholders participation in REDD+ and thatmany panel members pointed out the engagement of

the private sector, particularly in Japan, the public-private REDD+ platform, which is a good example
of inclusiveness. .
REDD+.

I think this inclusiveness is really a sign or a direction to move forward with

I believe inclusive partnerships and collaborations will generate more sustainable successstories. We are very happy today that the FFPRI and the REDD+ research and development center
provided a wonderful opportunity for REDD+ discussions as a multi-stakeholder forum.

.

Lastly, one more ‘I’ is innovation. For instance, we need more innovative market mechanisms for
REDD+. We are not there yet, but we are discussing and thinking about new ideas.

As REDD+financing is so important, I believe we need various innovative market mechanisms and I believe weneed to continuously discuss these issues.

226

The Future of REDD+ under the Paris Agreement

Panel Discussion

Today we have very limited time, but I believe many important subjects were discussed. I think the
topics of today’s international seminar continuously will be discussed in the coming years.

I think

that today the panel discussion initiated an excellent starting point for the future of REDD+ in
particularly constructing reference levels for results-based payments. I believe that the audiences willbring some of the messages of today’s discussions, and we will also continue to work together for theeffective implementation of REDD+.
discussion panel as the moderator.

It is my great honor and pleasure to join this important

I would like to thank very much all of the panel members foryour outstanding contributions.

227