 Thanks, this is actually perfect because I'm going to try to engage some of the ideas in the last two presentations explicitly in my presentation. The title of my presentation is Formalization Policies in Formal Resource Sectors and the re-centralization of power. Really I'm going to speak largely about two case studies but I'm hoping that this might have some broader resonance with other cases. What I really want to look at in this presentation is in a sense a historical understanding of formalization policy through decentralization phases of governance and then into a post-decentralization phase where central governments reassert their power over the formalization process and in a sense takeover from local governments. Obviously the idea of local government means many different things in many different contexts. The cases I'm going to talk about are in Zimbabwe and witness already spoke a little bit about the role of rural district councils. I'm going to try to take that further a little bit more. The other case is in Indonesia where the idea of local government means something entirely different than it means in Zimbabwe. Both these cases are examples where in the 1990s and early 2000s local governments had a role in managing artisanal gold mining or certain kinds of artisanal gold mining. What we've seen in the last five years in the 2006 to 2012 period is that that power no longer exists at least in the case studies I'm going to look at. I want to look at really the framing of what central governments rules are and what local governments rules are and just to situate myself I began working in 2005 with United Nations organizations on small scale mining issues and what was actually remarkable looking at the various years that I've interacted with UN agencies is UN agencies always seem to focus on national scale governance. That's the model of the UN and just to add to Louie's list of formalization initiatives there's another one this year. This year governments from more than 140 countries agree to sign a mercury treaty which is a historic treaty to deal with global mercury pollution. Explicit in that treaty is that national governments must take new measures to formalize the small scale gold mining sector in order to reduce mercury pollution. So are UN agencies missing the point perhaps when we focus so narrowly on the role of national governments? So I want to in this presentation look a little bit about the framing of formalization policy in relation to national interests. What are some of the interests that drive national governments in formalization thinking? Secondly, I want to look at some of these two case studies looking at the effects of re-centralizing power and that one of the questions I asked in field work in particular was in this new phase of re-centralization is becoming decriminalized the possibility for artisanal mining groups and then I want to thirdly look at the extent to which these case studies might contribute to a rethinking of our assumptions. So I'm interested in multiple bodies of literature here obviously there's a lot of literature that questions the sort of technical framing that has become popular in some of the scholarship. Formalization is never a technical issue. It's always a political issue in my view to varying degrees of course. And there's a whole literature on institutions for managing resource sectors. Jesse Rebo is an interesting scholar who's actually published a paper called Re-centralizing while decentralizing and his paper looks at in a sense how central governments subvert the decentralization process even when decentralization is supposedly taking place. Then there's the political ecology literature which really looks at the role of discourse, the idea of scale and how we conceptualize resource struggles. And a lot of the political ecologists nowadays are arguing that we really need to look at subjective scaling in our discourses. So in terms of methods the case studies that I'm going to present draw on interviews in Zimbabwe which is my main area of focus and also in central Kalimantan in Indonesia I looked at riverbed gold panning as well as land based gold mining and looking at ongoing policy shifts. So as I mentioned the 2000 Mercury Treaty is just one example of a long list of formalization initiatives that have bearing on informal mining activities and Ken provided quite a number of other examples. So this is a major sector of importance to national governments and the global community for all kinds of reasons. Estimates suggest 80 to 100 million people are dependent on artisanal gold mining. And of course the populations are diverse. You have women, men, children, all kinds of different organizations, structures of people working in the sector. The question is can national governments be responsive to this diversity? Can local governments be more responsive to this diversity in coming up with effective formalization plans? The scholarship is fragmented in this sector. I think we have to acknowledge that too. And as mentioned in the previous presentations, how we frame formalization objectives if it's in relation to a threat or an illicit problem or a livelihood promotion effort. All these kinds of framings matter a great deal. And in the artisanal mining sector I think it's fair to say that much of the discourse is focused on really negative framings of the problem rather than an effort to try to build livelihoods in mining communities. So we have seen also some emergent discourse critiques that critique this whole language of illicitness and criminality. So in Zimbabwe and Indonesia I think the discourses in the national newspapers, in policy documents, they vary. But I tried to just categorize some of the typologies of formalization narratives. And you have, I mean in Jakarta Post you see articles decrying that small scale mining is causing acne on the landscape. Sometimes these discourses are actually written by consultants to large mining companies. So you have to look carefully who's producing the discourses about small scale mining. But of course small scale mining is causing lots of environmental degradation in Indonesia as it is in Zimbabwe. You have narratives of threat management. So scholars such as Vega who argue that well you know providing a legal status for miners is prerequisite, is a precondition for development. It's necessary so that miners can access technology services and improve their productivity. Then you have narratives that stress the subsistence nature. And rather than saying that this is necessarily a precondition, they're arguing that well we should recognize the legitimacy. So formalization is associated with a kind of legitimization. And then you have as Ken talked about some of the conflict discourses. So here's just a photo to situate an example of this is a World Bank field trip that I went on in 2009. And the World Bank supposedly was taking us to an artisanal mining site. But as you can see this doesn't very much look like an artisanal mining site. It's actually quite an established company with a whole story to it which I'm not going to get into. But the point is that in a lot of the discourse actually a lot of what donor agency says we need to scale up artisanal mining into responsible business like mining. And what I actually noticed which was interesting is that in Zimbabwe that kind of scale up mentality is very much part of the government discourse to say that small scale miners need to become responsible. Whereas Indonesia actually if you look at the laws they actually define community mining in a very limiting way which is in some sense the opposite. Community mining is defined in Indonesian laws in relation to very limited amounts of digging in relation to you know it's actually talked about as a family kind of activity. So there's different resonance with this model. I'm not going to get into all the different reasons for informalization but we have to be aware of these obviously as Ken mentioned there's all kinds of lack of incentives for many miners. So the case study in Zimbabwe is I think interesting for lots of reasons. I mean as witness mentioned an economic crisis in Zimbabwe in the last decade has made livelihoods very difficult and mining has become a huge source of subsistence in rural areas. Some estimates suggest that there's more than a million small scale miners or people dependent on small scale mining in Zimbabwe. The numbers are very difficult to know but what I wanted to start off with in this case study was looking at in Siza district which is located right near Buluweo. And in Siza district is an example of a context where in the 1990s a lot of innovative programs were attempted with donor support from Swedes, German donors, Canadian donors even. And the local rural district council in Siza district was actually empowered by the central government to issue permits to riverbed gold panniers. And some of the studies that have been done and you see some of them cited here indicate that this was a very important and very innovative model. It was really a model that scholars argue in other districts in Zimbabwe and other countries in Africa should emulate not just focusing on central governments but actually saying that rural district councils which are close to the ground supposedly could offer permits. So there are lots of problems with this model and I'm not going to go into all the problems in the lessons learned. There wasn't enough training for rural district council officers it was one of the issues that came up out of interviews. But a positive side local artisanal miners associations were formed and were managing to various degrees were actually managing some of the risks in terms of riverbed panning. That changed in 2006. So in 2006 what I'm arguing is we can understand this operation no illegal mining to be a kind of re-centralization of power. The central government in June of 2006 removed the power of rural district councils to issue permits. Then later that year and actually I was even doing some field work at the time and then shortly after that I asked the rural district councils what their perspective was on this and they didn't even know about this policy shift at the time. They hadn't been consulted. But later that year in 2006 the central government launched a massive police crackdown. More than between 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 more than 40,000 miners were arrested according to the government for illegal mining and smuggling related offenses. In fact I was back in Zimbabwe earlier this year and got the actual numbers of people still in prison from this phase and more than 9,000 miners are actually people are still in prison for mining or smuggling related offenses. And a number of different central government institutions became involved. It's not just one central government entity. We're talking about police squads, military squads, central intelligence organization. So this is an elaborate re-centralization kind of campaign in some sense and new environmental impact assessment requirements were imposed and stricter penalties were enforced. So I've been trying to study the role of the miners associations through this period and obviously miners associations find it very difficult to advocate for the rights of unlicensed, you know, allegedly illegal miners. Initially the United Nations project that I was working on in up to 2007 was trying to use the environmental threat issue as a rationale for legalizing rather than punishing miners. But it became a kind of problematic just to even talk about mercury pollution because that discourse was being used as the very rationale for policing. So again, I mean the role supposedly of formalization is to look at multiple different scales of responsibility. But as I mentioned at the start, United Nations programs and a lot of development discourses focus really narrowly on the national scale and this is extremely problematic in Zimbabwe where decisions are being made in Harare far away from the mining areas. So one of the issues that became particularly compelling is this issue of the environmental impact assessment. And in a sense this is an example of a formalization requirement that is far beyond the means of miners. Miners stress that, you know, they want to manage the environment more soundly but they need a program of regulation that's simple, easy to understand, not too bureaucratic and appropriate. And this is a cartoon in the Herald which is actually a state newspaper just showing the magnitude of the challenges. This was just showing that this is a million Zimbabwe dollars at the time but it's showing that the miners can't afford the EIS. This I'm not going to describe at all because it's rather too complicated but just to show that there are so many factors that have contributed to central government interest cracking down on miners. It's a very complex political story. So how do central government structures interact with local government structures? Well the reality is that there has been very minimal sort of engagement when it comes to making decisions over licenses. There's all kinds of reasons why rural district councils are arguing actually that they should be more empowered and the big one is the issue that they're so poorly empowered right now with respect to revenues. And this is actually a really important comparison with Indonesia. In Indonesia, local governments receive more than 30% of mining revenues from large-scale mining. In Zimbabwe, the rural district councils are receiving less than 0.01%. So I mean the meaning of local government is completely different in these two countries. So I'll just say some brief things before I conclude about the Indonesia case. Gold miners in Indonesia are blamed for lots of environmental problems for sure. And there's an advocacy also to turn the sector into a more responsible sector. As I mentioned, the idea of local government means something different. There's also an interesting trend in the scholarship right now in Indonesia. And here I reference Obedzinski that he's cautioning that the discourse in 2004 was already pronouncing local governments as failures. But he's actually in a sense questioning this. He's saying decentralization in the forestry sector is being presented as a failure. But he's talking about the role of local governments. And he's saying that they're in a sense being blamed. And so what we've seen in the post-2009 period is central government in Indonesia imposing moratoriums. And this is the case in central Kalimantan where both mining and logging permits have been held up in a national reevaluation process. And this is just to situate a copy of a license in the area of central Kalimantan where I visited where the person who put together this application had to send this to Jakarta and is still waiting for an outcome or was at least at the time. So he was waiting. And it wasn't very positive actually about his ability to get a license. So arguably a lot of the discussion in Kattingan district in central Kalimantan about these issues is now being influenced by a national environmental process. You could argue I'm getting near the end. I will conclude very rapidly. But I think this is a really interesting case where rather in Indonesia right now in central Kalimantan specifically there is a discourse especially with issues, concerns about red and other environmental planning movements to look at seriously land use. But the question is to what degree do areas like this, as you see on the left, this is a mined area. This is a moonscape of a very degraded area where if this is being mined is this causing new environmental degradation or conversely if this is to be a no-go area is banning mining here going to cause more environmental degradation elsewhere. And so that was one of the questions I looked at and this is the last slide I'll show where actually in 2011 what I found in field work was that there had been an escalation of policing very different from the policing in Zimbabwe. But policing and arrests have contributed to livelihood insecurity. There was less gold being produced and some people had actually stopped mining in these police areas and gone into more environmentally unsound river mining practices. So that's been a concern. So just to conclude my point in this presentation that the recent realization of power over formalization processes can create new problems of marginalization. Central governments impact mining communities in different ways. New environmental problems can arise. There's obviously a need as Ken mentioned as well for streamlining formalization requirements and that's a key point. But the final point I wanted to make was that governments might also be well advised to look at policies for supporting people who might not be formalized. There's so much fixation on formalizing sectors when the reality is that not everybody's going to become formalized. So what services are available for people who operate in that sort of gray territory of informality. Thanks.