 This language is critically important but has yet to be operationalized in many areas. And so, despite the fact that we have made many advances in red, there is still ongoing destruction of forests around the world and risk to forest peoples, and their rights for the well-being and their cultural heritage. There are ongoing expansions of infrastructure, monoculture plantations, logging, and support for mitigation actions, such as biofuels, natural gas, and large-scale hydropower development are all driving this trend. And these are only going to intensify. These worrying developments emphasize the need and obligation for countries to adopt a rights-based approach to climate change mitigation, and the gains achieved in Cancun are now at risk of being lost and have money and young. And we all together here, those of us on the panel, must think about how we can ensure that not only do we are losing the progress that we achieve, but also we actually capture the momentum and moving forward. So there's no one definition for a rights-based approach. However, it's described in academic articles, and the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights suggests that a rights-based approach is a conceptual framework for the process of human development that's based on international human rights standards and operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights. Within the climate context, this focuses on obligations, inequalities, vulnerabilities, and unjust distributions of power that in key progress for sustainable and low-carbon development. But our panelists today will explain what it means to them, to community members, to advocates, and describe a specific definition to apply to the land sector. And so due to it, they'll explain why a rights-based approach is so critical when talking about the land sector. Well, my friends and colleagues, we will talk about their views right now. Again, we want to hear from you. So let me start by introducing Nina Sentra. Nina is a Dalek Pompang from West Kalimantan. She's the Deputy Secretary General for the Indigenous People's Alliance of the Archipelagoes known as AMAM. And she's reframed the discussion about rent, implementation in Indonesia to ensure the rights of Indigenous peoples. Thanks for joining us. Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. I think this is a really perfect forum to talk about the rights-based approach. And I want to start with a question. When we talk about a right-based approach, who is the right holders? Indigenous peoples, when you talk about landscape, about the red, about territory, about forests, it's clear for us that Indigenous peoples are the right holders that we are talking about here. And we've been... I don't want to talk more about what we've been through. So many people already know what happened in Indigenous studies and what happened to Indigenous communities. There's so many things. Even until now when we are talking, actually some of our minority communities are being criminalized and in jail because they are living in the territory which is claimed by the government as a national park. One thing when we talk about saving the forest, the territories when we talk about the red, we have to ensure that any policies or agreement related to that must not be aggressive in the context of saving the territories. What I'm going to... What I'm trying to say is that in our experience with the national park conservation areas and protected forests, for example, many Indigenous peoples have been victim of the ideas of saving this territory environment and nature but not involving Indigenous peoples. We have to face problems in this kind of... this type of ideas. At the same time, we also have to face problems with oil mountain plantations, mining, monoculture, triple plantation and others. So we have to face everything at the same time and for us this is really a big challenge for Indigenous peoples to continue to protect our territories. For us the call is now how to translate if there is a good will. We start with... Well, there is... In Indonesia for example, there are several law and regulations that actually recognize Indigenous peoples' rights. Although we don't have yet the national law that recognizes Indigenous peoples' rights. We have sectoral laws that recognize Indigenous peoples' rights but we don't have the umbrella law that recognizes us. Although we have that, but these problems still keep happening. The question is how to provide an evidence of the good will that's been already there with some of these laws and regulations. How in one hand we provide law and regulations but in another hand, the situation on the ground is still not changed. We are still being arrested, being criminalized. It's so many... I think in this discussion, so many puzzles that we have to really fill in. There are some good law regulations, good agreement, good MOU, LOI and everything. But in other hand, does it really change the situation on the ground to be Christians? Maybe that's very simple question but until now it's not yet answered correctly. So I think that is the question. As the rights holder, it is important for us to understand or to challenge the government and everyone that is not going to be government, how to realize the change in the community and to provide this evidence of the good will. I think we can start... The government can start by stop violations and criminalization of indigenous peoples. And after that, we can start with dialogue because I think the obstacles of indigenous peoples to have communications, to have dialogue with governments and also companies and others is trust. That is the biggest challenge because we want to trust but in other hand, it's still happening. We have good papers, good documents, many of them already in international instrument and etc. But the situation on the ground is still the same things happen all the time. So how these right ways approach can really change the situation. I think that will be the question that we have to answer with it. Maybe that's for the opening. Hello. The next person that will speak is Azad Girmali. She is an advocate on climate policies in LBCs in Africa. She's currently on a campaign with the LBC Watch International. Azad. Thank you. Well, it follows in the lines of my colleague. I am going to speak on food security and the importance of land for security. I mean, this is an obvious link to all of you. You know that. But I guess I have to say again what is obvious here. When we are talking about land and considering it in the upcoming 2020 climate agreement, we have to know that land is a very critical area that we have to establish principles before we can engage in drafting and formulating guidelines and climate policies. This is critical because land is not just land, particularly for countries in the LBCs, Africa, and a country where I come from, Ethiopia, I can say this from experience. Land is not just something that we can look at it from its potentiality, from carbon markets. But when we talk about mitigation, land in LBCs in Africa, as you all know, I'm sure you do, is about food security, about livelihood, about jobs, about people's security as it is. People without land in those countries are almost nothing. Their livelihood, their whole security depends on their land. So we have to be careful when we consider land including it into the agreement. So we say that when we are talking about land in the climate agreement, we have to recognize the rights-based approach to be designing the principles for that. In the ADP, as I said, rights-based approach should be in the center because land is about rights to food as it is to water, land, and seeds. But when we concentrate on land we are talking about food and I would go further in that. So it is to safeguard the sole source of food security which is land of the majority of multitudes of people in Africa and the LBCs. The most vulnerable are actually impacted by climate change. Therefore, we feel that in these climate policies we have to look into which ones would be that would secure or safeguard the security of these vulnerable communities. And I can comfortably say that adaptation should be as a critical element or policy that can do that. Safeguard the rights of people because we have seen studies we can just even indicate the IPCC report, the fifth IPCC report and the UNEP adaptation draft report in 2013 which said that adaptation in Africa is a must now because our ambition in a mitigation has failed so far and the committed warming now will require us to do adaptation in Africa in all the LBCs. There is no other way. No matter how we close the gap in emission we will not be able to go further for people to survive without any adaptation. And this is actually indicated we have in the convention Article 4.1 is a commitment for all to say that adaptation should be done and this is an area that will ensure rights of people in those countries. When we say adaptation it can be invested in our ecology which increases resilience and improve quality of soil and yields. Then when we think about mitigation mitigation action we have to identify who should mitigate and when we analyse mitigation we have to establish equitably to establish equitably who should mitigate we have to analyse it in per capita because we cannot see in aggregate which countries are which should commit to mitigate. In general yes we know that 14% is coming from agriculture but when we look at it in per capita in countries the developed countries are responsible to mitigate and when we go back to small scale farmers they are not when we see it in per capita and in their practice the systems doesn't produce that much of an emission but large scale agriculture which is mostly in developing countries and huge amounts of consumption of meat is the driver of climate change in the world so these are the areas where mitigation is emission is driving so they for small scale farmers the right is to keep their agriculture safe but not to engage in mitigation as I said adaptation is the area where we ensure their rights to produce food in general we have to look into the areas where the right space approach is going to be advanced only when we see that adaptation is the area where we have to concentrate on in the 2015 agreement so apart from that engaging countries in the vulnerable countries in their adaptation is also one particular area that also is indicated in the convention after 4.7 that it's like vulnerable countries have the right it's the commitment of others to recognize that they have to engage in development rather than mitigation so this is why we say that we have to establish the principles before we engage in drafting climate policies to ensure the rights of the people also people thank you for making sure that we are well aware when talking about the land resector we can't just focus on mitigation but also incorporating the adaptation our next speaker will talk a little bit more about accounting and other issues related to the land resector Kate Dooley is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Melbourne evaluating the ambition and the distributional impacts of weather and how the land sector is integrated into the future climate agreement just firstly there's quite a few seats at the front if people from the back want to come up with a front and also I'm going to talk about the role of ambition in how we characterize the role of ambition and the rights-based approach and for those of you who have the document one of our principles is ambition and in terms of that we mean that we in responding to climate change we have to effectively reduce emissions and how does this look for a rights-based approach the impacts of climate change on human rights across a whole variety of spectrums is very severe so if climate change is not mitigated you will undermine human rights at the same time addressing human rights strengthens our responses to climate change and we think this is particularly evident in the land sector where we have the issues that Mina and Zev have been talking about in terms of tenured security for indigenous peoples and food security these are issues that addressing those can also help us to reduce emissions and so we want to tie all this together in a conceptual framework as Ali said for a rights-based approach so I will talk about reducing emissions aspect of that, oh that seemed to change the level of volume so firstly the first question there is what is the role of the land sector in ambitious climate mitigation we hear a lot about it particularly if you're working on forests or land sector mitigation it can be very easy but it's a very complex and big area that we spend our whole life looking at the forests or the land use aspect of climate change but if we look at emissions from climate change this graph shows the emissions from fossil fuels and cement rapidly increasing over the last century and the proportion of emissions from land use change is in brown or yellow whatever colour you might call that and it's obviously a much smaller proportion and the good news is it's actually decreasing now this graph is showing land use change it doesn't include agricultural emissions so it doesn't include methane and nitrous oxide which as Zab said is represents around 14% of global emissions what we're looking at here is a contribution of around 12 to probably in the last year increasing to 8% of global emissions from land use change just to put it in context that to effectively reduce emissions a really large proportion of our effort needs to go into combating fossil fuel emissions in terms of understanding what this means for land climate policy in terms of how we reduce the land sector of the emissions what I'm mostly going to talk about here is the global carbon cycle so a lot of this should be very basic knowledge but this is based on a paper that was published two years ago in Nature Climate Change called Untamed and Confusion around Land Carbon Science as well as a lot of figures and graphs etc in the most recent IPCC report because what we have in there is reflecting the basic science of the global carbon cycle and I think that all of our climate policy needs to be based on adequate or credible understanding of that science so what this picture is depicting is different carbon stocks so we have a land carbon stock in green the ocean carbon stock in blue and the atmosphere is also a carbon stock what the red arrow represents is a one-way flow of emissions from the fossil carbon reserves underground to the atmosphere it's important to note that red arrow only goes one way once we've emitted fossil once we've burned and emitted CO2 from fossil fuel reserves does not go back into that fossil fuel reserve until a very long time scale process which I will briefly run through which is illustrated in this picture so once emissions go into the atmosphere around 50% stay there and approximately 50% are taken up by the land and the ocean carbon stocks that's the green and blue arrows now you notice those arrows go both ways so they don't just go down once carbon so that 12.5% a quarter of the carbon flux is taken up by the land carbon stock it doesn't just stay there and it's permanently safely tucked away the residence time of carbon across all of the carbon cycle actually varies from decades to millennia so when we talk about permanence of carbon sequestration when carbon comes into the land or into the ocean there isn't a single time frame that there isn't a single number that explains that permanence in policy circles we use 100 years because the IPCC has 100 year equivalence of greenhouse gas emissions impact on the atmosphere but in actual fact around 40% of the carbon in the atmosphere is not removed back into the into what we could call permanence carbon it sinks for hundreds of thousands of years so while it may be sequestered into land it stays there only for decades or perhaps centuries so the main point to take from that is the impacts of climate change are felt by from the cumulative emissions in the atmosphere that accumulate over centuries and not from the contemporary balance of sinks and sources when we account for carbon in, say, Luu CF under the Kyoto Protocol we're accounting for sinks and sources but that is not the main impact of land use on atmospheric cumulative emissions so the next point I want to make is how does this all relate to the climate change negotiations so this is just a bit of a time frame schematic that shows where land use is occurring in different parts of the negotiations the green boxes are land use negotiations and initially once the Convention on Climate Change was established the Kyoto Protocol was agreed and eventually as part of that agreeing of the Kyoto Protocol land use was included in that as Luu CF land use, land use change and forestry and the inclusion of land use in the Kyoto Protocol was quite controversial at the time because of that carbon pressure cycle line just outlined as well as something I haven't talked about yet the difficulty of monitoring emissions from land use change this is a graph from the IPCC that just shows a range of different estimates of land use change over the last 30 years pretty much all of the major studies estimating land use change so there's a trend there but there's obviously a large range as well so Luu CF was quite a controversial inclusion in the Kyoto Protocol because the focus at the time was on reducing emissions from fossil fuel some countries argued that the land use sector is important which it is but the complexities around how to account for it made the discussions very controversial in the end it was included as a political compromise to keep the US on board with the Kyoto Protocol obviously not big enough to compromise and then what ensured was what this picture depicts is something like 14 years of complex negotiations on how to actually account for the land sector we then under the Bali Action Plan have read reducing emissions from defrostation and degradation was agreed which is how dealing with the land sector in developing countries because Luu CF only applied to annex one or developed countries and now we're in a position where we're looking at a new climate agreement that applies to all so there's a lot of conversation around how there's also agriculture under the Bali Action Plan but that's only been discussed in the context of adaptation as they've emphasized so the question now is how does all of this how is all of this going to come together and be discussed in a new climate agreement and in terms of actually getting effective emission reductions we think the land sector is important emissions from defrostation even though decreasing we're reducing emissions here I'm turning the lights off even though emissions from defrostation are decreasing proportionally it's still important we stop those emissions but it's important to recognize that the forest conservation and reducing emissions from forests avoids future emissions but it doesn't in any way offset or compensate for ongoing fossil fuel emissions so once we accept that as a basic principle then we can start to talk about how to deal with fossil fuel emissions how to deal with land sector emissions and how to balance that mitigation action in the land sector with other competing priorities for land such as food security and land tenure and all the other uses of land and if we approach the the question from that perspective we think that we can come up with a rights-based approach to land mitigation thank you thanks Kate I think it's really important to note how technical, some of these accounting principles are and how the policy levels are critical to what's going on but that Nina and Aza also demonstrated that there are serious implications for these decisions that are happening at the international level and how do we then take what's happening on the ground and share those experiences with what's happening at the international level how do we actually apply the rights-based approach in practice how do we evaluate that how do we account for those ideas and our approach and Francesco Marconi will tell us a little bit about an initiative that he's been he's been very much involved with that actually takes the rights-based approach to the next level so Francesco is a policy advisor for the forest peoples program he's been working on red and the UNFCCC negotiations we're going to kind of close up our panel to talk about how we can actually apply a rights-based approach with a particular initiative thanks Francesco thanks for everybody yes my organization forest peoples program has been working in support of indigenous peoples both in terms of ground level works, working directly with communities but also bringing the experience in terms of capacity building and support for recognition of rights up to level so my job has been that of trying to create this linkage between the work we do at the ground level and the work that is happening in the international processes to have this kind of feedback loop I say this because I do think that the discussion we're having here needs to be clearly distinguished according to the policy levels and the political level we're talking about and ensure that there is this kind of feedback loop because I really appreciate the discussion on carbon and on land-based mitigation and land use is still at very exceptional pace I mean everybody understand that's an issue I think that the graph that Kate showed to us clearly described that this is a clear challenge but also there is still needs to be a lot of work to be done to define the actual criteria in terms of the level of negotiation we are talking about so we don't know yet how land applies to carbon climate change we know it is an issue but to me this requires an immediate application of a precautionary approach so that every time we discuss about land in climate there needs to be a precautionary approach because we need to protect or to prevent that this discussion actually creates more harm than good and but the reason why is because I mean I realize that there is a kind of a crash time here if you look at the negotiations outside one of the recurrent terms is accelerating is moving on accelerating providing input to enhancing action that means that the discussion in the COP is more than that about removing barriers that could be like safeguards or social conditions to any kind of policymaking in climate change than actually acknowledging the right-based approach so how do we do this I mean how do we deal with this how do we deal with the crash time that we are experiencing working on the ground where we notice we had we organized an international workshop in Palakkaraya, Borneo in March with indigenous people from all over the world what they told us and what you can listen to them on Monday in the event we are organizing in the Cumbra de Uspuegos is that their land is being strengthened that the invasion and the land is being progressing that we are talking about 200,000 hectares of great land a year and the indigenous people are now basically fighting for their own survival and how do we reconcile this urgency to take action to protect their land with the long term that is needed to define the material for carbon accounting and land use I think this is a real issue we only talk about a right-based approach it is very important to place it in the international negotiation but it is also important to have a different view to kind of equalize in the terms I mean when I listen about drivers of the forestation and I put myself in the perspective of somebody that tries to work with indigenous peoples the concept of driver does not include the human rights threats and the violation of rights that I am let's say a so-called distorted land that brings with itself when we talk about carbon I mean I realize that the discussion on carbon benefits and values in the red negotiations has not led us anywhere so if you look at carbon as the key point of entry for a right-based approach maybe this is not the right place because you end up by having the same values and the only thing you talk about is the right to carbon but not necessarily the right to land and the right to land for indigenous peoples the right to land for indigenous peoples is not about only the use of land for food it is an intrinsic element for their identity the spiritual value the collective cosmovision the same survival the self-determination so how do we reconcile these elements when we decolonize in the debate I think that I was in the global landscape forum last year and I started thinking about global landscape and forum and this is why I am here because global, okay how do you reconcile the local needs for resistance and the protection of land with the global policy making landscape, who defines what the landscape is what is the landscape is it about land is it about humans power asymmetries in the use of land or access of land is it about conflicting land tithing 80% of the forest the roots of conflicting land titles you have indigenous peoples land and there is an overall lack of mining and infrastructure development this is an issue about power asymmetries and then I heard in the global landscape forum last year, well the solution is a multi-stakeholder approach to ensure a rights-based approach and participation a multi-stakeholder approach does not capture the power of symmetries indigenous peoples for instance and local communities that are excluded from policy decision making processes have not the same bargaining power of transnational companies or of land scale and owners so I think these are issues that to me really have to be taken into account and lastly maybe when we talk about land rights we don't need to reinvent the wheel the FAO, the opposite the whole, I heard a very interesting presentation the FAO was talking about the voluntary guidelines on land tenure that do recognize the priority for consent, they're voluntary though so they might just need to be mega-operational and then we will start from recognizing the rights of land and then see how this could actually have an also spin-off or carbon sequestration or carbon mitigation but if we start from the carbon perspective we risk of getting the old rights-based focus a bit diluted so I think these are actually very challenging discussions and I hope to see you also on Monday to continue to share the Palakari declaration is a declaration of indigenous peoples that formulates very clear demands protection of the rights of the land territory and resources stop consumption, trade and production of deforestation products, recognize the role of indigenous peoples with their traditional knowledge in mitigation and adaptation and support access to financial resources but also to international making policies. Thank you so much Francesca I think from the four of your panelists here you've heard different perspectives on the various principles that we've identified thus far as a rights-based approach we've talked about rights from the land perspective land rights we've talked about we've talked about ambition and we've talked about it not only from the international level but we've talked about it from the ground there are a lot of rich ideas that we've shared and questions that we have that we've been grappling with amongst ourselves we're hoping that if you haven't thought about this before that these short introductions sparks some interest amongst some of you and we'd really like to ask for some opinions from the floor either about any of the one principles that we've shared in paper and what we've talked about here as well as kind of digging a little deeper as to what Francesco said with regards to how do we actually apply a rights-based approach how do we use it to deal with these power dynamics so I guess first we'll start with questions or ideas and then if people don't have any general ones we have plenty we can target are there any microphones in the back or should we follow up on Francesco comment because as soon as you mentioned security has started thinking of rights-based approach to food security but there is a right to food so is it being used in these processes or not should it or would it make things more more important than necessary can you introduce yourself my name is Felix Daldin I work for the World Bank any questions you have thank you my name is Carl I work for Care International and it's directly related to the first question on the right food there are some rights-based avenues that are that offer perhaps less complexity and more opportunity than others land, tenure is complex and controversial and some of the other issues that have been mentioned by the panel are complex one that might offer opportunity and the question is to the panel is to look more at the right food in terms of the right to health so the nutrition dimension I think most of us are probably more interested in the food security of the bottom billion rather than the 6 or 7 billion that we have so I wonder if the right to health from a nutrition perspective is an angle that we could take that is less complex because most governments wouldn't argue with that since those two questions are somewhat similar I think maybe we'll start with that and see if anybody yeah the question is quite simple I think you were asking whether the food security issue has been taken care or taken into consideration in UNFTC that's what we're talking about well the answer is that there is a letter of a special rapporteur of the UN Human Rights right to food, right to health, right to people's rights that actually is completely wrote to the UNFTC to urge for a clear insertion and consideration of the right-based approach into the climate change negotiations to me this is an answer to the climate change negotiations although there's been a lot of recognition like the Cancun agreement put in their preambular that climate change if a human rights issue that mitigation and adaptation actions should be also respecting human rights but then there is no step forward in terms of operationalizing that safeguarding the rights and promoting the rights in all these actions and then I would also recommend that when you talk about food security we also talk about food sovereignty because food sovereignty is about self-production of food it's about challenging also the production, the transformation of food as a global market commodity because you can secure food but you can secure food by providing access to money that can be used to buy junk food for indigenous peoples and you talk about food sovereignty you talk about the capacity of producing your own food to continue to nurture, it depends this relationship to land in food as part of your constitution your identity of self-determination I just wanted to say maybe it's an addition simple thing is that the process is the agreement in the framework it's going so fast although even the objective of the convention is really to mitigate, not threatening food security food production in general but such elements like carbon utilization in the land sector going fast can endanger the issue of food security so there is a fear that this will be undermined people will be only thinking of the market than the security of food for people and this is why we have to shout that we have to remind negotiators to think first of all when they are looking into markets that they have to recognize the principles when we are talking about carbons and land they have to think of food security for people that is the major issue in several countries so I don't think it is looked as a major issue I want to add to that a couple of years ago there was a report by a special report on food security about the impact of the food industry to the food security and especially in the industries it's including the oil contentations that it's threatened the food security of the people I think you can also look at that report it's very interesting report and there was some exchange letters with the special report on food security with the special report on the accepted industry and I think that you can check on that report as well let's go for some more questions or comments and make a approach to the land use center thank you for the excellent final presentation my question is specific to Miss Hazel I would say land giving rather than land grabbing because countries are continuing to give away land for large scale investment if I want to know from Miss Hazel whether it's the last cost in Africa countries are continuing to give away land we are replacing indigenous people and you know all these questions come after that so what's happening and what can be done thank you can you introduce yourself we're trying to create a dialogue even though we are on a panel and it's hard we do think it's important to know who's in the room and how we can contribute to building this idea of a rights based approach moving forward we're really really hoping that you want to be a part of this this is a critical time for us to be working on this approach with some principles and we know they need to be developed further and so it's helpful to know so I would like to say please introduce yourself my name is Satish Kumar I'm working for Agis Yavobayenosti from Ethiopia and I definitely would like to be part of the group that you're sitting in can you take one or two other comments and questions I'm Yudas Haim from the Jove Development Institute I have a comment and maybe a question so I think WRED widened a lot of agency for indigenous groups and communities all over the world to highlight these structural inequalities and also some other existing power symmetries at global venues the Global Landscape Forum or the Kumbhura-Arath Prevost that we have next week and I did research on WRED plus projects in Peru and Indonesia and we found for instance that indigenous communities have quite good access for instance in Peru to civil society platforms to influence also the formal process so somehow indigenous groups like this have been able to argue for at least for new mapping exercises and things like that but on the other hand we have for instance non-indigenous migrant groups that are so their voices have not been heard so far so they even have in some situations less rights than indigenous people because they do not have the opportunity to to claim land to claim land because they don't have access for rights and for instance I found in the WRED project in Indonesia the situation that in fact only indigenous communities have the opportunity to access community benefits and so the migrant groups that somehow even got the permit of the indigenous people to live there but they have not the opportunity to access community benefits so and somehow these in some cases even poorer communities are let out of the debate. Thank you. I'm Ceci. I'm coming from Cameroon. I'm leading a regional network we call the African Humanity Network for Community Management in the Forest. I mean maybe also a question. My comment is on right-based approach adaptation I'm lacking the gender aspect of that I'm always very curious to to understand how you consider the relation between men and women in all these approaches we are talking about if you go to adaptation and if you go to food security and we try to understand who is doing what to ensure food security, you will see that the role of women is extremely important in that. If we get back to the tenure issues you will understand that the situation of women compared to that of the men in accessing land or getting right to land is a very difficult one in all LDCs of African countries. So maybe is it not possible when we are building up this type of exchanges or reflection to really consider the women. We are talking about local communities. I agree with that but local communities is not an homogeneous group. It's very heterogeneous. Even if we get back to the indigenous people they have men and women and they don't have the same status when you have men or women can we really make sure that gender or women especially are also part of a specific group of interest in all what we will be going through in this right-based approach. How can you see any experiences where you really think it's something we can just say local community or indigenous people it should be something very specific. Maybe a question to Kate. I'm very much interested in the way you analyze the global warming but you know in all these questions and I will come back to land grabbing how do you see the relation between deforestation through the land grabbing system and the global warming do you have any information on that are we considering that it's a little bit smaller than the global response to the global warming. Thanks for all your questions I think we'll start with just to quickly answer as you know land grabbing in Ethiopia so far is not connected to carbon market but it will very soon. Well in a way it is but yeah most of it is biofuels and food production for other countries but it will go to that and that's why we have started this campaign now that when the new agreement is coming that it has to concentrate to show what has happened and what is going to happen because of this carbon market so I don't think it's a lost case it is something that we can correct but we have to campaign very hard from now the gender issue it's just a time constraint the right space the approach itself includes gender issues I think it's within it it's not that we didn't say that I'm sorry I didn't say that but in the early seas in Africa I think when we talk about farmers we can easily say female-headed households, farmers are the majority who are vulnerable to climate change and because they are mostly involved in agricultural practices so you are absolutely right it's just an omission because of time and the setup of the discussion but I would say that but it was a land grabbing issue was stated in the conceptual presentation at the beginning by Elie herself okay I want to respond a little bit to the land grabbing giveaway and land grabbing question from Cecil but also the land giveaway concept and also to speak to the previous question about is the rights to food being discussed in the negotiations and as the other panelist said it's not that this whole rights to food, rights to health even rights to land are not really prominent in the negotiations what we have there is as I pointed out in that schematic the ADP is being negotiated under the convention the convention includes certain principles including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and equity and when we just when we elaborated on food security in our principles document it comes out of the principle of equity and this is talking to the idea of equitable share of the atmospheric space for all and this relates to food security in terms of if we look now at what as I have said if we look now at consumption of of food like to me consumption in particular but consumption of commodities and food items which give rise to the emissions from agriculture it's overwhelmingly in developed countries or even without it mattering if it's developed and developing it's overwhelmingly in a minority of countries and by a minority of people who are consuming and leading to agricultural emissions so what this means in terms of land giveaways is Ethiopia or any other country is not running around begging other countries to take away from it they're sure the government plays a big role in in terms of weak laws and regulations but it's due to pressure from global demand and consumption that that land is being given away so it's not a one way thing nor is it a one way land grabbing thing but I think we have to recognize the role of consumption here and so if we address consumption from the perspective of equity then we're reducing consumption reducing the pressure on land giveaways and also giving space for food security by allowing some countries with lower share of agricultural emissions to increase those emissions for food security and that usually comes down to small holder farmers and then you get to the issues of rights and women in communities in different stakeholder groups and the reason why we're talking about rights more broadly and it's fantastic that we are is that in the land sector discussions there are these different technical experts because of the way that we've been talking about these issues in the convention there are experts in agriculture and the land sector offers us a very important opportunity to be able to come together share expertise and make sure that we understand where each other is coming from and so by framing it in terms of rights we're not only talking about right to food and right to land right to water we're talking about right to participate we're talking about a right to a healthy environment we're talking about we have to include that environmental respect in addition to the human rights as well and these are important to incorporate and as we evolve with this idea again we're getting feedback from partners who are in these different sectors saying we want to see biodiversity we want to make sure when we're talking about food security we're focusing on the small farmers we're not talking about the industrial drivers in the resolution so other questions and comments Hi, I'm from the University of British Columbia I'm back with you for our student and I'm a student associate with an industrial development organization planning the project which was made of thinking about the larger scale pressure of industrial drivers on forest loss one area that I currently focus on are forest mining conflicts from the informal mining sector so this is an artisan scale operations that tend to have very rudimentary techniques and very few incentives to restore the environment but a lot of the time we contribute to forest loss, contamination and increased incidences of the HIV as well as malaria and so in terms of thinking about the impact of landscape legacies and long-term contamination I was wondering if there's any sort of discussion of these more informal sectors that are very very extensive such as ancient Asia as well so just a question First question Thank you My name is Shikaro I just have a few comments and one question My task for me is we are put together in different frameworks and as I said we try to for some of you who are when you start rights in a talk the opening up a lot of noise in the morning but they seem to be a mismatch between the issue of global rights discussion and the national discussion in a sense that what we have come to understand is that rights must be demanded at local level that is where I think many of these forums miss it if I give an example the rights of indigenous peoples this has been done to meet an exception of art that one of them respects in its way but the question is what happens at national level that we don't always discuss this because you know national level discussion is always the legislation and to me it's where we have problems if you do a survey of some of the LDC countries and you look at how they respect rights of even the minority societies talking about indigenous peoples and the forest communities you never find them recognizing the legislation and I always laugh because I had a colleague who was telling me some of these conventions are the principle of faith for some of the lawyers which we are implementing international laws even when we have no legislation still that is not enough and it is what I put into the panel is how do you guide some of us even in this legislation to feature such a discussion or such an inability to framework lastly is the UNFCC as many of you know it's a convention and it's simply a climate convention but over the years I know with growing science we are bringing so many things to the UNFCC you know the recent discussion has been the standing commission finance to discuss forest finance in the other way and in the other way we may focus on the standing commission in the aspects and the discussion because we do not want them to open and the same thing here looks at the right based action is that what specifics should we have discussed in this format Thanks, I think we'll take one more and then jump into some more questions Thank you Hi, my name is I am Peruvian I work at and I have a question first I want to comment and then I'm going to ask a question and I expect answer from the panelists but especially from Francesco so here's my question Naturally red is focused on carbon because carbon sequestration is an ecosystem service that benefits the whole world especially under the UNFCC's objectives this is basic now red plus in Peru is funding governance strengthening initiatives and this definitely helps us to reach a more fair scenario on land use in Peru now it is a market mechanism and that is why I think we should give a market mechanism its own fair position but it shouldn't be central to our governance policies and I was wondering what do you think about red plus and what position it should take to reach national policy on land use thank you for your question we'll work backwards the questions are fresher yes I will answer because I think this is a very challenging and interesting question and it has been cutting through these last years of advocacy of working with indigenous people but also with more let's say environmental groups and also groups that are critical to red so I can start because there was another thing I wanted to touch on I've been following also part of the discussion on red plus in Peru especially the work done by the forest investment program and I think that and many also Mina can actually contribute many indigenous organizations that be looking at red as a window of opportunity to introduce those governance changes you were talking about and basically use it as a trojan horse to open up a platform a negotiation with governments on issues that otherwise would have never been touched upon and as somebody was saying before the UNSCC is a climate change convention but it's also a forest convention by proxy if you look at the past history of the failure of Rio 92 to establish a forest convention and then the need to use this vector to introduce forest really issues again it's a proxy and red has been considered from any organization as a proxy or a trojan horse to engage with governments on the issues of land rights and you know recognition of indigenous people's rights to free private informed consent this is not the case in Peru when you talk about consulta previa the point we have I mean some of the issues that are still very relevant that does not have been properly addressed in red discussion especially what we're talking about red what we're talking about we're talking about the readiness we're talking about implementation or results based payments and we've only been experiencing this problem in the sequencing because we started the readiness when you actually have to deal with the right with the landscape the political landscape with the instruments that are required to ensure rights but then all of a sudden you jump immediately to the results based payments so there is yet no clear mechanism in place to ensure the respect of rights while there is a lot of pressure to start dealing with carbon but still red has been a very interesting vector and it can still be as far as it's a platform where these kind of negotiations can take place the second point is about the land conflicts and the competition over scarce land yeah the other question to ask to our society whose land we're talking about and indeed this brings me back to the memory when I first looked at a map that was designed after 10 years of work by indigenous people in Guyana, the Wapichang I was looking at this map and I couldn't realize how important it was for them that they had a map where they could visualize the land and the borders of their right, the suffering rights and then I asked one of the chiefs from Guyana said tell me I mean I see these borders some of them are clear designed others are just random, there is no coherent line, what are these all these are the areas we renegotiate so when we're talking about completing land land tightening, we're talking about drawing borders right and I realized that indigenous people can draw the borders from within but they also should negotiate the borders from without what does it mean that when you talk about small scale landowners that are having or people that are receiving rights to land thinking for instance about Santerre in Brazil you need to create a situation where those excluded from access to land or land rights can negotiate, can create a common platform can don't be end up by being actors of a war against the poor but you know just being able to negotiate and to recognize that each of the people rights holders that live in Alaska actually have access although there is a distinction because indigenous people talking about self-determination rights that are specifically different from other local communities or farmers lastly red, my organization has been engaging also in a kind of assessment or we are at in terms of red and we ended up by thinking that already discussion has been very helpful in identifying some tool kids or some tools for indigenous people to reclaim their rights bring it more down level to district government there is a big enthusiasm and now from local government district government to have local regulations that the indigenous people's rights and also customary forest and my organization we are working now with several local governments supporting them on making the local regulations for the rights of indigenous peoples we already have some local government coming up with it's called PRDA the local regulation like money now is kind of like that and about red plus how we saw that for us in Amman especially if you go back to ten years ago there is not much discussion about indigenous peoples rights we try to bring this up to the government but now actually we have more recognition of our rights especially on our territory what the challenge for us is how to provide evidence that we are the rights holder and this evidence we provide with mapping, participatory mapping with documentation of our traditional knowledge on managing our territories and I think this is the way we start working with governments for now and I think this is the way we start working with our indigenous peoples for now thank you thank you there on the global rights discussion and the national rights discussion where there is a mismatch coming from Africa I will understand what you are trying to say and that's true at the national level there is no mechanism to implement those it is in the books it is clear but it doesn't because when it is there for people to ask for it it should be demanded but I think that's the responsibility of civil society in those countries to create awareness amongst the communities to raise this issue that is very clear I think we can ignore because at community level or at the national level there is no demand that international levels will have to ignore setting up principles from the beginning in any climate policies I think it's essential first of all we have to have that but our struggle at national level should be you know accelerated it is an area where there is a critical problem there is something that we have to work on we've had some really great questions and we do want to continue this dialogue with the last week in Lima I think we'll take a couple more questions and I'm going to send around a name and email so you can sign up and see if you want to be included in these conversations either by email or in person while we're here and then know that we'll continue this conversation in the future but I saw a question here and then one at the back I'm Joanna Durbin of the Climate Community and Environmental Alliance and it's a very interesting discussion and actually the question I had formulated earlier Francesco dealt with a bit and also just now the rights based approach it sounds clear different groups and different people have rights and they need to be respected but of course you've referred to this there are conflicting rights there are groups that have rights to food and food security and others that have rights to land based on ancestral tradition and sometimes they come up against each other and you mentioned an approach of negotiation and I suppose it's just a comment but also an interest in your feedback as to whether there's a reflection in this approach of how that is dealt with and of course thinking about rights of current generations and future generations who are not here to negotiate or un-contacted people it gets complicated so I'm just interested in your reflections on how that is recognised within a rights based approach Hi, my name is Lela Agiliel and I work at the Centre for International Environment along with Ali Can I stand here so people can see me so I had two reflections that I wanted to share and I'm very interested to know what the panel thinks the first is it's really an opportunity to point out that we're having a relatively focused discussion on the land sector but these issues of rights do impact other sectors and there is quite a bit of talk right now about climate change and human rights a rights based approach to climate change and what can be done in the context of the 2015 agreement to have that overarching message conveyed to ensure that countries are respecting their rights but there is a specific call for respecting the existing obligations that they have at the international level there's a letter that's going around that over 160 organisations have already signed and I think they're still trying to gather momentum for this call and I think just in response to one of the questions about what does that mean concretely or if we can call for the recognition but then what next and there I wanted to draw attention to the fact that 28 independent experts of the Human Rights Council wrote to the electoral C parties and called for this recognition of human rights but also they suggested having some kind of work programme you know we can debate whether or not that's the right thing but I think there is an opportunity there that there are experts in the human rights regime who are ready and willing to work with the UNFCCC and to get the style of going about what in fact it means to work at the intersection of human rights and climate change and there could be a lot there both more broadly but also for the land use the land sector because there are some things that are unique like the fungibility question the inter-connection with mitigation and adaptation that brings me to the second point and this deals with this question of carbon and focusing on carbon yes the objective of the convention says we have to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change but it also mentions that we have to do it in a way that allows ecosystems to adapt naturally that we have to do it in the context of sustainable development so to me the convention is not just about reducing emissions it matters how it matters how we reduce emissions and this is playing out in little ways the non-carbon benefits discussion in red plus in the green climate from the discussion of co-benefits but the concern that I have is with this focus of carbon it moves ahead leaving everything else behind which means that you're not actually taking an integrated approach where you're finding that sweet spot with mitigation adaptation rights biodiversity and I talked about environmental integrity in this context not from just from an accounting perspective on biodiversity so I just I wanted to throw that out there because of the ADP discussions that are so focused on mitigation and emission reductions and you know what we need to be doing there to try to address some of these issues thank you I think these are really good questions I hope you are as excited to continue to talk about them as we are here or finish up with responsible questions and then last minute thoughts I think we could almost just finish here because that was a great input from Nero but as a quick response to those one of the earlier questions referred to carbon sequestration and I just wanted to sort of emphasise the point I was making in my presentation is that there are environmentally determined limits to sequestration in land it's called sink saturation in terms of conserving existing carbon stocks and conserving existing forests there are not limits to that which should conserve all existing forests but there is no scientific credibility to the idea that conserving forests or avoiding deforestation in any way justifies ongoing fossil fuel emissions now that that actually exists in current policy it's called forest carbon offsets and it's that that leads us into a lot of accounting complexity and a focus on carbon what we're trying to say here is if we pull back from that if we recognise that those two types of carbon terrestrial carbon emissions and fossil carbon emissions are not fundable we could have much more simple accounting regimes in fact they would be called reporting requirements that already exist for developing countries under the UNFCC they already report on their land carbon stocks and that simplicity would leave more space for issues like Francesco was talking about the focus on carbon means we just get straight to carbon rights and we're not dealing properly with rights we need to simplify accounting and actually deal with rights we pull back from the focus on carbon we can address food security we can look at ways, we can look at exactly what Nero was saying exactly how we reduce emissions in the land sector not just looking at carbon but how we reduce them so that they address biodiversity and they address the whole range of concerns and so I think that we're not saying mitigation from the land sector is not important specifically in bottom but it's not fundable so we don't need complex accounting rules and we need a broader definition of how we report and look at that mitigation I think that Joanna pointed a very important element about that actually reads the belt to me because when we talk about the rights-based approach they'll be looking to the operational aspects of it so you establish safeguards but then you need to establish an implementing framework and the compensation framework requires also the capacity to recourse to complain so the capacity of having an independent body for indigenous communities local communities that are affected to seek for compensation for arbitration and so if I look at for instance what we're talking about here land-based approach to mitigation adaptation and we locate the discussion in the climate change there is no such a thing as a recourse mechanism or a complaint body actually there is one but it's just for the interests of the shigs I mean that the forum on impact or response measures is only about how to compensate for the losses of the oil producing countries because you actually have to address the issue of fossil fuel consumption but there is a space so maybe that forum could be retrofitted to become a space where rights holders can go and seek for compensation for the response of wrongly designed response measures or impact or wrongly designed response measures like red, mitigation or adaptation so sometimes you actually don't need to reinvent the wheel but just we're creating you on what the institutional framework offers you I just wanted to say I wanted to refrain from saying this but I think I should and it's a simple thing with the human rights issue I always thought that the climate issue is a human rights issue because for what I said I mean especially for countries in the developed world because their life is disrupted because of other people's responsibility so their right is violated so I think it should be out of all of the discussion of climate change I think it's a simple thing but I think it's a very difficult issue how do we insert it, how do we do it it's a very complicated issue I can't comment I think I will close by just trying to motivate you again to join us in this network we are at a very critical time right now as we're negotiating the next climate agreement the ADP where this idea of the land sector and how it's going to contribute to mitigation and adaptation is a perfect place and a perfect time to do this again we're not just focusing on mitigation here the ADP has allows us to focus on both and this is the time that we're going to do it it's wonderful to see so many people here thank you so much for your time and your comments as I said I'll put a sign up sheet on that side and on that side and maybe you can come up and share your emails and we'll be in touch with you have a great rest of the day