 Since this is a more cozy atmosphere here, I will take my time and I will talk through us slowly, slowly through some lessons we have learned from other experiences and other mechanisms that also have integrated benefit sharing mechanisms. So before I do so, I should also mention that this work, this review of existing experiences and mechanisms, this work is a work of many, many different people. So I will start with a quick overview of what this project is about and most people here in the panel are part of this project. But let me first give a little insight in CIFO is doing since 2009 a global comparative study on Red Plus. And we do that study to provide decision makers, policy makers but also the practitioner community with information, tools and guidance to make sure that if a country is embarking on a Red Plus pathway it does so in a carbon effective cost efficient but also equitable manner while delivering co-benefits. And we as a research organization try to contribute there through information, tools, guidance, through evidence basically. This AC funded project opportunities and challenges for benefit sharing mechanisms is part under this umbrella of this global comparative study. And the main objective of this AC project is to provide Red Plus policy makers and practitioners with policy options and guidance to improve the design and the implementation of benefit sharing mechanisms. And this work as you can see here has multiple work packages and one work package is dealing with reviewing existing performance based mechanisms and that is something I will talk about in my presentation. But then another element of this project is dealing with costs and costs at the national level but also at the project level. And from Sven we will hear more about the national level, we will hear insights from Amy from the project level. And then also how Red Plus is emerging in a multi-level governance system. So this just as a quick overview what this AC benefit sharing project is all about and what we will hear from the CFO site a little bit this afternoon. So to start with my presentation now and I'm saying that because otherwise N is already counting time so now from now on please. Since I use the term benefit sharing already I think 20 times let me quickly define it. That's work done by Latrell and Arald Anzelsen was part of that. And we define benefit sharing as a distribution of direct and indirect net gains. So net gains is here the key word and we differentiate two types of direct benefits, monetary gains but also benefits associated with increased availability of forest ecosystem services. And goods. Then we also have besides direct benefits, indirect benefits and here we can talk about improved institutional governance, tenure reform etc. So after having clarified what we mean when we talk about benefit sharing let me also quickly explain what kind of analytical lens we use in this project. And at what exactly we are looking. So if you think of a benefit sharing mechanism then you have to think about may the first thought might be about incentives. So the distribution of incentives but obviously there's also an institutional area you have to look at. And that is how to create the enabling institutional conditions that this distribution can effectively happen. And finally obviously the most important area for some in a benefit sharing mechanism is does the incentive achieve what it's supposed to achieve. So are the outcomes there that are supposed to be realized. So do we see for example the desire changes in land use decision making behavior that we wanted to incentivize or not we but the benefit sharing mechanism was supposed to incentivize. And the analytical lens C4 is taking is a 3E lens but just to explain that and take some time here because we will hear these terms also later again to explain a little bit what we mean with effectiveness, efficiency and equity in the context of benefit sharing. But in terms of effectiveness here we talk about an effectiveness that relates to environmental, social and economic impacts or the performance of the instrument. When we talk about efficiency in this presentation then I mean the level of administrative but also social costs that are associated with the instrument and with the policy objectives. And finally equity and maybe the most important one has two in our definition two major elements. One is procedural equity that refers to the participation in decision making and the inclusion and negotiation of competing views and that's something I think we will learn more from Amy Dushel's presentation. But then also distributive equity that refers to the allocation of outcomes and obviously also the impacts on the very diverse and different stakeholders. For our work package in this project the big question was how do we do this review of different experiences and mechanisms and also why should we do that. And the idea was to provide a series of info briefs of policy briefs that really take out lessons what works, what doesn't work in other instruments and other mechanisms but also in other experiences such as anti-corruption measures. And we came up with that because all these existing benefit sharing mechanisms also tackle the same four big questions or struggle with the same things and that is actually how to operationalize equity, how to identify target groups etc. And then the big question how should incentives be provided for inputs for outcomes to actually change behavior or for outputs. Then another big question is what is the process of participation and decision making at multiple levels. And this is something that obviously also all other benefit sharing mechanisms deal with. And then finally how is accountability and outcomes measured and monitored. This year is pretty important because the rest of the presentation is also organized around these four issue areas. So incentives, institutions, outcomes again and the big question of how to operationalize equity. And to derive lessons we looked at a set of very different existing benefit sharing mechanisms. We looked at obviously payments for environmental services. But then we looked at community forestry systems, conditional cash transfers, indigenous people's trust funds and the European rural development policy. And these are all existing mechanisms but then we also looked at practices such as anti-corruption measures in Indonesia. We looked at standards and certification to learn here lessons for benefit sharing and at VPAs under flagged as well. So this gives just an overview what are the seven processes mechanisms we looked at and also what kind of lessons we took. For example for the indigenous people's trust fund we looked at Patasurui and Kaipiupo funds as an example how these trust funds function. In terms of anti-corruption measures that was interesting because here we looked at the selection of oversight and transparency mechanisms. We focused on Indonesia because the anti-corruption measures there is very much established and so that was for us a very good moment also to actually learn for benefit sharing. And we looked also at online permit, application systems, budget monitoring, instruments, etc. So starting with the first huge area operationalizing equity. And here we had four elements that we took a closer look at and one was techniques for assessing, recognizing the level of cost and obviously to whom they are crewing. We looked at elements that were related to setting fair and minimum payments, something we also find in plan vivo projects. In terms of establishing face and upfront payments here we have some lessons from plan vivo TGB that basically had put up upfront payments but then at the very end of the project. So they made sure that incentives were possible at the very beginning but then at the end the incentives basically faded out. So the way we looked at all these experiences was okay, what is really working where the possibilities also thinks that you cannot just take one-to-one into a red plus design but where you also should learn what works, how you establish incentives that really also incentivize to the very end of an activity. A fourth area here under operationalizing equity was paying attention to the different types of benefits when which type of benefits kind of help you to realize your outcomes in the most equitable way. In terms of increasing efficiency as a key element in cost and benefit sharing also here for areas we looked at the use of input rather than output indicators when could that be meaningful. We looked at addressing scale using targeting to increase effectiveness and also clarifying tenure. In terms of institutional design the third area we looked at using existing governance systems to reduce costs so what can they do and what can we see there already, how that works, the role of local governments in reducing or enhancing efficiency effectiveness same for intermediaries. A lot of literature is dealing with intermediaries in the past literature and we looked at coordination. That's pretty relevant also for the anti-corruption measures and popped up there. In terms of accountability through MRV here we have three major areas we look at and these are inclusion and participation in the process, how was that ensured in these mechanisms. We looked at transparency, what kind of measures had been put in place. For example and here induced by case studies from Cameroon that clearly show that money transfers never arrived at the local level and there was a total lack of transparency if payments at all were made why when to whom. And another major area here to look at dispute resolution mechanisms. So to come to an end of my presentation two more slides to follow. This is quite a lot of information and I also have to say that I cut off so many examples so please go and read outside the info briefs that really provide much deeper and much detailed information on what kind of elements could be really useful also for a red plus mechanism. But just to summarize some key lessons for each of those seven mechanisms, instruments or practices. The key lesson we found that was useful for red plus in terms of PES was that it really helps to understand risk but also advantages when it comes to the role of intermediaries. So again where you have to pay attention to what kind of risks are there and intermediaries especially in cross-scale interaction. For the community forestry I think the key lesson from those mechanisms is that they indicate that allocation of rights is in much more sustainable incentive in a situation where you really have difficulties to reflect true transaction costs and opportunity costs in the incentives. In terms of conditional cash transfers, the key lesson for us for a red plus mechanism is that cash may be more effective than in-kind transfers and that is something the red plus policy arena is really firmly believing and to ensure more flexible efficient and also effective incentives. But the problem is that conditionalities obviously even though they might bring effectiveness they are also very costly and costly mainly in the monitoring part as well. In terms of Indigenous Peoples Trust Fund, here we found the most useful lesson basically is that it really helps to create awareness that heavy safeguard requirements are absolutely necessary but they also may restrict then as an unintended side effect indeed the participation of Indigenous people and the mechanism at all. In terms of the rural development policies that's a kind of interesting example maybe even for the European Union because this is the European rural development policy. And there what we looked at was actually again mainly in the area also of MRV but the interesting lesson here is that it indicates that targeting to poorer areas helps indeed to achieve equity objectives. Doesn't come with huge surprise but please look at the info brief for further information. And to finalize with the last three in terms of anti-corruption measures key lesson here is and I think the Indonesian example is really strong. What you see is it requires a budget for coordination and in the Indonesian case this was partially given and that makes also the Indonesian anti-corruption measure so powerful as a tool and it requires strong authority including societal backup. In terms of certification and standards here it shows key lesson is that integrating minimum price guarantees has the potential indeed to lower risks. And for VPAs on the flag what we see is first of all you need to plan for time and compromise involved in inclusive multi-stakeholder processes. And I think for those that are working on VPAs this is a big lesson because that was also very much underestimated. In the beginning at least this was literature and case studies indicate and the value of dispute how important it is to have established those grievance mechanisms dispute resolution mechanisms and the transparency that comes with it. I will stop here these are just some publications and this is not even complete it's a little bit a show off slide I know that but again I cannot present all the details and you need to go into the details to actually learn the lessons. And that brings me to say thank you and...