 Okay, I'm happy that the audience today is going to come up with a workshop on the presentation today. And we've changed it, and I'm in the introduction, and there are four speakers who have introduced their subjects. And the first one to say I'm in the introduction on what we're going to do, that there is, we are recorded right now, and here, Nick is our technical person who is doing technical things that allow us to be on YouTube. That means how do you don't apply everything that you say will be used against you. I don't know if you can join us here, and that's what's going to be our case. But let's be introduced to the subject for this afternoon. And the line of governance will be stakeholder dialogue. Everybody knows the regulatory guidelines, and the regulatory guidelines for the companies through the process of stakeholder dialogue. That means that the whole framework is basically involved in developing the regulatory guidelines. And the best document that's interested to give is to follow the path of new stakeholder and try to open the dialogue on what I think it is, as it does proceed in the form of a guideline, to set up a new stakeholder dialogue in the matter. And this happens, and one of the outcomes is that we want to focus on the study of their concentration in places that might be kept. This is one of these outcomes, and so this project is commissioned by the judge of the executive committee, or the judge's line of governance through the stakeholder dialogue. That was carried out by the consortium and the management of the group. The authors of this individual document and the introduction that's made available in the talk to all of you, the authors of this individual document may maybe come with an enterprise for two fights and some other reasons. And we think that the best legal method is involved to me, because I contributed also to the development, the writing of this document, and we also receive some kind of degree from other experts in the field. About two fights. Two fights are the social enterprise that aims to contribute to the creation of a economy that creates values for all, and they do so by helping organizations to identify values that could contribute to the writing. This organization tries to develop tools by which it can actually calculate what a product costs in reality, taking into account also the environmental costs for instance. Taking into account that people that work to produce products could have a decent price. And that's a method that I think we need to go by, because they are actually helping companies to more or less get more and more with the value. And we're thinking about what we're going to talk about, and we are also going to hear. I don't think that I have to explain this network. It's already done three times for the fifth in how you can go, and then you take, and this one is the fourth time, and not the last time I've done it. And it is all based on the regulatory guidelines that I've introduced. The one time in the first of the regulatory guidelines, we had a framework for that, which is the outcome of the new state of the process mentioned before. There are some positions that are necessary, and it should be fair as well. Okay. What are the guidelines? Because we love to find what constitutes their presentation, and we want to instill that gap with developing the protocol on their presentation. That is essentially our goal as a long-term goal project. Developing the protocol through the new state of the process, the requirements, the care, and vital opportunities for changes in the last second. This is easier written than actually done, because the goal is to develop the protocol that we need to involve lots of opportunities and lots of experts, and we need to build life. That means that we need to prepare a period of time, and the first step is producing this input structure that is distributed to others. But we need to develop the research and narrowing inputs from all the experts all around the world, and then on the levels, and then draw and revise the document that I'm trying to design for all, and we are actually now in the last phase. The writing was done, as seen before, by many by people from the good tribes. If you look at this slide, you can see that we just are alive at the end of the first phase, and the beginning of the second phase are in perfect. We will take this, we establish this protocol, the next phase will be to do the groundwork of the protocol, then the shaping of the protocol, and then finally the operationalization of the protocol testing, and what's very important for the development of the paper. And then the protocol will be there. But we have to decide when we will go up, the documents will decide on this question. They will decide on all the outcomes of this conflict and also the outcomes you will see on the documents. So that's why now we have to work on the impact. This issue will probably be taken next year in January and February, and then it might be that we get a really high supply of documents. But it's going to be possible that, of course, we will have more people in the organization, and this will also need some funding. But the goals of the protocol, yes, establishing a limit on the requirements of staff, setting out good practice, and then some legal change along the way. So since that's what we're talking about, there's a bottom-in-the-line impact. Accept the past impact and official guidelines. Usability of practice. So if we do this, if we do the goals, we will be very happy to share from the base to the base. And supply is an important priority with existing guidance and regulations. That's what we're talking about. Now, scope in the protocol. It's asking you to give us input on this document so that we are able to find the scope. How to share from this view. Everybody knows that again, we talk about the purpose and the scope. The basis of the general purpose and on the basis of the new purpose, we can conclude that there is a just-by-example of the action that we want people to need to be compensated in the fair ways. But the action is necessary. The total guidelines say that we share. There is no freedom to share from this basis. This uncertainty might also cause harm to families of compensations and not only a matter of valuation but size of compensation. We've had some distractions in the presentation process already in the process. Let's see if we can identify the problems. What are the problems with how compensation is fair to the family and the lizard? The same thing. What type of bar times do you like to see later to determine and delivering fair compensation? Look at the problems and the solutions. The characteristics of the problems we encounter in the process. A lack of satisfactory legislation and guidelines are there. They need to recognize existing legislations and guidelines. There are legislations that are not required in the process. And I think we mentioned that the first rule of progress are that there are the prerequisites of fair compensation. Meaning a genuine public purpose and good cause. But it's not at the center of the action process. But we were advised by a lot of organizations that this is important. That fair compensation is not used as an excuse for an association. That there should be always a genuine public purpose and that there should be always a good cause. So I think it's important to emphasize that this has been one major point of discussion when it comes to this introduction. Then there's the second rule of progress. Who to compensate? First of all, it should be compensated. But first of all, it should be compensated for public purpose. I need to highlight the amount of compensation. But these are very general questions and we have to break them down. What stakeholders might benefit from this development of a new corporate and fair compensation? First of all, it's affected to these people and communities. Second, it's national, regional, local governments. It's a society, often said. But also companies and investors who see guidance on their investors and their activities. And also donors and development finances. So here you see the business stakeholder in the project. And here you see also that it's quite difficult to follow this path or to stay over it. Because you need to include all these organizations, all these people and how you want to do it. That's the business group. And that's not for now. But that's an important part of the project. Not to mention the role of that. Not to mention the future of the corporate. And those organizations are also very important and we've got to include that also in the organization of the drafting office. Now, I think in drafting, we need a new input. We need to have some questions asked, answered by you. Because there are certain concerns and scoping of the document. Scoping of the document. What's the fact that they can include the video with all parts of life? Is it only rules at the top of life? Also, here we are at the top of life. Is it only, let's say, certain countries, developing countries for example, are producing food for our country, for our country. We need to look at the impacts on people and we look at the effects of people. We need to figure out certain cases that would affect people. And then also the identification of part of people who will use the protocol and here everyone. And how does this exercise develop this protocol relates to all of this legislation and all of the existing guidelines. There are certain guidelines that that's called legislation and there are some disinterfected to the agricultural organization like this guideline and there are some business organizations that develop these guidelines for the federation surveys and our evaluation guidelines from 2013. And these guidelines go there so we need to know how this process relates to this already existing body of knowledge and information. Now, this exercise of care compensation is not in the first stage in the course of the process or the process. But those three reasons are important to the federation. So to what extent do we need to include the prerequisites for accreditation of the project and also the process into the document. To what extent these prerequisites are also important to the federation. And then the way you melt the protocol we can make it very general but at the same time it might be very important. Or you make it very specific and try to specialize different types of accreditation. But then it might get a very long like 200 pages on all the different types of accreditation places you can see the requirements that I've done for this. But there's always a kind of question what part do we follow. And then to ask me, I think it's important to recognize that this document is a living document. And the living document, I mean that it's a document that can be changed that is not established and will not change. It needs to be flexible that the rules you see might change in the future. And that's not such a strong argument. It is not correct that you just get those kinds of applications. And the most important is the protocol being a living document so we can ask you to follow it after establishing this process. Or maybe we shouldn't do it or even after practice. So now we identify at least four issues which are very important and that is the choosing of purpose and process requirements in the case of accreditation protocol. Changing of the life of the project, the availability of informal life folders in primary, collective, and real-time. And these four issues will be dealt with by parents having a job and having a job. So what we are going to do is discuss the issues. Now we'll start with a brief introduction and then it's up to you to participate in the discussion. And this, of course, as I mentioned before, will help you solve the problem. We can start with the treaties and also to collect the experts, the authors, but also the building of international collaboration and that's different. And it takes a lot of time, I guess, and also the work. Of course, when you're working on a project, and whether we succeed or not, I don't know. But that would be the next step of this step, then the development of the protocol itself, the writing, the testing, and then finally the collaboration and so forth. That's the start of the next step. So, before I give the floor to the parents, I don't know whether I have a job or not. But I just want to have a quick round of questions on this and then I'll give the floor to them. Because it might be so that we have the right to come to the questions and the answers. And then lastly, you speak up very loudly. I think we have a bad example of this. Yeah. But maybe the question is, like, maybe the questions are better than all the questions that we have. Yeah. Okay. The time frame, I think it would be the second step. I'll just go back to the this this slide. The first document, the inter-document, we started to work on it in April and May 2016. So we are already six, seven months on going. I think that's probably groundwork in six months. I think it's probably six or seven months. And the other presentation will take six to ten months. So I think we might say one or two years. But this is a very rough estimation of how we will see what time is to come to do this. Yeah. It comes a bit from with Luki's stakeholder approach that this is a document that must be supported by many stakeholders, many great stakeholders that deal with that. Not all the government, but also companies. And this is not a stakeholder dialogue in the memory of the other members who research but also a fact. And also, for instance, the APG that did this because they lend money to people with enterprises but they are in a position to wall a force for this project. And it is important for us to get the support of these institutions also who make this really impossible. We don't have a world legislator that can be asked to develop a protocol that is accessible and binding in every country. And because of that we need to find resources to make it as effective as possible. And that is exactly the reason why you need to manage this. Because you will agree this in our sphere. You will come to all kinds of physical discussions on this story of the day. But still, you need to have these discussions in order to get the consensus on how to get the consensus to do that. And it is a difficult part that you have to follow to have the answers and also to make them effective. And we know that other guidelines and other types of issues are to follow that path so we try to do it also here. And you, of course, need to build on this knowledge. Not just to take something that's already there but just add it and maybe make one comprehensive bookstores of that opportunity. This is the reason we need to learn about these competencies. We need to be welcome in the specificity of this case and the other topic. This is it may not be legally binding on this but it could be very useful to explain the methodology that we're talking about here. This is the process. The kind of use that comes in the process and it just comes with such a problem and seek guidance on how to just and how to evaluate. And then this might be about to be and also evaluate when we talk to them to do the job and that is I think the part of value that we already have to have to something that's approach to this whole process. To go to the side of this and it's like in terms of insisting that we can't study the issue of the side of the values and go to the right concept of this particular process of study that don't happen from time to time in terms of these processes when by the taxes when it has the property of the community and I insist that in my case I was very close to the project and in that effect and it might be all the people that can international actually do this on this side now come to the side where we have the circumstances and the community and the public side and the and the and the and the and the we have the the we have the the and the and the and the that that and you The first thing is that I think that the conclusion of the last debate is that exploration must be contextual, must be seeing specific circumstances of country at any rate in the workplace, the type of structure at the time. So one of the outcomes might be that you have to break down all these states and try to categorize them. Secondly, it might be that, of course, we are only by chance, that you could, for instance, not really comply or explain. And that, of course, if there's a certain phase, it's not fitting one of the categories, and then, of course, maybe you could say, we'd be there because of it. And that might be a way to deal with the problem that it is certainly impossible to, let's say, shape the possible in the way that we talk about all the possible cases in the country. And I'm a lot enough to know that it is not possible. But if there's nothing at all, then it's certainly not such a situation you need to have at least some guideline when it could be stated in the possible itself. And how do you, if you could, do it? Just adding to that, in the way that you're having a relationship with Scotland, is it done, and you'll show it at a degree, when you've thought of lots of options and examples, there's nothing like learning that is at all, this could be done through a program like this, this could be done better. So it's great if you've lots of equipment, and you're doing lots of things. But really, it's great to be able, and I would also be able to understand that that's difficult if you also can come out and learn from the very direct way of learning the circumstances. Quite frankly, I know very few, some brothers who are going to be there but it's so easy for you to take out your colleagues, your massacres, anything. Please note that you won't be really able to express that you need to do an exercise. No, it's effective very much, because I think we have to follow another route to make this happen. I should also mention the last thing, it's living document element very much, because by looking at it as a living document, it means such a complaint, and if I run some theory, so I don't know how, but this could be a better approach than just stick to the original version, and say it like this. If that's the reason you're all interested in learning, I'd be happy to hand the floor over to Agents who will play a part of the question. Thank you, Leon. Thank you very much. It is time for my day, our community to answer, and I am clearly with the skills that this has to meet the safety of others in something great. If you are going to be able to do this, ask me that you are going to be able to do some of the responsibilities of the employer. I'm going to take the first part of the presentation today, which is options for the inclusion of purpose and process requirements to make compensation. Now, purpose and process requirements for facilitation of compensation relates to the substantive requirements for expropriation because compensation cannot justify an expropriation when it needs a valid purpose to justify the expropriation and the way in which the expropriation denies the procedure to also be addressed on the day one. I would like to discuss issues concerning the purpose. First off, as I said, the purpose is the proprietary facilitation for the expropriation. We can discuss how to already be able to do the final purpose or purposes of this purpose or we will be able to do the final public purposes of the work and speech of those who are interested to do the land reform, but also they include the dangers of a low-file case where you project for economic development purposes. In this regard, the purpose also relates to the question whether some purposes should justify an increase in the amount of compensation, for instance, in Sweden and I think it's kind of low. If I hope it is expropriated, the compensation is increased by 30 or 35%. If you could discuss and discuss the purpose of the expropriation. It is basically the amount of compensation, but... Yes. As I said earlier, I think the purpose and the process are kind of inherent part of the compensation. The purpose of the intercom and the upset compensation is monetary compensation. If this is the case, all the purpose is kind of done. If we are accepting fair market value as the only suggestion for compensation, we might have to stay this entire session. I think that the purpose and the process are really important. The purpose is to set people up for them. It's changing the focus point of view of the compensation. Something ignored, there are purposes that actually can affect what you want to achieve. But as I said earlier, I think the process is much more important. The process actually can become part of the remedy. We can change the technology, we want to speak about compensation and speak about remedy. The process can be down part of the remedy. And if they would manage it right, if they would try to experiment it right, some of them may be different. Some kind of, I don't know, I don't really like to use that character. The process is that if we try to expand the negotiation and expand the information, we can actually try to control the owners and all the other parties that mistake all of them are naturally important. I think we might be able to turn this process into part of the remedy, and then they're ready for compensation. It's insane. A lot of monetary compensation is part of money. I think we need to do something about it. I think I just said we need this protocol to be flexible about both the start of the brain and the substance as a purpose. We need to hear a lot about the competencies of the National Legislative Council. I mean, that's I think we're ready for the National Legislative Council to decide which happens. That's why I would suggest that we run the National Procedure on the countless aspects. And I would like to add to this that I think we should take a look at how specific the purpose needs to be. Because I think that once the purpose is more specific and also able to judge there are five different approaches to this. This way the judges can apply better judicial protection from arbitrary expectations. That's just the names of the judges in the legislation. The judges have a strong information. I just want to raise one question that's probably a long time right now. There seems to be why there seems to be a wide assumption that public purpose equals necessary public ownership of the land. And one of the things that I think we have to break open is you all land to all resources set aside in the public interest all kind of purpose can't be open by the state. And if we don't cut that population we're just reinforcing this notion. I mean, I need you to be on the ones that the only law that I know for example, which is data progressive is to say that public land gets much for public purposes which can be owned by a community by a local government authority if I say the state, if I say the state, one of the clearest issues that I understand of this kind of law which we've covered is precisely the point to it can be overcome by saying by throwing open this really not being reviewed and very critical thought of the process is to determine this understanding of the status of a school, a dam, a protected area, I think I have to say and if we don't do that stuff I think it's very important so I think all of what I'm saying the process is absolutely fundamental but you can also cover the decisions in that process and you can answer it I'm just asking, I'm too shy about I would like to ask shy why the on the therapy process has been less so quickly, I think there's something you can say for the review process especially in the process of how they seem to come from ownership and calculating the conversation and provide some of the solutions to the issues about market value and level market value market value okay I agree okay try again and the answer is it's not really substantive I think it will speak in such a document it will be kind of denied by the financial stakeholders and the legislature it will be difficult enough to really enhance this project, it will start with a kind of mushy memory and we need to do it in a way that can lead to this and the way that the calmness can actually come okay I'm not shy I'm not trying to say something but I think there should be an exclusion towards the terms of the economics I think there's very specific slope there I've been to several countries where they articulate the purposes quite precisely and as I've done in the minor years so far is that we've got parks but what kind of company does this man need to stay at the home of the man who needs to consolidate parts of the land, if you have someone like that I don't think it's basically what they do I have a business with them and they come to know that they can't say no they can't say no, do they and so this one is probably part of the very good career that they're going to do for us I think that's the point that I'm going to speak to so at the same point it's curious to be made but alternative to you some of them are much better but it was hard to judge if you're a sheep that has the right if you have the right if you're not the animal because I don't want to judge it because it's so hard so I have a business with them I think it's fine but not good it's very good and I have three points and I heard that you could speak about some of the earlier points because I agree with your life and you know some of the other needs for example of alternative options here and one of the most important ones is putting together all that techniques on the issue of the purpose I think I agree with some of the points that are exploring the idea of their usage process but I think it keeps to a more general point because I think this work needs to be written in empirical work on the question of impact and the best impact of its operation on those adverse effects to the attention of the creation of that project how do we meet those needs and looking at possible composers always have an eye to impact but as far as we can get behind that the real impact on creative individuals needs to be spoken of and finally just a general point on the proposed title for the development which just in context of whether or not it's a unique project that we do have to but I can see it's a tentative issue we don't have any title to vote for but if we refer to their conversation if we are for the distance from creation I think that needs to be reflected in the title or their conversation to define the gentleman and the manager and we will inherit these huge priorities if we refer to their conversation but it only comes to think that can do if you have to do a procedure I wonder about how the context makes the context to be spoken for and why do we want the issue to be considered in most organizations to be spoken for in the legislation we include the power of the legislation in the future or that is a play of it's not clear to me if it's a question that maybe could not be answered in advance but should be in mind what are the relationships with these protocols and the law of the land which means that if the law of the land in the Netherlands actually defines purposes maybe we should define the relationship with the land and use that answer I don't know if this is my thinking about these relationships they are answering because I've read the voluntary guidelines and what you described is exactly also the difficulty of the application of the voluntary guidelines because it deals with the tenure rights it has to be according to the law of the country and there you go there is no central expectation of what such means so yes that's the problem and we need to address it and we also don't need to address it because they just gave it as a guideline and that's our first problem but we hope that by using these new stakeholders by using that pension funds we are really trying to make a difference in fact not an interpretation in the basic way I hope this is the correct thinking if you follow the other part they are really finding a tricky kind of a ruling probably in 800 years we will not have a good rule which is sufficiently effective too that's the problem that I know it's real we are looking at the first C-neural requirements for accumulation and if we look at some of the requirements so far if we we are going to make a few issues on the basis of the last few days and this the first C-neural procedure we are going to put it in college because it's very popular mainly whether we want a universal procedure whether we want to differentiate the interest where the public appropriation is only to demand the more main public appropriation basis and also the C-neural requirements which are more difficult to proceed to learn the other one is what kind of factors should be set up should there be something like the institution or the practice that they should learn maybe yesterday or should it be over to the particular jurisdiction to identify factors and many thoughts on these factors I think one of the suggestions that I would make is to find a procedure and I'm talking to colleagues around this and I heard about a project that was prepared for the C-neural procedure and then suddenly the state of production is going to require the land and necessary to plan a project with a process of free procedure first and then to think about that effect position would make the perception a lot more accurate because of you if you prepare a project with secrecy you've made it work hard so it's very important planning, planning, and second decision starts as early as possible anyone else about what ideas are going to be able to play why I think that they can start to manage up to it the question that you would like to present to you whether it's a major issue or if it's not a major issue whether it's not a major issue how can you make sure that it's not a major issue as you told me, as you told me about the timing of the project the principle is that the person who did it know I planned it out and I had a plan is that it was going to be the same plan as I planned it out and lost and timing was very much on the essence and I did that so of course you always do that when there's nothing like it in the state and so thank you very much I'm sorry and because it's been many, many years I've had people call the CPI but I'm not sure what that is because the whole thing is the story of the project I'm going to be able to film the story about the project and sometimes it's usually it's some playments that's the funny thing that's nothing to do with it it's in the years after the project you still don't know if it's a project you should have now we're going to just do it out do it first and we're going to I'm sorry I just wanted to read what you said actually in the 19th century in the early 16th in the war back then set for a quiet payment compensation and it is and made in Ghana not millions, but millions of students in Nigeria Liberia Nigeria it is a massive problem and I think it is a general principle when they think that's the way it is but I think when you come to the United States and the rest of the country and say maybe I see browns love a general principle one of which quite frankly in Asia it has to be a quiet thing quiet and everything it goes all the way out but then you reinforce it but you know when you come up the page I think you have to come because these are really difficult to use so I think you don't really know where you actually said it was for the four hours this process is really I think a lot of I understand why it has it has it gets to you it gets to you in the process but if you can somehow bring it back in to the process and you believe it you're actually not afraid to believe it you're just looking at and revise the SS on procedure not even quite there but then they're getting to say if you are running off a project what's happening is early is possible with tech people quite frankly I don't think the single public purpose or public interest project it should not begin in any area I mean I'm sure we can you know you know we can expect some of those proposals I think we can make some of them No Thank you for your question I think it has been shared by which is changing the project under review I have prepared a few slides just like discussion and I'm just going to have to put this down for a minute I just want to read to my notes my name is Mani Norsen I'm from the University of Cape Town and I'm supposed to provide a discussion around changing the delay project so I need to do this in the beginning if you look in the protocol the ground protocol around type 20 there are some questions and the one I think that this topic this particular topic which is a new process in JNM but it should be raised by a fake on the section protocol in which one should be made out of scope Aaron has already introduced that to me in the protocol that is further I've even placed some delay project what to do with the project even if the time is that becomes one of the sufferings so not and I and it's here in mind we will read the progress on this and I would just like to acknowledge the fact that the protocol will not handle the oncoming from that and especially the very good component of the work and the contribution to that and I also want to acknowledge Louise and the question being can she pose to the students in college for the election for the for the preparation board to change the proposal and then we can use some of those questions so I'm trying to do that so the consideration process and this is the first question so you should start here and just talk about how to generalize this and by and by means of the association process if we start if we start a generalization of the association process of the administration which evolves into a consultation process before the actual decision of the superintendent given and then the compensation happens often in the week how do you insist on the context in which we do this again it is right with the even if you put one of these higher quality and then of course you should use one of these more that's the case completely yet and we're there and we'll try to do you I can I can I can I can just discuss if it does include the kind of consultation and thank you so Rachel is speaking I'm not sure what context you are speaking for which is such a point with you first from and from the you know it's actually this depiction is actually a way to celebrate what actually happens can we hear from Israel from Israel actually that there is the he comes to this I remember why whether it was the the the the usually when you recommend you sign it and it's only a recommendation decide and then and emphasize but the question only to the whether the other way very much just wants to to set up unrecognizable with the and really only opportunity to the the the the I'm sorry to change the fact that he was discussing a lot first, a very explicit formula approach. A lot in this line, exactly how, exactly how. I want to change the problem here. Can you repeat? I thought we just keep telling. Okay. Okay. All right. We're going to move on. So this is what we're going to do. Okay. Okay. I think we do need to be aware of, in both, we're going to move on. Thank you very much. That was very good. And I'm going to be able to sort of say something about the measurements here. Oh, yeah. What I want to say is that if you put this contemplation in place very well, there's a constant change between fact and mark. So you need to be aware of the fact that this might affect the mark that you made. So you might also be aware of mechanisms to find the kind of happenings. Thank you very much. Okay. So this was just a conversation stimulate. Right? So I think what comes out of here is that the main is that there is a need to start back with a common purpose. Why do I think this preparation happens before this happens? Yes? Okay. So now the question around the action is supposed to be, is what happens in that purpose? Because I think the part in England cannot be executed. Or if the purpose for which the process has taken its course, it needs to end out to be a non-stop. So actually when we talk about consultation and re-consultation, there's this shouldn't be happening. Right? But it seems to me, and the audience has done an extensive study of many countries, many countries, but it's done an extensive study of many countries, and it seems to be an issue that is dealt with very quickly. And I want to show you, I want to show you a little bit of that. I'm wondering where I should look at the different areas. We have time for that. So this is what Bjorn has done. He has analyzed the situation of how the law deals with the issue of change of purpose or delay in the direction of purpose in various countries, and he has found a spectrum of responses. So do you think we need to put into a grid? By comparing, by looking first at to what it seems as the law in particular countries allows for scrutiny of the change in purpose, scrutiny of the fact that there isn't delay, or that there is a definite purpose that can be fulfilled, and that is some horizontal answers. And to what it seems the law allows or not allows that, I think the law imagines the right to re-transfer, or that there is not a purpose, either there is right, so the people that delay is no, so the people that delay is horizontal answers. And based on that grid and matrix, we may need to be able to put in various countries and position different countries in different spheres of the mightiness. No one would be going to say something about this, but we're fine with it. It's clear from here that there is some kind of inversion in this would be a concern. Thank you. Well, I think that on one side of the spectrum, we've got the United States for instance, that's not author and a right to re-apply unless the authority actually in that way, and they don't care whether the price changes or not, unless the party is actually in that way. And then we've got basically different jurisdictions of problems in different things, that problems arise re-applied. If the user of this, if the user of this is not, and would not constitute a public business, so they do recognise, okay, they might be right to re-apply, but if the user of this is not, then they're already in the right to re-apply. Then we've got the use of grid matrix, and we've got the gerunds who say that if the project is not independent, that there will be a right to re-apply, and there is no right to change the grid matrix. Mr. President, do you think there is a time frame in the project that you haven't done yet? Do you think there is a part in the analysis that has been able to find great differences in that? So, in the evidence, it's generally pretty visible, in terms of the definition of general example, I don't know the explanation, but there are different choices as to the user of this and how much they need. I would ask you, in the office, do you think that using the matrix, and then asking for those, for those of you coming from countries that need nothing to do with the analysis, where do you think you, your jurisdiction would fit in the medium of the analysis? I was going to just comment on that with you. I think that you said a few more countries to the comparison. On the top-hand, I remember looking at India's view of the kinetics in at least five years, and it's only if the land is really unutilized that it would be at a better percentage. And then in some cases, like in Bangladesh, as I would call it, the land is a change, is a change in terms of it probably doesn't go through the projects of banking, but the land actually still affects the government. This is the case often in another developed country where the government can decide whether to then sell it to the owner, but it's not an automatic hand position. It means that another potential issue is that it goes first to the government, and then maybe have the right to first buy it from the government and bury it at every point and then it's not necessarily a good idea. Thank you, Ishael. First, let me come back to you. So, we need to, and I think it's another way to say that for the new steps we need to take in the creation of a new country, we need to be in a better quality of nature in five, 30 years. A question that I received in May, and because of our highly reluctant to regard the 25 years no use of the land that we made, saying, you know, there is always a new need for public, for land for public use, and it's very rare that the NGD returns even though after 25 years we can't use it. In 2010, the law changed and now the authority needs to specify what is the communication project, the process for making the project and this is not an easy question because it's never needed to be certified after 15 years. Now, making the play ground shouldn't take 15 years. So, whether it's used with discretion in good trade or not, it's a question that we have to think about. Now, if there is a land that was neutralized for one country for two, it can change with no right to return to the owner to another country for two. It can change for one country for two. Another interesting question, by the owner, is that if it changes to a private person, which is a big question for the private and public, are they fitting that question the owner has the right to reverse the land according to the current money. Now, looking at another example of this issue, something has happened that the authority takes more than the existing action, as it takes time as it is. The authority thinks that it will make the road wider, wider and it became narrow for many reasons. So, the question is, what do you do if there is a land that was not used for the private person as well as for the private person. So, defining the new law in America is that the land was not used for the private person. In fact, to notify the owner, there is a land that was not used and you are able to take it back. A point that needs to be taken into account that the owner unfortunately gets the land back under its new current generation and a road. When people didn't stock it, they needed to stock it in order to make the road so that they could get the road like they did to see it. So, the authority completely knew how it was and it seems that this is also the case of absence of scrutiny of the new government. If there is if there is a silence on whether there is a right to be transferred, whether or not there is a right to be transferred. Thank you. I would like to make two comments. One is that what I am missing is that under the change of plans we won't only have the right to be transferred with additional compensation. For example, there are specific parts of the building of what story you are building and there will be six stories of compensation and compensation. In those cases, people say well, I don't need to transfer money. I just want to transfer money and then we can take action. Yeah, that's right. And we do have some projects that have been made for a very long time. I think that there are some projects where the situation is getting better. And I think the other problem is also a few days. The situation is certainly far so as to be not actually expropriated by this project but that also may be techniques that we can do with all your command depending on the sale of the land or the possibility that you are going to buy land so you don't need to be expropriated. I think that is also a problem for the number of people with damages that are caused by this project. It's a shadow of damages that is hanging around and while we are in a difficult situation there are a lot of ideas how to deal with damages because we can see how to do that. Do you want to say that? I'm going to be a closer friend and I have dealt with the event and I want to continue with the situation where it's valid and the situation and specifically in a dynamic context. The rights of labor victims and the publicization of labor rights is a competition on the earth. The department asked for 20 years to happen 30 years ago and they dealt with very, very few of those things to the rest of them in the air. Now what to do? The labor victims went to a cancer because they were on their land. The event takes place very recently and by very recently yesterday they put an order in imposing an association on the department to launch a fine label on the land label which is made with a annual deadline of health and medications must be finalized in a given period with an anti-person who was called a special master who comes from near the world to supervise the health process to make sure they were following the protocol and before the debate was called to date. That is the basis to deal with delays and that is the basis which could be recommended to the protocol. Thank you very much. I think what you touched on is the importance of a good government's process also on the post-expropriation period. And then how do you help me yes, but the governance of the management of the states is exciting and ready for consideration. Yes? Thank you. As I said, there is very much dialogue between a project and a project with no possibility of change. There is no possibility of change. There is no possibility of change. That is not turned on. It is part of the issue of what this project is saying that the purpose of the power of activation is to generate those powers in very broad images so the purpose of activation is for any planning and once the local authority is able to do anything even if it is different from the other projects that are part of the challenge that will also impact the production of the white being giving a kind of creation and of course will exercise any treatment over very broad communities. I think that seems to work in such a way which is that an expropriation as a form of acquisition of position is no ordinary solution. It carries the origins of this form of acquisition with a key to it which is the ownership of this position. So what you are describing there in terms of no scrutiny of the change in purpose there is no possibility of change. This we found to be completely problematic in the South African situation that there is something to do with it and it creates really unusual outcomes for those specific cases. So now to go to what is supposed to and I'm very glad you asked both about that and your other questions and the possible responses. The compensation paid by the form of the picture is if there is the possibility of how the company and the compensation that the form of ownership is done. This is the one question of the picture about the position that I'm telling you in the last video. Okay, we are done. We are done. Oh, okay. And additional and should not be inter-regional should the safety claim of additional compensation for the company actually have not taken that when we are going through the proper compensation process to the part of the finding that it's probably the circumstance that we do not do that solution. So I'm going to give you questions for you and also which area do you want to include in the report to make sense? Well, I think in my opinion it would assist to recall having the choice because especially if there has been a wrong period of time between compensation and the other which is clear that the company is going to be very valid and certainly not possible to move somewhere else which is I just want to tell you that there has been a lot of news in this format and maybe as well there is some problem with the health care and for the young people to have a great part of the property to make a great part of the property that is not at the same time to do that property that you lost in that format. So that is the first one of the presentation and this is the first time that we are using a school to make that decision. Thank you very much, another question and as a case that we put in the newsroom and the other candidate I would like to ask and my system. That would be the right one. In that case, you know what I'm going to say. I don't want to follow it in that context. Yes. Thank you. For the purpose of knowing that I need a certain person who's here and has a certain focus on the rubbish, that's this person's money who's working in Kenya, and I'll put this one in the video, so that we can all get together and many other countries. Now, in one of these countries, we introduced a law to move with acquisition of land and other parts, so that you will be able to move it. And it's now the 19th century, 1951, why? Basically, it has given the nation implementation of actions specified by basic laws to ensure ownership of a five-layer to maintain our quality of quality. And delay one tonne of the year after sufficient ownership. Then the acquisition of that land shall again be implemented one year. The time flow of the land is in the cases where the place was later converted was most important. Now, I'll mention that, how many countries there's a person who's here and has a meeting with something because this particular island is probably quite well spread because it's a local country, so even very tough to get a land together and perform the tasks that they're going to do, unless it's just a land. So, it's probably not a land to like three or four years before it applies to the process I'm going to give. I'm not just talking about the process I'm going to give, but I think that this is kind of a point about where the land will be converted into four floors and then into three floors. How does this affect the participation of the youth in Israel, the participation and the base for that kind of participation in the process? Maybe I didn't get the right form. We have reached the participation to be fixed as the actual moment where the process is transferred from the previous or the previous or the previous party, that's the opportunity for participation and then at that moment we're going to do the case and say for now it hasn't been re-zoned for housing for the first time in the nation. And people at that moment will get this that I think is currently being re-zoned based on the fact that according to the additional questions, some questions if you want to under the compensation question what if under the original compensation compensation was received for lots of income or for revocation and now the expropriation is undone? How should that be done? What about legal costs to effectuate the expropriation or the claim to be re-zoned if the original should that be re-zoned in response? What about legal consideration of property? What about devaluation on the property that has been done? What property have they settled for three years? How should this be dealt with in a regime responding to the related compensation comment? Thank you. I have a question about financial laws. Even if the delay is on going for a year I mean during that time there is a significant financial loss during this time so I think the conversation should be like associated with the plan and I think I would like to then use more of the business records for business but I think that that should be the case as well. I think that it should depend on whether it's reserved or for so to determine whether the operation reserved the relationship between the owner and then actually the flow of the meeting but I actually don't think it's proper way and we think it's in an American way which went once to the realization of creation. We think whether we actually we don't know the same picture because we can't do it with people as a consequence if we build something or we we did something on the land and now it's no longer we don't know that there is an education land for example and there are no children in this land so should we return the land to the owner I think we should in a way think about that I think a clean right is one way to love sometimes the audio to a clean right that proceeds from the brain that this way has to be fun and that is one thing to say itself but yeah I want to continue because when I teach an education in class there is already a reason for these reasons and they often ask later why don't we spend the time when kids get wrong and we don't trust the authority at first and we also experience a really invasion of the whole economy that is very sensitive for what is going on so maybe the real intention is to make it clean maybe before and they are not sure that what is going on but it is not really something that you are feeling that you are reaching it is very difficult to get out of it so I think I would like to comment on what you are trying to say I don't think that clean right is really the right thing to do just imagine how it interested me because in the early years I had my university college so I think I am not saying that you choose to be in a position which in such cases is not the right and it is impossible that the solution is competitive which is what is going to happen with the decisions that it has made I think that this is not equal the decision was wrong to begin with it wasn't well informed yes suppose you stop and now three and four is what do you think yes three and four is coming up you are saying there really isn't I think this is a case where you can start from the start what frankly most companies I know to be able to take that and you never take profit by any means normally is yes it does not have to return it but it is like only two locations and also when you think of situations in quite the primary states and people going through they get pushed from the edge of the property and they still can be immediately turned on if the money is very viable but that property is preferred the problem is that they want to take back the compensation they receive and can normally get it right and there is not needed on that because nobody is going to treat the compensation but they will get it and you may say you know so much so I think we have to be a little careful on this I do not think of that but I am sorry to say it one of the transparency is probably the mind of one company not wonderful states where the capital is open you know I think that is what should only be a problem now now I am sorry sorry we are going to have tea and then we are going back to public please thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you I need to I need to back it up I need to back it up So it's a really realization, force, and a lot of western work for such a thing. And I think it's really spread, spread a lot of things. You should think about it. It's a lot of trust. I would like the Israeli judges to think about who is the champion to decorate. Decorate. Or sometimes if ideas flow. They need to do something. No, it's just because it's in my opinion. It's safe. Maybe it's better not to say. It's even worse. Nobody watches.