 Welcome all. Thank you for joining today. We had a nice plenary and we are ready to discuss some of the topics in detail in this breakout group on social aspects. We just have a quick presentation to introduce everyone how this breakout group will be done today. Please let me know if you could see the slides. Yes, it's good. Okay. So, this is a brief outline. What I'll do is I'll spend maybe five minutes to introduce our panelists and discussants. And then each of our panel members will have five minutes each to share their thoughts we use a small presentation perhaps. And then we will go to our discussant and they will have five 10 minutes to share their thoughts comments compliments any contradictions on what panel members have shared. And then we will get into interactive in depth discussion, where all participant questions comments or any other thoughts will be entertained. We will take about 15 minutes of time for this activity. Then we'll come back to panelists for any further comments thoughts or any, any views. And similarly, last 10 minutes for discussion to kind of provide an overarching. Home message kind of thing. And then if time still remaining then I'll try to wrap up and provide a brief summary. So that, that's a general outline of our one hour breakout group. So we will have three panelists. Do you see the slide mode, or you're still on the same slide. Yes, I know. Okay, good. So, okay, good. So we have three speakers. Yuti Ariyani, Moira Moirilana, and Sarah Novenly. And then we'll provide brief introduction. Yuti is a postdoctoral researcher at Nanyang Technological University Singapore. She completed her PhD from Andhovan University of Technology where she combined development study. And I would like others to kindly mute their microphone. Thank you. So during her PhD she combined development studies and innovative science to understand socio technical change in biofuel case, and currently her research focuses on the role of community participation in peatland restoration in Indonesia. The second panelist is Moira Moirilana. She is a senior associate in C4 based in Bogor. She has worked on various themes related to forest governance including conservation, community based forest management, social forestry decentralization, and more recently climate change under global comparative study on red plus looking at national policy issues. She is from private sector. She is currently head of sustainability compliance for Asia pulp and papers in our mass. She oversees various sustainability initiatives across APP's Indonesia operations including CSR program, social compliance and stakeholder engagement to meet APP sustainability roadmap is in 2020-2030. She has joined master's degree in agricultural economics from Gada Maja University and University of Tokyo, and she has more than 15 years of experience across sustainability certification supply chain stakeholder management and business process management. So those would be our three panelists today. And then we will move on to our discussant. It would be Josie. She works for Teparchaya initiative. She is also part of Inobu team. She is a senior researcher at Indonesian Center for Environment Law, and has previously served as senior legal counsel in the Indonesian red plus agency. She pursued her PhD at Melbourne Law School and working on environment law and governance. So Josie and Moira were also part of our last webinar. So we had an opportunity to hear some of their research, some of their work earlier. Today, we will be hearing more from them, and we will listen what they have to say and share their perspective. So before going to listen to all of them and your own discussion, I would like to just request all participants to keep their microphone muted. And then I hand over the floor to our first panelist UT. Floor is yours, UT. Thank you. I will share my screen. Yeah, please do. Okay. Yeah, it's working. But yeah. Okay, thank you everyone. And I'm happy to be here and to meet you also institutions and social cohesiveness in safeguarding Pete Lance and also the community. So this is an illustration. So I'm really, I really like Mark Reed presentations because he basically mentioned things like the needs to be the one's it's kind of like representing what happened in the ground. So in his presentations, I want to give you the illustration first about like what happened in the ground. So one of the things that's being adopted for the given restoration is the no burning policy. So I use this case study it's happening in in sponge and area based on the research by Hartman and college. So in this, in this illustrations you can see that there's a relationship between the no burning policies. So I'm not interacting the land clearing through burning, but it's also happened create like the new way of land clearing, which is through manual weeding. But what happened is because the manual reading needs a lot of times, then like many people, many farmers choose to either stop cultivating maze. So this is kind of like a trade off between like you have this no burning policy, but then it's also kind of like threatening the livelihood of the local people over there. So after there's this no burning policy it's reducing the maze plantations from 200 hectares to 60 hectares. So, in terms of safeguarding the question is really like what type of alternative livelihood that can be introduced to the community, and also how to increase their profit because there's cases where the man need to go outside the villages because they're no longer able to work there. So, in terms of like criteria indicators the question is really like how to capture the phenomena and when you have like one policy, what type of like policy that can address not only like hey you're not allowed to burn anything anymore but also like how to have a policy that's also supporting local community. I mean, you can have like indicators or criteria where there's no more fires, and then people already move to a different type of livelihood but you also need to ask questions like what is the impact of these policies and what happened if the man needs to go outside the village to work as a labor in the in the cities or become like a driver's and other things. So this is the, this is kind of like the opening questions on what is the right indicators and what is the type of criteria that's needed. And that leads to this, the proposed like criteria indicators. So as Pabudy mentions before BRG done their projects they already done like appraisals and then it's being translated into what they call the yearly planning. So this is really based on the biophysicals and also the pathological unit where they they try to map several villages and address like the villages or this this area should get like the peak care villages and all so these parts already been done. And what I found it interesting is like in the appraisal, the preliminary appraisal, they have this mapping of the conflicts. And sometimes it's not beyond their authority to solve this conflict. So the question is whether there are some things already been done to solve the, especially like the tenure conflicts or the land conflicts. And after that, it's the criterion indicators for the selection criteria. So for rewetting is really identifying how the villagers use the canals because in sometimes like based on the BRG they already select the area, but there's like the local elites and then the local community once the canals blocks being placed in particular area. So what type of a negotiation happened on the field and also like the inclusiveness. So from my field experience what I have what happened is one of the requirements to have the BRG project is you have to bring this local community into the project is you have to create like the community group which calls like Pogmas. But sometimes, and this is quite effective so it's just kind of like questionable whether you're supporting this or not. It's based on like the village head like a relative. So in my case, like the brothers involved in the Pogmas and also like the wife also involved in the Pogmas, but because it's very powerful and then like most of the villagers joined them, and then like the project succeeded. But then you can can questions whether it's good or not. And for the refrigeration, you really need to find especially to select the species. Like one of their been accepted concepts the Balutic cultures that the combined ecology social and economy, and also the revitalization so the what type of like social change that happened and whether the alternative life we hope really works. And that's comes to the my last criteria to the transition criteria and this is what I've considered as very important to see. So at the beginning stage, the approach for the pitland restoration useless protection so there's like many resources being mobilized into the village level. And then it's usually like the first year is really succeed because there's many like resources going on and there's many monitoring also going on but then like after the second years then it's become like the questionable whether there's like an institutionalist process and like by institutionalizations. So referring to whether the village already adopted into their own local regulation or not whether there's also findings coming from the village instead of like the regional level or national level. And then the latest step is really like this sustainability so continuous of funding support, either through the market systems so whether they able to create a new market for the alternative life we hope or not. Or whether like the whole how the local actors adopted restoration activities or another possibilities like continuous funding support so BRG or like Mitran or on any other institutions will support the village continuously. Thank you. I will give back the floor to Rupesh. Thank you, UT. There was just about right on time, just a few seconds over so that we can, you can manage that. So thank you so much for touching on these topics. I will say a few questions after we have all three panelists spoken, and then we can kickstart discussion. So next panelist is Moira. Moira, are you ready to share your screen. Okay, I'll try. Good. It's working. Okay, move to screen slide one. Yes. The only thing that's not working is putting it on slideshow. Anyway, good afternoon. Thank you all for being here. I would like to start with some conclusions from my precious previous PowerPoint at this webinar on social connections. And I want to highlight that, even though we are talking about remote villages, the most remote rural households and communities are embedded in multiple social networks that link people, institution databases. And also that rural communities are related. Pardon. Can you hear me? Okay. So also rural communities and related governance systems are highly diverse. So it consists on a combination of formal and informal elements. There are problems of power relations. Also, peatland restoration must be relevant if people want to participate in it. And furthermore, there is always conflict and cooperation in these villages. Also rural communities are not static. There is always some change. So with peatland restoration, the experience in cooperating in peatland restoration, new development, new opportunities, new knowledges will also lead to new networks. And it will also need to change context in which people will behave differently. And perhaps in the process, they will change their aspirations. While in the beginning participation is enough, by the end they want to have more out of participation. So with this background, one important aspect is that peatland restoration needs to include aspects of education and information discrimination. And in this, only depending on or focusing on formal institutions might result in marginalization within communities. While if you only depend or focus on informal institution, you might risk losing the support of the village leader, the elite or even the higher up levels of government. So to convey effective, effectively information and promote equal access to participation, we need both the formal and the informal channels. With regard to monitoring, and it has been mentioned in earlier presentation as well, the use of a more or less standard criterion indicator framework within a social network analysis, allows us to measure progress, but also the changes that will occur. And it allows us to identify errors in the in the process. So thereby it allows us to adjust programs, if necessarily. So specifically to social network analysis is that we, and the need to empower local people is that the network will feel which group of actors need to empowering and which one are already empowered. A simple look at how networks are created. We do a simple survey asking different contacts member ABC, with whom they exchange information with whom they are in contact with whom they stick in a labor exchange network, for example, and then using social networks, you can program it in an in a in a computer program or you use, use other forms, you can map out their relations in a nice diagram. So, the core of this presentation basically is that from the perspective on social connections and monitoring applying a social network analysis. We have to figure out different networks that are important for people and response restoration. For example, information exchange networks might be very important, but also labor networks with whom do they traditionally work together. So, the basic criteria that we want to know is connectivity connectivity, while the indicators, we want to look at density, which is basically how closely a network is released related. When a density is close to one, for example, the network is said to be dense. And so there are a lot of connections, the whole community is very well connected. Then there is the degree centrality, which is also an indicator of who is important in the community from certain aspects from information exchange or from leading the labor. The nodes are basically the number of ties a node has to other nodes. So it's basically who is connected to you. And if, if a lot of people are connected to you then it means that you are central and have a privileged position in the networks, but for exchanging information between us might be a more important indicator, because this is showing the connectedness from the perspective of you are in between, you are the person that passes on in information. So the more central, the more times information passes through you. Then there is another one which is called closeness. And this is how close you are to other nodes. So the greater the distance to other nodes, the less chance we have of receiving information and resources in a timely way. And I just want to insert a note of caution here, because we did survey for example in a long house. A long house people live very close together because it's basically an apartment where an apartment building where every household has a separate apartment, but they have a common room. You will think that information is disseminated very easily to this common area because everybody always passes there, and they rest in the common area and they meet each other there. But then in looking closely, we saw that some households are actually not plugged into the network of the house of the long house, and they are a bit marginalized and do not even know the simplest of information that is talked about in this common room. Because for one reason or another, they don't mix as well. So even though it looks like a very homogenous rural community, it might not be. And so for people in restoration, if you really want participation and really want to promote empowerment and equity, these are things to take note of. What I mean is actually, yeah. Yeah. Well, social network analysis might not be standard practice in many monitoring activities. So it might be useful to consider as part of the monitor and tropical restoration. Thank you. Thank you, Myra. That was great. We will come back to this. This is very interesting and as you said it's probably not considered that much. So it's an important aspect. We have more discussion on this topic. But let's move on to our third panelist will be Sarah Sarah you ready to share your screen. Yes, I will share my screen. Thank you. Is it work. Yes, good. It's still not on presentation mode, but yeah now it's on presentation mode. Please go ahead. Yes. First of all, thank you very much for giving us opportunity to present our role of private sectors in supporting community initiative in pitland protection and restoration. We know all that communities play key role in effort to protection and restoration. It is important to engage and empower communities positively. Our main objective to empower communities is to improve their welfare so that they no longer rely on expansion of the land or opening forest for livelihood. And now a pp launch the sum up with the API or the MP a program in 2015 with target of 500 villages in five provinces where a pp suppliers are operating with total budget 10 million US dollars. Currently, up to June 2020, the MP program already covers 390 villages and more than 30,000 households involved. And it is also more than 80 women group that involved in the programs. In improving our program. We have the multi stakeholder collaboration with C4 aircraft and you can. And this main objective of the collaboration is to develop the business model that balance community livelihood and also with the protection aspect. In this collaboration. The third parties C4 aircraft and you can also come up with the key performance indicators. And another collaboration we have collaboration with Gachinde and IDH base. It is focused on community based forest restoration. The program is covered the activities such as establishment of nurseries and also local cooperatives and giving training to the local communities. And how to make sure the performance of the MP a program that involve communities in the pit line area. It is not easy task for us, but we are trying to evaluate the performance through combining the qualitative and quantitative analysis that transforming to the scoring system. By approaching and using the criteria and indicators resulted from our collaboration with C4 aircraft and you can. I mentioned before that currently there are 390 villages that already involved in the program, but within those 390 villages, there are 90 villages are located in the area. Let's focus on this matrix. We are showing our methodology for our system to evaluate the program. There are three main criteria. The first is environmental protection. There are some indicators in this criteria, such as a warning racing. Then reducing use of fire in land preparation and also reducing fire incident and securing protection area. The main objective in our MP a program also to reduce the risk of fire in forest area. So you can see also here our scoring between four and five for the some indicators. And the second criteria is about the sustainable livelihood. There are some indicators like diversity livelihood alternative increasing income and also the good agriculture practices and also the market access. Here you can see our scoring is in the middle or medium because as our understanding and our experience in the field, it is very challenges to implementing the program also in the pit area because there are need more support more effort because need more infrastructure facilities and also how to really train the community to sit in the mindset and also to engage with them. And also this about the strategic partner partnership criteria. We have some indicator about the increase the number of community involved in the partnership. And then also community involvement in fire prevention and also the strengthening community organization and also how we develop a good relation with the community and other stakeholders. And the last is we would like to share also our lesson learned and also challenges in implementing this program. First is the sustainability impact of the program could not be measured in early stage even though the program already implemented within five years. And the second lesson learned and challenges is about the shifting community mindset to non timber forest product and also relying on the land expansion. What we are doing here to emphasize to the community, what they are need is to focus on increasing land productivity with giving them alternative livelihood, not focus on the land expansion. And the third is about the pit line management. It is about the high cost program and particularly for the equipment and infrastructure for water management so it will impact to the cost and also the access to the market. And the last is about the acceleration of the program really depend on the community capacity, including managing managing the organization and also the farmer groups. I think all of these also already brought by two speakers before. So I think it can be mixed and also can be strengthened for the next exploring the criteria and indicators. Thank you. I give the floor to Rupes. Thank you, Sarah. That was good to hear the perspective and the work and activity that you are involved with and your company, APP is heavily engaged within the landscape. So thanks for sharing that we will definitely come back and ask some questions but I'll invite you see now to, to bring her perspectives and maybe add, add her inputs insights comments questions or commentary anything that she wants to say on our three speakers and in general on peatland criteria indicators. So you'll see floor is yours. Okay, thanks a lot, Rupes. And thank you to all of our panelists. I really enjoy your presentation and I personally think that even for Trapacaya it is, it is a very important insights and I will bring this back to our work in Trapacaya. So before I start my comment, would it be okay for me to share just one slide, Rupes, just to, please. Okay, I hope this is the correct one. Okay, so the reason for me to start my comment with this presentation as a stepping stone toward my comment is because I would like to bring forward how the Parchaya use purpose of indicators under the social pillars to select from many other indicators that were suggested during the indicators development process. So there are two important consideration at that time. The first one is that acknowledgement that small holders and have problems to access the market. So we have that under indicator 11 and 12 of small holders share and small holders registration. The other purpose is that I would like to recognize that plantations bring impact to the marginalized groups. And therefore, there are three indicators that were introduced to recognize this. The existence of free and private informed consent, the recognition of customary rights and conflict resolution. But for your information, the FPIC and conflict resolution, the indicator 8 and 10 in Trapacaya, we don't actually have the data for that at this stage. So I just, have I finished my sharing? Oh no, actually, okay. So I just would like to bring that forward as a stepping stone, as I mentioned earlier. And I would like to, you know, to take us together to think about the purpose of the suggested indicators in itland restoration. Because as I understand from the presentation that are shared with us, I might be wrong, but at least there are four. There are four purposes that can be, that might be under the backmind of the presenters to suggest these indicators. The first one, probably to address issues in which community have been perceived as one of the drivers that contribute to itland degradation. I see this indication from Ibusera presentation, for example, because she suggested that to reduce number of fires used by community inland preparation, agriculture practices and market access are important indicators in the context of itland restoration. And therefore, without such policy or access, local community could be detrimental to itland quality and restoration. So if I understand it correctly, good indicators would be able to address this issue. Another purpose that might be suggested would be that community are important actors to improve efficacy of the restoration program itself. And this is strongly indicated in Ibu Yutis presentation and also in Ibu Moira's presentation. Or probably, as the Percaya, it is an acknowledgement that actually itland restoration program bring impact, a negative one to the local community livelihood. It is also a sense from Ibu Yutis presentation. And also Ibu Serra suggests that there are role of other actors such as private sectors in either strengthening or as a policy to reduce the impact or the role of local community in degradation of itland. But whatever purposes that are suggested by these indicators, it is important. I think we all agreed to stick to the one mentioned by Pak Budi in the beginning of this presentation that we again needed the indicator to measure progress, measure project impacts outputs and inputs and identify areas to requires to increase tension by relevant stakeholders. So maybe it is helpful to place these suggested indicators to those suggested need of the Bayer Gate. While it is important, I would share at the end of my comment. The second issue that is also important, also mentioned by Professor Raid, is the workable proxy for each of the suggested indicators. Because as social scientists, I believe that all of Ibu Yutis and Ibu Moira in particular understand that there are many ways that we can measure a particular indicator. So the challenge is really to think what proxy and at the practical level based on my work interpretation, it is important to think about that availability. And I really think that the suggested factors and indicators suggested by Ibu Yutis and Ibu Moira and also Ibu Serra are really, really important. But maybe my limitation as non-social scientists, it makes me very cautious because I'm not familiar with the data that are available to actually measure these indicators because as an interpreter, we work with government programs and it seems like what are suggested by Ibu Yutis for example, it wouldn't be easily fine in the government documents. So probably, but I might be very wrong about this Ibu Yutis but probably or Ibu Moira as well. So you need to do fieldwork, surveys or those kind of things to actually get the data to measure the indicators. And the last consideration that I think is also important is the simplicity of the indicators because in terms of indicators, people in general, people like me for example and policymakers would like to see simple indicators. While some scientists such as Ibu Yutis and Ibu Moira, you fully understand that even the identified factors that you already shared with us might be not enough to explain a particular social phenomenon. But surely we'll have to find the middle ground between the ideal and the simplicity needed by people in general. So for example, if I may ask Ibu Yutis, among the many factors that you have identified in your presentation that contribute to the local institution and social cohesiveness, what is or are the most important or key indicators in your opinion. So if you need to select what it would be and the two previous consideration that I mentioned that is the relevance and availability of data might be helpful for everyone to actually sort the and select the indicators. Maybe that's Rupes for now. Thanks so much for the opportunity. Thank you. Thank you. See, this is very good as a startup and then we will continue this discussion back and forth. So I will invite you to respond to your data question. But then I think now again for audience and for other party spend members floor is kind of open to to share your thoughts and ask questions or share some comments. And then we will have a maybe at least spend next 10 minutes deliberating this topic. So you over to you. Actually like the BRG already addressed this issue about the land tenure issue, because that is like one of the biggest problem. And in this previous meeting we also have like the questionnaire and then like most of the people said that like land tenure issues like one of the biggest issues in in the village and especially because in in my site, like land conflicts and also like concession has become like the problem. And then there's like a transition. But actually BRG already has this data. And they also have the, like the data about the paralegal, because what what the BRG did is they they create like a map the conflict mapping. And then they put like paralegal for each villages, and then like they have to report on what the paralegal do at the village level so the data is is under like the DPG so under a boomier and deputy, and already have this, this data. I totally agree. I mean, the reason why I moved from quantitative to qualitative is also because of I don't really trust the data. And that's the reason like okay just like focus small but I really understand as a policy makers you really need to have like a like database policy and then the quantities become very important. Because this is one of the biggest problem at the village level. So BRG really put like interest in in this manner and they also have like the systems on how to solve this conflict issues and also like the paralegal is addressing the land issues and also like the fire issues because sometimes when there's like a fires and the village are being brought to the cart and the paralegal help the villagers to solve this so they are data. In boomier and as they put the about the, like the success level and also like the number of the report and everything. You see you are muted if you are you're saying something, but I would like to touch upon this and see this lack of data is not new or not. It's a unique feature for social aspects lack of data is when you talk about people and restoration. It's always a sliding scale like you know there are even for biophysical for governance. The data which may be really really useful maybe lacking or maybe not easily accessible and then the level, the accuracy, the quantity the resolution all those are issues with data, even in very like countries where they have done a very good job in taking care of their natural resources or managing them and maintaining them. So that is a persistent problem. But in terms of finding a solution how do you arrive at the compromise. My question is can private sector and since here we have anything like boomerang can answer and then like Moosera can answer. And then if Rupesh return then we can give the floor back to Rupesh. Okay. And I think there's a question asking whether I excite the social connection in related to collective action. Personally, personally, I have not done specific research using SNL and collective action, but I think it can be done. Basically, use understanding how people connect to each other will also make you understand how collective action can be promoted or not. Regarding the data, I think BRG itself has lots of data already so we do not need only to rely on government formal. Like I said, we need the formal and informal and that also relates to data. We cannot only rely on government data, but we also have to use the informal data. Thank you Moira. Sorry I was disconnected for a moment. So I've just joined with my phone now. Network is some issues. So I missed a little bit of your hearts there, but I think the rest everyone was here. Yeah, so one other question and I think there is some comment also in the chat group. I was looking at it when, when I got disconnected, and I have lost that chat now because I've done. But if anyone like to comment on that question. I'm really sorry I cannot have the question here in this new window because the zoom connection was gone. Yeah, but if anyone wants to take on and respond to that. Oh, here it is. Okay, I think we might already answered it. Good. Yeah, so in terms of how do you say you want to respond, you want to say something. Yeah, I think there's question from Ali for us from a PC nervous. You give us opportunity to answer. Okay, please. Thank you. Thank you for your reminder to us about the program in West Kalimantan. Actually, our program is continuing to the community. But some program is using the system like rolling over from the select select group of farmers and become to move to other group of farmers, but from the previous program it will be continue monitor by our team in the field. But let me take this as our improvement stage later on, and we will check in the field. But as a basis, we will continue monitor and assistant our farmers or group of farmers in the fields level under our DMP programs. Thank you. Thank you. I realize we have about 10 minutes left. Are there any questions from the participants. Any other thoughts, any of the views. I, while we are waiting, do you have any response you'll see from what you just said, what I said, what you boom where I said, any, any thoughts, any comments. Yeah, okay, just just one thing that came to mind when it will more mention about the use of informal data. I just wonder, bear game might be a very different with other government institution, but it seems like, at least for other decision particularly when there is a consequence of indicators. For example, if it's going to use fiscal incentive incentive. In mind that soft informal data should have a very legitimate reasons and very clear methodology would, which I believe that scientists like Ibu Moira would be pay a very close attention to, but it is just something that needs that at least in the kind of context for example we decided not to use but we leave it there as a comparison but at this stage that we decided to only use all of the formal data. But it is, it is actually very interesting to know more about this boomer if you can share with us the examples or something that you already plan to to use for this particular indicator and whether it is going to be something this informal data is going to be produced regularly or not. Maybe those two questions. You have any response. I was thinking, of course, when it has a financial consequence there need to be a sort of more objective indicator, but I think even so, this indicator need to be agreed on by local people because often the way formal data is collected is, is might be the way local people perceive what is actually happening and I'm, I haven't really done any monitoring for a long time so I'm a little bit out of date. And at that time, the project was really very simple. But I think there need to be caution as well. Maybe I should say the monitoring and criterion indicator should have actually been there from the very beginning. So if there is a financial consequence in terms of incentives, people really know what is expected of them and can act accordingly. Well, if it's all very unclear from the beginning, there might be other reasons for their participation, which might then, in fact, be negatively affected when suddenly there is money. So all this, what I'm saying is the epic should really be done from the very beginning, not as an afterthought at the end like often happens. We also need to be cautious that formal data, which is produced and published officially might not always reflect what really happened among the communities. So of course we do need some, some basic data and we do need to have an objective measurement in order to, to, for example, to share incentives but this should be the knowledge of the people involved, that is all I'm saying. And of course, there is, there is this need for simplicity, but things are very complex so maybe the people that want simple should realize that it's more complex and the people that know it's complex should learn how to translate things in a simple way. That's, that's a very, very, very good point I think. And one of the learnings from this deliberations on social aspects is that it's very complex, like it's entangled nature of different things where livelihoods of people is involved, where their culture is involved, where they're no migration and in migration and out migration is involved, their own aspirations is involved and that also is very dynamic. So I think that makes it really difficult and I believe that that is the reason why bio physical aspect has progressed more in terms of emphasis and in terms of research and data because it's relatively speaking a little bit more straightforward. But nonetheless, in terms of thinking about people and restoration success, I think social aspect is very, very important and it's a paramount that it needs to be considered, it needs to be taken into account right from the beginning, if long term sustainable success in people and restoration is to be achieved. So what we were initially thinking when we were talking about running this session about coming up with criteria and indicators which cover all these four aspects, when you're talking about social criteria indicators, one of the principle that we were thinking about is, and the principle is sort of the very high level is that community well-being and equity is widely demonstrated. So whoever is conducting this restoration, whether it's under BRK or they are small entities at village level, whoever is conducting this activity from the social standpoint, the principle should be that the community well-being and equity would be enhanced. So can we as a group kind of agree on that thought that at a very high level that should be the end goal or that should be the principle? Any thoughts on that? And we have just kind of five minutes or less than that. So any thoughts on the principle? Does it sufficiently capture that yet? You can unmute and say whatever you think. Don't wait for me to invite you. Just say yes. I mean, I always have the tendency to make everything complex as Saboom Moira said. So I cannot make things complex into like one sentence. Yeah, you think you're saying something? I think I missed on that. If it were simple, we wouldn't be here. No, that's true. So when we bring down to come down to say criteria level, then also again to define a term or come up with an idea that can be used to have different indicators which have all attributes. It's also a challenge in terms of what would you come up with. So as a group, I know you have shared a lot of information you have talked about a lot of things in terms of whether it's information exchange or social network analysis, whether it's the sustainability, whether it's the empowerment gender equality. But what we have to come up with few terminologies. How do we think about them? But social capital captures that and then we will have indicators to measure that aspect. And what I mean by social capital is whether gender equality is improved, whether the empowerment happens.