 So, our next session will be a plenary session which will be led by Mr. Adam Geren from FAO. But before I pass the floor to Adam, I would like to say some kind of protocol for all of us, how we conduct this webinar in the rest of the hour we have this afternoon, especially for the audience, all participants are requested to keep their audio and video muted to avoid any interference at the background. So please help us to improve or make the quality of this conversation better by doing that. And if you have any questions, please use the chat feature or chat box. If it is only a comment, put a C in your chat, but the rest will be treated as questions or concerns that you have. This will be saved by the host to capture your questions. For those who are speaking in Bahasa and you have difficulties in conveying your message or concern, please do type in Bahasa Indonesia. We will capture that and certainly we'll address them, don't worry. In the breakout session, we will have four rooms, as I said earlier, and that will last for one hour each. And participants who have been choosing their preference to be, you will be assigned to the room you are interested in following your registration. This session is recorded and by doing that, all the presentation and conversation will be well captured and will be posted in our website a few days later. And for panelists and discussion, I would like to emphasize a number of things. One is about the moderation process. So we are expected to be punctual in all the sessions so that we can have the breakout group effectively and going back to the plenary session timely. So please, with the help of the host, you will be reminded from time to time about your deliberation. The time slot is one hour for the breakout, but it will be very quick and fast if you have a very active people. That's what we are expecting. So make sure we don't over time for the breakout session. The panelists are requested to mute their microphone after they have spoken. So again, this is for the sake of the quality. And then for panelists and discussion, we again would like to have you back in the briefing room so that we can make a quick kind of evaluation and perhaps accommodate your suggestion about the way forward. This is very important while the iron is hot. So please come back to the briefing room. So that's all I have to announce and without further ado, Adam, the floor is yours. Thank you, Pak Daniel and C4 as the main organizers of this session. I hope you can hear me okay. Please confirm. Very well. Good. Thank you. So firstly, everybody, please join me and welcome our plenary speakers today. We have three distinguished experts who share their knowledge and their perspectives on criteria and indicators for peatland restoration. We have heard in previous sessions that the criteria and indicators should have a balanced approach. They should cover all four aspects of peatland restoration, not only the biophysical but also consider the social, economic and the governance aspects. I won't go into those points. That's the job of our expert speakers. But please allow me to add one UN perspective and a global dimension to our discussions today in introduction. So I'd like to plant the seed in your fertile minds to grow some ideas on how these peatland criteria and indicators can be included in the wider global agenda for the sustainable development goals. Importantly, I ask how we can get these peatlands better recognized in the big long-term push for the UN decade of restoration, ecosystem restoration, which is just starting and will go for 10 years. So please think about how the final conclusions from this event could feed into those global processes. This would really provide a head start to get peatlands noticed and acted on with high level attention and potential future funding. Enough from me. Let's get straight into some of those details and hear from our expert speakers. In this session, we'll hear 10-minute presentations from each of the three experts. Our first speaker is Pak Budi Wardana, who is head or deputy head of the peatland restoration agency, B. R. Gaye, and where he is responsible for planning and cooperation. Pak Budi, you have 10 minutes. Please start your presentation now. Thank you. Thank you, Adam. Let me share my presentations. So I was given the title for the presentation's process for peatland monitoring and assessment. This is for the session one planary. So the background, pardon, is it clear? Yes. Yes. It's okay. Okay. So for the background, the peatland restorations, when we receive the mandate to restore the peatland. Actually, the peatland restoration is not conducted in empty landscape. That's already land uses, land management, and activities using the peatlands. So when we start the restorations, we have to deal with various stakeholders and land uses, different interests, different requirements, approaches, and we have to strategize the effort to restore accordingly. So we take the phase approach and various restoration strategy is conducted from rewetting representations and also revitalizations. And also we need to have the restorations going on on the ground. And it requires the governance system at the village level so that we develop the program we call this up to Ligambut. So different approaches and strategies might require different indicators. That's what we discussed for the four series on the criteria and indicators. And also different approach on monitoring and assessment of those criteria. Moreover, the regulations on peatland, of peatland degradation according to the peatland ecosystem functions. There's ecosystem functions for protections, ecosystem functions for enable for the cultivation. So we need also to strategize our approach in the restorations, taking into account the degradation criteria that already been enacted in the government regulations. So for us, indicators are useful to measure progress over time and then also provide information relevant to the restoration measures. The indicators are also useful to measure the project impacts, outcome output and input and that are monitored during project implementations also to assess progress towards project objectives. And also identify areas that requires increased attention by any relevant stakeholders. So we should facilitate the need of stakeholders for the better conditions of the peatland. And also because we use the indicators to evaluate the impact of our restorations, the indicators should be monitored. For us, there are still changes in monitoring methods and assessment include the cost for the method for the monitoring, the time, the ease of use of any method, reliability and efficacy, the efficiency for adjustment and corrective actions, the effectiveness for adjustment and corrective action. So one of the main message that I would like to convey to you all is the use of the remote sensing technology. With the help of FAO, we do the analysis and modeling of groundwater level from soil moisture map and combined with the on-field measurement equipment, we try to make a process of what it is modelled from the soil moisture map to indicate the probability of the field groundwater level would be. So we use the SIPALAGA as the verifications of the model that we build together with FAO. It is the first indications that we use to measure the progress in terms of biophysics, especially on the hydrology of the peatland. The other part of the aspect of peatland monitoring, peatland indicators is the need to develop governance system, improve the governance at the village level. As I mentioned before, we do the program to empowerment the community group and village government with the program called Desapaduli Gambut. Desapaduli Gambut and combined with the revitalization of the economy of local community might result in changes on management and allocations of land, including peatland, and thus have direct positive impact to support restoration and sometimes to help the further degradation. For monitoring the impact of TPG, we use the index desamembangun that was developed by the Ministerian Pembangunan PISA and Daira Tertinggal, what it is in English. Daniel will explain it later. And then adjust this IDM, the index desamembangun, accordingly for villages on peatland. That's mostly on the economic, social aspect and also the environment aspect of index desamembangun. So at a glance, we can see that in the PRIMS Gambut, the monitoring platform that we have, we call it PRIMS, peatland restoration and information system, we call it PRIMS. And we can see in this that on the villages that already have a program called Desapaduli Gambut, the red dot which indicates the hotspot are less compared to the other area that not have the TPG. So why don't we do all the villages that have peatland, the similar TPG, Desapaduli Gambut, the most reason for not having all these these villages having the TPG is of course a classic reason, it's on the funding. So you can see all that Desapaduli Gambut is not only implemented through APBN, but also Mitra or partners of PRG, such as the Mitraan, they have also helped us in developing the TPG and also the private sector. Private sector has their own program, actually they adopt the TPG program for PRG and we signed the MOU for having those program developed together. So PRG provide the materials, provide the expert and also provide the supervision of the TPG that was implemented through the private sector's improvement. So the other issues that we discussed is the economic aspect of TPG and indicators, that our main aim actually is to transform the business model on peatlands, that might help further degradation and support restoration while reducing the greenhouse gases emissions. So it needs to be combined, the monitoring of the reduced greenhouse gas emissions as the CER and the MRV for the emission reductions. We use the general economic models from input process and then output and then we analysis further the peat restorations in which as a special case, the environment aspect of the peatlands will be the main platform of all the social and the economy. So we use the inputs of peatland ecosystem as the services, as the provisioning services, regulating and so on and so forth. And then the process that we put there to improve or to restore the ecosystem services through reverting refrigerations of degraded peatland and the expected output that we should also monitor as in degradation halted. So we need to show that all the activities relating to the river will in the avoided emissions from fire and decomposition, avoided floods and loss of land mass and so on and so forth. This is just an illustration that we need to deal with to see that the income and also the values will be improved, although the activities from the activities, the business process that they made the peatland ecosystem and then transformed into non-degrading activities would not undermine the income and value and might be attracted more revenues from the carbon trade, but we should have the carbon trade recognition. So in concluding remarks, the restoration of degraded peatlands takes decades to recover. So we need a long-term comprehensive and continuous monitoring equipped with the scientifically robust criteria indicator and we should also consider the cooperative indicators as the keynote from Nasir. It is imperative also to continue the exchange of knowledge through the interactive discussions on scientific ways to use criteria indicator approach towards monitoring and evaluations of peatland restorations that we face because the dynamic of the pressures of our peatland and also the growing demand on proper peatland management as part of the climate mitigation aspect, climate mitigation effort. The monitoring approach and also the advancement of the remote sensing technology is growing, but still some indicators require data from the field network. So this is the the method of monitoring and then the choosing of the appropriate indicators for a certain criteria will be important for them. BRG will greatly benefited from the development of the principles criteria and indicator for biophysical, social, economic, and governance active good, providing synthesis in the context of ongoing restorations and identify possible step of verification process. That's important for us especially if the president give us the second terms of our deliberations for the preservation of peatland, the sustainable management of peatland, and halting the particular decisions of our previous peatland. So thank you, Mr. Adam. Back to you. No, thanks to you, Pak Budi, for your excellent coverage and sticking nicely to time. I very much appreciate the comments that you made about valuing the input on the criteria and indicators, so this session we hope will be useful for BRG. Thank you, Pak Budi, and also to Pat Nazir. Unfortunately, he wasn't here, but I hope you will pass it on to him. We very much value the collaboration with BRG. So let me move on to the next speaker. Our next second speaker is Professor Mark Reed, who works for several universities in the UK. He's worked on conducting research and leading programs with sustainable agriculture and ecosystem management, and he's also been working with FAO and UNEP and partners through the Global Peatlands Initiative. So working on developing a set of indicators for sustainable management for peatlands. So without wasting any more time, I'll hand over to Mark. You have 10 minutes and the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. It's a pleasure to be here again. I'm going to try to take a fairly critical approach in this talk at some of the insights that I think have emerged across this webinar series and assess some of the shortcomings of criteria and indicators before considering some of the types of work we might want to prioritise as a community in this area. So to start with, I'm going to take a critical look at some of the things that we could perhaps do better and suggest four things that could perhaps go wrong. I'm just going to turn off this computer. So first of all, I think it's quite tempting to rely on single indicators or a small set of indicators of a similar type, for example, biodiversity, climate-related or hydrological indicators. To realise why this is so dangerous, I think we need to remember the definition of a good indicator, which is of course a sign or a symptom of something. An indicator is a sign pointing us towards the reality that a peat bog is degraded or in good condition. It is not reality itself. Of course, you can also think of indicators as symptoms. So a headache is a symptom of many different types of illnesses. So I don't jump to the conclusion, if you tell me that you've got a headache, that you've got meningitis. But if you're sweating and telling me to turn off the lights, then I might well conclude that I should take you to the doctor. The point is that I am triangulating or checking between these symptoms before I conclude what I think is going on. And of course, it's the same with a peat bog. There could be many reasons why biodiversity indicators, for example, could be declining, including hunting and diffuse pollution that might not be related to the condition of the bog itself. So rather than concluding that I need to rewet the bog, I look for the source or causes of the specific issues those indicators point to, rather than inferring any wider issue until I've triangulated my biodiversity indicators with perhaps some climate or hydrological indicators as well. UNOXA isn't to come up with clever indices that integrate multiple indicators into a single value either, losing all the granular insights that each individual indicator could have given us. What we need is a diversity of indicators collected over time. And I think it's really important to emphasise the time point here. We need time series data if we're going to detect trends in indicators and avoid misinterpreting unusual years and taking action that potentially makes the situation worse. Of course, dry years is the classic problem when everything looks worse in a drought. But of course, nature has a way of recovering. And if we can measure over long enough, we see indeed that things get better over time. The second issue is reporting indicators without contextual data that we need to interpret that evidence. I've talked about this before earlier in the webinar series and it's a constant source of frustration to researchers who want to compare their research to your monitoring data or to synthesise your work in a meta analysis. If you didn't report a few basic things like the peak type, location of your site or its altitude, so others don't know if they're comparing like with like when they read your work. Next, I think we need to think carefully about trade-offs between accuracy and ease of use when we are developing indicators. Some of the most accurate and reliable indicators can only be measured by researchers with specialist training and expensive equipment. But that shouldn't stop us developing proxies that could be collected more easily with less resource enabling citizen science and monitoring by practitioners and agencies that don't have the same resources as researchers. And the other thing that frustrates me about many attempts to monitor indicators is their lack of connection to local communities and to the issues that affect them. While your government and other national and international stakeholders might be most concerned about climatic indicators as they chase their net zero targets, local communities may be more interested in indicators that might tell them whether or not they need to change their management practices to protect the fish they rely on for their livelihoods for example. If we want communities to get involved with monitoring and benefit from this work as Budi suggested that we should, then we need to get them involved right at the start when we are identifying indicators. Some of these indicators might only be relevant to one region and they're unlikely to be on the core lists of indicators. We would prioritize as researchers or policymakers but that additional work to collect data on these indicators can make the difference between whether you engage and benefit local communities or not. But if you want to engage local communities it can and should go beyond just consulting them about what to measure. They may be able to get involved in data collection, in the interpretation of data and in the management response to the findings of management work. Too many indicator data sets sit on bookshelves or inform a policy without delivering local benefits to stakeholders. I believe we need to empower communities to engage more in collecting and interpreting monitoring data. Booking the youth directly in their own management decisions. This was a focus of my PhD research with local communities in Southern Africa. In this screen you can see communities ranking in the data based on a combination of both local knowledge from interviews and knowledge from the scientific literature. There's a little bit of background noise. I'm not sure if anyone can work out where that's coming from and it's forming. So the second and final thing I wanted to talk about was the kind of indicators and criteria that might be useful. Now in medicine this is a crazy figure but apparently it's estimated that over 80% of medical research is a quote wasted. And when I say wasted we're talking here about research that can't be used in evidence synthesis that would ultimately inform evidence-based medical policy or practice. While our monitoring program might answer the questions that we have posed for our specific purpose or context none of us want to design our work in ways that will prevent it from ever being used by anyone else to inform policy or practice. And the key issue here is that different teams measure and report different indicators in different ways so that the findings can't be compared or synthesized. This is a problem because we know that policy should be based on evidence synthesis not on individual studies to avoid policy flip-flopping as studies reach different conclusions often for very legitimate reasons because as I said they measure different things over different time horizons for example. Of course for all the reasons I've given in this talk we need a diversity of different indicators and the freedom to measure what we think is important but we must balance this against the need to synthesize and compare for evidence-based policy and practice. So to enable future synthesis we need agreement on a set of core indicators that can be measured by the majority of monitoring programs in comparable ways. My colleagues and I as I described in one of the earlier webinars are working with UNEP's Global Peatlands Initiative to do justice for tropical and UK peatlands. The write-up has been delayed but we are hoping to have a paper that that many of you who've been put it can comment on by January. To conclude the task of identifying and measuring criteria and indicators to form peatland restoration in my opinion goes way beyond just identifying and measuring indicators. What we measure really matters but so too does how we collect and interpret our data and what we do with the insights we get from our monitoring. This webinar series has shone a light on some of these issues and will I hope enable us to all move forward together to take a far more sophisticated approach to these issues. Thank you very much Mark for that very cautionary kind of some of your cautionary comments on things we need to be aware of when we're considering developing indicators that's pretty important to keep us grounded in this work as appropriate in the plenary session thank you. I note we're doing okay for time and I can't promise we will have time for questions but I see a couple of questions being written in the chat box and I encourage people to start putting them in the chat box and if we have time at the end of this plenary session or sometime event today we will try and get to answer those so but at this stage the proceedings I would like to move on in case our next speaker actually answers some of your questions and I would like to introduce our third speaker Dr. Harry Pernomo who works at C4. He conducts research on criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management generally many other topics but today he'll be speaking on defining and measuring peatland restoration so Harry you have 10 minutes the floor is yours thank you. Okay thank you. I will sign my screen. So I hope you can see my screen my presentation set so the title of my presentation will be criteria indicators for defining and measuring peatland restoration when I read myself Harry Pernomo working at C4 as well as at the IPB university so first the CNI criteria set is useful for not only measuring but also defining what good peatland restoration is and also as Pah Boody mentioned elaborating the peatland restoration concept sometimes quite quite abstract to more practical as well as assessing measuring and monitoring the process and progress and also the CNI is useful for communicating and reporting the status and the condition so if you restore your peatland in one place how to communicate and CNI is very very useful for doing that this is the picture of when we with Pahariz when we launch our book on the learning from the ground on the peatland restoration and why I mentioned that CNI said able to define peatland restoration because we know what principle to admit in the peatland restoration the principle with the good and also understanding and sharing what a good peatland restoration is also where how the world will perceive your restoration effort this is a way to understand each other a way to communicate your work on the peatland restoration so this this is what we call CNI structure that we did in the sustainable forest management so the structure is a hierarchy as you see there's a goal for overall peatland restoration and the structure of PCIV principle criteria indicator and verifier that embraces the aspect of Daniel Manzan environment economy social aid governance so we have a goal principle criteria indicator and some verifier principle is fundamental truth for proposition that serve as a foundational system of belief or behavior for a change of reasoning so there is a fundamental truth and then unless you have a criteria used to assess judge their compliance with the principle and also an indicator that able to indicate the status of criteria and those must be minimum and localized to meet the context and also very important to able to make use the collected collected existing indicator of verifier so that is there's already this upper delica mood how to make use of of existing indicators there this is the structure and also from our password password there is nine point to determine the suitability of CNI as adopted program at all 99 relevant related logically to the assessment group and also precisely precisely defined diagnostically specific easy to detect record and also interpret interpret this is important real reliable and also adequate response to range to changes at level of stress on the peatland governance ecological economic and social system so indicator must be quite sensitive to change also provide a summary or integrative measure over space and over time for BRG for reason able to conclude at the provincial level or national level also appear to user who are going to to use the the criteria and then the verification procedure must be cost effective it's not very very expensive cost effective and also quick simple and understandable so understanding the the difference between input process output outcome and impact base whether indicators indicator of input or indicator outcome they are equally valid fsc for instance mostly based on the indicator outcome but iso iso is mostly based on the indicator input and process it also transparent and possible in order to be acceptable so it will be transparent and this need to be tested yeah we cannot hypothesize or indicators from here you have to hypothesize some indicators than test data on the ground also the the difference between generic for a traditional level for instance and also localize cmi as my creators already underlined this generic means for the whole group of similarities not specific to any side but then can be modified and customized to comply with local condition where is the condition in punkalis is different from papua should be different indicator of verifier fsc for restorative constant usually all the only defined principle and criteria but indicator is nationally defined or more sub-nationality defined is the generic well is adaptable to all types of tropical between situation and as an operational as mother said it's like a mother that you can derive more locally relevant specific cn9 and what's if for the rock uh software call it a cement criteria indicators modification and adaptation to so we have generic one and go to a specific um pick plan uh historical unit and then how to uh to adapt and modify with of course with uh local stakeholders there and to meet the local interest something like probably want to restore but at the same time want to develop uh alternative likelihood there just from our work in in punkalis rio and and and then after you develop a cni also important to do assessment and monitoring we did in the past years using multi-criteria analysis technique to score the goal so we integrate indicator indicator into criteria then into principle and finally we can we can agree what the overall score of the goal having clear standard norm and knowledge what whether it's more modern scientific or passive knowledge also representativeness in term of scoring assessing we aware that even sustainability is locally and culturally defined as margaret mentioned also transparent and the assessment can be part of the evaluation sometimes for judging but always very important for adaptive goal management learning for improvement you are not good in certain kind of indicator then how you uh you understand and then improve it this is the uh what important for for improvement and the key messages the last my last slide cni is a way to define assess monitor and communicate the commitment is important people and restoration effort cni can be structured hierarchically as a pc i3 and needs to be logical simple and reliable among others and understandable understand the whether it is generally and also localized and localized to be relevant with local context and also important to understand assessing cni in particular side for improvement learning for improvement also integrated cross time and also spatial scale okay that's all what i can share with you uh guys today thank you uh adam back to you thanks pack harry and all of our speakers uh from from my side that's been uh a very broad but also getting into the details of some of the measurement of those indicators uh so all of them all of you three have contributed excellent presentations i'm also noting some very good questions in the chat box and in fact even more impressive i'm seeing some answers from the community so i encourage you if you haven't got uh you haven't read the chat box yet please look at the chat box there is some excellent uh questions and also some answers from this peatland community we have established on this webinar and some links to websites or papers field examples from others like yasaya which is fantastic so please look at that i actually looked and considered that many of the questions were kind of half answered in the chat so in the interest of time i will hand back to rupesh to lead us into the next session but if anybody feels they have not been properly answered please let us know in one of the other breakout groups you will have an opportunity for input there but we are well on time and i think we should continue to uh to the next session but thanking our final speaker thanking our speakers again and i hand back to rupesh thanks very much