 So now I'd like to open the floor to questions from the audience. Yes, one here. Another economist question. They're all very nasty. I understand that it takes a long time to see outcomes, but do you have even an anecdotal sense of whether a lot of people who have title or communities who have received title have been able to get credit from banks for investments or land improvements and so on. Would you like to? Or actually there was another question also. So perhaps we can go here. I'm just curious if particularly in the Mozambique case have you observed any correlation at all between property rights and control of wildlife crime poaching? I'm sorry, John Wall from Integra. Yeah, question on the case in Tanzania. So I'm Daniel. We're coming called Ben-Ben. We're working in Ghana with a few of the banks to help access lending to those doing land documentation. So I was curious to see that you said one of the challenges was that many banks do not lend. Who is currently doing the lending that you were talking about? Are these rural banks who are already lending on these temporary titles or the occupancy certificates? And then what is the challenge for the other banks of why they're not lending? Okay, so maybe we'll let the speakers answer those questions. The first was about the outcomes and then it's related to the lending and then the other one was about property rights and poaching. Go ahead. Well, thank you. Mozambique land belongs to the state. So it's impossible to use it as a collateral. That would be the straight answer to that. There is a lot of discussion on privatization. There is an attempt to do an amendment in the law that will allow transference of rights, but you cannot use it as a collateral. With regards to poaching and the crime, the consciousness of communities has demonstrated that in some cases they have control. They do police and protect their resources. In a recent visit to Cabo Delgado, for instance, there was a group of people who were arrested by the community first because they monitor the illegal use of their resources. Consciousness is key in these situations. Maybe also to go back to the economist's point, for Tanzania, the ultimate goal of establishing this particular program is really capital formation. We do all things, but at the end of the day, we want these people to participate in the economy which is governed by the rule of the law. That's why we undertake puzzling, giving them titles on individual basis so that they can use them to get loaned. I can join this with a question asked by my brother there. There are some banks which do not accept this from the experience, and I agree. There are some banks which do not accept this at all because they say it's customer right. It's not a right, it's customer right. The challenge is, why some banks who are not accepting these Ciceroos is what it contains in the law. In the law, they said in case of default, in case of default, bankers are not allowed to sell the property which someone has used it as collateral. It's conflicting that you accept it, that you want people to make capital out of it, and if someone defaults, you cannot sell its property. So, bankers were refraining. They said, no, it does not make any sense. But since Kurabita has started this particular program, they kept informing the bankers that we need to sit down together and see what can we do so that these citizens can take advantage of building the economy at the same time they are not defaulting. And in some cases, we go and make a tripartite arrangement. We say, here is the bank, the financial institution. Here is Kurabita. Here is someone who want to get a loan from the bank. So that Kurabita becomes like a father or mother to this person pushing. No, how much have we paid so far? How much have we done so far? Did you use the loan according to the requirement? So, we have proved that this has made the bankers now say, okay, we are confident that the people who are receiving Ciceroos, they can pay back the loans. And in fact, these banks, not only the community banks, because we have the community banks, we have other big banks. We have SierraDB Bank. It's a very big bank. We have National Microfinance Bank. It's a very big bank. And now we have established a Ciceroo Development Bank so that it goes straight to the farmers giving these particular loans. But yet there are still some people, some banks which do not accept it because of this point in the law. Other questions? I think David Mason had a question and then Susanna. Thanks, yeah. Two questions really. In Tanzania, are there chiefs? And if so, how do they, how are they involved in land administration and how have they been incorporated in this titling process? And secondly, again in Tanzania, are there communal areas where there may be overlapping rights? And if so, how have you dealt with that in this titling process? If it's communal areas, it's communal piece of land, maybe it's a certain part of the year one group might be using that land, in another part of the year another group might be using that land. How does that get incorporated into the titling process? Susanna? Yes, I have a question about, I guess, transparency and avoiding any capture during these processes at the village level, at the local level. For example, is it the village adjudication committees in Tanzania, is that what they're called? Yes. How are those committees selected? And what attempts are made to make sure that all sectors of the village, like minorities and women, are represented in those committees to avoid that type of any capture or land grabbing, whatever you want to call it. Can we take one more question from the gentleman over here? Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I'm Paul Masick with the World Cocoa Foundation. I was wondering if you could answer two questions. One is a very practical question regarding the costs of registering land and documenting it. How were those costs shared and to what extent did the farmers actively participate in that cost sharing and perhaps at what level, happy to be referred to more detailed documentation if that's too granular for this discussion. Secondly, I'd also be interested in knowing to what extent you have evidence that farmers who've actually registered their land are changing their practices and behaviors with regard to that land. Are they actually changing anything or is it just taking what was a traditional customary right now, translating it into sort of more codified, registered right? Okay. Starting from the last, if there are changes after titling, in the perspective of our program, our project, we work with communities, so it's collective rights, and even when it is titling, it is for associations. What I can share for the most positive experiences is that the title for an association or a cooperative is very, very important to get support either technical or financial. So the best example I have is a community, an association that we helped to register 58 actors by a river, but they had no means to invest. A government program dedicated, actually funded by the World Bank, dedicated to support irrigation, provided them with equipment to irrigate their land. Another program that promotes commercial agriculture provided technical assistance to produce sugarcane. The harmonization of these three the title, the water and the sugarcane technique upgraded their capacity and the sugar company nearby just buys their products, so the chain is closed. This is one of the most positive examples. Yeah. I can also add something on this last point you talked about whether registration assists in changing behavior. Yeah, we can say yes and in fact in terms of Tanzania it has changed people's mindset so much because they linked the entire process with getting money, with the capital formation. So since everyone is saying, okay, I'm registering my land because I get collateral to get loan and if I get loan I will do so and so businesses. So from there people started to think capital formation all the time so it has really changed their mindset so much not only registration. With regards to the cost sharing you ask, you somewhat ask if there is cost sharing or how do they share this cost. I can say that in the areas where Mkrabita undertake this capacity building so the government is like investing at the beginning it's giving capital it's giving a seed for the formulation to start taking place and thereafter the village council decides how much someone has to contribute because this money is supposed to be assisting the land register at the village level so it is the village council decide how much this people has to contribute but if you are doing the formalization using private firms then that is another thing because they come up with business oriented decisions. Another point was whether we have chiefdom in the country we don't have everything which is related to land issues they are not about chiefs it's about the law. So village number 5 of 1999 is governing all transactions regarding land formalization in the country with the representation at the village level the first register is the village chairman executive officer so the representation is again according to the law because the law says that education officer should be this and this the committee should involve this we have 4 women in the committee of 10 so all these things are being done according to the law. So I am now getting the sign to stop so we are going to wrap up this session for now thank you everyone. Thank you.