Panel Discussion: Future Challenges to Promote REDD+
with Private Sector Participation

Panel Discussion

Panel Discussion: Future Challenges to Promote REDD+ with Private Sector Participation
Moderator: Tamotsu Sato (FFPRI)
Panelists:

Toshinori Okuda (Hiroshima University)
Julian Fox (The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO))
Dinh Hung Nguyen (Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI), Vietnam)
Kei Suzuki (Japan Forest Technology Association (JAFTA))
Kosaku Onaka (Forestry Agency, Japan)
Milagros Sandoval (Conservation International (CI), Peru)
Kimiko Okabe (FFPRI)
Gerhard Dieterle (The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO))(Sato)

Today, our topic is ‘Key to Expand REDD+: Approaches and Challenges for REDD+ Learned

from Practice in the Field’.

We would like to discuss what is necessary for REDD+ in the future.

was a lot of talk about transdisciplinary approaches that was very exciting.

There

There were two sessions, one in

the morning and one in the afternoon, and we learned a lot from each of them.

From here on, we would

like to discuss these presentations, which covered important initiatives for promoting REDD+ in the future.
In the panel discussion, we would like to shine more light on these activities and think about what needs tobe done to promote REDD+ activities, and especially address the challenges for private sector participation
in REDD+.

Before starting the discussion, we would like to ask Dr. Dieterle of ITTO to give his viewson the current situation of REDD+ and the issues facing it in the future.

We would appreciate his kindintervention on this topic.
(Dieterle)

Ladies and gentlemen, it is a great pleasure for me to be at this important event today because I

think you are discussing essential elements equally important for development, and e climate.

I have beenasked to provide some overarching observations and thoughts that could contextualize the discussion today.
I would like to talk about four different elements.

One is to put REDD+ in the development context.

The second one is what has been missing today in our discussion in the context of REDD+?

Third iswhat I perceive as challenges or issues with REDD+ based on experience gained in the last couple of years.
Then, lastly, I will provide a couple of comments on the role of the private sector in REDD+.

Panel Discussion
I think the first part is very fundamental to me.
UNFCCC meetings.

I was a member of several delegations to the

I was delighted when in 2007 in Bali the concept of REDD+ was defined within thecontext of an overarching development approach.

We have heard it in various contributions today that,without development gains and benefits for the populations and private sector, there is no climate change
mitigation and there is no adaptation.

I think that is fundamental.

Therefore, what we do in REDD+

needs to serve the basic needs of an ever growing number of people in the tropics.
change mitigation and no REDD+ without a strong element in development.

I would say no climate

I will come back to thatlater because it has a strong meaning if we talk about interventions in the context of forests and climatechange.
The second point is about what is missing in the forest and climate architecture.

I would like toemphasize that, in agriculture, but also in forestry, we are exposed to a situation where, in the near future,
the World needs to feed nine billion people.
products, and wood-based energy.

I think we face the same challenge for wood, wood-based

If we do not fulfill those demands and address that in REDD+ efforts,

people will take it whatever it takes. If people do not benefit and have an improved livelihood and havefood and shelter, they will take it from the forests.

What has not been coming out very strongly today in the discussion is the aspect of degradation.
This is a map that is based on a scientific study over many years from 2003 to 2014.
red color is the net loss of carbon content in forest areas.

What you see in theThis study by Baccini et al. that was publishedin February 2018 came to the conclusion that degradation is a severe problem - even more severe thandeforestation, which is mostly caused by outside drivers.
issue.

Therefore, it is a genuine forest management

What I also heard today in the discussion, it came through in the presentation on Vietnam and inother presentations, that, if we do not address degradation, it will undermine the livelihoods of millions ofpeople depending forest products and wood-based energy.

Panel Discussion: Future Challenges to Promote REDD+
with Private Sector Participation

Panel Discussion

If you look at the future demand of wood and wood-based products, you see it will increase from thecurrent four billion cubic meters per year in industrial wood to about 14 billion to 15 billion cubic meters by
2050.

If not addressed as a matter of urgency we face a situation of rapid depletion of timber and carbon

stocks against an increasing trend of forest consumption.

You can imagine what will happen.

Eitherpeople go into the forests and cut protected areas in order to meet the demand, or the world has to moveout of forest products into steel, concrete, and other non-renewable materials, which are equally negative
for climate and biodiversity.
better wood.

The conclusion for me is: we have to produce more and we have to produce

That is the same case for beef, for soy, for palm oil, and so on. We need to look at the timberand other forest products the same way we need to look at food. Our only chance is to move towards a
bio-economy.

The third aspect that has been totally neglected so far is the role of wood in a bio-economy.
here about substitution of fossil-based material through renewable materials like wood.
become in Europe and in United States already quite an important issue.

I talk

I think this has

The promotion of wood-based

buildings, is also very relevant for Japan, especially in rural areas.

For example, a figure for Germany isthat carbon sequestration in the forest is about 50 million tons.

Substitution in wood-based buildings isabout 30 million tons, and substitution of fossil-based energy is 35 million tons.

Therefore, substitution

overall can be more important than the measures you can do in forestry together.

This is a very important

aspect, and I think we need to address that also in the future.

Panel Discussion
My third point, what is the progress of REDD+ so far?
to a totally new level, especially in REDD+.
sensing, and so on.

We have brought the discussion about forests

We have advanced technologies for monitoring, for remote

It has created a global awareness on forest related issues.

However, if we look at theinitial idea about REDD+, which is to promote payments for carbon emission reductions based on results,
not much progress has been achieved so far.
approaches.

We are now in the tenth year of REDD+ processes andAs far as I know, no deal has been made and no payments have been transferred for benefit

sharing purposes and so on.

I think this tells us something.

Substantial amounts have been spent inprocessing ideas, studies, travel costs, secretariats, and carbon finance experts.

It tells us a lot about thecomplexity of REDD+ and we should be concerned.

I would summarize my collection of issues and challenges for REDD+ as follows: it is the complexityof design. Initially thought to be a “low hanging fruit” its elements such as the reference level have provento be politically very controversial, because the reference level has an enormous implication for how
payments would be made later on.

There is also the issue with monitoring and other methodologicalissues (measurement, reporting, and verification) because long-term time series are needed to understandtrends.

And there is the issue of country capacities to implement REDD+ in continuity.

It is costly, andI think for the moment it only works on the basis of consulting and external input in many countries.
Then there is the question of benefit sharing, we have heard about the importance of this.
does the benefit go?
government?
ground?

What is the element of incentive in the benefit sharing?

Does it go to the local population?

Where

Does it go to theDoes the small amount make a difference on the

All these are very important questions, which are much beyond the question of methodology andscience.
Then we have a big problem with ex-post payments.
a carbon benefit, they get rewarded for it.
upfront cost of that.

That is idea of REDD+.

If countries produce

However, in my view, the problem lies in the beginning, in theIf you look at a country like Congo, Gabon, or Ivory Coast, they do not simply havethe money to create the investment to restore forest resources before they can claim a carbon benefit.
One of the few countries that have achieved that is Vietnam with a tremendous economic growth and at
the same time a tremendous growth in forests.

I think that tells us how complex things are, and muchinsight into the capacities required in the management of forests and in the countries.

Panel Discussion: Future Challenges to Promote REDD+
with Private Sector Participation

Panel Discussion

As for the missing private sector, we have to really ask whether the current approach to REDD+ theright tool to attract massive investment by private sector into countries.
Now, the private sector does not care about national carbon baselines or whatever.
interested in maximizing the return on investment.

A company is

It has to be profitable, and the carbon benefit has to

go to the company, or has to be sold for noncompliance in other areas and so on.

The question is, how do

we provide the right incentive for private sector companies to invest in countries which are perceived ashigh risk?

This is the most decisive element of private sector investment that they avoid the risks,

especially in those countries with low governance, and the countries where the forest carbon stand is still
there.
We were thinking about another element of results-based payments, which would reward thegovernment if they provide a package of incentives to private sector companies based on verification
systems like certification of other means.
are in place.

The donor would only make result-based transfers if those deals

I think that would be a way to bring private sector companies who produce sustainably at parwith companies who produce in the business-as-usual way.

For example, many certified companies, e.g.

the concessions in Congo are at the brink of bankruptcy because they cannot compete against
business-as-usual companies.

Benefits, such as tax, stumping fee, export excise reductions, and so on,

would bring them at competitive level to companies who are doing business as usual.

I think we are

currently now in a deep discussion with Chinese companies who say, “We want to have green supply chains.
We want to buy this stuff,” but the problem is a lack of capacity in these countries, lack of information, lackof regulations as we have heard also from Peru, and so on.
In summary, the financial packages need to be threefold or fourfold.

One is REDD+, which I thinkwould be best suited for protected areas where we have no alternative for use.

Second, we need to have

incentive mechanisms for private sector companies who are willing to invest.

I think that cannot be donein a jurisdictional approach.

I think that has to be done by providing incentives to as many companies as

possible so that it gets to a tipping point like we have seen in Japan, Europe or the US with solar panels andso on.

We need incentives so that private sector companies say, “I would go for that,” and then thenumber of companies making these decisions creates a tipping point.
at in international trade.

I think that is what we have to look

This is because big companies like Walmart, they buy in all countries of the world.

They want to use their power to maximize the stream of sustainable products, so it cannot be done only at anational or jurisdictional level.

Panel Discussion

As already mentioned, there is the lack of capacities in these countries.

We have now a framework at

the international level, but we have also here now private sector initiatives and national/regional initiatives.
Therefore, the flow from the forest to the markets is very complicated domestically, but also internationally.
Along the supply chain, a lot of information is needed and capacities are needed in the government for
incentives, for regulations, and for policies, and also at the trade union level for market information and forbringing sustainable buyers together.
they get sustainable wood?

Also, a lot of information is needed on the buyer side.

Where do they get sustainable coffee and so on?

Where doTherefore, I think we needto look in this dimension a little bit closer, whether we call it REDD or not, but it is climate-relevant.

It

brings adaptation and it brings mitigation.

Finally, I have tried to summarize my intervention today in the REDD+ phased approach diagram here.
As you see from this diagram performance-based payments are demanding the highest country capacity andhighest degrees of complexity among all measures. The reality is that but many countries are not there yet.
Therefore, I think the international community has already reacted in providing enabling finance tobridge the gap between Readiness and results-based payments.

Japan has done the same.

Norway isgoing back to finance that upfront investment level as well. We need to have a continuum taking into
account country specific capacities and complexity, and the continuum might be different in different
commodities.

I think the starting level of intervention is capacity building and basic investments, whichmight be just the right thing for some countries to start the discussion about REDD, and to develop theirPanel Discussion: Future Challenges to Promote REDD+
with Private Sector Participation

Panel Discussion

capacities further.
It is also along these lines that REDD+ is focused on carbon.

However, if you have multiple benefits,multiple needs in a country, REDD+ might not be the only tool which we need to apply.
(Sato)

This morning and this afternoon, we had seven presentations and also from Dr. Dieterle we havesuch an interesting topic.

This topic alone will be the good discussion point for the panel, and I feel I

could benefit from his presentation.

In the rest of the panel, we would like to cover the key questions together with the participants.
There are four questions.

First, how to accurately measure emission reductions at low cost?

Second,what are the future challenges of MRV learned during the establishment of the reference level indeveloping countries?

Next, how to allocate carbon credits and other profits among stakeholders when more than one projectis working in the same area?

The last question is, What supports are needed for the implementation of

REDD-plus by the private sector in view of safeguards?
Among the four key questions, the first is related to the morning session one, and numbers three andfour relates to the session two in the afternoon.

To begin with, we would like to start from session one.

Panel Discussion
Key Question 1: How to accurately measure emission reductions at low cost?
(Sato)

Key question one: how to accurately measure emission reductions at low cost?

this question to Mr. Suzuki, Dr. Nguyen, and Dr. Fox.
(Suzuki)

I would like to ask

Mr. Suzuki, please.

Before thinking about how to answer to this question, I think there are two points.

First, in theemission reduction, is degradation of the forests be considered or not and not just deforestation?
Degradation causes cost increases, so we must consider that.

However, as Dr. Gerhard said, degradation is

also important, not just deforestation, so we must include degradation.
accuracy then it will be costly.

Second, if you require higher

Cost and accuracy are in a linear relationship.

If we think about this, we need to involve local communities to measure emission reductions so that we
can control costs.

IGES created a participatory forest monitoring manual, and this is already complete, so

this is already at the implementation stage.

However, in order to scale up and do so widely, we need notjust calculations of the carbon stock, but we also we need to have some monitoring items to cover different
benefits.
(Sato)

By doing so, local communities will also start to act.
You made an important point about the balance between cost and accuracy.

word ‘tradeoff ’.
(Nguyen)

It is so important to think this.

Dr. Nguyen will you answer the question?

For Vietnam, we are just a developing country.

question one.

I chose not to use the

We are also trying to find an answer for

In order to measure the emission reductions, you need to generate activity data, and also theemissions and removal factor.

For generating activity data, we are thinking of using free medium

resolution imagery such as Landsat and Sentinel.

We are also thinking of using open source software.

One important thing is we need to streamline our classification system.

This is because when you

develop the forest reference level, you need to do the accuracy assessment.

If the classification is toocomplicated, the cost for the accuracy assessment also will be high.

Therefore, it is very important to finda suitable classification system for the activity data.
About the emission factor, actually we have already conducted some work to make this more efficient.
First, we improved our sampling design and plot design.

Before we have a plot system, a systematic cluster,

the cluster has partly consecutive secondary sample plot arranged in an L shape, but now we only are in fivesample plots.

Each of them is about 150 meters far from each other.

high interspatial correlation.

This is because in forests there is a

Therefore, if we put sample plot near together, there will be a waste of

information.
Even so, we try to improve our plot design by using a concentric circular netted plot in which we use
three circular plots.

The inner plot has an area of 100 square meter for measuring trees which deviate

from six to 15 centimeters.

The second plot has an area of 500 square meter for measuring tree which

deviate from 15 to 25 centimeters.

The third plot has an area of 1000 square meter from a starting tree

which deviates less than 25 centimeters.

Therefore, using this concentric circular netted plot, we review

the number of tree method significantly, and also reduce the costs.

Panel Discussion: Future Challenges to Promote REDD+
with Private Sector Participation(Sato)

Panel Discussion

There was a discussion about the design, and accumulating baseline data is very important for that.

I think that was clear from Professor Nguyen’s comment.
Next, we would like to ask Professor Fox this question.
presentation about reference factors.

Professor Fox gave a very informative

In Papua New Guinea and Africa, he made permanent sampling

plots to measure emission factors, and there are many articles on this subject that have been announced.
have quoted his articles many times.

I

Professor Fox, could you please answer the first question from yourperspective?
(Fox)

Building on the previous speakers, I completely agree with the intervention of Dr. Nguyen of

Vietnam.

This question of how to accurately measure emission reductions at low cost, this should be thekey objective of all cooperating partner support to developing countries, and there are several ways we cando this.

Dr. Nguyen summarized it very nicely that he is using accessible and free remote sensing data.

This technology and data is increasingly accessible and free, and people are using free and open source
software in countries.

Even technical challenges like degradation, which are using remote sensing for has

been a challenge, the resolution of freely available data is increasing constantly and countries will be able tomeasure and report this activity in the future.

I am very confident about that.

Free data and free open source technology solutions, and making sure that our investment in capacity
building, which is probably the expensive part in helping countries set up systems to accurately measureemission reductions, is very strongly anchored in the government and builds on the existing government
structures.

Vietnam is an excellent example of this.

inventory and a long tradition of remote sensing.

They have a long tradition of national forest

Therefore, when REDD+ came along, they just tweakedthat capacity in those systems to enable the country to accurately measure emission reductions.

When it isanchored in the government in this way, the government can continue that activity into the future, which isthe entire objective of the exercise.

This should be a fundamental objective.

I think we can do it and weare doing it.
(Sato)

Thank you very much.

That is a very encouraging answer.

When we are debating about thesethings we often struggle to find clear answers to the questions in a short amount of time.

It would be niceto continue the discussion, but we have to move on to the second question.
Key Question 2: What are the future challenges of MRV learned during the establishment of thereference level in developing countries?
(Sato)In the process of setting the reference level, we were seeing challenges for MRV.

Professor Fox,

would you please also comment on the second question?
(Fox)

As indicated in my presentation, we have this wonderful momentum under the UNFCCC with 38

submissions from 34 countries.

Onaka-san mentioned this, but the key future challenge is to keepPanel Discussion
improving these submissions and data and measurements in a stepwise fashion under REDD+, under the
UNFCCC so that these reference emission level submissions and the result submissions become moreaccurate and more comparable.

This is very important, and it is already happening.

The FCPF Carbon Fund methodological framework, which was an early pilot, and now the GCF
REDD+ results based payments call for expressions of interest.

They provide additional modalities toensure these emission reductions or enhancements are accurate and comparable.

Countries are responding

to these opportunities under the FCPF and the GCF by reformulating their reference emission levels.
They are responding to the technical assessment reports, as Dr. Nguyen mentioned.
Going forward in the post 2020 Paris Agreement and the enhanced transparency framework, I am quite
confident that, through the harmonization of our support of many cooperating partners supporting
countries on this, that the REDD+ MRV reports and REDD+ reference emission levels will be accurate
and comparable.

This is very important for the NDC process and for achieving the Paris Agreement.

That is the key challenge, which is to keep improving our reference emission levels so that, in the future, anemission reduction in one country is comparable to an emission reduction in another country, and they areboth accurate.
(Sato)

Professor Fox really summarized very well, almost perfectly.

that.

In today’s presentation Mr. Suzuki and Professor Nguyen spoke about the importance ofcomparability between countries.
technical assessments.

There is not much more to add toHe also spoke about the different recommendations for improving

That process probably is key to providing an answer to this question, which is what

I thought listening to Dr. Fox’s presentation.

We were expecting others to answer this question, but ourtime is limited and we must move on.
Key Question 3: How to allocate carbon credits and other profits among stakeholders whenmore than one project is working in the same area?
(Sato)Let us move on to the third and fourth question, which are related to session two.

First isquestion three: how to allocate carbon credits and other profits among stakeholders when more than one
project is working in the same area?

This is related to consensus building.

I would like to ask Ms.

Milagros Sandoval to give her comments on this third question(Sandoval)

Maybe if I read this question very fast and I start thinking about it, the first thing that pops

into my head is related to the results-based payments on REDD+.

I would say that we have to allocate thecarbon credits or the profits related to those activities that have results on the ground.

However, I thinkthat many of us during this afternoon have highlighted the importance of how to really make REDD+
work on the ground.

Sometimes, thinking about results-based payments is maybe a step forward.

Maybe

we have to have a step back, and think about what are the needs, what are the priorities of the people livingon the ground, and how can we really make a change to really have those results that we are looking for?
I would say that maybe we need funds to start activities.

We need to engage stakeholders, and that isPanel Discussion: Future Challenges to Promote REDD+
with Private Sector Participation

not necessarily something that we can wait for results-based payments.

Panel Discussion

We need results before.

Also,maybe not everybody is going to be eager to participate because they do not see results very fast.
Therefore, sometimes it is important to consider the different types of ways in which different countries are
identifying or proposing ways to distribute these funds.

Some are results-based payments.

Some arepayments that are done before, so this is something that has to be considered, but what I must say is that wewould have to consider national circumstances, and also specific circumstances that are happening on the
ground to see really if the people that are engaged with the activities on the ground are really the ones thatare having these results.

Obviously, this implies support to governance and many other activities that are

related.

Thank you.

(Sato)

I believe your answer is based on your experience in Peru.

Next, we would like to ask Mr. Onakaof the Forestry Agency, which is involved in JCM-REDD to answer question three.

I know you are a

tough negotiator, but try not to be too tough with us, and try to be brief.
(Onaka)

You asked me to be brief.

Let me see what I can say.

question, I want to add an overall comment on REDD+.
that there are technical challenges.

First of all, before I answer thatFirst, since REDD+ was discussed, it is true

Once you recognize that fact, on the other hand, if you look at thelarger picture, there is international forest conservation and climate actions, and in order for us to facilitate
these global actions, REDD+ is recognized as an effective tool.
Second, naturally there are challenges in REDD+.
to see outcomes.

That is my understanding.

With REDD+ being implemented, we have started

We need to evaluate the such REDD+ outcomes.

presentations on some of these positive results.

This morning we heard

For example, at the readiness phase of REDD+, as for

safeguards and forest monitoring, for example, in the relevant countries, stakeholders are actively engaged in
REDD+, and those results are now beginning to surface.

For many years we have not seen the result

being expressed in data, but the participating institutions and countries are making efforts and we do see
positive results expressed in data.
Third, because of that, we would like to move farther towards results-based payments.
introduced in my presentation, GCS only has a pilot’s program for RBP.

As I

This pilot program has to be

successful for us to be able to move to full implementation, so we need to be especially careful as we move
forward.
To try to answer that key question, it really depends.
guidelines are available.

If it is limited to JCM-REDD+ methodologies,

There is flexibility in making these tools available.

In terms of sharing results,

we need to adjust assistance, and that is one of the agenda points of COP discussion.

As for how theseresults outcomes are shared, we need to adjust assistance, adjust methodologies, and adjust at the guideline
level.

As for implementation, donors may be able to coordinate each other.

There have been pastexamples of donor coordination outside the forest sector, assistance adjustment will become very important.
We are just beginning results-based payments, but as each country begins to receive RBPs, they will realize
how important it is to coordinate with each other to solve some of the challenges.
more options they for them to explore.

There will be many

Although I believe this to be one of the technical challenges, asPanel Discussion
Dr. Fox mentioned, many of these technical challenges can be resolved through technological advancement.
(Sato)

I would like to invite another person, I would like to ask the same question to Dr. Dieterle, who has

worked in World Bank as well.
(Dieterle)

When we talk about carbon credit, we look at the last phase’s results-based payments.

that is my understanding.

Everything is not credit before showing any results.

or a capacity building effort based on the other sources of funding.

I think it is an investment,

Therefore, when I talk about a credit,

it is a payment based on an achieved emission reduction outcome.
approaches there is a section which talks about benefit-sharing.

I thinkI think in each of the readinessOf course, there are different cases.

When you have a protected area, I think the payment would be to local communities, in my view, who are
not doing certain things that they have been doing before.

It is a sort of compensation payment because

they have no alternatives for income.
When we talk about something in productive landscapes, I think we need to look at the development
impact that such a benefit sharing payment has.

Instead of handing it out to a large number of citizens in

a community or in a jurisdiction, in my view, that would not have a big development impact.

I think it

would be important to reinvest those credits into something which creates lasting structures because, so far,the carbon payments that FCPF and others are providing are only there for three to eight dollars per ton
and then they end.

Therefore, I think the challenge is to create something with an income which has alasting effect, which builds capital, and which makes the lives of people better.
In some cases, I see a challenge that, if we have large jurisdictions where we have different sectors likemining, agriculture, and so on, the result is spread too thin.
feel it.

I think the main thing is to incentivize people on the ground and do things in a different way fromwhat they have done before.
(Sato)

This means the people on the ground will not

I think that is the most important challenge.

Profit reinvestment is a new way of thinking that, and I thank you for telling us about such a novel

idea.
Key Question 4: What supports are needed for the implementation of REDD-plus by the private
sector in view of safeguards?
(Sato)

Professor Okuda, I would like to ask you later to wrap-up so that we can move on to the last

question.

The fourth key question is, what supports are needed for the implementation of REDD-plus by

the private sector in view of safeguards?

Before asking in this question to Professor Okuda, I like to invite

Ms. Okabe to answer.
(Okabe)What sort of things can we do to help project level REDD+ actions conducted by private

players?

There are three things I would like to suggest.

As I mentioned in my presentation, it is an issue of levels, or to put it another way, scales.

On thePanel Discussion: Future Challenges to Promote REDD+
with Private Sector Participation

implementation level what safeguards are needed?
Agreement?

Panel Discussion

In other words, can we simply scale down the Cancun

Would that ensure that there are the right safeguards?

Maybe not.

For example, claim

handling and project governance are not included in the Cancun Agreement, but are very important at the
project level.

That need to be analyzed further.

Second, this has much to do with technology.
be quite important.

In order to implement safeguards, risk assessment will

To understand the current status on the ground, having accurate analysis will allow us

to understand the risk level, and we need to develop tools to enable that.
Last, recently it has become a point of discussion to set goals including the safeguards in the design of
the REDD+ activities as an option.

There are REDD+ activities in which safeguards only deal with risk.

In these cases, if we are able to make clear how to mitigate risk and to what extent, then it will be beneficial
for participants

On the other hand, we want to create safeguard that exceed safeguards.

For example, if

there are safeguards to deal with SDGs or carbon, then new guideline or guidance will be required.
(Sato)The safeguard point of the view was also covered by Milagros Sandoval.

In Peru, what sorts ofcomments do you have about this problem?
(Sandoval)

On the issue related to the private sector and the reviews of safeguards, I would like to echo

what my colleagues just said.

Definitely, on the view of the local REDD+ projects, the private sector isasking for the CCBA standards, CCB validation, and verification process.

That is the way in which they

believe they are de-risking what they are supporting, and that they definitely see that, if this project goes
through this validation and verification process, there is clarity that the third-party has identified that there
are no risks related to the investment that they are doing on the ground.
Definitely, that has to be nested when we are talking about the REDD+ program more at the national
level.

What I believe is that these types of initiatives that have been going on at specific local levels can

support de-risking, and can give important lessons learned to the national level process related to the design
and implementation of the safeguard information systems.
this information can really go into this process.
information.

Definitely, there is still a long way to go so that

However, I think that these local projects do have a lot ofThey do have a lot of lessons learned that can feed into the safeguard information systems.

There are also some issues that can support the clarity or the interest of other private investments to
support activities both on the ground, but also in other areas of a specific country or a specific region.
(Sato)In the first keynote speech from Professor Okuda, he talked about REDD and it transdisciplinarity,

which is a new concept for me, and I learned a lot from him.

Focusing on this fourth question, could you

wrap up?

I think it fitting that first our keynote lecturer will be the last to answer the final question.

(Okuda)All four questions are quite difficult and it like a university entrance exam, so I cannot help but

think that there may be right and wrong answers.

As for question number four in particular, and also

throughout the discussion, we have tried to address how can we promote participation of the private sector,
we have taken a phased approach, but from now on a market-based approach is the direction for the future.

Panel Discussion
We are still in the preview phase, and if you think about the autonomous phase, you have to consider profit
as well as compliance, and they must work hand in hand.
As Matsumoto-san asked this morning, there is an issue of supply chain and REDD+ issues and how
they relate to each other.

This is such an important matter.

For these two, not to think about these two

running in parallel, but as Okabe-san discussed, safeguards are not negative risk assessments, but safeguards
must be considered positive assessments.

Safeguards must play the role of glue.

expand, and the private sector will be willing to participate more actively.

In this way it will

As I talk to people fromcompanies, if we ask them to buy the carbon emission credits, they are hesitant.

Rather, if we talk about

how ESG or SDGs and other related activities will improve a company’s value, or that the company’s
reputation will suffer if they are not involved, or how investors would avoid the company, then companies
will respond.

This is something we must do.

We must make REDD+ work well for companies.

One last thing to add is that safeguards in particular need project-based assistance.
smaller scale support, the people have to go to the field.

If you have

I believe that Sato-san said that if you talk to

people from trading firms, and if you say that you are working on afforestation, reforestation, anddeforestation (ARD) activities, then you can tell the risks from your past experiences, which is good.
However, there are some areas on a project base where you cannot predict the risks from past experiences.
Researchers and the people from academia might be able to suggest what to look at.
biodiversity could be one measurement.
indices.

For instance,

Also, for how risky or how bad could it be, we can find theBy adjusting these indices, maybe we can find what could be feasible or not.

That is the role ofresearchers.
(Sato)

From a researcher’s point of view, you pointed out the role of the researcher.

research institute and I feel that I was given an important assignment.
be hard to come up with a clear answer.

I am working for a

As Professor Okuda said, it would

We have limited time, and if we have a discussion, it would takemany days, but still we would not be able to come up with a single answer.

However, if we think about

REDD, what is important is that there are many other questions, not just limited to the four questions that
we covered.
activities.

However, please bear in mind that we have these critical questions while carrying out yourWe would like to conclude today’s panel discussion.

Thank you for your cooperation.