 So I will hand over to Amy Duchel, our C4 colleagues, to lead the next session for the following, the next 35 minutes or so. You have two speakers and now yours, Amy, to lead this session. Great, thanks a lot, Pat Daniel, and hi everybody. I'm Amy Duchel. I'm leading C4's Climate Change Energy in the Carbon Development Team. And thank you for the invitation today. It's really wonderful to learn about work that I'm not intimately familiar with. So I really appreciate the chance to be here. We will bring questions for Ibu Mirna and Pat Marcel into the end of this discussion as well. So I see a lot of great questions in the chat and keep adding them as you hear our next speakers talking because we will have time at the end to try to bring everything together and incorporate your ideas as well. So our next speaker is Dr. Harry Pernomal. He's a scientist at C4 and the Value Chain for Finance and Investments Team. He's also a professor at C4 Bay. He's one of our illustrious scientists known, especially for his work on the political economy of fire, but also people in restoration issues. He also works on sustainable value chains, criteria and clinic meters for sustainable forest management and human management. So he will bring his broad governance expertise into the session today. So I turn it over to you, Harry. Thanks, Amy. Good morning. Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to share my presentation. So the title is Criteria Indicator for Tropical Pitland Restaurants. The governance aspect was developed by myself and also my colleague at the VFI team. I will start from the definition of governance. It is about the process of decision-making and how the decision is implemented or not implemented. It's important not only the decision-making process, but also the implementation of the decision-making. It is also the way power of actors is exercised in the management of economic and social resources. It is also talking about the power of protesters. Just the general things about governance element is coming from the wet bank, Fritz et al. The element is about the structures of trade, immigration, and also climate. And then the institution variables looking at the law rules, formal, informal, as well as the actor they influence the way results is managed. And then I would like to share our work, actually, in the previous project called the Sladi Sustainable for Lowland Agriculture. So you see how the structure, institutional actors influence the sustainability and livelihood of the land in the whole Indonesia. So we did a survey to the anti-Indonesian. And this is the score, actually, how strong the influence of the actor and how the connection between structure, incision actor, and sustainability. And also, you look at this more powerful actor based on their attributes, actor-centered power. The central government is the most powerful and powerful at the last, the least powerful. Also, according to the network, the social network analysis, the private company is the most powerful. And the financial agency is the least powerful according to the network, the social network. So it depends on the attribute as well as the network. And this is also very famous, the work of Kaupman, Kree, and Mastruzi, coming from the woodwind, the sixth dimension of governance. First is voice and accountability, how people accountable to their work, the political stability, option of violence. Also, the government effectiveness, how they deliver services to the people, the regulatory quality, as well as rule of law, how the rules enforced. And the last, I think, very pro-Fanto-Indonesian, the control of corruption, this is the sixth dimension of governance data worldwide known. And there are some principles of good governance that's developed by other authors, UK, ASS, and UNDP Indonesia. And the last is participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus-oriented, equity, and inclusiveness. Ibu Merna talked about inclusiveness. There is the principle of good governance, effectiveness and efficiency, as well as accountability. And the UNDP also developed kind of principles of good governance in Indonesia, for Indonesia. It's accountability, how people responsible to their work, equity, and effectiveness of services, deliver by government, efficiency, equity, and progress. Again, participation, how different actors participate in the decision-making process, as well as transparency, how the outside can get the information as soon as possible coming from the author. And this is, I will not explain the definition of them from the participation to the control of corruption. What does it mean? It took from various sources. And this is my proposal of a government principle for pit-land restoration at the national, sub-national level, or you can say a jurisdiction on that level. It's about participation, how people participate at the national level, or provincial level, how people are accountable to their work, and also the stability of politics. This is from my study, how actually the local election influence the fire and also the pit-land burning. There is a connection, it's already published. Also the effectiveness of government, also the quality of regulatory and rule of law, how the law enforcement, I think law enforcement is key. There is no good fire prevention and pit-land restoration without working the rule, without enforcing the rule, as well as the control of corruption. This is the, you know, the PCA diagram. Mostly rules are targeted to individual and also the big enterprises, less to the medium-scale investor. This is at the national level. It's at national level, it's a bit different. It's not talking about the quality of rule, but talk about the equity inclusiveness, participation as well as effectiveness. And also very key to talk about the control of corruption. When I talk about landscape, mostly related to the PHU, pit-land hydrological area, even less on that, a sub-landscape. So there is a principle at the national, sub-national level, at the jurisdiction level, as well as at the landscape level. And this is the CNI structure. This is what we did from the previous project, the hierarchy structure for the principles, then elaborate into the criteria, then each criteria elaborated into several indicators. Principles fundamental truth, everybody will agree, but then the criteria developed and used to judge, to assess the compliance with a principle. And then we need to develop indicator when it is measured to indicate a criteria. And this must be minimum, it's not all of them. And localize to meet the context, jurisdiction, scale, and also value change. And as Ibu Miramai said, there are already indicators, make use of the existing, the collected indicators. Just use it if there is some already indicator, no need to start from beginning. And then in assessing, you will need to wait and then assessing process using multi-criteria analysis. This is what I saw from the BRG as already indicators there. You can, for instance, criterion two, active involvement of parties. This is going to be a criterion, a criterion for participation. So if BRG already collected, just use it. If the Ministry of Affairs already collect some indicator, just use it. Just like the word being used, the existing indicator that you can accumulate and synthesize. So that's it, my presentation. Thank you, Ibu, back to you, thank you. Thank you, that was great. And thank you for being on time. I really like this idea that, you know, implementation of existing policies, programs, criterion indicator is actually the new innovation. We're always trying to do new things, but in fact, there's so much that's in place that we can be leveraging and actually trying to implement and implement better. So that was nice connection between the presentations. I also think, you know, tying the theory of governance to very practical, you know, issues of peatland restoration is very important. And, you know, Marcel was talking about the importance of social cohesion before we actually get to rehabilitation and reforestation activities. And you can see the complexities of such social cohesion from some of those diagrams that you were showing. So this isn't easy, but highly important. So let's move on to our next speaker in the session. This is Ibu Josi, a Katharina, who is from the Terpachaya Initiative Secretariat and represents Nobu. Terpachaya is a really interesting initiative. I'm sure most are familiar with it, but this is, with Inobu and the European Forest Institute, really showing how agricultural commodities can be produced sustainably and legally. So really pushing forward the jurisdictional approach in Indonesia in a very practical way. So I look forward to hearing about that from Ibu Josi. So first of all, I would like to thank the organizers Daniel for personally inviting me today to share the work of Terpachaya. And we hope that it can be beneficial for BRG and C4 in further developing the indicators for fitland restoration. And there are four aspects that I would like to share today of the Terpachaya Initiative. The first one is the indicators methodology that is applied, the platform that we use to share, to let on share the measurement. And lastly, the policy approaches taken by Terpachaya. So this initiative has been developed since 2018 by Inobu and FV under BAPENAS, the National Development Agency Direction. And the work of Terpachaya is developed based on consultation with stakeholders through an advisory committee mechanism headed by BAPENAS. The advisory committee of Terpachaya consists of government, including Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry. And recently, Ministry of Trade also joined in the committee. We also have non-governmental organizations such as S.P.K. Aids and Epistema, representative from various embassies. And lastly, business communities, including buyers and producers of agriculture, commodities, be it based Indonesia or abroad. And in developing the indicators, Terpachaya adhere to several principles and more importantly, as I have previously mentioned, is it is developed through a multipartist processes. And it is also aligned with national laws and regulations as I mentioned earlier. And currently, based on this work, Terpachaya has 22 indicators which are divided into four different pillars, environment, social, economic, and governance. These 22 indicators are developed to show that agriculture, commodities, and the district are produced sustainably and in compliance with law. And Terpachaya want to do it by defining what is jurisdictional sustainability and by providing reliable and regular information about performance of different jurisdiction in Indonesia of it. So we hope that it can be built up from other speakers. Myrna in her talk already mentioned about importance of combining issues, social, economic, and governance. And Marcia also mentioned that the importance of having jurisdictional approach. And Harry just explained to us about how to measure governance and how to use existing work. That is also the approach that we use in Terpachaya. So I will share with you some of the methodology that we use to assess some of the indicators. The first one is indicator four. Sorry, there is a typo there. It should be indicator four on pitland protection. And the current proxy that we use is the size of pitland that is protected in a district level. So we use the hydrological map of pitland as the baseline to let them measure it based on the policy documents. So to what extent policy documents have protected the pitland. And the policy documents that we use is the moratorium map and the district spatial plans. Both are formal documents produced by government. And based on this measurement, we can then have a national average and the district performance is measured based on the average. And group into three for all indicators. We look at those below, those on average and above average. The other relevant indicators for our discussion would be the fire prevention. And in this indicator, we use the data from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry on the burn scar. And we compare that between years. So those with better performance in the following year get better score. So these are the analysis based on the actual data from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in 2018 and in comparison with 2019. So because we have limited time, maybe I just move forward to the last pillar that we have, the governance. Currently we have five indicators under the governance pillar. They are first the proportion of district budget allocated for sustainability, access to public information, multi stakeholders participation in planning, compliant mechanisms, and lastly the sustainable and use planning. In this last indicator, we want to measure the utilization of environmental instruments in planning processes such as environmental carrying capacity and strategic environmental study that are obliged by the environmental law. And indicators under these pillars, according to our work so far, is proven to be one of the hardest to measures. Currently, we're only able to measure three out of the five and for some other, we are still testing several different datasets. I'll share just two with you today and maybe we can elaborate some more during the discussion session here at the time allows. The first one is on the proportion of budget for sustainability. The choice of the budget is based on the perception that it can show the ultimate interest of local government as well as the capacity to deal with environmental issues in their area. As you can see here, for central government province, Barito Utara and Selatan are above average, while Amanda and Seruyan are below average. We can see diversity of performance here compared to the other indicator that I will share that is the public access to information. This is the indicator 19 of the Tepachaya indicators. And among the many ways to measure this indicator, based on our discussion with the Central Information Commission, at this stage, we agreed to measure the obligation for all public bodies to have officials that is responsible for documenting and dealing with information requests, not known as PTED under the 2008 Access to Information Law. Because this official is crucial since the availability of data and information requests will go through this official. And more importantly, the data is accessed at the national level because the Ministry of Home Affairs collect the data from district level government. Based on our findings so far, it seems like we need to adjust the proxy because most of the districts already have appointed officials, these acquired officials. Only there are several districts that have not been appointed, that official have not been appointed. So in the next cycle, we will have to elaborate other processes for these indicators. And most likely we will use those that are already being measured by information commission. And so the next one is the Tepachaya platform. The Tepachaya platform is going to use to share indicators and results of the measurement that have been done by the word. And it will be maintained by Bapernas and it will be used by different users with various interests. Therefore we are currently consulting with different stakeholders on how their interests can be best facilitated by this platform. At this stage, the platform allows analysis and scatter plot to show performance of different districts. In analysis of indicator, later on we are thinking to allow users to adjust the value of the indicators. You can see here, analysis of the indicator will allow user to give weight to give different weight to the different pillars. Also a different weight on the different indicators in each pillar. So if you use this as an example where a user only put 30% weight for the environment aspects and 70% for the economy with this type of different weight under the economic pillar, we can see this as the performance of district government for the whole Indonesia. So this is not final because it is still under discussion with different stakeholder group to develop features that at the end of the day it can actually reflect jurisdiction in sustainability. And lastly, I would like to share about the policy approaches that are developed to institutionalize their per-chaya. So based on the direction given by the AC, the advisory committee of the per-chaya, hopefully we have three approaches that we at the secretariat are exercising. The first one is the traditional command and control approach where per-chaya is situated in the planning and evaluation cycle by the government agency that is the National Development Agency and the Ministry of Home Affairs. The two agencies have the power to allocate budget and gives fiscal incentive or disincentive on local government performance. So under this approach, we expect that information given in the per-chaya platform can be used as the basis to give fiscal incentive or disincentive. But at the same time, we also based on the discussion in the committee, the information can also be used to identify districts that need assistance. For example, those who are below average in some combination of key indicators such as poverty and governance will receive budget support so that they can enhance their offer performance. The second approach is the market instruments. And based on our discussion with buyers of agricultural commodities, their purchasing and investment decisions can greatly be helped by the information provided in the platform. But they also request to have more information such as the traceability of products. So this is one aspect that we haven't really touched in the existing work so we need to work more on the traceability. The last one is the multilateral cooperation. So in the last meeting, Representative for Ministry of Trade mentioned they will use the platform to support their negotiation with other countries in comprehensive economic partnership agreement, for example. And they also expect in the future that if we have more information about local government, particularly who can be contacted in the local government, the platform can facilitate communication between buyers from a country to producers directly from a local government. Thus to a certain extent, it is expected can be functioned as a marketplace. But we understand that these different policy approaches will depend on reliable information and measurement. And therefore the main homework for us at the moment is to make sure that this can happen. So that is the first and the most important homework for us. And with this, I would like to end my presentation and I hope this can be available for my colleagues from C4 and BRG to develop relevant indicators. And of course, we expect that in the future, if it is fine to be useful that we can collaborate so we can better protect the land environment while also allowing business and community to thrive. Thank you, Ami. That's great. Thank you so much. I will just ask that the other speakers turn on their cameras and appear in the gallery view because then we can have a bit of a discussion here. Something that we have about 10 minutes for that before we split up into the breakout groups. Something that really struck me about the four presentations was the scalar aspect of what's going on here. I think Ibu Mirna really focused, in fact, at the village level, connecting to national scale, of course, and multiple scales, but really the importance of village level engagement. And I think then Marcel really was focusing at kind of biome in a way, emphasizing the importance of a jurisdictional approach that, in fact, encompasses the ecosystem of interest. So if it's a peat dome, you want to make sure that that full peat dome is encompassed in the political territory that's being managed. And then Josie talked about the district level and how piling at the district level has been really important and made connections to Bapanas, in fact, at the national level, but through a really strong pilot at the district level. So I guess my question to the speakers is how do we link effectively across these scales? All scales are important for action, but how can we really make these connections? Maybe we could start with Josie, maybe, from your experience. How do we make the connections across scales? Thank you, Amy. So yeah, I think it is important to use the existing governance structure of decentralization, which center with the Ministry of Home Affairs and in terms of institutional setup and in terms of the different level, it's actually centered in the district level because the other level would be the reporting process will work based on the authority of a certain governmental, what do you call it, the government authority itself. So for example, in agriculture, the choice of districts is because for food and agriculture, the authority is within the district level government. So I think for peatland restoration in this sense, but Mirna, of course, no more about this compared to me, but I think it would be centered with the provincial level government by Mirna. So even though we know that village level government have its own authority, but it is based on the structure, which makes the actual authority can produce, for examples, what we call an especka at the national level, as well as the exercise of budget at the authority that has the main authority over a specific issue. So I don't know whether it helps in a way because I'm thinking while discussing here. So for example, I will use the initiative by the Asia Foundation and other colleagues who are working on the TAPE, TAPE, and TAKE. And I think that helps to show us how, for example, the district level government can encourage village level government to perform as well through fiscal incentive. So it might be showing that in the case of a culture, for example, the focal point would be the district level government. And the district level government can then exercise the power that they have to make sure that the village level government contribute to the performance at the district level jurisdiction. I don't know. Hopefully it helps. What do other speakers think about this scale or multi-scaler aspect? May I say something, Amy? Yes, they are connected, but also they are different because scale matters. What is relevant at the local scale is not necessary. Relevant at the national scale, for instance. So for instance, we work for FIRE. It's very relevant at the provincial and national, but sometimes it's not really matter at the village level because they have a long time in particular village working with FIRE. So there's a connection, but I don't want to push. It must be connected. So it can be a connection. It can be not because scale really matters. Politics matters a lot at the provincial, at the village scale. That's more lively, more economic matters. So this is very different, very different matters at the local as well as at the national. So there is a different indicator. That's what I meant, actually, a localized indicator. So what on the FSC, for instance, the forest stewardship concern, they only develop principles at the global level, but criteria is developed at the national level. Even indicators sometimes going down. So we do not enforce all principles for the worldwide. So it should be localized and also should be a minimum. People try to develop indicators as much as complete as you can. But finally, it's difficult to measure on the ground. So difficult to understand the performance. It's good to have a minimum set, not many, minimum, but able to explain. Also, cheap is not very, very expensive. So nobody can measure. So it's also a simple thing. So everybody can see it. That's what you can have a look at. If it is complicated only you, scientists can understand, doesn't really matter a lot for the people that they do not understand it. Thank you. Amy, if I also may, it's a key question, I think. We've seen so far in Indonesia that a lot of the peatland restoration has happened at the village level. But these are always often confined to just relatively small projects of a couple of hectares, maybe 100, maybe 1,000 hectares, never the entire landscapes. A lot of these projects have been very successful, I think, socially, also in terms of initial restoration. But we know that, ideologically, all these areas in the peat dome are interconnected and you can't restore just the 10% of the peat dome needs to be done in its entirety. So I think the next step for the Indonesian government will be to bring these stakeholders together, the experiences from these village projects and then see what can we do by combining these? Can we upscale, for instance, the finance mechanisms behind it? So we can also create a sustainable and a sustained finance support to these communities. Peatland restoration is very difficult. Even if you make a profit, it remains very difficult. And so there's a need for continuous and long-term government support in this. How can that, by combining these efforts, you can then also bring in other finance, such as carbon finance, GCF, you can look at what the role of commercial banks can be in relation to the private sector that's active in the peatland. And as long as everybody can work together on a common vision for the restoration of the peatland, I think that can work. So you need to have that platform of our coordination at the landscape level, but then to upscale that further to provincial level and also multi-provincial and national level, you need to have this kind of stakeholder platforms that encompass multiple landscapes. So you can combine all the landscapes in the province and bring the stakeholders from these landscapes together. I think it requires actually additional government structures than the ones we have at the moment. In the Netherlands, where I'm from, we have water boards to deal with the whole issue of water management, which is very complex and is multi-sector and multi-stakeholder. I think in peatlands, you would need to have something similar, maybe peatland boards, where the stakeholders can come together and also the heads of the peatland boards from multiple landscapes can combine their efforts in upscaling finance support mechanism, fiscal incentive mechanisms, and technological support to the communities. Thank you. You're wonderful. I don't know if Mirna is still with us, but if she is, it would be nice to have a final word from the government. She sent me a message that she has to leave for Kanbaru to catch her flight. Okay, that's okay. But I think this is really important, and many of the speakers, you've already addressed some of the questions coming into the chat about kind of these local level experiences, often even based on local knowledge, being scaled up to multiple levels. And that maybe new governmental structures in fact are needed to facilitate this cross-scale learning and implementation. There's so many specific questions for speakers in the chat. I would ask that all of you after the breakouts, if you could go back into the chat and the questions that are directed to you, please answer them for the participants because I think there's some really nice information and content in there that I don't want to miss out on. And this chat is part of the dynamic of the workshop itself. But I do think we now need to move to the breakouts. Is that correct, Pak Daniel? Yes, sis, thank you very much, Amy. Thank you. Very animating session you have. And certainly governance issue is cut across various levels. That's what I learned today. And in the next session, where we are talking about social and economic aspect, I believe the speakers will offer to you very local issues that are going to be very much related to what's going on on the ground. And let's give us the chance for the host to split us into these two sessions. I believe they have the list of you, which session you prefer to join. And we will be immediately move towards different rooms as you're expecting to be.