 Welcome everybody to this plenary session, which will be slightly lower octane than sessions that Lee organises. But nevertheless, very important and significant. And it's because we want to debate here some important concepts and potential ways of organising our work at C4 aircraft and a revived concept of stewardship economy has been put forward as a new proposition under development that has great potential to address a current gap in our system by Ravi Prabhu, Steve Lowry and John Colmy under the auspices of GLF and many of you may have read the blog and seen videos of Ravi talking about it. This is yet to be discussed amongst scientists across the institution or considered in juxtaposition to other holistic frameworks that are gaining traction within C4 aircraft, such as agroecology. As you know there is a successful TPP on agroecology that's given rise to a coalition to transform food systems through agroecology with approaching 100 members, including 33 countries, the European and African unions and over 60 organizations. So this session aims to debate the similarities and differences inherent in these approaches. Stewardship economy, like nature based solutions has an environmental pedigree focusing on the need to conserve but recognizing that farmers and foresters are key actors that need to be part of the solution. Not something that came out in the restoration session this morning and the Sahel Renaissance session also earlier today. Looking at how these farmers and foresters become stewards of the environment. Agroecology on the other hand starts with farming and food production but tries to do that equitably and in harmony with nature. Now on the surface, we might expect that these two strands will meet in the middle. In reality, perhaps the mindsets associated with initiatives coming from the conservation and agricultural traditions respectively are often fundamentally different. At the end of the session, we hope to have clarity on the similarities and differences offered by these approaches and how C4ICRF should embrace them as either complementary or competing paradigms. So, I want to start with a poll. So, Fabio, can you show us how people can participate in the poll? I am not seeing the instructions yet. Well, what we're trying to do is to ascertain your level of understanding of each of these concepts. So please join slido.com hash stewardship when you get in, or you can scan the barcode if you're using a mobile phone. And what we're going to do is ask four questions of you. And the first is on a scale of one, nothing to ten, all that there is to know. How much do you think you know about stewardship economy? Nothing is one. And ten is you're not going to learn anything from this session. Oh, nobody wants to admit to being ten. Hey, Ravi, I hope you're doing this poll. And Steve, if you don't know all there is to know, we're lost. I'm not going to influence the poll. Yes, good, good, good idea. So Fabio, can you see when the voting is dying down? Yeah, I can. Still coming in. Some votes are still coming in. Okay, it's stabilized. Okay, so actually, this is very interesting because it shows that, you know, a lot of people are going to learn a lot in the next hour and a half. Fantastic. Let's move on to the second question, which is very clear. It's again on a scale of one irrelevant to 10 of central importance. How important do you think stewardship economy is for C for a craft? If you don't know anything about it, then, then, you know, you, you decide how you want to school. I don't want to influence your. And in fact, this is very interesting, because we've now got fewer people down at one and more people up at the top. So maybe people, even if they don't know about it, think, well, it must be important, which is, which is fair enough. And, and, and obviously, a lot of people plumped for five right in the middle that indicates they're sitting on the fence folks. Okay, let's move on to the third question. And this is now going to look at things from the agro-ecology perspective. On a scale of one, nothing to 10. All there is to know how much do you think you know about agro-ecology. Oh, I thought for a minute, nobody was going to know anything, but now. So we seem to have a lot of the modal result seems to be seven. Or the, yeah. So, so people seem to know quite a lot six, seven, eight seem to be very popular. 5% of people know nothing at all. That's quite worrying. We haven't been doing a very good job on communication in that case. I think we can close the voting on, on, on that one. And then we go again on a scale of one irrelevant to 10 of central importance. How important do you think agro-ecology is for C4 aircraft for C4 aircraft, how important is agro-ecology. Quite a few people think it's quite important. 789 and 10 getting quite a lot. We said that it's completely irrelevant yet. But I don't want to go to anybody into doing that. Yeah. Okay, good. Okay, so we can probably close the voting on, on that poll. That's our baseline. I hope Carl's in the room. And we are going to have a poll at the end, not asking the same questions, asking different ones. So please be attentive so that you can answer those ones intelligently at the end. And without further ado, let me invite Ravi Prabhu to tell us what stewardship economy is all about. Ravi. Thanks, Fergus. And thanks very much for setting this up. Apologies to everybody for the lack of a pretty presentation, but perhaps it reflects accurately where we are in our thinking. So I'm going to speak today about stewardship economy and in so doing, I'm going to try and touch on some of the questions that were asked in the previous session about how do we get the kind of change at scale that we all need. Recently in the Guardian, there was a rather alarmist article which said that this was about a week ago. So it's really quite recent that if we continue as we are in 10 years, we would lose the planet, whatever that meant. It was an article focusing on biodiversity. And I'm sure all of us agree that's not what we want to do, not just as sort of human beings who live on this planet but as professionals who have spent, you know, the better part or all of our careers trying to do something good. So this is a set of thoughts that a number of us have been having. And I want to acknowledge that these are not just my thoughts. Can I have the next slide, please? Thinking about stewardship has gone back a long time. And all of us who've been thinking about this do want to sort of tip our hat to Aldo Leopold, who is probably one of the first modern conservationists, if you like. And I've just taken three quotes of his, which deal with the whole issue of environment and stewardship, just to establish a baseline. He said that the destruction of soil is the most fundamental kind of economic loss, which the human race can suffer. And he went on to say, but if the soil is gone, the loss is absolute and irrevocable. I think we heard a lot about soil, both in the plenary and in the in the parallel sessions before that and I think all of us can agree with that. One of his other quotes, which I'm sort of putting together a little bit was that civilization is a state of mutual and interdependent cooperation between human animals, other animals, plants and soils, which may be disrupted at any moment by the failure of the way we interact with it. Again, not something that surprising, but his work was from the early part of the 20th century. So it's about 80 to 100 years ago that he wrote all of this. And he described the land ethic as a mode of guidance for meeting ecological situations that are so new or intricate or involving such deferred reactions that the path of social expediency is not discernible to the average individual. So complexity scientists talk about this as cryptic information, things that are hidden, and therefore not obvious. And a lot of what we're seeing in terms of degradation and climate change is because of actions, our local actions not being obvious to us that they have larger consequences. The butterfly effect of fuel. Well, next slide please. I also want to tip my hat to some economists because it's the clues in the name and stewardship economy. So it was I think Marshall, one of the, I would say grandfathers of modern economics, who first thought about the concept of negative externalities, but it was really externalities as a whole. And it was really Pigu who developed welfare economics, who took this and developed the concept that we now know as negative externalities, which is now, you know, you've got pollution polluter pays and all of those kinds of systems of taxation and sometimes subsidies that allow us to think about human actions beyond what is was happening in the market at the time, and and bring it into the economics fear. So, there's a lot of thinking that has come from sort of different areas. And we are trying to draw on that as we develop this concept of stewardship economy. Next slide please. So I tried to pull it all together here and it this is this is very much notional. So in the center in the in the dark circle you've got as it were the classic economics of Adam Smith Marshall, etc. This is somewhere there as well. Pigu added welfare to this and stretch economics in that direction. Subsequently, a whole number of people have brought in concepts of environmental ecological economics. Bob Costanza being somebody who's who's done quite a lot of work more recently, and the outer white circle is is a notional circle where I think that, you know, within the period where we might, as it were, lose the planet. Economics might still continue to grow towards all of this is within a broader concept of commodification of nature and the importance of markets. So everything we deal with in economics today, more or less, lands on markets and some kind of a price on nature. So that's what I'm calling commodification. Notionally, there's a whole space outside of that and all of us know it and we experience it. There are outside market systems outside economic valuations that are still important for nature and and survival and thriving of all species on this planet, but focusing on human beings. So it's that entire larger egg that we want to look at and see whether the concept of stewardship economics or stewardship economy as we are developing it can address everything, not just the white egg in the center, but the entire green plus white egg. So perhaps if I'd been a little bit smarter, I would have made the inner egg yellow than I would have had a perfect egg with egg white and yellow. Anyway, next slide please. Stewardship as a concept is already among us. Here are the logos of the Marine Stewardship Council, the Ford Stewardship Council that all of us know. The other one is something about stewardship in business that's from Forbes. So it's not a new concept, although people have different definitions of it to use it in different ways. Our definition next please is that it is a deliberate and informed combination of solicitude, foresight and skill, a marriage of practice and ethics, born of experience and embedded in culture that has visible and tangible impacts on landscapes and at the forest farm and community level. So it's a larger concept which says what is stewardship? It is a duty of care. It's caring for nature, but it's also caring for society. So that's how we are currently thinking of the concept of stewardship, but I appreciate that others may have varying definitions of this and there's many more than the Ford that are implicit on this slide. Next slide please. The stewardship economy, now bringing that term in, then therefore seeks to equitably reconcile the well-being and, sorry, my dog wanted to have a say in this, and the welfare of stewards. We exercise the duty of care towards nature with the health of nature using market and non-market partners. I'll come back to this in a later slide. It recognizes that markets are neither intrinsically structured to ensure that the duty of care is exercised, nor do they assure equitable welfare outcomes. And these are sort of quotes from various, well, the blog and the paper that have appeared. I want to just tarry a little bit on the two images I've chosen to illustrate. So on the one hand you have, I believe from Mindanao or somewhere in the Philippines, a rice tarry system that we recognize from many, many parts of the world. And the rice from that system costs as much as any rice that you go to a market. So in a no way are the farmers and their forefathers and mothers being rewarded for the care that they've exercised in producing that rice. But what you see there is a manifestation of a duty of care towards the environment, which is true of many, many traditional systems because that was simply the best thing to do to survive. And the other picture of the women going to collect water is the flip side of this. The fact that, you know, traditional communities and many others, even modern communities, if you want to think about them who are practicing region agriculture, organic agriculture, agroecology in places are not really getting rewarded for doing an exercise. So their welfare is being ignored. So what we are saying with the stewardship economy is you've got to look at nature and a duty of care towards it, but we have a duty of care towards people, especially the stewards are looking after nature. Can we look at the next slide please. So in thinking about this and I'll come back to some some thoughts in a while. We thought about what is the difference between what the market gives and I've talked in a paper about about the difference between a true and a fair price. And often pointing out that for for essential commodities, you will never be able to get a true price in the market because that would be far too expensive for poor people so we need to get to a fair price. So between this true or fair, fair price towards what what is actually needed for people to have the kind of well being that would drive a different relationship with nature, something that came up quite a few times I believe Rick and I'll get you some of the others in the in the previous session had brought this up. Why do we still see degradation, especially at the local level. My hypothesis here is that they are not being able to meet their well being and welfare needs out of the way they manage their their agricultural and forest system manage nature at the at the moment. So if we can define a theoretical dividend that would get them to to be able to to to manage nature better. And then there are you know at the moment three hypotheses about how one might develop this dividend I don't want to go into too much at this stage because this is just an introduction to the concept and many of these things will require a great deal but we need to take into account the needs and aspirations of the stewards. Any economic value attributed to non commodified products and services. And here I think some of the some of the kinds of things that tour Lee and others have been doing on ecosystem services and they're monitoring outside of markets is really going to be to inform people about the value of the services that are being delivered and and rewards that might go towards them and then the fair price of a commodity in the market. We don't want all all farmers in the world to be producing vanilla simply because the price is high, and they can make a good living out of it. We do need the rice wheat maze, but also coffee and tea to come out of it and fair prices. And those may still not give people the welfare benefits that they want and well being that they deserve. Next slide please. So, basically, just pulling it all together. What we're talking about is this stewardship dividend that will recognize that there is. We're not exercising a duty of care we want to encourage more people to exercise this and be rewarded for it within markets, through fair prices and outside market to transfers of some kind. And this starts getting very difficult in a paper that I recently I wrote in January. I'll give you a journal here in India, Kamal Bawa introduced the paper say, or briefly and then said to me, Ravi I don't know whether there's much appetite in India for subsidies at the moment. And the problem is that we use these loaded terms, I agree subsidies don't make sense. But what about rewards. Somebody is doing a good job shouldn't they be rewarded. If you're not rewarding them, you're not going to transfer any funds to them so this is the question whether, you know, about markets and their inability to reward reward good behavior in most cases. I just do thoughts here before I start wrapping up. COVID crisis is costing the world $9 trillion. So it's not about whether the money has been spent wisely or not, but a lot of that money was spent outside markets in order to keep economies afloat for simply to keep economies afloat, but also to assure and ensure the well being of people. This happened more in developed countries and it did in countries under development, but that's just an indication. We're looking at some statistics here while India has been looking at a universal basic income, not something that we are we are proposing, but it's a good indicator of the kind of thing that we're talking about universal basic income in India would cost roughly 3 maybe 4% of GDP to get people up so that their well being is is is assured or better sure than it was. Now if we think about those who are actually stewards. Yeah, it's probably at the moment a subset but we would want all our rural communities to be up to that. So 4% the current cost of bad environmental practices of degradation to the to the economy is around 6% of GDP. Those kinds of transfers, however, we structure them would give us a 2% saving on GDP. I looked at the US and the the universal basic income that young had had proposed was estimated to cost 2.8 trillion per year which was sort of working out when they did their final sums of what they would take away etc, was roughly about the same 5 to 6% of GDP and the cost of air pollution alone in the US is 5% of GDP. So I mean these transfers could make sense, but the important point I want to make here is, first of all, the money could be saved. And secondly, the money is not going to be transferred through markets. Next slide. So, my last slide and bridging towards what Valentina is going to come come back to have already sort of introduced the studentship economy is an equitable system of exchange, and who deals with what I want to stress here is. And it's, you know, the it would have surprised me if the the poll had been different, because it's a set of propositions that seek an ethical and equitable pathway to economic social and ecological sustainability. It's a body of knowledge in early development that focuses principally on rewards incentive voice rights, including tenure and their recognition as as a part as a as a as a pathway to stewardship of nature. Our focus is on land and agriagology is a set of principles and practices based in ecology that seek. That seek to sustainably and equitably harness productivity in agricultural landscapes. It is more established body of knowledge, but it is something that, as I see it sits in a more technical sphere of dealing with agricultural landscapes, what the stewardship economy calls for is a paradigm change. With that, thank you and back to you, Fergus. Thank you very much, Ravi. What we're going to do is have now a few minutes for clarification questions on that presentation so not big discursive session we're going to have a discussion later. But at this point, the idea is if there's anything that you'd like Ravi to clarify about the, the remarks that he's made on stewardship economy. And I can see Carl already has a question, please in Bogor, if you have questions from that side, please do let me know. And Fabio, please send me a what's up if there's things on the chat. Thanks, Ravi. Really interesting stuff. I'm just, just so I can understand it a bit more. How do you relate this to payment for ecosystem and environmental services that literature and that work. Because it's all about rewards. So just just curious on your thoughts. Yeah, it's a good question, Carl. And it's one that we debated early on. And I have to say, and I should have said this at the outset. We did look at the literature on PES, and I have to say that I have been quite, quite influenced by writing and thinking that Maynard, Sven, Peter and others have on PES systems. And the sense I got was the issue of scale PES tends to tends to be projectiles and localized. And with the with the kind of change that we need the scale that we need. It didn't seem to me that the PS systems with the high transactions cost could get to the kind of scale that we we needed to and they tended to be quasi commodification, mostly a water, but sometimes of others, not a general sense that there's a functioning natural system that has many, many dimensions and we need to deal with those dimensions, but there are definitely similarities. And it draws a lot from both that literature and that thinking. Okay. And Ramney. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Ravi, for this educational into to stewardship economy. I just wanted to know, and you didn't mention it. Are there any other big players in the same domain where we are forestry, agroforestry, agroecology, whatever agriculture. Are there other players in this who are taking stewardship economy forward or are we the pioneers, which would be wonderful to Yeah, I think. So, I think the concept of stewardship has a lot of traction and a lot of players using it as I said in different ways. The combination of stewardship and economy in the way we have used it is something that came out of discussions that, you know, john Steve and I had particularly with with the company and this program that we've called slingshot, where we got feedback from a pretty eminent people on these concepts. Some of them investment bankers some of them. I think people who've been in the conservation business and some of them very much in the sort of agricultural research so they we were encouraged to think of putting these ideas together so in the sense of what we've presented. This is very much a C for a craft idea and maybe john or would will comment at a later stage, but the feedback we're getting to this idea there's a lot of interest. Clearly, there's, there's a lot of work to be done but that's the whole point of being a knowledge based Institute that is trying to innovate towards a better future. And Mika has the last question for now you're going to speak. Thanks Ravi. I just had sort of two linked questions I was wondering if you looked at the land care approach in Australia particularly on the stewardship side, and some of the benefits that were noted to come out of that. And then also this this assumption that if there's what you've called good behavior, does that actually result in the type of savings on air pollution, etc. That are estimated is there enough evidence that if it's like unless it's everybody in a community doing that good behavior, are we going to see the economic benefits. So, thanks for that. Mika, definitely land care was a really important part of sort of my thinking on this but I also want to acknowledge, you know, my interactions with Carol call for an ACM and a number of other people related to, you know, these these kinds of issues in, you know, traditional societies who have managed. I mean, there is, there is a strong sense that a lot of the forests and nature that we have is because those people wanted to keep it for whatever reasons and the exercise the duty of care, land care basically, both in Australia and as it was taken to south and southern Africa did focus on that that duty of care and there's a there's a huge literature on duty of care as well which informed this. So it came the duty of care economy, except that john said, that's not something I can ever ever pitch to anybody so let's stick with the simple term so definitely. And the other part of your, your, your question is also very pertinent. And this really is the essence of the landscape approach. You know, we debated, you know, with Peter home again and others sort of what was then called the landscapes fund. There was a sense that, you know, we had to basically say okay, you know, it is the entire landscape or you don't get the emergent properties you want. And if there are free riders in that landscape it is going to be for, you know, social fence fencing and the rules within that landscape for the people within that landscape to deal with. There was no way that you could do this on an individual by individual basis. And that really is what we are seeing. You know, and the point early that Aldo Leopold made that because individuals actions tend to be cryptic but at at a certain level of aggregation, they start becoming visible. And so communities landscapes whatever the, the organizing principles of aggregation. And it will be different for different types of ecosystem services obviously, but it is, you know, large, it is the area of scale is central to the future chip economy which is sort of my answer. Also on on PES. I don't think we can go one brick at a time any longer and we've got to find a way of doing what the industry does now and most most countries that is prefabricated houses that you do you put up much much quicker because you can't otherwise cope. Thank you, Ravi. We're now I'm you know obviously we've got more discussion coming up so, you know, I think already these questions and the answers lead to more discussion. But let's now ask Valentina Robiglio to tell us what she thinks agroecology is. So now we apply agroecology principle in our projects in Peru with farmers and and and communities so what I think is that as it is defined is is an integrate response to global challenges that focuses on food system transformation. And that is based on the local application of the famous 10 plus three principles. And, and these principles. Next one. So these principles are next. Maybe you can. Yeah. Okay. So these principles are political, economic, social, cultural, and of course, also agricultural and environmental. They have recycling input reduction soil health, animal health, biodiversity, synergy, economic diversification, co creation of knowledge, social values and diets, fairness, connectivity, land and natural resource governance and participation. So the idea is that the application of these principles can generate pathways for incremental transformation to more sustainable food systems contributing to meet global challenges. So the entry point is food system and is agricultural production. It's a clearly defined domain. What is key is that there is the recognition of the agencies of family, family farmers so then the it's it's made explicit family farmers are at the center of that, and also consumers in terms of production and nutrition. The next place. So, when we look at those principles and and we look at how we could organize them, we could consider scales and we could consider, and we can consider targets. So we have management principles that are the one in red that apply to agro ecosystems and that apply at the field and at the farm level. And these are the red ones so recycling input reduction soil health, animal health and synergy. And there are other principles that relate more to agencies that applied to farm or to households families and to actors along the food systems. And these are the ones in green. So, economic diversification co creation of knowledge, social values and diet, fairness connectivity and participation. Last night when I was preparing the presentation, trying to anticipate a little bit the content of of Ravi's presentation I thought hey but here there are also two kind of stewardship principles. One is biodiversity that says that maintain and enhance diversity of species function diversity and genetic resources and maintain biodiversity in the agro ecosystem over time and space at field farm and landscape scale that recognize a stewardship role. And also, and also in terms of land and natural resource governance so recognize and support the need and interest of family farmers small holders and peasant food producers as sustainable managers and guardians of natural and genetic resources. Now, what I was listening to Ravi, I think that we also could look at three other principle that refer to the economic component of, of, I mean that refer to fairness, I understand that it goes beyond that. But we have these three other principle that are fairness that is support dignified and robust livelihoods for all actors engage in food system, especially small scale food producer based on fair trade fair employment and fair treatment of intellectual property rights, economic diversification that is diversity on farm incomes by ensuring small scale farmers have greater financial independence, and also connectivity that is ensure proximity and confidence between producer and consumer through promotion of fair and short distribution networks, and by reembedding food system into local economies. All that is all those principles apply to the mechanic of food system, they don't go beyond that. But still, I think that there are the key building blocks that correspond also to the stewardship idea and sense that Ravi just presented. And I think that's, that's very important. Next please. So, agroecology has three manifestations so there are like three big dimension. One relates to science. So it's the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of food system. So we have ecology, agronomy and environmental science. It applies to practices. So improve agricultural systems by harnessing natural processes interaction and synergies among the component of the system. Here we have agricultural practices as an alternative to conventional agriculture. And it also relates to social movements that propose agroecology as a solution to modern crisis through the transformation of agriculture. So these three dimension are all interconnected. And I think it's, it's clear what is the role of see for aircraft in these three dimension also if we think at the presentation we had yesterday in the in the opening session. Next please. But as I said, most of the concepts apply to the agricultural landscape and the farmers are at the center of that. What is relevant is that in the agricultural landscape and that is these are advancement that have been already made and recognized is that it is possible to build alliances among big global communities, working or engaged in the agenda, but also the ones who are engaged on ecosystem based adaptation, because agroecology and climate change and biodiversity communities both work on a natural based solution there are some differences in the way in which things are defined but they are similar alliances with ecosystem based adaptation people and with natural based solution people are possible. And and building alliances is very strategic so also thinking at what we have been listening since yesterday, there are the, the five big challenges. And my feeling is that we also have through the TPP or themes in see for aircraft, we also have communities, communities of restoration community of agriculture community. But actually, we are all alive so we really have to look at what is common, because those synergies, I think we are the ones that will allow us to accelerate. And also because the challenges ahead are too big to be addressed by one single community so we do not have cannot have one single answer or one single approach. So, when, when we go to the communities, and we start talking about agroecology principle, we realize that farmers gets a lot of messages by other communities and that there is a lot of noise. So farmers don't know do they have to prune do they have to eliminate shade do they have to plant fast growing species to stop carbon or do they have to splant long term species that are important for consumers they, they are lost. Everyone land on their community with a solution and with funds to change their behavior or support a transformation transformational change at their level. We really need to build this synergy to minimize trade off and reduce this noise that is, is really damaging the entire process. And also because investment on processes at the middle level. And here by middle level can be jurisdiction and we know that we have jurisdiction that are nested into each other, landscape can be watershed. It doesn't matter it's landscape. We need to. I mean what is the enabling context for that is has the same building blocks. If you don't have rights to trees, you don't have rights to carbon. So, all these things are connected and interrelated. So, and what we are talking about our sustainable land management practices. What can be for mitigation that can be for adaptation it depends of what what is the target or what is the problematic you have to address the more urgent needs that have to be addressed in the landscape where you operate. Next please. For this landscape, then it's, it's slightly different because in forest landscape and there are two interesting publication by Peter Newton about who are forest people forest dependent people or people who live approximate to forest. We have a range of livelihoods strategies that relate to forest, there is a dependence on forest can be from forest services can be from products can be from, I depend on the conversion of land forest because I'm a farmer, but there is a gradient of dependency that it's important to take into account so we do not have only farmers and that's very important. We also meet different types of institution. So the forest sector is a particular forest and conservation sector are two big particular groups that is very difficult to to to work with. Especially if we come from a more agricultural sustainable agricultural perspective, but also we have very strong and really eradicated customary institution that are sometimes that are very important to them but that are I mean it's challenging sometimes to get that to get the right way to operate and interact and understand how to engage in a transformational process with with them. And then we have the global community. We have jurisdiction level, we have conflicts between the agricultural and the forest sector. As an example in Peru we have institutions who wants to work on agro territorial zoning, and they are not entering into the forest land that is legally classified as forest land but it is where the coffees produce, because they are not allowed to intervene on the forest land because there you have the forest sector institution that are and the conservation institution that they, they don't accept explicitly that you have agriculture on forest land. My idea is that we have complementary principles to be developed to integrate the forest and the farm component and propose and promote the sustainable management of land and forest resources. And I think that this is key and that is probably something that strongly relates to what we are going to discuss in the in the coming half an hour or. Indeed 40 minutes. Is that it. Yeah, good. So, so, again, just for the next five minutes clarification questions so again not not the big discursive ones but verification questions on what Valentina has said and Ramney is is hot off the block. Thank you Valentina that was very nice and I've been wanting to haven't had time to read about agro ecology, but if some very quickly, if someone was to ask me what's the difference between agro forest and agro ecology. What would I say to them that my goodness, I have to get it right. If you if you read that the agro ecology literature agro forestry is a practice under the agro ecological practices, and not all the agro forestry follows the agro ecological principles so it's not intrinsically, or by default, part of the agro ecology it depends on how do you design your agro forestry intervention using the agro ecological principle. So, it's, it's part of the big families of of agro ecological practices. So apply the principles of agro ecology to design the intervention and also to implement all the rest of components that are part of the of the principle in your project or in your intervention so. Yeah, I would also say, Ramney that there is a session in the world Congress on agro forestry in Quebec in July, specifically on the linkages between agro forestry and agro ecology. So that might be it's the closing plenary of of that Congress. So, so that will be explored in quite a bit of detail there. But Rick not not. Yeah, kind of a clarification question. I mean, it seems to me that that if you look at principles of agro ecology. There isn't really a future for any food and agriculture system that doesn't conform to those principles. And there are all sorts of problems at all sorts of scales. I'm thinking of the way we started out this meeting yesterday with these global challenges that current sets of agro ecology principles don't address. And so we've got in agro ecology. It seems we've got we've got principles for our common sustainable future, sort of partial but very, very incomplete, my incompleteness hypothesis of agro ecology. And I'm wondering if two things now one, you know, can we make agro ecology and the principles that define agro ecology more complete. And you've you've suggested that in terms of bringing forestry into the picture. I wonder if there are further areas that we could add principles for that would make agro ecology more complete. And since the presentation on stewardship economy. I'm wondering whether that is one of the pieces that fits in I liked your, your connection to stewardship. When you go slides there. But there were things that Ravi was talking about which were not yet connected. So, the question is, can we extend the concept of agro ecology, probably through additional principles, because the definition of agro ecology in terms of principles is very powerful. Can we extend its definition to to increase the connection with these other sectors that are so important. I, I can start answering. I think that it is really important to to do so. And it's not only about forest. My concern is that when you then think at your audience. I'm thinking at national level, policymakers and sectors. Agro ecology is under agriculture. And so you can make it perfect. But still it is under one sector, because it's it's so I don't know what is. I mean, how can we expand that scope. And also change the way in which then agro ecology is perceived as something that is much more comprehensive than improving the way in which you produce and your all the changes along the food system because that's still it has a very clear niche like now in Peru you have the vice minister of blah, blah, blah and agro ecology. But if you look at the policies and the thing that they change is all related to food. And we are struggling to get them integrating agroforestry into that because they say no, that's forest. So, I think we have to also to understand how then you translate these things in like and and and to your target audience and what do they have. Who are they and what how do they find things because we can have very strong concepts that when if they do not really fit to current reality. We cannot accelerate change because we are not talking the same language. So, we need to I mean we wish it's important to discuss about how to be clever. Yeah, I'll bring Peter in later because I think we're getting into more than clarification here. I think Colmy would like to just say a couple of words before I asked Steve, john wanted to explain why GLF are interested in in stewardship john. And also thank you for this has been a fantastic session. And the whole week has been great. I just want to say a little bit. And I'm going to quote Robert the other day on our question integrate land management. The landscape approach whole world all of our charter members are a lot of big institutions have adapted it but how do you implement it. That's been the issue and it's very frustrating for a lot of people. But in a lot of organizations stewardship economy may be one way to do that and I emphasize may because and something's happening in the world the world has changed at C4 I spent 10 years building we built this program but we could never get information in. But GLF information is pouring in what's happening in the world feedback from ever what's changed black lives matter climate justice decolonization. You know the whole shift in this way 1.7 billion committed at the cop for indigenous areas. When we did the GLF in 2019 on rights, it was the only conference we ever had that lost money. And this stewardship economy may be the way forward but one thing at GLF that is not going to change and by the way we are science led and this is beautiful because this is example of how science leads GLF. This is led by you guys. But what what isn't going to change is the GLF is now shifting very quickly with the charter members everyone was on board on this is to shift to a focus on stewards in the landscape. The landscapes in which we're intervening. We're going to focus now on the people that are using those areas and working with them. That's not going to change. And last thing is donors love this concept by the way we presented it to 25 foundations and every single one says we want to know more. We want you to keep going on this. And I think this is a great study Steve and Robbie are the minds behind this. So I look forward to seeing Steve's presentation. Thank you. Okay, so we're now having had a look at both these concepts. We now want to sort of reflect a little bit on on on them with firstly with with Steve, Larry, Steve. Thanks. Thanks for this. And it's wonderful to be in Bogor with our colleagues here after sometime being away and to be participating in this in this event. I'm really delighted. And so I'm meant to speak briefly on a little more deeply. We're getting some static here. Can you everyone hear me clearly. Okay. So to maybe a fuller definition of what's meant by stewardship in the context of some of the debates that we're having focus at the outset characterized stewardship among other things as treating farmers and communities as part of the solution. And of course, that's precisely what we're talking about. But we're, we're also sort of could argue that they are the solution ultimate ultimately, and they're certainly central to list to the solution. Stewards, of course, we think of in, in that respect as land users, the people who break the ground, who make the decisions about a window plant with the plant, how to fertilize how to cultivate how to conserve soils how to manage forests. And it's their decisions that they're making multiple decisions on a day to day basis that together constitute our sort of the outcomes with respect to land use globally there's a whole set of institutions that can be directed toward helping them be better stewards or institutions that by virtue of their logic can make life more difficult for them and this is, these are the points that that Robbie made when talking about stewardship versus the external costs. They're not that are not traditionally sufficiently compensated for. But I want to focus on the steward and how we understand them and make some arguments about their centrality, that is the land users as stewards to a research agenda. And so let's go to the next slide. So we had a definition Robbie presented a definition that John and he and I sort of put together from different scholars perspectives, including Aldo Leopold, I'm drawing here on building on that and everything I'm going to say is consistent with those principles. But I'm drawing on a very useful paper by West at all from 2018 where they sort of characterize good stewardship practice around three principles. The first is care and care can be understood as the embraced by farmers and community members of attitudes and values that motivates them to apply sustainable land use practices. Care is the ethical core of stewardship. It is a sense of duty. Robbie is speaking spoken of this shared widely that compels people to look after the national natural environment on which they depend. We look after the environment the environment will look after us. Next slide please. Knowledge is central and we talk about the knowledge that we provide is as research institutions, but it's the knowledge of the stewards that's vital to the, you know, that guides them in making decisions about the best kinds of stewardship outcomes. Knowledge is the information and know how that informs stewardship action. It includes knowledge about ecological social and governance processes. Care, our first principle emerges from directly managing social ecological relations and requires an understanding of interspecies and dependencies. So we can think of stewards as managers of social ecological systems and they are they deal with obviously the environment and they deal with the great variety of social, political, economic and other institutions that affect the limit or give opportunity to decisions that they make. Care is embedded and practical. And this kind of experiential knowledge is not by definition, easily achievable by non residents. This is sort of a crude knowledge passed on from parent to child, intuitive, calibrated engage to what's going on in the environment. And, and once again, it's, you know, managing a complex system that's both social and ecological and character. Next slide. Sorry, I'm rushing here but agency we've heard agency have been delighted to hear agency repeated a number of occasions yesterday and today, including in Valentina's talk. Agency denotes the abilities and capabilities of individuals and groups to take action exercising agency largely depends upon possessing rights to land and other natural resources. If you have rights, you can do things. If you don't, you can't, you know, you can't organize, you can't act, or your, your, your ability to act is very severely limited. Stewardship for Aldo Leopold is a form of democratic action in support of sustainable land use outcomes outcomes that are mutually beneficial to human society and natural systems as it's drawn from a 1942 essay called Land Use and Democracy. Without agency, democratic action is not possible. Next, next slide. So these are the three sort of constituent elements and care knowledge and agency should be thought of as mutually consituative, each supporting the other, like the inner whale and strands of a rope. In the out, you know, if one is not present, the others cannot be made manifest farmers and communities manage land and resources directly. They just don't and typically can't. This is a very important point that Leopold made in his essay Land Use and Democracy. Stewardship is embedded in existing values and attitudes and is not easily created and in settings where it is not present. These stewardship can be weakened, where agency is lost, or local social and economic systems are disrupted, and we have evidence of that having happened with the kinds of outcomes suggested here around the world. How do people lose agency, their rights are taken away. They lost rights in the colonial era, rights to forest were not returned to communities after independence, and so on and so forth. Okay, so governments, what can they do? Well, they do what they can do, which is to establish reserves protected areas and attempt to regulate land and forest use. Hence the quick reversion to we have a biodiversity concern, let's establish a reserve or a protected area, and with consequences obviously to local people who might live here. Anyway, Robbie made a precedent of explaining or referring to the photograph. And this is sort of just by sheer sort of chance. I thought I did a great job of putting together these photos but I was present when that photograph was taken in Southern Nepal and the Terai. When visiting with colleagues, a community forest association that had been given rights to a forest through Nepal's very significant and important forest rights devolution program. What these women are doing is harvesting lemongrass from the forest and on on this site in this forest is a distillery that distilled the lemongrass into essential oils that were being sold sold through supply chains. Globally and one of the women said to me before we had rights. I was just a wife. Now I am somebody. So this speaks to what this speaks to agency. Okay, you have rights to make decisions on how this land is used and how the products of that land are sold and marketed. Governments constructively can and do support research this refers to Leopold essay what can governments do well they can support research. But the research agenda often consider the presence or absence often don't consider the presence or absence of local conditions conducive to good stewardship. I'm speaking here contemporaneously today. This is sometimes the case researchers evaluate how interventions framed by norms goals and measurable standards that by governments, donors and scientists might promote desired outcomes. I'm referring this as criticism. Okay, if you want to focus on the goals and aspirations constraints opportunities of the stewards, you've got to put your feet in the shoes of the stewards and not assume that, you know, ideas coming from European capitals are the right ideas, or that they right reflect the, the understanding of the context in which stewards are making these complicated decisions the social ecological decisions on a daily basis. Hence interventions reflect a limited understanding of local context. I just go next slide please. Social ecological systems. This is the last one Steve. Sorry. Sorry. Is that the last slide? The last slide. Yes. Social ecological systems provides a framework for understanding and evaluating the origins and presence of stewardship practices. This is not a new line of work but there's a couple of interesting new journals that are publishing work on social ecosystem theory that draws from Leopold and others who have worked in this region. And I think I'll just, maybe just the last point for Leopold, human and natural communities were intimately intermingled. Our social economic and political realities did not and could not exist in the intellectual vacuum of conservation challenges that follow cannot be addressed apart from the social sphere. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Steve. There's a lot of people resonating with what you're saying there. And, and Lalisa, are you online? Yes, Fergus. Would you like to give your reflections and then we'll open up for discussion. Yeah, thank you so much. Your mind will be very brief. I don't think I'll do justice if I have to talk about the similarities and differences, but let me just try to highlight some points which I thought are really critical in my view. The first one is, I mean, when we think about the stewardship economy as indicated before, it's really critical to know what reward could actually drive a change process within the localities or within the landscapes that we are dealing with. And who determines what level of reward is required and who pays for it and who governs the whole system of that reward mechanism because our experience from the payment for ecosystem services for water, biodiversity, carbon and all of these things shows. The drive is there, but the commitment to pay for what is really due to be paid is not there. We know the difference between the social cost of carbon and the actual cost of carbon on the global market system. The second point is more really related to both the stewardship economy and the agroecology. It is about the people's view. Now we are talking as experts sitting here, but what do the people living in those landscapes we have in mind to think about this whole structure. And I think there is one good point which was raised in the stewardship economy, which is the landscape democracy. Of course, that's a very critical point because people have choices, people have preferences, people have rights to different forms of interventions that they think is appropriate in their own scale, despite the level of knowledge they have on how they should be managing their own landscapes. When we think about democracy, of course, it's a relative term. There is no true democracy. It's all about A is better than B in XYZ or B is better than C in KML and all those things. But we should not also forget the values of traditional or indigenous democratic systems that promote sustainable natural resource management because at the bottom of both the agroecology and the stewardship economy, it's about better management of the ecosystems and nature. And we should really make emphasis on those points and there should be a room for those issues. And my third point will be more looking at the power of partnerships and collaborations to manage leakage that happen at different scales. If we don't pull together different institutions, different sectors, different ministries as rightly Valentina was mentioning before, I think we're still creating leakage that could damage the ecosystem that we ought to have preserved with better by driving the mechanisms that we think are more effective. This is really still critical because the issue of institutions, the issues of governance should be at the center of all these discussions, whether we are thinking from the agroecology point of view, which is more of a practice principle, or whether it is from the stewardship economy points of view. And the last one is really more about looking inward because I was just listening from the beginning up to now. And yes, we are generating the knowledge we are generating the innovative tools mechanisms, but where are we in this big picture of the issues that we are talking about. I and you, where are we within this whole implementation that we think should drive the change that the planet right now needs. In conclusion, I think stewardship is really about everyone of us making our best effort to make sure that the planet can be saved from the crisis we are facing. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you, Lalisa. I'm going to take questions in a minute but there are a couple from the web that I want to one to Valentina and one to Ravi or Steve Valentina. Anya Gassner is very insistent that you address this question which is she has a PhD in agroecology. And when she did a PhD agroecology was simply the ecology, the functioning of the agroecosystem. Are we not in danger of overloading the term. Who has a PhD in agroecology? Anya Gassner says she has. So she, Anya has. Yes. Anya has a PhD in agroecology. Anya asked the question. I do have and I asked the question that followed up with a second question and you I mean we've been working on this long enough. We are up against 40 years of extension service thinking of linear agricultural practices. Arguing that agroforestry is actually a circular system supporting the ecological functioning of agroecosystem is one of our strongest arguments at the moment. So it's super important that we have a clear communication on agroecology, because it has gotten lost. So my question back to you and for this is, since it is so relevant for us, are we not in danger of overloading the term and maybe missing the key message that we need to actually give. Thanks. Yes, I think that there is this risk. I think that again, what Lalisa said is super relevant is to whom are we talking, because we, we as researchers can overload the term. There are no risk. We can, we can do that. But then if we think at the institution and the partners we are interacting with and and where do we want to generate change, we have to be very careful in not overloading these terms and really understand where do we need to generate generate change with which type of of concepts. So, I, I, I agree with you. I think it may be worth taking on on board the fact that the evolution of agroecology to encompass the more social and governance dimensions. I think came about because people trying to focus on agroecological practice didn't get very far because you can't do things when you've got an enabling a disabling environment that prevents you from making the change. So if you want an agroecological transformation it has to take on board the governance and the social issues. So no it's not overloading. It's minimum necessary in order to make to make change. That would be the way I would look at it. Just one clarification for Steve or Ravi is how does their idea of stewardship economy relate to Julian Pratt, you know who uses the same label and has stewardship economy.org. If you google it, you know that's what tends to come up. He's got a very specific sort of view of taxation. And I just wonder, what's the juxtaposition of of the C for aircraft approach, and how do we navigate the fact that there are some other, you know, very big ideas out there that use the same label. I can give you I can give you I can have a first go and maybe Steve can then correct me. So, just just for historical perspective I mean we did discuss this and our ideas are so very different from Julian Pratt's but and our path to the term was an entirely different one to Julian Pratt's that I think, you know, there is no, there can be no confusion with the sets of ideas that we are proposing and what he proposed. That was our conclusion and then we decided to move forward with this. This is a comparison. North Korea also called itself a democracy. And so so so does Sweden both have social, socialistic tendencies, but there is no comparison in their use of that term as well. I think, you know, these terms can can live in parallel. We are not talking about land stewardship in the kind of ownership tradition that Julian Pratt is talking about. We just haven't addressed that perhaps at some later stage. There may be a reason to look at why there are overlaps. That's my answer. I really think that because the two terms have been put together does not mean that, you know, that we are in conflict in any way. Okay, Lee has a question and then and last and Fergus just to try and draw attention. There are some people online with their hands up for some time. I can, I can see that will will bring you in Andrew, but after the two women. Okay. Yeah, sure. No problem. Okay, great. I'll keep it short. So I have a question about in the term stewardship and if you think that this will help in terms of scaling the whole stewardship economy and of course we often use the term soil stewardship. Let you know that I started the soil stewards program in 2003 in Idaho, the first organic farm in Idaho. Still going I checked online. So we're very in the soul science community we often use this because it really puts people at the center of taking care of the soil and so I was wondering if with the stewardship economy if you think will also be helpful in really empowering people to take control to whether it's agroecology or agroforestry to really scale these approaches. Thanks. Let's take several questions and then we'll allow people to comment on. Thanks. So, I think this whole concept is really exciting and has an enormous potential. I do have I think some of the similar comments as Lalisa, in terms of the, it becomes very, very local, very, very fast, and yet everything people local local people do is influenced by so many other things and of course, big drivers of change are not necessarily happening because of local people. So that's a whole piece there and one of the things that I've, I've been thinking about recently. I'm thinking about land tenure and rights and all of these other issues that we work on is, are we fundamentally also talking about a massive agrarian reform, a new phase of agrarian reform, because right now land concentration is at the worst it's been in modern history. I don't know if people have seen the uneven ground report that International Land Coalition put out last year. Just one sentence here today it's estimated there are approximately 608 million farms in the world. Most are still family farms, but the largest 1% of farms operate more than 70% of the world's farmland and are integrated into the corporate food system while 80% are small holdings of less than two hectares. So land concentration is just getting worse and worse and worse. So we're talking about fewer and fewer of these stewards. And that seems to me sort of a starting point that needs to be part of the solution. Okay. And Andrew. Yes, thanks very much, Fergus. Not, Fergus it probably won't come as a surprise to many of you that I want to try and address my long standing lament that within the CGI system we do so little historical research, or where we extend our time timelines, and sees the opportunities that historical evidence and there's plenty of it can be used to better understand and learn lessons from the past. And I raised this in the in the chat box as well because I think one of the key questions, and it's interesting that both Ravi and Steve have cited Aldo Leopold, but neither of them actually referred to the dust bowl experience in North America, which was probably one of the most devastating agrarian related land degradation events that has affected North America. And there's plenty of texts that have been written about that. And my question was, with the historical evidence it actually helps us identify what have been the triggers over time that have led to some of the alternative agriculture movements that have occurred on multiple occasions. I refer to the work of Joan first, who unfortunately is no longer with us she died a couple of years ago, and her wonderful book alternative agriculture that where she traces alternative agriculture regimes over six centuries of British agriculture. One of her basic tenants in her book is that it was very often associated with major upheavals, including the black death. And I think one of the interesting features of this current interest in stewardship economy and agroecology is, is it not perhaps linked to also the COVID-19 outbreak, it would fit very much within the theories that John Thurston advanced. But I think most importantly, I think the historical evidence can actually help us identify solutions to current problems, which can still be found in the hard one evidence of people living in the past. So my question is, why do we not use the historical evidence that is out there. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew, and we'll leave that question hanging in the air. We will go now to the closing poll. I don't want to try to get anybody to sum up. You can all be doing some of the something by answering these questions. Fabio, do you have the closing poll. So on a scale from one not changed to 10 completely transformed. How would you describe your understanding of stewardship economy and agroecology now as opposed to at the beginning of this session. So how transformative has this session been for you. Interesting. So for some people it's made no difference at all. Thankfully, there's a lot more in the, the other side, although quite a, it seems to be the longer we go on, the worse it looks. But but of course the modal one there at eight is pretty encouraging. Okay, good. I think I think that's, that's good. Okay, the second question is on a scale from one completely different to 10, essentially the same. How similar or different do you think stewardship economy and agroecology are. So if they're completely different, then you're down at one. And if they're essentially the same, you're up at 10. Are they similar or different. Now this is really interesting, because we've clearly got quite a difference of opinion on. You're all in the same session. Well, I see we do have this interesting situation of the modal one being sitting on the fence at five. Well, I think this is the beginning rather than the end, isn't it of what we need to. I think the voting's finished there that that is that is almost a normal distribution, I guess Rick. No, he's got too much in the middle. Okay, let's close the voting on that one to come to our last question and this one could be the most exciting of all on a scale from one incompatible to 10 complimentary. Compatible do you think stewardship economy and agroecology are as concepts. And it looks as though a lot of people are very polite and want them to be complimentary. Although not everybody. That's insert so you know on the whole. There appears to be a general feelings nothing below five. People really think there is there is quite a high degree of complementarity, which, which is quite interesting for us because that means that we probably do need to articulate quite clearly. What that complementarity is so that our messaging is, you know, is clear. It is one o'clock here in Nairobi. So I'd like to thank everybody for what I think was a stimulating debate. As I say, lower octane than what we had, but before coffee, but I think really trying to explore in a bit of detail. Concepts which are really, really important. And not just the concepts, but how do we put them into practice and what that means for us as an institution. So thank you very much everybody who has taken part. And I'll end the session and hand over to the people in Nairobi and Bogor, who are talking about the housekeeping issues. Thank you and goodbye.