 Let's get started. I want to extend a warm greetings to all of you. I can't see all of you at the same time. You're distributed over a number of screens, five now. I will go through them later on. But for the moment, let me extend a warm welcome to you on behalf of myself and co-chair Huus van Westen. Together, my name is Gemma van der Haar, based here in the Netherlands. Together, we chair Landak, and Landak is hosting this and welcoming you to this event, to this odd event, but also how interesting to see all those names and all those faces. Crisis forces us to improvise, and this online encounter is a result of that improvisation. Around this time, we were planning to have our annual conference, the Landak annual conference, on the issue of climate change in connection to land issues. We had to postpone that to next year, but we thought it was extremely important to do something, to create a way to get together for the land governance community. And this online encounter is what we came up with. So welcome to all of you from all your corners of the world. Some of you may be regular visitors to the annual conference. Good to see you back, even if it has to be under these conditions. Some of you might be joining a Landak event for the first time and have perhaps only discovered us because of this online encounter. Great to see you and hope to be able to meet in person in some other venue at some other time. Landak is a partnership of Dutch-based universities, NGOs, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on land governance for equitable and sustainable development. This online encounter that will extend over the next five days is our answer to the current global conditions under COVID-19. Few people in the world in the beginning of this year really understood what was coming when news came in on the first cases of this new virus. We at Landak certainly didn't. In March, we within the organizing committee still thought, oh, this will all be over in July and we can have our conference. Little did we know as the crisis deepened in Europe and the wave of infection spread to large parts of the world, we started to grasp that this was much bigger than we had thought and there was no way of having our conference face to face. We then decided to launch this online encounter at first just to fill the gap left by the conference and allow us to meet each other even if in this way. But we also soon came to see this as a strategic opportunity to share our experiences with many of you and reflect on the many ways in which this pandemic and the mitigation measures taken to control it affect land access and land governance. So we also offer you this opportunity to reflect on these issues. A few months back already, alarming messages started to come in about evictions, about restrictions on civil society to perform their monitoring roles, concerns about due diligence, etc. Next to the harsh economic effects ripping people of their livelihoods and leading to inequality and dispossession. In this program you will find several sessions that deal with the COVID land access directly and I want to briefly draw your attention to these. This will be the webinar dedicated to this topic on Wednesday, a reflection by the Landach Fellows on I think that same day but also the closing session will allow all of us to discuss these issues and bring them together. Other elements in the program such as the keynote speeches of this afternoon will place the COVID crisis and their impacts on land issues, land access, land politics in broader concerns around the transformations going on globally and the shifts in land control. And other sessions will be dedicated to other important concerns that we are having around land such as climate change and many, many other topics. So we hope that each of you will find something in the program that you will find interesting and inspiring related to COVID or related to these broader concerns we have been having and will continue to have. In many reflections and discussions that we will share this week I hope you will find opportunity to learn about and to discuss what this crisis has revealed, what cracks in the system, what vulnerabilities in the ways we have organized our global economies and food systems. I hope you will also learn and discuss about how land governance is doing, how resilient are the systems that have been built, are they able to stand up to the pressures created by COVID. We hope that you will share what you are seeing, perceiving and analyzing. We also hope you will share what needs to be done, how to avoid that the pandemic becomes a land rights crisis and a land governance crisis. So please also take the opportunity to inspire each other on that. Landak things and we have acted on the notion that it's our shared duty to understand, monitor, anticipate and address the effects of this crisis and their interaction with other broader concerns. And there was a very nice interruption there. We hope that this online encounter will have something to offer to all of you that you can take home after this week. It would be great if you can be with us throughout the week or just today. We had about 400 people signed up for today's session, not all of them have yet joined, but I see we have listed 140 active participants now as we speak, which I think is great. I hope that you will find something that you need and can use and that it will help you in your work. I'm almost done. I just wanted to draw your attention to the following. This online encounter is possible thanks to the Landak partners who have been providing inputs, ideas, etc., etc., that you will find throughout the program. The Landak office, Chantal and Lotte putting everything together to make this work and last but not least the land portal. We had already started to explore the possibilities of Landak having a more global outreach through online platforms such as these. It's through that collaboration that we are able to organize you through Zoom today. On behalf of Land Portal, I have a small request that you please complete the survey that you will find at the end of this session to let us know how we did. Thank you for being here. I'm really looking forward to this afternoon and the rest of the week. Let us know what you think in all the possible ways that you can through videos, through tweets, through the chat, etc., and then let me hand over to my co-chair, Guus van Westen. Very much, Gemma. I won't be much of an obstacle between Gemma's introduction and the main dish of today, which of course are the keynotes. I'll just add my voice to Gemma's in welcoming you all to the Landak online encounter. I hope this will be a worthwhile week for you and I hope to meet you in person next year. We have actually been able to convert the payment for the venue towards next year's event is already more or less paid for. This is an invitation also for them. As for now, I think in the category of silver linings, we should see this also as an opportunity to find new ways to join forces and to exchange and who knows, that may also bring new outcomes. For now, thank you very much for your interest and with this I'd like to hand over to today's chair, Professor Maria Speeremberg. Welcome everyone and thank you for joining us. It's really nice to see all the people joining us and see people coming in from all over the world. My name is Maria Speeremberg. I'm a professor in the anthropology of sustainability and livelihoods at Leiden University and I will be the chair and moderator. This is my first time to moderate an online event so I hope things will go okay. I'm part of the organizing committee of the online event together with many other colleagues in the Netherlands, as Gemma already mentioned. This afternoon we have three wonderful keynote speakers who are going to share their ideas with us. The first of these is Professor Jun Boras and he's a professor of agrarian studies at the International Institute of Social Studies, the ISS in The Hague, part of Erasmus University, and he's also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Peasant Studies. In addition to that, Jun is a very busy man. He's also an adjunct professor at the College of Humanities and Development Studies in the China Agricultural University in Beijing and a fellow of the Netherlands-based Transnational Institute. His work focuses on land politics including the contemporary global resource rush, transnational agrarian movements, migrant farm workers especially in China, Myanmar and Vietnam, resource conflicts, climate change politics, food politics, state citizenship issues, and global agrarian transformations. I'm not doing justice to everything that he does but I'm leaving it here. I will introduce Peter Riggs and Doreen Stabinski who will also speak today. I will introduce them later after Jun's keynote speech. I would like all of you to during the talk switch off your microphones, put yourself on mute. If you have a question, please use the chat box and then Neil Sorison will collect your questions and will feed them to me. After Jun Boris's keynote presentation, I will open up the floor very briefly through the chat box for questions for clarification only because I would like to start the discussion on the keynotes after the keynotes and I think there's also a short break in between or is that in between, I'll check the program. But please, so questions for clarifications only and your discussion issues keep them in mind but we do them after all the keynote speakers have presented. Jun Boris will speak for about 30 minutes and then Peter and Doreen will each take 15 minutes. So Jun, welcome. We're very happy that you were willing to give this online presentation and I'm quite curious to hear what you have to tell to us. The floor is yours. Thank you so much, Maria and thanks a lot. I see a lot of people I know personally and I'm very happy to do this today. I'm playing it safe to make sure that I don't go outside what I intended to say and within a prescribed time. So I'm reading a speaking note and I have an outline for my PowerPoint presentation. Can we put in the PowerPoint? Can we share a screen? Slide number one. Neil, yeah, it's coming. All right. The title of my address is changing the climate of global land politics and that's essentially the singular message that I'd like to convey in my address this afternoon and it's different parts of it are taken from past and ongoing work and the building on a singular argument today that the main challenge is to change the climate of global land politics. Slide number two, please. Climate change and land are linked in at least two ways. On the one hand, a particular kind of land politics contributes to enabling and maintaining the current global agri-food system that is fossil energy based and industrial system marked by ever increasing distances between the spheres of production, circulation, exchange, and consumption. In turn and currently, this sector contributes from 30% to up to 40% depending on the estimates being given of the global emissions. It is a food system that has created the coexistence of a billion hungry people on the one hand and another billion people with food linked health issues, especially obesity on the other hand. What partly sustained the system are A, direct and indirect control of land by dominant social classes and corporations and B, generous supply of cheap labor most of whom were previously expelled from their lands. On the other hand, mainstream as well as alternative ideas and practices of climate change mitigation and adaptation are directly and indirectly and to a significant extent land-based or land-oriented. The mainstream platforms, these include those related to renewable energy, for example, biofuel, hydropower, wood chips, et cetera, carbon capture schemes, especially those involving forest conservation and the so-called productive, efficient and resilient agriculture repackaged as climate smart agriculture by the World Bank and FAO. The dominant narrative seems to suggest that for the first dimension that is land and agri-food system, the way forward is to intensify a greater degree of efficiency and productivity, especially in the sphere of production so that there is no need to maintain extensive land areas or clear-cut new forests for cultivation. One implication of this is that it's derived in popularity of proposed solutions, including massive campaign towards sedentarization of mobile types of production systems, shifting agriculture to sedentary agriculture, mobile pastoralism to ranching, artisanal fishing to intensive industrial aquaculture. Combined, these affect vast rural populations and land, water, grazing areas, wetlands, and forests. In the second dimension of this link, the emerging consensus is to make sure that land tenure security is institutionally in place in any climate change mitigation and adaptation policy or project. For example, protection and promotion of tenure security in a Red Plus project, or relocation with compensation in large-scale hydropower dams and so on. I have not heard anyone who disagrees with the idea of promoting land tenure security in the context of climate change public action. When an objectively polarizing and fiercely contested concept, in this case social relations in land property, suddenly generates a global apparent consensus, namely the need for land tenure security, then it's an invitation to scrutinize the concept around which a consensus seems to be apparent. I'll return to this matter after a discussion of two related points. First, a fuller understanding of the link between climate change and land requires an explicitly political understanding of climate change mitigation and adaptation. I deliberately use the term climate change politics, which I define as the dynamics operating in the spheres of social structures, institutions, and political agency, namely social relations, policies, treaties, laws, procedures, norms, projects, programs, narratives, ideas, advocacy, mobilizations, and social movements, memories, rumors, gossips, separately and in clusters among and between social classes and groups within the state and in society that set and shape the meanings of climate change, its causes and consequences, and how it can be addressed by whom, where, and when. Formal climate change policies or projects labeled as climate change mitigation or adaptation measures, such as big conservation projects or projects on renewable energy tend to be the focus of most academic inquiries and public debates. But these are not the only ones that matter. Social relations of production and ecological and political conditions of nature could be altered not by climate change per se or climate change policies or projects but by wild speculations, rumors, gossips, or spectacles inspired or triggered by purported measures to address climate change. For example, many land speculators, swindlers, scammers, brokers have carried out their scheme by invoking the urgent task of addressing climate change through corporate plantation to produce feedstock for buy a fuel, whether it is real or not or only or only speculated. Looking at climate change politics allows us to see a wider range of actually existing social processes as messy as they are. Slide number four, please. Oh, that's the, I forgot to say to change that. That's the definition of climate change politics and go now to slide number four. Yeah. Second, there are twin narratives that both reflect and shape the nexus between climate change politics and land, namely that some types of agrarian systems, especially shifting agriculture, mobile pastoralism, artisanal fishing are economically inefficient and ecologically destructive, or both. On the one hand, it is purportedly economically inefficient partly because the land is used in extensive manner, labor tends to be underutilized and land is controlled by less entrepreneurial producers who cannot be economically competitive. The history of capitalist inclusions into the countryside of many societies is a history of persistent attempts at taking land from the hands of those assumed to be inefficient land users and from inefficient land uses through expulsion or subsumption in order to facilitate the development of modern capitalist agriculture and animal herding through sedentary farming, ranching or industrial aquaculture. On the other hand, it is ecologically destructive because they supposedly cause deforestation, carry out bush burning and cause overgracing. There has been a long history of central states attempt at blaming shifting agriculture and mobile pastoralism for ecological degradation, leading to cycles of attempts at sedentarization of peasants and pastoralists. In recent years, climate change is being increasingly deployed as a reason to pursue sedentarization. Even when the real reasons behind can be something else, ranging from state military building interests to capturing vast trucks of land that could be released once sedentarization is done. Separately, each of these two narratives is quite powerful in recasting social relations in land. Together, they can be explosive and this is exactly what is happening today in many parts of the world. These two narratives are important backdrop to our discussion about the consensus around so-called land tenure security. This consensus has become entrenched in various quarters from national governments that absurdly promote land deals in the name of land tenure security to multilateral agencies that champion privatization and commodification of the commons. The IPCC climate change and land report of 2019 is within such a mode and historical conjuncture. It is important that IPCC had launched such a report and it is absolutely positive that it dedicated a full chapter in it about land tenure security. Yet a major pitfall of the report is in taking the same position of promoting and specified generic notion of land tenure security. There are two problems in relation to supporting and sustaining the apparent concession around two generic notion of land tenure security. Slide number five please. The first problem with not specifying what we mean by land tenure security is that it can mean anything. Laws, policies or concepts emerge but they do not self-interpret nor self-implement. The actual interpretation and implementation of such concepts occur via a messy and conflict-ridden interaction between competing, often antagonistic social classes and groups within the state and in society. In this context and left on its own, the concept of land tenure security is most likely to be interpreted against the interest of marginalized social classes and groups. This is because the climate of global land politics during the last four decades has been very much about promoting formal land property systems whether private and individual or customary and community types that can enable and facilitate the commodification of land in a neoliberal manner. Capitalists or climate change entrepreneurs want security of their investments. They tend to prefer dealing with groups with formal community land registration if individuals with private land titles or formal state allocation are not available then face risks and uncertainty of having no formal documents to hold on to. For capitalists who need land the key objective is the capture of land control through a variety of mechanisms purchase, lease, or grow worship arrangement, or state allocation. Thus formalization of an indigenous community claim over their land may very well be just what a mining company wanted so that they can securely capture a piece of land by having a formal agreement with a faction of the elites of the community via some form of a free prior and informed consent gained through questionable means. There are at least at least five key global documents that together created and sustained the current climate of global land politics today. A, the 2003 land policies for growth and poverty reduction is a fundamental document with the world bank that synthesizes the short history of the global push for the neoliberalization of land policies while framing the trust forward into the future. B, market assisted land reform which was inaugurated in a nationwide scale in 1980 in Zimbabwe is based on the idea that some potential productive producers need to own some land to farm but that they should get this land only through a voluntary willing seller willing buyer scheme meaning no landlords no landlords should be coerced to give up their land and the potential buyers should be assisted through loans to be able to buy land. C, the 2008 the 2008 world development report reinforces the first two policy frameworks and embed them deeper in a broader area in the broader idea of what agriculture on how of how agriculture can serve a neoliberal path to national development partly by promoting uh partly by promoting efficiency and productivity in land use and agriculture especially in assisting non-efficient land users to get out of agriculture while assisting efficient producers to get inserted into capitalist commodity chains D, the world bank 2011 report that offers a framework on how to view and manage global land grabbing by building on the first three frameworks I just mentioned in order to maximize the full potential of large-scale land investments it explains why and how it is important to get rid of inefficient land users and land uses as long as land users are well informed of the process of their expulsion and are somehow compensated and E, the world bank and FAO's climate smart agriculture is essentially a bundling of the four policy frameworks I just mentioned and sensitize these these to climate change context it stands on three pillars of productivity efficiency and reduced emissions embedded in the broader design of neoliberal capitalist development that has dominated dominated the world during the the past four decades the ideas and practices in and out of these policy frameworks have contributed in part to enabling or legitimizing the phenomenal increase in number of working people in very precarious social conditions this is seen in the huge number of working people in the informal sector numbering to at least a billion without regular jobs no health care no pension no social insurance and most of whom have earlier been dispossessed of their means of production and reproduction especially land in addition the number of internally displaced population worldwide is stood at 80 million in 2019 finally those who remain on the land are either constantly threatened with dispossession or have already been subsumed by capitalist enterprises or by big conservation projects in a subordinated manner through a variety of leasing outgrow worship or stewardship arrangements formalizing existing land property relations in settings marked by inequality and past cycles of dispossession and displacement devoid of any sense of history and social justice it's likely to result in formalizing inequities the second problem with not specifying what we mean by land tenure security is that even when it is interpreted in a positive propo manner almost always it is often interpreted in an isolated localized scattered project level scope and scale where governments are forced forced to address contentious land issues they usually address the these in this meal project oriented petty reforms such as relatively small formal land titling projects here and there meaning for example and hypothetically in a given country where the problem of landlessness concerns five million households the response of the state donor organizations and NGOs is to launch a land titling project that could potentially benefit 10 000 people but 10 000 people and five million households are very different numbers overall in the agrarian front worldwide what we saw during the past four decades was the rise of petty reform in incrementalism shying away from system-wide transformative deep social reforms it promotes reforms within the framework of what is doable leading to its inability or unwillingness to even try to go beyond the limits imposed by the status quo i am not dismissing the value of small reforms not at all what is being questioned is the approach that promotes small reforms now that prevent deep social reforms in the future or small reforms in lieu of deep social reforms instead of small reforms that could be ratcheted up towards deep social reforms when a petty reform centric approach becomes routinized normalized naturalized and entrenched it amounts to petty reform incrementalism or petty reformism it is what partly defines the current climate of global land politics that we are in at this historical juncture this already complicated climate and global climate of global land politics has become even more so because of the covid 19 pandemic in my opinion a relevant question about land in relation to the pandemic is less about whether there will be an upswing of land grabs by big corporations at the level of 2008 for sure it is likely that there will be cases of land grabs as some sporadic initial reports indicate but what is most likely to happen or is already happening as we speak is that the pandemic and the economic downturn it has cost is likely to push many poor working people into greater desperation many of them lost jobs or unable to work their land unable to migrate to work or to sell their produce when that happens distressed land sales and leasing out are likely to follow this is a dream come true situation for layers of land speculators swindlers scammers and brokers and also a rare opportunity for upward mobility for rich farmers or diaspora to accumulate more land and when it happens it is likely to be at a great scale and difficult to track and quantify what is to be done my starting point my starting assumption is that climate justice without agrarian justice is not at all possible elsewhere i am my collaborator jennifer frankway started to float the idea of agrarian climate justice as an insufficient but necessary component of a positive future where both socioeconomic crisis and ecological crisis inherently linked as they are are addressed not as two separate phenomena but ultimately as a unified socioeconomic and socio-ecological processes uh slide number seven please okay seven yeah there are two urgent tasks the first task is to contest the consensus around a generic notion of land tenure security by advancing a very specific agenda that concretely defines what tenure means who's tenure and for what for what broader purposes in terms of what social system the second task is to change the climate of global land politics concretely concretely it means instead of a generic land tenure security it is important to specify the agendas of land of land redistribution recognition and restitution sandwiched with the concepts of minimum access and land size sealing and firmly based on social justice principles first in recent decades there has been a massive increase of working people who work and live in precarious social conditions as we just mentioned earlier most of whom have been expelled from their lands or were born without any possibility of having access to land for productive and reproductive purposes they need redistribution of land for full-time farming for part-time farming for animal grazing community forest food gardens or housing in both rural and urban spaces second there are many rural dwellers especially indigenous peoples ethnic minorities women today who still have access to land but they are increasingly threatened by dispossession they need social justice oriented recognition of their rights to their land as a resource and territory third waves of wars militarization violence disasters or displacements caused by extractive industries have resulted in a number of in the number of internally displaced peoples to swell they need restitution programs with an emphasis on the restitution of the broader social order that was disrupted and not an individualized land-centric private land claims that marks nearly all of the handful existing land restitution programs today redistribution recognition and restitution are urgent and necessary however they will work only in an institutional and political settings where the right of the working people to a minimum access is guaranteed and paired with a society-wide land-sized ceiling or a cap something that was fundamental in conventional redistributive land policies during the past century but became a policy taboo under neoliberalism the idea of a cap is crucial in climate change politics in terms of reduce reducing emissions without a cap to emissions a country can pursue concrete but scattered climate change mitigation and adaptation and celebrate successful projects here and there even when its overall level of emission remains constant or is even increasing at the global landfront a cap to put a limit to how much individuals and corporations can accumulate in land is key without that every individual corporations and bank that can afford to accumulate land will be able to do so without any limit as what is happening now leaving less or even nothing to those who actually or potentially depend on land to survive without such an indivisible principles of minimum access and land-sized ceiling dispossession and land accumulation are likely to result from most of land-oriented climate change mitigation and adaptation measures while the post pandemic world is likely to be marked by an ever-increasing number of working people who become completely separated from their land without this system-wide recasting in land relations even desirable climate change mitigation projects such as a 10,000-hectare forest conservation can at best result in a situation where we conserve a little here while someone else plunders 100,000 hectares of land nearby or an organization managed to conserve an island of healthy forest in a sea of starving rural working people slide number eight please what is needed is a strategy of what is possible in order to counter the currently influential idea and practice of what is doable the difference between the two is that what is doable works within the limits and possibilities of what is doable within a given balance of social forces whereas what is possible takes an insurgent approach to disrupt a given balance of social forces in order to pursue transformative deep social reforms that are otherwise unthinkable and daring to tackle political agendas that are absurdly difficult but not impossible and here is important to take the reminder from Eric Allyn Wright pessimism is intellectually easy it often reflects a simple extrapolation of past experience into the future our theories of the future however are far too weak to really make confident claims that we know what cannot happen the appropriate orientation towards the strategies of social transformation therefore is to do things now which put us in the best position to do more later by working to create those institutions and structures that increase rather than decrease the prospects of taking advantage of whatever historical opportunities emerge uncalled key is to situate the issues of climate change and land and their nexus within a social justice framework in this context and ultimately there are two challenges one to specify what land tenure security means by advancing the notions of redistribution recognition and restitution sandwiched by the indivisible principles of minimum access and land size ceiling and two to specify the broader social system in general and agro food system in particular within which ideas and practices of land tenure security are currently embedded and for what kind of alternative social system and agro food system it ought to be embedded a subsequent question here becomes can climate crisis cost largely by global capitalism be resolved by the same capitalist logic this is a fair although difficult question June can i can i interrupt sorry um can you have a two minutes left oh i i think i'm done in uh less than one minute yeah thanks it is a fair but difficult question that we need to raise in the current popular discussions about a green new deal for instance for a post-pandemic global social reconstruction in closing i would say that changing the climate of global land politics is absurdly difficult but unavoidable the current crisis of climate change of climate change and the pandemic can become a rare opportunity uh for us to push for radical positive deep social reforms that previously were unthinkable thank you very much well thank you very much june for an inspiring discussion presentation and indeed linking the climate change issue to the current uh COVID-19 pandemic um so thank you very much um are there any questions for clarification and and please save your points for discussion for later because we're going to have some time for discussion after the all the keynotes i think there's no questions for clarification so but it was a very clear talk thank you very much but i'm sure that in the discussion there will be many people who will come back to some of the points you just raised so thank you very much i would now like to give the floor to Peter Riggs and Doreen Stabinski for the next presentation and Peter Riggs i will introduce them briefly and again i can't do justice to what they all have done and are still doing um that would take up uh all the time so i'll just give you a very brief summary uh Peter Riggs is the director of pivot point which is a non-profit corporation based in washington state in the usa and he's the convener of the global network clara which stands for climate land ambition rights alliance um and previously he held program officer positions at the fort foundation at the rockefeller brothers fund uh the open society institute and he was a senior fellow at packard foundation he obtained his master a master degree at obelin college in the usa and a master degree um at the university of new castle of montaigne in the uk and also very interesting uh he's a commercial shellfish grower he grows oysters and clams um durin stabinski is a professor at the college of the atlantic where she studies the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food security and on the emerging uh she studies the emerging issue of loss and damage from slow onset impacts of climate change uh she also serves as an advisor to a number of governments and international NGOs in ongoing negotiations under the un framework uh convention on climate change and she participates in numerous intergovernmental forums i'm only going to mention here the un convention on biological diversity um the un food and agricultural organization and the world trade organization but there are many many more um and today they are going to present uh from a report they uh uh compiled on the missing pathways uh in in terms of of climate change mitigation so the floor is yours i don't know who's going to start doreen or peter um i'm going to start thank you um good day everyone it's really a pleasure to be here and really a pleasure to be following um dr boris that was an excellent framing um lecture to uh yeah to to set our work in inside of or in in conversation with and on behalf of peter and myself and really on behalf of all of clara um i want to thank you all for the opportunity to to present ourselves in our work um so we were asked to speak about this report that we published in 2018 um called missing pathways to a 1.5 degree c and then we were asked to because of the current context to connect it to um the current covid crisis we're going to toss the microphone back and forth between us as we do that i'm going to start by saying a little bit about the report in general and then some of the agriculture findings peter is going to continue on with findings on rights and for us i'll step back in and suggest a few lessons we might draw that are relevant now in the time of covid and then peter will wrap everything up so to start why did we write this report missing pathways and what's what's the title all about um we wrote the report in the context of the climate debate after paris so after the paris agreement is finalized and um you know it's in it's in 2015 it's also we're we're also writing the report in the context of the ipcc reports on 1.5 and land that would be written and released in in 2018 and 2019 um but also in response to the fourth and the fifth assessment reports of the ipcc where significant mitigation potential is found um in the land sector so you know the paris agreement revised our ideas or revised our political thinking about temperature limits from some two degree sea limit which had been in the discourse until paris two to 1.5 and setting 1.5 as as that new limit um you know it does a couple of things it calls attention to the very serious implications for agriculture and livelihoods even with a 1.5 degree limit um but it also makes the mitigation challenge ahead of us even greater and of course there's quite a lot of then intensive looking for where we're going to find the mitigation and forces looking towards the mitigation potential in land which is of course set up by by the earlier ipcc reports the report findings of the ipcc they've had an inordinate focus on large-scale technological mitigation solutions like bioenergy carbon capture and storage these are things that are written into climate models the models didn't you know have very little reality checks associated with them in the fifth assessment report the amount of terrestrial carbon sequestration that was assumed to be possible particularly through bioenergy carbon capture and storage was well let's just say it was rather shockingly large the amount of of of land-based mitigation and so we wrote the missing pathways report as the ipcc was writing its 1.5 report it was meant to be a counterpoint to what was being produced in the ipcc models and we asked the question what are the possible pathways what are some possible pathways to 1.5 that don't involve sequestering large amounts of carbon through as yet non-existent large-scale technological options like bioenergy carbon capture and storage and we focused on the land sector we said what pathways are missing from the ipcc account because you can't easily translate them into an integrated assessment model and because of the nature of the 1.5 challenge that there's a significant amount of mitigation that needs to happen we understood that the pathways that we were looking for were transformational in character in some way and i really appreciate and think back to dr boris's mentioning of of trends of what is possible of the transformation of of social systems because that's very much what we were how we were framing our our thinking not what is doable but what is possible um who were we to write such a report well we're a group of non-governmental and social movement organizations from around the world um we start with a set of common principles and assumptions about the world and the communities that we work in or that we work with um and a couple of those starting principles one addressing climate change requires radical transformational change based on equity um principle two land is crucial for food security and food sovereignty and a third principle land must be managed with a rights-based approach ensuring public participation and preserving livelihoods we acknowledge that small scale producers produce the majority of food globally they produce it for local not global markets and that small scale producers feed the world um we know that people and human rights are a critical part of any analysis uh real solutions have to get beyond carbon uh and when looking at these really big mitigation numbers um which sometimes draw us just to look at where where's all the carbon um we actually have we can't ignore what's happening on the ground we actually have to look in communities and ecosystems um we assume that there's a set of interlocking global crises this isn't just a climate crisis it's a climate crisis it's a biodiversity crisis it's a rights crisis and all of those crises are in a context of of global inequality and and increasing global inequality and those systems that construct and perpetuate that inequality so some of our key findings on climate change and agriculture well so one of our key findings that we need to or key starting points is that we need to work from first principles and those are the principles of the right to food and the principles of agroecology such as the recycling of nutrients and systems rather than the exogenous addition of nutrients um and the the really sort of foundational role that diversity plays in agro ecosystems across time and across space we also conclude that there are substantial contributions to a 1.5 degree pathway that can be found in the agriculture sector through both reduction in emissions and removals by sinks and in in carbon sequestration um in agriculture the reductions in emissions come from reducing the use of nitrogen fertilizers synthetic nitrogen fertilizers and relying on natural sources of fertility and also limiting animal production and consumption and I'll say right from the start and very um I think emphasize very much when we're talking about limiting animal production and consumption we're very much focused on the global north in places where animal production and consumption is is far in excess of of human needs um we're not talking about animal production and consumption for the most part in in the global south um and we also found substantial contributions in sequestration we there's a bracketing a caveat there in terms of the temporary nature of carbon sequestration and much of the sequestration possibility that we looked at was in agroforestry systems so agroforestry and ag agrocivil pastoral systems expanding and enhancing the huge variety of those systems around the world we saw could could sequester up to um a gigaton of carbon a year um and I'm not going to go into the details of carbon amounts um we know that agriculture has to be a focus of both mitigation and adaptation it's impossible to just look at agriculture from a mitigation perspective because of the very serious impacts of climate change on agriculture temperature rise impacts on water quality and availability desertification land degradation all of those with critical impacts on food security which is why 1.5 degrees is such an important number um and as with all other greenhouse gas intensive sectors the challenge is really transformation um tinkering around the edges won't do we can't just make incremental adjustments to an industrial agricultural system that's responsible for close to a quarter of current global emissions um incremental adjustments will fall far far short of what is needed how we produce our food where and for whom we'll need to change profoundly let me just give you two brief um examples before I pass the mic um to peter one um we tell the story in in the the um in the report of farmers in on the island of Puerto Rico after a series of devastating hurricanes wiped out large-scale cash crop production of of sugarcane of coffee of bananas large above ground um uh trees and and such and farmers transitioning to what they call agriculture subterranean underground agriculture recognizing that they needed to move from cash crops to food crops which were root based so yams and cassava etc which would continue to provide income and and food in times of disaster it's those sorts of radical system changes that we think are the transformative types of changes that we need to be imagining and making happen um in uh as we address climate change the other example and this is um an example that's based on research by um ellen ruse uh in in sweden is this idea of ecological leftovers of the complete transformation of how we produce meat um where we're feeding not food crops to animals but we're feeding leftovers food scraps crop residues to animals we're producing animals on grasslands which were um which are appropriate for for animal feeding not converting those grasslands to corn and soy production for animals but keeping the carbon stores in the grasslands while animals are on those grasslands the ecological leftovers approach um you know our estimate is you know something like four and a half gigatons of emission reductions per year um it means massively reducing the amount of meat that's consumed and as i said earlier um in the in the global north but it's a it's a transformation in in agricultural and animal production um that has significant significant emission reduction potential so let me turn it over to peter now for a little bit peter great thanks very much doreen uh and i will be showing a couple of slides that illustrate um the points uh that doreen has uh has just expressed i hope that you can see me and i hope i can now share screen uh just a moment please sorry there it is okay i hope everybody can see this um as doreen had referred to at the way's report i just wanted to say one more word about how clara came together we came together prior to the united nations framework convention on climate change meaning in paris so we're a pre paris agreement organization and we came to clara from one of three directions either from a community land rights and community-based natural resource management perspective from an interest in agroecology and food security and finally forest restoration professionals and others who sought to move beyond the the model of industrial forestry and all of us within clara were concerned first that rights-based approaches were being overtaken by technological approaches and perhaps most importantly at a political level within the climate change negotiations agriculture forestry and rights-based interests didn't have a common platform they didn't have a way to recognize each other and work together so there wasn't an opportunity yet to pursue what dr boris has called agrarian climate justice we do hope that um clara brings some of that in okay uh hopefully that you can all see that can i just get a little bit of feedback to make sure that you can you can hear me yes okay very good and you can see the slide yeah so there are a lot of threes in this talk three ways that land tenure is misunderstood as a climate solution three special cases on land tenure and climate three forest management legacy problems three natural and working land sequestration pieces they're often called climate wedges uh and then depending on time we may get into some of the other puzzle pieces i'll quickly run through those uh and then conclude with a couple three hopeful messages okay let's start with land tenure security uh and let's note by starting uh by stating that land tenure security when rooted in a social justice framework is itself a climate solution security of land and tidal generally increases the time horizon that farmers and landowners will use to make management decisions and many of the most effective climate mitigation solutions in the land sector that is greater carbon sequestration those solutions take a while to deliver the results you might plant now but you won't see the big climate gain carbon sequestration gains until a decade or more but land tenure is misunderstood as a climate solution in three ways first um it's sometimes treated as an output when in fact secure land tenure within a social justice framework is a precondition for success of all other mitigation and adaptation efforts and i believe here as well i'm echoing professor boros i'm sorry in lands across uh 64 countries currently store almost 300 gigatons of carbon and it's worth noting that only a third of the carbon identified in community lands lie in areas with uh secure tenure rights a second misunderstanding of the problem um technology based large-scale mitigation solutions are too often planned in ways that disregard existing land uses and the livelihoods of entire communities and this sets up center periphery conflicts uh as dr boros has just described third much of the language in the un f triple c in the un framework convention on climate change is based on uh the discourse of quote avoided deforestation as opposed to a much more active frame of reforestation and forest regeneration it isn't just about avoiding deforestation dealing with the greatly reduced carbon stocking that currently exists in much of the world's forests as well as recovery of the one third of global forests that in this century have been lost this question of the scope of engagement actually becomes very important when we talk about the baselines that country used to to report on their climate performance because all countries through what's called a nationally determined contribution an ndc uh is required to report to the un f triple c about its performance and there's a lot of gamesmanship a lot going on around the construction of these baselines so we may come come back to that um okay i mentioned three special cases the first is the special case of indigenous peoples and here's what we need to remind ourselves indigenous peoples are the holders of most of the world's biodiverse areas and so they play an essential role in conservation the guardianship of that diversity and the carbon associated with that it is not being rewarded at anything close to the value that that large carbon sink plays in regulating the planet's climate funding for climate mitigation has generally gone through central governments and frequently reduces the space for self-determination by indigenous peoples although this is changing there are some exciting initiatives that maybe we can talk about later the second special case is red plus when i mentioned the focus on avoided deforestation this is the main example of what i meant red stands for reduction in emissions from deforestation degradation and it draws upon the simple insight that forest left standing should be valued in such a way that countries aren't tempted to liquidate them simply for balance of payment reasons uh so this has led to the concept of results based the result of not cutting down your forest this is all good but now there are plans to allow countries to sell carbon credits that are created by avoided deforestation uh and forest restoration they would allow those credits to be sold to the airlines and that would be used to offset meaning to cancel out the continued emissions from air travel there's a longer story there we'll leave that for now the third special case is china most people are surprised to learn what a large percentage of the world's forested lands under community control and management is in fact in china china has created a very different community management model usually one with a very strong market orientation often focused on the production of particular specialty crops but importantly the chinese forestry sector is not now and really never was dominated by timber interest and thus it's very different than most national forest bureaucracies and it's created a very different path for development the chinese model is generally not what we think of when we indigenous management but there's a lot of really exciting stuff going on and i think what's happening with the chinese model for devolution of control is worth our further study okay so back to the missing pathways report our research showed a tremendous opportunity to help cool the planet by regrowing forests we identified three major climate wedges associated with forest management again i'll get to those in a moment but i also did want to note briefly three forest management legacy problems the first legacy problem is us that is consumers in wealthy countries and just a consumer orientation generally a lucrative international timber trade combined with the globalization of ocean chains means that market demand for international forest commodities drives legal and illegal logging and forest destruction international timber and livestock trade needs to be aligned with paris agreement goals to prevent temperature rise the second legacy problem is the over centralization of forest management devolving control to communities is essential and dr boros has described some of the opportunities but also some of the challenges associated with combating that over centralization third and in my part of the world the most significant legacy problem has been a scientific and production orientation towards maximizing efficiencies in dimensional lumber and biomass not an orientation towards maximizing ecosystem integrity which would help local communities and also provide regional benefits legacy problems we also see a history of fire suppression in some areas as a legacy problem and finally a history of conflict and exclusion as a legacy problem in other areas so this is partly what complies our efforts to treat forests as a proper climate solution okay let's do a little bit with the numbers hope you can all see this now this illustrates some of what dr sabinski was talking about and a little bit of what i've just mentioned i hope you can see my cursor over here is the potential for reduction in emissions in agriculture as you can see the business as usual scenario has 11 gigatons per year of co2 equivalent there's the potential to reduce that amount down to just four gigatons a year anybody tells you you can go to zero in the agriculture sector is either poorly informed or lying and at the same time there is the opportunity to significantly for land use we have a picture whereby we could convert forests as a source of emissions into a net sink so currently under a business as usual scenario with continued forest destruction forests would continue to be a source of emissions at the level of about six gigatons of co2 equivalent per year we found a mitigation potential in land use total of 15 gigatons per year which would lead to a net of minus nine or minus 10 gigatons of co2 equivalent per year okay so those are big numbers those are important activities but let's look at this green graph over here on the right at least by 2050 at least a thousand gigatons of co2 equivalent is stored in forests and soils with community held lands again not all of those to the larger than the numbers demonstrated in these flux approaches in agriculture and forestry hope that you can hear me i hope i didn't drop out for a minute there so just to make the point that the community held lands are absolutely determinative in climate action and the stores held under community management should not be compromised any further and in fact we need to go the other direction so what does that other direction look like there's some more than numbers on the left side are the specific wedges that Dr Stabinski talked about you'll notice the largest wedge is 4.5 gigatons co2 equivalent per year using the ecological leftovers approach healthy diet matters reducing food waste matters and all of the it's to a major share of avoided emissions from agriculture 7.5 gigatons a year is possible as well as an increase in sequestered carbon through agroforestry moving to the graph on the right side here and these are roughly comparable in scale we see that sequestered carbon is the much larger opportunity in the forest sector with responsible forest use natural forest expansion and forest ecosystem expansion there's also some avoided emissions avoided through halting deforestation and degradation through restoring grasslands and significantly through storing peatlands peatlands having a small percentage of the world's lands but representing a remarkably large share of stored global carbon so let me spend just a minute on these three wedges because they may not be intuitively clear let's start at the bottom with responsible forest use number of projections of of the ability of forest to provide mitigation benefits most of those analyses in our view failed to account for the need for continued wood harvest so clara is actually quite conservative in our estimate here we think 50 percent of the world's secondary forest should be allowed to regrow whereas 50 percent of the current production forest area globally will need to remain that way that is as a permanent timber supply base now there's a clear tension in most systems between maximum yield and ecosystem values but there's also clearly a major opportunity for lots of long rotation production forestry we devalued short rotation plantations in our analysis because frankly we believe that between 2025 and 2050 the most important thing we can do is carbon sequestration and plantations simply don't give you that looking at looking up on this graph to natural forest expansion almost four gigatons a year this would be the recovery of lands that had been oh excuse me this would be the part of the forest estate that's allowed to regrow 50 percent regrowth of currently converted or degraded areas also important to note that urban forestry becomes very important in this context urban forestry is expensive but it also has very high co-benefit values in terms of reduced energy use and just creating a more hospitable climate in urban areas so urban urban forestry is actually part of the natural forest expansion and then finally this way can i interrupt you and you have about yeah you have about two minutes left sorry to interrupt you no problem that's perfect okay and then this last way to share forest ecosystem restoration that remains for us but increases its carbon values and it's increases its biodiversity levels as a result of restoration okay so this is a this is a summary slide this will just show the three areas that we've addressed in missing pathways the importance of indigenous community lands the importance of transforming agriculture and finally the importance of restoring forests and other ecosystems to leave you with three hopeful notes there's a lot more going on at the landscape level what we what we are arguing for is the consideration of the needs of forest dependent communities the needs of rural entrepreneurs but also workers that are in plantation systems that are in commodity dependent systems at a landscape level our solutions have to work for all three indigenous peoples and forest dependent communities rural entrepreneurs as well as our subaltern population involved in commodity production a second hopeful message yes yes to the half earth solution that is we need half the earth to be allowed to be restored this is a vision of eo wilson and others um 30 can probably come through strict conservation the other 20 percent should be managed by local communities indigenous peoples managed for resilience uh and it will take multiple scientific disciplines for us to get there finally let's see carbon pricing for forests let's see an actual price put on standing for us that landowners and others are rewarded for without offsetting that is not taking those land-based uh improvements and then selling them to fossil fuel producers or the airlines or what have you which leads to no net mitigation benefit um this is part of article six negotiations under the paris agreement they are ongoing clara takes the position that we do not have the carbon budget for offsetting but there's lots of ways to reward communities and landowners for continued forest growth and with that i thank you this is such an amazing group just looking at the names any one of you probably could have given this presentation so it's a real honor and a pleasure and i thank you very much and turn it back to the organizers here well thank you peter and doreen for again a very inspiring uh presentation um and i think the two presentations fit together very very well um and and what i noted in in terms of commonalities is that you both sort of discuss the the myths that surround this idea of of the need for large-scale initiatives to offset carbon emissions which in june's presentation focused very much on how that negatively affects the rights of small-scale producers but you also show us how that undermines a lot of possible innovations in the small-scale production sectors so so i thought that way your your presentations complemented each other very well um we haven't seen any questions coming in oh yeah i do uh next for me okay um yeah so um so so to me it was very much about this sort of contradiction and also during what you said that actually there is very little um you know all the predictions for the large-scale mitigation processes have very little few links to to reality which supports this idea that that it's about myths um but you also seem to oppose the large-scale and and small-scale and someone here is asking about how about sort of you know mixed farming how could that address the problem um i also have a question to june you talk about sort of a minimum uh access to people but but who how should we define minimum access and for whom so these are the two questions i have and the first one it comes from also from Harriet Friedman it's not just about scale but it's also about mixing different farming systems so who would like to start responding to these things well i'm happy to to start to respond to Harriet and i think um you know i think the agro forestry and the agro silval pastoral systems and the the sequestration potential that we note there actually is an answer to that question and that is yeah mixed farming systems can actually be carbon neutral or can sequester carbon right um the emissions from agriculture come from come from animals they come from nitrogen sources often exogenous nitrogen sources and so when you're able to utilize diversity and utilize sort of recycling of nutrients rather than exogenous addition you create those systems where you can actually massively reduce emissions if not become sort of carbon carbon neutral or carbon negative i have to say though that it's really really important to think about the distinction between fossil carbon and terrestrial carbon fossil carbon is carbon that's been under the ground for millions of years and what we're doing is we're bringing it up um and putting it into to a carbon cycle uh the terrestrial carbon is carbon that is that is in that carbon cycle and so we can think about sequestering that carbon but because of natural processes that carbon is not sort of fixed and then it's kind of stuffed underground for millions of years right the potential of terrestrial carbon it is possible for us to to fix carbon but we also need to recognize the volatility of that the possible change of amount of carbon that is possible to sequester because of changes in climate as climate heats up maybe the ability of less carbon to be sequestered in the soil and so really what we have to do right now is stop those car those fossil carbon emissions use the sequestration potential as as much as possible but not assume that they're they're fungible that they are absolutely equivalent because they're not because of that that um the volatile and transitory nature of terrestrial carbon. Thanks can I just add briefly I appreciate the question very much I I think this is a great example of the of the difference between two values one is the value of productivity and the other is that of efficiency in these debates productivity really matters and perhaps we don't often spend enough time on it often however the constant productivity which can be viewed as a food production or an ecosystem carbon value is replaced with a market term which is efficiency which is usually oriented towards maximizing the production of a single commodity from a piece of land that's a very different measure we need productivity we should problematize this question of efficiency. Thank you Jun would you like to come in? Yeah when the question of what does it mean minimum access for a very long time in a at least in a current studies land has always been treated in the context of land for farming in the rural world especially during the past century that was basically what it means when you talk about land we're in the 21st century and the world has been very much transformed and actually a lot of different types of social categories in societies have particular kinds of land question that doesn't necessarily mean land for full-time farming in the rural areas so you have a lot a range of things both for production and social reproduction purposes that's why I mentioned the for food gardens for community gardens for community forests for housing very importantly I think this is what I mean when that becomes very important to have a minimum access for those who need land for both production and social reproduction. We have some questions coming in I'm very happy to hear that first of all there's a question by Gemma about the address to Clara how can you combine a rights-based approach with this idea of half a planet and that's quite there's quite some controversy about that there was also a question by Richard Slucius specifically to June saying that the issue of land scaling needs to be needs to consider the carrying capacity of land size alone cannot resolve the question of land access and ability to sustain livelihoods and then a third and then I'll give the floor to you question are there any numbers on the contribution by sea based farming like seaweed replacing meat and I think that's more a question of a question to Doreen so who would like to start June would you like to start on the land ceiling you're muted I'm not exactly sure I understand the question but okay I'll try well the carrying capacity of land indeed is a very important consideration here so no no no question that question of land productivity is just as important as anything else and of course land size ceiling on its own or minimum access on its own will not resolve the problem of having a workable livelihoods for anyone that's why what I was trying to convey is that the principles of minimum access and land size ceiling should always go together and they cannot be separated in the visibility of minimum access you can have minimum access you you guarantee the right human rights based to land access for instance but you don't have you you don't put a cap on how much individuals and corporations accumulate in terms of land or how much banks can foreclose and own effectively own lands then even your minimum access in the end will not mean much so the idea is to sandwich this thing to make sure that you go into a more reasonable kind of distribution of access and control of resources not in a very kind of skewed distribution in which normally you know 10 percent of land owners control 80 percent of land resources as we see now in most societies today thanks uh peter would you like to come back to the question about the rights-based approach versus half a planet yes thank you dr van har for this question it's a really good question most of the initiatives that are 30 by 30 or half earth 30 by 30 means 30 of the planet should be strictly protected by the year 2030 most of these came out of the conservation movement and i would agree with you entirely that the conservation movement has a lot of amends to make on rights-based approaches but personally i don't see a conflict i think what's very interesting is the question of how we go beyond 30 30 strict protected areas to a half earth vision that very much includes rights-based approaches of indigenous peoples and local communities so that when we're talking about that that additional 20 percent the 20 percent that gets us from to 50 that 20 percent really needs to be local communities and indigenous peoples managed lands and it may not satisfy the criteria of the conservation groups that may not look like an adequate solution to them but i think for most of us from a livelihoods perspective from a rights perspective the idea that community led restoration could be part of the half earth task i am actually surprised that it remains controversial but i think we need to stick to our guns and ensure that local communities indigenous peoples and their management solutions are part of any half earth effort thanks Doreen there was also a question to you well which i assigned to you on the seaweed whether there are figures available for the contribution of of sea-based farming yeah um i know that there's work out there we looked at terrestrial systems so we didn't actually i and i'm i'm not familiar with that literature so i'm not i'm not i'm sorry that i can't answer the question in any more detail um i wonder maria if i could take on one of jemma's questions yes i saw that one i'm trying to keep an eye on the chat box and neil's helping me with that yeah please go ahead so it's on the relation between uh between covid-19 and and whether there's a link to climate change less lessons yeah so whether there are lessons that we've learned about land and climate that that have implications for the current um crisis of covid and and i mean i have to say that some of what we've been writing and thinking about it in terms of industrial agricultural systems and the intense vulnerability of industrial agricultural systems and very long supply chains those vulnerabilities and climate change have actually covid's actually sort of showed us that that those vulnerabilities are actually very real so covid's revealed that um and also i think you know thinking about covid it's uh you know it's it's a warm-up right the covid crisis is a warm-up to these snowballing intensifying impacts that we expect from climate change and and i guess one of the main um lessons that i think is quite important is one that that dr boros has already mentioned right and that is and i'm going to quote a couple of other thinkers um neomy kline and arin dot t roy in that case and that is you know we have this this sort of this time of crisis and during a time of crisis things can shift really really rapidly and things that never we've never thought to be possible in the past suddenly are very very possible so thinking about what are the social conditions what are the political and economic conditions for rapid large-scale shifts and transformation in thinking i think that covid is showing us that that those sorts of transformations are possible um neomy kline talks about she quotes milton freedman in terms of the ideas that are lying around are really important to have those ideas lying around for those those times of crisis and and opportunity those ideas um like um like agroecological transformations those ideas like um ecological leftovers and i'll just end with a quote from arin dot t roy she says that historically pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and emerge and imagine their world anew this one is no different it's a portal it's a gateway between one world and the next and i think for thinking about climate change let us think about how we use this particular crisis to really give us the opportunity to think about the what those transformational um what what sorts of transformations we need to envision them and and to use this opportunity to make them happen yeah thanks what that links a bit to the question that on the least somers had to june uh because june you mentioned the possible uh exacerbating effects of uh the the pandemic on uh on local land rights um and at least says but uh which concurs a bit with what you're saying durin that um these these big companies some of these big companies may also go bankrupt because of the the crisis and that opens and may also open up opportunities so how do you feel about that and then i'll try and return to some of the questions in the chat box again can you respond june yeah oh i ended my my last sentence in this in my address was basically of taking a look at the crisis the the dual crisis of climate change and the pandemic uh as something that can be flipped into trans being transformed into a rare opportunity to advance uh uh big ideas subversive ideas uh into a positive future that were otherwise difficult and this is part of uh and i want to locate my discussion about that kind of thing of uh uh that the pandemic may have bankrupt some of those land gravers uh that weakens them uh in a position uh to continue to hold on to their lands and that they could be vulnerable to clay making from below to return those land grab uh uh uh areas uh to uh uh the communities and i think we will we might see uh some of those however uh the the the the crisis unfolds in two ways uh it's a double edged sword it can be an opportunity for progressive clay makers to advance positive agendas or it could spiral further downward downward if more uh corporate and reactionary interests would be able to seize those opportunities during the great depression in 1930s some of this california uh big farmers went bankrupt but their lands were taken over by banks and insurance companies uh when we see uh economic downturn uh many banks and insurance companies start to accumulate uh lands by uh foreclosing those lands even in less uh spiky uh crises that we see for example in the european union over the past few decades uh many of the foreclosed lands were foreclosed by banks and insurance companies and actually they started to accumulate uh land uh uh control so those are things that we cannot watch uh but we always see uh how uh the political opportunity structure is being altered uh by the dual crisis of climate change uh on the one climate crisis on the one hand and uh the pandemic on the other hand but it can cut both ways uh that's my uh response to that but then again i come back to a a powerful uh insurance social insurance if you may for poor people is the the concept of a floor and a ceiling in terms of access and the cap to land uh accumulation uh i also saw in the chat box a question about production and social reproduction and a question of gender i was about to post that one yes yeah uh very important to take a look at land not just in terms of uh economic uh productive activities of farming but to look at it also a central in social reproduction here uh a gender question becomes very central not in isolation but in a more intersectional kind of way especially in the intersection of class uh and uh gender and i think again the pandemic has exposed uh not only the vulnerability but also the power of uh looking at the intersection of class gender and other identity uh questions uh and affirming the need for a much more radical deep social reforms that involve land in the context of uh social of economic production and social uh reproduction thanks um well there was also a question from Tsitsimu Parari about uh how do you uh well when when connecting land tenure and climate change in Africa how do you picture this connecting this connection without seeking to understand the colonial paths that define land sectors and their operation um i'll take a few uh there was also some a question about um yeah the example of china's law and governance um and whether that might be there was a question from Faia Musniewska i'm sorry if i mispronounce your name um the example of china's law and governance uh that peter provided but maybe jun also has something to say about that but peter this one was to you um perhaps that example is is tainted by uh by the the legal and illegal first straight footprint beyond the country uh so this is how do we link a question about how do we link the local to to uh global regional global levels um and let me see if there's one that goes to women if addressed yeah well let let me stick to these three first who would like to go first peter would you like to respond to the the question about china and then maybe yeah and then also reflect some on on colonial pathways uh in africa i'm not qualified to reflect on the colonial pathways i put a brief response in the chat to the china question i acknowledge that china has externalized its timber supply problem in order to protect its own forests and it has ravaged forests in yonmar and eastern russia so this is definitely a concern um it is interesting to me however that china has been able to implement the kinds of community management programs um it's it has undertaken largely because its central forest bureaucracy is not dominated by timber interests that strikes me as interesting and also an example of the level of paradigm shift we need um if i can take a brief moment to answer julian kwan's question regarding landscape level to a sustainable territorial development and the answer is yes absolutely we talk about community management but we think it's very important that uh issues be addressed at the landscape level what i've noticed is the world bank wants to work with rural entrepreneurs uh the commodity chain justice groups want to work with plantation workers and then a lot of land governance efforts want to work with indigenous peoples and local communities um what i don't see are efforts that combine these very different efforts or very different interests into a landscape level approach there's some that's starting to and i appreciate the work of the global landscapes forum in this regard but again the reminder we're going to need solutions that work for uh local people for rural entrepreneurs as well as wage laborers within agriculture and production forestry sectors if one of those groups is left out we cannot look forward to sustainable solutions thanks uh thanks there there there's a real need for comments on the colonial pathways i've noticed in the chat box and then there's another question because we have many questions coming in we're officially supposed to move to the networking part in um well in in in about seven minutes time that means um foregoing the break uh but perhaps we will still want to take a 10 minute break after we still do some of the questions and then schedule the the networking a bit later is that okay with everyone um but can in the meantime can anyone any of you respond to the the colonial pathways question i think uh that is specifically directed to uh uh peter i leave it to that but my response to that would be a big and vague kind of thing of the need to historicize any responses not just uh in the slice of time of the year and now in which the dominant kind of thinking about land policies are very notorious uh in that kind of sense many of the societies that we see uh are much more complex historically so uh even uh a positive uh seemingly a positive intervention such as community uh mapping and registration could be a very tricky and be very uh complicated uh in Myanmar when you go into a community and you start to map with the people who are currently occupying that particular community land probably they are only one among the three or four competing claimants because they were already three or four waves of people who were expelled from those community and become refugees so the importance of history is central uh in on how to resolve the this land question that's my point on the the the colonial uh past uh i saw that julian has made an intervention here and of course julian is especially in this context because julian is one of the most is one of uh uh one of the key authors of the section on land tenure security uh in the climate change uh and land report of the IPCC uh going beyond uh sectoral narrowness oh absolutely there we are on the same page going into a landscape kind of approach absolutely uh i think a very narrow framing of as i said very narrow framing of land into land for farming in rural areas is uh it will not work very much uh on it even among those very people that are actually needing land for farming because most likely those people are farmers but also pastoralists but also fishers but also wage workers in their community but are also migrant wage workers in a seasonal way they combine all these kind of uh uh activists in one go and that's where you see uh the location of sectoral land becomes uh uh smaller and smaller in terms of the conventional way of framing land so landscape there is very important but even a landscape uh kind of approach uh i would argue without the floor and the ceiling and the society-wide kind of uh radical recasting on the rules on how to access and how much uh land resources will not work uh at all so the elites can also recast uh their control over resources in the landscape uh kind of a bigger manner big conservation organizations agribusiness corporations military operations they tend to conspire to create their own landscape of expulsion of uh uh villagers uh uh for instance so i think again in the end uh landscape as an approach is very useful and important but it has to be made to serve a broader kind of social justice framework I think i see all kinds of discussions also in the chat box between some of the speakers and some of the members of the audience so this is very nice and it makes it for a moderator a bit complicated to follow all the the chats um but it's nice to see um well one last question before i think um i'll hand over to Neil to explain the the networking through the break rooms um but that links a bit to what you were saying and and it links to a couple of the questions i think that have come in and and those are about relations relations and power relations specifically not just between communities and outside powerful actors but also within communities um and how do you uh vision and taking those into account as well and that's a question to all of you i think so who would like to start June very quickly in that uh i i think the centrality of class and class relations and class politics become a very important thing there uh when processes of land parties a village when processes of forest conservation or carbon accounting arrives in a village they don't impact upon a homogeneous community impact it's a very socially differentiated and socially differentiating communities on most occasions and those class relations are central but it's very important uh to see those competing class relations in an intersectional uh context as we always kind of argue that it intersects with very important identity dimensions uh gender race and ethnicity are among the most important ones but so are questions of generation but absolutely central uh and and this is why the importance of lentin your security has to be scrutinized and this uh disaggregated into its important uh fault lines if you may uh made of uh social relations uh that are based on class and identity uh dimensions of it yeah well thank you i think we can go on for hours with this discussion lots of interesting questions coming up uh and of course the the differences within communities complicate matters uh quite a bit but but are crucial to be taken into account um i would love to continue but i think since it's already well four o'clock our time i but we have people in many different parts of the world many different time zones but i would like like to hand over to neil sorensen now to explain um the breakout groups to you for the networking uh and perhaps we can also have a brief break so people can fill up their drinks um uh bathroom visits etc uh but neil please go ahead and um i hope you can can guide us through the breakout process for the for the networking yeah no problem thanks so much thanks for everybody for joining us at this first session in the land act online encounter the i'm just gonna set up break rooms breakout rooms parallel rooms automatically so you know once i open them you will find yourself in a room with uh five or six different people who assigned to you randomly so i encourage you to network and to get to know one another and to talk about these issues or or just uh you know uh see see what uh learn more about each other and uh so we're just trying to create a virtual space like you may have done during the lockdown and had virtual cocktails with your family and friends so we're trying to you know provide an alternative to the in-person event and hope you can take advantage of this and and get to know one another a little bit better and i don't know if you have anything else to add uh before that any any closing remarks i think after that we'll just end yeah so um in in that case i i really thank you june doreen and peter for very inspiring keynotes uh and i thank indeed all the members of the audience who've contributed to the discussion with uh very good questions and i'm sorry i haven't been able to uh pose all of them to the speakers but i saw that some of them were also responded to uh by the speakers in the chat box um as i said it's my first time to moderate this online and it's actually quite a challenge despite the wonderful help provided by by new and thanks uh hema and chuse also for their opening of this uh the the first day of our online uh encounter please register also for the the following events there's also a phd event tomorrow morning i heard you can find all the information on the landak website so thanks and i hope that you will stay with us for the networking um but maybe we we can start the networking at in in about 10 minutes uh from now to give everyone the opportunity to get a drink and go to the bathroom um well whatever uh you need to do uh and also give your eyes a bit of a rest from staring at the screen because that's also quite intense so thank you very much i hope to see you in the um next event and i hope to see uh meet some of you during the virtual breakout room because i'm also going to participate and i hope that our speakers will also participate in the breakout sessions thank you for your presentations and thanks the audience for their questions