 Thank you very much, Nova, and thank you to all the organizers for inviting me and for making this possible. So I'd like to say a few words to introduce the overall flow, and also as we do that, that would be a good time for some housekeeping. Earlier today, I introduced the informed consent for the filming. I'd now like to hand out some Flickr devices, and I'll explain how they work in a minute. So I'll invite my colleague, Jules, to pass over. You'll each get one. Please remember to give them back at the end of the day. Hillary will be very upset if I don't come back with them. And as she does so, she will pick up the informed consent form from you. Okay, so hand it over as she hands it over to you. It's another piece of introduction. I'll be presenting these materials to you today, but these are not materials that I alone developed. I'm standing here on the shoulders of giants, so to speak. So that's why you will see on the cover slide of each module, many logos scattered there. So I'd like to now, as we start today, to take a brief moment to acknowledge that. So you'll see, of course, the CERCA logo right next to the description of the workshop that we have here. But you'll also see a range of logos on the bottom. So from left to right, there's the logo of the CGIR, which is the network that Hillary is a part of. Hillary is one of 15 research centers that together form the CGIR network. You'll also see a CGIR research program on human tropics. So the CRP on human tropics funded a lot of this work and also is applying this systematically throughout three continents. So here in Asia, across Sub-Saharan Africa, and in Central America and the Caribbean. So we'll have some examples from those regions. Then, of course, my parent institute, Hillary, the International Livestock Research Institute, based in Nairobi, Kenya, where I'm based. So Hillary has been working on innovation systems and innovation platforms within that for many years now. So what I'll be sharing with you today is really just the tip of the iceberg in terms of Hillary materials. All of our materials are freely available to you at any time. So we have an open access policy, which means everything we publish, everything we say, everything we do. Makes it onto our open access repository and can be used by anyone for any means under a Creative Commons license. So if you see anything, then references, you can always see me, but you can also just go to Hillary's website and find everything there. Next is our sister organization from the CGIR, IITA, the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture. And next to it, Wageningen University. So IITA and Wageningen have been partnering with us on much of this work, and you'll see many references to their work as we go through the day. In fact, you've already seen some references to the work in Bernie's presentation, and I'll come back to that later. Next is the FARA. FARA is the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa. So it's an umbrella organization coordinating a lot of the research throughout the continent. And lastly, I always wonder what that is, but that's the Royal Tropical Institute logo. So KIT, the Royal Tropical Institute based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. So the materials are drawn up from all of these organizations, and a lot of the insights that you will get come from them. If there are misrepresentations, they are entirely mine. So that's the way this sharing works. Now I also want to recognize a few individuals, because it's always nice to recognize the organizations, but organizations are composed of individuals after all. First and foremost, I'd like to recognize Marc Schutt from IITA and Wageningen University, who co-designed the initial workshop that led to much of this work together with me that we ran back in 2014. I'd also like to recognize my colleague Deborah Weibern from ILRI, who's really taken the lead on most of the work that you see here. And if you'll go on and use these materials later and use the online course that comes with it, this is very much her creation. So all the credit goes there. She's been assisted with Solomon Schimelis and Ilri Fellow working on some of these materials. And there are many others who I won't bore you with at this stage, but this is the work of many people. Okay, so does everyone now have a clicker in their hand? Great. By show of hands, how many have used these clickers before? Okay, great. So what do you think these clickers are for? For queries, responses. Yes, absolutely. So you've guessed it absolutely correctly. And the idea is that throughout the day, at various points, I will ask you questions. Now, normally in a room full of people, when you ask a question, the first thing that happens is nothing. Everyone is very silent. But then as we get comfortable and we get to know each other a little bit better, there may be two or three people who always have something to say. And there'll be another five people who never want to voice their opinion. I find that not a good enough representation of the room. So this is a way where you can anonymously and instantly give me feedback. So I can see whether the concepts are going across well or not. Yes, but also, so I have preferred some, there are some questions scattered throughout, but also we can at any given point say, any one of you can raise and say, can we do a poll on this? We'll just quickly type it in and we can vote on that. So it makes the experience more participatory. So shall we give it a try? So the first couple of questions you didn't need to do any background studying for. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to answer them, especially since there's no right or wrong answer. For instance, who's in the room? So please pick the category that best describes your primary affiliation. Now many of you would say, well, I'm a government person, but I also do research. I come from an NGO, but I also do extension. So whatever you feel is your best description. From government extension, press A or one. You come from NGOs or civil society, press two. Research press three or C. And if none of the above private sector or something else, you can press D for other. Okay, simple enough, right? So I can see, and you can also see, let's see if this works. You see here, I can actually see the number of responses clicking in. So I can see that we're now up to 10, but that's not enough. We should have more. So we have 21 so far. Pick the one that you feel the most affiliated with. Now the way these clickers work, if you clicked on something and you want to change your mind, you can. It will remember the last thing you clicked. So if anyone had a change of heart, they can quickly change it as well. Okay, so we see that we have a majority of the rooms, about two thirds of the room, identifies as government or extension people. We also see that we have about a quarter of the room, slightly over a quarter of the room, primarily identifying as researchers. We have 9% of others. Completely optional, but would someone of the others like to define how they define themselves? Okay. And interesting, nobody here in the room identifies primarily as an NGO or civil society. So that's interesting for us to also keep in mind in our discussions that we have certain representation in the room. So we see the world through a certain lens. So let's remember in particular that there's a certain lens here that we don't have with us in the room today. And let's try to be cognizant of that. So a similar exercise, again, who's in the room? I'd like you to describe what you feel is your exposure to innovation platforms. Is it something that you've never heard of, in which case you click A? Something that you've heard of, but you're not really, really sure what they are or how they function. Is it something you've worked with before and you feel you have a basic understanding? Or is it something that you've used extensively and you feel you have a strong grasp of the topic? Sponsors are coming in. We've got about 16. Now 20, 23. Okay. So it's an interesting, but perhaps not surprising, given the target audience. So an interesting mix. So we have very few of the extremities. There's a few people who feel they've never been exposed to it. That will be completely new. But for most of you, you either have some exposure or you've heard of it. You'd like to know more and so on. So great. So hopefully if I poll you on this question again by the end of tomorrow, we'll get a very different set of answers. Comfortable with the concept of polling? Great. The other reason I love clickers is because I'm an economist by training. And so I firmly believe that people respond to incentives. So I've now given you an incentive to pay close attention. Why? Because you know that you will be tested on what is being fed throughout the day. So this is not an exercise where you can sleep through a nod and get through. So in that case, let us begin our journey. So in terms of the core objectives of this particular module, module one, we want to identify and examine some of the major features and characteristics of complex agricultural problems and explore innovative solutions to those. And also look a little bit under the circumstances where innovations emerge. Now I'm very fortunate to have had Bernie come up with the presentation before me because many concepts here he touched upon. So I don't need to go as much in depth. You'll actually see some identical slides and I promise you we did not precoordinate. So you're getting some triangulation here. First, let's look at complex problems in agriculture. Agriculture is a really integral for both the physical and the economic survival of every human being. We don't eat without agriculture. And agricultural problems are also very cross-cutting. They're multi-dimensional and multi-level and they involve many actors. And therefore the causes of the actual problems are also very complex. So it's a huge problem of complexity that we're dealing with. Agricultural needs to be sustainable. How many times have you heard that? Agriculture and sustainability said together in the same breath. All the time I'm sure. If we want to feed a growing planet, you may hear how many mouths we'll need to feed by the year 2030, 2050 and so on and so forth. So meeting the demands of a rapidly growing world remains a big challenge. In contemporary agriculture it's not just a production. We also have to deal with the environmental issues, the ecosystems, biodiversity. We also have to look at the negative externalities of using toxic chemicals, etc. But agriculture remains on the healthy functioning ecosystem. So we have a lot of positive and negative externalities that we need to manage and this obviously contributes to the complexity of the issue we're trying to address here. We have a few disconnects that affect this issue very much. And I'll touch briefly on three of these in this first module. First is the disconnect between agriculture and the environment. The second is the disconnect between producer and consumers. And the third is the disconnect between policies and expectations. So on the first one, the human activities associated with agriculture have really made a big impact and not always a positive one on the environment. Whether it's water, nitrogen cycles, climate change. They're all major issues that human activity that's associated with agriculture is playing a very big role in. And where if we're really looking at sustainability, we have to think about ways to address. The other thing is that if we look at farming methods, they've really degraded the quality of the soils. So that, for instance, through massive fertilizer use in order to get the yields. So that's one example of such a disconnect. And of course, when I say it like that, it can look very simple, but as the simple graph, well, relatively simple graph illustrates, you actually have many causes for this. So you have climate extremes and you have natural hazards, and then this can lead to natural disasters. Of course, what we're primarily interested in in these cases is the quality of life. So all of these factors are interdependent and that's part of the complexity of the issue. So the challenge, what we want to achieve is easier said than done. A sustainable agriculture in a changing climate. But as all of you know, if you're involved in policy setting or in implementing agricultural policies, that's really easier said than done. The second disconnect that I want to highlight is the disconnect between producers and consumers. So low prices that customers are willing to pay for, especially in food, is being compounded by a crisis of trust, by a crisis of trust in the quality of the foods, food safety issues and so on. Then we have a range of food scares, whether it's mad cow or bird flu or things of that nature, which suddenly scare us from eating a certain type of food where a certain value chain is completely avoided. And a general sense that the supermarket foods or generally the cheap foods that we find are not of good nutritional value, which is not a wrong assumption to have by the way. So we're having a system where both sides are actually discontent. We have a disequilibrium. We also have a disconnect between policies and expectations. So Bernie showed us a range of policies. So every Asian country had its policy, whether it comes from this ministry or that ministry, whether it's anchored on a five-year plan or a 30-year plan, but everyone had one. There wasn't a country that said, okay, we don't need a policy for that. But this valuation is rarely translated into policy to support the family farms that are central to agricultural community. So I promised you that I'll be checking if you're awake. So here's a first clicker exercise. What makes agricultural problems so complex? Is it A, that technologies used in agriculture are more sophisticated than ever before? Is it B, that problems tend to be multi-dimensional, multi-level and involve multiple actors? Is it C, that most problems are linked with climate change, which has brought about complex changes in agricultural ecosystems? Or is it D, that each problem requires multidisciplinary research to discover a solution? We have about 14 replies. 20 replies. The last fan-sitters. Yes, so the majority of the room got it correctly. So its problems tend to be multi-dimensional, multi-level and involve multiple actors. That is the heart and soul of the complexity in agricultural innovation systems. Let's try it again. Which one of these situations do not represent a disconnect in the agricultural production phase? So I'm asking which one does not? Is it A, the graded source requiring higher level of fertilizer inputs? Is it B, a distrust between consumers and producers? Is it C, a strong cultural roots in a country's agricultural heritage? Or is it D, saline intrusion and beech erosion resulting from unprecedented frequencies of storm surges? Which is not a disconnect? Okay, so we have a more interesting answer here. In this case the correct answer would be C. Would someone who answered C like to say why they answered C? So strong cultural roots in your agricultural heritage is not a disconnect per se. It can be something very positive. This particular crop is grown here throughout the years. That's part of our cultural heritage. That's not a disconnect per se. All the others are examples of what happens when you have a disconnect. Okay, and one more. When we say that complex agricultural problems are multi-dimensional, what do we mean? Do we mean that they require input at national, regional, local and sometimes at global level? B, that they demand involvement of multiple actors to achieve resolution? C, that they involve a range of agricultural products? Or D, that they are an interplay of biophysical, technical, sociocultural, economic and political factors? Very interesting. So the answer here was B, but D can also be taken as a multi-dimensional answer. Okay, let's continue on. But I think the stage has been set in terms of attentiveness requirements, right? Okay. So when we look at the complexity of agricultural problems, we want to make sure that the solutions that we come up with will meet all of the dimensions that we talked about, the levels and the stakeholder needs and the entrances, which often need to be addressed separately before we bring them together. And there are multiple factors behind complexity. Let me briefly touch on four. One is that they are at the interplay of biophysical, technical, sociocultural, economic, institutional and political factors. Two is that they have very different implications across different levels. So some might be at a global level, at a national level, and some might be at a local or subnational level. They are further characterized by the involvement of multiple actors and stakeholders. And finally, the development of the problem and the efficiency and effectiveness of the solutions is uncertain and often unpredictable. So we work under a lot of uncertainty with a lot of actors at various levels who come from different angles. And all of these factors coming together are the perfect storm that drives this complexity. So one of the classic examples that we take to illustrate this complexity is climate change and food security, or the effects of climate change on food security. By a show of hands, how many people have not heard climate change and food security mentioned together in some context in the last five years? Right. So we look at rainfall patterns. We look at solutions that look at drought resistance varieties. We can look at a cropping calendar or we can look at reduced yields and incomes and their effects. We can go into global agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol or Carbon Credits. We can get into very long debates on who is responsible and who should pay, who's the polluter. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the problem itself. So we need to find solutions that address all of these factors. They're also quite complex. For the sake of time, I won't go into all of the examples that are mentioned here. You'll have them, but they're just giving you many examples of how these multi-level interactions requires an interaction across all of these levels. And we have classic examples like the intergovernmental panel on climate change going down all the way to, and then you have a regional one like the SADEC climate change. SADEC is the South African community. Then it can be at a national level such as Kenya, the Kenya National Climate Change Response Strategy. And then it can be at a farmer level. So mitigation and adaptation strategies. For example, here in this photo, rainwater harvesting. So across all of this, we see the two layered arrows. And that's very important to bear in mind. It's not a one-way stream. So information and sometimes resources flow bottom up as well. So multi-stakeholder platforms or partnerships, they don't only bring key stakeholders together to discuss policy issues, but they also foster the sharing of skills and innovation. They promote inclusivity and equity. Promote grassroots mobilization and participation. And they help us develop trust amongst the groups who can be sometimes very suspicious and sometimes even hostile towards each other. So in a typical multi-stakeholder partnership, we can find policymakers, civil society, development actors, donors, farmers, the private sector, consultants, researchers. None of these stakeholder groups can solve the complex problem on their own. That's usually why we call them sort of wicked problems, because you can't just get together in a small group of one category of these and solve the problem. I mentioned just a couple of minutes ago that the efficiency of solutions is uncertain and unpredictable. So the development of the problem over time cannot be foreseen. We can't always know in advance how quickly things will unfold. The type of solutions and some of the external negativity, negative externalities or undesired impacts and how they will work out. We also don't know how the stakeholder interactions will work out. Just because you get people into a room together doesn't mean you're going to have a great outcome come out of it. It also depends a lot on what stage of your policy process or policy formulation you're in. As most of this room comes from a government policy background, you know that very well. So if you're at a stage where the top political authority, prime minister or the president or the minister of your ministry is absolutely keen on getting something done, it's a very different type of engagement intensity than if it's something that you're exploring for maybe in the future. In terms of climate change and food security going back to that, the big questions that we have is how will climate change develop over time and what type of climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies will be most effective and will different type of stakeholders continue to work together. So these are simple, easy questions, right? So how will climate change evolve over time? There's an increase in greenhouse gases and then there's a corresponding increase in temperature. Absolutely. So how will it increase over time? Are we heading to a 2-degree warmer world or a 4-degree warmer world or 1.5? Will the world get colder? Who has the answer? Can you tell me exactly how many hectares will be deforested in the next 12 months? Not so sure about that. These are impossible questions to answer. Impossible. Forgive me for asking you impossible questions. The issue here is that if we had answers to these, the problems wouldn't be so complex. We can take our best modelers and our best scientists and make all the assumptions in the world but then something that we haven't factored will completely overturn this upside down. It can be a natural disaster. It can be a political change. It can be a man-made or a person-made disaster. So all of these things can derail. We can suddenly have a key stakeholder pull out. Imagine the private sector decides tomorrow that climate change isn't really happening. And so on and so forth. So these are hugely complex issues that we simply don't know how it will affect. So what's the solution? Do we do nothing? Does somebody have a policy paper from their own government that says our strategy is to do nothing? You laugh and it seems an irrational thing to do but when we look at the results of some of the policies over the years that might actually would have been a good strategy in some of the cases. We'll just do nothing and wait and see. And so the typical solution that we hear is, OK, so then we need innovation. Innovation will solve the problem. We'll have to unpack that a bit more to see whether innovation is always the answer and what is innovation. But basically we see a lot of solution strategies with attention to an integrated analysis across various dimensions. Or we see solutions that advocate for interaction across the multiple levels. Or we will often hear and say time and again that it's very important to get different stakeholders group paying attention to gender and age and ethnic groups and so on and so forth. And finally you'll hear, you've heard already in the morning, the capacity to innovate and the flexibility and adaptive capacity so that we can respond to whatever life throws at us because we can't be sure what we're going to deal with like we just saw with these few simple questions. So before we move on, what do you think about that? What do you think about the main premise that Stephen puts forward that it's the connectedness, the increase in connectivity that's going to increase the rate? Does that resonate with you? Do you agree? Do you disagree? I'd love to hear someone who agrees and someone who disagrees if we have them. There's no right or wrong answer here. Does somebody agree? Is there a microphone on your table? I agree that all of us are interconnected and there are platforms where we can interchange or exchange ideas but it's also a reality that, for example, Facebook gives us so many distractions while we are at it, right? So I'm thinking of linking this idea of connectedness to a certain KM tool that we were introduced recently called community sub-practice, online community sub-practice. Okay, thank you very much for that. Do we have someone who feels maybe not the opposite but is leaning towards the other side that too much connectivity is actually hampering innovation, not fostering it? You should have had a clicker exercise on this, right? Yes, but the fact that we don't have any is actually pretty consistent when I talk with people from many walks of life, the general sense that I get from groups is that, yeah, no, more interactions, more connectivity, it does help us innovate, it does help us come up with new ways of doing things. And so that's maybe a take home for us to take with us. So spaces for creativity is one big part of what is advocated for as good prerequisites for innovations to emerge. Bringing different people to mingle, and the different people is important. Maybe the fact that we don't have any NGO representatives here today is going to hamper our innovation strategies. And when you go back to the ministries, you're going to say, ah, there's a gap here, I have a blind spot, because I didn't have someone from the civil society close to the ground come and share their reality. He talked a lot about finding the missing piece, because often, you know, we have many pieces of the puzzle already. We're not starting from scratch. We have, in many cases, dozens of years of experience to build on, but sometimes it's just that this one thing that comes and suddenly becomes a game changer. And these processes take time. That's often something that we talked about three disconnects. A fourth disconnect would be donor funding cycles, government funding cycles, and the natural time for innovations. So often these things can take 10, 15 years for a real breakthrough to happen, but funded through, you know, three-year cycles, sometimes with stops in between and so on. So these are things to bear in mind on the emergence of innovations. So I'd like to invite you to participate in a role play if you agree. I will take the silence as tacit agreement. So central in our role play is a big forest. We talked about deforestation a few minutes ago. So here's an example. It's a huge forest that is located in between two expanding cities. For lack of a better world, we'll call one Addis and the other Ababa. And they're part of a region that we'll call the Highlands region. Several are from small farming communities who are living in and around the forest. For their livelihood strategy, they rely on small agricultural activities and from gathering natural resources provided by the forest. For example, firewood. As the cities are expanding and land is becoming more scarce, there is a debate about whether to keep the forest as it is and if not, what are the cost and benefits of different scenarios. So let me give you a few scenarios. One of the options would be to keep the forest like it is. No change to the current situation. There is unique fauna and fora in this area. The forest connects two other natural reserves and people from both cities come there to relax, to walk and do sports. Another option would be to cut down the forest and develop houses and industry so that the two cities will become one mega city. Another option is to cut down the forest but instead use it for agricultural purposes and that can supply the region with food. A fourth one is to do the same but use it not for food but for rubber or coffee production which can create much needed cash. For example, biofuels and so on. Maybe you already have a preference. It's possible that based on the information I gave you already have a preference. Quite possible. That's often how it works in practice. When you go into a meeting you don't go as a blank slate. You bring your experience and your biases and your predispositions with you. That's always the case. Such debates often end up on a negotiating table. We'll have people who represent the various stakeholders group. Any such group can bring together a multi-stakeholder process. We'll bring everyone around the table and we'll have a seat. This will be our multi-stakeholder platform and we'll discuss these options. What often happens is that this group comes up with suggestions. We'll have the advocates of the various groups and we'll start discussing. It can also come to a conflict. You have that option available to you today. If you want to storm out of the room you are free to do so. Sometimes people will change their minds and alliances will be created. Feel free to create alliances. And sometimes solutions are arrived at. Only time will tell if the solution is a good one or not. So here's the role division and I'd like you to if possible try to be in groups of five so if you can merge into groups of five that would be good and there will be different roles. You can be the government representative in this case the mayor. You can be a private sector representative. You can be a farmer representative. You can be a nature conservatist representative or you can be a platform facilitator and I'll hand out sheets that give you a little bit of a briefing about each of the roles and what you feel and think is that role. So the starting point is that this is your first platform meeting. Your objective is to discuss the future of the forest amongst all the stakeholders. If you pick the role of the facilitator you're supposed to lead the meeting and facilitate it as the name suggests. In some groups not all roles will be represented. In other groups there may be more than farmer represented. It's okay if you end in such groups. Feel free to create them. We will have two platform meetings of ten minutes. So far is everything clear. Are you ready to split into the groups and have your first meeting on the topic? So as you do that I'll walk around the tables and I'll hand you over a short one page handout that gives a bit of context and then another handout that gives the different roles. So you can already pick your roles, think about which role you want to be and I'll come over and then the facilitator should lead you through the process. You'll have ten minutes and then we'll convene back in the plenary before we go into round two. You can pick your role first and then read a bit more about it. Here's a description of the roles. Once you pick a role you can just take that page and give the others to others. So this is a description of the roles for somebody else. I'll invite you to start talking soon because we only have six minutes left. Can I have everyone's attention back? The meeting room has been flooded and you have to walk outside immediately. You cannot continue with the meeting. It's great to see the passion of the minister convene the meeting and we can no longer continue our side group. Okay. Okay, let's try to be all together for a minute. I'll just go around now very, very quickly and ask for the emerging dynamics and decisions from the different groups. I know you are under unreasonable time pressure and you didn't have time to do all the roles and everything. That's okay. We would like to get just a general sense of where we are. So the table that's speaking will get to speak first. Please go ahead. What is your overall feedback for us, dear facilitator? We look at how our role is, no? Okay, given the four, one, two, three, four, five, three, four, four roles. And then upon our assessment of each of our individual roles, the mayor stood up and he said he's willing to consult with the stakeholders and that the stakeholders agree with the suggestion of the mayor and that the suggestion, it came out that the decision is a win-win solution that everybody could benefit in terms of the forest could be part of the forest that is good for plantation, could be devoted some of it, some would be for agriculture. But there has to be an analysis related to how the urban, how land would be converted into urban area. So you have, you're leaning towards, so we had four options, remember, right? We could, number one, leave the forest alone. We could, number two, convert it into housing and industry. We could, number three, use it for agriculture for producing food or we could use it for agriculture for producing money. Cash crops or biofuels. So you're leaning towards partially number three, if I understand correctly. Agricultural use. Yes. And is it agricultural use for producing food that would be consumed in the community or sold for money? Okay, so you're partially towards number three. Thank you very much. Group one, group two. Utilize the forest with the source of income with fruit tree. But the conservationist, she insisted to preserve the forest as a jungle, as a jungle, so that the flora, the fauna will be preserved there. But as a benefit for the farmers, for the community nearby the forest, the forest will attract the tourists, so it can be an ecotourism that develops there. And fortunately, the private sector, the private sector. Sir, please, can we all be together? When the colleagues are speaking, can we all be together, please? The private sector, the businesswoman here eager and willing happily to finance how the ecotourism system running well. So the mayor happy with that because in his opinion the forest must be projective, but he also insisted that the forest not to be destroyed. Dear facilitator, what is the convergence of your group? Yes. Have you reached any decision? Yes. Which option have you chosen? So we have a forest that built as an ecotourism. Okay, so you're going for mostly option number one, leaving the forest as it is and creating an ecotourism system around it. Thank you very much. Group number three. For group number three, the strategy that we follow is first considering the different roles we have we ask its group or its stakeholders to explain their reasons why. What is their position? What is their objective? I'm going to jump start the process and say what decision you arrived at. Yeah, okay. And then after that, on the part of the platform facilitator, I offered them that this is, you know, when we talk of agricultural, sustainable agriculture, we need the participation of everybody. Nobody can play that role of developing a sustainable agriculture. And therefore when I asked them to play the role, vis-à-vis the concept of, you know, agritourism or green developing of a green city. Of course, within the green city, there is something as agritourism. When we talk about agritourism, it involves so many services, food production, services, manufacturing and so on and so forth. So we agreed that we maintain the forest. We will develop that to become a green city. And the way you are so happy because everybody is satisfied. He will come up with a policy. So you also opted or you're leaning towards option one, maintaining the forest as it is and developing an ecotourism activity around it. That's correct. Okay, thank you very much, group three. Group four, please. This is actually what had transpired with the bidding. So after the meeting, we opted to convert, not to convert but to develop and utilize the forest area into an agroecotourism site and then promoting organic agriculture and maintaining the fauna in flora. So utilizing only the periphery for agriculture but maintaining the forest as it is. So of course these are, the meeting was represented by different stakeholders. So from the government agencies, from the private agencies and then the nature conservationists and of course the mayor. Thank you very much. So we have here an interesting mix. We said that there's problem with deforestation. If you were the policy makers and actors involved in the world, we wouldn't have such a problem because the four groups are primarily concerned with maintaining the forest so far, yes? I'd like you to think if you're some of the other stakeholders, think hard whether you would accept it as easily, you know, to give away more housing when people don't have places to live or to give away on an industry that can bring in so much money but it needs the space or producing more food when people don't have enough to give away more agriculture or producing cash crops, yeah? So all of these are real competitors but for now we have, this is the situation. Now between your first and second meeting something happened. So a scientific research report has been published by ICRAF. ICRAF is the World Agroforestry Organization. ICRAF reports includes a cost-benefit analysis that sustainable rubber production is most beneficial for the region, yeah? Where would sustainable rubber production fit? Option one, two, three, or four, okay? Are you going to consume the rubber? Are you going to eat the rubber? No, you will sell it. So that would be option four. So you're doing agriculture in order to get funds, yeah? So a scientific report by a world leading scientific organization in the field comes up, has been made available to you and says option four, if done sustainably could be the most beneficial for the region. A month goes by and your group meets again to discuss. Please take the next 10 minutes and discuss again with this additional information that's available to you. Please try to be as real as possible, yeah? As someone who works for a research organization I know how seriously or not they are taken by policymakers at all of their meetings, yes? So please be realistic. So your second meeting starts now. Well, we agreed that we will respect the recommendation of ICRAF because rubber is a high value crop giving high income to planters of the farmers. But we also agreed that we have to maintain part of the forest as part of the watershed and that would provide a very good ecosystem. And therefore we agreed that we are going to pursue an agroforestry system wherein we can still produce food integrated with the rubber because we have to secure food of people especially the small holders. So we have to secure food. We have to increase income and again the mayor is very much happy to hear that. Very good. Thank you very much. Yes, please. Our previous group number one. Okay. So this group has been analyzed in the situation for rural land use planning and when they analyze facilitated the group's discussion all of them, each one of them cited that rubber plantation production is not really beneficial to their own country. Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia and the Philippines. It's not really beneficial so that they have their knowledge about it as not really will not be benefiting the farmers because firstly their choice is about or their decision is for producing agricultural products. And so the stakeholders will stick to their own plan still the plan, original plan. Wonderful. Thank you very much. So we agree with the aircraft report about sustainable rubber production and also co-incentively turn out that the ecotourism doesn't attract as many tourists as we expect before. So the community lack of gas. So we agree to do the sustainable rubber production but then the conservationists make the government to give a policy that only limited part of the forest that will change to the rubber tree, rubber plantation. And the conservationists also propose a system that not the plantation not in one place but rather than such as intercropping. So the rubber plantation, the rubber community get the gas from the rubber that will export it by the private sector and also government will support with some finance to make sure that it is ecologically safe. Thank you very much. And our final group? Since the rubber production has already cost-benefit analysis and the finding is already sustainable and the most beneficial for the region I think the consolidated action of the group would be to go for rubber production but of course we will not be compromising the total area for our production we have to devote at least an area also for the use of activities of the farmers to preserve also the area to maintain the fauna and the flora and then of course the asa what we had agreed a while ago for the first session so we have the agro to use in the site and the maintenance of the organic agriculture. Thank you very much. Okay, so on behalf of ICRAF I'd like to thank all the groups for taking its report so seriously as someone who works for a CG center I can assure you that that's normally how it works we don't just issue a report and policy makers and civil society and the private sector just rush over to implement it instantly it's important to also think about these things critically it's nice to have these fun and games and the process, the discussions are very valuable but we need to be true to ourselves and remain very critical what if I were to tell you that the richest family in the area who are very connected to the mayor they want to develop housing estates there does that change what your groups might have thought? these are all kinds of things that we take into account we spent the morning discussion how these things are very complex they're also very unpredictable we cannot forget stakeholder groups in group 2 for example the nature conservative got a very strong say they would also love to be in that position normally like ICRAF, they're also very grateful these are the sort of things we need to be very critical about when we think of these another thing is, there's no doubt and I think group 2 said it as well on the assumption that the ICRAF report is valid so we'd like to believe that it's valid but do you know the expression when all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail? so if your entire career is researching rubber what are you going to write your report about? rubber and what is the cost benefit going to say? rubber is good it's not that the report isn't valid but it's that there could be other trade-offs so we always have to look at triangulation and all of these things and remain very critical when we enter these discussions but what is important and it was nice to see it across all groups all groups actually were open to change their views based on new information that's fantastic that's the best case scenario but we have to remember that in real life many people will not change their mind sometimes there's also another saying if your job depends on you not understanding something the best explanations in the world will not work so we always have to remember that there may be other interests that don't want to hear it and how do we engage in those difficult conversations the conversations that I heard at least were very civil we didn't have any one person aiming to dictate to others and so on but in reality we can't find a very strong stakeholder group that will not budge any change to the current situation would mean I lose whatever it is money, power, influence and so on so I will not budge, whatever you tell me whatever the ICRAF report says so we have to always remember these dynamics okay I am running very much behind time and I'm conscious that we need to break for lunch now so what I will do is I will just very briefly show some of the other slides but I will not cover them the reason I want to show them to you is because you will recognize many of the concepts and frameworks that Bernie had presented earlier yeah and looking at that from technology transfer to food safety and to AKIS to AIS so you have triangulation here that these sources are working and some of the barriers so all of these concepts will be available to you in the PowerPoints they will be sent to you each day at the end so you can go over them, you can look at the list of sources and if there are any questions you can also see me but in the interest of time I won't cover them now so that we can break for lunch so can I hand it back over to you for thank you very much