 Good afternoon and very very welcome. My name is Nils Elias Koch and I'm the president of UFO the International Union of Forest Research organizations I Think you did very clever coming for this session here this afternoon I believe this is the or maybe one of the most important sessions of the whole forum here if you Look at science which came only two days ago. There was with new instrument with satellite data Looking upon the global forest loss and gain in the last 12 years from 2000 to 2012 And it shows that in the tropics. We still lose about more than 2100 square kilometer per year So that's really a shocking figure. So we need discussions form like this How are the governance and legal framework for sustainable landscapes? This discussion for us is organized by you through the global network of forest science by IDLO the international development law organization and see for Center for International Forest Research and We will try to in this discussion forum to explore who governs how to do it and with what effects We are starting with a keynote address by Ben cash or Who is professor and director as you can see on the sign here of governance? environment and markets in either team at Yale school of forestry and environmental studies Ben is also director of the program on forest policy and governance and he's a coordinator of you through interdisciplinary task force on international forest governance and in that Function he's been gathering forest Scientists for his policy scientists from all over the world and he's now going to sum up building a problem-focused architectures for landscape Let's welcome Ben cash or Thanks, thanks, please Thank you very much and to all you for coming What I wanted to start with is to say I want us all To pretend that we are in a large seminar discussion Okay, so this is going to be raising some ideas for us to ponder versus versus me saying this is the way it is Okay, I'm just going to raise some ideas So don't cite me as being if the ideas are bad just ignore the ideas Okay, but just have this conversation with us so we can engage in more interactions In this next two and a half hours so What I wanted to start with is and also I wanted to say to that I'm going to raise a Couple of new ideas new conceptual ideas in this talk So I'm really curious about your feedback right and the background is that as Neil said for now the last 10 years I've been trying as a political scientist with colleagues and students to link our knowledge about the policy process and how we explain how policy is made to actually providing practical and Strategic advice to stakeholders about how to better achieve policy goals And so this talk reflects a little bit of that thinking As we increasingly look at with the task force and and other efforts This idea of policy learning and how can we learn collectively about addressing problems? That's the context So I want to start by making two observations About where I think there actually is a global consensus that has emerged more or less That frames my talk So the first is on actual problems We all care about so it's probably safe to say that there now is an overall global consensus, especially since Bruntland that environmental social and economic Challenges must all in some way be addressed so one can't be the expense of the other necessarily they must all be addressed And but you can under underneath that broad abstract category. We've actually identified some pretty clear Things we want to achieve for example poverty alleviation or improving forest livelihoods Pretty much every organization and country agrees. This is a priority and likewise What's emerged in the last 20 years is that indigenous and local community rights to resources is also really important This is different from 20 years ago This is emerging as a problem. We all now accept as as fundamental And likewise land degradation even landscape days about the idea that actually we don't we want to ameliorate the negative impacts we're having on on land and how we're degrading land and Even on narrower topics like illegal logging for example illegal activity in other sectors is now deemed a global challenge worthy of priorities And likewise corruption how to have best practices and weed out broader corruption is also really a key and likewise of course for 3040 years now we've all been focused on deforestation both for its The problem in its own right, but also because of the impacts on climate change So these things are all emerging now is critical and while the while they're complex we can actually assess how we're doing on them and So, you know, we all see in this kind of map, right where the red The red parts of the map show the most challenging Aspects of deforestation and yet this is where in the tropics we spent so much time the last 30 years And yet we still have these ongoing challenges and likewise we have degradation happening often owing to Bad commercial logging practices. Okay, so we have degradation and deforestation and we even have Oh, that's never mind. That's a point for later. Okay, so that's the first thing problems Consensus on these challenges. The second then is that there's an overall consensus that the policy responses must incorporate Multi-level governance, so we recognize that what happens internationally By itself has almost no effect that it's through interacting with domestic and local and business activities that we get influence So how that interaction occurs has become increasingly important for political scientists and also for practitioners How does vertical integration actually happen and even or or any young and Eleanor Ostrom Wrote an article about five years ago in science on polycentric governance. They need to think about multiple layers So that's a pretty important question. How it actually works And likewise though and why we're here at landscape day and not forest day is because we recognize that sectors Interact and impact other sectors So how that happens is really important since a lot of the problems governing forestry are not owing to Logging practices, but agricultural practices in other and other sectors So this is also a graph that manga Bay produced which you know just illustrates how Tropical deforestation the problem in the first consensus is largely not owing to logging practices, but other other sectors from palm oil to Pasture cattle ranching. Okay, we all know that and we also know that Climate change can affect forest operations. So this rather Ugly insect, okay has has caused I mean five-year-old kids think it's not ugly But I happen to think it's ugly Effect in my home province or British Columbia, Canada beautiful forests Destroying and devastating the actual forest because climate change has let that insect have a much wider range Because normally the winters kill off the beetle, but climate change doesn't allow that So these cross-sectoral impacts are having meaning meaning flow meaningful and often negative influences on not just ecology but also on Those who work in the forest as well in forest dependent communities So all these crazy interactions that we have to get a handle on despite its complexity all right, so What I want to say though was despite these two consents these overall consensus approaches on problems And the nature of what has to be done There is considerable Frustration at the pace and scale of change in the last 40 years and this cop, you know illustrates again our Frustrations we all have with the limited responses despite the ongoing challenges as late as the latest example in the Philippines tells us And this is just one of many examples We always get and we see it Refrustrated and we go come back a year later to another cop and still not a lot of not a lot of progress Okay, so my argument then is That the failure the failure of this frustration of this Not getting to solutions that we want to get to not owing is Not owing to a lack of attention to goals and problems We've spent 40 years now. We've got a great set of goals and problems that we know have to get resolved the Sustainable development goals are simply the latest efforts to coalesce what we already have in mind about problems So that's not where our challenges actually lie despite us every meeting Re-eventing another list with these same challenges. That's not where our challenges actually lie instead The failure I want to argue this is my argument because we're in a seminar, okay? Is that the failure is owing to a lack of a learning architecture? lack of a learning architecture Now what do I mean by that? I mean some kind of learning Among stakeholders and academics and practitioners and governments and NGOs and companies Okay, that integrates knowledge about the problems To the pathways for getting us there So problems on the one hand and pathways on the other hand and pathways Have not been given that much attention. It turns out Scant attention a little bit So I want to argue that to overcome these challenges. There are three steps Okay, three steps. There's a three-step self-help talk. Okay, so the Which is a collective collective self-help. So the first one then is to distinguish Two very different types of learning processes. Okay, so the first learning process is problem oriented and that is actually Learning about on-the-ground problems like what is happening with climate change? deforestation was the biodiversity loss and this is often the the purview of Climate scientists ecologists natural scientists biologists, okay? or as a funny side story is that my My son who when he was five he's now 19 when he was five I asked my son Walter. What do you want to be? when you grew up and And and he said daddy I want to be a scientist, but not like you He said I want to be a real scientist Okay, and he meant these this first step Okay, we need real scientists to give us information about the actual problem Okay, and then we need a different kind of science for the second question and that's instrument oriented How do interventions into policy baskets multi-level governance? How do they actually work? To actually in some way achieve and ameliorate these problems. How do you get these pathways to unfold? How do you create sticky? Institutions that are actually durable as we all know the big problem is we create policy instruments from boycott campaigns to international Tropical timber agreements, and we all say they're either not effective or they're not sticky. Okay, or we lose interest in them So how we get sticky durable institutions is actually the purview I would argue of political science Okay, and we need to integrate better political and other social sciences With the first question Now it's the second question that is not being well attended to I would argue and that needs more integration Okay, so that's the first step and by the way, how much time do I have so I got a reality check? I've enough time. Okay. Okay. I just don't want to go over. Okay. All right. Okay. So the second step then is to identify the type of problem We are facing okay, the type of problem we are facing and I want to argue There are actually three kinds of problems. Now. This is important. Eleanor Ostrom 20 years ago in her book Darwin the Commons said that she was going to focus on a unique kind of resource depletion problem one in which human beings had an economic self-interest in maintaining a resource for the long run be it for us or fish but did not Because there was a tragedy of the commons owing to no collective institutions So she did link a certain kind of problem to a certain kind of institution And she said in her first chapter But the problem I'm looking at Is just one of many What we've done with Eleanor Ostrom is we've applied her framework to all problems and that's a mistake Okay, that's some problems I want to identify there for three problems that I think can help us Relate policy learning to actually making a difference So type one problems are win-win problems And this is where um, you can actually find thinking of bruntland Economic social and environmental opportunities with a particular policy instrument Okay, so economic interests social interests And environmental interests all might actually win out By identifying a creative instrument to address the problem Now these are the best ones of course because win-win or win is actually Really a good thing, you know, there's you know, you've no conflict Okay, so what what's an example of a possible win-win? And don't forget You need learning to figure out if win-win exists or not. Okay, so one example I'm going to just give you briefly is the example of legality verification That's emerged to address the problem of illegal logging Which has been given sustained attention by NGOs governments industries and businesses Over the last 10 years really and now you've got the european union the united states actually passing legislation saying do not Import illegally harvested timber. Okay, you've got australia following suit So you've got incentives on the supply chain that are going through china To indonesia malaysia gaban brazil saying hey if you want access to our lucrative market You've got to show compliance that these things are legal Now what's neat about this example this instrument Is that unlike a global forest convention? um And i'll that failed 20 years ago and unlike global forest certification systems that imposed global rules on Countries these actually are aimed at reinforcing sovereignty They're saying how can we help domestic governments better enforce their own laws? So they actually win the governments actually win They're not fighting this they actually win because they're actually getting help Through capacity building and some incentives to have compliance to their laws Legally harvesting forest companies also win because we know from economics 101 if you remove supply Price goes up. So every legal legally harvesting company In the world both in the north and the south Has the potential to gain if this instrument is actually implemented under a logical pathway Because you actually have economic incentives emerging And environmental interests also win because you actually weed out some of the worst logging practices in the globe And you actually help improve and address corruption and so on potentially this is the potential But to give you an example of why it matters to think carefully about how this would work Is because there are strategic implications for making this a win-win opportunity I'll give you two examples because I haven't got enough time as a whole article on this But here's two examples So one example is that you want to maintain your win-win coalition Which means that you cannot increase the standards To such a high level that the businesses who you want in your coalition No longer see the cost-benefit calculation So two high standards means you lose the very companies you want inside your coalition Because this is weeding out the bottom focus problem. This is not rewarding the top as certification does So ironically and counter-tutively Environmental groups need to actually advocate modest standards to achieve on the ground impacts Which seems illogical, but we think it's actually probably true in this case Okay, because the problem is actually a narrow one illegal logging Now we do theorize on a pathway's framework that once you actually entrench The global supply chain with legally verified products, which by the way Is the only mechanism for actually achieving Verification you've got to actually have some kind of legal verification along supply chains Once you do that and don't forget companies now want to do that because as long as the costs of supply chain Tracting is less than the benefits of getting reading up the worst They have a self-interest in actually being part of the supply chain Once you do that and you've got global supply chain tracking happening You could then increase the standards at that point because then the consumer pays not the firm And so there's a logic towards a two-phase process. Now. This is a very brief way of saying Discussing and thinking more carefully about the causal logic as to why support actually occurs Influences strategic decisions across the coalition that might lead to uptake and creating a win-win win solution Okay, okay. How much time do I have remaining? So, okay So now what I want to go what I want to say then therefore win-win might occur But only if the stakeholders understand the pathway there's collective learning About the causal impacts will it actually have the influence if there isn't collective learning And one organization acts in ways not consistent with the pathway it falls apart So you must have learning to take place for this to be effective Okay, now This means that you need both problem focused learning and instrument learning Occurring at the same time for this Win-win type one solution to occur Okay The second step though is to say well not all problems are win-win And some problems actually are win-lose one organization wins the other loses in some way And so we can actually by undertaking an effort on policy learning Not just identify possible win-win solutions, but also distinguish the win-lose cases Which I argue required different kinds of policy learning and approaches So I Argued that there are two more types of problems then that are in some way win-lose The first is type two a compromise Approach and that's where all interests get something And give up something and this is often what we do in political science We see whether groups can compromise to not get everything but feel okay about the process And this is certainly what multi stakeholder dispute resolution processes do all over the world. Okay, you compromise Um now one example of this that actually has occurred 20 30 years ago is allocating different uses across landscapes which in the United States and Canadian and western contexts is known as land use planning Okay, we actually allocate proactively different parts of the landscape to Biodiversity conservation commercial extraction community forestry mining sector what have you and you collaborate and get some kind of solution now The problem is that sometimes this occurs and is occurring right now Accidentally, there's no overall plan So powerful interests end up winning Let's say multinational forest companies and communities often end up losing because they have very little power So the trick here is to understand what instruments might exist to actually create the compromise where no one interest is dominated over the other And we have examples of this in the world for example in New Zealand forest accord Grant some part of New Zealand to forest companies for intensive plantations But in exchange land is granted to the Maori for indigenous uses and also for protection So the agreement is predicated upon the forest companies supporting Maori in protection and likewise NGOs and Maori supporting the industry as well that creates a broad coalition of support for this compromise That's also occurred in verse Columbia Rhyme from and now even more recently in the boreal forest not perfect examples because sometimes strategy and logistics don't always coalesce But I would argue we find examples of this that we ought to tend to more and more to think about landscapes and the compromises okay now What I want to say though I want is really less tended to because we often put everything here in a compromise and we think compromise is a good word But actually when it comes to climate change Compromises a very bad word All right, can you imagine saying well? Yeah, the science we've learned about the science and the science is quite clear That we really shouldn't get above two degrees Celsius because we could have major ecological catastrophes and also Really impinge upon many developing countries But we had a consensus compromise approach globally and we decided that 60 degrees was actually better Okay, we have this compromise an industry wanted 10 and the environment wanted two and so we compromised and we got six right Hey, that's a wonderful for type two problems, right, but it's disastrous for type three So these are actually ones where there's a hierarchy Of interest okay and climate change I would argue is one of the examples of that And this is where some problems are so acute that they are deemed To have priority over other problems when we say that so compromise there is a bad word not a good word Okay, now what are these ones? What are these? So I mentioned climate Um, but I would also argue there are many others indigenous rights, for example Many how argue should exist regardless of what red plus happens to do Okay, red plus should not impinge upon indigenous rights And that's a norm now. That's I would argue is a global norm So we don't try and compromise away indigenous rights. We try and see say how do we actually achieve them Okay, so why is why is it important that I identify these kinds of examples Which all require some kind of learning about problems, but also the instruments The reason I would argue is that identification of type one Two and three problems ought to be made proactively Too often they happen reactively Okay by accident and and um, so for example, why do we have land grabs? This is the big term now land grabs to discuss Where companies often foreign companies come in And get access to large loss of land For agriculture often to the expense of communities and more long-term planning Well, the reason is we didn't actually have a type 2 process in place Or a type 3 when it comes to indigenous rights didn't have that in place And so after the fact we say oh gosh, or we might have carbon cowboys emerging with red plus Well, why did that happen? We didn't think about how to stop carbon cowboys because we didn't think about which problem it was type 1 type 2 or type 3 we were addressing So we can actually better design our instruments by first saying What problem is it that we're actually identifying one two or three? And that will have huge impacts for then the instrument design and the pathways we follow Now I recognize Oh, yeah, the other example is too. So we have deforestation in Indonesia owing to palm oil But if we had a type 2 instrument in place, we might have said, you know what? We're going to allow some deforestation in exchange for biodiversity conservation But right now we're having political struggles after the fact not proactively So we're reacting instead of being proactive And the challenge is that by not first identifying whether the problem we're looking at is type 1 2 or 3 We often apply the wrong instrument to the problem Accidentally we do this So I would argue that when it comes to for example climate change We're really applying type 2 problems to type type 2 instruments to type 3 problems So we ought to ask the question Whenever we're thinking about deliberations today or in the future Is this instrument going to allow us to address a type 3 problem? Ask the question first And if it's not if we decide as a society that know The challenges are just too high That we're going to decide that climate change is type 2 not type 3 Then we ought to be honest about that Okay, so I think the problem is we're kidding ourselves We're saying it's win-win when it's not It's not one for sure. It's not even two. It's number three So either we are honest about that and we try and find creative solutions, which could exist But you can't find a creative solution like a type 3 creative solution to a type 3 Problem when you're diagnosing it as type 2 it's impossible So we're actually not uncovering some really creative ideas that could be uncovered through policy learning Because of misdiagnosis of the problems And therefore it seems to me if we begin with a much more careful protocol Just the way ashen did 20 years ago We might get some stickiness on to actual problem Ioration versus having one more meeting about how we think the problems are getting worse and with that I'll stop for now Well, thank you very much ben. You still had one minute left. So but that's that's fine. So that's a miracle Yes Now we have two respondents and then we'll open up for some questions back Answering back from ben and then we'll open up for the audience The first respondents is daniella kleinsmith Daniella is professor at the swedish university of agriculture of science And head of the forest policy unit She is also coordinator of euphorist division nine forest policy and economics and by that she's really coordinating All in the global network for forest policy. Let's welcome daniella kleinsmith And daniella, you'll have about 10 minutes for your respondents to ben's keynote Okay, thank you very much and um, it's an honor to be here today And um, very welcome Um, responding to ben is quite challenging as you have heard he has lots of ideas and have Already some solutions for the problem. So what to say that so I will concentrate on a specific part of um, ben's presentation uh And trying to respond to parts of that Ben highlighted the need for durable institutions and the need for learning capacities and learning architecture he pointed out And I would like to concentrate on learning across different sectors And learning does for me mean learning from say from failures as well as from successes When it comes to landscapes, we are all aware that they provide essential goods and services And that they entail different ecosystems and these different ecosystems have different kind of um natural conditions But they are all as well covered by different institutional settings So what governs them is the institutional settings And so encompassing govern they encompass governance frameworks at multiple levels And as well with multiple actors so private actors public actors and societal actors these governance frameworks imply benefits as well as drawbacks and I would like to highlight that these most of these governance frameworks are Coming from a perspective of a specific sector and this create or might create some problems that might be solved Ben highlighted these already that the cross-sectoral dimension in policies is a specific particular problem Sustainable landscapes provide an overall goal Setting or that could set as a bridge for integrated governance framework And this is what we are talking here about about a sort of more integrated This is why we don't have a forest day and we don't have an agricultural day today But we try to integrate it in a way and this is what is to be needed to be done in policies as well lots of regulatory and voluntary standards have been already approached With the concept of sustainability ahead. So we have the forest standards Ben mentioned some of them. We have the certification system in agriculture. We have them in forestry and everywhere else So in various sectors, they are approaching already the sustainable approach We have had a UFO study on this on the international forest governance Reviewing these settings and what came out of it is that Sustainability is really an encompassing and really enriching Concept that can be used by many and this is not only true for the forest which was the forest governance report about but as well for agriculture and as well for Resource management and other studies that have found out that sustainability is a concept that is value We all know it's already well true for since the 80s and made a discourse existing It is global in nature, which makes it so appealing because it can really be surf as an integration in this way And it's integrating in a way as well that it is Attempting ecological economic and as well social perspectives But there is a risk as well with this sustainability concept It can end up in an empty box and everybody is throwing in what we have already So we we have already forest sustainability in a way Saying that economically and we just label them different and say, okay, this is sustainability We throw them all in one box. So this is a bit difficult and that has to be Taken into account as well So far as I said in the beginning there is a sector or mainly a sectoral focus in these policies on sustainable land use Yesterday evening. I had the nice opportunity to talk to one person from napal and He told me about one example and I was so like that that's a good example He said that well, you know, um, there was the forest act in napal in Let's say with 2003 in 93 and they enabled community forestry and With the regards to sustainability having sustainable forest management that was the target and it worked pretty well So this is a very this is a success story. So we have success stories at the sectoral level Regarding sustainability and sustainable land use management. There is other examples, of course But These success stories is mainly success for a specific sector because with this example He told me as well about the cave eat open story and the cave eat is that the community forestry Um, sort of restricted the grazing of the herds in the land of the community forestry which Well came with problems for the livelihood about Because that means that those traditional Use of land in the higher altitudes and napal Himalaya Region is not possible to do anymore So it has been restricted. It has been delimited delimited and it was decreased a lot during that time So that was the cave eat of it. So what we can see is there is lots of sectoral efforts in the direction of sustainability But when it comes to cross sectoral ideas, it's sort of ends up partly conflicting with trade-offs and with fragmentation So how do we overcome the sectoral focus and what can this framework Sort of tie together. So we have this already sort of institutions here A logical Solution is coordination and integration as been managed Minimizing contradictions. So we want to have more efficient policy more integrated should all work together Less trade-offs less conflicts more integration So I sort of why not learning from a policy which is quite well known when it comes to integration and coordination And when I'm looking at the environmental policy Which is sort of integrated from the beginning on because there is no other reason So what the idea is the major of idea of environmental policy is to integrate it into the different sectors Which means like is given priority to that And this came about as well as sorts of a problem There it has been it has been identified in research There's lots of restriction in the reluctancy from the different sectors to integrate these environmental policies to stop and say that Well, you know, uh, no, this is not our this is not our cup of the tea and I think that's the problem of the story It's not always interest conflicts. That's one part of the story But the other part of the story is that is an institution thrown on a different sector Which is not was not involved in the story It was not involved in in building this kind of institutions So it's a lot about the external institutions So I would like to focus on two lessons to be learned from that First of all from the resistance of the actors against the external environmental policies at the one hand And the progress in developing sector Internal sustainability standards as they were at the other hand For my perspective An integrated sustainable landscape approach demands first coordination and integration process Without prioritizing one sector policy over another from the start on Is not to say that it might develop in the one of the other direction But not prioritizing one from the start off And the other one is the inclusiveness of actors at multiple arenas and sectoral experiences Which they have gained already about effective policy instruments at the input stage So what I'm doing is I'm arguing for an ideal policy process and you can call me naive Doesn't matter For an ideal policy process for an integrated governance framework for sustainable landscapes and Well, the starting point is sort of What has been learned already was in the sectors. There's a lot of knowledge that is existing and these processes should learn from each other and We should allow as well different interests to be explored to the different perceptions to be explored by each other And they should enable and here we are coming back to um, Ben mutual policy learning On effective instruments, so we should use these experiences not start with something totally new Oh, now we are talking about landscapes and we are not talking about forest and agriculture anymore But trying to use what we have already. What did we learn about the factors of instruments? And there is good examples where this learning has taken place already There is local communities that have already approached total landscapes. For example, I get one one example from andrew From the watershed in uh for the river basins in pink river in thailand Where there have been lots of communities local communities dealing with the river basin Including agricultural forestry and other sectors in their thinking And these local communities have as well find together they came together to learn from each other And try to building up alliances and federations to extend their organizational and management capacity So the point here is that important decisions Will be made at different times by different groups and in different forums And one cannot expect that these will necessarily be integrated into a single bureaucratic process So this is more a bottom up and this is a polycentric and a multi-level approach instead However, I will not Um, let go that these learning activities needs to be supported by institutions They should provide incentives for communication and um provide a concept for rationality across different arenas And it could be a more formal strategic process as well for sustainable landscape governance That could second this learning practices It could be so to say the start from the other end so, um My argument here is That the ideal process is a formal strategy process And this is the minor part, but now the most important part comes But which is embedded in much wider and more complex cycle of societal action And learning to which many institutions and processes contribute. So we might have formal Processes as these here as well, but they should be embedded in the sort of the live world And I want to end my speech. I hope I'm in time with the citation from dark hummus girl So I'm coming from sweden and he is a Nobel prize winner in sweden And he says sad backs and trying to realize the ideal do not prove that the ideal is at fault So Thank you very much Thank you very much daniella. Our second respondent is robert kilugi Who is lecter on environmental law at university of niropy center for advanced studies in environmental law Robert is also an advocate of the high core of kenya. Let's welcome robert Well, it's dark outside. So I was about to say good morning, but good afternoon to everybody Thank you. Well, I I take the Difficult role of following not just on the main speaker, but also on the first responder and she Invariably has covered some of the areas that I intended to which allows me to then Focus on some of the others more. Well Ben has spoken on a great Trajectory with respect to architecture of institutions and but primarily two aspects that I'd like to respond to the first one Is that he spoke at length with respect to multi-level governance? and also with this with the process of learning and of course learning is a key part of Ensuring success in policy systems now In terms of multi-level governance my my view from research experience and just observing how Systems work is that the element of functionality is critical in having Governance institutions work the architecture becomes incomplete unless you seek functionality And functionality in the defining sense that laws and institutions are often and brought about for two main reasons It could be for other reasons, but it could be mainly to respond to a need or to bring a solution to an identified need So they they they normally aim for one or the other and in that respect Then it creates challenges when these institutions are operating at different levels And also vertically in terms of various sectors now Now The level of him of of of integration with respect to overarching coordination You know horizontal integration is is usually very critical and I'm particularly reminded of the issue of land use planning now that we are speaking about landscapes and In in recent tasks and in recent projects that we've been research that we've been doing on On for instance, low-carbon investments across three countries in eastern and southern Africa One of the key things that comes out is the central place of spatial planning As a tool for coordinating horizontally and in terms of defining activities Both socioeconomic and environmental that happen within a geographical space at a very high level In order then to us to allocate resources and space for others that happen at a lower level And it has an effect of reducing conflicts But also defining clearly for people what they do across civil society across government across private sector People know very clearly what happens and this has been tried With fairly good success for instance in environmental management For instance a good number of African countries have what we call framework environmental laws that Put in place a very the framework environmental law itself Is a system that is at very high level nationally defining clear obligations clear Roles what people should actually do and this has the effect of making it very apparent as to what your job is It doesn't necessarily remove conflicts But what it does is lead people in the direction of where do we actually solve these these conflicts And in that sense then that makes it very functional land use planning and especially through spatial planning is where significantly We are failing In my country, Kenya for many years we've had a system of physical planning that dictated clearly what Uh all other levels of government should do with respect to physical planning except One factor provide for a national spatial planning process And so that in itself creates a major deficit in in respect of how you do this and what that means for instance Is that various sectors of the economy that seek to get a location of space and resources Within the geographical space of Kenya then we'll have challenges on how on how to do this Tanzania on the other hand has a fairly robust national land use planning system the deficit for that However, is that it centers the authority and functioning at the high level and doesn't clearly define the the roles Of coordinating both the high and the lower levels within within the system And this is problematic and this leads me to the second point about Multilevel governance, which is the question of mainstreaming of functionality through Through vertical integration, you know defining clearly what the various sectors actually ought and should do and we've seen a lot of experimentation with this respect on climate change law Where a lot of African countries for example have recently introduced systems of government that are multi-layered Either federations or devolved governments and this is on top of typically plural legal systems that bring together both customary formalistic and equally contemporary norms of doing business and so these these systems of of climate change That are coming to place to to put into place mechanisms for responding to climate change are requiring us to mainstream functionality In the sense of both horizontal and vertical Defining clearly what the national vision of doing this These responses is but equally ascertaining the allocation of functions duties and resources So that people can actually perform these duties in the course of their ordinary functions South Africa for example has done this very well with its environmental management system But South African scholars will tell you the failure they have is the lack of national coordinating institutions They have done very well in dispersing authority across the system But are lacking the the glue that is required to do that And you find that even players the the con if you don't have this functionality clearly defined The conflict arises not just within government, but it creates a corresponding confusion even with private sector players Businesses are never clear Which how decisions will be made or how decisions will be aligned? And that can even have the effect of slowing down investments in clear things and have in mind for instance The current debates going on with respect to climate finance If you don't have a very clear form of the incentives of the funding mechanisms or even the tracking Accountability mechanisms with respect to climate finance What it does is to create an innate fear with people that deficits in the rule of law Will affect how you actually do business and what that does in Instead is then make people look the other way and find other other options of doing things Which is suboptimal because then you have a multi-layered chain where instead of dealing with the government of kanya I'll end up dealing with an NGO here and NGO there and NGO there and eventually while that helps in many ways If you're looking for an optimal outcome that is undermined now To to have to have some of these things rounded up. I go back to the question of learning and I think that Learning in policy and institution making and also lawmaking is important because it will help us edge out the question of Incoherence both in coherence in terms of laws in coherence in terms of Institutions and in terms of policies and one of the things that comes into mind are two types of incoherence the internal kind where you have institutions for example across sectors that just don't communicate to each other and and in this sense for example Let's let's look at a law on livestock management or a policy on livestock Management and what that does is you have an internal legislation or a policy on livestock that encourages Farmers in areas to to invest in livestock on the promise that there is a market But on the other hand, you've got a law on trade That might want to impose certain conditions of trade But so long as this is not linked up clearly with the institutions that deal with livestock The effect of it is creating suboptimal outputs that farmers will not just be able to produce To get a market and this has happened in eastern africa where rift valley fever Resulted in barriers to trade being imposed by a traditional market from the middle east such that the Failure to control rift valley fever meant that you could not export livestock to Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries and the effect of that Is that you have farmers then left in a sense of helplessness and if you apply game theory considerations to that It just means that the next cycle of investments They're going to look for something else which is and they would have done is quite optimally And and these also links to the external incoherences in terms of the the considerations at the international forum Versus the internal and failing to link up these and we we're beginning to see these with respect to the red plus debate um Going on the negotiations going on and the adaptation or the modifications required with respect to national laws And if we fail to bring into place these internal modifications Or if countries are unable to articulate their national positions clearly during international negotiations Then it means the outcome could be such that if you take it back home You cannot have it modified and look at the example of the us and the Kyoto protocol They negotiated the Kyoto protocol but could could could not get the senate to approve it and these these these set of incoherences Requires to enhance a system of learning. We we need to have Some sort of systemic feedback feedback loop Where are we to echo Daniela where you sort of have an all-round learning System across so that we learn from mistakes that that we have and sort of try to figure that out But most importantly is that It becomes clear that we need to establish a certain minimum baseline threshold of participation by various players Whether it is citizens where whether it's business and industry whether it's civil society Whether it's just across the public sectors themselves But this minimum threshold of participation is important No, I call it a threshold is that this participation must have an effect On the final outcome. It is not just merely being decorative and saying that We've held five workshops consulting with people, but it's not clear exactly what the outcome of these Consultations is We then have to invest in people And and in terms of people I speak broadly again with respect to stakeholders whether it's individuals local communities Industry and so on and so forth And we have to to invest in people because we need to do this as a way of entrenching the concept of subsidiarity As a means to entrench functionality of institutions Subsidiarity then Complets this cycle that you begin at the lowest level you build the cycle and you come back at the lowest level And already you see these in budget mechanisms within certain countries where you see that for example stakeholder public consultations for budget making procedures are required within the executive arm of government And are repeated again within the legislative arm of government And you see that these these has a way of checking and balancing and making sure that if there was a sector that was left out It is very likely going to find a voice within the the legislature and this sort of brings brings them back to subsidiarity So for instance as part of constitutional obligation in Kenya Parliament is obligated to do a sort of cyclic system of of consultations for the budget system Going back to people And doing the same thing over that the executives should have done many would argue that this is repetitive But I'd always say this the members of parliament are elected by people and they have fairly different considerations when dealing with citizens than Civil service bureaucrats And so it helps in many ways that when you have both of them do then you find that in terms of bringing knowledge Bringing information and just making apparent to people that this matters Has has an influence and my last point on this was just over the last year Was doing some research for our national assembly We were just trying to track whether what people say With respect to climate change budgetary requirements actually matters And it made a tremendous difference to talk to people and they could show you the final budget policy statement and say We made this point during a town hall meeting and the funding is actually reflected In the budget what that actually means is that you you have begun the process of entrenching Subsidiarity even it's in its narrowest sense in a sense and so So in order to have this architecture complete It looks as if we we My key points would be that we need to focus on building this functionality And and by so and building this functionality will not be complete unless we cycle Around with the system of learning. Thank you very much Thank you very much Robert Kibugi Now we give Ben Keshore a little time to respond to respondents and then we'll open up for quinsters and answers ben Okay, thank you. Um, I'm gonna just highlight a couple of themes That emerged from these two respondents and thank you very much. I'm still pondering a lot So some initial ideas are um So one theme was this idea that bottom up Seems to be in some way Superior to top down Subsidiarity is an example of that norm And daniella pointed out to the oftentimes we have too much top-down Approaches um And so i'm going to address that point first And i'm going to raise some questions about that and what i'm wondering is whether the new architecture That is needed Um Doesn't necessarily require a top-down approach because you're not going to have one locus of power But you are going to need an orchestra in some way and our conductor of the orchestra So you're on the same page and it may be that our metaphors for top down and bottom up no longer work And I want to give three examples as to why that might be the case Let's first turn to the forest stewardship council Which was created after the failure of a global forest convention Where environmental groups social allies and businesses Decided to adopt high standard forest management practices and certified companies for compliance to those standards If a third party audited for compliance Um now what the fsc did was it said okay, we're going to have these principles and criteria Okay, um they're going to cover Things that have to be addressed like biodiversity conservation ecosystem management indigenous rights labor and so on But they said but the standards the specific rules will be developed Through stakeholder processes at the national or sub-national level so they give it the actual teeth and meaning Now is that top down or bottom up? I can't actually tell you They're actually in many ways empowered local communities when their governments were captured by business interests So they were empowering local participation with a global process I cannot tell you which one that fits but I can tell you that it had a good model to it that I think actually Addressed the themes you two were talking about but some criticize being too top down Okay, I'm pigeoning and pigeoning upon national sovereignty, but actually fostering indigenous communities, right? Okay, so are we are the terms? working for us another example is uh then going to the point that robert made that in um In um, kenya that there was a robust national planning system um, but it meant that the um The role of local peoples was less well entrenched and kind of taking the back seat whereas in south africa It was the opposite. You actually had a lot of community efforts But not enough national coordination, and I'm wondering too. These are obviously real challenges if there aren't solutions That might think are creative hybrid approaches. So for example, what can we turn to? When is in british columbia? 20 years ago. Yeah 20 years ago. Wow Where the government said we want to foster the international norms that bruntland identified in her report That the world ought to protect for biodiversity conservation 12 percent of the land base So the domestic government have these norms diffused so the pathway was norms It went to a domestic government who said we're going to actually Meet our international obligations But actually we're not international obligations, but the government used that norm to say we have to meet them Okay, so this is a top-down government saying this to the communities and industries. You must do this and the industries Were like no it's going to cost us money. They're under long-term forest licenses. We're not going to do it And the government said okay, here's the plan You have to protect 12 percent of the land base, but We are going to create local resource committees made up of indigenous communities Municipalities the forest sector the mining sector the hunting sector and they said you guys decide where that 12 percent is going to go And NGOs by the way the whole of the whole dammit You decide where they're going to go you draw the lines. Oh and by the way if you don't draw them and agree We'll do it for you Okay, what happened? In every process where this was brought into place they got agreement and these are sticky institutions They were all scared of the government's possible approach and 20 years later. These are durable institutions top down bottom I have no idea. Okay, but it actually worked, right? So I think we should get out of our old metaphors and think of our creative solutions Okay, so the problem is if you just go local You just do Eleanor Ostrom the problem is you have this broader challenge where some problems don't get addressed Maybe timber gets addressed but not by diversity conservation and so on we do need national or international orchestras Now orchestras don't have to be, you know, you know Dergis they simply have to coordinate in some way that's logical and the illegal logging case that I gave I think it's an example of that Okay, where you can think about the logics out of that kind of mechanism Okay, which might be empowering communities if it's designed in a way that actually is Sensitive to that but it's a global supply chain That gets its incentives from trade legislation from the u.s. And europe why because traditionally protectionist companies also want to enforce Now care about developing countries enforcement because they benefit economically it makes no sense, but it's actually happening right Top down bottom. I've no idea, but it's actually an orchestrator You need to have to make sure that everything's logical with that kind of pathway, right? So to me there are solutions around these problems and I don't think it's a case of therefore Simply experimentalist trying things out if that might lead to Learning 10 years later that red plus but red didn't work. We needed red plus In my opinion, we run experiments On so many policy instruments that never had any real chance of achieving their goals because they were type 1 type 2 misdiagnosed Okay, so why not first Get together like we are now Discuss what instruments might have some plausible logics through learning to achieve problems And run the experiment on only those ones because those are the minority ones now They're actually having the experiment Run on and just one final example that I didn't show you here, which I think is really important then is that When we do this sort of type 1 type 2 type 3 problem focused approach That can better understand then and focus what we're talking about with our instruments So my argument on forest certification Is that its best days are still yet ahead if we narrow its scope To commercial logging practices, but if we give it biodiversity conservation if we give it climate, right? I would say it's not it's going to fail under the weight of too many burdens And it's going to take the problem definition off of government land use Planning that ought to happen instead, right? So better linking to the problems to me as the real challenge here Integrating communities and national approaches together and giving up the top-down bottom-up terminology. I would argue Okay, I'll stop there Thank you again, Ben now plenty of time for questions and answers from the ben and from the two respondents Daniela and Robert would you turn around also so you can Also get some other questions who would be the first? Yes, please we have mics wandering around. I think that's good for the Both recording and also for everyone being able to listen And if you'll please say your name and where you're from Yes My name is lance robinson. I'm with the international livestock research institute Ben, I'm not sure if if I understood In the the classification type one two and three that the That classification is something inherent in the problem because it seems to me it's It's it's a nature. It's a it's a characteristic of the solution And whether or not it's a type one type two or type three it seems to me to be Um a problem. It seems to me to be a subjective political value judgment That also depends on whether or not we've actually found a solution um, I I'm use the uh Global climate change as an example and I'll I'll use a more local kind of example where um national national forest service personnel or national parks personnel will often Identify the level of poaching or level of forest degradation as As something unacceptable as something this is, you know, this is a top priority thing We can't compromise on this this is in in these terms a type three problem Um And whereas there may well be win-win solutions that they haven't thought of or or don't believe exist um and so the How how do you if you want to do this as a as a proactive approach to problem analysis and and solution identification How do you go through that process of deciding? Is it type one type two or type three? Ben a question for you. Yeah, actually, I love this question I was actually thinking about it as I was pondering this Uh today because even if you go back to Eleanor Ostrom She'll say that actually the very same Problems can move categories depending on the institutions you impose on them So there's two parts to this one is what's the problem itself? What are the underlying conditions and features and so on and then is it possible to be creative and develop A intervention that might lead to type one because type one would be of course The best scenario if you could get it. I would argue that probably in most cases The most problems are not type one All right, but you could actually distinguish this way So you would need to look at both creative solutions And the problem itself together it seems to me just assess whether type one might be possible So it's not an objective Identification where you just say here it is it's type one right in fact for type three problems. It's it's political You decide whether or not you want to give it type three status Um, you can rely on the science to inform your discussions Right whether or not you want any more tropical biodiversity loss in order to have economic development is going to be a political Decision but you can be informed by the science of deforestation and biodiversity loss My point is we're not being honest about the fact that we're actually wanting a type two solution We're actually pretending as type three and it's actually all about type two all of our instruments are type two I'm saying We've got to allocate Which type we're talking about and then we propose instruments red red plus illegal logging whatever else Tell me how it'll meet that type or not and oftentimes when you do that that logic falls away and it's not there So I'm asking for greater transparency about what one is arguing is the is the type that they're considering right environmental groups and the Timber industry and other sectors Made debate a lot about whether they want to probably type two or type three fantastic But if you're honest about it, I think we can get to more creative solutions than if we're actually hiding and fooling ourselves about that Do we want to come back on the question or no then this? Thank you very much. Uh more it's for longer Atlas environmental law advisory ban and um a question that links up to this It's I find this very very exciting. Um Including the remark that we should set our We should make that decision and be clear about whether it's type one type two type three before we make it and if if there's if You know, I'll see whether this is a compromise or a win-win or or something with the red line involved Which would then be type three, I guess now my question is also Um Given your your example for the win-win where you where you had that illegal logging sustainability chain um example Who exactly is the actor of that and who's the agency? For this learning fragment. Who is who's the actor to to make the decision? Who's that? In the end even though there's uh this Where you had that example with the top down approach bottom up. You don't know. I mean the the European Commission for instance tries to you know to link the The timber debate to the voluntary agreements that they have so there's more there's an engaged process But in the end it's a unilateral decision Which at least could come if if if countries don't cooperate. So there's a clear There's someone sometimes the actors are very different of of And then probably also that decision whether it's a win-win or a compromise or something else. Yeah I Respond so I would agree with daniella and uh that whenever you're looking up these kinds of multi level governance um architectures Um policy decisions will be diffuse along a range of actors Okay, so governments that fund provide resources to the system You supply chain tracking or voluntary partial agreements negotiations and so on The companies the lobby for legislation and the wording of legislation The domestic governments to then negotiate what it means to be illegal or not How you audit for compliance and the tracking process There's a whole bunch of choices that are made at various scales And my point is that The only way to then have that orchestra Is to have some kind of engagement about policy learning that binds that entire community Towards the causal logic. So what's going on? Because again, it's counter-intuitive that you would actually keep standards modest But I think actually um when you work it out it makes sense for the beginning And if I'm wrong great, but then you have the whole collective discussion. Why would that hypothesis be incorrect? You'd actually puzzle through cause and effect Scientific processes versus just focusing on what do I want the problem now is We're all having great hybrid models out there fsc with red Um legality and flag. I mean the hybrids are endless But I think if you go behind them and ask the question Well, what's their uh, what are their propositions about cause and effect on the problems they care about fairly loosely formed Actually, so I'm saying a lot of value added to be had by simply getting more focused on what might be the possibilities Give you an example a real real example of how this diffusion might actually affect individual choices The fsc About 15 years ago went through a process where swedish forest companies who were one of the first to join the fsc Okay to get global recognition for the standard Set to the environmental community. Look, we've got a problem here. This is a new system So the we want to get our lumbered to market But in sweden we've got this really weird old system where our mills Are not connected to where our we harvest our trees So if we want to maintain chain of custody certification, we've got to expand a lot more Global emissions emissions from energy to move that wood over to our mills because right now We simply swap with other companies who have their mills closer by and we save Transportation costs, but it means that that wood isn't f formally fsc So would you mind they said would you mind a system where we just said percentage in percentage out So the same percent of our where they went in as fsc We got out as a label. Okay now green peas said no because that wouldn't be authentic Okay, that would not be that would be giving a label and a non certified product as certified So what happened was a new system emerged now called the pfc that right away said, yeah, no problem Right 10 years later Greenpeace and its allies learned that that actually was a mistake and they actually acquiesced and said, yeah For initial uptake getting market to supply that slowed things down And that's what they had another percentage labeling system So my point is If we could have sped up that learning process You could have actually had more efficient mechanisms taking place There's a gap in this kind of causal knowledge greenpeace was right on the actual problems They cared about but the causal mechanisms didn't work the way they wanted So, you know, so generating broader causal knowledge could affect a whole bunch of choices simultaneously That are diffuse Good, then it's gara. Thank you nails. Uh, my name is gary steindlick I worked for 17 years for an international organization leading their global program not greenpeace. It was wwf I'm now consultant on listen integrating sustainability solutions Thanks for the first of all congratulation to the hosts I think this is the second most important event of all of these two days in the landscape forum And you have made great presentation still i'm really disappointed because we missed I think we missed a little bit the issue And I will I allow the floor for a quick test with the audience It takes me maybe only 30 seconds and Maybe I can then prove whether we missed The uh, if you yes or no, so now we go for a test everyone. Yes, that's great. Um, and my first, um so I've been your presentation You ask you said, uh, these are ideas you provoke the debate It's not necessarily true From my perspective. I just say my perspective. I do entirely agree what you said I have a question here. Who does disagree? Uh, to let's say the majority what ben said he he asked us I think that would be a good feedback for your presentation So who who did disagree with the three types and the learning etc number one Nobody Oh one This is this is an important person to talk to one Okay, but nobody else second 50 50 also an important person to talk Second question and I um have a look I um yes um Who is coming from Who is a forester here? May I ask you who is a forester? Forest background Thank you science background Thank you NGO background Thank you Business background business and industry background One one and a half two persons So I pose now my my two pitches here are Failure one is We said Obviously we talked to the wrong people We all agree Or the majority agrees what you said then But still I mean there is no there's no need that we discuss We discuss with the wrong people Failure two is The word governance and this why we missed the issue of the I think the theme of of the of the dialogue here was Governance and legal framework. Who is governing landscapes? Do we really think it's governed by governments alone? No, it's clearly governed by cash And this is investment and investment is 98 percent in the hand of the private sector So my pitch here is and I hope and I ask you whether you agree. Yes or no We should from now on Talk in a different way To other people and we should talk about how can we motivate These people that they talk with with us that they talk to us This is the crucial issue because we are willing Six or seven years ago I made a presentation here in front of 46 ministers and I said the concept of sustainable forest management is that Not because it's not good But it's a singular approach and if you cannot attract those who are really impacting forests You talk to each other, but you have no chance to to be relevant at all And this is and my second pitch is we really need to think when we talk about governance It's a word which for a non-native speaker implies its governments who do governance We need to think about the real players and how we can involve them in this in this discussion Thank you. Carol for stimulating the discussion We are here for discussion forum I will let Ben and the two respondents first respond and then I'm so lucky that one of those who disagree a little with ben Is on my next next list so please ben Or daniella or rubber Or you want some more input from the floor first Some disagreement I mean, I mean, of course, I really appreciate those comments Uh, I think the on the issue of the private sector. It's interesting because I talked to different communities And I was actually involved in this big assessment of certification systems of mostly NGOs in the private sector And they don't always talk to people here So I think that actually that is one of the key challenges of creating this collective policy learning Is that we are not in the same workshops and conferences. We're in different ones And how to do that in ways that are comprehensible coherent Right, but actually still getting those multiple voices is I think the fundamental question for architecture building and design Robert And I think in in my view the the role of industry is not something we can Take for granted but there is a point to be taken here that While we all have and are entitled to opinions on policies and governance and institutions Whether or not they have effect quite often depends on what governments decide And so it's aligning this These these structures to allow for the voice of of all these players to have a role Within the continuum of policy of policy making and within the the architecture because eventually if You don't mean eventually for you to have an institution most likely need parliament to To pass a law and so you have to somewhat align them And there is also the the other it's actually a fairly primary risk here that industry Just like with various sectors While a key player has a certain vested interest in doing things The vested interest is not necessarily For the majority, but they still play a key role. For example to deal with the various challenges of poverty or even economic inadequacies You know, we need finances from taxes, which often it's industry that that pays So we must facilitate them, but we must always have a space within the The policy system to create coherence that allow for checks and balances so that they don't have runaway Influence and we've seen ridiculous scenarios previously where for instance regulators Are found to be completely compromised by Industry and you remember the Gulf of Mexico problem Where the regulator for the oil industry was found Wasn't actually seem to have become quite complicit In allowing for some sort of self reporting in an area that stood to cause significant economic and ecological risk And examples are abound for example in the forestry and wildlife sector across across the world And so in order to avoid this because the risk of that is that we could be very Complacent and also complicit in the wrongs that that happened So the the risk the consequence could be very drastic and so we must have checks and balances So while we allow for a significant role and input of industry, I think the The the argument I would responding to a comment there is that Governments don't necessarily manage these landscapes, but they provide a critical glue Within the system that we don't think we should underestimate Daniela okay, um my colleagues already have responded to that and I appreciated this Your intervention here in your experiment and I already outed myself as an idealist and um what I would like to ask you is Are we really going to give the power to the money? Is this the way what you're approaching for saying that oh well because these are the ones ruling the world So we have to discuss with them and if they agree then we come to a conclusion So my idea or my standpoint was that we are sort of hinting towards Something like which is called the deliberative democracy Which is called that we need to enforce laws Which is by the way in the end done by governments and by rules And these governmental rules are enforced in order to overcome Just to be ruled by money that was that's the reason why we have these kind of rules Stealed by government, but this needs to be feedbacked by the life world which means like The societies those dealing with the problems and the issues So it needs to be controlled by this and this needs to be bridged into some steering which should overcome the only Money perspective Yes, you may here you can So No, the answer is very clear. No, it should not be ruled by the money The only thing is when I had had a look at the performance of sustainability It's either the the discussions are either done by governments and Stay called us or it's done within the business and industry sector, but there is hardly Even in an organization where I was participating in many years There are two strengths the one is dealing with business the other thing with policy. There is no integration And this is what I say I have now four people on the list and I have also two from industries So I hope that you might come back those from industry Andrew you were one of one who disagreed and I saw you also Robert now have five on the list Yeah, I just I just want to make sure that we don't end up in a in a classic dichotomization Between the good and the bad and we won't even mention the ugly I don't know if you attended the session this morning Where there were three Representatives who are all Presenting the evidence of what the private sector is trying to do And the overwhelming feedback I got from many people who were during that session was I think a lot of people were surprised Of how far the private sector has come in terms of driving shifts in sustainability And I don't think we should forget that so that that's just a first point in terms of That discourse which could quickly risk falling into this binary View of the world so that was the but my my question really for ben was I it's not a disagreement ben It's more because we are in a seminar And you are the professor But we can still wish we can still challenge you as a professor and my my question for you ben is is I got the impression you assume in the presentation that we are Good at learning Either as a species Or as institutions and I question that assumption And I question that assumption because I think I've got to the stage in my career where I've identified something I call the 30 year rule And that is many institutions Go back to doing exactly what they did 30 years ago when they've got through this 30 years and as an example The world bank has just gone through a Significant restructuring where they have created an agriculture department And a natural resources department as completely separate units And this is exactly what existed in the late 1980s It meets the same 30 year rule and there are many other examples So I just wanted ben to to ask you and challenge you I mean, how good do you think we are as a species at actually learning Or our institutions at actually learning to achieve change rather than simply just going back every 30 years to where we were I'll take one more question before I come back to the panel because we had you also and you also disagreed a little you said half half So I'm Ingrid Fischer and I'm from Wageningen University And I'm a member of the IUFRO task force on governance. So I've actually thought thought a bit about Learning architectures together with Ben and others So I I I have to partially agree because You know, I'm part of the the learning architecture Thinking But while I was thinking about it over the past couple of months and Or so or or longer, but as part of the task force for the last couple of months The question that came back to my mind the whole time And I think that's actually what we're discussing now The essence of the discussion and which I really appreciate by the way the discussion that we're in the middle of Is how far can we get with learning and where does you know? How far will learning take us and where does power politics and interest come in? So what if and I I would like to raise this question to all three Speakers today because I think they they might all have a a different Contribution to part part of the answer to this You know what to Ben so what if people don't agree on the type of problem that we're in the middle of Or what if people don't want to agree on the type of problem? that we're in the middle of Or what if people or institutions or or organizations don't want to be honest about the type of problem that they Think that they're in the middle of And what if actors don't want to join a learning architecture that could come up with creative solutions So basically my my bottom bottom line question is how far can we get with learning? Which I I really think we can get a far way You know we can really make a difference But I think at some point the learning stops and the power comes in Perhaps an example from uh from uh my earlier work at greenpeace I used to have a an agreement if you will With wwf that I would tease the companies into their arms So there is a role for for the stick and there is a role for the carrot if you will and maybe Well, and that worked great You know because there is a role for the green pieces of this world and there is a role for the wwfs of this world From coming from an NGO perspective So where you could look you could look at the wwf as part of the learning architecture And and and greenpeace as part of the more political Part of the discussion. So where is the balance between power and learning? I guess is my question So ben robert and daniella. Where is the balance? Which arm i have chased into now who want to start? Okay, so I actually agree with andrew and igrid and thought I was actually saying that so let me Just come back a little bit On the 30 year rule, I mean we're now having landscape day when 30 years ago. We had land use planning So we're even right now doing the same thing, right? And that we have 30 years of an evolution from land use planning to multiple use to ecosystem management Which gave actually biodiversity type 3 and then that wasn't like so at sfm and now we're back to landscapes So yes, I completely agree and my point actually is how do we break out of these cycles and actually get stickiness and effectiveness over problems how we do that so I'm glad to clarify that I actually completely agree right On the issue of whether our species can learn I think my point by saying architecture was that we are not very good at it Just the way austram said we're not even good at the timber depletion stuff Which is a real easy challenge compared to the rest right and so her solution was develop an institution So I think an institution on learning that can facilitate this diffusion of policy choices Might get us somewhere. Okay now on ingrid's point about how far it can go I thought that was my point. So type one which are actually the I would argue You know, they're great when they happen, but they're pretty rare But type one requires a lot of careful puzzling through and thinking That does relate to how ngos Learned some way for example There's a lot of I would argue unlearning happening. I would argue for example on boycott campaigns, which is a Traditional greenpeace strategy and then you hand over them to waf right? I would argue that these strategies are a lot less effective than we think they are And the reason that is we want to have a victory And so when the company agrees to your demands, you feel really great And you go if they go from being a villain to being now you give them ads in your times and you love them And so the result is I would argue that we don't keep the pressure on it's a very short lived pressure And lest that pressure is institutionalized into a certification system or ongoing ongoing Economic incentive like for example the lacy act or the eutr's which are a sticky. They're not going to change back We might over exaggerate the impacts and by doing so we actually undermine our own problem-focused efforts So I think we can all learn in different ways about how strategies Uh occur and how to better improve them, but I would argue that power is the reason why We're having these problems on land grabs and carbon cowboys We're not actually We're pretending that we're involved in a type one Problem when in fact that's not So I'm saying why don't we first say whether we're an industry or NGO? What do we can see this problem as? Is it a type two for us? And then what's the solution we're offering or we're saying no it's a type three Here's the solution and that would at least get us to be honest about What we're trying to do which might therefore uncover some innovative solutions and also be honest about that. No, this is a power simple power Kind of an impact and we are companies that are making a lot of money by Deforestation and we have the power and we want to keep on doing it, right? If we don't ask that question We could be accidentally just fostering power in the name of thinking we're actually deliberating doing things meaningfully, right? Danielia or Robert Robert Well, I think one of the one of the reasons why we have these cyclic notions of Of changes like you pointed out a 30 year cycle is quite often because I think The learning process is Underpinned by the interests we bring to the table whether it's as individuals as governments as industry And interests have a way of linking with power and informing the end in a sense Then that you're not so worried about the the process or the quality of the outcome But how fast and beneficial the outcome is and I remember About 19 years ago and I was about two decades ago when I was preparing to do my final primary school exam There's a lesson they gave us because it was a multiple choice Mathematics exam and they said well When they said the question they're going to give you choice a b c d Now what they are going to do is that a will be the fastest answer And d is likely to c or d are likely to be the best but Last stage of the inquiry and so if you are worried about the fastest answer And you do the first stage of the mathematical problem You will quickly see that you got the answer that is listed as a and you will share that you've got the answer And the consequence of that is when they evaluate the test you'll have done poorly or probably fail the The test and this is the thing with With various interests even look at the cop negotiations It's the thing about the interest that people bring to the table quite often As he says if it's greenpeace you're looking for the Fastest solution that brings a victory and sort of plays to your sense of power But in actual sense we need to have a sense of sustenance that keeps us on the Problem until we get the best and most high quality outcome The challenge is though that the process of getting the best and most high quality outcome is quite often not funny And you it could be expensive It's not necessary the least cost and it could be a painful one and think about for example If you're trying to negotiate compromises as we've seen governments having trouble With communities with respect to extractive industry negotiations of contracts or land acquisitions And you find because they are worried about the consequences in the forthcoming general elections Governments will go for the fastest solution That is not necessarily the most sustainable The likelihood is that five years later just before the next Election the steam of this solution that was agreed upon will have dried out and will be back to the same So then we we in a sense then the system of learning is not sustained And so we actually I don't think we can say we learn anything We sort of manipulate the process and eventually we are back to the drawing table Okay, um, I think my colleagues have already more or less mentioned everything I just wanted to come back to what Ingrid says about power does learning stop when power comes in I think there is always power in there is no way out of power I think power is all around us and there are so many different forms and we all know about it and For me one powerful situation is as well communication and the question is how then how can we communicate in a way And how can we deliberate with each other in a way that we can sort of minimize the power effects in a way That we come can as well adapt to rational solutions And I think this is a real the real challenge then and this doesn't matter. This doesn't mean doesn't mean that Different institutions are out you pointed to green piece situations And I totally agree with you. There is a role for the green pieces in the world There's a group for role for wf's and there's a role for the industries in the world But for the communication is needed that we try to Well react to each other that we try to trust in each other and so forth So there is power, but it is it is needed and we need to try to use it in a way that it is effective Great. I have five more on my list of of questions And then we also want our rapporteur kaolin haywood Who's really working hard from idlo to try to give you a overview of what we are summing up and reporting back So we have a good session here. First you please. Yes Okay. Good evening. I'm a billy pride a student of the university of hoenheim in Germany. I'm doing my masters in agricultural science and in the tropic and subtropic During the last session, um, I was really really happy to see lots of government officials from the south that is south america sub-saharan africa and Asia I was really hoping to meet most of them here when coming here because my question would have been directed to them But since we have um lots of people with lots of experience When the keynote speaker was talking he mentioned simple things that This toposomy why it's going on we all know that the main problem right now with um, uh landscape Is economic development that is multinationals going into africa either for baugas Either for minerals and other things my question is this simple Why is it that difficult? For these african leaders or the leaders from the south to try to protect Their environment or the landscape just as simple with policies just like the counterparts from the north Why is it that difficult for them to implement simple policies that can protect the landscape? Just like the counterparts from the north. Thank you. Thank you very much and we'll take one more question. Please Yes, thank you. And that's actually quite connected to that. My name is in a new bag I work for the word future council and uh, it's five o'clock on the sunday and um I uh now dare to ask the question, you know, what am I going to take back into my work from this landscape forum? and um So robert my question sort of really goes out to you because we work with parliamentarians of national parliaments and uh concretely we work on forest policy in east africa and uh, we have The situation there you probably agree that we have Policies in place which are not so bad which have participatory approaches, but they're not implemented They're not happening on the ground So and we talked to parliamentarians and I've learned this weekend that uh, well landscapes are a social construct And they're as big as they have to be So I think parliamentarians think in landscapes because they have a landscape which is their constituency And so when I now go back to my work Can you tell me what I'm should campaign for? You know, can you Give me some concrete examples What I should tell them what are the next steps? How can you integrate the landscape approach? into your work as a national legislator With a constituency in east africa You get some easy questions this afternoon Who is that? Robert it was directed to you the last one Oh, well, thank you very much. Well, I will uh attempt to respond to both And I hope I'll have much luck with that And the first question was with respect as to why it is difficult for leadership in the south to uh To implement measures that to for instance protect the interest of people and and the ecology I'd I'd give you the easiest one that come to my mouth that doesn't say anything and I'd say transformative leadership I don't even understand what that means myself. So I'll I'll I'll give um No, it's because I was reading about it this morning. Um There is there is a there is a key point about Objectives and priorities you see For example, he's replaying well, not so much a 30 year cycle and we're saying maybe a Century long, but we are sort of seeing the scramble for africa back again from, you know, the Meeting in 1888 that was convened by Otto von Bismarck and others to partition africa for colonialism and we are seeing the mapping of the continent with respect to Technology allowing for finding of resources Extractive industry land and so on and so forth And this means therefore that by an accident of fate or by a consolidation of global interest in africa Land and natural resources have sat have then become the second most important resource on the african continent after its people And we've got to make that distinction the people being the first most important resource So since this is happening and i'm not sure anything we say today will change that this is happening We then have to find A certain way to translate these global interest into our interest some sort of symbiotic relationship must emerge And this goes back to what mechanisms do countries have to consolidate what their national interests are and And this is this is very very complicated in many senses because There are very many shades of gray That that happened there are many shortcuts that have emerged in In in getting some of these mechanisms in place for investments That the traditional checks and balances that for example a treaty needed to go before parliament for approval Doesn't happen because there is an administrative way of approving a bilateral investment treaty So that just means that parliament will never engage with that treaty agreement that will extend Protection to three or five multinationals aligned to the country that is negotiating the treaty so this this is part of the problem so Then we must the the challenge here is that there seems to be a deficit at the moment In converting these global interests to serve our purpose as africans And these conversations are beginning to happen There is an extremely vibrant conversation going on in Nairobi at the moment with respect To extractive industries on two levels The first level is with respect to community access and benefit sharing the local host communities But that is somewhat secondary to the higher level With respect to assuring that in fact the economic benefits that we want to share Are secured and are actually available to do that just as much as protection of the environment And this is then some of the ways we convert these global interests into being our own interests And this is this is something that a lot of people are passionate about and you can tell from how I'm speaking about it That we then need to get our legislatures and our legislatures and other policy makers to see this And the mining draft mining law in Kenya is stuck And it's stuck because civil society groups Scholars and other people have placed roadblocks in its way And because they have placed roadblocks industry is also placing roadblocks because everybody's trying to get the best preferred Outcome from it. But what is actually doing? It's delaying it But it's provoking a conversation that we need because once we do that Then we have a balanced conversation talking about communities accessing benefits It's somewhat It's somewhat academic if we don't secure the actual revenues in a way and we don't actually Secure the protection of the environment. So that goes to the first question on the second question with respect to This question Robert watch out for time also. I have three more on the list. So yeah, so I'll I'll I'll be fast on this one is is that Legislatures at least in my experience think in bullet forms Members of parliament They're representative of of people they have an election in four or five years They tend to think in bullet format. They want to know how am I going to translate this into an action At my constituencies and then my my point then is very basic Let's begin as part of social learning and as part of building this architecture Let's begin to have a desegregation of outputs and outcomes As we put in place mechanisms because this is important because if they don't understand What it is you are asking them to approve They'll either change it because they don't understand or they won't approve it And and I think we can look anywhere in the world and you will see that is a likely outcome with respect to where You need members of parliament to approve anything. I hope I answer your question. Thank you Thank you for the audience and then I think we should let Caroline just to involve you in how we report back Caroline will present how we report and you have time to comment on that also. It was you first Great. Thanks. Um, kate horner from the environmental investigation agency I was really pleased to see um, some of the the coalitions to address illegal logging on your slide We have the pleasure of convening the coalition in the united states that you mentioned So I thought I would just reflect a little bit upon how that came to be and and maybe some of the additional lessons That could be learned from it. Um, I think it's important to note firstly that the The problem that we were trying to address on the ground was a unique recognition of the role of international market demand And weak governance in resulting in this environmental crisis There The idea was of course that as long as there is an international market for illegal goods It's very difficult to increase enforcement on the ground. So there had to be some sort of international cooperation to address it um the It was an idea that you had to make the rules matter before you can talk about then making the rules what they need to be It's it's it's obviously sequential. Um, it's I note that because the the coalition that was convened in the united states of industry and environmental and labor organizations Is win-win, but it's not the whole picture It's a convenient construct, but there are losers in that battle Um, and I think it's important to be mindful of that. I think political economy that has been raised a couple of times from the floor Um, and so I just I I also wanted to talk about it because I think it's it's really important to the problem that we face here in the landscapes discussion um, and while we've had I think in in interesting academic discussion about Governance and legal frameworks. We haven't actually talked about what the governance and legal frameworks could be Or what in fact the the problem is that we're trying to address in the landscape sector And I would argue I think we as an organization that looks at illegality has been looking at this In landscapes and found that there is a serious problem of I think I would I would highlight two that that merit attention one in terms of how Land use decisions are made especially for large-scale agriculture There is increasing recognition that in palm oil across the world Um a significant amount of it is illegal In the Congo they have plans to develop palm oil that would treble log production in the country much of that is illegally allocated The other piece of it is I think Foreign inflows of capital into the country We have a really interesting and I think unique tool in the voluntary guidelines Which I've talked about before in in other panels and I don't mean to harp on it But I think it's a useful tool that builds on this The the top down to bottom up bottom up approach that we have some principles about how to govern this I think unique international challenge that we face in terms of international finance And how that can be then entrenched in national in national law So I wanted to put those two forward Particularly because they highlight the the role of Of governance to these problems that we're trying to address Thank you, and that is Jose Campos Thank you, Niels Jose Campos and following up on the learning issue and we are talking here about Smart interventions. He mentioned policies and institutions, but we we should also add technologies and I think we We need to see this learning as a process of evolution and evolving to something that adapt and would be more effective to the new needs coming back to the governance issue There are scales global and national governance and I think the discussion has focused more on those scales But how about the governance of the landscape per se? and I think we need to to have a look at the formal or informal Structures for governing landscapes and how they could create a bit better enabling environment or actually Foster collective action because what we need is action now fast as fast as possible Um, well, it's either way. It's fine. I mean All right Dara come me from climate focus Thanks. Thanks a lot for these presentations. They've been really useful in the discussion as well Um, I think we've discussed a lot about governance and a lot of the political process today But there's been less direct talk about about legal frameworks Robert you touched on it a bit, but it's been a bit a bit peripheral And I think it's it's usual to have a little bit more of that talk when you talk about prioritization in your type three And we talk about how it's very Difficult to entrench all these political processes, you know the five-year election cycle happens Priorities change. There's always power interests and legal frameworks are a really important way of doing that You know, you've got different different levels of law, you know from the constitution to the statute to the regulations That have a really important role in in entrenching those priorities So a good example in the in the red plus and in this context you mentioned indigenous rights earlier on Um, entrenching indigenous rights and constitutions Like it's been happening in latin america and coupling that with good enforcement systems But it has been a very very effective way. I know idea lo is involved in a lot of this You know developing these frameworks, which is really really important Um, so I just wanted to raise it and I know we're toward the end We're not going to have time to discuss much more But uh in case you particularly robert if anyone has some some more thoughts on that Thank you for that excellent point. Yeah, dr. Mary claire cordone seger and i'm senior legal expert at the idea lo I think just three points in response to a fascinating panel. Thank you the first one is um There is an argument that sustainable development laws Are about process They're about making sure decisions are made in the right way due diligence taking into account all the stakeholders views I disagree I think there's a substantive And very clear requirement if one wants to call something sustainable development So i'm going to push it back a little bit on the idea that you can put anything into a sustainable development box And have it look still sustainable and law is actually quite comfortable dealing with this issue A famous judge once said i'm not going to describe to you what pornography is but you put it in front of me I'll know what it is Okay, and I think sustainable development on the substance if we look at the exact resource You know whether it's forest and a mind-out landscape or whether it's water and a completely dry dried and depleted stream We can say whether it's being used sustainably or not So this is what is quite exciting about the landscape approach and and about the multi-level governance issue that we're talking about here Because the the issue is in a way how to bring in the different sectors of the landscape itself And this is where I get to my last point, which is just that of course laws and institutions are actually written by people And so it's not surprising that they're about people and people's interests And powerful people have their interests heard a little bit better than the ones that don't have that power But And this is where I think c4 and our colleagues here at the science Forums have been very very helpful to us We have tools to get some of those thresholds that aren't just Invented by people but our realities on the ground for sustainability To the decision makers and I think maybe in this panel We can look a little bit further forward on our multi-level governance In terms of some of the innovative ways that law can help us to ensure that science is taken into account Not just in the process but on the substance in Helping to shape decision making so I think that's kind of the last point that I would want us to end on here I don't disagree with anything that was said with the exception that sustainable development is completely mutable But I do think that it can be grounded And the science reaching the decision makers when it has been truly independent Even when it tells us things we don't want to hear is actually an incredibly important lesson for law Makers and judges to learn That was nice to hear Maria Claire. Thank you Now back to the panel Four different persons questions. Would you like to respond ben starting you? Okay, sure. These are actually All four great points and you know, we think about these questions very Thoughtfully and carefully so I can't in a few minutes give them the justice they deserve So I just give a couple of quick points on the illegal logging issue in the coalitions united states It's actually one of the topics we're really doing a lot of work on and I completely appreciate the points that were made So what I'm going to do instead is just give you an idea as to help policy learning Might actually help that kind of coalition building and the example is the first task force meeting That this task force That neils mentioned the first meeting that we held was in singapore and we brought in Five members of local communities from indonesia and we said here's our work that we're doing on illegal logging and so on Doesn't make any sense to you and what they said to us one response was A woman said to us Well, you know, we don't yet know what the effects will be of this instrument Because it hasn't really been implemented yet But we're worried because the local police force wants to be the enforcers of the law And they're actually they she argued they were corrupt and that they would just get side payments and not do anything So she said We would prefer That when you design the instrument when it's designed that you have international third-party auditors Be the assessors for compliance of verification. Okay, so this is curious So now it's actually infringing sovereignty on the enforcement side But actually encouraging sovereignty over the substance side. I was like I had never thought about it this way Turns out that indonesia has now agreed A couple years ago to allowing third-party international observers to be part of this process Which they were not in favor of 10 years ago. Okay, this affects power dramatically. Okay between different groups Okay, we were so excited. We wrote an article on this in a political science journal about this distinction that we got from a local Community forestry person Okay, in other words the learning occurred both ways and to create a collective knowledge Among a community that actually it was reinforced and talked about how very small choices Might be really empowering to different groups that we should think about in these processes But overall, I really appreciate the point um on the technology side Absolutely technology is actually an equally important thing to think about for governance technology and supply chain tracking Will determine whether we get effective governance or not and these communities are rarely taught to each other and we had a Panel a few years ago on gis technology and satellites for tracking with political scientists and the the learning was fantastic I completely agree. That's really important. I haven't got time for more Discussions. I'll leave the third one to you but I did want to raise the environment power struggles sd points already good. I would say that my key problem is that State of development is so broad that there are powerful interests that want to keep it broad because they don't really mean it Okay, so when we break them down into their component parts We see disagreement where we thought we saw agreement and this is the confusing type 2 and type 1 stuff So I would be careful about being so abstract that we're not actually getting teeth on the rule of law side I would say that's often a place where you might get type 3 outcomes for example the United States has a major special legislation and accompanying legislation and other and other pieces that says that federal land managers Must maintain the viability of listed species Okay, regardless of economic impacts. This is a type 3 approach in the law in 1973 It was created never passed now created back then it's sticky legislation And it's the reason why the United States locked up Most of us national forests in the northwest to preserve the northern spotted owl Okay, so there is pretty important things you can think about right But I would add one more point that we shouldn't just take the power dimensions our industry versus environment and communities In fact when it comes to this issue communities were not in favor of biodiversity conservation at all And this goes back to the constitutional point a lot of constitutional scholars Who argue for national constitutional rights? Are arguing for things that might go against community forestry concerns and incentives? So we should be honest that there's a bunch of different power dynamics that are happening not just one or two Thank you one and quite often the the challenge sometimes is Balancing the interest of human rights versus the reality of what conservation requires and the two may at times be very May fail to be you know coherent with each other and This this is when you see if communities taking governments to courts because They are being blocked from doing certain things. I think sometimes we might idealize Or romanticize the the form and and interest of communities and I mean, I think it's a conversation that has to go on Two main things that I would like to respond to one was a good comment made about the role of voluntary guidelines Now I think the voluntary guidelines play a major major role in especially getting industry to be Compliant to you know while retaining the stick of enforcement But that just means that you require a functional rule of law system to do that And if the rule of law Is not working in a system as is happening in a lot of countries Then this just won't work because there's tick that should follow doesn't actually come out clearly And so then that that creates a fundamental deficit of of compliance Now I think that in terms of legal frameworks There is a lot to be said and this is a conversation that people are still researching phd Dissertations on The What's happening in terms of typology of laws? What's happening at the moment is that you you're finding more and more second and third generation constitutional enactments that are in favor of fairly Generous and complex entitlements right to a clean and healthy environment social economic rights to food water Housing and other things But what that Normally assumes is a existence of a functional system where rule of law actually works and by consequence be A clear form of actual in downstream Implementation and then you face three main challenges One is the element of illegality of actions Irregularity of actions which is distinct from illegality in the sense that illegal irregularity will often mean By passing certain critical stages such as where people are required to have public consultations But actually Don't have them Effectively and then you have illegitimacy where laws are actually passed through all the formal processes But actually don't serve the interests of the constitution And we such that these laws would actually Would actually serve in the long run then you have constitutional enactments that are pretty beautiful, but quite useless in the sense that They're not going to serve any any purpose and this is then why the original Discussion we had about the the key Elements you need to have to build functioning Is necessary because what you need to do is to eliminate this The to to close the space For illegality regularity and illegitimacy and I remember a discussion from many years ago I think I must have still been undergrad law school when a gentleman from Cameroon was giving an example of how He was in a village where a lumber an international logging company arrived with all the licenses To begin Logging and they came and found that the land they were coming to take was fully occupied by a community yet They had the licenses from your own day So it isn't that means that it is legal, but it is both irregular and illegitimate Now what kind of recourse do these people get it is fully legal This is really the the challenge and this is some of the things that and so At a at a at an academic conference the last point in in our last year on environmental justice There was a discuss on discussion on this constitutionalization of rights and we I saw a lot of scholars from Developed countries arguing that they'd like their governments to enact constitutional rights to this and that And my view was that you know, I think you're probably pushing the most ineffectual route to achieve Something here because in a lot of cases why we are having constitutionalization of rights Is because of a collapse in the administration system of government where For instance local authorities that had a primary job of availing clean What clean and portable water for people to use didn't do their job So instead of fixing that we put it in the constitution Eventually you realize we have to go and fix those local authorities Because they are the ones who will have the job of delivering on the water What what having it in the constitution does is that it provides the most Sacred protection and recourse to action But still we have to go back and fix the local authorities So I think that's the response that I'd have to you and this if you can trace this across all the various sectors With with that respect. Thank you Thank you Then I think we owe you also to show you and share with you how we report back from this session That has not been an easy task and you can see Caroline Haywood from ITLO has been working very very hard We got two questions and we want to involve you in how Caroline is going to respond back So we can have your comments also before the closer session. So now concentrate. This is what you heard for the last two and a half hour Caroline So our conversation of the last two and a half hours Has to be summarized against these two questions And I have 50 words per question So I fear that anything that I provide it will be inadequate and apologize in advance for simplicity However, I think that there are Perhaps two themes that came out very strongly That we can use to address these questions Regarding the first question on how can landscape approaches contribute to the UNFCCC process I think one of the major themes that came out is that we need to be honest About the type of problem that climate change is and we need to have a debate around this If it is a problem of paramount importance the type three Or is it a type of problem a type two type of problem where we need to find compromises So I think that that's one thing that our discussion can bring to the UNFCCC process. The second Is that landscape approaches might be able to contribute by placing this discussion In institutions that convene global networks of stakeholders From across the board. We had a lot of conversations about who those stakeholders are who are more important Basically, I think we reached a consensus that everyone needs to be there at the table Molding the solutions together through this policy learning architecture On the second point or the second question, sorry How can landscape approaches contribute to the design of sustainable development goals and their achievements? Well, I think here it's important to acknowledge that the stg's attempt to address many problems And perhaps it's important to ask what these what types are these different problems. Let's discuss this and understanding that Any interventions that we undertake To solve these problems are again founded in a global network of stakeholders that Allow a broad conversation across all Sectors as daniella was talking about and all levels as as robert was more talking about with the the vertical integration And let's negotiate compromises um Then again, we need to ensure a coherence Uh to the design of the stg's and I think that Our conversation about these sticky and durable institutions is quite useful here Um that these sticky institutions can establish this policy learning architecture and perhaps allow this coherence and integration So neither of those answers were 50 words. I have an hour to uh condense them into that But uh, I hope that that vaguely summarizes our discussion and I um welcome anyone who would like to come up afterwards to provide some further clarifications if you'd like to And then of us admitted reaction here Caroline that was a masterly or mysteriously however the feminine version of masterly summary is Niels, would it be possible for us to consider adding just that we would consider within those things that you just summarized the role of science and drawing on historical knowledge to inform These these developments would that be acceptable to add it seemed to me it came out of the discussion That's good. Uh, this is the three organizers would combine that so we want input from all of you So so whatever you want of input please. This is the time And also for the keynote speaker and the two Responders so Ben I just say one quickly please point on that because I think um on the on the uh First type of learning about problems. We do need Science as a best that can tell us what to do and what the problems are rather But on the uh learning on instrument choice, I would argue part of the problem is Um that the effects of the instruments we're choosing now have not yet happened So relying only on past behavior for different instruments May not necessarily get us to think carefully and theoretically about interesting innovations and experiments that we haven't yet run And I'm scared that the the focus only on the past in that regard might actually lock off Lock off a lot of creative pathways for future impacts Sorry, could I clarify maybe the mic wasn't on I didn't use the word only I I said could we add into the mix that we would draw on Science and on historical uh knowledge in addition to the things that caroline said sorry Historical now. Yeah. Oh no no no sense of using only science. Absolutely not. Okay. Excellent. Yeah, I'm sorry miss understood Marie Claire some exercises afternoon Again, I really want to congratulate caroline That that was excellent and I think maybe science and the law getting that That interaction so that law is informed by science to get us to those type threes might be kind of the point that That just rounds it out And this is everything from the constitution to fixing those regulations and how we ensure that the corruption doesn't prevent them from working So I think that point is is is very very clear when you say the vertical integration And it's just a question of drawing it out so that it's um, also clear to a reader that that we went through the The whole levels. Thanks Yeah, would you be okay? Marie Claire from idlo Andrew from seafo and a book from you for will sit together with the rapporteur and the three speakers and summarize that In the next hour and if they don't manage to do that, they won't get any dinner. So do you have more input? for them so we get a little more work for them Or any other questions or comments? Yes Yes, please rapid No, I just wanted to sort of reinforce what Marie Claire was saying about science and the law And it it's just because it reminded me of the earlier point on sustainable development And you're actually finding that because of there is a disjoint existing between translation of science outcomes in into law You're finding increasingly a lot of legal enactments talking about sustainable development as an imperative But you know front line workers have absolutely no idea what they're supposed to do to make this sustainable development Actually happen and it's a challenge of for instance translating the whole question of integration into Laws and into regulations and to make sure members of parliament understand what it is you're talking about then maybe It will begin to work But lawyers the skill of lawyers stops at some point and scientists must contribute. Thank you Yes I think this is an absolute crucial point Which should be covered appropriately in in in the reporting back that the landscape approach if it can stimulate That it integrates policies it integrates legal frameworks Of existing good ones, but they take into account On each other if that could be stimulated by the landscape approach it could be real a great I would agree if it was integration integration So it wasn't just law But market mechanisms for example how they interact to provide synergies for example, right Versus a blunt kind of one Anyone from the panel who wants to say more in the end Then I think We have come to a close up because this has been two and a half hour of very stimulating discussions And I think I maybe said something not quoting correct From the science article I mentioned which came two days ago The loss of the forest in the tropics has in the last 12 years on the average been increasing by 2100 square kilometers per year So this means that what we're working with here is really important. So I would say again Thank you very much for coming. Thank you for our speakers Thank you to our rapporteur and thank you to all of you for creating this stimulating discussion with lots of feedback. Thank you very much