 I'm just here as introducing the session. I mean, my name is Robert Nazier. I'm the Deputy Director General of Research and C4. And I will just make a quick introduction, and I will step down because I'm also the reporter of the session, so I have to take some notes. And I will leave people in the other ends of Moana, our facilitator. The session is organized in the framework of DFID-funded project, which is the NOFOR, which is a project funded from the UK International Climate Fund, which is a 4 billion pounds facility provided by the DFID. And the actual NOFOR project runs from 2012 to 2015. And it really seeks to address the gap between knowledge products that are generated and the uptake of this knowledge product. It's really looking at this uptake question of how do we equip a policymaker practitioner with the very nice results from the research so that we don't let them sitting on the shelves to be eaten by the termites. And they can get used by the people to implement a thing on the ground. And the whole idea of this session is to show you some of the tools that were developed, these knowledge product tools that were developed as part of the NOFOR project. And have some discussion with people about the proponent of the tool and some people that are adopter of the tools. And to show how it can work and how you can transfer knowledge product into outcomes and implementation. And I forgot to say that there are three main partners in NOFOR, IUCN, C4, and PRO4, the Program on Forest and the World Bank. I think I've finished my time. And I will ask Mona to come and introduce the panelists and start the work. Thank you. OK, it should work. Hello, everyone. Good afternoon. And welcome to this very exciting session, which, as Robert said, we're going to be sharing ideas and experiences on very innovative tools for advanced landscapes management. And we've got a very interesting line of speakers with us here today. And to start things off, we're going to be introducing the speakers. Each of them will be giving off a 15-minute presentation. And then afterwards, we'll be opening up the space for discussions and any questions you might have. So for the speakers, we'll be having Eric Fernandes and Rodrigo Lima. Eric is the Agricultural Advisor at the World Bank Group. And Rodrigo is the General Manager and the Institute for International Trade Negotiations. They'll be discussing the decision support tools for sustainable and climate resilient agriculture. And then we will have a presentation by Patrick Wiley, who is the Senior Forest Policy Officer. And he'll be discussing assessing forest landscape restoration opportunities. Third is Sven Wunder, the Principal Economist at C4, who will be talking about poverty and environment network. And I'd like to invite our panelists up to the floor so we can start. Thank you. OK, this is for you. So first off, we'll be hearing from Eric and Rodrigo. Do you need a PowerPoint presentation? It's already on. OK, thank you. Thank you very much. It's great to see all of you here. And I see more people coming in even as we speak. So I'm going to start with a PowerPoint and just present some of the results for a very interesting study that we did. In the World Bank, all we did was to facilitate the interaction of some very important agencies in Brazil, as you can see there in Brapa, which is the National Agricultural Research Agency. Unicampi, which is this very important university in Sao Paulo state that does a lot of the training capacity enhancement of the young generation students. Agro-Iconi, Andrea Nassar and Leila Fu. But I have today here one of the general managers, Rodrigo, who is in Lima for the COP. And he's kindly agreed to represent the Agro-Iconi. And then we have Inpe, the Brazilian Space Research Institute, so you can see our agency. And it's a really quite important collection of agencies. And the idea was to sort of bring together this very esteemed, very powerful, very important group of agencies and try and address this important question, how does Brazil get ready for some of the changes that are coming in terms of its agriculture nationwide? The framework for decision policymaking, I think, how did we go about doing this? And one of the aspects of this session was to present some of the methodologies. So that's why I'm going to do a little bit of this. Basically, get good data, take that data and use it in the best available couple models, and then do that in a spatially representative way and link that to economic scenarios. And that was one way we felt would be important to provide some of the data and the knowledge necessary for policymaking. So we started off by accessing and incorporating some of the best hydro-metrological data in the sub-regions in Brazil. And what does this mean for Brazil? It's 1,200 stations with data of about 25 to 30 years that has been quality checked for about till about 2007. So that gives you an idea of the depth of data that's required often if you want to do a good job. And that's not the case for many, many countries. Nevertheless, it was important to bring all of this together. Then we took that data and we started to refine some of the global and regional local scale models that Brazil has. There's the global models that most of us use. But Brazil has been working very diligently on three or four regional models. And they have very, very high-resolution local weather models that we brought together. So this is pushing the state of the art in terms of what's available. And then we looked at what it was that the national agricultural folks were using in terms of supporting rural credit and agricultural credit. And there is a national model that most of the rural credit banks and rural banks use. And basically it was a way for us to sort of have an input to something that's ongoing, that's available, that's actually being used in the country to support agriculture. And this is where we then coupled that with the land use, Brazilian land use model that Agro-Iconi has developed. This is essentially a way to put economic values on this. It has a very powerful partial equilibrium economic model, which actually looks at land, looks at agricultural supply demand, and puts some economic values on it. So you can see this is really kind of the conceptual framework, the methodological framework that we use. An important aspect of this, how does this link to the landscape, some of you may be thinking. And this is another vision of a landscape. This is a subcontinental-scale landscape. Brazil has many, many biomes, as you know, as you go from the southern part at the bottom, which is subtropical temperate, some grasslands there. Very quickly, you get into some of that yellow region there that's the Cerrado, that's the Savannah, and then the big green blob at the top, which is the Amazon. And those are just three that I've highlighted, but you can see there, Brazil has the data, has this Agro-Icon zone, and this is basically a variety of intersecting watersheds, micro watersheds, watersheds, landscapes, basins. And so we could do that in fairly quantitative terms, biophysical quantitative terms, but then overlay that with a lot of the land use that's going on. The green little, that little map in the middle, in the bottom, and that green shading is what's by the Brazilian legal framework, and Rodrigo will get into some of this, is the legally permissible area that people can actually work with. The rest needs to be kept by the Brazilian forest code and land use code to be kept in pristine vegetation. So it's important to bring all these data layers together at the subcontinental scale of Brazil, which goes from the south to the north and east to west, as you can see there, and encompasses a range of these landscapes. And all of these have been published this year in a study that you can download off the pro-force site. The link is down there, but if anybody's interested, let me know. We can send you the study. Let me send briefly, then I don't want to sort of belabor what's on the five points on the right. We've just discussed how we put together the different layers, the methods, et cetera. What I want to sort of just show you is those different shadings. The top three figures, as you go from left to right, represent a baseline, and then a 2030-2050 scenario. So we were looking at scenarios down the road, but not going too far, like the climate models that go to the end of the century, 2100. In terms of policymakers, that becomes really difficult for them to get their minds and other things around. So we started to sort of take a much more pragmatic look at 2030 in the first instance, and 2050 later on. So the first one is pastures. Second one, I can't see it from here, but I think it's corn and soybeans. So basically, that's what you get with very precise data almost down to municipal level. That's the advantage of the data sets we were able to access. A very important conclusion from that study was that top south data, the blue number in the first original column is a kind of baseline. That's the area millions of hectares available of the class A land in Brazil. This is the best agricultural land. And then if you look towards the right, you've got pessimistic, optimistic scenarios and Brahms. That's the Brazilian development regional atmospheric model. It's a very high resolution model that they use. So we've got various models going in here. But the take home figure there is that you've got, in essence, from 32 million hectares. You can see that the projection is for declining class A land. And a lot of that is going to be in the south. So that's the grain belt of Brazil. And that in itself is an important landscape scale issue, because that means something is going to have to be done. In terms of production, apart from the area, you can see the same sort of thing there. The red figures represent in the south a decline in projected productivity nationally. Here for a range of crops, again, I don't want you to sort of focus on the numbers. But the key implications of this study was that significant projected productivity declines in the absence of adaptation. A lot of the simulation was done without projected adaptation. The projected agriculture prices will rise based on the economic model. And this has to do both with national supply demand as well as global supply demand. Increased ag prices mean that Brazilian ag contribution to the economy, despite the projected decline in productivity, will actually increase, will double. And so those who produce might be in a good position. Those who have to buy their food, not so much. And if you're looking, and in the World Bank, reduction of extreme poverty and then shared benefits are important goals, this becomes an important issue in terms of social policy, political, and economic policy issues. Significantly larger price impacts if other countries and regions are impacted. And there is this possibility that unless the right policies are in place, you have food production at the expense of forests. And those who are sort of concerned about what happens to mitigation, et cetera, that's an issue. I'm going to sort of present some of the broader issues and policy implications. Then hand over to Rodrigo here, who's we've put together sort of a presentation that he will present some of the views of how this data then feeds into policy. So from a user's perspective, what I've presented is what the science agencies did. And here, hopefully, you can hear from Rodrigo after this. So as I've said, the climate change likely to have, that's my time, is climate change is likely to have increasingly significant and mostly negative impacts on the major grain and pasture systems in Brazil. There's the reduction of climate risk of low risk cropland. And most of that takes place in the South, which is the big agriculture growing land. That's a spatially relevant outcome that has major policy implications for Brazil. And I'll show you one slide as to why. And then in the pessimistic scenario, you can see here that although we've covered that, so the southern region losing some of those that hectic. Now, I've pointed out why this is important, because let me see if this works. So most of the grain growing region is here. You can see the distance to ports goes from 500 to 200 kilometers. The projected grain growing is going to be here. And that goes to 1,000, 2,000 kilometers from the port on these kinds of roads. So this kind of information at these subcontinental landscape scale across several biomes is critical, because if you're going to put in place the kind of infrastructure and the conditions, the logistic, the value added, the social participation, the social safety nets, you need to be able to have this kind of information very, very quickly. And you need probably a decade or two to be able to put that in place. So this is the kind of information we have to provide for our civil society, for our governments, for partners in the world. Actually, this is interesting. There's a lot of ongoing work now where this kind of stuff, as you can see here, and the very degraded pastures can be taken to these kinds of systems within 10 years. And there are many, many teams, many agencies currently developing these tremendously vibrant, productive. We need the policies to put in place now using that kind of information in the short to medium term. Thank you very much. And I'll hand it over to Rodrigo. Thank you. Thank you so much, Eric. I'll try to touch upon some of the highlights. Eric mentioned trying to present how important it is for Brazil and for every country, actually, to have inputs from studies like this one aiming to deal with landscape in a win-win approach, in a mutual gains approach, not just for production but for conservation and for food security and for livelihoods and for poverty reduction. And to do that, it's able to start. It's necessary to have a start and to have an initial step. We're talking today in the morning that 10 years ago, a reality in Brazil to try to manage and to try to understand the impacts of climate change was completely different from the moment we are living today. So the idea here is setting the challenges because agriculture is a very important sector in Brazil and not just because we need to eat but because we export food a lot. It represents 22% of our GDP right now. Brazil is the larger exporter of soybeans, broiler, beef, sugar. There's an increasing domestic demand, higher income and population. There's the ability to expand production, increase conservation, and maybe achieve what we call zero net deforestation. So we're cutting down deforestation and we are recovering the graded forest and land that was converted illegally. There's this challenge of the implementation of the new forest code right now. So we are today dealing with this zero net deforestation. So at the landscape level, how to make it happen, thinking about that climate change is a real threat. And so climate change straightens food, energy, water security, and livelihoods. Uncertainties and lack of consistent data and analysis about climate change, extreme events and impacts on agriculture, different regional effects, global and at a global and at a local level. So the idea of the study, how Eric presented, was to integrate different models. And what we did, simulating climate change scenarios, with the aim to understand what will happen in the Brazilian land use and agricultural production, dynamics considering potential risks of climate change and what are the impacts on prices and production value. So Eric already touched upon basically all of these aspects, but this Brazilian land use model we developed at Agro-Econy years back as an econometric model to try to understand what's happening with supply and demand but bringing land use as one of the pillars of this model because we need to look to Brazil as a whole divided in the six regions we have based on the biomes and to understand how these different crops will work given supply and demand inside the country, outside the country and how it will be impacted by climate change. So there's the different scenarios, the baseline, the pessimistic based on the IPCCA2, the optimistic on the B2 scenario and the brands without precipitation and with precipitation. Considering the inputs from Embrapa and from Unicamp, University of Campinas using an allocation methodology with similar structure as the Brazilian land use model divided by six regions, 26 states and 558 regions and combining the impacts on agriculture products simulated, there's 11, 12 different products in the model in each municipality and trying really to understand how this is working under climate change scenarios and different impacts. This is to highlight there's the baseline scenario for 2030 and the pessimistic and the optimistic and the idea here is just to highlight that some of the main producing areas, regions in Brazil will really lose land because the climate change impacts. I'm from the south of Brazil, the state of Paraná, there's three states in the south and the three states are so important in terms of ag production and the figures shows that total areas suitable for agriculture and pasture will be reduced under the climate change scenarios, not just the pessimistic, the optimistic also. Land use for crops excluding sugarcane in 2030 might potentially be decreased by two to 10 million hectares compared to 2009. Imagine losing up to 10 million hectares for crop land is huge. We have 60 million hectares for crop land as an average and imagine up to 10 million, this is a lot and up to five million might happen in the south of Brazil. What are the impacts? One thing is to look at the broad picture but we need to look at the regional scale and the impacts on livelihoods and poverty on small farmers. Despite land use reduction from up, despite land use reduction from seven up to 23 million hectares, part of the land loss might be accommodated by pasture lands intensification and this regional production reallocation but this is not easy and we must have policies in place to really make it happen. Sorry, suitable land will be reduced mainly in the south up to five million which is huge, the northeast coast and the northeast Serrado. Strong livestock intensification from seven to nine million hectares of pasture will be displaced and give place to crops. This is very good because there's cattle intensification going on. Yeah, I'm finishing and just to close, production reallocated to regions with less impacts, higher meat prices due to intensification process and also crop prices increase and livestock intensification is crucial. At the end, production increase might occur only combined with pasture intensification, again the prices, since there is regional reallocation of production combined with production loss, climate change can increase poverty and food insecurity which is so bad and policies must be in place to deal with that, thinking about using a mitigation adaptation approach. Additional investments need for cattle intensification and just really to close, thinking about the three questions presented for our workshop now. I made some reflections. Land use planning is a key figure of how countries will be able to manage climate change, impacts and adaptation needs, fostering mitigation potential while addressing food security and conservation needs. Tools must be developed and consistently improved aiming to address regional and local impacts and to support strategic planning policies and this consistently improves means that there's a lot of things to be done and there's a lot of layers of information that must be seen together to be able to get to better understanding of the problems. We are now in a new phase of the Brazilian land use model doing different studies and one of them is for the Brazilian government in an adaptation strategy that is being discussed. It's a kind of a second phase of this study. There's the Brazil's role under the UNFCCC new protocol agreement and also on the SDGs agenda and how land use and agriculture will be tackled, adaptation and mitigation approach plus, red plus, how really to manage those aspects in the landscape. Priority areas for production and priority areas for conservation, policies and projects on the ground because it is possible to balance and to have and to achieve a zero net deforestation to maximize conservation and production trying to really diminish, reduce the risks of climate change and suitable pressures as a key driver. Policies to promote pressure restoration, we are starting to do that, livestock intensification, pressures to crops and pressures to protected areas because pressure is the key element to really balance and to really increase conservation and production in Brazil. Those are my reflections. Thank you. Thank you, Rodrigo and Eric for this. And next up we'll be hearing from Patrick Wiley who is the Senior Forest Policy Officer at IUCN. And if you have any questions, please we'll be having the discussion towards the end of the session, so please note them down. Try that again. Okay, so thanks and I might modify mine, my presentation a little bit just because I know we're a little bit behind time just because downstairs the rich discussion and some of the parallels started differently. Also it's the middle of the afternoon so I thought what we could do, we have a number of tools and I think one of the nice things about NOFOR as a project which is the three organizations of Pro4, C4 and IUCN working together under this DFID led work, this is a variety of tools, many of which overlap. So I'm probably gonna skip a little bit of the deeply technical pieces that are underpinned in one of the tools that we're gonna profile here but I thought we could start with a short video of about two minutes and if you bear with me for two minutes I promise that you will get the summary of the last two minutes without having to listen to it. So if you could play the first two minutes with the audio on and then just mute it, please. All land managers, owners and tenants struggle to answer the same question. How can we meet our need for food, fuel and fiber in a way that's both sustainable and climate resilient? Land is finite but the demands against it are diverse and growing. Decision makers are now looking for new ways to meet their many national goals and international commitments. Restoring degraded and deforested lands may be one way to meet these seemingly competing needs. Across the planet, more than 2 billion hectares of degraded land offer little for humans or nature. We can bring health and productivity back to these lands and prepare for the needs of the future. But where to start and how to proceed? Introducing the Restoration Opportunity Assessment Methodology or ROM in English. ROM is a flexible framework for identifying restoration opportunities at national and subnational levels. ROM can help countries, institutions and individuals identify the best places to begin restoration as well as what strategies to employ in different regions. ROM explains how these strategies can serve important goals for rural development, biodiversity conservation and food, energy and water security. The process begins when an entity with the rights to manage land decides they might want to restore a portion of it. They will ask the question, what are the main problems caused by degradation? And they'll try to identify the goals of successful intervention. With these goals in mind, a first rate assessment team can be assembled composed of a leader, an economist, a land use specialist and a social scientist, all coordinated through the most appropriate national institution. This team will meet with key stakeholders and local experts to understand the required scope of the assessment. Will the goal be to improve water flows downstream or to improve crop yields of wildlife habitat? Restoration activities can be balanced to bring many diverse benefits. Stakeholders are active participants in each stage of the role process. Next, the team and its local advisors will identify the kinds of degraded land in the assessment area. So if you can just mute it and you can actually let it keep playing. So those that don't wanna listen to what I have to say have some pretty pictures moving off to the side. So you can just press play and turn the volume down. I think for us at the surface, you know, I saw a couple of smiles which meant you either liked the video or you thought that it didn't quite work for you and that it might have missed the mark for some of the technical audience. And I think that's one of the things that's been nice about the NOFOR process. For us is that this project focuses a lot on uptake pathways. So how are we actually gonna get different activities and behavioral changes from different groups? And so often we have a product that says, oh, my audience is A, B, and C. Well, chances are you probably can only have audience A, audience B, audience C to access them effectively. I think this is where some of the leaping off points are I'm in the tool. So if you could press play on the video and just turn off the sound. And determine the most appropriate interventions to restore each time. Then they will gather and analyze data on the physical and ecological aspects of the land, social and economic factors, and on the. In any case, as we sort out how that's gonna go, it's part of the organic process that we have as well. I think through the restoration opportunities assessment methodology is that it's not a manual or a recipe book on how to go about restoration. And so one of the things that we've been really focused on is demand led. So when I was reflecting on this session about what to say about this one of many tools that ICN is developing under this portion of NOFOR, our challenge was actually, how are we gonna get a implementer or a user during the negotiations? Who's gonna actually speak? And we actually reflected in the fact that at Forest Day in DOA, we had almost the identical panel talking about the restoration opportunities assessment methodology. And so what's changed? I think a couple things have changed on the demand side. The first thing that we have in front of us is that today we're able to launch this in French and Spanish, in addition to English, which has been out, and that's available in hard copy outside in the booth, as well as on our website of icn.org. And so that's a really exciting thing is that all our materials now are in French, English, and Spanish, with Portuguese coming in the new year. I think a real fundamental piece, though, on the demand side of all of this is actually that the opportunity for restoration in multilateral finance has been, I would say unparalleled. We saw at the Climate Summit in September in New York discussing about the role of degradation and specifically restoration of up to 150 million hectares by 2020, the Bond Challenge Goal, but more specifically an expansion of that by 200 million hectares by 2030, so 350 million hectares by 2030. We see in the multilateral arenas of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility in the Biocarbon Fund, large-scale finance, which a number of people up here and in the audience know about and others don't, where tens of millions of dollars are going to countries to work on programs for restoring degraded land, be that improved cacao production in Ghana, be that more sustainable wood-law systems in Chile. How, what's the main step in accessing that money? Downstairs, people said, it's just trying to connect, I think it was Peter Holmgren that said, how do we connect the money to those that are actually possibly gonna do the work? And the barrier at the most fundamental level is documenting the existing level of degradation and understanding how that's gonna change going forward. And that's one of the demand-led tools that we think that we've been able to develop here through experiential learning, which is a large part of what DFID NOFOR has allowed us to do, working with the governments of Ghana, Guatemala, Mexico, Rwanda, ongoing work that's emerging in a number of new countries. And I think what's really powerful about this, and I won't go into the specific details of the tool itself, because I think a lot of what was given in the first panel got into it, combining best economic data. So what are the, of the trade-offs that we often face, we talk about agricultural, we talk about forestry, we talk about water and other existing ecosystem services that have markets. The challenge isn't as one, when we launched a number of years ago, when we launched the World of Opportunities Map, identifying two billion hectares globally, WRI, IUCN, a number of other partners, and as that work continues, the initial reaction of many people is, I know that we have degraded lands. I know where the degraded lands are in my country. The problem is I don't have a definition, and I don't know how to actually go about convincing other people around the decision-making table other than the minister of forests to let me do it. So the way to do that is to help start documenting some of the actual outputs in something other than tons of carbon, cubic meters of wood, or of emissions reductions going forward. And so as we start looking at some of the balancing the indicators and generating some of the information on jobs, on GDP growth. So two billion hectares globally, roughly generates $85 billion a year in GDP. That's starting to become a powerful question, a powerful proposition. So what's that at the national level? And that's what the Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodality tries to help countries walk through, subnational jurisdictions. What, how many jobs could be generated by the degraded lands that have been identified? What's the economic return that's gonna be issued to both government, smallholder, tenant, and these are the sorts of information that actually need to be there in order to overcome some of the preconditions of finance that are existing within the World Bank financing of the multilateral trust funds, or at the domestic decision making table. One of the examples that I would give of how Rome has been applied and the development of it that I find sort of quite appealing actually is in the case of Guatemala who has really become a leader within the Central American region on restoration have said, okay, I have an existing subsidy program, rural economic development program. What I'd like to do is expand that out. I have a large program I'm gonna run. I'd like to operate under my national force and climate strategy, but I don't have enough funding to do it. So let's look at where the degraded lands already exist and let's target my national program to the subregions or the provinces and states that most specifically need it. And then what I'm gonna say is, what are my drivers of degradation in that area? I know that degradation is my key issue. So I can now look at that and say, okay, I have two existing activities that I subsidized through this program. I'm gonna expand that to seven to cover the full suite of drivers of degradation that are there. And I know it's gonna generate jobs. I know roughly how many working with the national institutes. And I'm able to actually move forward at the decision making table to say, this is what we can expect as an outcome. This is why this isn't simply a forestry agency issue. I need to create an enabling environment of decision makers around cabinet to step up and say, yes, I'm the minister of agriculture and the impact on food crop yields is this. That's why it's in my interest. And so I think that's where, without getting into all the depths of the tool necessarily and I encourage you to go to icn.org slash r-o-a-m to get the shameless plug from me as well as the information that might help you move forward some of the processes. What I thought what I might do is leave it there, leave a little bit of time for questions and answers afterwards and just highlight that I think the idea of uptake pathways for us has been, we've always had theories of change. Thinking about uptake pathways and how you get from the existing user base to actual behavioral change in a specific user group has been really useful. And I look forward to working with others to figure out how we can make more of that happen. Thank you, Patrick. And up next up we have Sven Wunder. He's the principal economist at C4. We'll be talking about the poverty and environment network. Good afternoon. So I will talk to you a bit about the poverty and environment network and how that data set created by us could also be used as a tool for sustainable landscape management. And to start you off with a little bit of background on what Penn, poverty and environment network what it is. So it's a collection across the tropics and subtropics of the, using the same questionnaire we generate comparable data. We try to use the best methodologies available and we've been using mainly PhD students to gather those data. And what is it all about? It's mainly on household economics and where people get their income from. And the central research question that we wanted to answer is, how much income actually comes from forest and environmental, that is non cultivated resources. C4 has been the coordinating body for this but it's been a highly collaborative effort with a lot of institutions participating. And one could say it's kind of a huge bean counting exercise because there are many small contributions from forests that are often in regular household surveys done nationally they will not be considered but some of them can be important. So basically this is not a policy research effort in the sense that we're investigating one specific intervention but it's more of a basic research. And here you can see a little bit of where we've been working. 24 countries, 360 villages, more than 8,000 households and we used a methodology where we gathered data over a full year with quarterly surveys for surveys. Now this was not a random sample. So in a world where they're just getting increasingly heterogeneous, you have to be critical of how it was the sample actually gathered. So let me elaborate a little bit on that. As a criteria we had sort of we wanted rural areas in the tropical and subtropical regions of developing countries and there should be some access to forests since that was our particular interest. So there should not be zero forest cover but also we excluded some of the almost 100% forest covered deep inside the forest with indigenous hunter and gather societies, et cetera. We were more interested in the small holder scenarios in between. But we had to, we mostly had to follow the PhD students in their choices of sites. In some cases we were able to also influence where they did their studies. Within the sites we used a stratified selection of villages according to some predefined gradients of background variables such as closeness to roads, density of the population, indigenous versus mixed colonial type of backgrounds, et cetera. And then within the villages we used random selection of households. So we also back tested then afterwards how representative is the sample that we got and we think we can say that it's broadly representative of the small holder dominated landscapes and the tropics and subtropics with moderate to good access to forest resources. There's probably a slight bias towards areas with good forest resources compared to what is the rural developing world as such and Africa is a bit oversampled compared to the other two developing continents. Now we talk about tools. One thing that was important is also the, we tried to summarize what we learned about the methods that we've been using and produced this Earthscan book which is also available on the CFO website for download. We also produced the prototype questionnaire that's available on our websites in eight different languages. And one of the feedback we got from one of our biggest donors, ESRC from the UK is that maybe those methods that you produced are just as important as the results as such. For the results we have a special issue in world development that is electronically available already and will be out here in December actually in print. There's a summary article, then there's one about the livelihoods economic analysis, one about the use of forest as safety nets, one on the gender dimensions, one on forest clearing in its role in livelihoods, and one on tenure. And then as an example, we also have a sort of a comparative case study. And those are in this special issue combined with some other contributions and they're also available for free download as open access articles on the CFO websites. So what did we find in terms of the income results? Well, on average we found that 22% of income comes from forests and 6.4% comes from other environmental extractive resources. So together they make up 27.5% which is almost as big as crop income. And that certainly supports and the hypothesis that there are high environmental incomes and I must say some of us including myself were quite surprised about how high it was in our sample. So maybe the main conclusion that we got away with or that we came away with was that more than 10,000 years after the start of the agricultural revolution, there's still a lot of smallholders in the rural tropics who derive just as much income from foraging as they do from cultivating crops. So what about outcomes and uptake of these results? Initially I'm just showing you on our website as we have the publications for free download. We've been gathering data on who is accessing this information and as you can see not surprisingly there is the biggest group is research and coming from academic institutions but actually also a lot of people working in for instance development and conservation programs coming from in particular the NGO community, international and national NGOs have been downloading our information. But what about the data itself? We had from the beginning a vision that this should be used as an entry point to perhaps reform some of the living standard measurement surveys that the World Bank and countries in developing countries are doing and are using for informing their poverty alleviation strategies so as to include those products and income sources that we find as being the most important in those particular regions and countries that we are looking into. So we want them to be able to do a better job in doing that environmental beam counting. And now we are working in a joint project with FAO, the World Bank itself, the LSMS group, our NOFO partner ProFOR and others in developing a forestry module for the LSMS which will be tested in Indonesia and in Tanzania. But also we're here for doing something about climate change and what can we use PEN data and how can we use the data in that respect? Well, for one, you could get to know something more about the opportunity costs for interventions like red by knowing more about how much income do people actually get out of the forest resources locally. So that could be important for the mitigation part but what we are looking into now is we're trying to analyze climate data for our sites which we've gathered historical climate data and we try to find out what cross-sectional patterns we can see and how differences in climate over time and across the sample could make for differences in explain, co-explain differences in income generation. And I'm just showing you here some of the raw data that we just downloaded and are starting to work with. So these are rainfall and temperature for our villages in the PEN sample and how it has changed over the last 30 years and it's pretty much, the temperature change is pretty much in line with what you have across the rural tropics in terms of increasing, slightly increasing temperature so far but probably the rainfall patterns are quite more important for some of the results. You can look at the fluctuations as well, the standard deviation on those two variables. Some might expect that you get much bigger fluctuations. We have not seen that so far in our sample. There's no trend of increasing fluctuations in rainfall and temperature. So our idea is then to use these things econometrically and specifically with this exercise contributing to a flagship report that the World Bank is planning for the COP in Paris about poverty and climate change. So this is an input in a team effort that is developing in these coming months. So I'll finish with a couple of pictures from our forest products and environmental products across the tropics, thank you. Thank you. Thank you to Eric, to Rodrigo, Sven and to Patrick and now we'd actually like to open up the space for discussion and in case anyone has any comments or any questions to the panelists or any ideas they'd like to share, any questions, any innovative tools to share with the rest of the group? No, okay, well, okay, yep, please go ahead. I shouldn't be the one asking a question, but to Patrick, I mean, for as long as I've been trained as a forest, I mean, you have the whole issue that in fact, restoration is something that costs you money, but there is no really thing that is bringing you money. So can you give us really some examples? Is it really worth investing in restoration? I think there's two parts probably to that response. If we look at some of the movements on ending deforestation by 2020 under things like the New York Declaration on forests or on some of the zero net deforestation commitments and commodity supply chains which are making good progress to 60% of palm oil production being not coming from deforestation free supply chains, the question for those large corporate commitments and for land use change really then becomes where do commodities come from? If we're using them on an existing land base, that's one thing, but we also need to, we saw just in the first presentation that the demands on land are growing, the demands on food are growing, and that we're likely to lose large areas that are available for actual commodity production. So the question then becomes where do we find the difference? And I think a large part of that is understanding what is needed to actually restore those lands. So then the next step to that response would then say, you know, it costs too much and we hear that frequently. I think part of it sometimes comes down to an interpretation of what landscape restoration is and that's part of what we've been able to unpack a bit more. This isn't simply aforestation and reforestation. We're talking about a full suite of activities. We're talking about agroforestry systems. We're talking about farm follow systems. We're talking about mangrove and coastal restoration, disaster risk production activities on slope sides. And when we start looking at the full set of, we always talk about the cost side of it, and we can bring in cultural values and we can bring in all sorts of aesthetic values, but what we've tried to focus on in the countries that we're working with, and it was a shame I didn't mention it when he was still here, but we've recently signed an agreement building on this work, signed between IECN and UNEP to help integrate some of these assessment methodologies into all 55 countries of the UN Red Program to provide technical outreach, to develop regional hubs, to assist with restoration issues. And so the question to actually directly respond to it, what's actually needed is to move past the thinking about the cost of establishing an exotic teak plantation and start breaking that down into, as the case of a country in Central America that hasn't released the analysis yet, but if you look at existing agricultural and forestry subsidy programs, some of those we know within subsidy reform that there are large costs to the Treasury for paying for results that would have happened anyways, or for simply incentive payments that did not result in anything. And if you start looking at those payments and saying, if I recognize that I have five, 10, 15 billion dollars in existing subsidies, both tax and direct incentives, what if I could actually get better climatic and societal outcomes from those incentive programs while reducing the cost to Treasury? Then all of a sudden we're starting to reduce the actual cost per hectare of some of those interventions. So there's ways to modify some of the existing subsidy programs that already exist once you understand the dynamics of those land interventions. So I would, not on the surface of it, challenge the assumption necessarily that landscape restoration costs too much, but would say that we know that the demands on lands are increasing, we know that the amount of variable land is decreasing, and that we are going to have to make better use of where the world's previously standing primary forests used to be. If I can add some thoughts about Brazil because your question is so important because there's people that continue to think that if we need more land, let's deforested, let's cut down the trees, and let's continue expanding, and then it gets degradated, let's continue expanding. But the resources are exhaustive, and there's no way to continue like this. This is a very clear understanding. And the fact that the challenge is how to manage different stakeholders from the public and from the private sector to understand this situation and to work for cutting the deforestation, cutting the need for new land to produce. Of course we need to expand production, but if we cannot deforestate or if we're aiming to achieve zero net deforestation, we will be able to bring land that is not productive anymore into suitable land. So to be able to make this equation work we have in Brazil, for example, the low-carbon agricultural plant that is one of the components of the Brazilian NEMA that has one of the targets is to recover 15 million hectares of pasture, degraded pasture land, 15 million hectares in 2020. If we're able to do that and there's technologies to do that available, the point is money. A producer cannot just loan money to recover, let's say, 500 hectares of degraded pasture without a very good project because he needs to be able to get a loan to recover those land and make it profitable in the coming years. So the difficult issue is how to put money on this and there's a very clear sign from the public sector that there must be subsidies for this, there must be incentives for this. Together with the forest code there's the obligation of restoring deforested area, at least part of it and it will rely on the size of the farm and when it was deforested there's a lot of different aspects of it. And one of the pillar of the forest code, the new forest code, that was supposed to be in place with the old forest code but was never in place is the program of incentives for those who are conserving and for those who will restore. Because without this we're going to have it but not in the scale we need. So just to sum up recovering the graded pasture to become productive again is a way to tackle the zero deforestation or the zero net deforestation target. Moreover, if we can recover the graded land or pasture to forest, to native forest to allow adaptation, resilience of the local communities it's the second best. So how to really manage this and to get stakeholders involved and engaging stakeholders is crucial. There's no point just from the big players to say I don't buy from you anymore if there's no engagement and actions aiming to apply this. We work with different stakeholders in different sectors in Brazil and there's a common understanding about a lot of things. And basically everyone understands that achieving zero net deforestation is the way. The problem is how to get there and leave the phase of pilot projects and really go to a huge scale of this kind of project. Thank you, Sven and Patrick. Well, about engaging stakeholders we have a question from one of our audience. Please go ahead. Yes, thank you, Madame Madrata. First, I thank colleagues for quite these innovative presentations. Let me be straightforward. Two questions and one comment. The first question is how is it possible for the team up there in the panel to try to help us develop tools for tracking sustainable management financing? As you know the Standing Committee on Finance now is looking at how it is looking at how the different modalities for financing the forest. So how can you help to inform that work? Secondly, to the colleague from C4 we talked of the poverty environment network and to me I was flacking my head on what experiences we have from the poverty environment initiative and in this I'm saying how is the poverty environment network maybe contributing more on the work of the poverty environment initiative what it was doing with some developing countries. Lastly is about the network being an academic because you showed it has so many collections of PhD candidates who are synthesizing data and as you know C4 is known for really being explicit in data and information on the forests but my thinking would be now that amidst all these data sets you have how do you further guide in national policy making processes such that governments can also use your data efficiently and effectively. Thank you very much. Thank you. We would like to start with answering that. So the poverty environment initiative could you, I actually don't know it doesn't ring any bell can you explain a little bit what that is about? Poverty environment initiative which is a collaboration between the UNEP and the UNDP which is looking at mainstreaming environment into national programming in most erodeses and it has somehow been a bit slow and my link is how does the poverty environment network have now maybe contribute or can further move the work which was already done by the... I know the poverty and environment partnership and that's also one of the outlets that's like a donor group that works on these issues and we will also have that on our list of possible uptake agencies who could be interested in our results. And then the other questions were about the data sets and what were you asking about the data sets exactly? You can use it at the government and national level. I mean, the next step is to get it into national representative surveys like the LSMS and generate data that are useful at the national level because now we just have some point studies like one or two studies in India and one in Indonesia et cetera that's not nationally representative as such but it will be able to give some information about what kind of products you should gather information on and then from that you can have more consolidated information about socio-economics in the rural tropics. That's the idea. Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions to our final list? Yes, please go ahead. Yes, sure. Can we just have one minute first, please? Just to pick up on your question about tracking financing I think clearly there are new instruments coming online all the time. The bank has a fairly detailed website as to what it is, the various instruments that we are involved with and that would be an important place to start but I know most of the bilateral donor agencies also have specific websites. I think what I'll do is I'm happy to point you to the bank websites where you can see how the climate investment funds are split between mitigation and adaptation options. That would be one place you could start. There's quite a few options there but we can take it from there and see what else your needs are. Just to build on that I think it was about two and a half years ago there was a pretty good overview of the forest financing and forest management and climate under the United Nations Forum on Forests which is going to be meeting again this March but there was a good overview as they talk about a trust fund as has been the case for a number of years. There was an overview of the forest financing existing flows not necessarily tied to climate finance which is all summarized by the Voluntary Red Database which has just been a week ago actually just in this building was announced that it was going to I believe the FAO there were a number of others that were interested so there's a number of avenues out there including the Voluntary Red Database RedX which is run by forest trends and then also you have under the UN forum on forest there's also an overview of the existing sustainable forest financing mechanisms. My question is for Sven as well I have sometimes the feeling and the concern that when we talk about restoration we think that we look more at the technical aspect than at who is living there what are they doing and I recently I've seen a paper about cacao in the state of Pará and you could plant 1 million hectares of cacao and it's just based like on soils and these people are renters and there must be reason for them being renters and not being cacao producers then of course the market might drive some changes in that but do we assume that it's very easy to see a shift in the livelihood strategy of a small holder that's ok I'm a renter and next year I will start with cacao or are there based for example on the result of pen what is your perception about this challenge that I see as the real challenge because these areas are degraded but they are not empty it's full of people I think yes you are right about that but it's not something we can say so much about from the pen data because it's just a snapshot I mean what would be interesting to do is to do a panel and we are sort of loosely thinking about that to go back to some of these pen sites some years from now and see some of the changes over time but right now we just have a cross-sectional pattern to look at so we can't exactly answer these questions just to pick up on that I think one of the things that we were trying to show in the study is that it's extremely risky to do that kind of projection understanding how climate is going to change one of the hypothesis in the room is that a lot of decisions are being taken at the moment without any notion of what climate change is coming down the road and that's that's very risky one of the one of the stories we hear very often is that traditional knowledge is extremely important in this and it is but several of the leaders have said there is no cultural baseline in current community tool kits that allow them to sort of understand what is happening in terms of just planting dates etc so I mean this is quite basic to many of our communities they sort of say take some reasonably robust decisions how do you make those decisions under uncertainty is a subject of much research at the moment so I think this is something we have to be careful about you keep hearing about this is the way to go but much of the stuff that we're doing when we talk about landscapes a landscape could be several hundred kilometers by several hundred kilometers so what you do within a region of five to fifty even a hundred communities may be only a subset of that landscape and that is going to have local impacts as well as downstream or upstream impacts and understanding what those might be not only in spatial terms but over time is tricky so this is why we have to sort of bring all this information together it's very very risky some of the efforts to sort of try and provide communities with tools without the solid robust datasets that might give them pathways forward looking at historical datasets is very very risky at the moment and so if you build on that and look at some of the work that's been done in Ghana and Mexico and Guatemala and Rwanda and now increasingly Uganda and the list goes on of new countries using some of these tools if you look at it from just taking your point on yes there's the biophysical possibility and we've seen countries that have moved forward with national legislation just on biophysical possibility in some cases that's bringing together the very basic soil productivity degraded degraded lands maps that already exist land cover and then sort of the next step sometimes that might be enough just bringing those together is a basic might be a point one of the things that we found through our work with partners is that some even in that basic step some of the miscommunications that are occurring and some of the conflicts that exist after some of those changes are actually a result of errors in the datasets that by starting with participatory mapping the input datasets into some of those processes you can identify that an area that is identified as degraded or out of production is actually in a rotational cropping system that it might actually be in a point of recovery so if you just look at tenure that might not actually catch it or if you look at degradation that might not catch it so when you take that biophysical possibility map and you start looking at that without having looked at the input datasets with the same stakeholders you could have taken all that very useful local knowledge that's part of that from the beginning and said well maybe we didn't need a full day workshop going through and participatory mapping the output if we had started the beginning then you can take it a step further and say well does it make sense to restore an area that's not going to have that's going to have a salinated water table as a result of some of the climate projections or won't be deemed airable as a result of some of the climate scenario models then you're moving from biophysical possibility to future scenario and then you can start reducing out areas that aren't economically viable there are going to be areas where it doesn't make sense to have an entire livelihood shift exactly as you were suggesting to go from one modality you know one simple production system to a completely different product that might not be viable but an example that I would give locally just to hand it back over is if you look at San Martin in here in Peru in the Altamio protected forest how do you address degradation on illegal lands on illegally issued title that was false title that was issued within a protected area to settlers that have moved you can either have forced migration or you can deal with a situation at hand which is for a two-hectare parcel of land that someone has growing coffee and a mixture of agroforestry crops on a hillside that has to chase an extra half-hectare of production every year because they have a fixed contract for coffee how do you deal with that to try and reduce that half-hectare of chasing yields each year the conservation international working as a conservation agency for the government of Peru in the Altamio protected forest so let's look at not cash payments to someone let's actually look at trying to overcome the problem of the rust that's causing the decreased yields let's look at extension services within an existing livelihood system and say continue what you're doing let's enter a conservation agreement together and together we'll work forward to try and overcome the issue that's causing the deforestation and the further degradation of the existing piece of land so I think that's where sometimes we can work within an existing livelihood means of production without having to necessarily change completely some of the larger models as long as they don't take that more profitable model and implement it on more lands of course just to touch upon your example the government of Brazil the Ministry of Agriculture did a agroecological zoning of Palmaio in the Amazon and the government approved a program based on this agroecological zoning to really bring incentives for small producers to produce Palmaio in the Amazon provided that there's no deforestation there's just degraded land or abandoned land that was deforested for some reason like illegal logging for example or for cattle ranching and this if this is we have the agroecological zoning already in place and small farmers are starting to produce Palmaio we seem crazy right to say Palmaio in an Amazon in the same sentence seems no no I don't want that yeah but this is starting to take place and you can I don't know ranchers very with low productivity with low genetic and low capacity to produce and to sustain its family with beef or even milk that will generate deforestation in one way or another to produce Palmaio in a very coordinated with cacao for example Brazil is again starting to be very proactive in cacao again in the state of Bahia mainly but in some other states also so yes there's space for this and in Brazil it's one of the ways to get small farmers small holders that are with low productivity that are basically producing to eat for subsistence and to make their profitable and this would be a way how policies can be managed and to really change the idea of subsistence to business and with cacao that is a very knowledgeable and very high income product but must have this policy very based on data and on planning really to try to avoid a deforestation that can happen. Thank you. Well thank you everyone any final question before we close up? Well thank you everyone for joining in in this session and thank you for all our panelists for your experiences and insights and to close up I would like to invite you to sample a piece of Lebanese sweets and this is sweets that's been sustainably grown the ingredients including pine nuts pistachios and almond nuts so I'm going to open that right now but I think we might have to leave the room so maybe we can move this outside and thank you everyone for joining in round of applause