 Good afternoon everyone. Good to see you all. Thanks for making time to come for the first in the series of our seminars. First, I'll do a bit of housekeeping just to point out that this is the only exit here. Fire is just a gas of fire. Then the restrooms are just down to scarred up, so get out of the dug up. Go straight, straight higher. You see there's no stairs to your right, so the restroom is just on the other stairs. And yeah, again just to emphasize that the program has been recorded, seminars have been recorded, so your voices go on record, just so you know. Yeah, I haven't done that. I'll introduce to this speaker. Most of you already know him, but for those who do not, today we'll be having Dr. Andy Duship speak to us. Andy is a lecturer in international development, a CDEP Center for Development, Environmental Policy and Source. Where he conveys the dissertation program, and where he also conveys a range of courses of climate change and development. And his work focuses on Southern Africa and so the great extent of Latin America and South America. And his work bring insights and ideas from human geography and social anthropology together to sort of consider some of the big problems around the environment and development. And one of his key areas of focus, I mean, is climate change and development. And he's also interested in questions of power, knowledge, but also what are the abilities in the context of climate change. So, I wouldn't say none of that. Andy will be presented today on some of his recent work in Latin America, examining ecosystem based adaptation, what it means and what the potentials and some of the questions around ecosystem based adaptation. So, I invite you to join me to welcome Andy to present his talk. I'm just speaking for about 40 minutes, 45 minutes, afterwards I have a question about succession. So, thank you all for coming and for bearing with the technological setting up process. The point of this is actually, I think we're really trying to make an effort to ensure that our distance learning students are so much more included in the life of so-and-so in campus, if you like. And so the point is to record this, put it up on the web so that distance learnings and aim can watch it. And we're also trying to reach out beyond so-and-so. And I have a quick question. I'm guessing a lot of you are from political ecology. Is there anybody who's come from further afield? So, where are you guys from? I'm from Imperial College. I'm from the National University of Michigan. Great. And you're from? I'm from the University of Oxford. Okay, so the message is starting to get through. We'll get more people sort of coming through from other places. It's been a bit of a rush to set up this series. So, but now, I think we've got where the advertising will be out with a little bit more notice than it was for this seminar. So, without any further ado, let me introduce what I'm going to talk about. I think we've already read the abstract already, but this is based on a paper which is currently in review with a global environmental change. It might not just come back with the comments and what they want us to address. And it's about ecosystem-based adaptation. And posing this question, are we being conned? Sorry, I was lying. Yeah, but before I talk about that, I do actually want to a little bit first about the science, the tautology of environment and development research group that we have here at SELAS. And it's a research plus concurrent development studies in the Department of Development Studies. But it's a much broader initiative than that because we have about 30-odd people so far from across SELAS. And we're looking ready to point out that there's quite a lot of environmental research in relation to development and other issues that goes on at SELAS. And we want to give it a bit more of a profile and one of the ways of doing that is getting it all together into a group. You can see we have a little website, you can see that at the top there. And we are people from what we're looking at with tautology and environmental change, we're preparing studies, development studies, economics, environmental history, human geography, international relations, law and politics. And we're all, I guess, to a greater electric extent, united by this concern of how capitalism, development and social justice and inequality as well intersect the change on land, in the oceans and in the atmosphere. That pretty much covers everyone, I think. We have a really active research agenda. If you go and look at what some of our members are doing, members kind of tap you can click through to up there. You can see some of the stuff that we're up to. We've got this seminar series, which there'll be two more this time. We're going to have a label in January to March. You're very welcome to come and see people from SELAS, like myself and me. We will be speaking next week. But also we'll have people from a bit further afield who can speak to the kind of research questions that will be aimed at you, and we are also interested in it. So, if you know of any other groups who might be interested, are they in our seminar series or in any other aspect of SELAS, please come and see me and for me and the others so that we can sort of register that interest and see how we can stay in contact. So, back to the presentation for today, and let me explain a little bit more where I'm going to talk about in detail. So, the presentation is going to take us through an introduction to ecosystem-based adaptation and the gaps in the literature that are currently there. It's going to then take you through the background to research of this on the ecosystem-based adaptation, which we did in Mexico in this CRI-1-1-1 in Valo, come back to that a bit. We'll take you through methodology, the results and the conclusion of the suggestions for our future research. So, let's first clarify what we're talking about when we use this term ecosystem-based adaptation. So, one of the most common definitions is the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, which is sort of devised by the Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Biodiversity back in 2009. And there's quite a number of, I guess, high-profile international actors who have been interested in this term. You have some of the people you might expect to be, the United Nations Environment Programme, it's very interesting for example, the Nature Conservancy, IUCN. There's a lot of conservation-focused organisations which are interested, but there's also been interesting development organisations such as the World Foundation, one of the reasons for the term and its popularity has been that some people have been concerned that biodiversity on some levels is not really getting into the discourse around climate change adaptation and climate change development. And this is a handy way to draw attention to some of these issues around conservation and its place in broader climate change adaptation efforts. So, there's two kinds of, if you like, ecosystem-based adaptation that we can talk about. We can talk about stuff which is explicitly designed as an ecosystem-based adaptation project. If you think about using ecosystems for the purposes of human adaptation to climate change, of course it's much wider and there are a whole host of interventions and things that we already do which are relevant to ecosystem-based adaptation. Everything from sustainable forest management, agroforestry, light-headed diversification, water-shared management, wetlands restoration, floodplain management, range management, etc. All of these things can potentially be used to help human beings to adapt to climate change. So it's a term which, when you want to understand what it means and its potential utility, you can't just look at projects which are explicitly framed in terms of that you have to look at relevant stuff that we already know about, if you like. And again, it's not quite a catch-all term, but it catches quite a lot. It has, in many of its guises, not how to say are you all, but in many of its guises, a focus on the wind wind which I'm sure you would have seen probably in sort of environments and development discourses. In one particular frame, it's actually seen as a quadruple wind, a wind for climate change adaptation and adaptation, a wind for socio-economic development, a wind for environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, and a wind for contributing to sustainable economic development. So there's been a lot of enthusiasm around this term and the expression of that enthusiasm sounds at least to me sort of questionable because when you look at the emergence of the term sustainable development itself, there was a lot of focus on the wind scenario. This is how we started to think about trying to do conservation and development simultaneously because the idea was that you could do that and that doing them together would be more effectively than separately, which does sound quite common-tentical. In fact, it has a sort of, you know, muller and apple pie by the intuitive appeal that is hard to resist in some ways. But as we probably know as well, sustainable development is a term which has been robustly contested and it's been called everything from an oxymoron to a con, coming back to the title, that was in the abstract syntax. It's actually from a paper by John Potter who asked this question in an opinion piece, are we being confined by sustainable development? Is it really something, is it really, can we achieve it? Are we doing it? Is it just a term which is being used to cover a variety of activities which are not sustainable and are not even developed? So, I guess I just want to signpost some of the caution and sort of along now, if you like, that might ring if you historicise this term a little bit and look back at some of the other discourses that it's related to and it has been prefigured by. Now, what's also interesting about the ecosystem of space and adaptation debates is that as I say, it doesn't have to be a term around a term but perhaps it is on the table because whenever people think of a new term they get quite excited about it and quite excited about the prospects and perhaps it takes a bit longer to start to realise some of the pitfalls as well. But what you see right now from, you know, for example, if you look at the systematic review that's been done by Haswell in 2014 which reviews pretty much everything related to EVA it argues that there are more claims to hypothetical benefits than there is empirical evidence of evidence from ecosystem-based adaptation explicit framed interventions or ones which are relevant to the purposes and the objectives of EVA. And there are also some gaps in the evidence that will be identified in which we've added a couple of things to view here. So they argue that there's not much on the cost of EVA and there's not much on the understanding of the idea of trade-off we'll come back to that then. There's not much in our participatory analysis and there's nothing that I've seen so far but there's a kind of quality perspectives and there's a surprising... I don't know, there's a surprising silence on the relationship between ecosystem-based adaptation and payments to ecosystem services given that payments to ecosystem services are one of the main ways in which you might bring about ecosystem-based adaptation. So the research that we're doing in Mexico is on population to whether they're in or adjacent to protective areas along the Sierra Madre that we've done which I'll show you now, it's a mountain chain and we're trying to fill some of these gaps and that's what I'm going to try and take you through today. But of course before we tell you what the gaps are we need to tell you a little bit about the place that we're doing and we've done this research in back in 2013. So you can't quite see it here but the Sierra Madre in Dalit is a mountain range you can see a little bit of it running not too far from the eastern Mexican coast and sort of down in a north-south direction over which on this map has been transposed a series of green and, sorry, purple and yellow and blue blocks which demarcate the boundaries of protected areas which either have been established or are going to be established with a view to establishing a biological corridor running across large parts of the Sierra Madre in Dalit. So the thing about Mexican protected areas is that there are a lot of people that are getting energy so particularly when you don't always get to another country is because of the sort of land tenure situation in Mexico I don't know much about the history of Mexico but in the 20th century there was a revolution one of the fundamental aims which I'm not going to go into the whole revolution now was to establish a collective land ownership which we have talked about through a common land tenure category called an echilo this literally means that a bunch of people rather than just an individual own a piece of land and so if you want to establish a protected area when you go into place and you're talking to the people who live there you're talking to the land owners and it makes conservation therefore even with the weight of legislation on how people can use that land and how they cannot use that land it's a necessarily more sort of a negotiated process than it might be in other places I mean I'm just talking about the land tenure for example and it's much easier to establish a protected area than to keep the land on there you can't really do that in Mexico not as a protected area but there are protected areas and going down to the Mexican National Commission for Natural Protected Areas is relatively adept at working with the local people because it has to and if it wants its biological corridor to work it needs to get fined from people and one of the big issues we're going to have right now is working out what to do about climate change and this is also something that the farmers of this project, GIZ were interested to find out more about so if you're wanting to deal with adaptation you need, in the first instance, to understand the vulnerability to climate impacts of the area and the stroke of people where the interventions will take place so step one of the project that I'm going on got commissioned and then got paid got money from GIZ to go and do was to conduct an interdisciplinary multi-scale analysis in order to identify the ecosystem-based adaptation measures to reduce the vulnerability from the very beginning they were quite interested in, well it's an interesting question they were open to this framing of ecosystem-based adaptation it's certainly something from the GIZ which organised for some of the big sort of ecosystem-based adaptations to provide sort of a framing a conceptual framing of the project and they were very keen to introduce ecosystem-based adaptation ideas now it really was quite an ambitious project because the vulnerability analysis was supposed to be across the whole of the Sierra Grande area in Dan so going from that regional level right down through to the local level it was supposed to identify the vulnerability of the ecosystems in question to quite a bit change what was going to change in the ecosystems but on the other side of it because there are all these people living across these protected areas what is the human vulnerability and that's what my team was involved with we were one of the well we were responsible for several of the 16 tasks but they all clustered around understanding vulnerability to climate impacts at the local level so we actually went over time to five different places today we've only got time to discuss a few of those and so the ones that I'll take you through you can see photos of some of the people I've been to the research with first in La Carina which is up here that's one of the smaller field sites and then a bigger field site both in the problems of what you see in the ecosystems so I explained yes you've got the idea there's a big overt analysis of we're taking a part to it and it was this is another presentation and another story it's much more what the coordinator told us it's a much easier scenario which is many disability as opposed to us sitting down I mean I had to be together and coming up with it and interdisciplinary methodology to go across all of the tasks that's a massively ambitious thing to do not at least a research consultancy like this working basically was so I'm going to tell you about our own tasks I'm going to tell you a little bit about what was behind our thinking on vulnerability and it's a pretty sort of classic on-school political ecology we went because we were working with Terry Cannon who was one of the authors of the fashion release and you come across that book at risk just yet no? okay classic in the field of political ecology even though that's a field that in the second edition of the book the authors slightly disavow but it's quite controversial to take it outside of political ecology because it relates to some of the core concerns as this approach develops anyway one gets questions about whether it is political or isn't political at all but it's definitely not of this co-produced socio-natural irreducibility you have to study it all in one go can't really say one thing is just one thing because it's always more than one thing network kind of thinking this is not that kind of approach if you're wondering what I'm talking about with that you'll have to come into the first lecture of political cardio development course next January I'm not quite sure how much you guys are keyed in to the debates I don't know if that's more than socio-natural stuff don't worry put it to one side come on January I'll explain it to you there so anyway going back to the pressure and release model it's grounded in a logic of the progression of vulnerability that is that if you want to understand what's happening at a local level you have to look at what's happening at other levels throughout geographically speaking and if you like societally jurisdictionally speaking as well to some of the good causes which are flowing through any particular place you can't just look at the local picture so you've got issues like power relations environmental trends debt crises common ways and the broader if you like political economy what's happening in Mexico playing into social structures and power systems around class gender ethnicity dimensions of vulnerability around livelihood strategies well-being individual capacity collective capacity and governance these are the ways in which we can sexualise vulnerability at a local level and we built a contest victory toolkits to go and find out what these looked like at a local level so we've replaced the word disaster which you normally see in the spring like without problems because with climate change impacts sometimes you have a very clearly delineated disaster that happens after say a flood or a like a hurricane or a tsunami for example but you don't always have that you have rapid and slow onset impacts you have things which where there's no clear disaster it's just a chronically bad situation and on the other side you've got environmental hazards such as flood cycling droughts landslides all putting pressure which then gives rise to these outcomes with climate change if you like being one of the unaligned conditions which impacts all of these because because of the nature of the year truly global health and spoke about how climate change is are so as I say we used the dimensions of all of the spring so you can see well being individual capacity and governance to turn into a participatory toolkit using sort of group work and individual interviews and sometimes participant observation will be the opportunity although we didn't have a huge group work with that maybe tomorrow it's cool and we tried to understand for which for the particular environmental environment which of tools would be best to use so for example trying to understand the language which is environmental but the geographical terrain across which that is taking place and the rather than physical hazards that can accompany that so for example some people who in a village might be living in a flood plain and some people who might not be living in a flood plain because they're a little bit further up the slope of it and you can get some of this stuff and start to understand some of the geographical manifestations of uneven distributions of kinds of things that you can get because so that's what we're basically trying to do so if you want to similar to this already how long is this happening so that's the problem so okay so I'm taking into the the basic participatory methodology that we wanted to put in the questions of how application is okay okay so these that was the framework these are the methods we are trying to complete and this is one of the field sites that we have which was in our forest reserve in the district of Cleveland in the provinces in Mexico and in the Commonwealth land commonly owned piece of land of La Peniniga one of the other of those sites as I say and let me just say a little bit about the history of those sites first before we get on to some of the final impact there there's only about 100 people there and they established this settlement of the 1960s which were then self-selection in terms of the people and the activities that go on there. So it's a really hard place and it's been a long time getting some of the basic services like water and even electricity for some of the time. And you've had people who have been practicing livestock farming, conservation for example and then using some of the resources of the forest and timber. So it's a place where only the hardy tends to stay and a place where if you like you already have quite a lot of adaptive capacity but also a very strong sense of a group identity which lends itself to being able to deal with some pretty scary stuff that there is in the hands of those who may be there for. So in terms of the impacts that you have and then the level of quality in the adaptation in that the main impacts that people identify with fires, hurricanes, frosts, pests, heavy rainfall and water availability. And there's not necessarily a huge individual sort of adaptive and current capacity across the world, across all of these, but there is a very interesting level of collective capacity in relation to some of the sort of existential issues that people have had gone through. So for example, there was a hurricane in 1994 which completely flattened the cycle of when people had to live elsewhere for a while. Whilst this was happening, the municipal government was actually trying to make this permanent because they were part of the municipal government, some pretty hardcore ecologists who thought that this forest reserve should not be inhabited and you should kick the people out and say, hey what a great opportunity, they've all had to move out anyway. So how do we keep them out? The people in left being there bypassed that level of government, went to the governor of the province and promised him their votes in elections in return for support to stay where they were. So they did this with the help of NGOs and it was not just like they just had to sort themselves, but this was something that if you like shows a level of collective capacity, not just the climate impact of course, but more broadly which explains some other things that we'll see in terms of ecosystem space adaptation. I guess that's the main point that I want to make here, although they also face some difficult constraints around dealing with some of the issues they have like pests because they're limited to the area, so they're not in their crops. It's not really a great deal you can do in terms of using things like pesticides and also just getting access to some of the extension from the extension, the Ministry is very difficult to do because it's blocked by the local staff of GoNAM, the National Protective Aries Commission, so that even if you wanted to use pesticides or things that might fit, sometimes people do have a national parks, they didn't really have access to that because the good relationships that have with GoNAM came with that particular trade argument or not. So it's a kind of an interesting background then of the way in which the sector has developed which can help you to understand some of what they have been doing collectively in the past few years, and you might term this category minimum landscape, which means they live from the forest, and entails a switch in the language away from agriculture towards payments for ecosystem services and ecotourism to the point where some people have managed not to have to get involved in sort of seasonal migration which comes every year, I don't know if you've read anything about sort of agriculture and agricultural migratory labor in Mexico, but it's really not fun, it's not something you would sign up to voluntarily, and there's some people who are managing to avoid it because of stuff that is very relevant to ecosystem space adaptation. So through their good relationships with GoNAM, they've managed to get the ecotourism project set up, it's not necessarily paying very many people very much right now, but it does provide my units for some of the year. There are people who get employment in temporary employment programs to do stuff which is very relevant to you. It's basically payments for ecosystem services, so you have people who maintain a fire gap, for example, you have people who are working with some of the pests which are bothering some of the trees at the moment, you have a number of opportunities for people who can then, as I say, switch their language away, and it's not something that necessarily works for everyone, but it's interesting, but actually in this context, depending upon continued support and funds available for payments for ecosystem services, et cetera, et cetera, this is a viable livelihood strategy for quite a lot of the community, and the community leaders are very much invested in this to the extent that you see forests returning to formerly agricultural plots, so I mean some of that is happening really because some of the conservation is shifting conservation, but there is less agricultural land now than there used to be, and this is in their own ethno, which they own, right, and which they've been able to, you know, that the only should have permitted them to do agriculture in a forest, and that's helping illegal, but of course there are trade-offs as well in happening there, and one of these is the unrepresentation of women in collective decision making processes, so we organize our focus groups for men and for women separately, and the women were very grateful for this because it gave them, according to them, the first chance they'd have were people to come from outside and ask them specifically what was going on for them specifically, without there being men in the room, and some of the stuff that came out of that was that women had fewer opportunities to get employed by the temporary employment program in five gaps, for example, because there was this argument that women should be in the household, looking after children, and they bring their children, and they work on the fire gap, and that's wrong because it's not there, and there isn't a discussion about is there another way of looking after the children, or it can just be in some way incorporated for the work, et cetera, et cetera, but these kinds of concerns show that not everyone gets to make the same level of decisions about this strategy, but really they're masking. It's some of the other people, we're not really convinced by ECO to assume anti-ecosystem services, because they can see that they couldn't keep as much livestock, they couldn't sell the stuff they used to go and get from the forest, however illegally, and they had less autonomy to pick their livelihoods strategies, so it was something that worked for quite a lot of people, but of course, you know, you're never going to find something that works for everyone. So, and then, as I've said, reduced access to other government agencies like CELAPR, which is the agricultural extension agency, and associated adaptation options and support around the agricultural activities that remain important to some people's learning strategy. There was no discussion about can we do adaptation around that, because that set of relationships was kind of off the table. So, but I guess the message here is that actually some stuff that looks like that is relevant to ecosystem data adaptation can actually work at this very small scale, and whilst providing some interactive learning options for at least some, all of these caveats not understanding. So, our other field that we're talking about is Level and Mind Theory, it's a fire sphere reserve in the District of Enabla and Chiba, also in San Luis what I've seen, and it's a much bigger fire field site, there's an absolute 3,000, 4,000 people there, perhaps. And again, it's an anhilo economy, but the mountaineer is a bit more complicated, because according to, you know, in line with some of the liberalization reforms that happened in Mexico in the 1990s and the 2000s, some of this land was effectively privatised, there were bits of it that were cautioned off, people were given individual titles, and you could keep it before they could sell it. And that's something that's characterised the sort of the membership relations that you find here. So, a lot of the livelihood activities that you have there are around agriculture, and it's much easier to do agriculture there, because it's so much flatter, so it's at one of the bottom, it's at the valley bottom, and there's quite a lot of space available, but in a sugarcane plantation it's very common, there's a big citrus plantation, not too far away from the lake here, which is also within the anhilo, but you'll see also that overlapping this green line here is the protected national area of Enabla and Chiba, so to buy to reserve, do you know what buyers to reserves are and how they work? So, you have a new communist settlement where you can't touch what they're doing, you might be able to go for a walk around there, but that's pretty much what you'll do. Then you have the sort of profit-saving areas, which are supposed to be areas where you can't really do very much, and much of them in a month they will be profit-saving, and then you have these supposedly new areas for sustainable mine years of production, if you like, where you can do stuff, and ideally it's being to be sustainable in environmental terms, but there's quite a lot later that here, so that the Guarnan have, you know, discretionary of what happens here, and to some extent what happens around, but of course because of the ownership arrangements there is also scoped for all of these agricultural activities, even if they're technically unprocessed. So, just one thing as well about the agricultural activities, not everyone is doing that because people who don't have big portions of land often don't have agricultural landings, they might be selling things by the side of the road, you can't really see the right area, but there's a pictomic road which comes out, so this is what it comes out to, basically, and you might sell things, you might work, keep them under my cities, I like to do that, for example, and then commute and live here, and it very much translates around sort of land ownership, if you are a land owner, you're a land owner, if you are not human, and I've seen that, which is a sort of a neighbor, if you know what I'm talking about, in a way which implies that you are not, and I know that you moved too long and limited after the point at which the people who were living there with me were given this land. Okay, so, the main impacts that people identified in land ownership are relating to droughts, fires, pests, and disease, and heavy rainfall, and again, through these impacts, you can start to get a handle on what is it locally, and literally in the household level that people are able to do, and what is it that they're able to do sort of collectively, and I would argue that the collective negotiating power that they have is much less than, much less well organized than you find in, like, linear, but there are many things that people can do, so there's a real issue around irrigation, you know, we saw in the picture back here, it's not as if they're lacking water, but a lot of the water is used by the citrus plantation, which is a pilot year in company, or which some people can go and get their work on, but also the level of water tends to be quite low in relation to flood management strategies for the nearest city to their lives. So in order for that not to flood, the water levels here remain lower than they could be, as seen as a constraint on local agriculture production, if you like, so there's an issue there around that, and there are, there's much more access of siloed well, which has a different relation with a particular staff, or for them in, in, in London and London, I think that's, you know, there's much more space for those guys to come in, and it helps with some kind of collective capacity, because they do have that sort of state course as well. There are fibres, and this is partly because of the ways in which people clear land in order to, to, to start the cultivation process, and it offers, if you like, there is adaptive capacity offered through the construction of fire breaks, and the intercontainment of fire, there's a lake of fire per day, all of which are basically painted for ecosystem services, which are either, they're grants available to people who are actually they're diagnosed with land owners, and to, to get involved in these kinds of jobs and be paid for helping to look after the, the, the nuclear zone of the fire to be a reserve itself. So, there is a sort of mixed picture when it comes to the levels of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, and yeah, here we go, it's nice sort of, so some of the other stuff that I've been saying, there is sort of potential for the ecosystem space, because of these tools like the nuclear fire break, the fire rigging, salaries, the trouble you're monitoring within the lives of the reserve itself. So, you, again, you see something which provides something of a lively adaptability for some people to get involved in, in, in stuff which helps them with adapting to kind of impact, because when you have, I guess, if you have money, for example, and you don't have to depend so much on very finite sense of agricultural ideas, but, you know, it could be argue that you have a, you have a greater sort of level of flexibility to have a sort of fall back if there, if your sugar cane crop doesn't do very well, for example. So, there are some interesting things going on which look like ecosystems based adaptation, and which help some people. Bear in mind that these are people, I guess, maybe with a, an agricultural profile, and those who don't work in that country have a different vulnerability profile, which is much when you see just the general story heat temperatures or something which are much more problematic for them in terms of actually being able to do their jobs, because it's so hot. And for the people who work in that culture, although obviously that's an issue for those guys too, perhaps in the north side. But, again, there are constant trade-offs to ecosystems based rather than interventions in, let me remind you of it. And one of the biggest of these is that the payments to the households are quite modest, and, you know, if you are, if you are someone who receives the payment, and you have to be at a clear value, if you're, and I seem to remember, if you don't know any amount, you don't get any payments. So, a huge proportion of the population, perhaps the majority of the population, doesn't get any payments for doing conservation in ways which helped them with their own adaptive capacity. And even if you do get payments, it's maybe 500 Mexican pesos a year. If you compare that to the, say, the talents from expanding the agricultural frontier, which is what quite a lot of people would prefer to do while I'm having a biosphere over there, you know, they look quite modest. And there's no scope to expand the payments, because, let me remind you, there's already been quite successful in attracting payments for ecosystem services grants. So, you can increase the level of money that's going in there, and you're raising the question, is this sufficient incentive of behavioural change you are asking people to become responsible for and to do? Are you giving someone sufficient incentive to buy into your ecosystem's data and application? There's a prior question to that. How many people even know about payments for ecosystem services in the market? That's not very many. So, you know, if there are ways in which this does nothing to modify behaviour by people, like Daniel Daniels and I seem to go into the reserve and they chop down, you know, sort of very protective, very supposedly fragile species, they do all kinds of things that they're not supposed to do, because actually it's a source of food, it's a source of water, et cetera, et cetera. They've got no incentive at all to provide them with stuff. And this, by the way, you're going to see this guy, this guy is called Martin. He's one of the one that's one of the firemen who gets paid to go and put out fires. And he's also an Anahila value. He owns land in this area. And he's representative of one of the people who get the most benefits from ecosystem-based adaptation. And there is an issue there around, kind of, say, mainly land ownership, which really constrains that. But even he is limited in what he wants to do, because he would like to expand the production of some of these plants you can see behind it, which are highly talented plants. And he's not allowed to, because I think it's classed as an invasive species, not a native species over an introduced species. And even though he thinks that there is a market for these kinds of plants, a local market for it, which he has the land to grow and try and meet some of that market demand, he's not allowed to, because it's not constituted as a form of biodiversity, which is what, you know, cultivating or conserving it in any way. He, even he, as one of the people who benefit from most of ecosystem-based adaptation rather than interventional military, even he is not really involved in any kind of decision about what constitutes biodiversity worth conserving. You can say the same thing that was imagined. So using control of defining what conservation is and the ways in which those particular forms of biodiversity should be the ones that we should use as the ecosystems on which we base adaptation for human beings. So he's completely out of that. So how much was it worth in 10 minutes? 10 minutes? Oh, okay. So in conclusion, I've got one or two slides now, maybe just this one here. Ecosystem-based adaptation rather than interventional, it's worked on a pretty small scale where a bunch of people normally get quite a lot of adaptive capacity. So I don't, as I say, I don't want to, you know, rubbish ecosystem-based adaptation here. To come back to the title of the talk, are we being conned in the same way that John Potter has asked me about sustainable development? No, I don't think are we being conned? There are lots of things going on where conservation and other actors are genuinely trying to find ways in which people can be given good reasons to conserve biodiversity and ways in which it can work for them to get away from quite emissorating conditions such as having to participate in agricultural, migratory agricultural labour on a yearly basis. You know, nobody's really up for that, but that some people have to do it. So I don't think it's a con, but from the evidence that we have from the field sites that we went to, it only worked in these very specific conditions. If you go to them on Monday and other field sites as well, I won't get into that. You find this issue of not enough payments that ecosystems services, as you might call it, and the payment and the other rewards or incentives that people might be given are enough to justify the kinds of behaviour that is expected of them under this arrangement. It's not a one that is a livelihood, and there are other sufficiently strong benefits for people to really to find or for it to make a difference to the conservation state of living around. If you want to explain that conservation state, you can't do it in terms of the ecosystem-based adaptation relevant measures that are offered to the extent that there is a conservation state there, and it is quite good. It is for other reasons. So, and this is interesting because it's one of the ways in which you can see very obviously that the ecosystem-based adaptation literature hasn't picked up on this potentially critical flaw or problem of ecosystem-based adaptation, which we've known about for 20 years. I believe anybody who's ever come across the literature on integrated conservation and development, which are referred to briefly at the start of the talk, it was the poster child of sustainable development in the 1990s. Community-based tourism or community-based natural resource management or community conservation of one guy or another were showing us how you could do conservation and development together by valuing local people, by allowing them to participate, by allowing them to get involved in conservation and doing forms of conservation, which gave them a reason to be involved in the first place. And there were a lot of programs which were trying and still are trying to do that in one is which often are value value or very valued, but which often came across this problem of insufficient incentive. Often in a sort of financial guise, if you look at some of the literature on, for example, campfire, anybody have campfire? Commonal areas program, but in common areas, commonal areas management program for indigenous resources in this environment. One of the flagships of what is known as community-based natural resource management that was supposed to be making the case actually was found not to deliver enough money to people, but then to decide to take up some of the conservation objectives that were being proposed around, for example, trying to use wildlife for tourism or for hunting, for trophy hunting, as opposed to cleaning all off and having your lifestyle done instead. So this is not new, but it doesn't come in to the ecosystem-based adaptation of the future at all, but it's coming up in sites where people are doing stuff which is supposed to be ecosystem-based adaptation. And it's a bit, you know, it's pressing it away. This is wealth of literature. We know what so many editions are. There have been some people who really tried to wrap their head around them and suggest some words which might move forward, but it's not there. And it all comes down, it doesn't all come down to it, but one of the important things to realise here is that the concept of trade-off is much more helpful in understanding what happens in efforts and projects which try to do conservation and development simultaneously than is the idea of win-win or synergy. You don't find so many projects which achieve that synergy. You find them awful long, which don't, and it's about what are the trade-offs and what are the consequences of those trade-offs between conservation and development initiatives, and what are the implications about what they're trying to do, what people are trying to do. So there's a, you know, one of the reasons we get around this, the new conservation debate, which I'm into here, ashamed people like this who, some of them have been, but who were involved in the first wave of the conservation development, and trying to use it inside to come up with another new conservation that's perhaps too frequently applied, you know, there's a wealth of detail to explore and to help people trying to get their hands around the ecosystem space and actually if we can maybe do a little bit more to help to them or whatever it is that we need to do. But there's another question here, which I think that it would be helpful for people working on ecosystem space adaptation to ask themselves a bit more quickly. That is, why are these trade-offs so long ago? Why are we still seeing the same trade-offs now with similarly sometimes disastrous implications for the kinds of things that we're trying to do? As we were seeing back in the 1980s and the 1990s with integrated conservation and the 1970s and the 2000s, well, and I would argue that this has a lot to do with the globally predominant neoliberal political economy that we are facing. I guess the question is, put at the most broad, if you want to reconcile conservation and development, if you want to see these win-win scenarios, is the system in which you're trying to do that making those a marginal outcome or a much more likely outcome? Can you use a neoliberal model of global capitalism to solve the problems which a neoliberal model of global capitalism is so fundamentally indicated in producing in the first place? That's the big question here. I'm not going to give you an answer to that question. It might be interesting for us to take it up and see what the people are doing in the questions and the discussions. But you don't see that kind of engagement in ecosystem-based adaptation literature. And I think this is sort of the next step in research around ecosystem-based adaptation is to start to look into the ways in which its own objectives are being affected by the fact that it's operating within a global neoliberal capitalist system, if you like. If I can use the word system, because a lot of people are not very happy about that, I wouldn't do it. Yeah, so I think that's my big message. I think the paper that we're trying to do is trying to contribute to this and get this research agenda together, if we can convince the readers that it is about research again, which we're trying to make an issue with right now. But yeah, that's the basic message that I'd like to say here. Thank you very much. Yeah, thanks so much for the big question. So when the big question is off, we do have questions to put this. Thanks very much for that, that was interesting. I, on the last point that you made, well, I should say that I worked three years with the DCC to make sure people are interested. So I come from a practitioner perspective. And I'm just thinking on this last point, I mean, being somewhat familiar with, you know, what a good college approach is, very critical and, you know, thought-provoking and everything. But what does that, you know, your last kind of big question, how can that be translated into practice and what practitioners? I mean, if you're saying, I mean, I've worked on the UVA projects myself and currently so involved in that. And I'm just thinking, you know, I realize that your point on trade-offs, accepting that UVA is the panacea, and then it's not going to be great for everyone or everything. But we are operating the system that we're operating, which I don't think we have to do. And so even if we accept the kind of, you know, thinking of it more as trade-offs, what is your last question in more practical ways? And if you had to sort of communicate that to practitioners? Then we're a bit late. Sure, okay. I mean, of course, if you're working in one e-business space, I think it's quite a while. It's not exactly going to be the site of revolution for the overthrow of what was happening. Yes, of course. And in some ways, you know, I can make some suggestions. I think it's a question that we also have to think about. And it is an open question. There are some of the colleges, too, that just say, of course, near the level of capitalism is the basic cause of the world's biggest environmental impact, as well as the greatest cause of inequality, et cetera, et cetera. And I guess my own opinion is that it's an open question. So first, I would encourage debate around this. Do you think that capitalism can be reformed? And what are the implications of what we're doing, say, as practitioners or as researchers, in terms of supporting this and trying to figure out, is that the kind of support that we want to see in it? And how does that affect what we're actually doing and what we are trying to do it? So I would say that the question to look through, when you stand, first of all, and what you are contributing to in the implementation of the design of your projects, how do they come to that? There are some much, if you like, more tangible and, although I think that's a fairly good thing to do, but there are a lot of immediate things that I would argue that you can do. And one of which is to throw open this question to a much broader group of people. What constitutes conservation? What constitutes biodiversity that is worth considering? Who gets to define a conservation landscape? How do we have a different conversation around that? That's a long-term goal or objective, which, again, raises this question of what are we trying to do here and who need to involve in it. Another thing that is worth doing and which, to some extent, there's some, hopefully, in terms of looking at pay-and-touch systems and services. Now, some people are quite critical to pay-and-touch systems and services because they see them as some kind of tool of the market. It's all about market pain, putting a price on a landscape which has intrinsic value or work in all kinds of ways that money just cannot catch. But another one, as you probably know about an idea, a lot of pay-and-touch systems is actually paid for by the state. It raises the question, within broader conservation, of thinking, what is the role of the state in conservation and development? In the context of this, we all know one of the tasks of any other role as a politician is to reduce the role of the state and to use market in that mechanism to answer as many questions as possible, to do as many things as possible if you like. That's why, apparently, we're leaving the issue right now. It's one of the reasons why I was a bit quick back in Britain and in the United States, as we've seen quite recently about some of the implications of free trade for some people's money. So, what is the role of the state? And given that the role of the state of payments for ecosystem services is actually quite strong right now, what kind of relationship does it have with the private sector? What kind of relationship does it have with the markets? And what kinds of activities are those relationships supporting? And again, who is getting the major decisions and all this looking at all those answers? So, of course, it's not a sort of panacea answer to your question. And I don't want to, you know, I don't think you need to, because of the data that's coming. I just would like us to, you know, consider some of these things. Is that a reason why it's your question? Yeah, I have another one, but I don't want to. Yeah, it's just related to the payments for ecosystem services. So you've been on your case that you included payments for ecosystem services rather than other EVA approaches, which is actual approaches using different systems and strategies to reduce fires or landslides where I carry over all the examples you've seen. And yeah, so, well, one of my based on my first question is basically, in your involvement with this, had GIZ, were those payments for ecosystem services, were they implemented by GIZ, or was it an evaluation, or were you then also working with GIZ to figure out which EVA option would be more appropriate than the current payment for ecosystem services that they're using? And then also another question, if that were the case, then, I mean, will they be looking into another EVA option, rather than focusing just on the life of the development, which I think is a very important one, but any EVA should also include a suite of, let's say, logical solutions to some of the hazards outlined. Okay, so I don't know is the answer. I guess we looked at what was already there, and we made some recommendations around the head-up to actually some of what they do already does address some of those threats. So, for example, in London and London, there's some of the fire breaks, and actually in London, they help contain the sorts of fires, which really are sort of the real threats to the people and groups to provide diversity. And in the area, I think there's in some ways less you can do with the hurricanes, I mean, I guess that's a greater farce, but not in the, if you look at the settlement areas, I don't know, maybe there are EVA options that we didn't look at much, but I guess we were very focused on what people's lives were and what were the words around that. It's possible, but yes, if you go back and see there was, you know, the sort of ways to deal with the flooding that happened when people were quite able to deal with that, when it wasn't extreme, and you might, yeah, you know, they could probably think a lot more about things like hurricane chances, and how they would help all of our EU systems. And if we're looking at EU systems, are we missing other options we might actually want to look at, which might be more appropriate for what people need, even if EVA really doesn't work out. Okay, so we looked at it in the context. Yeah, I think that's just an important point to tell us if you'd like future research and looking at effectiveness, but I mean, EVA isn't just applying new options that strengthen that capacity, and it is also and using ecosystems to, you know, instead of hard to construct your options to create adaptation. So, I mean, just because this is quite focused on payment-free systems services, which is just kind of sub-movement up over EVA overall, and the available options, and yeah, I think that's important to keep in mind and sort of making statement that is this economic or is it effective, or however you want to phrase it, but it is just small. And some, let's say, more hard-core EVA on the Ecology side, focused people would probably or would be more critical of just calling payment-free systems services an EVA option. So, I think everyone in the community is sort of having discussions, but yeah, it's good to make the problem side down with the suite of options, basically, in this question. Be able to, yeah, what was the sort of building on your comments about going for a nearly a broad pathway system, and why do we decide in these communities? I was wondering if you had, I could expand a good one, like a short story on physical agency, where like after the after the hurricane, I think that how people sort of thought of them to return back, and yeah, how people actually involved in shaping and whether or not they stay and how they can stay in their land, and negotiating their ideas with or against backers having a lot of work. Yeah, yeah. So, okay, so in that thing with that, one of the main sort of focuses to collective action is what's called the commissariado. Every key dot, that means for land, for land, fortune, land is kind of a commissariado, which is the man of the community, for land, and so it's quite, you know, it's it's the committee to beyond if you want to be involved in marching into the whole of the community. I know that's a fantastic word, but there are so many collective process of where you find these people together, albeit in different ways. I think it's really enough to mute that. And it's also, it's a legal, it's a body with a legal standing. So if you are a municipal government, or if you're a government, you are dealing with a body which has a legal standing and which has, which follows the core interaction of a group of people, either the larger people or a local and important powerful minority within that group. So you do have some legal power there, at the same time, from some of the early sort of efforts of the, the, that's the areas we actually, to try and get some stuff going, trying to get some people, some people to get away from that culture. And we've got a few projects set up which brought in an NGO called Seattle Network. And that NGO, trying to run a few new projects, some of which are more successful than others. I think they had a role in, in, you know, giving a bit of a character of what these guys are giving you grief because the ecological department of the municipal government can feel that it's on your back and really eventually won't be as far as it was allowed to be pristine in the, in the, in the, you know, direct. Then these might be other options. So there was a process through which through, you know, I think that Seattle had a role in mediating the contact and establishment so that people could then be able to say, you know, this is what we, we want to go back and also enabling them to be allowed and to act upon their legal rights. You know, it's kind of like a fixed-based approach here. One of the original rights-based approaches is the appeal I just got in Mexico. So it's, it's the rule, a collective capacity to defend your legal rights through existing, you know, legal mechanisms which is allowed and people who had got their stuff together because they were planning to use, you know, to, to mount this resistance and to be able to strategy to get back into, you know, you know, it's, it's interesting, you know, that if you look at the relationship between going out, I mean, they've already tried very strongly with the Guardian Works there. He's got a very particular vision of conservation of what the landscape should look like, etc. But he's, you know, he's always pushing for women to get the, the paintings and services of the department and they have a good relationship that even though he is a gamekeeper, so he is the one who doesn't want to say that about the things that they have to do to come in, even though they come into a finer sphere as a part which is possibly more restricted level of activity than in the category of national foresters are. I mean, this isn't going to be known in America. You know, I, I guess that for the people who are on and on this planet, and you also made sense that they all get employment from the government and services which might be what it was. But there are things which work to some extent, it's quite a large extent across the community, but what, particularly large people, really, in a particular way, is that, is that coming? I mean, it's spoken to this a little bit, but I'm wondering broadly how, you know, maybe there's a thing that's in some context, interacts with sort of more rights based approaches to conservation and, I mean, I guess, I'm coming at this from the perspective of what I know about this in India and North India where it's probably a very good situation where you really don't have common property, you don't have, I would come and land in yours, if you have the state of the one hand that cooperation from the other hand sort of squeezing for as well as of their land for conservation more for, you know, establishing mines. And now you have valuations of protected areas and in a lot of the valuations of these discourse, local community representatives use these services so they would protect what they also paid for the use of, you know, firewood for collecting mine forest produce. So it's kind of really taking things away from, you know, forest land communities having rights to the use of products to listen to market logic. But I'm guessing that in Mexico it's very different because you didn't say that they had community land rights. Sure. And I think that's, yeah, that's where it is. You know, the other rights based approach on what I'm talking about is actually not a conservationist, it's an institutional protectionist from India, the National War on the Floating Guarantee Act where the rights to food and the mediums and the acts of awareness and the amount of hunger that has historically been in India has mobilized, you know, to create a social protection program from the guarantee on the date of the market in the year, which can, and does mean a difference between eating and not eating for, I don't know how many could you use that for conservation and development objectives? Oh, that's a good question. You could, as we've seen in the place like Mexico where there was a revolution, you can see that some of like, there is some kind of a revolution without coming on that notion. If you look at the way empowers people, what they know how to get hold of their rights and use something with it, what do we need? I'm struggling to think of another example, this is a really good question. I'm trying to think of a place where it would be easy. I think it's always where it would be difficult and that is because conservation legislation is quite strong and conservation legislation is often not finding means always based on, you know, the exclusion of people from the particular area or the restriction of the activities that come out. And then perhaps in combination with using market mechanism to make sure that somebody pays for some kind of, or it's used in some description, sometimes on market itself, which is not always the case with places of service. So, you might say in that way that it's, you know, that the people who most mobilise those rights are governments who have to maintain protected areas and protected. But the right stuff, that's, you know, that there is a right to demand conservation outcomes, which is effectively mobilised. I'm not saying that's a particular conservation. I'm just saying that it's, you know, it kind of works in the other way to the extent that you don't have, you know, accountability, sort of rights claim, which then gives you that power negotiation, that to some extent, communities in Mexico, that the people in Mexico have, and use in these processes related to conservation environments. How do they have to use the rights and the quality institutions that are responsible for the rights and for these, the ecosystem services through the public sector? Thank you. So in the places where this was taken place, with the on-field science, the ecosystem's services were, the pain of the governments were offered by the next government, so it wasn't by the on-field aspect, actually. They weren't offered by, it wasn't something like this, I mean, the only one that was certainly not in the public sector, but on the ecosystem space, on the pain of the ecosystem services. So it was, whether you could get a government grant for it or not. Then in terms of the institutions which are copyrighted, and so forth, it's, it goes through the Goni San Diego on the one hand, which is the committee for the NIVA, it's people themselves who manage these rights, because it's embedded in, in tenure and the situation. So you don't need to be like, what's happened to you, because they saw the advantages of it in terms of security and tenure. So, so the right to, I mean, that way, I guess if there are organizations in Mexico, this is going a bit beyond my advantage, which, for the NIVA, is necessarily, in terms of You know, I guess that there are organizations in Mexico that's going a bit beyond my knowledge, which probably would look at the ways in which these rights can be mobilized. There's been a big, if you like, comparative disempowering from your collective action would be the process of privatizing a lot of people. So it splits up into particular blocks and you don't get the same competitive collective action because the common scenario is split between people who don't know the same rights. So it's not quite the same as say the National Law in the United States where there was a massive, as I understand it, there was a massive move on the part of civil society to mobilize these rights to create something like the INE Act and the intervention to take from the Olympics. So does that answer your question? Yeah. Any more questions? It's just going back to the title of the talk. Based on the research that we've done and the conclusion that you've seen to have grown up there, I'm just wondering how do you justify your statement that you made earlier on that we're not being common? I'm making a huge presumption that all of these systems are meant to duplicate themselves and somehow spread, perhaps country-wide or region-wide and have a large impact on the majority of populations and areas. And that this EBA and another part of conservation systems are being used as an example of how this is the way to do it. Do I justify this as an article? You're right about that, I haven't touched on this, but they've gone out and they love this project. They're like, oh, wow. I'll obviously talk it participatory. Let me just come back there a little bit because it's participatory at some point. They wanted to go and use it because it's quite ecosystem-based adaptation measures across the whole of Mexico. Sadly, I lost the opportunity to carry on working on that project at that time. It was a very interesting study. It's also one that says that you can tell if you haven't completely received that because I don't have the experience to say, well, how does this work at the national level? My feeling from the people's side is that we were in was that there was some stuff. There was some stuff in the thinking about ecosystem-based adaptation and there were things in the response to that thinking and the ways in which people were trained to operationalise it, which were very genuine and which were paying very close attention to this idea of using ecosystems as ways to help people adapt to climate impacts and genuinely to commit to going in first and having a big conversation about what some of the potential climate impacts were, and what some of the things people wanted to help with could be. And so I think it's not just some kind of, you know, this sort of, if you like, we can give it unfair to all these conservations that you also have to have this sort of like image of the conservationist who just only cares about ecology and it doesn't really matter if there are people there or it doesn't really matter what the livelihood implications are because we have to save this part of the planet and if we don't do it, nobody else will. So that's not the kind of conservationist that I was working with in Mexico on that project. There were people who genuinely cared about trying to make sure that, you know, that people weren't quite so poor as they were in some of the industrial sites and that the conservation that they were doing was alive to some of these issues and that if you wanted it in any case to have any traction in the places where you were working, you had to bring these issues even into your conservation work. You know, my sense was that there was a lot of people who were genuinely committed to that kind of conservation working around this agenda. And even if they would rather not have to do all that negotiation because local people were more competitively powerful and empowered by the land rights, they were benefit. So, and sort of what I'm trying to do was, to some extent, addressing both climate adaptation and conservation objectives. So I can't repeat the whole point, but for me, there was enough genuine interaction and in the wider UVA community of people and what UVA is supposed to be doing for me to think that, you know, it's very easy to write off time by just saying all of that is some massive con which has already been sort of its meaning and the logic through which it will have gone. It's already been fixed by a bunch of people who don't care about inequality and who don't care about the environment because they're really unconcerned with the accumulation of power at all. So I think, yeah, does that answer your question? No. I mean, I think it's a bigger question. I don't need to put you in the spot to show. But I think it's something that should be thought about. There are vested interests in the neoliberal camp, in the conservation camp. And of course, on a micro level, you might find that the people in the community will appreciate a lot of these interventions, but is it working? Does it actually have the effect that it's meant to have? Is it just being sold to keep us hoping that something good's going to come out of it? And it feels like some day, one, some day it will say it's not going to come out. How about that? Interesting. So that's about, I mean, you mentioned that some of the agreements that I wouldn't have had sufficient enough to incentivize cooperation for community. So I did begin to then build a whole line of new structure on this sort of payment that's not sufficient in the prospects of incentivizing conservation. And also think about the fact that you mentioned that only people have access to those payments. So most of the people in agrarian societies are usually land-settlers. While many of us people would likely have access to land for all kinds of benefits before now, what's happening to these sort of people who going forward might not have access to land because of these sort of projects and who do not also get payments from this kind of project? Okay, so, yeah, obviously, it's not a con. It doesn't mean it's much cut. You put it that way. Let's just do one more application. In that way or in that way? No, there wasn't enough for it to be allowed to do that. A sustainable, not sustainable, a substantial amount of liability that happens in which we give you the choice to abandon one of our pretty horrible liability activities. In that way or in that way? Sorry, in that time and place, there's some people for some of the time. So, you know, there's something genuinely interesting to the community there, but of course it's such a small level and it works really well with people who have a load of adaptive capacity and a certain number of legal rights built into that situation. So, you know, the condition under which it works, this is always there. What happens, yeah, of course it doesn't do anything for those people who are still in what is left of Mexicans as an agrarian society bearing in mind how much of an devotion to the Mexican now and much concentration of population in the northern areas, it's probably not easy to characterize as an agrarian society as a whole, but there are pockets of agrarian society. And ecosystems-based adaptation, yeah, it doesn't do much for them and it doesn't give them the incentive to get involved in conservation in terms of that. This is the claim that this was a project sort of very forced happens to be important. It came before I go online because it won't reach everyone. It's the sort of things that people were before, landlifts, it got even more magic. So, it's that clear. But it won't get the pain to ecosystem services and I don't know if they were in any way significant in terms of those people who can do other things. But, you know, it was something that wasn't enough, in a sense, and it didn't really add much for them. Yes, probably, you know, there is a concern there about actually your life goes on a lot of times in the ecosystem, but who are you paying and how does it be important to have people in the closet? And, yes, you know, for some of you, you get a more, I'm sure, in this particular one, they were just a bit less poor than they were, which was, you know, actually that poor. There's some that not really feel like that, but there's some people who have their own life, so it's kind of an interesting thing. But, yeah. Yeah, I wanted to relate back to your question, if you came up with the most running presentation, is that essentially it works sometimes under a certain condition, and that would be with any blueprint solution, and I think that would be romantic about EVA as with any kind of project that is pushed by big international entities that they try to standardize relations to nature at the local, national and international level, and it doesn't allow the kind of sophistication that you require in order to have a self-sufficient livelihood. So it creates strict channels through which you are allowed to interact with your environment and base your life on, and that in itself is within like you were saying, the system. So, I think that is what the con is, that it's standardizing, and that it is still talked down as much to try to make a participatory by asking people because it's still envisioned as like the way for everyone to do things. Sure. Okay, so then of course because of what conservation is using, that's the kind of things that they can prohibit or remove and to the extent that that is standardized by a logical ecosystem that is more a number of conservation or other kinds of interventions like this conservation, then there is a risk of coercion especially if this is going to be applied and actually to the extent that it enables some livelihoods to at the expense of other livelihoods and we saw that in in 2011 so and maybe to some extent in my day as well. So I think, yes, is it there is that I mean that's kind of part of what you do. I don't know, I suppose that's trying to do all the time in a doctor way, isn't it? The project of government is one of just some level of modernization of populations so that we will be applying the same populations so that we can all be to some extent manage in a particular way and you can be very conciliating about that and say that it's a massive oppression and form of collective action which has positive and negative characteristics and is very much mediated and contested at that level. So, you need to come back and think about the ecosystem of collective actuation and its standardization, I mean there are loads of things that you couldn't do that maybe it's a spectacular aspect because people on the land will say no, they're just annoying, aren't they? You don't think? So, yes, how much coercive, potentially coercive power does it give you to have your kind of a high strength of claim to the best of the services in terms of what you are trying to push from the tools? Yeah, that's a fair point, and it's one that we talk about at the end. It is, of course, a cause for concern and it comments down to things like how you are set to feel about the culture of conservation and the modes and mechanisms of conservation in the country. I'm not saying that I'm saying that there are massive trade-offs to conservation development, which that always will be. The people that I was working with there's maybe the cause for that. I'm just wondering what is the proportion of people who have land so don't have land in how it's administrative and how do they manage to do it? Sure, so the proportion of people in Latin India who own land everyone has land. So everyone is eligible for their experience in ecosystem services. I get an exact percentage of the people of the population who own land in Latin India who own land, but it's probably less than 5%. So, the benefits are reaching the overall well-being we're doing. Yeah, they're reaching the elite. The people who cannot feel the participatory research exercises, they're trying to see what they can get from that. If you're feeling that it's going on, there's a lot of stuff like that, but we have to be careful about what we're talking about. I'm just studying the participatory research, and I'm not sure if they don't even show up. Yeah, absolutely. So, there's a big question we used to work with in the paper that was based on before we had to cut it for work. What we meant by participatory and how we didn't actually move very much, because what we were trying to do was use methods which arrive at getting some kind of level of the opinions of the people. Now, some of the focus groups, yes, it was the elite who were there. You get to know this quite quickly, and you have to start thinking about doing either very specific focus groups for particular people who have the power to come across. And by doing individual interviews you can pull into all of the rest of it that you can do. But even if you do all of that and you present it to GoNAM and you say, okay, so this is what we're saying, and one of our recommendations is not a particular ecosystem-based adaptation measure, it's that you let people try and define what conservation is. Then what can I do with GoNAM for the moisture? So, that's a message if you like me. It's problematic in some ways but we call that a participation process. Perhaps it's just a collection of qualitative methods which privileges the use of group work and visual processes to get around the fact that some people don't be alright. So, we could try to ask GoNAM but encourage them and all the rest of it and say, if you then claim this is really participatory, this is the start, this isn't really a participation. Now you have the basis on which to build a conversation and have some kind of mechanism for joint decision making. That's the bit where it becomes genuinely participatory. And that's the bit where you hope for some of the people who will be using that to make it. And to be fair, some of the people who I met with were very much aware of these kinds of interpretations. But yes, it's participation in a certain way. And in terms of other statements of GoNAM? How do you explain how much what is the link? There's a standard fee for pure fine and get-so-much. It's like a sort of daily wage. And GoNAM, for some it's what's that fee you want to do? I don't know what scope it is for GoNAM to say this is the way to maintain your vibrate between the reserve and the virtual band. Or we'll pay you it's like having a better job and you will pay you to do monitoring services within the best reserve of the MTVAR. And this is the wage that you get. I don't even know who actually sets that whether it's something that's a condition of grant which says you pay this much or whether it's something worse. You're going to spend a lot of money and you can split it up. I think we should end of here. One last question. It's more of a point than a question. I've just been listening to all of the different questions and comments being made. I think it's just important to keep in mind that there's been some blurring of lines between conservation and what the goal of EVA should be. And going back to the definition this is something where I think it gets confused. EVA is supposed to be a system to help people adapt to climate change. So it's not a way, it's not supposed to be a means of undertaking conservation in some sort of climate change scenario. So I mean some people I think you can argue it depends on the user of EVA. I think EVA should be seen as a part of the suite of adaptation options from heart to grade to EVA. And the goal of EVA is to focus on climate change. It should be in a climate change context obviously. If you want for the conservation community to pick up some of the changes you might ever see in climate change adaptation but I've just noticed in the conversation going through the room that there has been a lot of blurring or kind of interchanging EVA for conservation and that's technically not what it is or what it should be. And then also interchanging payments for ecosystem services with EVA again I think it's something that's relevant to EVA but it's not the only EVA option. So I mean if you're working in coastal zones mangrove restorations I mean EVA option likelihood activities can tie into that oyster collection or whatnot but that might be a strict sort of you're thinking of climate change adaptation and you're deciding between building a dyke or using ecosystems to take a mangrove in this case to have an adaptation strategy to climate change impact so just kind of a word of caution I guess when thinking about these things and talking about it try to keep in mind what they're meant for Sure I agree but I think it's a little bit sort of I don't mean with respect I think that's a good note because what percentage of people who are not conservationists there are so many conservation organizations that are interested in what they're doing and in the context of talking which the National National Protected Areas commissioned the Violent Analysis which was framed into an ecosystem-based adaptation I think it's pretty obvious but it's seen as by conservationists as a mechanism by them it was supposed to be a mechanism to help ecosystems do that as much as people although all the data on the world ecosystem is vulnerable what happened with climate impacts was so uncertain in the overall context it couldn't really do much on one side it's not easy to think about what we do with the people that's why that part of the project took a lot more but I don't think it's problematic to have been talking about conservationists using ecosystem-based adaptation methods as many as we can but not understanding the caveat that you're saying but it's broadly speaking there are other people who can usually get something out of that I know I know people who are in charge of coastal islands or stuff like that that's not necessarily interesting by the versatile operation managing the environment at risk it's got quite a lot of volume conservationists and some of the biggest actors who are formulating these resources around the ecosystem-based adaptation and who are funded by conservationists I suppose I'm arguing for it should become more widely widely used approach generally if the climate change is an adaptation tool for people making decisions generally how are we going to have to find a change considering a variety of options bringing the party to the resistance but yeah I agree with you that obviously a problem is now that it's mostly been an up and right with conservationists and also in that context I think cleaning up it is huge because I think it's more ecosystem particularly ecosystem than using the ecosystem to help protect people and it's just that I mean I agree that that's what's going on we have finished advocating that but I do need to change Thank you very much everyone thanks to Andy for the very good talk and thanks everyone for coming I'm presented by myself talking about some very similar types of red box which is a more national nationalized frame in the ecosystem talking about all that it's really connected and I do have complexities around it and what's actually going on and what I'm talking about framing that with the questions of really good representation and what's really good conservation is a deep variety of projects that we're seeing and the complexities around this project suggest that something else is going on aside from the traditional ways of thinking about the European conservation projects so I'm looking forward to seeing as many of you are able to come and you are more wonderful I'm going to go over the last words but thanks for coming guys and I'll give you another piece I was expecting that what does this have for me yeah