 My name is Tony Levinia. I am from the Ateneo School of Government and I'm moderating this session on Security Rights as a Climate Change Mitigation Strategy. This session is hosted by the World Resources Institute, the Rights and Resources Initiative, Governance, Environmental and Markets Initiative at Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. And we have here a really good panel that I will introduce in a while. But first of all, let's watch a video. We'll do that first. That will frame the challenge before us, the link between climate change and land rights. This is a video produced by the World Resources Institute. Can we have the video now, please? It's losing 13 million hectares of forest each year, accounting for 11% of animal global greenhouse gas emissions. Many of the world's forests have been managed by indigenous and local communities for generations, yet few communities have legal rights to the forest. Without legal rights and governments protecting those rights, the world's remaining forests are at risk. For example, five years ago in the village of Sasha, a company clear cut 200 hectares of forest for timber. Because the village depends on the forest for their way of life, the people lost much of their ability to feed their families, find clean water, and keep animals. When those trees were cut down, nearly 95,000 tons of carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere. In a neighboring country, the car community continues to live in a way that maintains a healthy forest as it has for generations. What is the difference between the two villages? Sasha was powerless to stop outsiders from encroaching on their land. Their government leased the community's land to an international logging company. After the land was cleared, the government granted the land to another company, which began drilling for oil. Soon settlers appeared to farm and graze cattle. In contrast, Ka successfully petitioned the government to recognize their forest rights. They mapped and registered their boundaries to strengthen their claim on their own lands. The government also recognized their authority to evict intruders. Their intact forest stores over 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year, provides sustainable benefits to their community, and keeps their ecosystem healthy. When governments legally recognize and support their forest rights, communities can help avoid carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation and maintain their forests as carbon sinks. Strengthening community forest rights to avoid deforestation must be part of the solution to the global climate change problem. To learn more, visit WRI.org slash Securing Rights. Thank you again. Again, good afternoon to all of you, and welcome to the session. This afternoon we'll hear quite a lot of interesting things, new research that has come from the World Resources Institute and the Rights Resources Initiative that issued a report quite a few months ago, Securing Rights Combating Climate Change, which is so far the most comprehensive analysis today that links legal recognition, government protection of indigenous peoples and community rights with reductions in carbon pollution. It's a really important report and has very important implications for the policy decisions that are made here in this meeting in Lima of the convention, as well as meetings in, as well as at the national and local level. So we have colleagues here from the World Resources Institute. We have Caleb Stevens, who's the land rights specialist from the World Resources Institute. He will give us an overview of the data, of the findings of the report. And also from the Rights Resources Initiative, we have Mr. Andy White with us to give us also an update on the current data that we have on this issue. Also part of the panel and also cost sponsoring or co-hosting this session is the Global Environment and Markets Initiative of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. And we have Professor Benjamin Kashore here to present the findings, research findings of GEM that's the acronym for the initiative showcasing how community forest rights and institutions have emerged, spread and become effective across several developing countries. In other words, what works. And again, and then asking again what are the implications of these findings on policy decisions that are made at the international level as well as at the national level. And then of course as our final speaker for this session we have my good friend and partner in not in crime but in good things. In many good things in the Philippines as well as globally Vicky Tarly Corpus who is a special rapporteur on indigenous peoples rights. She will talk about the implications of all this research, findings into the whole process we're in as well as indigenous peoples rights all over the world. And then we'll have after that an open for room and discussions. So right away we'll call in Caleb now to make a presentation. Thanks, Tony. So my presentation is on a recent report that WRI did with the Rights and Resources Initiative on the relationship between secure community forest tenure and climate change mitigation. And it was funded by the Climate and Land Use Alliance and the Ford Foundation and also supported by other partners. First some background. Pretty much everybody in this room knows I would think that 11% of CO2 emissions globally come from deforestation and other land uses. This number, this percentage is actually even higher in many heavily forested countries with weak community forest tenure. It can be as high as 60%. And that represents about 50 soccer fields worth of forests a minute being lost. And the Rights and Resources Initiative earlier this year concluded that one eighth of the world's forests are legally or officially held by communities, local communities or indigenous peoples. And that represents about 513 million hectares of forests which is about twice the size of India. But what that number masks is actually an unknown number which is how much community forest is out there where they have no rights at all and they remain vulnerable and additional protection is needed. So a brief note on our report methodology. We looked, it was primarily a literature view. We looked at 130 studies of all types, quantitative and qualitative, spatially explicit or otherwise. And we supplemented this review with original deforestation and carbon analysis. The deforestation analysis was confounding, that is it was comparisons inside and outside and thus did not account for all causal factors that might affect deforestation. And so a few qualifiers are in order. First, our research question was a research purpose was to synthesize the evidence to date on the relationship between community forest tenure and climate change mitigation, not to answer what causes deforestation. And finally, as I mentioned, our deforestation analysis was confounding, did not use the most advanced statistical techniques. And I think that that actually presents a real opportunity for followup research because Global Forest Watch and the Land and Resource Rights Initiative at WRI in partnership with others are developing a database of community land location data across the globe. And we hope to make that available on a global map of indigenous and community lands. So our two variables of interest were what legal rights did communities have and what were governments doing in relation to those rights. And the literature pointed us in the direction of 14 countries and 14 community tenure types in each of those countries. And we found by and large that government action was critical, as you might expect and all of the 14 community tenure types communities, as you can see on this slide, this is the community tenure types in Latin America only, but you can see that they enjoy a strong bundle of rights, more or less, but that what governments were doing to undermine or support those rights varied considerably. And we found a strong correlation with forest outcomes, positive forest outcomes when governments were supporting rights and negative forest outcomes when they were undermining them in some way. We also did an assessment using RI's data of the 513 million hectares of community forest out there that are legally or officially recognized to get at how much carbon those forests contain. And we determined that it's 37.7 billion tons, which is a huge number. It's 29 times the annual footprint of automobiles in the world. And so just a brief summary of some of our findings. The Brazilian Amazon community forests that are legally or officially recognized, experience 11 times less deforestation than outside those areas. Similar numbers for Bolivia and Guatemala, six times and 20 times less respectively, up to 20 times less in Guatemala. And in all three of those countries, you see pretty much overall, based on the national level assessment that the government supports community rights and refrains from allocating them for commercial use and other ways that they can undermine. And this is a graphic that illustrates some of the ways in which we found, based on our national level assessments, the way governments can support or not communities and the relationship it has with forest outcomes. So it protects maps, registers, demarcates. Enforcement was key in many respects, expelling legal settlers. And on the other side, undermines large scale commercial allocations in Indonesia, Peru, Ecuador, and other places. It was pretty clear caused devastating deforestation for communities. And this is a graphic from Global Forest Watch, their people layer. And this is Shingu, Indigenous land and surrounding lands in Matagrasso state in Brazil. And as you can see, the red deforestation over the last 10 years, 10, 12 years extends up to the borders, so it rarely penetrates inside. And so Shingu, which you just saw from Global Forest Watch, from 2012, it experienced about 3% deforestation that's compared with 7% for Indigenous lands outside of, or sorry, for Amazon forest outside of Indigenous lands. And it's an interesting model because in Shingu, sustainable commercial use of timber resources is prohibited. And Shingu, as well as in other Indigenous lands in Brazil, sustainable commercial use of timber is prohibited. Pardon me. The community, by and large, has essentially autonomous management authority over their land. There's an umbrella organization for the 12 Indigenous peoples in Shingu Indigenous Park, which manage the land. And they deal with external threats. And there's lots of conversation about how to combine these low deforestation rates with poverty reduction efforts. And one of the most important that's being discussed right now is ecosystem ecotourism. Contrast and contrast somewhat is the community forest model. In the community concessions in the Guadalamoa Biosphere Reserve experienced very low deforestation, even compared to so-called strictly protected government areas, where no use of the forest is permitted whatsoever. In the Carmelita Reserve, for example, they experienced 0.02% deforestation over the last 20 years. And it's much higher, up to 20 times higher, as I noted, in strictly protected government areas. But they also sustainably use the forest for commercial purposes, 18.7 million US dollars annually in income the eight community concessions generate. And this is a photograph from the Carmelita concession. And you can see that she's processing chateau leaf, which is big money for the Carmelita community. It gets them about 11,000 US dollars in income monthly. On the restoration side, Niger is a great success story. Devolution of rights to farmers and communities in Niger has produced 200 million new trees over the last 20 years, which store 30 million tons of carbon. And it was a rather modest investment. The devolution was not expensive, but it's produced an estimated $900 million annually in economic benefits across Niger. So what can national governments do? Fairly, fairly straightforward. Recognize legal rights, management exclusion, benefit rights, and the like, and enforce them. Refrain from allocating for large-scale commercial use, provide technical support, make sure that communities enjoy free, prior informed consent, and payment for ecosystem services when appropriate. And specifically with respect to climate change mitigation, I think there are at least three areas where specific action can be taken. Donors can support community forest tenure as a climate mitigation strategies, specifically with their development assistance agencies, NORAD is a great example in a recent call for proposals as part of their Climate Change and Forest Initiative. They included indigenous peoples in community forest tenure, secure forest tenure as a prominent theme. And then I think there's space for the Green Climate Fund as well. Right now they're in the midst of developing an investment framework. And so I think also it's still yet unclear exactly how, but I do think that there's space for community forest tenure. And finally, as governments are developing there and to nationally determine contributions, which are expected, the first ones are expected in March of next year, whether countries, oh sorry, I'm being told that I have very little time. So countries can incorporate community forest tenure as part of those policies as well. Thanks. Thank you. Our next speaker will be Andy White, Coordinated the Rights Resources Initiative. He will give us an update on forest tenure reform and what's happening in that area all over the world, where we're progressing, where we're also losing some momentum, where's the new momentum? Andy. Thank you, Tony. And I'll start by saying thanks to C4 and other collaborators for organizing this conference. It's a great opportunity for us. And I'm really pleased to see the room is full. So thank you all for attending. And then I just also wanna say what a pleasure it's been to work with WRI on this research. I think it's a great piece of work and we're happy that it went beyond just a study, but this collaboration is continuing. Okay, so I'm gonna step back in and put this research finding in a bit more context and say, okay, now that the case has been made that securing community rights is a good thing, how are we doing in the world on this project? So in the sources of my comments this morning come from, for this afternoon, two places. One, we updated our tenure analysis this year, if we do this every five years or so, major undertaking to look at the data in the world, how much land is in the different tenure categories. And then also the second major source is all of the organizations that are members of the Rights and Resources Coalition, of which I'm the honored coordinator. So I won't go through all those logos, but speaking with all of these organizations regularly and the many other organizations that we collaborate with is another source of information from my comments this morning. Okay, so many of you are familiar with this graph. We looked at who owns the world's forest back in 02 and then updated that into 2013. The two categories on the left are both basically public land that either administered by government or public land designated for indigenous peoples. The third category from the left is private property owned by communities and then on the far right is owned by firms and individuals. And so what you see is pretty dramatic shift in a short amount of time. Little over 10 years, about 10% of the forest in the world has shifted from state ownership and management towards designated for use by communities and owned by communities. And of course, over on the far right, there's been a shift up in the amount of forest that's owned by households. So we refer to this as the tenure transition. Of course, it's happening because of our colonial history. Long ago, states claimed the forest was historically owned and used by indigenous people, but it's reassuring to see that we're slowly dealing with that historical legacy of injustice. So these two categories in the middle, or I just explained them, the one that's highlighted right now is the stronger property right, basically private property rights but held by the group of indigenous people. And that's the stronger type of property right that includes the ability to exclude others and demand due process and just compensation. And that total is about 381 billion hectares now. So this is a shift in these two central categories of community and indigenous people's ownership and use from 21% and O2 to about more than 30% now. And that's substantial. That's more than 50% in recent 10 years and very promising and very kind of reassuring. Some of the bad news I guess is that it's also very uneven. Most of that progress took place here in Latin America. And you see on the left that today about 43% of the forest in Latin America are administered by governments and communities have in those two categories are 33 and six which almost 40%. So very substantial, very little movement in Africa, unfortunately over the last 10 years. And some movement in Asia but the untold story when you look at that pie chart is that China alone accounts for the majority of the community owned land in Asia. So you look under that pie chart, there's a lot of stories that we're not gonna have time to get into today. But anyway, another point I wanted to make when you look at this graph is that in many ways this distribution is somewhat in the allocation of land rights is somewhat of a proxy for other, I guess progress and democratic and processes and justice. That means that in Latin America there has been, that's a product of new constitutions that recognize human rights of indigenous people. It's a reflection of a shift from dictatorships to elected governments and rather social and political changes that have allowed these societies to have conversations about who should own their forest and what rights their citizen should enjoy. Again, Africa unfortunately is very far behind. Also if you look a little bit below the big picture, then you see that we can also look at what's happened since 08, a minute ago I showed that there was tremendous progress between 02 and 2013. But if you look at what happened between 2008 and 2013, you see a massive slow down. A lot less forest has shifted in the latter five years than in the previous five years. And these are the red countries since 08. And all of us know that, I think all we all know, that the whole red initiative machine that we're all living with today and promoting in many ways began around 2008. And what this shows you that unfortunately, or at least until 2013, all the attention that red has, red has not yet shifted the needle in terms of land rights on the ground. In fact, the trends are going the wrong way. A lot less in that period. We also know that, or we could ask or should ask, well what explains that and what was going on in that period of world history that there was a lot less recognition. We know this was the area of boom in commodity prices, so-called land grabbing, and in many places we think that governments have begun to change their mind about whether or not they're gonna respect rights. And that can't prove that, of course, but that could be significant. I don't have the data to show you right now, but we also looked at the number of laws that were passed in this period since O2. We also looked at the bundle of rights within the laws. And so I'll tell you, and it's in this thick report that you can find on our website, that the period between 08 and 2013, there was not only less area recognized as community owned or managed, but a lot fewer laws were passed that supported community rights. And all the laws that were passed were weaker than the laws that were passed in the previous five years. So you had, in fact, there were none of the legal frameworks that were passed in that period gave real ownership rights. And so since 08, we've had this massive slowdown, a less area, fewer laws, and weaker laws on securing community rights. And this should be of major concern to us, especially now that we have learned, as Caleb said, just what a critical role that community rights play in securing forests and diminishing emissions. Okay, let me conclude with a few comments about what all this means. If you look forward, it seems to us there's at least two constants. And maybe only two constants. One is that there's a growing global demand for resources and infrastructure to deliver the resources. Now we know there's a global slowdown right now in terms of the economy, but the population is gonna go beyond nine, it could go beyond 11, it's gonna keep growing. We all need to eat, we all need energy. So that global demand is probably not, it may slow now and then, but it's not gonna subside or reverse turn around. Secondly is a growing global demand for justice. And the growing ability of local people, fortunate this is good news, this is development. This is what we wanna see. We wanna see citizens with rights and the ability to express those rights. So growing global demand for justice. Now, of course we know that either these two are going to work in harmony or, and if not then the third constant in our future will be conflict, right? And that is what we all want to avoid. Okay, so how have governments and corporates reacted to these two constants, if you will? Very mixed. You have some governments that are basically opening the floodgates and inviting as much infrastructure and investment of extractive industry and others as they can get. And then you have some governments that are securing rights. And you have some governments that are doing both. You have one ministry that's weakening their environmental regulations to attract investments and then you have another ministry that's trying to do the secure community rights. And so there's incoherence and that's very common. So you have widespread rollback and weaken of environmental standards, including here in Peru, Colombia, Mexico, India. I could go on and on, these stories as well. And then also even the World Bank, the World Bank weakening, it's proposing to weaken its own safeguards. It's another indication of this trend of weakening the environmental protection. As I mentioned earlier, some governments are making some positive decisions. And then in 2014, there are quite a few court decisions in favor of community and indigenous peoples' rights. So that's a very interesting kind of demonstration of leadership, if you will. And then as we all know, there's quite a few new corporate commitments to respecting rights, going beyond pledging to not deforest. In the past, RSPO, Nestle, and all these fellows were saying, okay, we're not gonna destroy forests. Now they're starting to say, we're not gonna destroy people either. So that's very positive, both no deforestation and no exploitation. And then it's also wonderful to see, just in the last six months or so, tremendous new commitments from donors to secure community land rights. You have the Norwegian government saying, okay, $100 million over the next five years. You have the Swedish government committing to support this new tenure facility that I'll talk about in a minute, the British, et cetera, et cetera. So amazing new resources being thrown at this problem, which is in some, I would say, breathes new life and provides new momentum for all of us. So that's why the title of this, or subtitle of this presentation, was Progress, Slow Down, and New Momentum. We're in a moment of, I'm going the wrong way, momentum. And so in this moment of momentum, how do we seize this opportunity? At least three things. One, as I think is obvious to all of us, that the battle is in the front lines and it's the indigenous people whose lives are at risk and are suffering because of it. What are we can do to support those organizations and their titling and help is absolutely essential and we need to do it now. Second is support the governments and corporate actors that have made these commitments. Whether you're a Nestle Unilever store, and so et cetera. Whenever these governments and organizations have made these commitments, they often make these commitments without knowing how they're gonna deliver. And then they come to us in the room and say, okay, how am I actually gonna deliver it? We gotta help them succeed. That's become, and helping them implement is become, I think, a new priority for all of us who care about land rights. We want these leaders to succeed. And implementation, I think, is now where we need to focus. Of course it's always important to do advocacy. We need to, a lot of countries we're still in the advocacy mode, but more generally, I think, we have to focus on implementation and scaling up quickly. And that brings me to my third point. We in the, across the civil society community, whether in governments as well, and corporates who have done it, we need to scale up our coordination and collaboration. But otherwise, we're tripping, we're already tripping upon each other in these areas. We have a bunch of different mapping projects. We've got a bunch of different initiatives with the corporates. We need to get our act together, or we're not only gonna not seize this opportunity, but we'll demonstrate to the governments and to the donors that we're not organized. And they have good reason to shift their money somewhere else. We don't want that outcome. So scaling up the coordination. I'm gonna end with two little, just examples of some initiatives that we have underway in our coalition. One is what we call the Call to Action. It started in the interlock and had a conference in 2013. And the second is this tenure facility. There we go. Call to Action, boy, that's a confusing slide. To scale up securing community land rights. So it's co-convened by RI, Oxfam, and the International Land Coalition. IUCN has been involved in, we basically brought together the networks of some of the organizations that worked on land rights, ILC, Poverty, IUCN as conservation, and then our eyes on the forest side, and said, okay, we need to start working, just like this whole landscape approach. We need, those of all of us who work on land rights, we need to get our act together. And then we had separate little working groups. And so there was a working group on global mapping. And Kayla mentioned this earlier. So these are a bunch of organizations, World Resources Institute, is one of the conveners of that little working group on mapping so that they try to develop one common platform rather than 16 platforms. There's another group of organizations that are working on conservation. And again, in all these working groups, what they're trying to do is get these different constituencies to scale up their collaboration to secure community land rights. So basically conservation is trying to work on, okay, how to get the conservation community to be more actively supportive of securing community land rights. And that working group just had a series of workshops at the World Parks Congress, for example. The last working group that's mentioned here is one with a private sector where basically what we're trying to do is expand and leverage private sector interest in securing community land rights. It's quite a tall order for them to do more than just clean up their own act, but try to get them to try to leverage their interests and capacities to lean on governments and other unwilling laggards. And so those are the companies and the organizations and NGOs that are involved in that work with the interlocking group. Our next big conference is in October. So put that on your calendar, hope to see you there. And I'll end with the tenure facility, which is a new fund that has been set up, it's independent, and it will put money behind projects to secure community land rights. There's an advisory group with pilot projects underway in these countries, and we're very fortunate to have funding from Sweden via the Swedish International Development Agency. They've been very generous to be the first major donor to establish this new facility. So thank you very much, appreciate your listening. I, at the beginning, I forgot to say that I was also going to make a short presentation since mine is very short. And I think it's done, can you put in the next slide if I want to make sure it's mine or if it's abandoned it will give men first. Next slide, next please. Yes, that's right, it's me. Just very short because it follows actually from Andy's remarks about slowdown, particularly in the work for land tenure, and one of the major developments that we are concerned of is, of course, the World Bank in the revision of the safeguards. There's a lot of things to be concerned about, but we're particularly concerned about indigenous peoples and how it will affect indigenous peoples. I'm sure Vicky will have something to say about that later on. There's a group of lawyers from all over the world, mostly from developing countries. We come together and call ourselves the Lawyers for Community Tenure. We work with the Rights and Resources Initiative as the legal reference group for the initiative and for its partners. Basically they throw legal questions to us and we try to answer that based on the experiences that we have all over the world. And we thought that it would also be good having all of these lawyers together in one group with a lot of experience to sometimes do joint opinions, legal opinions for certain things. And we decided that the World Bank safeguards, particularly in relation to climate change, to climate change issues, would be a good place to start. So we have this, we actually have the opinion copies of the opinion that can be distributed, that's been distributed there. And we look at particularly two of the paragraphs that are being revised in the World Bank, Environmental and Social Standards paragraph nine, which proposes in certain circumstances the use of an alternative approach on indigenous peoples rights. And paragraph six, which is the application of standards on land acquisition, restriction, land use and volatilized settlement that actually provides a hierarchy of rights. I mean, and obviously giving hierarchy to those that have recognized rights and less importance, less, I guess less rights to those whose rights have not yet been recognized. And we're very concerned with this, and it actually gets adapted as the way it's drafted. It stands to really of undermining not just the World Bank standards, but actually a lot of standards of different countries whose countries have been trying to actually upgrade their standards based on international standards. And if there's a signal from a global institution that you can actually loosen your standards unless your standards are possible, then I think we'll have a big problem. So clearly the alternative approach risk undoing gains achieved to too many years. I mean, I actually can speak of the time when the World Bank and other multilateral institutions were not very friendly on community tenure, forest tenure got that change. And the World Bank and the ADB and others became our allies in the forest tenure reform program. And the Philippines, they can particularly date the time and the year when the shift happened. And then when you have this, then it undermines all the years of progress. I think that we have you allow countries to be a race to the bottom, I think more than a race to the top. And of course, the other part of our concern about basing inclusion and benefit sharing, mainly on security tenure, because as Andy has pointed, we still have quite a lot of areas that have not been given secure tenure. Now relating this to the safeguards here, you do have that same dynamic, I mean, historically, and I can certainly say this with some authority having facilitated the main agreement on Red Plus in the Climate Change Convention. The good thing about that discussion of safeguards and the adoption of safeguards in the Red Plus process was that it wasn't seen as an imposition from anyone from outside. That countries actually agreed that to implement Red Plus in the climate change context for climate change mitigation, needed the safeguards to make it work for mitigation, to make it work for environmental reasons. Aside from being the right thing to do it, actually is the right thing to do for climate change, which is a big thing, you know what I mean? Because in the past, again, my experience with that is that many developing countries particularly saw this as an imposition from outside and resisted that, but in the context of Red Plus was accepted as a necessary thing, as enabling thing for making it work. And Vick and I were there in that process and both of us I think were pleasantly surprised that we didn't really got ideological reaction against the safeguards, we got practical reactions. How do we do this? How do we implement that? But we didn't get ideological reaction, even in calling it safeguards. I mean, when we started, we didn't call it safeguards. I also distinctly remembered when I actually proposed to call it safeguards, which was in October 2009, two months before Copenhagen, and nobody blinked an eye when we said safeguards. At that time, I was a member of the inspection panel of the Asian Development Bank, and so I had a very much safeguards framework, and when I saw what was coming out, it was clearly safeguards, so that's why we named it that way, and nobody blinked and said, oh, that's fine. But again, if you send the signal, and already here, I don't know, subsets, closings, I don't know exactly what will happen. Already then, but based on yesterday, certainly there's no conclusion on further guidance and safeguards here in the UNFT-PC process, because it's dynamic, again, of developing and developed countries as a return. I mean, and I think that's unfortunate, and that's a setback. But I think we can move forward. I mean, even on persuading the bank to pushing, pushing, pushing them back on this, we certainly have a lot of positive developments as well on the legal side in a number of countries. That's a big thing, because even if you change this, if the Supreme Court of Indonesia or the Philippines or other countries have made these decisions already, then you can't just reverse them. So that's it. Thank you. And I will now call on Ben, who will, Professor Benjamin Kashor will present the findings from the Governance, Environment and Markets Initiative of Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. It's very, very interesting insights that you will share with us, Ben. Thank you very much. And to WRI and the Rights and Resources Initiative and C4 for being part of this really important panel and effort. I want to give you a couple of background pieces of knowledge that I think are important to put in context my talk. So the first is that I am a political scientist and I work with colleagues and students on environmental and resource policies and we engage a lot with practitioners working at various scales, international, liberations, domestic, and now with this project, local efforts as well. And what happened about five years ago was that a series of conversations with colleagues working across multiple levels and also with my students and practitioners, we came to the recognition that we had a couple of fundamental challenges about our collective desires to generate knowledge around problems. And so one was that if you just took the academic world, there was actually pretty interesting stuff happening and being produced by academics at the local level, Eleanor Ostrom's work, for example, at the comparative environmental policy level and at the global level and even work on private authority and corporate social responsibility. But those communities did not talk to each other. And so the insights that you would need to integrate these communities were not actually linked. And as a result, we had suboptimal ideas about how we intervened to create durable results. And likewise, practitioners working at various levels were also not always talking to each other about what they've learned and their knowledge sources. And so the result was a gap in really important knowledge that already existed that wasn't being used to apply to problems in a systematic, effective and durable way. And so we said, what can we do at Yale? And that was the genesis for the creation of the government environment and market initiative. We do a bunch of things, but what I want to emphasize about that recognition was that we follow two overall themes when we think about how academic work might be of interest or of use in some way for the practical problem solving world. And the two themes are policy pathways, so how pathways travel multiple levels of governance and policy learning. How do you generate collective insights that might foster greater coherence in a fragmented world? Okay, so those are our two themes. It's important for this context, but I'm gonna give you this overview on championing the diffusion of community forestry through pathways of influence. And the subtitle is very important because we are not academics that say here are the answers based on our work. Rather, we think that we can identify diagnostic questions that can allow us as problem-focused communities generate more cohesive efforts going forward in collaborative discussions. So really what you want to think about is this talk is a giant seminar right now, where we're all just pondering some ideas we want to raise, okay? These aren't answers per se, these are ideas that come from the research. Okay, so the project overview is that we want to co-generate strategic insights for those promoting community forestry. I actually need to go back and highlight that this is a collaborative effort in GEM. It's been ongoing for a couple of years, so Sebastian Gildouin, who began as a doctoral student and as a professor at McGill Law School. Sebastian, can you just raise your hand because we'll be calling it Sebastian quite a bit in the next few minutes. And Michael Stone, another doctoral student. Vivian Caballero, a graduate student at Yale. Vivian, put your hand. And Sarah Lootberger, please put your hand. And a just joined GEM doctoral student, Chelsea Judy, is also here. Okay, so we're a collaborative team. Now I can go on. Now that I used up half my time already. Okay, so the overview is to think about co-generating strategic insights for those who are trying to promote community forestry and can our pathways framework in some way help these efforts. So we're not experts in community forestry per se. We're actually experts in the framework. And we're curious about its role making a difference and what the reactions are. Okay, so we also must acknowledge the support of the climate and land use alliance in this work. So the overarching questions for this project was what are the most promising interventions and strategies for diffusing community forestry around the world in meaningful ways. And we're really curious about the second question. What might create the most durable and lasting effects? You just had Andy talked about how you're getting backward movement in some protections. So we're curious about durability and stickiness, not just policy decisions themselves. Too often policy choices revert back and we lose momentum. So how do we get sticky? Okay, our approach then is that we are not doing what Eleanor Ostrom and her colleagues do. Which is to identify design principles for local resource management. That is not our approach. Instead, we're looking at these transnational pathways of influence to see if they might generate insights for creating sticky local governance institutions that can address community forestry and indigenous rights. So for this project, we've conducted research in five case studies and number of doctoral graduate students, including Tanzania, Indonesia, Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru. And we've assessed global policy instruments for their abilities to address community forestry in these regions or countries, including, of course, Red Plus and Legality Verification to our favorite mechanisms now globally. And now we're producing conference papers which nobody about our community will read, but they're still fun to do. And then we're doing strategic working papers. We hope that you all will read. And we're doing practitioner-oriented toolkits that actually we hope will be really, well, we hope to be a tool kit. That's what we hope, okay? And the ultimate goal is creating ideas for stickiness. Okay, all right. So what do we do for the Pathways Framework? I'm gonna give you a little brief overview and then we're gonna apply the Pathways Framework to Sebastian Joldewan's research in Tanzania to illustrate how it works. Okay, so the broader reports do more detail, but again, my time is ticking. So the framework began by actually also acknowledging the point that Andy made, is that a lot of the concerns about resource management have to do with the forces of economic globalization where commodity markets and very lucrative markets end up creating land grabs and disempowering local communities. So we have these downward effects on social and environmental policies. And this is something Tony mentioned as well, okay? So we say, okay, if we have economic globalization that could in fact lead to downward pressures on indigenous rights, local rights, environmental rights because of the desires for economic development, are there ways to reverse those trends where you could continue to have economic development but fostering environmental and social standards? Is that possible? And the framework says it is possible. It's not preordained, but it's possible if you travel four pathways of influence and that you understand carefully how those pathways actually work, okay? So the pathways are, the pathways have disappeared on me. It's like, I happen to know what they are without having, yeah. What have they done? It's just gone haywire. There's four pathways, as I get this to work. So they are the international rules pathway, the norms pathway. Just ignore that right now. Just listen to me, okay? The markets pathway, and I'm gonna give up. And the direct access pathway. Okay, oh, we're good, we're back. I think we're back, okay? Okay, good, yay, woohoo. And so the question is, can the pathways counteract economic globalization? Okay, it's sense that you were close and sort of fixed it yourself. Okay, so the main thing is that each pathway has different causal logic. So they cause things differently. And we argue that academics and practitioners have not yet fully understood the implications of these different causal logic. And if you do, we might find some greater stickiness ideas, okay? So some pathways are countervailing. Some are synergistic. Depending on the problem you're looking at. So it requires looking at a case, working backwards and assessing what's happening, which we'll do in a second for Tanzania. We'll do it right now, actually, okay? So this is a brief review of Sebastian Joldewan's research. It's actually a significant careful historical analysis. We're giving you the gist, but he will be happy to give you chapters of his dissertation, okay? So the context in Tanzania was that there is significant deforestation, about 1% per year happening right now. But global commodity markets, for the most part, are not really causing that deforestation, unlike Indonesia, in other cases, okay? And that means that the causes, the drivers of deforestation are actually less costly to address than other cases in our study. And that's an important thing for thinking about causal impact, so we'll get to in a second. And of course, one of the main factors is charcoal, a demand from urban dwellers. Okay, so the other thing that's important is that there is already in Tanzania a domestic commitment to promoting community forestry that preceded Red Plus. And that's really important for thinking about fitting international efforts with domestic approaches, okay? Although what's important is that they focused on villages, not indigenous communities, not at least just some of the differences in discussions about what we're trying to achieve with community forestry. Okay, so what happened briefly? International rules pathway. I mean, the causal influence behind international rules is actually about whether or not countries feel they need to comply with international law. So if an international rule pathway is successful, it's because you've actually created some kind of compliance incentive on the part of countries, okay? Now, of course, on Red Plus, we've got lots of things happening at the international rules level. We have the Cancun agreements and the four elements for national level Red Plus. We have the seven safeguards, including local rights to participation and local knowledge. So we have actually things happening at the rules pathway. And the question is, what did Tanzania do? Did they actually feel in some way compelled to follow these rules? And the answer, Oberala, is yes, they actually did. They adopted international safeguards. Following Red Plus, oh, that's what I'm gonna say. The answer is yes, they did do that. Okay, number two, I'm skipping over Sebastian's incredibly sophisticated and lengthy work to give you the gist. Norms, the norm's pathway is different. The causal influence there is not whether an international rule has to be complied with, but actually the strength of moral evaluations. How do you feel about the ethical moral obligations behind some kind of behavior, okay? So for example, the norm of indigenous rights to resources is actually a pretty powerful norm now that's emerging globally, and that's permeating across multiple levels and decisions, okay? You also have the norm of free, prior, informed consent, which is increasingly accepted as a prerequisite to Red Plus projects, even if it's not an international rule obligation, it's as powerful as a norm, okay? And by the way, norms are generally much more sticky than our rules, okay? Okay, so the impact on Tanzania was actually, yeah. In fact, global community, forestry norms, quite clearly reinforced Tanzania's existing norms before Red Plus, they doubled down on the commitment for that. And likewise, FPEC norms were expanded and translated from indigenous focus globally to forest dependent communities in general. So you saw a translation that actually expanded its impact, okay? The markets pathway, okay, that's a fun one. I do a lot of work on that and my other scholarly work and the causal influence there is that the, is on the strength of the economic incentives. So boycott campaigns, equal labeling campaigns and so on, can play some kind of a role in shaping domestic behavior. Now, in Red Plus, we've got a few important examples. We've got project-based carbon markets and in that context, we have the fascinating example that 71% of the verified carbon standard certifications are also joint with the climate, community and biodiversity standards. For the very reasons that the idea was that VCS was not enough, right? So that's definitely happened and we also have, of course, national funds that Norway and others provide to avoid deforestation. In Tanzania, what's interesting is that this pathway hasn't really been followed that much, okay? Which we thought Red Plus market incentive, how many minutes? Two minutes, okay? See, I just speak slowly for the translators and that led me to, I don't have enough time, it's a functional problem I had, but you're getting most of the gist, that's good, okay? So, direct access pathway is actually about capacity building, okay? So they're the causal, the examples are education, training, assistance, partnerships and so on. But the causal influence there is whether the resources and the training and the skills empower, disempower groups in some way, they give them access to the policy making process, okay? So that's the key question and of course this is very prevalent in red interventions, you're seeing all kinds of efforts on the part of governments to provide resources to empower organizations to better shape their domestic countries policy making process. MRV, readiness efforts, mapping, what we've heard today, there's a lot about direct access, okay? And in Tanzania, highly significant for the impact pathway. Norway actually funds conservation NGOs directly, which then impact and help villages get certification for community forestry, okay? It's a direct and important impact. Okay, I've got like one minute now, so what I want to do is ask the question about stickiness, okay? Now we think that the traveling of these three pathways, not yet the markets pathway, has actually created sticky results, okay? And that in fact, they might even be so sticky that when you do get in the future increasing economic globalization, you might actually still maintain them. Now that would be great if it's true. Now the problem with social science work is that we can't actually get in a space machine to empirically measure that or not. But you can think about intervening in ways to try and maintain that stickiness, right? Okay, so we think the answer is they could withstand economic pressures because there are three aspects of stickiness. First, it'd be very difficult to actually reverse at granting of a village forest, a community forestry license. You'd have a lot of backlash immediately, so you've got immediate stickiness. But also the norms of community forestry are actually growing owing to these results. I mean, norms are much more durable than rules. And then the capacity-building gaps have been filled, which in fact allowed communities to be able to get these licenses, okay? And so we argue that these occurred at a critical juncture in the evolution of Tanzania's forest policies that would probably not have occurred if there had been land grabs happening owing to palm oil or other commodities. That way it created too many pressures. Too many economic incentives for deforesting. But that wasn't the case in Tanzania and it gave space for these interactions to take place, okay? So if we're right, what are the lessons for other places? Well, we think, for example, you might want to consider doing scoping efforts where if you want to use REDD Plus to create sticky results, you identify other countries that are also right now in critical junctures. But similar kinds of situations as Tanzania where the economic drivers of deforestation, the globalization drivers have not yet really fully happened yet, but they very well could in the future, okay? And then you may be able to intervene in ways that could lock in community forestry before it's too late, okay? Through the combination of the rules, norms, and direct access pathways. And then you might be able to be able to not just withstand the forces of agriculture expansion that are pushing back on community deforestation, but if and when you got a higher price for carbon, you're gonna be able to exercise the fourth pathway as well and creating more durability and stickiness, okay? So that's an indication of how our framework works, okay? How it adds additional insights we think for the great questions that you're talking about, but it also requires then the cogeneration of ideas and conversations and the ultimate production of a playbook that could actually help get people on the same page to address Andy's point that oftentimes you're working across purposes. Stop there. Start the discussion, I'll take a bunch of questions, maybe three questions. Vicky, of course, sorry, the last, sorry Vicky. Just going to, well, there's a lot of, of course, implications of what has been said here in relation to indigenous peoples as well as in relation to the work that I'm doing now in my Monday as the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. I think the situation in relation to the, you know, to the retreat that you have said, Andy, is really a serious issue that needs to be looked into, you know, because it's true while we did, I have been centrally engaged in helping and get, and of course, putting, helping put safeguards, for instance, into the red agreement in looking at how indigenous peoples are empowering themselves. We have had partners, we continue to have partners who have really done good work in terms of strengthening themselves at the community level to be able to influence the programs or policies of government, both at the local level and until the national, and then we brought them as well into the global arenas like in the climate change negotiations, but also in various global work that's also happening that are having major impacts or that can have major consequences for indigenous peoples. And I'm referring to, for instance, this year in September, there was the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples which has been done under the auspices of the General Assembly of the United Nations, and that World Conference was meant to look into how governments, what are the commitments that governments can do to be able to implement better and more effectively the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So that is one arena where we have been working very effectively because in the end, we did get governments to commit to 42 paragraphs on what they will do, which includes of course respecting rights to lands, et cetera, as well as ensuring that indigenous peoples' perspectives and the visions of their own development are also respected. Then we have engaged very strongly with these processes of the UN on the open-ended working group on sustainable development goals, or now it's now going to go into the post-2015 development agenda. We know that the moment that governments will adapt, this was the post-2015 development agenda next year, by September of next year, that will really define again where donors are going to put their money, what will be the priorities of governments, et cetera. And as we have seen when the MDGs, for instance, were created, that's where a lot of efforts and money and energies have been put, both by UN agencies, but also by the donors, and then the developing country governments have to also follow suit. So we looked at the arena of where are all these global, what are all these global processes happening at the same time, and how do we try to influence this so that we will be able to bring on board the respect for human rights as a major component of all these decisions. Including, of course, the climate change negotiations. So that has been a lot of the effort that we have been doing. Then of course, recently when I was appointed as the UN Special Rapporteur, that sort of just continues the work. And I'd just like to say a few words about what the Special Rapporteur actually can do, because I just finished my country visit in Paraguay, which is a country that is 90% deforested. It's the leading country in terms of capital of beef exportation, number five, and soya exports, which is number four. And it has been growing by 15% growth for the past how many years. But the consequences of that has really been a super, how do you call, violation of indigenous people's rights to their territories. In Paraguay, only 2% of the people are indigenous. But, and then during the dictatorship of Strosner, which has gone on for 30 years, they bought all the lands. So all the lands are private. So for the government to even implement the need to respect rights, they have to buy lands from the corporations. And this is really something that I've never seen in any country, but that's what happened. And when I looked at the decisions, there were three decisions of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights against the Paraguay government to give back lands to the Sao Jue Maxa, the three different groups of people. And up to now for up to 20 years that that decision has been done, it was only this year that finally the government said, we are going to implement it, but they don't have the money to implement it because they have to buy the lands from the corporations. And in fact, even in areas where we went, where they already bought and it was titled the Brazilian, Uruguayan, many companies are encroaching into the lands and these are already titled. And in a land where it was recognized that they should have the title, the government bought the, how do you call, the lands. But the Mennonites, these are the Mennonite people who own the laranches and everything, they never got the money, they just let the money sleep in the central bank so that gave them a reason not to actually respect the rights of indigenous peoples. So this is, I think, I'm saying this because this really is the picture right now of what is happening with indigenous peoples' rights to their lands, to their forests as we speak of all these possible areas that can bring about the change. So I did, of course, I'm going to make a report on this, I'm going to make some recommendations and all that, but it's amazing how all the, I had meeting with 13 ministers and all of them were saying, oh, the Mennonite model is really the best, this is what we should do. And though they have rejected an anti-discrimination bill, they don't like to develop a consultation bill because the whole goal is to assimilate, to really destroy all these indigenous communities and just continue doing that kind of thing. And then to make matters worse, in Africa now, I have been talking with some of our partners from Africa, from Kenya, and they are so scared now because there are a lot of investments in mining, oil and gas exploration and even developing aquifers, extracting aquifers which are found in indigenous territories. So as we speak, and as we speak of all these drivers that are causing the undermining of indigenous peoples' land rights, because of course of the, I think it's because of the desire to extract as much as possible, you know, and these are facilitated by trade agreements or investment agreements, then that's the track that many countries are taking. So my conclusion is that number one, we really need to look more into the implementation gaps of all these international human rights conventions and instruments, particularly indigenous peoples' declaration as well as convention ILO 169, to look at all the decisions, the decisions of supreme courts or inter-American courts, which are not being implemented. You know, there are many decisions, actually many good decisions, but hardly are these being implemented. So I was thinking of your joint group, your lawyer's group, and if you would be interested to actually look into that, because it's not as if there's a lack of decisions. There are many decisions done, but they are hardly implemented because the government has decided this is not their priority. They would like to increase economic growth. That's the main priority of most developing country governments anyhow. And of course, it's so easy now to get investments from sovereign wealth funds, like the China's, China's and Brazil's and all that. And they are going to set up this bank of theirs, which will not even respect safeguards. So that's the second point I wanted to stress. How do we make sure that these new emerging funds, which are going to go into investments will really put in place safeguards. And that's why we also are getting engaged with the global, the green climate fund to really ensure that the safeguards and the grievance mechanisms that are there are also really operationalized. And then maybe the final point is just on these grievance mechanisms, the access to remedy, access to justice of indigenous people, so are facing this kind of reality in their daily lives. Whether we have read or community force or what, the fact remains that there's a lot of violations and we need to strengthen the access to remedy of these people's. And I just came from the business and human rights forum in Geneva. And that was one of the very, very hotly debated item because of course it also talks about extraterritoriality. How do you implement extraterritorial obligations of countries to really look into these violations of human rights, particularly of course in our case indigenous peoples. So these are just points I wanted to raise because this really sort of gives the other picture of what we are seeing as we are speaking now of all these various efforts that we are undertaking. Thank you very much. Time for really just a few questions. So very quickly, three questions. Anyone, there's a microphone in the middle. Over there, yes. Hi, Susan Kendall with Prisma and member of RRI. With Vicki's comments and also Gems, the one on Yale. What I was thinking of exactly is the bricks and the different types of things. The example of Tanzania was that there wasn't a lot of pressure, I'm thinking Central America, Guatemala, African palm oil, there is a lot of pressure. So what do you do in those kind of situations? And so it's more, and I think that's more the tendency. Yes, another question, please. Do we have other questions? Yes, please don't be shy. If you know you have a question, ask it right away because we don't have a lot of time. Yes, hi, my name is Jasmine. I work for SIFO. I was actually wondering if in any of the studies that Yale is performing at or any of the research that has been done, there is anything related to the relation between the tenure policies or the policy-oriented tenure and the land classification policies because one thing is more like social, Indian people oriented and all of this and the other thing is more like intering kind of technical but in many cases and because of economic pressures or tendencies in markets and you know, there is an official, maybe an unofficial link between these two types of policies. So I don't know if that is also addressed at some extent in this study, that would be interesting to know, thank you. Okay, one more, yes please. Hi, my name is Catherine Savala and I work with an organization called IDACS. I wanted to ask whether in any of your research the role of women played out in your studies and how did that look? Good, who would want to start? Ben, maybe the middle question. It's I think the director to you. Would you like to answer that? Is this working? Thank you, very important question. I'll give you just two brief answers. We gave you the example of Tanzania to illustrate how the pathways framework works which is that you don't just proceed top down, you go into an actual case and then see of the pathways you're working and what are the possible insights for elsewhere. So of course Tanzania is unique in that the big concerns are the big drivers of deforestation, absolutely. So we're drawing similar kinds of ideas from the other cases that are more acute. I'll give you just one example, okay. When we looked at Indonesia, we looked at the role of legality verification, not just red plus. And there are very many concerns that legality verification may accidentally undermine community rights that are informal and not recognized legally. And so when we had, we had a focus group a few years ago of indigenous community representatives with political scientists. And we asked them, what could you think of would be a good technique to try and shift that and actually empower communities? And actually a woman leader said to us, well, we don't know yet what legality verification is going to do because it's still emerging. But we do know that the local police force is vying to be the auditors for these mechanisms. And for us, that would be a mistake because we are not holding the same interests. And she said they were corrupt and it wouldn't actually get forceful policies in place. So she recommended international third-party auditors as a much better mechanism to try and reinforce community rights. Well, that norm has now emerged as pretty important for legality verification. Now that's just one mechanism but you can imagine thinking about three or four more of those that together might actually address and empower communities even in these places where global commodities, supply chains are really causing these challenges. That's a short answer. We got a much longer answer in our papers but it's a really important question. Okay, thank you. How about the women question? Would anyone want to answer that in terms of the data, for example, in your studies? Okay. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'll go first and then hand back to Vicki. Okay, I'll first answer or provide an answer to Susan's question about what do you do when there's lots of pressure and then come back to the question about the role of women. I think that there's a very well-established set of actors, NGOs, local organizations, and a pretty well-established process for naming and shaming when corporations and governments brutalize their people or abuse the rights of their people. And I think that set of NGOs and those institutions I think are kind of put to the, they're so busy now that they can't keep up with the demand for their work, given the increased amount of pressure and increased number of threats. So, but I think there's a pretty standard approach now. I think that set of actors need to just be funded better and better connected when countries where they're not. So I'm speaking of the green pieces, the global witnesses of the world. We RRI support quite a bit of work like that where there's with local organizations and help them take their case to the RSPO or get media of attention. So I think there's lessons learned about how to mobilize those responses, but just a lot more funding, a lot more strategizing and synergizing can be done. On the role about the role of women, I don't know if your question was particular about the role of women in research. And was that it? I think data about women and any findings about the role of women that's relevant to women in the research at both of you, that RRI and where I did. I think what we track is collective rights, so community rights, and it's indeed a knowledge about the rights and roles of women within those collective territories or communities is a much bigger question. We all know it's much more challenging in many situations. As across the initiative, there's lots of work on the legal front to look at the rights of women within law. And there's also, I know Vicki and her, and Teb Teba has done quite a bit of work with indigenous women. And we've supported quite a few, just recently, two months ago here in Peru, there was an international workshop of indigenous women in climate change and helped them develop their own platform. So I think more is going on in that front than there certainly used to be. Okay. Well, just like to say, well, you know, for our work in our partnership, we have been very conscious about the role of indigenous women in forest management and their traditional knowledge system. So in fact, I just got this one from Paraguay. Our partner who is there have done a research on the role of indigenous women in forests. And actually, they even translated it in English, but it's very good because it talks about the role of indigenous women in relation to, of course, protecting the land, but also in terms of sustaining the knowledge that they have in the forest. I just wanted to say one thing about, what was I going to say? I forgot. We're going to end now, Ziva, but it's over. Well, naming and shaming, that's the role I play. I don't shame actually because I'm not supposed to do that, but I do identify what are the key problems that I saw. What were the things that indigenous people told me? How do I, and then I make recommendations and I follow through all the recommendations to make sure that the government is really doing something about that. And just to tell you, one of the things that I'm going to do actually, because I do report before the general assembly, one of the things I'm going to do next year is to look at the investments and trade agreements and how these are impacting on indigenous peoples. And one of the things I wanted to suggest to you actually in relation to your lawyers group is this, how do you, the situation where the customary loss of indigenous peoples are really still very much in place, but these are being undermined. So how do we strengthen these kinds of laws under the banner of legal pluralism? Yeah, we actually have quite a lot of experience and that even in the group that we have because lots of people work in their community tenure. We have to close because our time we've actually extended already. So thank you very much and give a thank you also for the panel, we've been enriching discussion. Thank you.