 for all the participants to join us. So if you could just bear with us for the next, I don't know, two minutes or so. If you need to get your last minute cup of water or tea or coffee, now is the time to do and be back in about two minutes. We'll start as soon as we can. Thank you. Welcome again, everybody. We will start in one minute. So to our speakers as well, if you want to, you know, go and get last minute water or tea or coffee, you have, well, less than one minute now, but we'll start in a few seconds. Thank you. Right. Let's get the show started. Hello, everybody. Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, depending on where you're logging in from. Welcome to the Land Dialogue Webinar Series, organized in partnership with the Ford Foundation, the Land Portal Foundation, the Tenure Facility, and the Thompson-Royters Foundation. Thank you for joining us. My name is Thin and I'm a journalist specializing in food systems and climate change. And I'm delighted to be moderating today's session on Indigenous land rights and the biodiversity COP 15, six months on. Now, the idea behind this webinar series is to raise awareness on the land rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities. That's because we believe that these rights are prerequisite when it comes to achieving national and international goals around forest governance and food security, climate mitigation, economic development and human rights. Now, there will be four land dialogues this year and each will focus on a different topic. This one is the second one for this year. Now, before we go on to the discussion proper, let me just go through some housekeeping rule. First, this webinar is in English, but we have simultaneous translations in Spanish, French, Portuguese and Bahasa Indonesia. Now, to access the translations, all you need to do is to go to the globe icon at the bottom of your Zoom window and select the language that you want and then click on it. Actually, I have to clarify it. We have French, Portuguese, Spanish and English. Now, this webinar will last 60 minutes. We've set aside about 15 minutes for Q&A. So, if you have questions, please post them in the Q&A box and not in the chat box. Now, do use the chat box to let us know who you are, which organisations you belong to and where you are joining us from. Also, please feel free to tweet using this hashtag LenDialogs. It's a one-word hashtag LenDialogs and you can also follow the live tweeting from the Len portal and tenure facility Twitter accounts. Finally, we're also recording today's session and we will share the link with all of you later. Now that we've gotten it out of the way, let's turn to today's topic, which is on COP 15. Now, that's a shorthand for the biodiversity negotiations. This was held in December, right after the climate negotiations and essentially two years later than originally planned. This was the biggest conference on biodiversity in a decade and it also came after multiple scientific reports have warned of a crisis in our hands because we're losing both species and nature at an alarming rate. And if we don't do anything about it and do it soon, the ecosystems on which we, humans, depend on for survival, could collapse. Now, depending on where you sit, COP 15 was a historic success, a work in progress, a betrayal of Indigenous peoples or something in between, right? There was a sigh of relief over this agreement to protect at least 30% of land and water ecosystems by 2030. But many are also worried that this target is going to be used as a justification to strip Indigenous communities of their lands. Today, we're going to be talking about these outcomes and what they mean for the Indigenous communities, their knowledge and data and their land rights. It is, of course, also very timely because Monday was the International Day for Biological Diversity and I think the interest that people have is, you know, evidence in the fact that we now have almost 300 people attending this webinar, which surely must be one of the records. Now, we've got three fantastic speakers, experts, who are going to help us understand the debates around COP 15 better. In the interest of fairness, I am going to introduce them in alphabetical order in their given names. So first, we have Professor Alexander Kaldas, who is currently serving as Chief of Country Outreach at the UN Environment Programme. Alexander was born in Nampoula, Mozambique, and he has more than 25 years of experience in science and technology policy across academia, industry, government and international organisations. We also have Christine Kendi, who is a Peace Ambassador as well as an Indigenous Disabled Woman Leader of the Enduroids Indigenous Community of Kenya. Christine is known as a staunch defender and advocate for the rights of her community, particularly women and persons with disabilities. Christine leads the Enduroids Indigenous Woman Empowerment Network. At last, but definitely not the least, we have Jennifer Tauli Corpus, who is the Global Policy and Advocacy Lead for Nietero. Now, Jennifer is a former coordinator of the Indigenous People's Rights and Policy Advocacy Programme of Tepteba. Now, Jennifer hails from the Kankanae Egorot people of mountain province in the Philippines. Now, what are we going to do is that we're going to fit in three rounds of questions to our expert speakers. And like I said, we also have some time for Q&A in the next almost 50 minutes or so. So I would really appreciate if our speakers could keep their answers precise and not more than three minutes each. Now, to the audience, again, please use the Q&A box if you have any questions. And it would also be great if you could identify yourself and your organization. Christine, can I actually start the discussion with you first? I want to hear from you what you think of the outcomes from COP 15 and whether you feel like, you know, the discussions recognized Indigenous peoples' Len rights and their roles as custodians of conservation. Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. I'm Christine Kandy from Kenya, working with Endurois Indigenous Women Empowerment Network as the Executive Director. And today, I'm delighted to share with you reports in regards to COP 15 in regards to biodiversity. And let me start by drawing in the story of Endurois community that were affected way back in 1974 to create a conservation area for tourism reason for so that the Government of Kenya can get revenue. And in that regards, we were disconnected from our mother heart. This is an area that of great importance to our community because it holds our values, you know, it is our ancestral heart. We connect with the mother heart through our livelihood. And in that regards, by the Government of Kenya affecting us means that they also contributed to many other reasons why Indigenous community across the globe are facing. As Indigenous community, we are stewardship. We are custodian of our Indigenous community. We take care of them through our values, through our sustained way of utilizing our environment. In every Indigenous community across the globe, we represent a quarter of all land in this earth. And in that regards, you find that when decisions are made, especially those who are made in COP, it affects Indigenous community because in detail, Indigenous people are not consulted for that regard. For example, when you say 3030 conservation and restoration, Government of Kenya are using such declaration made at a higher level like that, whereby some of us Indigenous people are unable to go into those decision-making and negotiation boardroom for us to share our views or to share our thinking in regards to the liberation that are going to affect our livelihood. So in regards to conservation, for example, you realize that communities like Gendoroids were evicted from their ancestral land here in Kenya for their conservation reasons. And from that time up to now, they are facing a very serious ecological issues because as far as I'm concerned, at the moment, we are facing issues like rising water levels. We are facing issues of loss and damages, especially to things of importance to us like our traditional prayer site and all that because of the rising water level. We've also seen people like Okieko Kenya also being evicted from Mount Forest for the Government of Kenya in the name of conservation. But in real sense, Indigenous people have been the number one people who have been conserving their areas through traditional practices. We've also seen people like communities like Senwer of Kenya who have been evicted from Emberwood Forest just because of the reasons to do with conservation. So in regards to COP 15, my key thing in regards to the discussion that took place in COP is that there is a need to strengthen Indigenous people in boardroom discussion to facilitate them to attend this meeting, to build their capacities in terms of a negotiation capacity so that they can take in, they can utilize the available spaces to share their issues, to share because we know that Indigenous communities are custodian. When it comes to restoration, they know what exactly can be done through their practices. We know that Indigenous people know every knowledge or their practices as linked to their livelihood, as I've said, is that the practices can heal mother heart. They have knowledge on how the reverse system when it comes to restoration can be done. The only challenge is that some of the discussion comes in terms of policies at the national level whereby the government want to implement those discussions happening at the COP in terms of they say that they want to restore, they want to reverse the ecological laws and all that. And in 10, you realize that you will see people coming into our Indigenous land in the name of development and all that. So meaning that we've continued losing our only resource that is there. And again, how do you say that we are conserving as Indigenous communities? We don't have land ownership. We just want land ownership which is critical to us. If you want to conserve, first of all, recognize our rights, recognize our struggle, give us land ownership, title this and all that. Thank you so much. Thank you, Christine. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I'm trying to keep the discussion flowing because we have limited time. But Jennifer, we've heard from Christine that even if there was recognition or understanding of Indigenous peoples, sometimes those is being used to actually strip Indigenous people of their connection with the land, what they can do. Now, it's been six months since COP 15. Has anything happened in terms of agreed outcomes? Has anything been achieved? What has happened since? That's a really good question, but also a very difficult one. So we have to keep in mind that the timeframe of this strategic plan is, well, ideally, it was supposed to be 10 years if it was adopted as planned in 2020. Now we have only less than eight years to implement. But since COP 15 in December last year, well, let me backtrack a little bit. There are groups and entities actually that have started implementing the framework, especially 30 by 30, even before the adoption. For example, there is a group of philanthropic organizations called Protecting Our Planet Challenge, and they have started investing in expansion of protected areas even before the framework was adopted. Now, interestingly, the US, which is one of the few countries that has not ratified the CBD and it's not a party to the CBD, already enacted an executive order implementing 30 by 30 even before the adoption. So there has been some movement. However, overall, we're still designing the architecture of how to implement this. For example, there's still talk about the indicators. There were headline indicators adopted last year, but the full suite of indicators including complementary and component indicators are still under discussion. And then we have issues around interpretation. For example, in target three, which is a 30 by 30 target, there's new language there on Indigenous and traditional territories. And the reason why we were the ones that advocated to include that there, and by we, I mean the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, the Indigenous Caucus there. And the reason for inserting that language in there was precisely because of what Christine was presenting, because many Indigenous peoples were evicted in the name of conservation. So now that we have that new language there, there are efforts now to interpret exactly what that means. Does it mean better respect for Indigenous peoples within protected areas? Or does that mean a third pathway for recognizing Indigenous territories? So the interpretation is still ongoing, although from the Indigenous side, we feel that it's very clear. Indigenous governance of collective territory should be recognized outright. And if Indigenous peoples agree for territories to be counted towards the 30 by 30 target, then it could be counted. And the last thing I probably want to say is that it's always a slow process, but governments have been starting the NBSAP revision process, revision of the national biodiversity strategies and action plans. And what we're trying to do now as Indigenous peoples is making sure that there is full and effective participation of Indigenous peoples in that process, but it's slow. In my country, they've only started, they've only just started the consultations. I have to be at the capital in on June 6th, because that's the kickoff discussion. But and I think most of the countries are in the same state. So in short, very little, but there has been movement. And we hope that the movement is in the direction of Indigenous peoples, of respect for Indigenous peoples' rights, because 25% of the 23 targets explicitly mention Indigenous peoples' rights. Thanks so much, Jennifer. So it sounds like it's, like you said, a very slow start. But hopefully that means that when things gain momentum, it would be in the right direction. That, you know, the fact that it was slow means that, you know, we're gathering the right, the right way of doing things. Alex, I want to come to you next, particularly about, you know, how and when can we measure these outcomes and indicators from COP 15 that, you know, both Jennifer and Christine talked about, what kind of data and technology and thing that do we need to do that? Thank you so much. A big, big gratitude for the invitation to share with you and the organizers, to share with you some ideas on this topic. I have to agree, I go straight to the point, given the time limitations, to agree with Jennifer and Christine when it comes to actually measuring impacts, measuring outcomes on how much Indigenous communities, local knowledge, lands underground is effectively already being impacted and being used with these COP 15. It's very short. So I think we have to be realistic. I think we have to be very proud that we are at a time of change. And we have to be very proud that the momentum for biodiversity protection, the momentum for the recognition that Indigenous communities, local knowledge has a direct impact on our world and on biodiversity has never been so great. Okay. So we do have a tremendous momentum recognized by civil society worldwide at all different scales, global, regional, local. Secondly, we came to an agreement, international nations came to an agreement in terms of an action plan for tackling biodiversity loss, for tackling these with clear targets and the timeframe, which in itself I think is very good news. So it's the very first time this is achieved. Okay. So we should be very proud of that as well. I should mention is not COP 15, but the environment as a human right and climate as a human right has been recently, last year approved by the whole multilateral community and international community, which in itself also recognize extensively the role of Indigenous communities, local knowledge and land on the ground to be the fundamental critical nutcrackers for the whole thing. So we could not have been better at this moment and COP 15 closes this, I would say, this loop saying that the whole international community agrees we are going to hack in this direction. And Indigenous communities have been praised on doing that. My second point is yet, but in order to translate and Jennifer pointed this very well, these into concrete indicators that can be measured for the actual participation of Indigenous communities in the actions and the solutions for the biodiversity loss, that then we still have a long way. I think we are not using the technology, we are not using the data we have available today. Let me give a clear example, geosatellite data combined with in situ data and sensor data at the local level in lands all over the world in most vulnerable communities. Let me specify specifically the ones impacted by series extreme climate change events, disasters, etc. We should see that these are the Indigenous communities that most suffer and are impacted. So we could use the combinational satellite imagery together with disaster risk management together with in situ data on real time that is available today to actually make an impact and leverage the role of Indigenous communities. We are not doing it yet to the level we should be doing. And I think we should move then from the international agreements into the concrete indicators on the ground and use to the fullest the technology and the data and the innovation available to put a concrete list of indicators on the ground that can help really Indigenous communities on our making it happen. My third final message is the following. So I think it's clear that politically we have already achieved agreement, we should be positive and happy. Secondly, we have not at all used the technology, the data, the innovation available to the degree that we could use at the particularly at the local level, the Indigenous community level, knowledge level, knowledge underground level, we have not and we can use it. My third point is about resilience and foresight. Again, I miss in that plan of COP 15 scenarios, analysis and I miss resilience. It looks like we have not been learning enough what happened with the pandemic, for instance, or the SDG framework. So we need to adapt these plans in a way that they include one, two or three scenarios. And they are resilient to adaptation for the different scenarios and we have not done that. Unfortunately, it is again very short. The plan does not focus and this is critical for Indigenous communities because in any kind of outside event that impacts the most vulnerable ones will be Indigenous communities. So I miss that component there to measure concretely. So let's call it resilience and foresight for adaptation for measuring things. And it's missing there and I'll stop you. Great. Thank you, Alex, for giving us very specific examples on what's needed to be done and what's missing. Now the next question I have is for all three of you. So it's the same question and I'm actually going to it's going to be a two-part question because I'm also going to bring in one of the questions from the participants because I think it's related. So this next question is around the 30 by 30 target, which Christine sort of alluded to in her first answer as well. As you all know, this is, like I said, depending on where you say this is either controversial or this is something to be celebrated. There are a lot of people who think that this 30% goal is not ambitious enough and that there needs to be a higher target. But Indigenous groups also fear that this could be used as on a pretext to take away the land under the guise of conservation. So number one, I would like to hear your thoughts on it and I'd like to start with Jennifer. So that's the first part of the question. The second part of the question is from one of the participants from Northern Uganda who said that there, like in many parts of Indigenous community, land is customarily owned. And of course, that means based on the norms and traditions. But, you know, they have come under increased threats of eviction either from the government or also from rich commercial farmers. How can we protect these lands? How can we protect these lands from, you know, being, I guess, appropriated against the Indigenous people's will? So number one is the question on what your thoughts are on the 30x30 target and if you could link it with, if you have any specific on-the-ground examples of recommendations on what Indigenous communities can do not to lose their land, that would be fantastic. I'm going to first go to Jennifer, then Christine and I will come to Alex. Jennifer? Yeah. So you're completely right. 30x30 target is very controversial. In fact, then when the negotiations were beginning, different groups were approaching the Indigenous people's caucus asking for support for the different proposals. 30x30 was one, 50x30 was another one and there was also a proposal to protect 80% of the Amazon by 2025. So many different numbers, you know? And for us, the fear, as I said earlier, is that it would result, you know, it would result in stronger pressures on Indigenous people's lands and it may result in further violations of rights, if not done in the right way. Now in the previous target, target 11, there was one word that was supposed to be the safeguard. It says that implementation should be equitable. Clearly, that one word was not sufficient, you know? And so with the examples of evictions and other rights violations, we fought really hard for rights language in target three, which was the new target 11. And now we have three distinct mentions of Indigenous rights there. Number one is the governance. The second is respect for Indigenous territories, Indigenous and traditional territories. And the last is respect for the rights of Indigenous peoples, including pre-prior and informed consent. Now it's tricky in places like Asia and Africa, and that's where I would say constructive ambiguity comes in at the global level. The wording is Indigenous peoples and local community. So it actually doesn't matter if the government recognizes you as an Indigenous people or not, because you an unrecognized Indigenous people will still qualify as a local community. So in short, what I'm trying to say is that there's good language in the framework. It can be used as a tool, and it shouldn't matter if the land is customarily owned or if Indigenous peoples are recognized or not, because there's language there that's broad enough to capture the different contexts in which we find ourselves. So we have to use this tool. We have to full advantage in order to fight for our rights as Indigenous peoples. And very quickly, do you have any recommendations or tips on protecting the rights or was that part of the answer as well in terms of just using that specificity or like you said, the constructive ambiguity of the wording to protect yourself? Exactly. There's rights language there. And then I wanted to pick up maybe just a little addition on what Aleksandra was saying earlier, is this right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which is also clearly identified in the framework. And for us, this clearly links the framework to the human rights system, because it's referring to a resolution by the Human Rights Council, right? And so in terms of accountability, I think we bring into play now the accountability mechanism within the human rights system, so we can also use that as a springboard for our starting rights. Great. Thank you so much, Jennifer. Christine, your thoughts on the target, which you briefly shared earlier, but also if you have any tips or recommendations to Indigenous communities on how they can protect their land? Yeah. I could quickly maybe share this with my fellow Indigenous community that especially Bleak from Uganda, Agastin, in regards to how best they can protect their Indigenous land. If you go to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, we've been recognized and declaration goes further by giving us a rise to our self-determination, whereby we're supposed to organize ourselves. You know, that self-determination gives us rights. And it builds on issues to do with a pre-prior and informed consent, whereby our option should consider everyone on board. As Indigenous community here in Kenya also, we are supposed to register our land, land ownership in Kenya, recognize three categories of land, public land, private land, and community land. So community land means that we are supposed to organize ourselves as community. Maybe our community land management committee, whereby you consider everyone in the management of the land, maybe bring on board women, persons with disabilities, and everyone else at the CLMC level. And again, I wish also to maybe encourage them to do community protocols, because it is one way towards an unseen community rights and protection mechanism, because protocols and even when it comes to negotiating with outsiders, even negotiating with investors, you should also consider issues to do with protocol whereby the issues of penalty chair income is in. So for you to maybe get advanced to that level, you must demonstrate issues to do with community land registration process, which is key towards respecting and having your rights as a community. Thank you. Thanks so much, Christine, for those very, very practical suggestions and what Indigenous communities can do. Alex? Well, again, definitely the target 30 by 30 is for short. So I would have preferred to have a roadmap, to have a 30 by 30, then 50 by 35, something like that helps to build up on a roadmap. It's definitely short, and it's particularly short, because if I bring the second key message is about geographies. Geographies are different. We have to stop understanding the world as one world, unfortunately, and to recognize on these targets that geographies are different. Indigenous communities in Africa, in Southeast Asia, in the Pacific, in Latin American Caribbean, they are different. And it's also already a recognition of respect. These differences is to build on setting realistic targets differently according to the needs. Some of these Indigenous communities are more, even more vulnerable in some geographies and subgeographies than in others. And I would love to have this specificity transparent and clear in these targets, because these will only help. It's the recognition of the diversity and the setting we could call a global target, but then going in detail on the respect for the diversity and looking in detail where action is much more urgent than the 30. I would imagine Jennifer was mentioning that 80% would be much more reasonable in some areas of Southern Africa and some areas of Latin American Caribbean or the Pacific. Then the 30% appealing for geographies and diversity of geographies is a very important point. My last point is about, again, a recommendation on the nexus. We cannot separate the Indigenous community land rights and the territory associated with it, with the human rights. Unfortunately, with the climate resilience and adaptation rights, because they work together. And again, these reinforce my previous point. Areas that are subject to extreme climate events, disaster risk management, etc., need to be even more emphasized the need for the protection of the land, the need for the protection of the Indigenous community. So the nexus approach needs to start to be built into the whole package for the leveraging and for the empowerment of the Indigenous communities. And of course, one right, which is fighting poverty, hunger, and the socioeconomics of the right of Indigenous communities, is tied with all of these. So that's why I think it's a different discussion, but the loss and damage discussion is so much appropriate because it brings some reality to these rights. So I would say I'm reasonably unhappy because with the results of the Targus 30.30, much more roadmap approach, much more geographies, diversity, recognition, and much more nexus approach in putting this together. That would be my message. Thank you. Thanks, Alex. I mean, it's very interesting hearing from all the three speakers. And I think even though you're using different, I guess, languages and well, different words, I think there's quite a lot of overlap in calling for both specificity as well as a case-by-case basis in terms of understanding and the importance of actually linking Indigenous rights, human rights, and biodiversity protection. Alex, now that I have you, I want to start the last round of questions with you because it relates to technology and data. And we have quite a lot of questions coming in through Q&A as well. So let's try and go through this round fairly quickly. So the last land dialogue webinar that we had actually was talking about women's sovereignty over land data. And one of the things that came out during the discussion was that there's already plenty of Indigenous knowledge and data, but they're not seen as knowledge and data in the eyes of donor's researchers, mainly from the Western world or the global North, whatever you want to call it. And that they're also very rarely taken into account when formulating programs. So any thoughts you have on how Indigenous knowledge and data can be elevated and included when it comes to designing programs on biodiversity conservation, that would be really great to hear from you. There's not a better example. We have recently used a World Environmental Situation Room to map in situ within Indigenous knowledge and knowledge communities on the ground. And with the group on that observation, we have been using geospatial data and in situ data at the local Indigenous communities level. And we are about to produce a map that brings this information together, which is a good example of, yes, that's the way to go because that really brings. The problem is the following. The science is right, okay, and the date is there, and the science is right. And how to move these into action, okay, sometimes is the big problem. I'll give you two examples where we attempted to do that, I think, in a good way. There was a big research innovation program between the European Union and the African Union, 28 countries in Europe, 54 countries in Africa, about food, nutrition, security, and sustainable agriculture. And we were designing an overall framework program of collaboration, cooperation, innovation at the local level. And at some point, it came to us very clearly. We're doing it wrong because we were misrepresenting the role of women in the micro farming in all over Africa. So micro farming and all over Africa, women, are the owners or the power representatives on these firms. So the models we were using were based on a completely different data, a completely different analysis. And then we realized if we tackle women, young women particularly, we will have an impact that will be two or three times more and better and applied for these. So what I'm trying to say is one is to go definitely in situ on the ground to grasp the right data and the right science and then act on it. Of course, that simple element made us go on the ground, use the role of women in micro farming for food and nutrition security in Africa and definitely expand by three times their impact that we could have done differently. Another example is we sometimes tend to forget how much important the data and the science are right. How can we design programs of protection of the rights of women and the rights of young girls if we misrepresent it? Let me give the example. UNICEF has a program for the digital identification of women at birth. I don't know if you know, but the land I was born in, in the northern Mozambique, 60% of young girls don't get an identity. They are not, they don't have an identity because at birth they are not registered yet. And so they are not registered because they don't go to the army. They're not registered because they don't have, sometimes they have domestic work, they don't go to work, and they don't own property and land. How can this happen in the modern world of today if you don't understand that 60% of young girls in the north of Mozambique might still be not having an ID? So all the other discussions don't count because we have to start there. UNICEF launched a program that has been having tremendous results just by having the digital identification of young girls at birth in order that the 60% number disappears from the face of earth. And we can be a bit more humans in this humanity. But this gives an example how I see the importance of science is right, but action needs to be on the ground, detailed to protect the actual human rights, particularly for indigenous communities, as you can imagine, and the knowledge communities on the ground. This is much more important, all these examples. Thank you. Yeah. No, Alex, thank you so much for those examples. There's actually a question in the list asking about how to bring indigenous women into some of these discussions. So what you, the examples that you've given actually also goes towards answering that question. So thanks, Alex. Christine, your thoughts on how to make sure that indigenous knowledge and data are included in programs on biodiversity conservation? I think my concern surrounds data in regards to indigenous knowledge biodiversity conservation. I think we are also facing a great marginalization in regards to how we can link this one to conservation. And I know we have so many stories coming from us indigenous people that has been linked to biodiversity conservation and even their practice, but the problem comes when it comes to linking this one to policies and even maybe having this data even at the UN level for now indigenous communities have successfully used traditional knowledge to conserve. We've heard our stories from our hand document this one, but the problem comes with the integration and even accepting by the policymaker by the government. I think that is a great challenge from our end and we want to ensure that this is built, especially now that women and indigenous people, especially indigenous women, create knowledge holders of our conservation model has been running from decades from generation to generation. I know indigenous women has been transferring this knowledge to children, indigenous women has been a face of resilience when it comes to fight for indigenous rights. So that is the few comments I can give for that. Thank you so much. Thanks so much, Christine. Jennifer? Yeah. Well, I think there are some good examples already existing about how governments have partnered with indigenous peoples and even scientists partnering with indigenous peoples in the effort towards conservation. So for example, in Canada, there's government support for indigenous guardians. It's called an indigenous guardians program whereby indigenous peoples who work closely with the land are employed by the government or by the tribe in order to continue monitoring the territory and just patrolling so that they make sure that there are no invaders and so forth. In Australia also, for example, where the legal framework is good, indigenous protected areas are recognized and also the efforts of those that practice cultural burning to prevent wildfires, they're also recognized. So there are many examples actually of indigenous practices and indigenous knowledge being appropriately valued by the government. But yeah, but there's more that needs to be done. These are models. But the good thing is that there is a model of community-based monitoring and information systems, which would be the primary approach for communities in order to monitor the indigenous-related indicators. And the indicators that we've been proposing so far are status and trends in land tenure of indigenous peoples, number of speakers of indigenous languages, the extent of practice of traditional occupations, and the ability of indigenous peoples to participate fully and effectively in planning, implementation, and monitoring of national biodiversity plans. So the framework is there. The good examples are there. We've been trying to promote it and make it visible, the contributions of indigenous peoples through the local biodiversity outlooks, which is a companion publication to the global biodiversity outlook. So I think the bones are there, but we need to support it better, support better indigenous peoples, and just have better recognition of the role of indigenous knowledge in biodiversity conservation, but also in climate change solutions. Thanks, Jennifer. We have quite a lot of questions actually coming through. So I'm going to take three this round, and hopefully there's time to take another at least three more in the next round as well. So what I'm going to ask the panelists is to, I'm going to tell you all three questions, and then you can pick and choose one to answer, or you can also answer all three if you can keep it extremely precise. Please keep it really short. So the first question is this somebody from University of California, Santa Cruz, is asking if any of the speakers can update or critique the current validity of article 169 of the ILO in terms of whether it will be useful to invoke it, to advance the interest of indigenous peoples rights within COP 15. That's the first question. The second question is that a lot of governments are wanting to spend their overseas development assistance on the 30 by 30 target. So what would be your main advice or recommendations or suggestions to them to ensure that this spending actually benefits indigenous peoples? And the third question is around how countries are supposed to develop and update their own national biodiversity strategies and action plans as part of the implementation of the global biodiversity frameworks. How do we make sure that indigenous communities are involved in drafting and developing these action plans? And how can we make that happen? So Alex, if you don't mind me coming to you again first, if you could briefly answer either one or all of it. I can't because I don't have knowledge enough on the first question on ILO articles. So I'll give up on that one. And on the ODA, the assistance and the funds, I think it's a great idea. I think the development assistance at that level is geographically underground enough to respect this diversity of geographies, et cetera, et cetera. So it can be a fantastic instrument. I seriously think governments are right. Let make it happen using some significant ODA funds for and how to make sure that the indigenous communities are respected in that use. Probably while some lobbying at this point of the indigenous communities in with the governments, local governments and national governments, regional governments on that can be productive. I would say that that's that can become a very interesting instrument to apply this. On the third question, it's not related. Again, I would prefer a synergies and access approach on the preparation of these development plans. Again, I'm not inciting for revolutions, but some extreme good lobbying of indigenous communities in this sense will be it can be very, very productive. I should mention again, I think that the long term fight of indigenous communities on human rights, on the climate as a human right, is a good example how lobbying can be instrumental. Here, the lobbying at the local level and regional level can be instrumental in the development assistance of the ODAs and can be instrumental in the national development plans. So yes, the time is now for local communities and indigenous communities to lobby. I think they can be very rewarded by acting now because finally there's an overall agreement on their importance on these topics. This will be my short answer. Great. Thank you. Christine, can I come to you next? Are you able to answer any of those questions or would you be interested in answering them? Yeah, I think I wish to comment on national biodiversity plan and now to ensure that indigenous people are informed. First of all, I think as the Fricka is a continent, we are facing great challenges when it comes to the recognition of indigenous communities. This is because for a number of reasons, you find that indigenous community has to go all the way to utilize some of the international mechanisms for recognition. For example, is what happened in Kenya because of Henorois community, Okia community, and Sengwer community. The only advice that I will leave with indigenous communities is that you need to press, work on your self-determination. You need to respect, comes through recognition and for you to get to be respected. You need to maybe to voice out your issues, talk about these issues. We know that despite the fact that we are custodians of our mother heart, there holds to what this recognition has never been achieved, especially now that we have clear instrument even at international level, talking about restoration and all that. And we know as indigenous people, we are really facing a lot of great challenges. Even now, we are witnessing impacts of climate change that is contributing to biodiversity loss. And we need to maybe be custodian because I've learned about some of the good practices done across the world in terms of recognizing indigenous people as a stewardship custodian. We need to implement this model at African region and we need to maybe see how we can ensure that national biodiversity action plan is domesticated in our country so that we also have our voices taken into consideration at that level. Thank you so much. Thank you. Jennifer, would you be able to talk about that ILO thing at all, or is it just beyond the purview of the expert speakers today? I can answer it. Fortunately, I come from the human rights world. And in fact, the framework itself, it recognizes that the rights of indigenous peoples must be recognized in accordance with international instruments and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So the ILO 169 is valid and it's binding in countries that have ratified ILO 169. Whether the activities are within their territory or carried out outside of their territory. For example, Germany is the latest ratifier of ILO 169. So they need to respect it whether within their countries or when they invest through their ODA in other countries to make sure that indigenous rights don't get violated. And also there is a in paragraph 8 of the Global Biodiversity Framework. It says in this regard, nothing in this framework may be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the rights that indigenous peoples currently have or may acquire in the future. And the rights are contained in ILO 169. So I would say that it's quite relevant. Then on the ODA question, one of the things that the indigenous peoples have been advocating for is direct access of indigenous peoples to finance. And ODA, it's one of the most difficult, second only to the Jeff money, it's one of the most difficult to access by indigenous peoples. However, indigenous peoples have been taking a step establishing indigenous-led funds, funding platforms. And I think one thing that countries with ODA investments need to do is to identify these indigenous-led financing platforms and consider investing. And especially as far as biodiversity conservation is concerned, that's the most efficient way to protect biodiversity because there's no one more invested in protecting nature than indigenous peoples. I'm seeing some of the questions. I don't know if you want me to answer some of the questions in the chat. But that's one that's particularly interesting for me. And it's a suggestion to make a firmer connection between the human rights system and the biodiversity framework. There is currently a special repertoire on environment. But I'm wondering, just because of the egregious human rights violations associated with conservation, if there could be another special repertoire designated to make sure that indigenous rights or rights are not violated in the course of the implementation of conservation through the global biodiversity framework, because the CBD doesn't have a strong accountability mechanism. We have to rely on other mechanisms. That's a great point. And thank you for picking up that question. We have quite a lot more questions, but we're running out of time. Alex, I still want you to actually answer some of the questions as well. And I was wondering whether do you also want to touch on the human rights authority question? But there are also questions around making sure that the national biodiversity plans are not just seen as add-ons, but that they're actually important part of a comprehensive strategy for countries and indigenous peoples. I think the national biodiversity plans need to plug into the overarching national development plans. Because if this opportunity to link the value chain of biodiversity with climate resilience with the socioeconomic development plans, which all together comes, so my recommendation here is definitely to link national biodiversity plans with national development plans. And there's another tactic reason for doing that is that by doing that, they can be picked by the regional plans. Imagine in Africa the strategy is 2063, etc. They can be picked by the regional plans and they can be integrated the overarching funding programs. So that's what I would say. By doing that again, they will be targeting other agendas that not only on biodiversity, let's put the Paris agreement, etc. And then they will be cross sectoral again. And so the human rights of indigenous people will be much better protected in practice if all these plans are integrated and concatenated. That would be my view on that. Great. Thank you so much. Christine, are you there? Could I ask you to answer the final question before we close? Essentially, I'm combining two questions. One is talking about the fact that indigenous women are oftentimes excluded and Alex gave some really good examples of how to make sure that indigenous women are included if you have any tips on any strategies to include indigenous women. And the second question which is directed towards you is whether there is an increasing gap, whether you're seeing any increasing gap in the transfer of indigenous traditional knowledge intergenerationally. And if you are not, are there any strategies again to bring both women and also intergenerational knowledge transfer to be more seamless, better and to improve that in the decision making process? Thank you so much for this question. It is a little bit hard, but I will provide my answers to the best of my understanding. For sure, indigenous women are often left behind when it comes to land ownership and even despite the fact that they are the Majesty users of the land with their children. And you know, because of climate change, there has been an increasing workload attack to these women. And most of this workload has even derived them the rights towards owning this land. And what I can advise is that there should be a concerted effort, especially towards ensuring that women are also part and parcel of land rights travel. Because you include women, you know, you are bringing in the largest population that often left behind because in all this at the global level, women carries the largest number of population and again applies to us women from indigenous community. So our program should ensure that it is very sensitive and it has transformative agenda in the sense that it tries to call into the roots, you know, establish the root cause. And I know most of our roles as indigenous women, most of the reason why we experience these barriers is because of the gender roles that is assigned to us that most often ignored. And I want to really encourage that maybe they should get into capacity building programs. And most of these programs are towards ensuring that they have like advocacy, they are involved in advocacy. And especially the intergenerational, the young women should be involved in this one because they are people that are used to the technology, they can amplify young women also women also should be seen into a network that can be so that they can build their voice, you know, they build their capacities. And you know, the key problem is that when it comes to capacity of engagement, these women seem to have not understood what exactly should they be bringing on board. So we should build the capacity of these women so that they can engage in the process. And in the process, of course, we should run activities that are gender sensitive, you know, it should not be gender blind. All programs taking place in indigenous communities, especially those towards land registration, I've seen so many land registration process, including even leadership over a community land management committee, you find that you only have one woman or two women just because of to comply with gender quota. But in the real sense, these women don't occupy any leadership, and most of them, they don't project their voices, we should encourage women also to take part to lead in the process of land registration. So yeah, that is all I can share. No, that's great, Christine. Thank you very much with your, you know, I think your experience is extremely useful to all the participants and all of us here. We unfortunately, we have run out of time, we still have so many questions. So I apologize for not being able to take all of them. But I'm hoping that, you know, this is just the beginning of the discussion. Looking back at COP 15, as you know, the outcomes continue as the indicators, you know, become more and more defined, and the programs continue, you know, hopefully this is a conversation that will continue. And thank you very much to all of you for attending and staying with us, even though we've overran by a few minutes. And thank you also so much to our speakers, our expert panellists. Can we give them a virtual round of applause, please? And thank you to our hosts, the Ford Foundation, the Land Portal Foundation, the Tenure Facility, and the Thompson-Rajas Foundation. It's been a real pleasure for me to moderate this event. Thanks again to Alex, Jennifer, and Christine. Have a great day, have a great afternoon, evening, or night. Goodbye. Thank you.