 Good morning, everyone. Good afternoon. My name is Yulia Panfill. I'm the director of the Future of Land and Housing Program at New America. And we're so thrilled to have you with us today. We know that approximately 1 billion people globally have insecure rights to their land and homes. But we also know that despite the proven benefits of land and housing documentation, governments across much of the world have failed to provide this service. Over the last decade, non-governmental actors, in particular private social enterprises and nonprofits, have emerged to alleviate this bottleneck and deliver land registration services efficiently. But scaling these services and making them affordable to low-income customers is not easy. Today, we are pleased to partner with SUYO, a social enterprise that provides tech-enabled land-right services to low-income households in Colombia, as well as several other land registration pioneers from across the world, whom I will introduce in a moment, for an online event to discuss the following two questions. First, how can organizations remove the barriers to scaling fee-based, demand-driven property registration? And second, how can they build innovative financing models that can make this service accessible for low-income customers? We'll start with a brief presentation from Matt Alexander, co-founder of SUYO, who will introduce a first-of-its-kind study that SUYO has just released with Measurement Matters, looking back at five years of SUYO's experimentation with the two questions I just mentioned. I encourage everyone to take a look at this report, which is available on our website. After Matt's presentation, we will jump into a moderated panel discussion with several other land rights organizations around the world, and then we will open it up to audience Q&A. Over to you, Matt. Thank you, Yulia, and thank you, New America, for putting this event on. Getting this group together is something we've wanted to do for a very long time. We deeply admire the work of all the organizations here. And there's so much collective wisdom in this virtual room that I, for one, want to get to the panel discussion as soon as possible. But to help frame the conversation, we thought it would be useful to share a bit more information on the precursor to this event, which was an in-depth learning study on five years of SUYO operations carried out by the Columbia Research firm, Measurement Matters. Before I get to a few of those general conclusions from the study, I wanted to share a bit more about who we are and why we built SUYO. So SUYO is a social enterprise that unlocks the value of low-income families' homes with property formalization, technology, and services. And one of our primary business lines from the beginning when we founded SUYO in 2014 in Columbia has been a fee-per-service offer to low-income families. Next slide, please. We started SUYO initially because our founding team had worked with victims of armed conflict in Columbia and witnessed firsthand the link between informal property and the armed conflict. But as we learned about property informality more generally, we were also frustrated, as many of the people here today are, with the magnitude of this unsolved problem. Over 50% of homes in Latin America have some degree of informality, and we know of regions and municipalities where that statistic is well over 90%. These percentages hold across the majority of the world. So this is really an all-hands-on-deck problem to tackle. In addition to the sheer magnitude of the problem, we were intrigued by the nuances of informality. It's a problem that has a lot of variability and data sources, and we thought it was a sector that was right for a technology-driven social enterprise approach. We went on to find, in our early market research, that low-income families were not only willing to pay for formalization, but they had been paying to attempt to formalize property for decades through informal middlemen and independent lawyers and other professionals, which is part of what led us to a fee-per-service model. Next slide, please. Now, we knew that a variety of property formalization services would be needed, but we soon learned that that full map of services related to formalization was far bigger than we had anticipated. This slide just gives you a glimpse of what our service portfolio looks like today. We currently offer nine different legal and structural formalization services with 98 different variations. So, standardizing these processes in a user-friendly way for low-income customers was clearly one of our first big challenges. Next slide, please. Second, local government and national government are a partner for us, and they're also a provider, as we cannot deliver property formalization services without them being able to process the claims that we make on the back end of the service. The major challenge we faced is understanding the bureaucracy behind those services, and at least partially automating the navigation of all of these formats, data sources, and different processes that the government is carrying out. Our end goal has been to convert this very complex bureaucracy into an easy-to-understand diagnostic where we can tell the low-income customer what's the situation with their property, what do they need to finalize, and what are the potential financing sources that can help them pay for that service. And also then, once low-income families are interested in the service, being able to process formalization services in an end-to-end manner. Next slide, please. We've experienced over the past six years delivering these services in a diverse range of geographies, 11 different provinces in Columbia, the Capital District, and 81 municipalities, and each of those regions have their own specific contexts and cultural norms. Next slide, please. The focus has been primarily on low-income families and families living in poverty, so over 97% of our customers have been low-income, and 55% come from the lowest socioeconomic stratum in Columbia. So we began to paint the picture of the monumental challenge of scaling demand-driven property formalization services, entails standardizing a range of legal and structural services, navigating the complex bureaucracies of our government partners and providers, but it also requires selling the service to a low-income segment that has limited information on these complexities. So needless to say, things did not work out exactly as we had envisioned. We experienced numerous iterations to our business model, and despite very significant growth in recent years, we were never able to scale a model that was exclusively focused on a fee-for-service offer to low-income customers. However, the lessons we learned have the potential to advance our collective knowledge in the space and the innovations required, and that's what's led us to this learning study. Next slide, please. We don't have time here to go into a lot of the details of the study. I encourage all of you to take a look at it. As Yulia noted, it's on the New America site. It's 39 pages of qualitative and quantitative analysis by Measurement Matters, looking at four areas of our experience, sales and service execution, customer willingness to pay, government relations, and impact. And for now, I would wanted to share three general takeaways from that study that hopefully serve as a takeoff point for our panel discussion today. The first takeaway that we found was the frequency and type of communication are critical for acquiring and retaining customers. There are two reasons behind this. You can imagine if we are still here today debating and analyzing formalization, the formalization process itself, and potential benefits of different formalization services, families naturally have some confusion over what services they need to solve this problem and the specific benefits that will follow. And second communication is especially critical with this segment of the population because the study found that customers were really wary of new providers, because their money and our information had been stolen in the past by informal providers. So one of the key challenges of this work is overcoming a trust barrier and clarifying the process and benefits of formalization through communication strategies with customers. And at Suyo, we still haven't fully succeeded at this to be transparent and a lot of this comes out in the study. We did major reworks of property diagnostic formats and the language in those diagnostics at least seven different times over the course of our development, and we were constantly making minor adjustments throughout our history. We knew that it was going to be hard for customers to understand what services were needed and what benefits came from those services. So we spent a lot of time almost on a daily basis on trying to tweak the language in a way that was easy to understand. But despite those ongoing adjustments, the study found that 34% of our past customer surveyed said that our diagnostic did not improve their understanding of the service. And in the study, it was also clear that the relationship between knowledge of benefits, desire to formalize and additional actions taken to formalize was significant on average for, for each extra benefit known, a customer with 7.4% more likely to make additional efforts to formalize their property. And those that had a positive change and desire to formalize their property were 20% more likely to make additional efforts to formalize. The second general finding is that impact varies with the services offered in degree of formalization, making communication of the benefits the first point, a more formidable challenge. So not only do we have this wide range of complex services to deliver formalization, but the benefits for each of those services are slightly different, and can vary under different contexts. So the study looked at percentage of customers experiencing positive change across 14 hypothesized outcomes. And for example, when we took one group of our formalization services, we found that reduction in family conflict was the strongest impact. But when we took another specific service that had a different degree of formalization in the outcome, we found that improvement in home conditions and increased property values were the most significant impacts. So with such a broad range of property formalization service and context, there's still work to be done to pinpoint the benefits of each service and subservice under different contexts, and then be able to clearly communicate those specific benefits to customers. The third general takeaway was that the relationship among service price willingness to pay and capacity to pay indicates that we still have a lot of work to do to establish more flexible financing mechanisms and partial subsidies. The willingness to pay is stronger than many would assume for this low income segment. In our case 50% of customers were willing to pay up to $525 approximately. And 84% were willing to pay up to $260 US dollars according to the willingness to pay surveys and study. Although there's a lot of variability of the prices with such a large portfolio formalization services, this willingness to pay aligns pretty well with a good portion of the service prices. However, the study found that the average capacity to pay what was financially feasible for people to pay was only $70. And this aligns with what we found in the field. We knew that beyond the trust barrier and communication barrier that one of the significant barriers from scale that we faced over and over again was the ability to finance these services for people who wanted them. And we partnered with organizations such as a media network and Mercy Corps, and a local partner credit or Bay, and these partners structured a highly innovative and really bold financing facility alone facility to help customers pay for formalization services. But even with those adjustments. We still found that a lot of these low income customers needed at least a partial subsidy for us to really scale the service up. So the main conclusion here is that we need more aggressive innovation on the financing side. That loan facility which is outlined in detail in brief number two from New America and the briefers series was was a big first step. And the partners there took a lot of risk to try and understand better how we can finance these services for low income families. The eventual solution most likely entails some form of more efficient blending of government resources private sector contributions, loans and payments out of pockets from families. And we're excited to hear from the participants today on their experimentation and what they've learned so we can continue to advance knowledge in this field. With that, I will pass it back to Julia. Thank you again for your time. And if you're curious to learn more about the study as well as the briefers series that Matt mentioned on your webinar home screen, you should see a button that will allow you to click through to a three part briefers series that New America released called innovations in financing demand driven property registration. Those briefs introduce this issue. The second brief focuses specifically on financing models and the third explores these concepts of willingness to pay and capacity to pay that Matt mentioned, and that same homepage will also link to the studio report so that you can read it in depth. That we will turn to the panel portion of our discussion. And as Matt mentioned, there are several pioneering organizations around the world that are experimenting with different ways to deliver property registration and formalization and mediation services and how to fund those services. So we're really pleased to be joined in addition to studio by four other organizations today. This slide briefly outlines the four organizations basic service offerings but of course we'll hear from the leaders themselves. So, I'll introduce the panelists. First we have Mustafa Issa, who is the executive director of the LTA NGO working in Tanzania. We're also joined by Anthony Piasco be senior director of cadastra. Natali Buidrago, chief program officer for studio. Joseph O'Kerry, the managing director for meridia in Ghana. And finally, Leonardo Genotti, board member of Terra Nova in Brazil. So with that, I will open it up to the panelists and we would love for each of you to please just take a minute or two to provide a brief overview of the service your organization provides, who your client is, and in particular, the payment model that your organization is using. And we can go in that order. Mustafa, Anthony, Natali, Joe, and Leonardo. Thank you, Julia. My name is Mustafa. I think you can hear me. First, I'm the CEO, the chief executive officer of the Tanzania-Lentenia assistant. This is the local NGO registered in Tanzania. And this is the NGO with an offshoot of the future USA-Lentenia activity which was implemented for six years in Tanzania from 2015. The project, of course, concluded last year, 2021. And the principle, of course, for the establishment of the local NGO was to ensure the continuity and the sustainability of the USA invested, of course, in terms of the Lentenia in Tanzania. And the key objective, of course, was to make sure that we use Lentenia's insecurity for customary village land and also to lay the groundwork for sustainable agriculture investment for both the farmers and also commercial investors. And as LTA NGO, our service, of course, is to provide service on village land registration, public outreach awareness, and campaign on land rights, building the capacity of the local government, private sector, and also academia on Lentenia activities. We also do laser awareness on MAST technology. We are also advocating on mobile application to secure MAST, which was introduced back in 2015 by USA. We're also doing the localizing urban land. We're also doing the village land use planning and climate change. Our client are the government of Tanzania, donors and other implementing partners, of course, who are doing land registration activities in Tanzania. And the model, of course, now we are implementing the beneficial contribution. Of course, this is the model which involved the villagers to contribute for their land registration activities. The model was introduced in the phase two of the extension of the USA funded project. And of course, it is aimed for the sustainability. Of course, when USA conclude their activities for their support, you know, the villagers are they willing to contribute to fund for their land registration. So we introduced the model in 70 villages, but we start with the government of Tanzania through the Ministry of Land to get their acceptance and approval. You know, if we can do land registration by the villagers, of course, to contribute, you know, the village that they've been receiving, you know, this kind of service for free, you know, we definitely, of course, implemented for almost four years. USA, of course, almost six years. So, you know, the first, of course, we need to get acceptance and negotiation, of course, on what should be charged, you know, to the village. So we came with the idea by introducing the fee for land registration. And this, of course, we categorized depend on the size of land. And what we, what we decided for the land from zero to 10 acre, we charge the Tanzania share in 30,000 which is equivalent to $23 for this for the land between 10 to 50 acres, we are charging each $26 which is equivalent to 60,000 Tanzania shareings and also for the land, of course, above 50 acres, we are charging 120,000 Tanzania shareings. We introduced the model in 70 villages across different regions, including Niringa, Nbea, of course, and Jombe, and the out of the 70 villages, of course, you know, we are just starting. So, we have made it successfully implement in 24 villages. And the program, of course, is on progress. Now we are introducing model in other regions also. So, we have made it to contribute around, I think, over 200,000 USD from the villages to, and this, of course, it's only covering the direct cost of the implementation. This including the modification of the village boundaries, land use planning, process awareness campaign to the villages, demarcation and adjudication using mobile application, must procurement of stationaries, payment of the district officials and also the program officials when they are conducting field activities, procurement of the stationery required for preparing the certificates, the CCROs. So, those are the specifically cost associated for the implementation. So, and of course it was accepted, the villages are contributing, the demand is high, and now, of course, we are trying to expand ourselves beyond, you know, what we have started moving forward. Thank you, Ms. Dafa. Thank you so much, Ms. Dafa. And we'll move on to Anthony. And if we can just keep this first response to a minute or two, we have so many questions already coming in from the audience, so I'm eager to get to those. Go ahead, Anthony. Good morning, and thank you, Yulia. Thank you also to New America and to Suyo. My name's Tony Piascovi or Anthony, and I work at Cadasta Foundation, where I'm the senior director of operations and program impact. And Cadasta is an international NGO. We provide web based GIS mapping and land information management tools with mobile data collection capabilities. Our primary clients are community-based NGOs and international NGOs, as well as governments. I should add both national and sub-level, sub-national governments. We work in 42 countries currently and have helped increase ten-year security for more than 5 million people living on almost 20 million hectares. More than 250,000 type of document or formalization has been issued to those households and to those households. And last year we moved to a fee-for-service model that asks partners to pay for a bundle of services that meet their needs, and we have three basic plan levels with customization options. I'll leave it at that for now and turn it over back to Yulia. Thanks, Tony. Over to you, Natalie. I know Matt already gave a presentation on Suyo's work, but if you could just briefly recap those three questions, the service, the client, and the payment model, that would be great. Thanks, Natalie. I'm the chief program officer. Basically, I'm going to summarize what Matt said. We're a public benefit company that provides property formalization services to low income families. First, we do a property diagnostic where we define what's the formalization service that must be undertaken, and then we carry out that formalization process. For the payment model, we use blended mechanisms, so we use customers on existing resources, but as Matt also told, we use subsidy or financing from private companies that we have as partners, or mixed financing options. Fantastic. Thank you, Natalie. Joe, over to you. Thank you very much, Yulia. Good afternoon, new Americans. I'm actually the MD for Meridia Ghana. Meridia is a land rights documentation company. We've been operating in Ghana for almost seven years. Our services are very interesting and sensitive, just as other services we get into land. Meridia provides survey services, as well as collecting legal data that prepares documental checks, our clients interest. So we provide both land tenure services, as well as the tenure or registration of three services in Ghana, not just for farmers alone, but for residential owners. But our main client has been farmers, and our focus has been on cocoa farmers. Cocoa farmers, because we realize that these farmers have entered into various forms of contractual agreements with their landlords, which initially was working well with over time, is becoming challenging for these families to rehabilitate their farms. In Ghana, there's an arrangement called ABU, which is shared cropping arrangement, where an individual can enter into an arrangement with a landlord, and cultivate the land when the crops mature and the farm is shared into two. In fact, I said there's farm, not the land. Some people claim that it's a land they share, but technically it is the farm. So what it means is that once the farm is, or the trees is the land, the land must be very much the original owner. So some of these farmers are not prepared to cut the trees, even when they are more bound, they are diseased, and they are not fruiting, because one of the trees is the land, the land is very much the original owner. So Meribias' service is to define innovative ways, not just protecting the rights of the landowners and their landholders, how these farmers can also enter into proper leases arrangements with these landlords for a specific period of time so that they can stay on the land for that period of time to benefit their farmers, and for the landlords to also benefit equally. Our payment we are for social impact, but for profit company. From the one we work for, profit, but our model has been structuring the payments around economy of scale, where the numbers determine the price we charge our clients, but we believe that if you move to a community and you attend to five people, you can charge another community that you attend to over 20 people. And then these clients of farmers have interesting dynamics, which share similarities with the survey that was shared by Sioux, so we will touch on that later on. And then we deal a lot with what we call traditional authorities, because in Ghana, lands are being held, it comes to management, it only transfers the government when one decides to title it. So our main services is leveraging technology and making sure our farmers receive lowest possible land tenure documentation service as much as possible. And at the same time, encouraging corporate institutions, the LBCs or companies that benefit from cocoa and these crops we deal with, contribute or subsidize for the benefit of themselves and their families as well. I think that would be it for now, if we had a question. Thank you, Joe. And finally, turning it over to Leonardo. Thank you, Julia. Thank you everyone for your invitation. It's a great pleasure to be with you, listening to your experiences and so inspirational. So we are in turnover, we mediate conflict between the landowners that own the land and the people that occupy the land they want. Basically, our challenge is to bring the government also to the agreement and building this agreement. Our financial model is to take a mistake on the statements that we preview in the agreement. So it's a kind of fee, but it's based on the payment that is done. Our challenge is that our clients, our direct clients, the occupants, they leave below the public line. So they don't have any credit score or they are unbanked orized or living in bad conditions. Our challenge is to bring the real estate framework, financial framework, in order to build installment that respect their payment capacity. What we have done with the financial market, we sell the ventures in the financial market in order to allow a credit for all because we cannot exclude anyone from the credit and we cannot evaluate the credit individually. So we have to believe in their capacity to pay, but at the same time, we know now we have 20 years of time and we have more than 36 projects, more than 30,000 families in our projects. We have a delinquency rate less than 1%. So we are now have our own credit score. So our challenge is to, how can we bring more money from the financial market in order to pay like things like infrastructure in the short term, respecting their payment capacity in the long term. So that's our challenge and it's nice to be with you and answer the other questions. Fantastic. Thank you so much. So Joe, we'll start with you. Based on Maria's experience over the last seven years. Do you see any discernible trends or insights on who is willing to pay and who isn't willing to pay for land documentation. We have actually been interacting with very interesting and dynamic clients, the cocoa farmers, especially we have observed that most of these farmers have picked up a soft culture and a culture of receiving things for free. To some extent, the cocoa tree has become a political tree in Ghana. Government comes up with a lot of promises to these cocoa farmers, giving them free fertilizers, putting the farms for them free. So what I'm trying to say is that an attempt to provide some of these things to farmers for free. It has really gotten into their heads. And most of them think that everything coming to them should be free. And not only that, I'm just setting the base to answer your question. Not only that, most of the farmers who also are natives and hear from where they are and they got their lands to customer tenure arrangement, we think that is where they come from. If there is no commercial value being demanded from them concerning their lands as they are going for loans, or they need to present the document for any business activity. They usually do not see the need to pay for these services as compared to the migrant farmers who have moved from one area to the other and feel that the one they move so they need to protect their interests and be a legacy of the property behind for their children. What we have done is to do extensive sensitization and education on the need and the importance of why these farmers need to document their rights. And one of it is what I mentioned earlier on, the abundant arrangement does not favor most of these farmers. So if you leave the land hoping, if you leave the arrangement hoping, and there's bushfire, and there is disease like a virus when it attacks a cocoa, it cannot easily be treated, then you have no option than to work away from the farm, whether you have stayed there a year or two. So when these education are done extensively for the farmers to understand, they see the value. And those who have gotten some level of appreciable yield and are able to pay, are always willing to contribute towards that. Again, we are now looking into tying the payment into other incentives that check us in from the companies. We have a lot of companies in the chocolate industry that want to give back to these farmers. So they always come up with subsidies, but we don't want their subsidies to contribute to what I first mentioned coming from the government. So how can we put this in a purpose perspective so that it does not add on to what we're trying to cure underground. So it comes in in the form of if you plant more trees and you are able to keep these trees to mature to a certain level, then you receive more from these subsidies. And again, it is also tied to the number of beans which most of the cocoa companies call bonuses they give to these farmers. It comes in also as bonus to these farmers who have contributed, sold a lot of beans to a particular company. So we are trying to touch on various strategies and various education, I mean, intensify sensitization and education, especially concern on the cocoa farmers. And again, concerning the traditional authorities, the cheese, who are supposed to sign up these documents, they have to sign at the fee. And if they are ready to do their fees, it becomes difficult to present a reasonable price to these farmers. So we also present the data we collect in a well-organized fashion, which is more beneficial to these cheese as an incentive and as an urban benefit. So they are willing to also reduce their fees to help present a reasonable price to these farmers. But there are other sensitivities which I'm sure if I have a chance to come in again, I will touch on. Thanks so much Joe. And because I know that this is a challenge that each of your organizations is dealing with, I just want to open it up for a very quick rapid fire round, you know, 20, 30 seconds or less for anybody who wants to jump in with strategies that you're using to convince hesitant customers to become willing to purchase land registration or other land tenure services. So for anybody who wants to jump in. I could add here is nice to hear Joseph because here in Brazil, basically see 20% once we respect their payment to the capacity, 25% are willing to pay for goodwill for asset valorization for positive things. Another 25% are not willing to pay in any scenario. They are resistant. They are against anything. They are asking to the government. They are asking for subsidies. And people in the middle are listening who speak louder. You know, that's something that we can, we need to bring to some culture education campaign information, clarify all the points in order to bring the community to the project to buy the project, you know, to to enforce the benefits. I think, unfortunately, it's hardest for the most vulnerable communities, we aren't reaching those that are most vulnerable in these kinds of fee for service models, you know, I think what has been experienced by Cadastra in this last year is that we found that previous partners who are more familiar with the technology and have been exposed to the benefits are more likely to pay for them in the future. Partners that are resourced by donors or have other funding are more likely communities or organizations that are tied to communities that have really strong social cohesion and experience with micro financing schemes beforehand are more likely to pick this up and then I think the last point that I would make, and we're seeing particularly in our work in India is when there's a strong and well understood legal framework about formalization for example about forest dwelling rights. There is a willingness to pay in those scenarios because communities understand the framework that exists, it's well understood it's well established, and they know the end goal it's very easy for them to see and so I think those are just a handful of scenarios in which we found that there's a really strong interest and the converse of all of those is that when those are not present, it's much harder to convince groups to pay. So we would ask for that showing evidence of successful processes is vital for making people to be willing to pay so if they see family or community members close to them who has already had a process it makes them be much more willing to pay for the service. Fantastic. Thank you everyone so Mustafa I want to turn to you. Joe mentioned something that I know that LTA ran into in Tanzania, which is that when customers are or beneficiaries are accustomed to receiving the service for free. It's difficult to then ask them to pay for it. If they see that for example their neighbor had previously gotten land registration services for free. So in your work. How do you counteract this or deal with this issue. Challenging of course when we when we introduce the model you remember of course we like transition also from free service delivery to beneficial contribution so at the beginning it was difficult and to be frank, we tested the model into different districts. So, you know, in the district that we have implemented the service for free. You know, we struggled a little bit of course to get acceptance from, from the beneficiaries to contribute for the CCR hours. But in the district that we went we just introduced the model for the first time and they never received this kind of the services for free. You know, the take up was higher and they are contributing and there is high demand, you know, for the villagers for the beneficiaries to contribute against their land certification so you can see so we invested a lot, you know, in terms of public awareness campaign radio programs of course to convince people of course now they can you know they can pay for their services but it was really difficult at the beginning to be frank. Thanks so much, Mustafa. So I'll turn to Natalie and Leo, both Suyo and Terranova have been experimenting with, you know, really interesting financing models that try to solve this capacity to pay issue that Matt had described. Could each of you tell us a little bit from your work where the low income households in Colombia and Brazil, respectively, that may not be able to pay for the entire service upfront. How have your organizations tried to solve this capacity to pay issue in your in your payment model. Yes, well, as Matt told we moved from a B2C model to a B2B2C model where we have corporate partners that helps financing those services. So we have a way they can loan to their employees or give even sometimes subsidies to the employees so that they can help their employees to pay the services, but it's something really important to to to say is that in our communication strategy, we emphasize that land registration is just the last step after a family has built their own home or has bought their land. So what this shows is that the family over the time has been able to save or to invest in their homes. So they just need that help or that push from their employees in this case by the B2B2C model where they help them financing or subsidizing one part of the of the service. This is a really big challenge for us. I remember when we receive students and a professor from Harvard to meet our case to the MBA, they asked me how it's possible, because your client is not the best client terms of credit, they don't have money in the short term, you have a lot of compromises in the short term. So what we invented here locally is to copy and paste the real estate framework to their regularization process, especially in terms of bonds, social bonds. We sell the banners. So what do I have to convince the investors. And firstly, I ask you to media, for example, because of venture philanthropy, in order to buy the first bonds to prove to the market because my clients the best client the real estate in Brazil has like 5% of the literacy rate, my client has 1% because it's the only asset they have. So they own, they own, they are very committed to the payment. So once I had I can prove that with my my first investors, I can go to the local market and sell like market bonds. With this money I can make the compromise in the short term, even protecting the payment capacity because I can use like 20 years long bond, you know, and bring the money to the short term to think like infrastructure for sometimes they land your owner doesn't want to receive in the long term in the agreement so I can pay in front and receive in the long term, we create a lot of mechanisms to be very creative but the most important thing. When I didn't respect the payment capacity, the delinquency rate grill. So it's not a sustainable movement the long term. So I have in the first moment I have to protect the payment capacity. I use the local government programs here that says that we can just commit 30% of their income, based on our minimal salary. So I use this movement with a lot of social assessment and build a number. So our statement installment should not be higher than like 300 highs, for example, with this number I do some economic model to the long term, and I go to the investor and say, I have a project with this financial framework, do you pay for that. Can you buy this bond is a kind of in the first time it was like love money. I was talking like Mustafa is talking to his donors, but in the second mission, I have more I have more approves and the third mission nowadays I have a market adjusted bone. I can even fund raise a higher amount of money so the challenge is how to talk to the real estate market framework and using to my client because my client is not a normal client to the real estate so nowadays. Brazilian fintechs, for example, new bank and other fintechs, they're bringing banking service to these clients. So it's getting easier to convince them to commit in the long term with the stallments. Thank you both. Tony turning to you. cadastres platform is a little bit different because it's marketed more so towards nonprofits and organizations, as opposed to individual households. How does this customer profile inform cadastres exploration of fee for service business models. I think, interestingly, we experienced some of the same things that Matt outlined in his presentation. Interestingly enough, I mean, I think the first thing is that with a varied set of customers even differences between governments. And for NGOs or community based NGOs, the, the payment structures and options need to be different and provide things that meet those specific customer needs. And so, for community based organizations that might mean sliding scale for very small grassroots organizations. The second thing would be, you know, learn as you go and change and adapt. We have had to adjust, you know, certain of the customization customized fees up or down based on the experience of working with new groups. And so some things become cheaper for us to do the more times we do it some things we realize are more expensive and those adjustments get made. I think the point that that Matt made and that others have made on this panel is, you know, the ability to, to have some amount of subsidization, depending on on the partner need is critical for us, even as we try to move more and more away from that I think it's an incremental process. And maybe you don't ever get rid of that but you try to shrink it as much as possible. Thank you so much Tony, and I'm seeing the audience Q&A flow in so I'm just going to ask our panel. One last kind of rapid fire question and then we'll move to audience questions. And the last question that I would love for all of you to answer briefly is from your experience, what is the most important thing that needs to happen in order for this demand driven fee based land documentation model to scale and remain sustainable. I can start for, for me, I think if you get a approval and acceptance from the government counterpart, you know, from for instance from us, you know, we've got full support from the Minnesota plants, you know, full support from the district authorities at the video levels what authorities you know, you can see the D and we have established the MOU and now the government of, you know, Tanzania, they've requested as of course, you know, to give them some documentation to replicate the model and they've started to replicate the model. So you can see when the process is full engaged from all levels, the acceptance and the limitation, you know, you come smoothly and thank you. From our side, we will say that the most important thing is, it would be like open data. So your face is a lot of cost in terms of time also money related to data data is not directly accessible. And it costs. So that's one issue that we think that would make services more and more scalable. And also, we would say that it would be to promote registration services culture and benefits, as Matt told told you the willing to pay. This is depending on how much people know about the benefits of formalization their property. There are other things that I would say that the one that has more impact, it would be having access in our case, having having access to open data for our formalization services. It's the same for us Natalie is nice to to see you mentioned that because like impact to mention measurement is a great to hear because when you show the positive externalities from the formalization from the regularization, inspire more communities to jump in in a new project so we have to spread the news you know, and for for us, it's a great challenge because the government is still Brazil offers things for free. So we are every day fighting this, this, this, this, this, this speech, you know, so my, my, my dream here is to build to build an infrastructure to build a framework that the community scan do the visualization by the themselves. I would agree with that and I would also just add that I think that demonstrating impact is relevant, not just for projects where formalization is the end goal but when there's an incremental or a less formal approach as well. And to add to work. Maria. Next, the biggest challenge is to get subsidies, well structured subsidies as I mentioned earlier, we don't believe you don't believe in giving services to these farmers for free, but we have to strategically and gradually move them out contributing to the challenge on the ground. And again, the service is such that it is so expensive, we have to attend to a few people. So a subsidies comes in as an in handy. So you can attend to a lot of people, a lot of farmers, all in the same community if you moved one farm to map, then you come back to be used to go back and map. Of course, the mobilization costs will go to the individuals, but if you have a number of them at the time, who could certainly cannot sign on it can cheaper and easier to work. So, we have, we are so accessible we are preaching a case. We really want the farmers to pay the full, but at the same time, we have to build them up and bring them along the line over time. Thank you. Thanks Joe, and there are several audience questions that sort of dig in a little bit deeper on this question of sustainability and scaling that I'll get to in a second. But I'd like to direct the first audience question to two questions actually to Matt and Natalie, going off of Matt's presentation. Two questions are, first, do you have any takeaways regarding the retaining of formalization so by I'm interpreting that to mean, sort of once the first registration is completed, how willing our clients to maintain that, for example of transactions occur. And then the second one relates to government fees fees in Colombia and whether there has been any discussion for example of the government reducing its fees since those account for a good portion of the feed and charge to the consumer. I'll take the first one and then Natalie can take the second. And we've only seen once we have a customer that there is an interest in maintaining that formalization and it was part of our vision, starting out was that if we can overcome that trust barrier, and a customer can go through one of those with us and improve their tenure security that they will then know that they have a trusted provider and their money or data won't be stolen, and they'll know that it's, you know, within reach with the different financing mechanisms, and they'll continue to utilize over time. We've seen repeat customers. As everyone knows the properties constantly changing and, and this was, I think one of our concerns seeing experiences from the past when a lot of resources are spent on titling a community. You go back to that community years later and it's all informal again, because the incentives and the providers and the structures weren't set up for people to maintain formality over time. So we have some anecdotal evidence that that does occur, but we face the same challenges that we're talking about here. Right. I think when we have at least one customer that's done some aspect of formalization with a trustworthy provider like Suyo, or a partnership with government or NGOs or others. That's going to at least help you get over that initial trust barrier, but there's still the financing barrier. And so a lot of these innovations that we're looking at financing also apply to those repeat customers that may have initially titled the land. Now they want to register the building or they want to subdivide or they want to sell a portion of the building, and they're going to need for that service to be accessible to be able to maintain formalization and, and most importantly enjoy all the benefits come that come with a more complete formalization profile for that for that property. You mentioned government fees. As we see in the study and we've seen over and over again. It's a big part of our costs. We on three of the five general categories for property formalization services, 45% or more of our costs are related to government fees. But there are a lot of efforts that are taking place. There's different levels of information on those efforts and, and we also see some entities local government maybe not being totally aware of some of those discounts that exist. But I think not really would probably have more up to date information on the latest efforts to reduce those fees in Colombia. Yeah, I would say that the efforts are more focused on government formalization process. I mean, when the government is the one that offers massive land title process, you, you don't have those fees but for on demand. And it's a different, it's like we still don't have a public policy that is focused on on demand formalization or, or very registration land policies, we don't have that so most of the fees or where you don't have fees. So we focus on those massive land title process that governments have. So that's, that's a really, that's a big issue here here in Colombia but it's because the public policy is destiny to have this massive government processes instead of on demand driven formalization. And speaking of government. I'm hoping that each of the panelists could answer this question briefly. Can you speak to the challenges of aligning your services with government systems, which may, for example, see you as a competitor, or there may be, you know, questions of legitimacy. But differently, how do you make sure to work with government, or do you. It's a constant, it's a constant challenge here, because sometimes we're having a federal level for example in Brazil, we have a left side government that empowers the community, and then suddenly they change for a right, a right left, a right ring government that doesn't believe in local negotiations, but also believe in private companies trying to solve a problem so here we are always trying to build a good relationship with local government federal government, in order to firstly, to have a high level compliance in terms of urbanism architecture and how the local loss, and second to bring out the contribution we can, we can have from the government because they are the most important player in regularization, especially here in Brazil. So it's a very close relationship, but with a lot of conflicts in the journey, but we have to solve those small, it's a small conflict like we have a local entity that sees us as a competitor so have to talk with them, try to collaborate and at the same time try to try to build legal frameworks in the federal level that allows our work locally so it's a, it's a, we have a special person in the company just focus on that. I think in our work with governments we have, we've had to make sure that we are providing something whether it be technology, or some new type of benefit that the government currently is unable to do for whatever reason. And I think in one of those cases and I'm seeing a lot of donors move towards this and we are working on a project in Haiti that really combines or recognizes that the set of land information is really the building block, or the first step in actually a government having the information set that they need to roll out resource mobilization and so you're seeing projects that tie, you know, increasing 10 year security and formalization to resource mobilization. And that I think unlocks some capabilities of the governments to do more to, you know, in essence funds part of the, you know, formalize the land formalization processes are for steps, but then also unlock other services, and when you can present solutions that that provide those type of benefits. Then I think it becomes more and more attractive. From our perspective, we think that we're moving from a relationship where the government and so your other companies is like contractor service provider we're moving to a more of a public private relationships. So we have an example here that it's a land for prosperity, which is a program that that tries to do that to see the government and private companies working more together, rather than having a hierarchical relationship. And we have other other things going on such as that now in Columbia you have the disaster as a public service that can be provided by private private companies, which opens the length of of working off of companies like like studio. And the other relationship that we have in the other hand, it has to do with the government as a provider of information, and this is really really important that we need to work in how the government can like be the center to to give all the information for on demand driven formalization to be to be done. Great. Thanks just checking whether Mustafa or Joe want to build this question if not I'll move on to the next one. So, I have to go because my internet was worth the video. Services actually complement the services of the government in Ghana only the lands commission had a magnet to issue title. And we are actually providing the communications that will really the farmers to some extent for the piloting process. And the farmers desire to go from Thailand at all. So there's no, they're only complimenting the effort and trying to also share the data we call it with one of the government agencies call office of the administrator of two lands that is responsible for collecting that is taxes on farmers who are on certain type of lands. So the data you collect comes in handy for them to be able to determine the sizes these farmers occupy and he that's you, the officers on the ground. And the government estimates what, what, what, what, what, what the farmers occupy and then negotiate with them as what to pay. So we're trying to also present form of sanity and clarity in that in that sector. And the government has really been supportive in terms of provision of our services. Even though we have some technical challenges with regards to the Soviet requirements, which, which still has a lot of complication that has to be looked at and clarified and simplified. Thank you. I hope you can hear me I think I'm a lot. You can hear you. Okay, thank you, my internet of course. And so, of course, in Tanzania, the same, you know, we are providing the services that the government are providing, you know, all level from the national level to the district level. The only issue from our side is the cost of course we are transparent. We provide of course how much we can, you know, for instance, maybe land registration can cost. And also they're doing the same with a different budget. So sometimes there is the issue of, you know, the budget issues the government ask why are you doing this cheaply, you know, why do you have a budget in this way so those are the issues that of course we are challenging as doing the implementation but the advantage is of course we will make sure that we level we, we have recently must technology which we introduce of course it is in line with the government registration and procedures so you know we are we are on the same page that's why they accepted these, you know, to be transparent on how much it costs, you know, to do registration of course so that's the issue. Thanks so much, Mustafa. So, our final question, again, to the group, we have four minutes left so again a rapid fire question. Many of you have noted that you're working, you know, your customer isn't normally the smallholder farmer or the individual landholder you're working with flower companies or cocoa companies or in the case with NGOs and so on. So the question is, in order to scale, who will be your payer at scale. And what percentage of your total business, do you feel would need to be subsidized by this player in order for it to be successful. I mean I'll go first I think for Kadas it's a combination of donor funded NGO work. So, you know, funding not directly from from donors but working with NGOs who are being funded by donors, and then also, you know, communities and organizations that have mobilized in a way to, to, you know, raise funds locally or to tap into those donor funds and I think that probably, you know, I indicated or I mentioned earlier, we want to try to get that as large as possible I don't think it's it. Yes, it would be 100%, but I think, you know, it won't always be that and so there's going to be a sliver that needs to be, you know, some kind of unrestricted foundation, or you know private donor that that's funding that that small, hopefully small, small other piece. From, from, from my side, typically, of course, what we are collecting from the vineyards is for the dilate cost, you know, it covers only the cost for the field operations, you know, so, you know, for, we are struggling of course to get the fund for the operation cost. But, you know, what we are collecting from the, from the vineyards can have a percent believer what the vineyards need of course they can provide their certification. But of course the question of course remains of course on how we can get, you know, you know, the cost for the operation the salaries for the staff and everything so you know we are struggling of course to approach different donors, at least to contribute some amount and then you know the remaining balance of course can be covered by the itself. Similarly for us. We think it's a combination of actors and I think it's not as much a question of one particular actor that's going to help us get over the hump but but a more efficient allocation of resources existing resources they're out there. Government resources, corporate resources we've worked with a lot of employers who are interested in financing formalization for low income customers or suppliers or employees. And payment out of pocket from those families that are benefiting, as well as financing and loans that help them maybe fill that gap. So, with the property diagnostic that we do which was originally designed to identify the needs of the property the path to formalization. We've been doing a lot of experimentation on how can we rapidly assess by each customer, what they can pay out of pocket, what they can finance, and then how do we fill that gap with government and corporate resources. So we have somewhat of a personalized approach to the blended financing. Here we're using this money for to prove that a new CD and a new payer is a good payer. So you buy the first risk we call here. You should buy the first risk and prove to the market that we have a market just a payer so it's very useful. Yeah, I think the combination of all that has been said. So for us we think the industry that benefit from the cocoa also to some extent benefit from the work we do. They also try on a data share, helping the farmers to produce more and have more yield. So you think that subsidies from the industry will be great to help move the farmers from this freebies and then to fully sensitize them to take care of the fees for the services. And then I mean, doing is that I'm interested in the sector. So the combination that the industry doing it, and the farmers themselves really that the farmers have to contribute to what the work, the subsidies. So that the sense of blogging the sense of ownership of the current and the culture of the freebies can be led to. Well, with that, I'd like to wrap up today's webinar. Thank you so much to all of our panelists for participating and sharing candidly some of the challenges that you're working through in this, you know, extremely new and difficult market to deliver much needed service to, you know, billions of people. Thank you very much to the audience for tuning in. We will have a recording of this webinar up on YouTube in the coming days and it'll also be out in our monthly newsletter that's being sent out tomorrow. So with that, thank you and enjoy the rest of your day.