 Well, hello everyone, and thank you. We're going to start with Amel, who is going to make his presentation, her presentation. Thank you, Thierry. Hello everyone. The technical committee is very pleased to welcome you to this webinar. It's the first time that this committee is organizing such an international event with interpretation into French and into English. And also for those who don't know, the technical committee, sorry, just deciding who is showing the slides. The technical committee is a multi-stakehold committee that was created by the French Development Agency and others to support the involvement of strategic partners in the reform that is being implemented. For the members in Senegal and Madagascar, we started this communal thinking activity in March 2020. It mandated the IID to follow up this process, and the IID worked with Ende Prunat from Senegal and with the Serrat in Madagascar. So we are delighted to be able to involve the different experts who have taken part in this process to date. And you will have a very international dimension to the presentations with the presentation of the outcomes that have been produced by these different studies. There are various panelists today. We're going to start by a presentation by Mathieu Lougrie, who is head of the Agriculture Rural Development and Biodiversity Division at the French Development Agency. He also is very involved in the strategic thinking for the AFD around food security and so on. Then we will also have presentations by Thierry Berger and Lorenzo Cotula. Lorenzo is the principal researcher and associate in IID for the Law, Economy and Justice program. And Thierry Berger is also an associate researcher who is working on various research studies for training and awareness raising and is responsible for organizing this webinar. Then we will also give the floor to the partners in the various countries with a presentation by Perine Burnault, who is a researcher for the Serrat, which is the research organization in Madagascar. And we will also have Alpha who will make a presentation on the dynamics of the market. She is also the co-founder of, sorry, this was still Perine Burnault. She is also working with the local hospital. Then we will have a presentation by Alpha Ba, a lecturer and researcher as the high, the superior school for agriculture in France. And finally, we will have the contributions of Mamie, who is the president for the Collective for the Defence of Madagascar Land, Tani. And she is involved in a significant research work. And finally, Naklatin, a municipal councillor and president of the Collective for the Defence of Interests of Communities Effective by the Sanjara Senegal. And he is working for all of those who are impacting. So we will have the pleasure of listening to each of them. Please be aware that all the work that is presented to you very succinctly will be supported by further documentation that you can go on to look at. Amel, there is a little bit of a technical issue. I don't know whether my colleagues are Jeremy or Eric could respond to this. It was in the question and answer section. Okay, I do not have any slides to present. Hello, everybody. And thank you for to all of the organizers for having put together this very significant webinar. I believe this will be fascinating. I will basically make a little bit of an introduction to give a framework for this activity in the general work of the Land Committee that Amel has just presented. Firstly, where did we start from? The work on special economic zones was started in 2018 by the committee when we were looking at a new round of financing. And we were looking at very request for contributions. And it was the members from Senegal who responded to this. And we saw that in both Madagascar and Senegal, the civil society was really growing very rapidly. And therefore the development of the special zones seemed to come against some of the general principles. And we now have had further discussions with them. The principle of these special economic zones is very much at the heart of everything that is being presented by the development and land technical committee. This is linked to the risk of activities, the calling into question of legitimate rights and the competition with the local and national context. There is also a risk that there could be competition in terms of the land allocation and danger for the local authorities and for the environment. All of these matters are at the heart of the work of this technical committee since it was created some 25 years ago. These topics were looked at under different angles. Some indicated that France had a significant position that it took internationally on that front. And we looked at volunteers for the development of land rights to ensure that legitimate land rights are implemented is very important. All of this work on the voluntary directives that are supported by the land committee focused on recognizing legitimate rights and also the need to favor responsible investment, particularly with the small producers in developing countries that are involved and agricultural cooperatives for food security and so on. And this calls on greater transparency from all authorities, both public and private. They work on special economic zones also overlaps the activities of other groups, for instance, analyzing the principle of action for formalizing activity and promoting the various tools, the plans for land use planning. And all of the tools that are used to implement these rights. And we also looked at the accessibility of the public sector, including the youth and taking into account the specific usage of for common benefits that they can bring with a common approach on how to use the land and its resources. So all of the work on the SCZ has fitted within this general framework and looked at in particular the conversion of particular land and how the local inhabitants who have local land rights and the local authorities can contribute to changing the usage and the processes are very varied. And as for the SCZ and these zones require social protection, and we have the risks, the financial risks at large level, which is very difficult in terms of the implementation of these services and we believe that the land committee has true added value to look at SCZs. The committee presents the huge advantage of being able to mobilize multidisciplinary perspectives. We have legal experts, agronomists, but also representatives of civil society and local authorities that are impacted by the SCZs. And we have a, we also have to look at the implementation of studies on the ground with the various players that are involved and co-building advocacy to enable the participation of citizens in this public debate. And what was possible through the work that was carried out in Senegal and Madagascar, as we will see this approach seems to be particularly well adapted to the implementation of SCZs. So the committee is a rare and precious instruments that can look at a controversial subject such as this with all of the stakeholders and involving civil society. I will stop there and I would like to thank you once again. But I would like to give the floor to those who have worked on this study. Thank you, Matthew. I'm not going to share my screen. Here we go. So once again, hello, everyone. I'm delighted to welcome you here today. So I am Jerry Berger, associate for the IED and I'm here with my colleague Lorenzo who's the principal researcher. This webinar follows a study on land use, and we have just had a description of this by Amel and Matthew, but I would like to talk about the SCZs and to look at how we have brought all of our studies together to present this project. We will then look at a few conclusions and recommendations. So the objectives of this project and the context of the committee's work where to take stock of SCZ experiences around the world in different countries in particular to look at how the different stakeholders are involved in practice. We were also looking at documenting case studies to draw lessons and make policy recommendations so that we can continue to work on the proposals that are being made. There are three components to this. So first of all, there was a literature and legislative review over 10 countries, including Senegal and Madagascar. Then we had case studies in Senegal and Madagascar. And finally, close collaboration between the research team and the committee. Once again, the project report brings together all of the outcomes of this research, which you will be able to look at after this event. So some findings and conclusions in the context of this project. So we defined SCZs such as a specific geographic zones within the national borders of one country where the rules are different to that that are implemented throughout the national territory. And we can see that there is a specific set of procedures. There's a specific regime that is linked to the infrastructure, the economy or the need, but there are some legal and institutional procedures that are different from what applies elsewhere in the country. But with regards to the usual rules in application in particular in terms of taxation, so when an SCZ is created, the public utility of this program is useful in the is used in these countries and I do apologize to the interpreters for reading far too fast. And so we it's estimated that there are that there are nearly 3400 SCZs in the world, and we will see that this process is long and difficult, and that the program, which was full of promise for employment and increasing exports and so on was useful, but we see that it is very difficult to implement because special zones in countries for important exports enabling them to become significant players. It can be useful, but the SCZ programs can also incur some risks, such as Matthew explained and in particular conflicts around the working conditions and this was the case in Kenya, Ethiopia and Bangladesh. The success was also linked to some of the general changes. And we can see that there were some conditions that really played a significant part in either increasing or decreasing the capacity within different countries and we saw this particularly in Bangladesh. Compared to social and economic issues, the land issues are generally quite separate. We see that there is increased pressure, for instance, in some urban areas in Senegal. And we can see that there is a direct and indirect impact with regards to land. For instance, there has been an expropriation for public use and also for indirect impacts. We have had some favorable transitions for commercialization, but this has led into a change in terms of land ownership. In India, for instance, some promoters have been involved in the Zedius projects and we have had some who have then sold the land with added value. We have had in with the expropriation of some farmland and individual ownership, and we've also had some areas that were used for military use which were excluded from some of these conditions. In Myanmar, for instance, public utility, which justifies access, led to tension in terms of land ownership for the displaced populations. And we have seen both nationally and internationally the pressure of those actors concerned. And we have looked at the possibilities of having adequate solutions for the promoters of SEZs. The research leads us to conclude that there is a necessity for integrating all of the different aspects, the social, economic, environmental and so on. And this is in the report on Senegal and Madagascar. The whole project team, which has contributed to this with members of the committee, and you will see that again in the report. All policies relating to the SEZs needs to be included in the national development program. So the decision makers need to ask first and foremost whether there is an inclusive program and how the development objectives can bring support for the subsistence of local inhabitants. And we can see that the policy cannot replace a land policy, a more general land policy. Another recommendation that we could look at would be the fact that the SEZs are often characterized not by a specific geographical area, but they also involve other aspects such as work and land ownership. And so we need to look at the strategy for infrastructure and service to enable development and improve competitiveness. We see that this raises significant difficulties, particularly in terms of human rights before imposing anything in a country. The members need to look at the initiatives that limit the use of specific rights in an SEZ. Another recommendation that is important, and Matthew mentioned this earlier, is to recognize the owners of legitimate rights and to include them throughout the decision making process, whilst an SEZ is being developed, the programs should avoid expulsions, or at least do so with competition, because this can be contrary to international law. And it is also important to have transparency and responsibility at every level. In terms of the report, there will be further information and we will be very happy to continue talking about this in the second hour. And we are now going to give the floor to Lorenzo if he has anything to say or else I will give the floor to Perine. I would just say good afternoon, thank you, I would rather let other panel colleagues speak, but I could come back and respond to any questions or comments on the methodology that was used in particular for this study. Perine, I'm going to hand over to you whenever you're ready. Thank you very much. Good afternoon everybody. I'm going to present a study that was carried out in Madagascar, which has come out of a collective piece of work through a number of people who are connected with a think tank or think tanny, which is Madagascar based think tank. There's been a focus on all investment zones, not just the SEZs, unlike the piece of work that was carried out in Senegal, because in Madagascar since the end of the 1980s, there have been a number of different types of investment zones that have been reported by successive governments in different sectors, sector services, industrial sector, and the agricultural sector. Different labels have been used, but all of these zones have similar objectives, which is to offer legally secured conflict free access to land. So to illustrate this, you can see on the slide a timeline at the top with a number of different changes of regime that marks in the red bars at the top. The first regime was created at the end of the 1990s and has continued until now with some zones have been a bit suspended during the political crises. And then we had agricultural investment zones under the remnant van van government which were suspended for a time and have been re named agropoles in 2015 new industrial investment zones were introduced and then after that special investments were introduced very recently under the latest Redswell government, we've seen the introduction of emergence zones which is still being defined. The idea of this study has been to characterize the differences zones and to see how they have developed. What's the key results. The first thing is that multiple legal frameworks have been created, but most of them have remained incomplete. In the industrial and services sectors, they've been a large number of different laws without implementing decrees except for the free enterprise zones, which is the prevailing regime. In the industrial sector, there are no, there's no law about the way these things work in the land sector. There's a long awaited law on specific status, which will include the investment zones but will also cover protected areas or community domains and this particular issue has been very controversial. It should be able to be coming back on to the agenda soon. The same scheme is proposed in all of the different zones, the states owns the land and then either leases or issues of concession to access lands to developers and then the developer will lease parcels of land to the businesses. One of our key findings in the studies is that despite these different zones, they're very little that's been achieved on the ground. Some of the different zones have remained just theoretical on paper. In the industrial or service sector, there isn't a single functional zone in a certain way in 2021. In 2021, no free trade zone had been created, although the theoretic they existed 30 years, no industrial investment zone or special economic zone in seven years. In 2022, some free trade zones were created by private developers, not by the state. So there are just private areas that have special tax benefits. So it's very difficult to think about these free tax free enterprises. Studies were carried out in the early 2000s and they showed that there were some fairly good results. These enterprises led to growth to exports and state revenues. Further results towards the end of the 2000s showed that there was a stagnation because of the increase in international competition. So it led to stagnation or even deterioration of these areas. In the agricultural sectors, these zones were established, but they have been struggling to materialize. We focused on the vacant karate region, which is seen as a leader in this type of investment. Over the last 15 years, less than 500 hectares have actually been established as agricultural investment zones these 500 hectares have been fairly difficult to develop because of the status of the land. These pieces of land have had a very difficult history from the start of the 20th century. These pieces of land were given to major industrial agricultural companies. They were then taken back over by local farmers, but the local farmers were evicted because the state wanted to bring in big companies again and this happened three or four times over the 20th century. So that's exactly what happened in 2050. In 2015, farmers were again evicted or recognized as economic operators on the condition that they were to come together as a farmers association. So this gave us the opportunity in 2021 to analyze the socio-economic results and we saw that the farmers associations had better economic results than the big agricultural companies. Why is that? We are having companies and farmers who are growing the same crops, but the companies who have only 25 hectares on average, they only are able to use about 40% of the land they use. But the farmers associations have very small areas, but they've been able to cultivate almost all of the land that they were able to use. So what conclusions were shared during the national dissemination workshop last week? One of the shared conclusion is that there is a very strong need for access to land for all categories of stakeholders for companies, whether foreign or national companies for NGOs associations or for family farm small holders. So this next need for land access needs to be thought through in a joined up way. They don't need to think about the investors on the one hand and the small farmers on the other hand, there needs to be some joined up thinking in this area. The second result is that when these zones are created, the state is struggling to identify and identify the land tenure of the lands. A lot of the land is already owned. At the end, national operators generally access land outside of these zones, whether this is industrial play at stakeholders, enterprises or agricultural companies, they access land by negotiating and buying it from local landowners. So what were the guidance points that were highlighted during the national dissemination workshop? Some of these points were agreed by all. It was agreed that expropriation compulsory purchase should be avoided because it could be avoided because it can be unfavorable both for the states and for the companies project and for the funders of the project. It's obviously unfavorable for the people who are evicted or expropriated. A second proposal that was very widely agreed is that it's important to legally recognize the rights of local tenure holders. There's already an existing law on individual land tenure, but there needs to be a new law on community owned land, this law that I mentioned earlier in my presentation. Further proposals were a bit more controversial. The report mentions that in order to facilitate access to land, it might be useful to move away from a vision that talks about strictly demarcated zones to move away from a vision where land for investment projects must be owned by the state. Perhaps as an alternative, it might be useful to build a collective project with all landowners on a territorial scale. So why were there controversy around these proposals? Some of the stakeholders like to see the status owner and organizers, but other local stakeholders thinks that this land is already owned and that this ownership should be recognized, whether it's owned by individual landowners or collective landowners and these people should be freed up to become operators or to hand over their lands to other operators. So to conclude this study has provided food for thought and debates on the forthcoming law on land with special status. This law will focus on investment zones, but also and should as a priority focus on land that is subject to community rights because it is this particular land which will be the subject of future investment projects. Thank you very much for your attention and listening. Thank you very much. Once again, in the second hour of our meeting, we'll have the opportunity to ask questions. I know that some questions were in the Q&A box. But right now I'm going to hand over to our colleagues from Senegal. So Alphaba, the floor is yours if you could unmute. I'm going to share my screen. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you Terri. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share the piece of work that was carried out in Senegal on special economic zones in Senegal. This piece of work was carried out like in Madagascar by a multi-organisational team and there was a local school that was part of it. And we worked with the local community quite extensively in order to generate the results that we are going to present today. When we talk about especially economic zones in Senegal, you need to know that this comes into a particular context. The specific context is that this study was requested by the CRAFs, which is a civil society platform that's been working on land governance in Senegal for many years to try and combat land takeover and support local communities in ensuring their legitimate rights are taken into account. So there are a number of key background things to be known. In 2012, there was a land reform that was launched. There was a law voted in 2017, and this law was drafted and handed to the President of the Republic. This report had a number of recommendations about land tenure, but unfortunately, instead of going for a land reform, they drew up this law on special economic zones. It repealed a law from 2007, but in this 2017 law, they modified the rules in order to enable the zones to be developed right across the countries. And this comes within a policy in Senegal, which is called the Plan for Emerging Senegal. In this guideline document, SEZs are considered as a strategic option for achieving government objectives, industrialization, reduction of the trade deficit or the aim of creating jobs. This is associated with the development of SEZs, but voices were raised within Senegalese civil society because civil society highlighted some of the potential negative aspects. There was only talking about the positive effects that SEZs could have, particularly the reduction of the trade deficit, and that's at the time at which a request was made to the technical committee on land and development in order to study the processes in order to have a real vision of what was going on in Senegal, and that's why we carried out this study. If you have a look at the SEZs in Senegal, there are four SEZs. There's the Integrated Industrial Park of Damini Aido, there is the Bani Sendhu SEZ, where the state has created a mineral port, then there's another integrated SEZ around the airport area, and then there is a Sundiara SEZ. Of these four SEZs, only three are really functional, the Damini Aido Integrated Park, the Sundiara SEZ and the Integrated SEZ, so we focused on these three, because these are the three where things have actually started. We didn't work on the Bani Sendhu SEZs because there isn't even anything happening on the ground, apart from the legal framework that was set up in the initial law. So here's a map showing you the location of the different SEZs. You will note that all of these zones are within a triangular region. And these are the zones where we have the highest population density in Senegal. So that's where there's the highest pressure on land use, and it's an area in which you have the four SEZs in Senegal. In order to implement these SEZs in this study, we had a particular methodological approach. We wanted to use a participatory approach. We started by presenting the elements to civil society and think about the methodological approach, think about what we needed to do. So during this first launch workshop, we decided to set aside the Bani SEZ and focus on the three SEZs that were operating. We decided to analyze the legal institutional framework, and then on that basis, work out who we would need to gather information from. So we carried out surveys amongst institutional stakeholders, all of the different state or local government bodies who have been involved in special economic zones. Also, we contacted the communities and the local authorities that were impacted by the SEZs. We talked to the local population, the local communities and carried out surveys to the local people who had legitimate rights to the land in order to understand the socio-economic impact on these local communities. So we then presented the results during a workshop with all civil society stakeholders in order to discuss the initial results. And this enabled us to then consolidate the initial draft report and share it with CRAF, the CRAFs organization that we're working with. And finally, held a dissemination and validation workshop with all of the stakeholders working with SEZs, ministries, local authorities, civil society stakeholders in order to present the results that we're now sharing with you. So the results that we found, the first thing we noted when we looked at the situation in Senegal, we could say that there's a lot of talk but a little action or concrete achievements on the ground. When you compare what has happened compared with the projections by the policymakers, you can only see that the camiando SEZs where you can more or less see all the things that the state had promised. But almost all of the projects need to go to the camiando in the other SEZs for the moment. If when you compare the achievements with the predictions, none of the SEZs have got more than about 10% completion. So there's a lot still to be done. The second thing we've noticed is the very low level involvement of local communities in the process of setting up and managing the SEZs, except in the case of San Diara. San Diara is a bit atypical because in this case, it wasn't initially an SEZ, the SEZ accessed the scheme via an admission process. It was actually a local authority project that wanted an enterprise zone in its area and the local authority used the new law to have the area admitted into this SEZ scheme. So that is a specific example and it is a bit noteworthy because the local authority originated it. It's enabled the engagement of the local community in particular organizations that's fighting for traditional land rights. We also noted that the original legal status of land is a major determinant of the involvement of the population. We noted that some of the voluntary guidelines were not complied with. We also found that despite the arguments about job creation on the part of the state, very few jobs are actually being created and many of the jobs are precarious. We saw that there weren't impact studies or governance bodies that had been formed either. Here are a number of recommendations and there's only two minutes left for them. So let's skip over the recommendations and look at the implications of the studies. It was really important to debate and discuss the results of these SEZs. Amongst the different stakeholders, the agency for the promotion of investments, the ministries, the civil society, local authorities. We've been able to get the different stakeholders around the table to discuss this and we've argued that the Ministry of Finance, which is managing the committee overseeing the establishment of SEZs, they've convened a meeting to discuss this. There's been some proposal to contribute to revision of the legal framework. There's going to be a review and the CRAFS, which represents Senegalese society has been invited to contribute to the review of the legal framework. CRAFS was also able to mobilize the results of the study in order to follow up the political process. There is a PROCOSF process, which is focusing on land tenure rights and PROMRGF. Again, there's also this workingness and CRAFS have been able to use the results in order to influence this process. There are also activities that are organized by the organization and methods office, the BOM. So right now, the studies and the results that we've had has enabled us to influence things. As we're running out of time, I'm going to stop here, but if there are other answers you want to hear, please do ask us questions subsequently. Thank you very much. I'm sorry to cut you off there. I want to now hand over to Mum. Can you hear us? I'm sorry that we, I'm sorry, I think we might have lost Mum's microphone seems to be on mute. Mum, do you hear us? Yes, I'm sorry, my microphone wasn't working. I'm very sorry for that. Thank you very much to the organizers of this webinar for giving me the opportunity to present the situation with SEZs in Madagascar and their impact on community. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the overall study and then I'm going to talk about the chronology of the difference zones created in Madagascar. In 2017, there was a law about SEZs in Madagascar leading to a fairly intense public debate that Tony Collective took part in the debates and opposed to the law using a number of press releases co-signed by a number of partners. The results on the overall study on SEZs reinforces our position because the researchers has given us key data on some of the points that interest the Madagascar community. There are thousands of SEZs around the world which take farmers rights away from them. Secondly, when they do work, the SEZs do not necessarily boost economic development in the country, in particular in terms of job creation, even though this is the main argument that is put forward by the owners of these large projects that affect land tenure for local people. Third point, many people in the countries are opposed to the creation of SEZs for different reasons. We will hear from a response, a leader from a community who's been affected by SEZs. So, in order to prepare for this webinar, I contacted a trade union leader for the workers working in free enterprises and he sent a number of points. He said that the creation of free enterprises in Anatata River has led to force evictions of people from their places they lived and where they were growing rice. The economic operators came to see local people with government landpatres that were already finalised and the local people had to accept the very low purchase price for their land that had been offered to them. These free enterprises, the working conditions are very harsh, numerous young people come to find labour here and any deviation from working rules leads to dismissal. There is precarious employment in seasonal and daily jobs. The labour code is often not complied with. There is very little inspection by the labour inspectorate. The wages correspond to the legal minimum wage. The employers don't pay taxes, but the employees for their part do have to pay taxes. With respect to the agricultural industrial zone, the AIZ, the TANI Collective has provided support to inhabitants evicted by the EBITI AIZ in 2015. There was a clear inequality of information that was highlighted by associations NGOs who could have been investors in the AIZ projects. They were not informed of the fact that they could have joined associations and they only found out about this after they'd been told to leave the land. They were only able to organise themselves subsequently. At the time of the study, the amount of land that the local farm was able to access was much smaller than the area granted to the companies. At the time of the study, farmers still hadn't received the promised land. When we prepared for this webinar, we did learn very recently that 10 hectares have been obtained by the Farmers Association seven years after the struggle started. There's a few photos here on the slide, a photo taken from a video that a journalist made on this subject. I can send you the YouTube link to the video and here we have a view of some of the crops grown by local farmers. Let's look at the future SEZs. In 2017, there was a new project to create a Diego, especially economic zone documents have been available on the internet for years. And there's another one around. This project includes a new deep water ports, the extension and refurbishment of the airports, the promotion of tourism, renewable energy, solar, wind and hydro electrical power and agree business over a zone covering 2,000 hectares. That's the figures that are quoted in the press. A second conference took place on the 22nd of 23rd of February 2018 in the north of Madagascar various investors had come in some from foreign countries to present the potential of the region. And all of this is written up in different documents represented 2000 hectares. Some leaders were interviewed by researchers in the project. There's a new figure of 400 hectares which is now mentioned but we don't know what this figure represents. Our key concern is for the fundamental rights and the land rights of the many families that are currently living on the land that is required for this project. I would wrap up by saying that the best news that has come out of this study is the fact that the report highlights the performance of the Farmers Association, their performance is better than the performance of the country companies farming in the ZZ zones. This information gives a lie to the information given out by policymakers and leaders within Madagascar. They have been mocking and scorning local farmers for many years and are adopting a policy in favour of incoming domestic and foreign investments into the Madagascar agricultural sector. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much, ma'am. Thank you for keeping to your 10 minute time slot. Mr. Teane, I could hand over to you. Welcome. Thank you very much. Thank you to everyone who is online and listening to us. My name is Mr. Teane. I'm a municipal councillor in the San Diara and I'm also part of a collective working for the rights of people in San Diara. I want to talk to you just a little bit about the experience that was described in our municipality. It wasn't necessarily an area that was planned for an SEZ, but at the very start there was 18,500 hectares and the mayor said that he only needed 10,000. The local population and farmers were starting to get scared of this. They needed the land. So we were bold enough to set up a collective as a means of combating this project. This was created when the mayor was starting to do this. So we fought against the project in order to ensure that the people who impacted would be compensated. So the mayor wasn't able to respond to us. So we actually started legal action and we took it all the way to the Supreme Court and there were two deliberations. The second time when the mayor came back with a project, we went back to the Supreme Court and he cancelled the municipal councillor's decisions. I was a municipal councillor at the time, but I was in the minority. Generally when you're in the majority, your laws go through the municipal authority. And anyone within the majority votes for the mayor's projects, we nonetheless created this fight that enabled us to achieve some things. So what we've done at the moments that I'm speaking, I've been in prison as a result of this struggle, but I have since been freed. We won our combat. We contacted the prefect in our area and we also contacted the National Ombudsman, the National Office for Combating Fraud. We contacted all of these bodies, but the thing that really saved us is the work with Ender Procidic and the Association, which gave us a seminar to help us to understand how to organize ourselves. It gave us a methodology that we could use in order to avoid making mistakes and that's how we created a national collective against land seizure. We created this and we believe that these bodies have helped us and given us some really useful information teaching us what we should do and what we shouldn't do. But at the end of the day, we still fell down on a number of points. So we sat down around the negotiating table with the prefect and the mayor and the different collectives. A lot of people who are impacted still had some of their land parceled up and taken away. In the early 2000s, a hectare was about 3,000 CFA francs. Now there's some that cost 30 millions. So the land is very valuable and that's why everyone is wanting us to stay together as a collective. I'm myself, I'm chairman of the London Housing Commission and right now I am part of the land use commission because we needed to have some strategic methods that would enable us to discuss with the mayor. So we achieved some compromises but there is a grazing area which we're talking about to ensure that the farmers who are raising their herds on this pasture land would still be able to access the land. So I just wanted to tell you a little bit of what's been going on in our area. What you really should remember is that the Sangaria zone is very specific because the local authority has been the developer. It's not like the three other zones where the state is the main developer. So that's what's been going on with us and I speak a bit of Italian so I want to say bonjour to our Italian colleagues who's on the call. Thank you. Mr. Dean, I don't know whether Alpha or anybody else would like to add anything else. Well I think with regards to the CZ from Sangaria, I think it was the question of the status. We know that there are some that have different land rights. There were people who had been involved in a public development programme and we were able to see how they imposed the development of an industrial area for Senegal and the ZES has a different legal status for the land ownership and we therefore see the difference in the local authority which was not involved in the process but in the SCZ for Sangaria. It was the local authority that was involved and we therefore had something that was not for the benefit of the state or of the local population. And obviously with this land we saw that the industrial development was on land that had been allocated to market gardening and food production. And what's very interesting in this case is that the local land authority was defeated in court when this was called into question but when the new legislation came into play the municipality profited from this opportunity to reallocate the area as soon as it was possible. And because it's become designated as an area of public benefit and the decisions were then made. So we now need to have negotiations with the local authorities and the municipalities because at the beginning they said it was 50,000 francs per hectare and then 500,000. And they're now telling us that the indemnity is 3.3 million per hectare and all of this is linked to the development of the legislation in Senegal and we do need to continue the dialogue and we can see that the negotiation is continuing. But obviously there are some of some of this information is information that we come back over in detail in the presentation of the report. Well thank you Alfa and thank you Mr Tin. We've already started the debate really but we still have another 50 minutes for debate. I can see that there's already a few questions that have been raised in the box, some that have been directed to me. And I hope that my colleagues will help me to answer also and then there's a question for Perine. And a question for Senegal. So, if we start with the question from Bata Charles Sirou-Yeday, I hope I have pronounced your name properly. I think, or have you included your research options that government must play a lead role in acquisition of land to some projects. So going out today according to the Free Zone Act, if the investment is a private initiative, the government, before licensing make sure that the land is available even though need enough land. My question was the importance of having a public-private partnership in the Free Zone development and how can it be operated. So who, did we look at the question whether the state's government must play a lead role in acquisition of land in some project. I'm not sure whether that's the issue. The issue is not, in my opinion, who is playing the lead role in the acquisition, but how to avoid those risks we've described, protecting legitimate rights, protecting the environment, how to fulfill the objectives of a country, developing objectives, countries priorities. So who would be better placed to do that to fulfill those objectives to avoid those risks? Is that the state? Is that the private investor? And the answer is, I don't know. I mean, it very much depends on the state in question or the company. You've got responsible investors who maybe will be likely to respect the Valentine guidelines and responsible investments and responsible governance of tenure. So I think that the real question is who is going to avoid those risks and who is going to protect the rights of the most vulnerable, who is going to be the better place to help a country fulfill its objective priorities. The same point can be made in relation to the importance of public-private partnership. It all depends on what it entails, what's written in the contract. And so the devil would be very much in a detail and you need to look at the document to contract the public-private partnership agreement to see what it says in practice in terms of avoiding those risks, fulfilling a country's development objectives, etc. And I'm sure Lorenzo will have something to add to that. Otherwise, we have plenty of questions for, we have a lot of questions for Perine about Madagascar and then for our Senegal colleagues. So there are many questions for Perine regarding Madagascar and also Senegal. Because I think it really touches on the very core of this project by highlighting the connection or the issues concerning land acquisition, the role of government and public-private partnerships in that context, even more so because although land areas are often relatively small when it comes to special economic zones compared to some other forms of large-scale land-based investments looking at agricultural plantations, for example, and so on, they are often close to urban centers or urban areas so that the pressure on the land is already intense, right? So although the area being acquired is relatively small, in relation to larger-scale investments, it still has a significant impact on land and it still is, therefore, a major source of conflict in many cases and that applies not only to the creation of the zones, but also often the operation of the zones, for example, when it comes to expansion plans and so on. And I think one of the concerns that has very much driven this research has been the gap that exists between practitioners who are familiar with land, land governance, land tenure. Practitioners who are working on special economic zones and the gap between the two meaning that very often questions about land issues in the context of special economic zones not being fully addressed in research but also in terms of policy and practice. And I guess the question of expropriation has come up over and over in the presentations we listened to is very problematic because it's a major source of conflict when it comes to special economic zones. It's hard to find statistics, reliable data on global trends on the extent to which expropriation is used to create special economic zones, but I think it's fair to say that it's fairly routine. And in fact, some national laws provide that the creation of special economic zones automatically qualifies as public purpose for the purpose of expropriating land. So it's the fact that land is expropriated against the will of the people who are using the land who are also developing livelihood activities or other forms of land use with that land that is a source of conflict. Public partnerships further complicate the picture because there is a trend that has been going on for the past few years whereby private enterprises intervene not only by operating within the zones by implementing certain economic activities within the zones but also by creating, by participating in the development of the zones themselves and also the operation of the zones and that sort of blurs the boundaries between what is sort of public interest, what is a commercial interest. And when it comes to expropriations for a public interest, it makes the tensions and the potential for conflict even more acute. I refer to the voluntary guidelines on responsible governance of tenure like directive volunteer as a key document for all actors working in land governance because they've been because of the process through which they've been developed the UN system they're associated with etc. So the guidelines do provide guidance on expropriation including with regards to the notion of public purpose the conditions under which expropriation will be justified but when it comes to investment private sector investment, and for the to use the term that the guidelines for private sector investment, the guidelines clearly favorable consensual solutions rather than solutions based on expropriation so they emphasize notions of partnerships of engagement with existing landholders and holders of legitimate tenure rights. And I think the rationale for that is obviously a concern about protecting legitimate tenure rights, but it also reflects a significant body of research that exists out there about the notion of tenure risk that actually for investors themselves, it might seem that in the shorter term, more exacting requirements when it comes to allow access to land might make it more costly and more difficult to implement certain projects, in fact, in the longer term, it's the opposite. And that because that's because research shows how in the longer term if things are not done right at the beginning. There are costs in terms of reputational risks but also operational risks with protests adverse campaigns sabotage and so on and ultimately the full financial risks with delays affecting project implementation etc. Then the costs that will be involved in getting it right from the beginning. So I think the the emphasis on sort of engagement negotiation consultation dialogue as opposed to expropriation eviction is ultimately in the longer term interest of companies themselves in addition to being in line with a concern about protecting and respecting legitimate tenure rights. Thank you very much Lorenzo. Thank you Lorenzo I don't know whether any of the other speakers would like to make a contribution of it on this. There are many questions for Madagascar and for Perine. So instead of expulsions. What would you propose in practice. Also, if local rights have been recognized and compensated for. Why is this still an obstacle to the creation of an SCZ. Do you not believe that the owners of a look or the local owners are limited to in financial capital to invest and in Madagascar who are the participants who are present on the land and what land. What do you think in terms of the land before the implementation or creation of an SCZ. Well we have two experts from Madagascar I can answer some of these questions I don't know who will start. Well I'll start and then give the floor to ma'am. I think obviously expulsions and expropriation can should be avoided when there's an expulsion it's compulsory. People don't really have any kind of choice but when we're talking about expropriation we recognize that people do have rights and the Malagasy legislation provides for indemnification. So obviously it is very difficult to avoid expropriations there are some infrastructure projects for example with road building where they roadways go goes through the land that is owned by someone and you can't really avoid that. But then I think a lot depends on who is the deciding authority for a project who builds the road and also the Malagasy law provides for indemnification but it doesn't necessarily provide for relocation. So the people who were expropriated in a urban development site were asked whether they wanted money or somewhere else to go. But we also have some areas that have been taken by local farmers and the idea here. We need to think about whether we recognize the rights of the farmers and they then control the land and are able to draw up a contract with the authorities or there are different formats where all the different players contribute together so all of these different formats exist. And it is important to involve all of the different parties so that there isn't a discrepancy between a small entrepreneur and a large local authority. And we can see that some had decided to sell a part of the land for the building of a road. But then when the state came to register the land the contract was established only between the company and the state and ignored the farmers and so this created issues for both the companies and the farmers. So the alternative here is to recognize the rights of the local farmers to recognize them as owners and give them the choice. So that's the answer to the first point. And I think it covers a number of the questions to be honest. Other than that, why those who have the rights can't invest today? What are they waiting for? Well, we could think that we need to promote investment, but this investment doesn't necessarily come from outside. There are many needs for land, for national operations, sometimes just a few hectares, sometimes much larger areas. We also have a large number of farmers who are looking for land and they obviously produce for national and international markets. In Madagascar we have 500,000 young people who arrive in this field every year. And so we have all of these farms that are created and if we don't want them to set up in fragile contexts, then we need to think about which areas are suitable for agriculture and where we can develop the cultivated areas. Obviously, there also is the factor that investors, whether they're private or local or foreign investors, what are they waiting for in terms of investment? Well, often they're waiting for infrastructure because industrialists are waiting for roads, for farmers, they are waiting for the water infrastructure. And these are very significant investments and we could wonder whether such investments should benefit only one category of users or whether they should be beneficial to a wider scope of beneficiaries. Is it better for it to be limited to a small area or is it better if it's something that is shared more widely? And this is why we wonder whether we should think about zones that are homogenous in terms of the types of players involved or should we talk more about a territory where there could be different types of economic stakeholders who are involved. And this may enable the holders of some rights to remain and if they choose to, to convey their rights to other stakeholders and obviously the state needs to ensure that such contracts all encompassing and include all of the different stakeholders. Thank you. Thank you, Pirin, since we're talking about Madagascar, maybe we could also, I don't know whether Mammy would like to respond to these questions, but there is a question specifically for you saying that your conclusion said that the performance of the Farmers Association was better than that of businesses in Madagascar and I'm perplexed by this, don't the companies have more technical financial material means than the Farmers Associations that focus on family production? Mammy, you need to unmute your microphone. Yes, thank you for these questions. With regards to expropriations, the only thing that I would like to add to what Pirin has just said is that in general, the Farmers are underestimated, neglected as I was saying earlier, because in fact the leaders, the decision makers don't consider that their very limited means are necessary or are sufficient, sorry, and that you can only have due use of the resources if it is on the larger scale. But the average land ownership per family is half a hectare, so how can you be effective on that? And myself and many other associations for civil society and Farmers Associations in Madagascar fight against this refusal to allocate land to the farmers and the reason why they're not effective is actually what Pirin has just mentioned. There are no roads to distribute the products, there is not the water infrastructure etc. So according to my reading of the report on these SSNs, when we have given the farmers sufficient means, as opposed to the companies that were granted land and were not sufficiently well prepared with the reality on the ground. As opposed to that, the small farmers cultivate their land 100% whereas the big companies only cultivate part of the land. And I think this is one of the main principles I wanted to mention, but Pirin also knows about this. But in Madagascar in general, there is an inequality or discrepancy between the land that is owned by families and by the local farmers and the land that is allocated to larger companies. But these fundamental issues are not necessarily directly linked to the farmers themselves. I'll quickly about this comparison, which is an interesting debate. From a very objective and scientific point of view, if you want to compare the two production systems, the companies on the one hand and the local farmers on the other hand, you can look at several criteria. This is obviously the size of land cultivated. You can see from a number of international studies that the land that is given to investors is only partially used, only perhaps 40% or 50% of this land is actually used, whereas local farmers tend to use all of the land for cultivation. You could also talk in terms of yield per hectare. There are can be some significant variation, but the variation is not particularly significant because of the better diversification of crops by the local farmers and by the companies and on the other hand, the companies are forming bigger plots that pests can tend to thrive. In terms of the profitability per hectare, the companies will invest in capital investments, agricultural inputs or equipment. On international markets, the crops might not be that profitable because of the amount of money that has been put in. Local farmers don't make so much capital investment, but invest a lot of, they invest more in labour. So this enables them to be profitable over the long term. They will perhaps pay less to their labourers, but over two or three years, they will be doing better. There's another factor which is the benefit of the territory in terms of jobs created and the companies create fewer jobs per hectare where you have family farms. Obviously, we would like to see the jobs being less strenuous and difficult, but there is a lot more labour required on the smaller plots and there might be vegetable growing or other kind of crops which are actually also more environmentally friendly at the same time. Thank you very much, Perine. Thank you very much. A number of questions for our Senegalese colleagues. There's more general questions. What would explain this in Senegal the low level engagement of local stakeholders such as local authorities when it's part of local policy and some local stakeholders once again involved in the debates and got involved in your results presentations. There were some other questions as well. In the paper from Senegal, I think there's an issue of local land tenure governance in their local authorities. Could the speakers tell us a little bit more about the way in which land is managed in their area. Finally, a question about the Bahani project in Senegal and the person who wrote the question says that there is an SEZ in the area that was created in 2019 according to the 2017 law. The ZES was said to have been created following on from an opportunity study. We found out that this study doesn't exist. And so this is a clear breach of the law on SEZ. What can we do in this case faced with this legal breach. In addition, according to article 13 of the environmental code in Senegal, it said that establishments should be at least 500 meters from public venues. So there's a lot of breaches of Senegalese law in this project. And the question is asking what can be done in order to ensure that environmental and land rights of the communities that have been evicted without compensation are complied with. So I'm going to perhaps allow my Senegalese friends to answer these questions. Thank you very much. Mr team is going to start, and then I'll follow up from that. Thank you very much. I'll try and give a response to the issue about local governance and how the local authority manages the land in Senegal. There are three levels of local authorities region. The region doesn't exist anymore, but they couldn't have any authority over of lands department couldn't make decisions about lands but it's the lowest level that the local municipal authorities that can carry out deliberations with respect to land use. The President of the Republic knows that there is a lot of local struggle, a lot of people who claiming their land rights and he's recently introduced a law who which I think enables local prefects and so prefects can approve deliberations from a land of up to around 10 to 25 hectares, or maybe 30 above above 30 to 1000 hectares it's a governor that will have to approve the deliberation if the deliberation takes place to the perfect sub prefect or the governor's have 15 days to approve the deliberation by the local council. So this shows that it's first of all the local authority the municipal authority that is responsible for deliberating what happens to test but the state also improves it. The local authorities are elected by the local population. I'm part of the local authority in my area. If the mayor supports a project, the deliberation will go through where the struggle is is to when there's issues around public interest facilities such as hospitals or schools, the collectives can't speak into those situations. But when there are projects, which are money making politicians often do fight in order to ensure that the projects happen. And they often work to ensure that their sons or their relatives are employed in the business projects. So that's often the way it works. It's that the municipal local authorities that manage lands like that. Except in the case of public interest projects local collectives can struggle and fight against the project. So with respect to the first question. With respect to the bad practice of local authorities in land management. It's important to say that that exists. It's so true that if the collective one court cases twice against the local authority that it's because the legal authorities that the proper procedures hadn't been complied with the problem that we find is that there are a lot of communities that decry poor land management by their local authorities but not everyone forms collectives and takes their local authorities to court. Currently, Senegalese civil society is working hard but they need to not just decry and protest against what's going on they need to get together. There is an issue around public interest projects. The local authorities draw a lot on this legal definition of public interest products. However, local case law in Senegal have drawn on the Sengyara project. The judges restricted the definition of public interest projects. They are not allowing any and all types of projects to be defined as public interest. So land that was given over to a business was in one case described as public interest but when it was attacked in court it was the judges decided that it couldn't be described as public interest and the same thing happened in Sengyara. There was a first question about the public interest nature of the project but there was also a previous deliberation about this land which the mayor had cancelled without following the proper procedures. So with the law with respect to the creation of special economic zones, the state takes the land over into its own public domain because then it becomes more complicated because the state can argue that the projects are favourable in terms of job creation. With respect to the question about the case in Barney, it's absolutely true. The law requires there to have been opportunity studies before these SEZs are created but these opportunity studies are different to the environmental and social impact studies. These opportunity studies are carried out by the state or the private developer. Unfortunately, when we carried out studies, it was very difficult to find out whether these opportunity studies existed. It is very difficult, almost impossible to find those studies because when the law talks about a creation of an SEZ, it always talks about drawing on the results of the opportunity study but actually getting hold of those opportunity studies is really difficult. Having said that, with respect to the land rights of the local communities, unfortunately, much of these lands around Barney, for example, the land has private land status. Part of it is nationally owned land but part of it is what comes under the maritime public domain. So there are some fairly complex realities in some of these projects but one of the things that I often say to local people is it's good to protest but it's good to get legal support to advise and support you in bringing these cases to court. What we have found is that Senegalese judges, particularly in the Supreme Court, the decisions have been increasingly going in the favour of the local community and against the state government and often against the local authorities. Decisions are often taken by the judges in favour of the local communities and the judges are receptive to local communities' arguments. When you talk about environmental issues, nothing would stop the collectives coming to the courts to defend their rights. If you take the San Diaro example, when they talked about these studies, the authority said these studies existed but we couldn't actually find them. So with respect to the environmental impact studies, you couldn't even find a study about the overall plan for the SEZ. I think I saw a presentation about the Bahani project on the television but I think in this case that the population needs extra support. There was another question about the poor engagement of local communities in Senegal. Depending on the legal status of the lands, the local community can be engaged in different ways. In this San Diaro example, it was a place where the state owned the land already. There was already an urban port of San Diaro and this port owned the land's tenure. So the process of registration for this land, for the new port, there were some villages in the area. The local people protested and demonstrated but they weren't able to have the impact that they wanted. In the SEZ implementation process, there was no contact between the project and the local community. There was no community, no engagement at all. But if you take the JAS SEZ, it's a forest that existed and it was a classified zone. Even from before independence, this classified zone, the local community knew that it was a listed area and they said the forest authorities will not allow certain things. So even when the SEZ was moved in, there were certain activities which couldn't be carried on there. There were certain products that couldn't be produced there anymore and because they'd always been told that it was a classified, a listed forest and it didn't belong to them. So they sort of accepted it. There is the international effort of Jamiad, the population didn't really know what was going on and that's what led to the fact that the local communities weren't particularly engaged. It was different in San Diaro because right from the outside, people were very clear about what was going on. People were engaged and said this is what we want because this is land that was part of the national domain and different local people were involved. If you go back to the JAS project or the Jamiaro project, the level at which the land was used by the local population wasn't as high as in the San Diaro area. So in San Diaro, 50 hectares were being used in San Diaro. So as soon as the process started, the local community felt they understood that they would lose the land and the production capacity is there. This wasn't the case in the other two zones. So there's a few answers and I think on the piano, I can share my email address and end up running out, would be able to have a look at how we can support people and exist within Senegal. So different collectives can explain what could going on, we can put them in contact and explain what type of support and engagement is possible. Thank you very much, Alfa. Any further comments? A question from Burkina Fasa, where there's a law on expropriation and this law provides a compensation mechanism. And according to the IFC World Bank standards, there is a requirement that the land is reused, forced re-installation should be avoided and that if it is inevitable measures should be taken in order to ensure that the expropriation doesn't have risks and harmful effects on the populations affected. We also have a comment for Senegal, the person who's written this says in my capacity as a land negotiator on behalf of a major state project for the management and treatment of solid waste called PromoZ. I am advocating for better take into account this aspect related to preserving living conditions. The waste management schemes are very space hungry. I think we should not consider that state entities involved in waste management are developers, but as a form of technical assistance. The land can remain the property of the SEZ administration authority. Let's see this conclusion from Mr. Diab, I think he's absolutely right in terms of governance. It all will depend on the scheme that is used to manage the scheme. So, some opportunities that exist to negotiate the way that waste management is taken into account. When special economic zones are created, there will be waste as generators. So, there's a question about how to manage that. There's a question from Mr. Jay about who says what explains the inertia in terms of land reform in Senegal? Land reform can only be carried out by the state and we know that since 2014-2015, since the National Land Reform Commission was established, it filed a report that was published in 2017. It focused on the land governance issues. Unfortunately, since the state has received this report, there has not been any response to it. These states didn't want to take any further steps and the commission was actually dissolved. So, if the state is currently trying to put in place a project-based reform, when I talk about a project-based reform, the state was trying to do this in the Petitas project. So, it's trying to put in place a new scheme for that Petitplan. The Senegalese civil society mobilized and protested against that and we're seeing some results of that. The only results that people can show are what we refer to as the land offices. The land offices are buildings that exist but in terms of the reform of land law and civil society has carried out a study to show that there's a lot lacking in terms of land reform. The state has initiated another project, which is the biggest World Bank financed projects over the last five years. But even with this project, the state is not saying it's officially a land reform project, it's official position, but it's a project to support local authorities in Senegal in order to enable these local authorities to have land management tools. So that's why civil society is getting involved in this project in order to monitor what's going on and be whistleblowers because the state is not saying this is not a land reform project, but the civil society is trying to make sure that this is really the case. This is a very sensitive issue in Senegal. Any time you get closer to elections, if there are, these are central elections, we see that this is a very sensitive issue. If they're local elections, representatives of the state on a local level or the local politicians won't talk about land issues because it's a very sensitive issue. There's something that's going on at lots of different levels. We see that there is a desire to push through project-based reform. We're trying to make sure that we're keeping an eye on what's going on, but there isn't a broad-scale land reform project. I think there is probably not sufficient political will on the state level, even though civil society is requesting it and has been asking for it for several years and has been calling out to the government releasing press releases and so on. Let's hope that in a few years' time we will manage to do this because it's very important. Land is a key issue, but we will also, alongside the reforms, we'll need to maintain some of the former elements which represent good governance practice for civil society. Thank you very much, Alfa. That has raised a hand, and after that I think it will probably be time to wrap up because we'll be getting into two hours. Thank you very much, Thierry. I just wanted to come back to this idea of expropriation, compulsory purchase in the public interest because there was a question about this. In my view, the problem is an issue around political will on the part of the state and the policymakers. Without going into too much detail, in Madagascar we are seeing a broad trend to put that all put into the laws that all lands that is intended for investors would qualify to be covered by the law on expropriation in the public interest. So I agree with all of those who've written to say that we need to avoid this as much as possible. Even in the case of road building we can avoid this appropriation for public interest. And one of the impact studies for the roads, the engineer suggested that the village and markets through which the road was going to go shouldn't be destroyed but instead a bypass should be built so instead of destroying all the political communities to achieve the conditions that they have managed to achieve so we need to avoid any form of destruction, if we want to talk about any form of development or economic growth. Dispensation leads to destruction because all the cultural and land rights are violated and as Perine said the compensation that is paid doesn't do not allow the local communities to maintain their standard of living. Thank you very much for that man. I have a question, a final comment from anyone. I think there's been a question from Dr Philano from Madagascar who asked whether in the literature on the different countries we knew what the proportion of assets that were created with appropriate expropriations and which were created without expropriations. Do we know if there were any situations that were created without expropriations. We don't have statistics someone answered in the chat. We don't have statistics but most of them are created with expropriation. This is the question. I just wanted to briefly mention. Thank you very much for that question. Thank you very much for that question. I have a question from the Madagascar team who should have been presenting, wasn't able to do it for personal reasons. Also, who wasn't able to join us today also, who are key members of the team, who took place in, took part in all of the bits of work, including the drafting of the reports. If everyone agrees with me, I think we could thank all of our speakers today. Thank you from Sirat, from the Tani Collective, from the Gred, from Endapronat, from the Ties University. My colleagues from the IED, thank you very much for all that you've contributed today. We've talked about some very interesting and complex subjects today. Today is there still no Lund reform in Senegal, I think is a question we could ask of a number of African countries and other countries around the world. Thank you very much to all the speakers. I've learned very many things today. I've learned that we've now published three reports, including the main report in French and in English. The links have been shared in the chat function of this meeting, but maybe we'll be able to send out email after the event in order to share the links. So to start of a piece of work, we've expressed some recommendations and I hope that this will encourage other organizations, other countries and other people to carry out research in their areas to find out what lessons can be learned. I think this is very early days in these countries, even in the country I'm living in, in the UK, this policy around, especially economic zones is a policy that we will need to keep a close eye on. Anything that needs to be added, Amel, do you want to say goodbye to anyone? Did Lorenzo want to say anything? Otherwise, it's almost time to wrap up. I just wanted to thank the IED for organizing this webinar. Thank you to all of the organization, the collectives and the panelists who are able to share their experience. It's great to share different reports and outputs by email, and we'd like to listen to contributions from different countries where the question of SEZ is being asked, and we're going to monitor and track what's going on in different countries. We understand that advocacy is going to carry on in different countries, so the committee is going to remain at your side in all of these areas. So thank you once again to the interpreters, to the moderators and everyone who's enabled us to have this discussion today.