 Okay, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Thailand, welcome to Bangkok and welcome to Rikoft, the Center for Forest and Forest. Can you all hear me? I hope so, I hope so. Let me introduce ourselves. I was just introduced by Boonmi, my name is Kora, and I work for Wageningen Center for Development Innovation. Our colleagues are the people from Rikoft Center for Forests and People, Rijani is one of them, and our participants are from many organizations from all over the world. Okay, why have we come together here? We, that is Wageningen Center for Development Innovation and Rikoft Center for People and Forest, we decided that it would be so great to gather landscape professionals from all over the world, in one place, and learn from each other about landscape dynamics, and moreover how we as landscape leaders can facilitate these landscape dynamics and multi-stakeholder processes within landscapes, and we've decided to call that landscape leadership. So over the past few days, actually, one and a half week already, we've been sharing, learning from each other, and really working hard to increase our landscape leadership skills, and we've learned how we can pass on those skills to the people we are working with. The setup of this course is that all participants have brought their own cases with them. So all the people who are here from Kenya, from Nigeria, from Thailand, from Indonesia, from Cameroon, from Mexico, from Bhutan, from India, from Sri Lanka, they've all come here with their own cases, with their own issues they have to work with, they're having difficulties with, and together we've been analyzing these cases from a landscape perspective. One of such cases actually is from Indonesia, and we have our colleague, Sasi, and Sasi is working in South Kalimantan, in an area in a landscape that is called Ulang, and we want Sasi to take us to Indonesia to her case. Sasi, please, can you come? Okay, this picture illustrates my landscape in Ulang Village in the loxado-protected forest South Kalimantan. As you can see, we tried to go back in 1983, and just imagine, this landscape is a real nice tropical rainforest. And after that, you can find so many villagers who are living inside the forest and also in surrounding forests to do their daily life, for example, like agriculture activities, farming lands, collecting forest products, and also these Daya Bukit tribes have the sacred forests, the implementations of their religion, their religion is animism. And also, after that, in 1999, our Ministry of Forestry issued one regulation about how to manage this protected forest into the industrial plantations forest. So, after that, many stakeholders came in this landscape for doing their oil pump plantations, also doing coal mining, both legal mining and also illegal mining. After that, in 2001, aliens of indigenous peoples who really stand up to fight their rights because their landscape has become shrink. And in 2014, our government changed their rules to have customary forests. But some problems still exist in this area, and our group discussions defines that the major issue is about unclear property rights of the land use. How does it play out in this area? It happens because the change of the government rules from 1999 to 2014. And of course, the second one, it develops to be a conflict between many stakeholders. This one, if you can see, some village also have a conflict to use this land use. And this one, from these dialogue Bukit tribes with the stakeholders, not the stakeholders, for example, private companies or investors who are really interested with this area because we are really rich with the natural resources. And then also the governments. So who are really involved in this issue? This, my local community, who are lost their rights. And also local NGO who wants to stand up to fight to help these people to get their rights again. And also for the investors who are really interested in this area. And government, because governments change their rules three times from 1993 to 2014. And what is exactly the major issue? Yes, as I said, the unclear property rights of the land use. So why this become an issue? Why this become a major issue? Because it links to their major livelihood. It links to their daily life. It links to their traditional rules, how to use, how to manage their forests. And also it links to their belief that their belief is animism. So they should protect their forests because trees also have spirit. Rock also has spirit and after that. So therefore as a victim, Daya Bukit tribes want to obtain land use, to obtain sustainable landscape management to shaker their lands. Okay, I think that's enough. Thank you. Okay, thank you Sasi. This was not a wonderful story. You did it wonderfully, but the story is actually quite difficult. Now, the way in which we've been teaching here or training here in this classroom is that we have used cases like Sasi's case and we tried to conceptualize them. We tried to put them within the framework of landscape approaches. So let me show you how we did it. Derek, may I have the slide? Yes, we took the case of Indonesia, Sasi's case in South Kalimantan. And then the next slide please. We looked at the most important asset of that landscape, which indeed is the forest. So we've been trying to focus on the forest and the dynamics of those forests. And while doing so, we realized that the forests in the Ulang landscape are increasingly fragmented and they are under threat. They are under threat for several reasons. On the one hand we have the Ulang village that is modernizing, that is growing, but we have people living there and they have been living in the forest and with the forest for a very long time. They know the forest. They are part of the forest. But increasingly we see commercial agriculture. In this particular case it is palm oil. But we all recognized this process from our own landscapes, that commoditization, the commercial impacts, the integration in the global economy is necessary. It is a reality, but it is influencing our local landscapes. And we also realized that the rural life is increasingly influenced or incorporated in processes of urbanization. We see in Indonesia a huge urbanization, big cities emerging and growing and functioning as a pool factor and attracting many people. That provides a lot of congestion and pollution, but it also provides opportunities for agriculture to grow and for commercial agriculture, for farmers to gain income. So it has two sides. And then we realized that the cities are obviously linked to infrastructure, to industry. There where people get their jobs from, there where people gain an income. We increasingly need material things and they are produced by the industry, which in turn needs the landscape and its resources, like in this case the water. So we see an interconnectedness within the landscape, an interdependency in which one part cannot go without the other. Then there was one more element that Susi mentioned, that's mining. We need the resources of our landscape to progress and to develop, but we also exploit these landscapes and how to do that sustainably. That's the question. So the first days of this course we spend a lot of time in analyzing these landscape dynamics and this interconnectedness between the pieces of the puzzle. But then we also realized that landscapes actually are not isolated, spatial units, geographical units in one location. They're actually increasingly interconnected, where is my slide? Interconnected to the global economy. There is mobility, there are global networks emerging all over and we increasingly see that consumers are part of the landscape, whether they realize it or not. Through their consumptive behavior they shape our landscape and they exercise an influence. And we increasingly see international trade agreements and value chains, commodity chains connecting our local landscape of Ulang to the wider world. And we increasingly see investors and we have realized that investors, they are not just the ones pumping money into our landscape. They are part of our landscape. They are co-responsible for the way in which these landscapes are being shaped. So we've been using a lot of tools to analyze all these global connections and how these are linked and how these global actors have become co-responsible for our landscapes. And we've used, I think, many creative ways of doing this type of analysis. And then actually the biggest question, the most difficult question, is if you look at all these different actors at different levels, different scales, how do we bring all these actors together and create some kind of, we don't know, of a space for dialogue where all these actors with their different discourses, their different perspectives can share or can fight or can dialogue or collectively create room to find what they have in common. So we were thinking of how can these institutional spaces be created? Like, could it be like round tables, platforms, networks, new landscape institutions, where stakeholders, including the far away ones, the global players, including the younger generation, including the biodiversity, how can all these actors come together and plan and negotiate for a better future? Well, that's the second step in the course and we did not only have Sasi's case, we also had a wonderful case from Kenya, Laikipia, and I would like to invite our participant from Laikipia, Alex. And Alex will present us an example of such a multi-stakeholder network in his landscape. Okay, Alex, over to you. As you can see, I'm about to share with you the case I brought from Kenya that stresses so much on multi-stakeholder activities to bring about harmony in the landscape issues. Okay, I'll give you a brief history of the landscape. Before 20th century, Laikipia Plateau was mainly inhabited by the Maasai before 20th century. At around 1904 and 1911, they all signed the Anglo-Maasai treaties that established common branches for white settlers. In the 1960s, early 1960s, Kenya became independent. The same laws that we used to form common branches by the settlers were adopted into the independent Kenya. In the 1970s, the Kenyatta government settled some other people from other regions into the large scale. In the 1990s, there was increased claim for constitutional change. Constitutional change that would bring about change in institutions that govern resources that are common to the people. In 2010, we got a new constitution, the constitution we are using now. In 2014, we have a lot of laws and good institutions unfolding that will help address some of the issues in the large scale. Good. In the large scale, it's a beautiful and rich Savannah ecosystem. It is on the lower side of Mount Kenya to the southeast, stretches to the edge of the Rift Valley to the west. So you can see much of it is Savannah and it's rich in wildlife and some small patches of forest to the west, a small patch to the southeast. So much of the resources here is wildlife and some forest resources. We also have water resources. Now the issue is that people in the land feel and mostly indigenous populations feel that all is not well if the resources mostly from wildlife are not shared equitably. So the main problem as part of the case I brought here is inequitable sharing of the benefits accruing from exploitation of the wildlife resource among other resources. So that being the case, we find that about three years ago, about three years ago, there was realized that there was need to have a way to bring on board various perspectives on the large scale so that we could chart way forward. And there was form a network of stakeholders comprising of tourism operators, commercial ranchers, business community. As you can see here, there's a dialogue table and a location tree. We also have the water resource associations and community forestry associations. All these stakeholders coming together to form a network that is called by the name of the landscape. It's a landscape wise network called like keep your country natural resource network. And it is mandated to look into issues revolving around natural resources and the exploitation of the benefits. So this network was formed three years ago and it has been involved actively to influence formulation of policies and laws both at the county level and at the national level. At the county level, it was involved in the formulation of the county wildlife act that sought to be addressing issues related to human wildlife conflicts. There before we used to have regional community committees that would resolve cases emanating from human wildlife conflicts. We've also influenced formulation of a policy that is about to be assented by the president. We'll see that we have an independent body that can't be influenced either politically or I hope, that will be called the benefits sharing authority that will be established by a law that is to be assented called natural resource benefits sharing. Okay, we also have the indigenous communities also claim that it is the ancestral land that was subdivided by the white settlers and those previous regimes that it is their right to own the land. So we are having also, coming in place, community land bill. This bill, this bill when it comes to law, it will define to what extent and the validity of the claims of the indigenous communities, Spartans land and use of the natural resources in their last cave. Thank you. Now that being the case and working with that network of stakeholders, it has been amid various challenges and one of the challenges has been coordinating activities across the last cave. Various stakeholders have various views on natural resources. Public private interests collide. We are completing needs of wildlife, agriculture and tourism. So it has been very difficult to coordinate activities and to try to make all the stakeholders have a common understanding on what should work, what can work for all in the last cave. Another problem has been lack of or inadequate advocacy skills among the stakeholders to influence to a big extent formulation of policies in the last cave. Though we have managed but we still find our capacities to advocate for that inadequate. We've also had a challenge with resources. The last keep is very vast. Expansiveness of the last cave requires enormous resources to facilitate small processes across the last cave. Again, another positive side of it of the network is that recently we have another partner on board, eco-agriculture partners. He's partnering with Lakeipia County Natural Resources Network to situate that there's integrated management of the last cave for people, food and nature. Thank you very much. Thank you Alex for sharing with us the really complex and interesting case of Lakeipia, Kenya. And I think you identified a number of challenges but one of the main developments has been this setting up of the multi-stakeholder dialogue. And setting up of such a multi-stakeholder dialogue really in essence and in part requires some form of leadership. And the question that we've been talking in the class in this training has been what is a landscape leader? And why is a landscape leader different from any other leader? And in essence is actually what Cora, Sasi and Alex has been talking about. It's actually this having the sense of the place, connections to the place and it's knowing the place. And in essence also even a deep respect and love for the place. And we've been using a framework and I can see that it's being shared with you on the slide right now. We've been using a framework to better understand landscape leadership at this landscape level. And we start this sense of place, this deep knowing of the place starts with the I, the individual. An individual with what we call the X factor. This person has charisma to convince and make people listen. This person is passionate about the landscape and the interactions and the dynamism in the landscape. And has the courage to take risk in essence. This person has the inner conviction and motivation to make change happen. With these traits, the individual leader with charisma, passion and all the other traits, the core attributes is able to share the vision for change to connect with like-minded people. This is the we that is the co-creation of a shared collective vision for change and action to make changes happen at the landscape level. At this juncture there could emerge a number of landscape leaders. Taking into consideration the shrinking and expanding of the landscape that Korra described with her puzzle, we touch upon describing the landscape. We move to the day, the collective group realizing the need to bring other actors into the landscape to make strategic connections. This is alliances, partnerships or networks with actors. Typically this will be connections with markets, connections with academic institutions and other actors. This, I feel, creates the impetus for rocking the system, so to speak. This is where there is an avenue and space to set agendas, to change rules for negotiating, for claiming and granting of space. The it, where changes can happen at the systemic level, where the vision of the change for the landscape is actualized for the actors within the landscape. So this framework we feel has been something that helps us to understand really this process and this concept of leadership at landscape level. And I will pass on to Korra to kind of wrap up our discussion for today. Thank you, Rajani. I forgot to properly introduce Rajani Kunjapan. She is one of the re-coffed experts and trainers and we are working closely together here in Bangkok. Also we have Tom De Bruyne, one of our Wageningen colleagues who is with us and Rona Korn, the chief trainer of this also with us. Okay, we are receiving questions. We are receiving difficult questions. We are receiving a question like, how can collective action be achieved? We are receiving a question like, what is a platform? And we have received a question, how do you practically involve global stakeholders? Well, I think Rajani, you have partly answered these questions by using the process of moving from the personal leadership styles to the changing the system. This is highly conceptual but I would like all participants from around the globe who are watching us to think over these questions and bring them along when they come to the Global Landscape Forum. That is actually one thing I would like to say now because you might like our course and you might like our international setting. So, I would like to invite you. May I have a slide? Yeah, you can join us. We hope you will join us. You can join us during the Global Landscape Forum, during the Masterclass, that's what the youth is organizing, on Friday the 5th, that's the day before the Global Landscape Forum. I think you can still sign up and maybe Michelle, you want to put the link for signing up into the chat box. Then, if you really like these landscape approaches, the multi-stakeholder processes within landscapes and the landscape leadership, if you're really attracted by our story, then you can go to our website and actually you can already apply. You see here the Apply button and I've heard that there is already a rush but if you're fast, you may get a scholarship. That means that our sponsors will pay for your ticket and you're boarding and lodging. So, apply and make sure that you join us here in Bangkok next November 2015. Here is the link for some people. Maybe Michelle, you want to put this link in the chat box. I am not sure if there are questions from our global audience. Maybe Bunmi, can I hand over to you and let us know the questions which have been asked so far. Bunmi, are you there? Yeah, hi Bunmi, how are we doing? Hello, can you hear me now? Yes, we can hear you perfectly well. All right. I was saying the first question was directed to Ms. Sasi and the question was like, given these issues, what can you recommend in order to move forward with unclear property rights and numerous changes in the government policy? Okay, Sasi, this is not an easy question but please give it a try. Yeah, thank you for the questions and my recommendation based on our discussion is about giving space for negotiations, inclusion of stakeholders particularly who are really connected with my landscape. For example, from local people and also private sectors, also the government and local NGO or international NGO. And also giving space to have a public hearing particularly for the local people. Of course, we already did it with the alliance of indigenous people but I think this is not really enough to have this kind of alliance but maybe our governments give us public hearings. And also the third one is about respecting, please respect their rights to have their lands and because you know their traditional knowledge they live for many centuries in their village before our independent days in 1945. So they're living for many centuries over there. So I think let's work together to have a better future. Thank you. Thank you, Sasi. The second question was not directed at anyone in particular and is actually a series of questions. I'm just going to read it out now. I'm starting now. Beyond dialogue, how can collective action be achieved and the person define collective action as when stakeholders actually decide to act and compromise resources to achieve a common goal. Then there's the follow-up question which is what is the platform? How can you involve global stakeholders? What is the justification to have an external actor be granted rights over a local landscape as a stakeholder? I don't know if you want to take these questions one by one or you want to answer them together. I think the one who is most experienced in facilitating these multi-stakeholder platforms is Alex. So may I hand over to you, Alex? Thank you very much. How can collective action be achieved? Beyond dialogue. Okay. How can collective action be achieved? Yeah. Beyond dialogue. Thank you. Thank you. To achieve a collective action at the large scale, what we tried to do and what we most did is bringing them together. You mobilize them. You mobilize them. You have them, for example, at a round table. You share with them. You make them, for example, their capacity is on artificial values. You try to show them so that all of them can have a common understanding of the landscape and the issue you wish to address collectively. It's possible. Thanks for the answer, Alex. And would you like to take on the other two following questions, which is what is a platform? Thank you. The platform we are having is a network, a platform that encompasses various stakeholders in the large scale, various players in the large scale. Okay. I hope that is a satisfying answer. Yes. But if there is more time, there is one more particular question directed at Alex, actually. Okay. Alex. I'm ready. I'm ready. And this particular question is from Darcy Lapabis. She is trying to ask, how can we safeguard and ensure that the benefit-sharing authority will not be influenced by the government or any authority with vested interests? Are there already said benefits-sharing for Kenya? Okay. Thank you. That's a law that's about to be assented. And it's sitting about the authority that we hope won't be interfered with. We have a lot of institutions in the country. We have an independent body that would try to check. We are also there to see to it that there's no interference. We would be there to watch and know that we saw in case it's being interfered with, or we feel that some forces are about to interfere with the working of the authority. We are there to watch dogs, the community and the network as well. And finally, Alex, before you go, the last question to you, please. What is the justification to have an external actor be granted rights over a local landscape as a stake holder? Okay. Do you want me to take that again? Yes, please. Okay. What is the justification to have an external actor be granted rights over a local landscape as a stake holder? Okay. Thank you very much. Rajani is willing to help me address that, please. Okay. Thank you, Alex, for the justification, maybe not really a justification, but when we talk about rights at the landscape level, and rights really is about a bundle of rights. It's a number of rights that is granted by any authority, for example, which we call the duty bearers. And the duty bearers and the rights holders who have these rights, they both have responsibility towards what, how they exercise these rights. And while it may be just, this is a justification in its way by the granting of the rights, but the granting of the rights does not come without responsibilities and how these rights are exercised. I hope that answers the question in part for external actors as well as actors within the landscape. Okay. Bunmi, there is the other question of how to involve global stakeholders into local processes. It is a difficult question, but I would like to tell a bit about my own experience that I'm increasingly seeing an interest in companies, multinational companies, global organizations to get involved in local processes. I see, I'm optimistic, I see an increased responsibility which is being taken up by the private sector. And I see more companies realizing that destroying the landscape puts their production chains at risk. So I see an increased interest in companies in private sector to take more care and to take co-responsibility over the landscape. And I find that extremely hopeful and extremely challenging to see how private companies can be involved in local landscape processes, how they can contribute to the sustenance, to the maintenance of the landscape. We have in our group two people who have practical experience with such private sector involvement. We have Steffi from South Africa who is working with private sector. We have Vanika from the Netherlands. She is working a lot with private sector. May I ask both of you to say something very small about this involvement of private sector? Steffi, would you like to try? Yeah. So I think that what we've realized is that on a landscape a lot needs to be achieved and people lack the power to take big steps forward. And a way to bring that power in is to invite people from outside. And I think that Rajani's point on rights and responsibility is incredibly important. But at the end of the day what it allows is that it generates a co-management technique between people on the landscape and people outside the landscape and a co-creation of solutions to satisfy the needs of all of the parties. Because there's no denying it, we can't exclude the private industry and the private sector any longer. It's not sustainable and it's not going to take us very far at all. So that's what we've found in some cases in South Africa that's been really enlightening and allowed us to proceed forward in leaps and bounds. Then Vanika from the Netherlands and working in Indonesia. Hello. Welcome. What I would like to say about the involvement of the private sector in restoring landscapes is that they are the future. They see the importance of their presence in the landscape and they are willing to be part of the landscape. And it doesn't have to be traditional. They are part of the landscape. As are the consumers, for instance, in Europe and in the United States. We are part of the landscape, just as Korra also said. So that's the future. That's how we look at it and how we have to evolve it. How we have to work on that. Maybe just to finalize another very hopeful thing that I noticed is that global investors increasingly realize that there are so many degraded and damaged landscapes in this world. And that investing in restoring them, investing in bringing their values back is actually a very good investment opportunity. You may not get maximum financial return out of that, but you get a lot of social return and natural return. And it may even give you a really good inspirational drive, which could be seen as a return on investment. And yes, I'm quite optimistic that that will happen soon. There are two more questions. For whom? Okay, the issue of gender and women inclusion in landscapes. Would that be a question for Stella, maybe, from Cameroon? Would you like to answer the question, how to look at gender relations in landscapes? And what's the role of women in landscape approaches and dialogue? Thank you. I see this as a very important aspect. Women, they should be part of landscape management because they are in direct contact with the resources. They use the resources. They know how to manage it. But in most cases, decisions are taken without them and which is not a good thing in the management of a landscape. So it is important to incorporate women in the planning process of how to manage a landscape. Thank you. Okay, we see there is another question. That is, the question is about bottom-up versus top-down. And the question is, should we approach a landscape from the top-down, the planning, the designing and the control? Or should we approach it bottom-up, the core creation and the dialogue and the working from the bottom upwards? That's a nice question. I think we have tried to approach landscapes as networks in which we have local players and national players and international players. And when you look at the landscape as a network, I find it hard to make the difference between bottom-up and top-down. I think you need them both and I think a real dialogue is actually end the bottom and the top dialoguing together. Maybe Rijani, can you show us a box? We've been working a lot on this idea of act globally and think locally. Or think globally and act locally. And we need them both. And we think that is the interesting part of the landscape approach that it allows you to look at the landscape from the inside. We have a lot of things in the box. That is we have stakeholders, we have conflicts, we have erosion, we have competition. But we also have initiatives and power and agency that's in the box. A lot of different things. Identity, critical thinking, interactions, local interactions. Yes, knowledge and sharing. That's inside of the box. Okay, but if you close the box again, you look at the outside and the linkages to higher levels of influence. We have the global agreements, we have the trade relations and we have the consumers' behaviors. And we think we need both. I think we need to co-create at the local level that we have to interact with the global level. And that's the way in which we've been approaching our landscapes during the course. Are there more questions? In regards to the last question you just answered, there is another angle of the question which is when do we know when to use the bottom-up approach or the top-down approach? Or when should we decide when to use the top-bottom approach or the bottom-up approach in most stakeholder setup? I think maybe Staffie is working both globally and locally. Can you give it a try to answer this question? So I think what we say is that we've got a top-guided approach but everything needs to be based at the bottom and that's the top and the bottom that we talk about. And I think that it's not one at one stage of the process and another stage of the process but they need to work together all the way through. And you need to make sure that there's always guidance but the solutions and the movement forward always comes from the bottom. So neither one nor another at a certain time but together all the way that would be my solution. Thank you, Staffie. I also think it's very contextual. Yes, it depends on the context and some of the tools that we've been using and learning within this training really helps you analyze that context and decide which entry points you have. And I think when you do that analysis with the stakeholders who are involved within the context that you're talking about keeping in mind that it's both local along to the global that you will have a better understanding of which entry points and when to use them. Are there any other questions from the audience? Bonmi? Right now, there are no other questions. So to random off, I think we may just have to say some or two other things you may want to talk to a participant to random off the webinar. I'm sorry, Bonmi. Can you just say that again because I'm not sure we heard it very clearly here. Okay. Hello. Do you hear me very clearly now? Yes. I said there's no more question for now and I don't know. Actually there is another question. There's a question from Joanna and she says it sounds a nice idea to create a multi-stakeholder platform to ensure sustainable development. But when you have, for example, a management who is extracting resources in the rural areas and who is backed up by the government because the government needs their taxes to have some state income but use these taxes mainly to ensure their votes in the reach of a middle class. How do you see these investors or government and local people sit together on equal terms to work out some sustainable future? Well, I think that's really about governance. And when we talk about governance, it's really ensuring that the sharing, the benefit sharing, the benefits from the resources go to the different stakeholders who have a stake in the landscape. And coincidentally, our next session in this training course will address this issue on governance. Governance in the landscape. After looking at the institutions and the stakeholders in the landscape, the governance needs to be strong. The governance needs to ensure that there are people within the landscape getting the benefits, the rights to the benefits that they deserve. Yes, it's ideal. Yes, in reality, there are many challenges and I think the two cases that we've seen from our participants here, Sati's case and Alex's case, show us the complexity and the difficulty and the challenges that's faced. But I think if we look and analyze the systems within the landscape, we'll be able to work out a more sustainable future as the question was asked. Korra, would you like to add on to that? Yes, I would like to add a little bit because the way in which the question is phrased, it is as if we believe that multi-stakeholder dialogue is a very nice and peaceful process. Well, actually we've talked a lot about that because in reality it is not. And in reality, stakeholder dialogue within a landscape, especially when you take on board these global players, is extremely difficult and it is usually a very conflictive process in which all stakeholders really need their capacities to keep standing in negotiations and fierce negotiations. And sometimes you really need outsiders to play a mediation role. If stakeholders cannot solve conflicts or issues together and then to avoid really stagnation, you need professional facilitators to try to create maybe not a common vision, but at least a common concern like, hey guys, if we go on like this, we will all be losers. Now how do you get to that common concern? We've been working a lot on it and it would be difficult to talk about that in one minute only. But I think maybe global audience, think about how these processes play out in your own landscape. And when you come to the Global Landscape Forum, share with us your examples so that we can analyze them together and see if we can break through stagnant processes. And if you really struggle with these issues, I would like to invite you again, please apply for this training course so that you can be here with us in Bangkok next year and we will take your case and try to help you through this difficult stakeholder process. I think, Bunmi, we're getting to 10. Could you maybe round up in a nice way? Okay, I'm just going to say a quick thank you to our panelists, Kora, Sasi, Alex and Rangyanio from Bangkok. And to everyone who has been part of the webinar, thank you for participating. Like Kora rightly said, we look forward to seeing many of you in Lima at the youth events proper. And before then, we expect you to try to get more familiar with the topic and some of your other questions will be raised and will be addressed at the master class. So thank you everyone and let me just say good night or good morning depending on which part of the world you are. Thank you and bye everyone. Thank you very much for having us around.