 Thank you Alan, Wisdom and Nadia for the presentation. So I'll try to be more general, picking on the specifications that I would like to discuss. The first one that obviously have kept coming when we discussed the issue of natural resources, the issue of governance and management of public expectations. Whenever you have discoveries such as the case in Tanzania now where we have about 55, between 53 and 55 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It is large in size as Alan already pointed out, but not very large. The simulated numbers now tell us we'd expect revenue ranging between 1.2 billion to 5 billion dollars a month. This is only 2 to 3% of GDP, so it's not very significant. In a recent study when we asked people, what would they want to see this revenue from gas being used? They say a majority of them are saying they expect it to be spent on, they want it to be spent on health and education. That shows of course how desperate people are in terms of getting the final outcomes, but of course there are some dangers of spending resources on social services in particular. I think recently Ghana has had an experience where you raise spending on a social sector and eventually when oil prices go down, your budget deficit expands quite dramatically so we are in serious trouble, so we really have to be careful how we manage expectations. So I think what I would propose is all the governments in developing countries with abandoned natural resources need not to lose sight of the importance of other sectors that are key to driving transformation. I think transformation has been a key word today since morning. So there are important sectors like agriculture, tourism, so the natural resources can be used to leverage, to dibotonic those sectors in order for them to drive the growth process. It's equally important to strengthen transparency and public communication, which is much more important when you have discoveries than before because you want to manage that perception that we need more money spent on particular sectors. The second point I would want to stress is the importance of linking the macroeconomic framework and the public financial management in the context of the larger source boom, meaning you must keep efforts to collect revenue from non-resource sectors and of course to direct public investments to those public goods that will help dibotonic the economy so that other sectors can flourish and grow. There's this issue of integrating natural resources into other sectors of the economy that both all the three presenters have touched on it because the most benefit would be derived usually from downstream supply industries in terms of generating employment, not the direct employment that provides larger impact. And the use of natural resources, for example, currently Tanzania is using, by generating almost 60% of power from natural gas. But obviously the gas that was discovered in the shallow wells onshore. Of course we expect more employment to be generated from industries such as petrochemical industries. So here we have to make a trade-off between using natural gas, a significant part of natural gas is field stock, vis-a-vis revenue from exports. Now here the prices will matter. It's a big challenge in Tanzania, for example, because most of the natural gas that has been discovered is actually dry gas. A lot of other countries, especially in the Middle East, using gas as field stock is an associated gas where you have already recovered most of your investment costs from oil and use the associated costs at a close to zero price to produce fertilizer, petrochemicals and others. Another important point that I would like to emphasize, which was already discussed even in the morning, is the issues of capacity, national capacity of institutions, which is very, very key, as well as skills of individuals working in the oil and gas sector, but also other associated industries. That's the reason that countries like Norway managed to escape natural gas, because the institutions were already in place at the time of discoveries of oil and gas, unlike many other developing countries whose institutions are still nascent. I think here is where we need to really, really, really put more efforts. The gold is actually a very capital-intensive industry. I've visited some of the gold mines in Tanzania. The massive imports of a specialized machinery, which you can only use in this sector. You cannot use those dampers even in construction areas, and they are very expensive. You see limited relations between this large-scale mining and the artisanal mining. The technology transfer, technology upgrading of artisanal mining is not very significant. We really need to see how we can link these two. The waste product that is produced in the mines out of almost one tonne of earth moat, the optimal production was about 9 to 12 ounces or grams out of a tonne of earth moat. And you cannot use that oil very much for anything. So it's a very, very high-cost industry that produces limited, secondary use of its materials. So the key benefits are derived from royalty, revenue, which you have to optimize. Make sure that you have very good contracts, corporate tax, but we see significant problems of exemptions, multiple exemptions that erodes the revenue base. And of course, even the domestic supply industry is limited to supply of food and some supplies. But mainly, a good part of these equipments and materials like cyanide are all imported, that is used in the industry. Finally, because I have only one minute left, I would like to underscore the point that Wisdom has raised, that the attention on renewable resources, fisheries, forestry is quite low. And yet these natural resources provide significant potential to generate revenue, to create employment, and to support industrial transformation. We have seen a lot of African countries, including Tanzania, exporting logs rather than exporting finished products. So we could develop an industrial base locally to manufacture wood products rather than export logs. So I think we should not leave some of these sectors as marginal, sector for small-scale fishermen, but we have to integrate them with the large-scale fish and make sure that there is substantial domestic value addition if these sectors are to contribute to structural transformation. I think I should stop here. Thank you, Donald. We'll now open the floor for questions. I'll be starting with this side. If you have questions, we'll go through the first round. Yes, please. The microphone is coming. I'm Henry Jacoby from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I have a question for Alan Rowe, and I alert you this is a voice from another silo from the climate side. The only mention of climate in your discussion was on the demand side, influencing total demand for resources. But I want to just ask you about what you think might be the implication of what's going on on the climate negotiations for the finance of the things that you're talking about. As you know, in the U.S. and a lot of other countries, there's a lot of pressure against the building of ports, pipelines, development of resources. And in the international negotiations going into Paris, there's a lot of discussion about finance and directing finance, both ODA, overseas development assistance and even foreign direct assessment into greenhouse gas reducing technologies. And that is one of the things that those kinds of pressures are likely to influence the availability of the ODA and the FDI that are going to be needed for your vision of development in Africa. Thank you. Just behind you, lady. Thank you, panelists for the wonderful presentations. This can go to anybody on the panel. Right now, Africa, we are under UNEP. We are being told to switch Africa green. Green growth, green growth, green growth. And in the actual sense, the arguments we put across as policymakers to the economic actors will say, why are you encouraging us to go green? In the actual sense, we also need to emit to grow. So what are the incentive structures are we trying to put in place to encourage our policymakers, not only policymakers, but the actual actors on the ground to go green for renewable resources? Because right now we're trying to advocate for low emissions. That's not really working. It's not working to the issue for industrialization because they're saying we're not making any profit in this way. So we need to think outside the box as we're trying to advocate for the low emissions issues, for green growth aspects. So what kind of issues can you really advise us to put on ground for industrialization when the actual guys are saying we need to also emit to grow? Okay, thank you. So one last question here for this side. Please identify yourself. I'm Soren Wuh Nielsen from Copenhagen Business School. I've tried to read quite a bit about the taxation of resource exploitation and I'm getting quite confused because there seems to be a theoretical recommendation in the direction of resource rent tax. And I didn't hear anything about a resource rent tax in the discussion so far. But there seems to be a theoretical recommendation there. But then my own feeling is that when you are up against the multinational corporations which can engage in trend surprising then you should be very careful about that kind of tax and maybe you want to fall back to royalties. Do you have any comments on that? The first two speakers. Okay, thank you. So we'll have answers before proceeding to another round of questions. Okay, I think one question was kind of directed to me, the green growth question, right? So maybe I'll just try to answer that one. Yeah, it is true that currently Africa may not be emitting much compared to the other countries or the other continents but we know that there are signs that Africa is doing well since I'm improving and over time the levels of pollution that will be experienced will be bigger and bigger and it has implications not only for the developed world but for Africa itself because there are studies indicating that the impact of pollution which will alter the climate will be much harsher on Africa than other continents. So it is very important that we may not see benefits today from cutting down on a mission or taking the low-carbon path today but if we continue with a business as usual in some time to come the repercussions are going to be much harsher on the continent. So that is the reason why we have to do something about emissions today on the continent and I also like to mention that perhaps green growth is also a little bit more general than looking at low-carbon development paths. We can think of green growth in fisheries as well. It's just in fisheries the implication here will be extracting on a path that guarantees sustainability that a future generation will also be able to get enough fish just like you catch today and generate the highest revenue from fisheries. If you invest too much effort today and catch too much today then tomorrow you are going to lose out. So you may have a higher revenue today but if you look at the benefits over time if you look at the stream of benefit the best option, the best strategy will be to harvest at a level that will guarantee that from time to time you obtain a certain level of benefit which on the aggregate is higher than any other path that you might, that you could take. Thank you. Connect if I can just build on what wisdom has said. It seems to me that whatever is said in Paris in a few weeks time that there will be some recognition that countries such as Tanzania where for example only 18% have access to electricity currently will have a right in the foreseeable future to build power generation capacity in the case of Tanzania that what is being built currently is going to be gas-fired because it's being built in 2015, 2016 it's going to be not, I won't say state of the art as it would be in the United States but it will recognize the need to limit pollution to the extent that it is possible. But I don't actually see that there's any real prospect that either the natural gas development that is being discussed at the present time or it's already taken place or indeed the financing from donor agencies and others for the power generation is going to be unduly affected by the global climate change discussions in a very, very poor country. It's small, it's, most people would sort of say it seems significant in terms of the global impact. Sorry? Coal. Coal, I know there's talk about developing coal further. Chinese have invested a great deal in new coal facilities in Tanzania but the immediate sort of boost to power generation is going to come from gas-fired generation. I plead ignorance on how long it will take before the coal, if at all, becomes a source of fuel. Should I take the, Dr. Nielsen's question? Taxation is a complicated matter. I intentionally stayed off it because it could take a whole seminar on its own. I think there's a lot of confusion about the way in which these minerals are taxed. There's a big difference, for example, between oil and gas versus minerals. Oil and gas is typically taxed on production sharing agreements, whereby from the first day there's any production at all. Depending on the agreement, the government is getting a right to a share of the real resource. Transfer pricing doesn't enter into that picture very much. The issue is how the government concerned or the national oil company, if that is the source of where this revenue goes, depends to use that resource. I think Winston also referred to royalties being too low, but I think when we look at taxation of minerals even, we can't just look at royalties. We need to look at the totality of the taxation. The way that we've done it, in the case studies we've done, is to look at the accumulation of taxes of all sorts. The PAYE on employees. Don't forget the employees of mining companies are extremely well paid and they pay a lot of PAYE tax. There's importance on some things. There are local license fees and levers. There's corporation tax admittedly after a lag because the depreciation allowance persists for seven or eight years. And then there are royalties. And to say that royalties are only 5% of the revenue is, I think, only telling part of the story. The cases we've looked at where you take the gross turnover of a typical mining company where it's in Ghana or in Tanzania is for every 100, something like 15 of that goes to government. About 65 is employers' salaries and payments and other inputs, some of which will be imported. About 7% goes to shareholders and the rest goes to depreciation. So the government is typically getting 15% of the gross figure which can be a very high proportion of profit because in the early stages, and this is true of the new oil and gas, sorry, the new gas investments in Tanzania, in the first 10 years of production, the profits will be negligible. So as far as the government is getting any revenue, it's getting from these other taxes and these are the ones we need to concern ourselves with. Of course, in mining systems where you have a royalty, on day one from production, if it's a production-based royalty, you'll get the royalty revenue, which may only be 5%, which may not seem a lot, but in the context where the hundred, 65 or 70 of that is paid on wages, salaries and other inputs, it's a large proportion of the residual 30% that's available to do other things. So I don't think we can discount transfer pricing. I know it exists and there's a lot of work done to try to close the doors, but I don't think it's quite such a big and dominant issue for at least well-run mining companies, as is sometimes suggested. For the sake of time, we'll take the second round of questions on this side. Yes, please. One, two, entry. Yeah. Well, my first observation is the comparison between renewable and non-renewable resources. And it seems to me that the last two speakers, particularly the last one, Wisdom, gave an excellent review of how the value of natural resources should actually be compared with the alternative of destroying an area for the sake of chasing after non-renewable resources like gold. And the missing element here was that it seems to me that in the first speaker presentation, Alan Rowe, there were estimations given of the value of these various mineral resources, but there was nothing to show how much is lost in minus when you exploit the area and you lose your natural resources. Not to mention, of course, the fact that people are displaced, water supply might be reduced, et cetera, et cetera. Agricultural production diminishes, and there are lots of social problems and unrest. So that's a rather important question. The matter of whether you do exploit your natural non-renewable resources or do not exploit it, particularly in terms of its profitability in even the not very long term, okay? That's one point. The other aspect that comes here is fine. You make a revenue from exploiting your non-renewable resources, and the big question in the developing world is who takes this revenue, right? It is well known, 101 examples, where it's an elite who swallowed the revenue and deposited all the money in the Western banks. Now, how good is that for the developing population in the third world? Zero, almost. I can give you a classic example of the small little state of Goa in India, where billions over the decades have been siphoned off a lot from illegal mining and selling the low quality ore to various countries, particularly to China. And the state itself is relatively better developed than the other parts of India, but could have been a new Switzerland if all that money was invested in the development of this little tiny state of Goa, which has other resources such as tourism and so on. So these are the sort of relating aspects which come in. And then the final question is the amount of revenue. Now Goa was compared with Norway in one study and it was found that unlike Norway, where Norway was able to obtain through ownership of her natural oil resources, something like 70, 80 or whatever percent for the Norwegian state, Goa didn't manage even three to five percent. Everything else went to illegal mines, to elite in the country and elsewhere and foreign companies. So that's the reality. Thanks for the comments. We'll take the second and third questions. Please try to be brief and concise for the sake of time. Good afternoon, everybody. And first of all, I want to say to everybody, Happy Birthday to the Institute, which has invited us and give us place for the sharing, our view and learn about the options what we have for our next 15 or 30 years for our child as well. And my question is about the natural resources usage. Okay, here we discuss about the taxes, about the feasibilities or, I mean, efficiency of using the different manual resources, but nobody mentioned it about the social protection and study in the social protection, especially for example, we all of know that it's gold mining or oil and gas sector. It's consumed so many energy and its companies, instead of the produce the energy, they just compute the energy which should link or should go to the population for the family's needs, for the females develop, for the child develop as well. So it's an institute, it's a UN institute who is looking for the development of the nations, each nations. The question, do any department sectors or researchers study the social responsibilities of the gold mining, oil and gas mining to construct the power generation facilities, network facilities for the growing the population in the area whereas they use the resources? And this is the first question and second just the comments. And nobody, I'm really glad to see that females on the panel of demands, and this is exactly show the efficiency of the research because the females thinking from the, and finding the new ideas to support to the development and maybe we need to see for this kind of issue from the different perspective with different eyes and find the point of development from the nation, the development of nation instead of the development of the nature resources. Thank you. Thank you. The last question. Thank you very much. I'm Gibi Cham from Bonn University in Germany. This question is addressed to wisdom. In your presentation wisdom you mentioned for instance the need to have a kind of incentive that will bring the use of natural resources from the second best to the first best solution. I was just thinking I wanted to get your thoughts in terms of do you think we can use a different instrument rather than tackling natural resources because well the model was very fast to me but if your tax is based on the level of effort that people can provide, we can also think about different other options that may lead to the second best option, especially in a context where we know on the one hand we can increase, we can enhance the revenue we collect from protecting the use of the natural resources but also on the other hand strengthening the capacity of the developing countries to increase the ability to control the use of the resource. And the other question is addressed to Alan. You showed a very nice figure displaying the gap for instance between the revenues that we get from the resource but also the expected expenses we have developing countries have for instance to engage in terms of health or education. I was just thinking about whether you factor in uncertainties that may arise from this variability in terms of the pricing of the natural resources because definitely this gap may change according to whether the price has increased. Thanks. Okay, thank you. I'll ask each panelist to pick up one question and answer as quickly as possible. A question on energy consumption on the mindset of natural resources extractive industry area. I would say energy consumption must be also studied like water or land consumption because it's come to competition with population usage of energy and the social responsibilities in the extractive industry area how to overcome the negative impact of industry or of extractive industry on populations. I think we have some people here at Wider who look at this side of issues related to natural resources. You raise a good point. We should have mentioned effectively that energy consumption comes into competition with mining activities as well as water or land. And the social responsibilities is quite important and some research is working on that here at Wider. Sorry? Or obligated that the gold mining company to construct, to invest to the generation capacity and network system which support for development of the region where they will work. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe at the end of you and me. Okay. Thank you very much Mr Chair. The question regarding the incentives whether we can have other policy instruments that could work. I would like to say that it's very, very difficult to design policies for fisheries management in developing countries for many, many reasons. One policy that has been tried is granting territorial use right to communities where a community living by the fishery will have the right over the resource within the area. But fisheries are migratory. You know if you are managing maybe a common grazing area you can just allocate it and each community will have a patch. But if it is a resource that migrate then even if this community is doing the right thing the fishes could go to the other communities and be harvested. It's very difficult to do. And then also the husband situations where we have also had co-management where the government together with the community come together to have a common understanding on how the resource is supposed to be managed. But the government or policy makers from the government side don't have good, I mean that much credibility with communities and it has a history. I mean there has been a situation where at some point in time a judge told fishermen who took a case there against other fishermen who were fishing with distracted fishing equipment that the best fisherman is the one that catches more fish. So if you have such contradictory statements coming from people who are supposed to help to manage the stock then it's now difficult for the same people to come to the communities and be asking them to dialogue on how the stock is going to be managed. So it's not very easy to come out with other policies. So for now I think devising a tax structure that will be attached on inputs like premixed fuel seems like a viable option for now. The chair has asked me to be almost brief to the point of disappearing. So I apologize to the gentleman in the back but I'm very happy to just talk to you in the coffee break and give you a more complete answer. I think the answer is really, of course, there are many, many examples of very bad practice of the type you quote both in terms of revenue management and in terms of the treatment of local peoples but there are increasingly a huge watch of international standards which 21 companies which are 70% of world production adhere to because they are committed to them through the organizations to which they engage. There are also things like extractive industries from transparency which is dealing with some of the problems of the type you mentioned. Let's talk about it in a little more detail because the chairman is going to kill me otherwise. Well, thank you everybody for your patience. Just before closing I simply wanted to point out that UNU wider has embarked on an important project on natural resource management. So you should definitely keep vigil of future opportunities for research collaboration in that field. Again, thanks a lot for your patience. We went beyond the allocated time. You still have some time to grab some coffee. So thank you and we hope I can close the session.