 And let me start straight away by before passing the floor to Anne to a little bit positioning what is that we are going to be talking about today in this side of it. As you know, the topic of the UN Permanent Foreign is SDG 16. So FAO notes with great concern the acts of violence, criminalization and threats aimed at indigenous peoples worldwide, a situation that has been aggravated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Right now, the criminalization and acts of violence against indigenous peoples constitute a barrier to the achievement of the SDGs and the fulfillment of the indigenous peoples human rights. The lack of security of tenure over their lands, territories and resources is a cause of criminalization of indigenous peoples that is leading to a high number of indigenous peoples being in prison and some of them being killed for defending their territories and rights. These conditions of violence and conflict due to land tenure insecurity have placed indigenous peoples in situations of vulnerability and unfortunately these situations seem to be increasing due to the pressure over natural resources. As a result, indigenous peoples have forced evictions, displacement and relocation. And it's interesting when we look at the inmate population across the world, we do see a tremendous disproportion between the share of indigenous peoples living in the countries and yet the very large share of indigenous peoples in prison. Already some countries and New Zealand is an example of these are putting together specific plans to address this contradiction and also understand why indigenous peoples are more likely and other peoples around the world to end up judged, condemned and imprisoned by the different formal judiciary systems across the world. This is a matter of concern for indigenous leaders, for UN agencies and for governments. We will not achieve SDGs by imprisoning indigenous peoples for defending their lands while protecting the remaining biodiversity in the world. There is something we all need to approach and do differently here. So in a nutshell, the increasing of criminalization and violence against indigenous peoples along with the expansion of extractive industries and the high rate of indigenous peoples' imprisonments are conditions that derive from the lack of security of land tenure. For those reasons and in response to the special thing of the 20th section of the UN Permanent Forum, peace, justice and strong institutions, the role of indigenous peoples in implementing SDG-16, the Found Indigenous Peoples and the Legal Office in FAO embark on an initiative to write a paper that could analyze the important relationship between SDG-16 and indigenous peoples' collective rights. So with all of this, allow me to pass the floor to Anne Norgan and again, Anne, congratulations for your nomination and thank you for being with us here today. We know how busy your agenda is, we feel honored. Thank you, Jung. Jung, distinguished panel, FAO, panelists and participants, Puerre Peivi. This year, the special theme of the Permanent Forum is about peace, justice and strong institutions, the role of indigenous peoples in implementing sustainable development called 16. At the Permanent Forum, we observe with great concern the continued increase of criminalization of indigenous peoples worldwide. We observe that this phenomenon is taking place in vast part of the globe, mainly in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Countries were approximately 466 million indigenous peoples live out of 476 million. The COVID-19 pandemic is also exaggerating the phenomenon of criminalization. We came to acknowledge a large number of laws that had been adapted to the detriment of the rights of indigenous peoples. We are facing a reverse in terms of rights recognition. In March 2021, the UN Dessa released the fifth state of world of indigenous peoples, looking at land, territories and natural resources. This report concludes that extractive industries are likely to end the remaining biodiversity leading to the displacement and violence against indigenous peoples. For these reasons, ladies and gentlemen, the United Nations Permanent Forum welcomes very much the paper prepared by the FAO regarding SDG 16 and indigenous peoples. And Hindu Ibrahim, my or a member of the indigenous of the permanent forum, already addressed this paper when she was telling about her conclusions of her study on climate change and indigenous peoples. So we see the importance of the paper to be very great. We have discussed long enough in the permanent forum and with indigenous peoples around the globe about the rooted causes of criminalization. We have concluded that these causes of criminalization are intrinsically connected to the lack of land tenure security. We indigenous peoples are being murdered and criminalized due to our opposition to measures that disrupt our livelihoods and put at risk our cultural and physical survival. We believe that it is of great importance to address land tenure issues as a precondition for guaranteeing the full and effective exercise of indigenous peoples rights. The only way we can stop criminalization is by preventing, which implies addressing the underlying causes. For these reasons, we are thrilled that FAO took the initiative to propose some recommendations in the frame of its mandate that are pertinent to address the rooted causes of this criminalization. We strongly believe that FAO voluntary guidelines on responsible governance of tenure constitute an avenue to ensure indigenous peoples secure tenure over their lands, territories and resources. FAO, with its expertise, could play a significant role at country level, providing technical support to governments in the implementation of the voluntary guidelines. Also, we note that the global hub of indigenous peoples food systems represents an opportunity to gather evidence on the sustainability and resilience of indigenous peoples food systems. The global hub will also make visible and document the outstanding contribution of indigenous peoples food systems to sustainable food systems and climate change. Other UN agencies and governments should replicate good initiatives to address the rooted causes of criminalization and therefore ensure the access and use of land, territory and resource of indigenous peoples. And this was also mentioned yesterday at the panel by Albert Barume, the previous chair of the MRIP. I want to highlight the call by the chief executive board for coordination in 2020 to protect indigenous human rights defenders, including efforts to improve access to information, strengthen preventive actions and ensure remedies for violations. They emphasized the United Nations system shall support the efforts to address conflicts involving indigenous peoples by leveraging specialized prevention and mediation mechanisms. In this frame, the United Nations Permanent Forum urges UN agencies to take active participation in adapting proposals that effectively address the rooted causes of criminalization. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you so much for those words. And we would love if you stay with us at the same time we know the agenda that is in front of you. So thank you for finding time for us and for delivering those powerful and clear words. I was told that Francisco Cali might join us at any time. So if you agree, I was looking among the participants and panelists. I don't see him now. So allow me to continue with the agenda under the understanding that when he connects, I will give him the floor. So let me continue with the agenda as we have shared it with all of you and pass the floor to Maria Costa and Luisa Castaneda to present the paper about the affairs rolling supporting indigenous peoples and countries in achieving SDG 16. Maria and Luisa, the floor is yours. Over to you, colleagues. Thank you, John. Allow me to share our presentation, please. We could see your screen, Luisa. Yeah. Excellent. Can you see my... Okay. Yes, please. Yes. Okay. Thank you so much, John, for giving us the floor. We read the panelists and attendees of the event. We are glad to present the paper that is focused on the role of FAO in contributing to achieving peace and justice for indigenous peoples. As you initially mentioned, John, this paper is the result of a collaborative effort between FAO's indigenous peoples' unit and legal office. Our presentation today, we follow three sections. The first is about the characterization of criminalization. In a second moment, we are going to talk about some causes of criminalization of violence against indigenous peoples, and we are going to finalize presenting some recommendations that FAO can undertake. As you see, SDG 16 is about peace, justice, and strong institutions. And as he was mentioning, those are preconditions to the fulfillment for all of the sustainable development goals. That's why we are talking today about this important matter. As you can see in the figure, the killings of indigenous people are increasing over the years. There is no official data, but global witness with other organizations have collected these cases. We want to emphasize that the murder or criminalization of indigenous persons impact the whole community, therefore, the number of indigenous peoples affected by criminalization is even larger than the one we can see here. Indigenous people, as John and the chair of the Permanent Forum has mentioned, have been targeted when they have opposed policies, laws, and development projects, such as mining, agribusiness, hydroelectric, infrastructure, and others. But also human rights defenders, loyals, and civil society who work with indigenous people are subject to violence and criminalization. The Special Rapporteur on the rise of indigenous peoples stated that criminalization usually follows a pattern involving, and more others, forced evictions, judicial harassment, arbitrary detentions, sexual harassment, and other actions. As a consequence, this phenomenon neutralizes and disencourages indigenous peoples' actions, which negatively impact the right to self-determination. We also note, and we insist, that criminalization and violence towards indigenous people are even more worrying in time of the COVID-19 pandemic due to the rolling back of social and environmental safeguards that are eroding the rights of indigenous peoples. Based on FAO's expertise, reports, and literature existed, we identified some of the problems are the lying criminalization of indigenous peoples. In this occasion, we are going to only mention four of them. Let me allow them to start with the first one that is the lack of recognition of the existence of indigenous peoples. In spite of the solid international legal framework about indigenous peoples' rights, there are some countries where indigenous peoples do not have a constitutional nor legal recognition as such. For instance, in Asia, indigenous peoples' organization noted that one of the main concerns in the region is the denial of many countries about indigenous peoples' existence. This context put at risk the security of their land because, in many cases, lands that have been occupied by the indigenous peoples are considered empty or non-productive and are given away from them. This cause is also in line with the second cause that I'm going to present that is about the lack of recognition and respect of their collective rights. There are some countries that recognize indigenous peoples. However, it may be that such recognition does not grant indigenous peoples collective rights. In turn, there are deprived of accessing and using their collectives on traditional lands. In the case in Latin America, there has been an advance in terms of granting rights to indigenous peoples. They are given different levels of autonomy. Truth was that the 15 countries have ratified the Iowa Convention on the System. However, such a legal recognition took place simultaneously when titles and environmental licenses were given for exploitation of natural resources. This is connected to the third cause that we identify. That is the intensifying competition of natural resources due to the escalation of extractive projects and investments. We have seen that in the last decades, the pressure on land and natural resources have affected indigenous peoples across the world. They have experienced an increased risk of losing their livelihoods and the basis for the food systems when their land are expropriated and converted for large-scale projects. This argument is linked to another issue that I would like to raise here today and that it is of great importance for FAO's mandate. That is the lack of access to land and natural resources is limiting the realization of the right to food of indigenous peoples. On the other hand, amid the escalation of extractivism, we observe that the right to free prior and informed concern that is recognizing the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people is not respected either. In this regard, indigenous people have sought protection before national and international courts. Another factor that is related to criminalization is the lack of recognition of indigenous people's justice with the national framework. It is absurd that due to criminalization, the rate of indigenous peoples' imprisonment is growing since they cannot exercise the judicial system but are judged by ordinary courts. In those courts, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has reported that indigenous people are subject to long periods of detention, confiscation, the spy of the lack of evidence, and they are also deprived of legal calls on interpreters. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur on the right of indigenous people has pointed out that indigenous peoples' courts and customary mechanisms exist in many countries but they are frequently not recognized by the legal system. I would like to close my intervention highlighting that criminalization along with land tenure insecurity and extractivism especially affect the lives of indigenous women, children, and youth. We have observed that some indigenous women are forced to migrate to urban areas to support financially their families and also the situations are affecting indigenous children and indigenous youth, impacting their health, education, and prompting the loss of traditional knowledge. I'm going to stop here and I'm going to pass the floor to my colleague, Maria Costa. Thank you very much. Good afternoon everyone. I will continue presenting what FAO can do to tackle these trends that Luisa just explained. First, it is important to say that FAO is not directly linked with peace and justice in its mandate but still having the mandate to eradicate hunger and malnutrition, FAO has land tenure at the cornerstone of its interventions. When FAO was created in 1945, it was with the conviction that to avoid conflict, food has to be warranted along with the right to land. This understanding that the land is not only a commodity but an essential element in the realization of human rights. So we have in practical terms proposing eight pathways in which FAO can help achieving XC16 and ending violence against indigenous peoples. In the first place, we have the voluntary guidelines on the responsible tenure of land features and forests. These guidelines, although are not legally binding, they are a software tool that provides guidance to implement legally recognized international human rights instruments such as UNDRIP and ILO 169. This is done by establishing the principle of rule of law. Also the BGGT is called the state to observe the protection of human right defenders. FAO has worked with implementing the BGGT in many countries, building capacities and advocating for the implementation of the BGGT with the countries and also with indigenous peoples in Asia and Latin America. Second, we have the implementation of the free prior and informed consent that is a working principle for FAO projects. This principle is recognized in FAO policy on indigenous and tribal peoples from 2010 and is also in the voluntary guidelines in section nine. The states have committed in the voluntary guidelines on land tenure to initiate good faith consultations before implementing projects or legislation of administrative measures that affects indigenous peoples. Also in section 12 of the BGGT is established that the investors have the responsibility to recognize tenure rights and the rule of law and should not contribute to food insecurity and environmental degradation. FAO has developed technical guidelines regarding ethnic trainings in several countries and also in implementing it before implementing projects in the field in countries like Paraguay, Panama and El Salvador. The third pathway is technology and georeferencing for land demarcation. This is important because it has been proved in the field that monitoring and assessing forests and natural resources has shown to be an important avenue for tenure and capacity building that remains in the territories. This is very important. This has shown to be very useful for indigenous people in accessing land tenure. Also important is the open tenure application. This is an app that works in cell phones and tablets and supports the collecting tenure-related data in the communities. This has been used in Cambodia, Sierra Leone and currently in Guatemala supporting the implementation of a judicial sentence. Regarding biocentric restoration and natural resources management, this is important to address the issue of conservation that in many cases, as Luisa said, is the center of forced eviction of indigenous peoples in many countries. So biocentric restoration is an approach that the FAO is working with indigenous peoples and that has the cosmogony of indigenous peoples at the heart of the project, blending ancestral knowledge with technology and also territorial management systems of indigenous peoples as they managed following their cosmogony. Next. So I think it's the other one, Luisa. I don't know if it's the last one or there. Facilitate policy dialogue between governments and indigenous peoples. FAO supports and promotes policy dialogue based on core principles that indigenous peoples should participate in decision-making processes that affect them, in equal conditions with governments and other stakeholders. FAO has facilitated policy dialogues in El Salvador, Colombia, Paraguay, Panama, Indonesia and also in Chile. We just have the news that in Paraguay the national plan has been presented to the president yesterday. So it's very good news and it shows that national policies and plans can be approved and that bridges can be built between indigenous peoples and governments in order to have public policies. Also regarding data, lack of reliable data is one of the main issues in all topics related to indigenous peoples. So FAO promotes the coordination between indigenous peoples' authorities, indigenous organizations and statistics institutes in the country, working together in methodologies that could adapt indigenous peoples' statistics to indigenous peoples' culture and mindset. The experience that we have is in implementing the food security scale experience in indigenous peoples in Panama and indigenous peoples' territories in Panama and El Salvador. So this could be a good practice that could be followed in other areas of work. Then we have creating an online or a database on legislation. In recent years, a more protected legal and policy framework has been established in many countries. However, for indigenous peoples, the legislation is not always easy to access or to be used in order to claim their rights. So for that reason, FAO is developing with the legal division an up-to-date legislative and policy database related to indigenous peoples' rights in the context of food insecurity and agriculture. The goal is to improve legislation and, as I said, to make more accessible the legislation to indigenous peoples. And now, yes, the other slide, Elisa. So I'm finishing with this. Also it's important that FAO can join forces with your partners and allies to raise awareness. Coordination is one of the pillars of FAO works with indigenous peoples, lacing with agencies, indigenous mechanisms, and among others. So it's important that we are working with other agencies that have the mandate to work in peace and development. Also to support implementation of sentences that rule in favor of indigenous peoples in relation to land tenure and resources management. An example of this is what I have already said that is working in Guatemala with the app Open Tenure that is implemented a sentence that establishes a restitution of land to indigenous women that were sexual abuse during the armed conflict in that country. Also, strengthening capacities of public servants. This is to build capacities on international law and international standards. To public servants and also to law students and lawyers on issues related to land tenure and natural resources. Well, to sum up, FAO is notes with concern. As John said, this act of violence and criminalization of indigenous peoples worldwide. We are willing to work with governments and indigenous peoples to tackle this situation. Thank you. Thank you so much, Maria and Luisa for that very powerful and clear presentation with the specific activities and areas of possible engagement. I think that's extremely important that we move from words to actually doing something specifically. And from what we are hearing from the UN Secretary General that is the desire that we move from words to actually I think any contribution is extremely important. Let me, I still don't see Francisco Cali. I was just checking to see whether he has joined us, the UN Special Rapporteur. So let us move to the next to the panel discussion and on indigenous peoples and peace, ensuring security of tenure and indigenous peoples, governance systems and institution. So I would like to pass the floor to Marcela Villabreal. She has a long standing experience and knowledge of the voluntary guidelines. So she's the best person to share with us some words about how the voluntary guidelines could come into place to support the struggles that we all face. Marcela, thank you so much for being with us. Over to you. Thank you. Thank you, Jon, and that's really a pleasure for me to be with you today. I think that the voluntary guidelines have been already mentioned several times. And I think they're a very, very powerful instrument and they can become even a more powerful instrument in as much as given that this non-binding soft law be complemented with other actions, like for example, our work through parliamentarians to provide legal supports. And we want to at least help governments and countries make some parts of these voluntary guidelines into act law. But from now to then, it's a very big step. So actually the VGTs dedicate a whole chapter to indigenous peoples' land. And we believe this, for me at least, this is one of the most important chapters in the whole instrument. Why? Because they recognize the social, cultural, spiritual, economic, environmental, and political value of land to indigenous peoples. And they recognize collective tenure systems. The VGTs exhort states to recognize and protect indigenous peoples' rights, ensuring that they are not forcibly evicted, that was mentioned, from their ancestral lands. And adapting as necessary their own policies, legal, and organizational frameworks. The VGTs also advocate for full participation of indigenous peoples and their represented institutions, including vulnerable and marginalized members in the development of tenure policies, laws, and projects in a non-discriminatory, and of course, gender sensitive way. They also encourage the development or the strengthening of means of resolving tenure conflicts within and between communities and to prevent corruption in relation to tenure systems by consultation, participation, and by empowering communities. Now, as I said before, and it was mentioned, FAO has been promoting the VGTs in a number of different contexts. And basically, our programs include a capacity development, but it's about empowerment. It's about people understanding their own rights and also having strengthened institutions that will help them open space within the very, very difficult space of land tenure. Land tenure is a sensitive issue always in every single context. What we have been doing is working together with governments so that they use VGTs so that they bring in the different voices of all the different constituents into, for example, the creation of new land policies. And we have been able to develop these new land policies in different countries of the world. Not yet there. There's a lot more to do. But first of all, we need, of course, to have capacity development, empowerment of local leaders, empowerment of women leaders. These all are areas in which FAO is working. We have translating the VGTs. And this is thanks to Yon and the team into a number of local languages. Yon, it was five in the past. I don't know if we have more. But again, such a sensitive topic requires a number of actors that come into the game. So we work together. So on the one hand with Indigenous peoples, on the other hand with lawmakers, on the other hand with the people who are in charge of policies so that these policies on land are sensitive to Indigenous peoples' issues. And for example, we also help in terms of developing the materials, the guidelines, the guides. VGTs have a number of suite of different guides to help develop different aspects of the VGTs, but also to help governments, for example, consider communal land, collective rights of land, even if they have not considered them before in their own laws, legislation, and policies. For us, secure tenure of land is a way of protection. We at FAO, we are saddened and horrified by seeing how, looking at the criminalization of the Indigenous people, by seeing how many Indigenous leaders have lost their lives. We express our solidarity with them. And we believe that through our work, we would be able to support land tenure, specifically as a means also of protection. And but the VGTs by themselves cannot do it all. We nudge governments into ensuring that they will be able to adopt the VGTs. We ensure other actors. We create awareness with other actors on the VGTs and help them through technical guides to see how they can best address these issues. But on the other hand, just by the fact of the VGTs having a whole chapter on Indigenous peoples that gives us space to negotiate, to ensure to nudge to try to get governments moving into making the adequate decisions that will ensure the access to land, secure tenure to land, address conflicts because the issue around the Indigenous peoples' lands is much one of conflict. It's competing interests, competing interests that could go either from as simple as issues between pastoralist communities and sedentary communities, or it could very well be about interests around what is in the land in terms of minerals or other valuable kinds of resources for others. So again, it's a difficult game. It's a sensitive game. But from the FAO perspective, what we do is we promote the VGTs. We try to get governments to adopt them, to use them to generate policies, and thereby to ensure that they will be addressing Indigenous peoples' land within the context of their own culture, within the context of self-determination. And of course, we do this within the context of our own policy on Indigenous peoples. I'd like to stop there, John. I think I already used up the time. No, it was extremely important, Marcela. Thank you so much for alluding to the power and possibilities of the voluntary guidelines on the governance of tenure of land, the VGT, the acronym we use for that important document. I think, Marcela, it took something like five years to negotiate them and find a license. So that gives an idea of the complexity on what it is to endorse a document by countries that talked about land and all the issues related to land and tenure rights. And thank you, Marcela, for reminding us of that Section 9 that specifically deals with Indigenous peoples and pastoralists and recognizes customary rights that are so important for Indigenous peoples. Excellent. I think thank you so much, Marcela. I think your words blend very well with giving pace now to Kundan Kumar from Araray. Kundan is really a pleasure and an honor to be with you in a panel again. Thank you so much, Kundan. Thank you for connecting. Kundan, your organization released recently a report where you were analyzing this new plan of actually setting up national parks and protected areas in something more than 25% of the surface of the Earth. And I think that it was a matter of concern for many of us. Over to you, Kundan. It's great to have you here. Hi. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, everybody. Can you see the screen, my presentation on the screen? Yes, we do. Yes. OK, good. So I'll try to be in time. This is the issue of lack of realization of Indigenous peoples' collective rights as a driver of criminalization. I think this is a really complex issue. And it's sort of if you historically you see that it's really historically process which has always led to the takeover and grabbing of lands of the Indigenous people and other traditional communities across the world. So we are in continuation what is happening right now. In some ways it should be seen as a continuation with the genocides and killings and exclusions and from the past. So and then also the past also could show us the way to the future that what are the risks and threats that await us and what are the pathways forward if you want to have a productive situation. So criminalization of Indigenous people now, what is happening with them, should be seen in the larger context of what happened in Latin America, what happened in Asia. The struggles of Indigenous people for their land rights, for their self-determination and self-autonomy across the world. And that historical thing needs to be taken care of. What I'll do is RRI is introduce RRI very briefly. It's a coalition of global coalition of organizations. And it has 21 partners and large number of collaborators. Most of us are Indigenous people, local communities are producing in people's organizations. We have a secretariat in Washington, DC. It's apart from other things working on the ground. One of the major things that we do is try to change the discourse at the level and everything that is possible to ensure that the rights of Indigenous people, local communities are producing are highlighted and recognized across the world. So this is and for that purpose we are maintaining databases. We are collecting information from across the world. We look at legal regimes which recognize collective rights in forests and land across the world. And I will share some of that to provide a perspective on what's the status of the cognition of collective rights, what is the potential. And I would talk about because our database does not, it's very difficult to separate the rights of Indigenous people, the collective claims of Indigenous with local communities and after this in peoples. We're trying to do that. But so our data does refer to all three, but most of it does actually is refers to Indigenous peoples land because they actually have the most extensive claims across the world on lands and on resources. So Indigenous people, I think local communities, number up to 2.5 billion is basically historic right when customary manners were 50% of all lands, but legally only 10 lands and 10% of the global terrestrial area. And this is basically based on our analysis and projections that we have been making in the last 10 years, past decade or so. And we did a recent study which is available on our website and which tells us that around for, we looked at countries which cover almost half the world's surface land area. And out of that, we basically could see that around 50% of land, even in these countries, was claimed as Indigenous and local community and traditions lands, mostly as collective lands as commons. And that only 26% of this was recognized in various forms. And that means that recognition could range from actual ownership to actually landing designated in for use of in business people or local communities. And 24, 23% remain unrecognized. Most of the recognition of the customary lands and collective lands is in Latin America. And some of the other countries like Canada, for example, or some of the... And Canada, for example, and Australia. Some places, the areas that was referred to initially when Africa, Latin America, and Asia, in some parts of the world, the recognition, developed recognition of rights on collective lands is extremely poor. And for example, in Central Africa, if you look at the data, the total claim is almost just out of the total area, almost 85% is claimed by Indigenous people, local communities in these countries. But barely 1% is recognized. So most of it remains 335 billion hectares in Central Africa remains unrecognized as... So this is area which is... We can say it's disputed that people have claim on it, elected rights claim, and yet governments, the laws don't recognize this rights. So these are not formally recognized. Similarly, for South Eastern Asia, barely 2% of the land, total land area is recognized. And so basically in terms of that, all the land claims around 5% to 7% is recognized as collective lands. So that is... And primarily in countries like, you know, Philippines, where we have some of the recognition of Indigenous people's rights. And in, for example, in Indonesia, a very small portion of land, which the customary communities and Indigenous people's claim as their rightful lands has been recognized. In India, it's something like 2%. So what that tells us is that, if you look at this data, that there are vast areas on which claims are there, where people, Indigenous people, local communities, African Indigenous people live, but where they don't have rights on the land. This is treated as state lands. Sometimes it has been privatized through concessions. And this is where the criminalization... This is one of the major causes of criminalization that was pointed out to me on in others, is that you're living in a particular, in your territory, your land, and the state does not recognize it. The external parties don't recognize your right. And sometimes they don't even recognize you as a business people. So we have three layers. One is people are living in the land, they're not even recognizing business people and their rights of lands are not recognized. People might be recognized as in business people, but their rights of lands might not be recognized. And the third layer would be that your rights might be recognized as in business people and as holders of the land, but the effective security of that tenure is not there. And so these three situations basically are effective on the majority. I would say almost 85 to 90% of business people are in this situation. And therefore everything that you do, everything you follow your cultural practices, you do shipping cultivation, you do agriculture, you go and hunt those existing laws of the country. The first laws, land laws, they criminalize you. And that's where if you look at the data on incarceration on imprisonment in countries like India and Indonesia and others, you find that the last number of people against some cases have been filed and I mean incarcerated because of violating these laws which come out of non-recognition of their customary rights and the customary use and use of the land. And this is endemic across the world. I think to some extent, Latin America still has done better because they have been so much more effort and so much more mobilization of in-business people, but still there are laws which overlap and which violate the laws of the in-business people and which can criminalize them. The three or four major kind of areas, thematic areas, which criminalize in-business people and local communities, linked to one is in, for example, in South and South East Asia, vast areas of customary lands are used for shifting cultivation. In all these countries, shifting cultivation is outlawed. And so just the practice of growing food, getting your food from the forest is criminal. And there's so many people who have been arrested when in custody of shifting cultivation. And so all of us, there's a lot of data on this, a lot of information on this. Conservation has become another bugbear and has pointed out. And existing customer conservation, if you see both creation of forest reserves and creation of conservation areas for biodiversity, the global conservation organizations very closely with the governments. And in fact, many, many cases have promoted laws with criminalizing business people. So all the good thing that you hear from, you know, the top organization that we work in business people, if you really start looking at the country level manifestations of what they do, you'll find that they're still following the whole system of conservation which criminalizes, excludes, and does not organize the rights of in-business people, local communities. That's a major, major threat. And as Yon pointed out that we estimated that if you go to the, if the biodiversity goals that are being talked about, the 30 by 30 or half earth, if 30% of the world's area is brought into a conservation, almost 1.6 billion people, including almost all the in-business people in the world would fall into that high priority conservation areas because that's where the conservation, you know, where the biodiversity is. And if you follow the traditional conservation methods, that poses a very big threat to in-business people. Existence, very existence will become criminalized. And then you have the conversion of customer lands to concessions for agri-business and for investors and then development projects, mining, infrastructure, the extractive industries, and industrialization. And these are all, in cases where your land right itself is not organized, where you don't exist, then the question of FPIC almost does not exist to arise because you're not seen as living on that land, you're not seen as having rights on the land. So these are some of the issues that come up and I would, and then Latin America, as you know that even their rights are recognized because you're protecting those lands and you're trying to protect those lands and you're effective in that, the violence against in-business people increases in intensity. And it's often, sometimes it's state criminalization, but often it's private actors who are who attack and carry out violence in the in-business people. Just some numbers that, and these are again, very indicative numbers. The tip of the iceberg, for example, in India land conflict watch database documented 542 ongoing conflicts, which involving farmers and collective lands, many of them linked to tribal scheduled rights in India, affecting over 5.5 million people. And people who are interested in looking at this can actually look at what kind of conflicts are involved, how much are linked to conservation, how much are linked to it. So there is an effort to kind of collect data and which we have also been involved in. Similarly, in Indonesia, there are multiple conflicts which are largely arising out of oil pump plantations and related, and agribusinesses and plantations which are affecting in-business people. These are being taken, basically, concessions being given on in-business for customer land. And so these are some of the examples that one can look at. I would say that what is happening to now, and I say that there's a process of acceleration of criminalization and disposition in business people if we don't take action at this point of time. And I think this is, for all of us, is that the climate crisis itself and the conservation crisis, if not based on rights of business people, local community, not led by industry or local communities, can really pose major threats. And these, because most of these, nature-based solutions to conservation and climate crisis are actually based on customary lands of in-business people and local communities, half of the earth, which is being protected and stewarded by them. And our study, recent study, estimated there's 1.6 billion people living there and on priority conservation areas, which is obviously that you can't, if you try to impose conservation solutions from top, like what it has been done now, it cannot work. Similarly, if you look at carbon credits and carbon offset markers that have been talked about, tomorrow, I think, Biden summit, they'll be talking about that. And we did a study of 31 countries and we found that in only one countries, there's very clear rights of carbon of in-business people, local communities in their lands and that there are very clear sharing mechanisms and safeguards, that's Costa Rica. Most of our countries don't have proper systems, they do it case by case, and there's a whole mess. So the very basis of carbon markets, the land and who has the carbon on it, carbon in the land is not clear. So this is really a serious problem. However, there's also an opportunity that if you look at 30 by 30 nature with solutions, the only way you can really effectively do it is if you accept the leadership and leadership of in-business people, local communities. And all these will fail if in-business people, local communities don't take leadership if they're not part of the solution. And that is what we need to create a discourse and this is what RRI is trying to do is that you really need to meet humanities solutions, the problems that humanity face, the crisis that humanity face. The in-business people, local communities are the most important solutions. They provide the solution, they are the solution because without their leadership, without involving them, without their recognition of the land rights, you cannot really address these problems. And this also provides an opportunity to address these problems and address the problem of exclusion and discrimination in business people and local communities and move forward to make clear to the governments in the global community that this, you need to do this to not for the in-business people, but for yourself. You have to accept the leadership. They have to be your, they have to provide the solution to the claimants. And we have so much of evidence now that in-business people, local community are best stewards of land, they're the best stewards of carbon. And this is a solution that we need to look at if you want to address the criminalization and exclusion and marginalization in business people of local communities across the world. So I'll end with this. I know that I must have went over my time, but thank you very much. Kundan, thanks to you. I think extremely eye-opening and as usual, it's impressive the amount of data and the ongoing research that your organization is doing. The issue of 30 times 30 is coming up a lot in the UN Food Systems Summit. And one of the things that we are proposing is to consider indigenous people's food systems as a game changer of the UN Food Systems Summit exactly to undertake what you're saying, to recognize first the assistance of people living in these territories, but more important their livelihoods and territorial management so that we can reinforce the rights. Thank you so much, Kundan, for that presentation. Please, let me ask you to stop sharing your screen so I can pass the floor to Elisa. And I'm very honored to give the floor to Elisa. Elisa, something that stuck with me is I was with Widow with a colleague in a meeting on indigenous peoples in Chiang Mai and just some days before the meeting, they just killed an indigenous young guy because he was harvesting honey in the forest where he has been doing that for generations, him and his community. So this fact of forest being considered empty, this fact of territories being considered empty of people and of rights is a major issue. So Elisa, over to you on the amazing work that you're doing in your university. Thank you for being with us. Thank you very much for the invitation to be in this event today. And I have to say I'm very honored and humbled to be in the company of colleagues who have done all that work and study related to indigenous peoples' rights and issues. I come into the topic as an international environmental lawyer and as was explained earlier on, I'm really interested in the role that international environmental law can provide to make the critical connection between the international protection on indigenous peoples' human rights in the context of natural resource development and conservation as all the colleagues stressed the numbers of killings and other threats and criminalization to against indigenous peoples exactly in these areas of development. Just to explain that maybe one, I used to work with FAO of more than a decade ago and I remain very much an active colleague in an external consultancy capacity. And as an academic, I've been thinking throughout my career around how researchers can be respectful and responsive allies for indigenous peoples, local communities and UN agencies in trying to address these issues. So on that basis, I've had the honor to collaborate with FAO on the preparation of a study that the Permanent Forum had asked FAO to develop to really understand at a more granular level and very much on the basis of the high level challenges that Kundar has just explained where the law can help and where the law is a barrier to the protection, recognition and full respect of indigenous peoples' collective rights to territories including land but also fresh and marine waters and resources. And I think it has been mentioned at the start of these events that FAO have quite a distinctive role to play and I really want to stress how in my mind and my field work and theoretical work, what one of the key barriers to really make indigenous peoples' human rights a reality on the ground is really making the connection, making real genuine inroads into sector-specific natural resource governance and practices. These are colleagues in government that may not have had human rights backgrounds and understanding who often are very devoted to ensuring environmental sustainability but who work with very specific legal, technical and governance structures. And so finding, understanding the governance structures that they work with, understanding the terms they're familiar with and really finding the right entry points for genuine and longstanding engagement with human rights I think is one of the key first steps in making progress in the full protection and realization of indigenous peoples' human rights. So in that sense, FAO is the UN agency that has the longest standing and deepest forms of cooperation with departments and Ministry of Agriculture, pastoralism, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture. They also work on freshwater and wildlife as well as investment and trade. And these are really, I think, really important entry points for having an influence and supporting governments at different levels to properly engage with their international human rights obligations in areas where maybe they're less prepared and less equipped to do so. As was mentioned in the opening remarks, also the right to food lands can be very powerful. They're all of the FAO mandate may be different from that of other UN institutions vis-a-vis SDG 16, but the right to food lands can be very powerful, both in securing access to natural resources, providing the recognition of the global contributions that indigenous peoples make locally to food security and also looking at aspect of nutrition and health. And so we see these two sides of FAO work, the very practical stakeholders and constituency, the work with and the overarching framework work really play out in innovative ways in the kind of work that FAO does, both in terms of the legal work and the more technical work that the colleagues have also explained in the paper prepared on SDG 16. And I think the key opportunities there is that FAO has a mutually reinforcing work done at the international level and at the national level. And the lessons learned from the national level can be brought internationally and vice versa. Important lessons and messages from the international level can be effectively brought into conversations, including policy and data dialogues, as was mentioned, to affect national and local decisions. And in a way, trying to translate, I think that's one of the major contributions of the VGGTs and other FAO instruments to speak and explain the international human rights obligations and standards in a language and from the perspective of duty bearers in specific sectors of natural resource development and thinking about decision makers, planners, those responsible for inventories and mapping, all the way to managers and enforcement officers who often are involved in those acts of criminalization that have been increasingly reported. The role of FAO-Lex, the unique, I think, obligation that FAO member states have to report to FAO all their legal developments in all the areas of the mandate of FAO provides a unique opportunity to identify global challenges, global trends in legislation, facilitate access to laws for the purposes of advocacy, analysis, and potential litigation by a whole range of stakeholders. And it's really an incredible basis for them doing further legal analysis that can then be offered to other colleagues and UN agencies. And that is accompanied by the National Legal Advisory Work which supports also participatory approaches to the review and revision of policies and legislation, looking also into institutional aspects and capacity issues as part of that long-standing and specializing engagement with specific natural resource sectors. I think that the work, the technical work, the examples that were provided by colleagues earlier on is also incredibly important and very much looking at those embedded elements for natural resource management that at the moment may not be open enough or open at all to different knowledge systems and wall views. And because of that, we don't really serve the role that they could in terms of respecting human rights. And so once again, having that long-standing knowledge and engagement with those technical aspects of natural resource management can also open the door for making those instruments up to support the recognition and respect of the human rights of indigenous peoples. So the combination of all of these, I think is really powerful. So on that basis, we have been thinking quite a lot about the opportunities and the objectives of an FAO study on the collective rights of indigenous peoples in the context of national laws, building on the work that FAO and fellow colleagues have already done, really looking at, I think, as Kunda was saying, the moving beyond, even in those countries where we have recognition of indigenous peoples and we may have recognitions of the rights. What are the more detailed aspects across different bodies of law and related to different natural resources around the recognition or not of collective rights? How different legal cultures and regions may have adapted or not to these issues also where we may or may not have sufficient resources to make that assessment and looking at international legal instruments and guidance as the lens through which to identify progress at the national level or barriers. In that, seeking to identify trends across the natural resources under FAO mandate, potentially options that seem conducive to protecting the collective rights of indigenous peoples and through that really make strengthening capacities of different actors, not only legal operators, but also non-legal experts to engage with the law at the national level to ask the questions that can clarify and challenge whether or not legal responses at the national level are fit for purpose in terms of recognizing and ensuring the respect or collective rights of indigenous peoples. And through that study providing inputs to relevant global discussions. So as this were our departure points, we've also had internal discussions within FAO around the approaches that we will take, the importance as the permanent forum president mentioned of looking into the interface between international human rights law related to indigenous peoples and international biodiversity law and how that can bring also help us to achieve policy coherence across different and often differently regulated natural resource sectors. The importance of not only looking at legal texts, even if that is an essential part, but where we can find information around implementation and the difference between law in the books and law in practice. And I think one of the key maybe innovations in the study is really that of drawing also on anthropological and historical scholarship with a view to really bringing in those elements that speak to the challenges, the historic challenges and the lack of recognition that are part of a longer process of non-recognition of indigenous peoples and their rights and their collective approaches. Mainly with a view to addressing duty bearers. So really trying to build on the strength of FAO to speak in an accessible manner to natural resource regulators and managers and enforcers as an entry point, of course, for a broader dialogue, but also empowering others to be able to speak to those duty bearers in terms that can allow for an effective dialogue with them. And building on the broader work that FAO has done on issues related to the VGT guidelines, but also the small scale fisheries guidelines, the work on gender equality and natural resource ownership, et cetera. And while we have looked at various aspects and the study is still ongoing, I think some of the initial findings is that even where we may have recognition of collective rights, the laws tend to be used in very open-ended terms. And while this may be helpful in terms of giving deference to customary approaches to collective rights and also to the complex coexistence of collective and individual rights within individual indigenous peoples groups, that does create a lack of clarity in other pieces of legislation or even the same piece of legislation as to whether when the legislator uses other terminology, community-based approaches, we are really effectively contributing to the protection of collective rights or not. And of course, understanding where that open-endedness then leads or somehow inadvertently contributes to dissonance across different pieces of legislation is really key. Questions related to limited recognition, barriers, all of that feeds into an understanding of the challenges that are there even where we have the effort of recognition in legislation. And so in a way, I think one of the tools that we're really interested in developing through this study is a set of questions and really systematizing all the more detailed question that needs to be asked in looking at the national legal framework to really understand any strengths and weaknesses in effectively recognizing collective rights. And so just to conclude by saying that as I think as the colleagues have raised in the previous presentations, the key of how the laws can really support Indigenous Peoples Agency and leadership and how we can have a genuine dialogue with duty-bearers including different sectors of society, not just governments. To my mind, in the natural resource sector and conservation sector needs to go at the more granular level of where free prime form consent works in a combination with impact assessments which should be expanded to socio-cultural as well as environmental impact assessments. Question of fair and equitable benefit sharing which are the three safeguards that have time and again be recognized as essential for respecting all human rights of Indigenous peoples including for rural women and increasingly also for children. But many questions remain about the practice, the capacities and even the legal clarity as to what these processes need to respond both procedurally and substantively to work procedurally and substantively as effective protections of the rights of Indigenous peoples as opposed to areas where instead violation of this regard may happen. And I think drawing on international human rights law guidelines as well as the guidelines that have developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity and several sets of instruments that have been developed under the ages of FAO, we are able to ask specific questions on those safeguards and also advance the understanding around how they may work in the context of assessments of policies and programs through strategic assessments and how they then trickle down into processes related to licensing, co-management, et cetera. And I think what's key... Lisa, sorry. Yeah, no, I need to ask you to please wrap up so we can give some time for the discussion. Please help me with the wrapping up. Thank you. Definitely. So, and just to say in looking at those three safeguards which have been addressed in relatively abstract terms in the context of international human rights law, we have the opportunity and the need to look at them as they work in specific natural resource sectors, keeping in mind that in some sectors, particularly freshwater and ocean resources, we're lagging behind then in our understanding of the potential, the opportunities and the risks, including risk for criminalization and human rights defenders then in terms of terrestrial resources. So I'll stop there and look forward to hearing maybe questions and opportunities for participants to contribute to the study. Sorry for going over time. Thank you so much, Lisa. I know very, very important your contribution. Thank you so much, Lisa. Let us open the floor for some questions and answers. You can either use the chat. If you're going to make a comment, just write the word common. If you're going to ask a question, just write the word question and indicate who you are addressing your question. While you prepared your notes, I would like to acknowledge the present of Denisa Livingstone in the call. Denisa is one of the champions that is following the Indigenous, is following the UN Food Systems Summit. Denisa, thank you for being with us. And let us open the floor for comments, discussions. Extremely interesting contributions by Elisa, Kundan, Marcella, Maria, Luisa. So please take the opportunity to start with some questions. Who would like to break the ice? Let me then abuse my facilitation role. And, Kundan, I would like to ask you a question. Why whenever we go to a ministry or forestry of any given country and they put a map on the table of forest lands, they always say that it's empty of people. What is that we are doing wrong for so many ministries across the world to forget the people that live in intimate relationship with the environment and with the different ecosystems? Where are we missing? For this, you really need an anthropological and sociological answer. It's essentially most forest governance bureaucracies. They generally have very high powers over forest lands and the governance of forest lands. And they want to simplify. And if you look at Jim Scott's work on this kind of, so seeing like a state, for example, there's a tendency to simplify things. And there's a tendency to kind of borrow the ideas that really inform forestry, modern forestry and civic culture. They come from European countries where basically if a very simple forest where there were people were excluded out of the forest in the middle ages itself. And the same principles are being still being employed. And that is now connected with the whole commercialization of forests. And that basically that having indigenous people is inconvenient to them. And the law does not allow that. Law does not organize this presence of indigenous people in those landscapes. Means if you look at Indonesia, means all the forest, 33,000 villages inside forest areas. And to even kind of think about how do you kind of really create survey and settle them and kind of recognize their collectivites. They don't acknowledge it because they're basically informed by the Western forestry science which Western forestry science generally has moved on to more inclusive perspectives. But that is where the problem is. So it's a whole process of socialization. Also the power asymmetry. You have to also recognize that the indigenous people in most of these countries, indigenous people are really on the march. And they're ethnic minorities. They're basically sometimes treated as subhuman or untermention. And that becomes another problem that the political power is not there. And that's the issue is then that how do you change this mindset and discourse is one is really change stuff at the global level what is accepted at a global level as the accepted scientific principles, accepted scientific methods of doing things and then work on the ground with the indigenous people's mobilizations, the movements and others for the political mobilization. And then find champions in the government who support. This is a really difficult task. We've been trying to do that in many countries for a number of years. But yes, that is the reason. It's just the power asymmetry, the science, the old science that they're using the forestry. Thanks. Thank you so much. There is a question in the chat. Let me let me read it out. That question. Excuse me, the role of the business sector, as tractive industries, has emerged consistently in considering indigenous rights with respect to food and land. What approaches, considerations seem to work best to engage them for a positive change? Are there purely compliance based approaches working best? It's an open question from Michael Pund. I was wondering, Marcella, whether this will connect somehow to the right principles and the voluntary guidelines. Would you like to please try to take that one on? Thank you, John. This is a difficult one, but we do have, as you mentioned, the principles for responsible investment in agriculture and food systems, which were also approved through the Committee of Food Security, including all the governments of the world, and private sector and civil society. And through the principles, basically what we're trying to do from FAOs to work also with private sector so that they will adhere to these principles. So I think we would have a number of different kinds of private sector. Some of them would never want to in French rights of others. And through this instrument, and of course we also work with the government so that the entities that approve foreign investment are also aware of this. So in some cases, it's an issue of knowledge. In some cases, we do have a number of governments, unfortunately, who are willing to give up land in exchange for money. They say, take these 10,000 hectares and they don't convey the information that these 10,000 hectares are inhabited by people who have rights to that land. So principles help in terms of creating awareness for specifically for the kind of private sector that really wants to do it right, right? Then of course we also want all private sector to adhere to these principles. And we hope that the systems of this instrument together with the VGATs also will help private sector to make their investments in a more responsible way, i.e. respecting rights. Thank you, Marcela. Elise, would you like to compliment a little bit on this? I also wanted to ask you about environmental laws. You've been doing a lot of work on environmental laws. Why are environmental laws missing indigenous peoples? What is the ingredient that is missing in environmental laws in your experience? Over to you. Yeah, thank you for that. And indeed, there was a part on business responsibility to respecting human rights of indigenous peoples in my slide and very much impinges upon the same safeguards. I think environmental laws, particularly the kind of new generation environmental laws in the biodiversity area do include consideration of indigenous peoples' issues, but often fall short of doing it to the degree of guarantee that is required by international human rights law. And this is where the movement that we're seeing, including through the 2018 UN framework principles on human rights and the environment is really crucial because it shows to environmental lawyers and environmental practitioners how they need to step up their game legally to make sure that the rights are recognized and protected in a way that is justiciable. And often in international environmental law, why we may have more and more understanding, including in terms of the role and contributions of indigenous peoples to our climate change responses, et cetera, we miss that degree of understanding that where the law needs to be very clear and enforceable and justiciable. And that really comes from international human rights law standards. And that really speaks also to ensuring that for companies, as Marcela was saying, that are interested to do the right thing. And for foreign investors who realize that there is more and more international attention to them doing the right thing, a clear national legal framework is the key ingredient for them to be clear around what are their expectations and responsibilities. That, however, is not a situation that most countries across the world have in working directly with private companies, including in terms of associations and bodies such as say the international final corporations and other that develop standards, specifically for the business sector, it's really important to raise their awareness about internalizing those standards as part of their due diligence processes. So there's work to be done at different levels there. Excellent, thank you so much for those reflections. Maria Luisa, in your presentation, you indicate eight different proposals where FAO could contribute to make a difference and stop or counterbalance the criminalization of indigenous peoples. What is in your opinion, the number one of these eight proposals that we should be doing? I think the main one is the VGT's because it has everything there, as you have already said and Marcela in her presentation. Section nine is fundamental for us working with indigenous peoples, is where a land tenure for collective rights of indigenous peoples is recognized. And it could be, as I said, a guidance tool to implement the human rights framework of indigenous peoples, not only UNDRIP and ILO 169, but also all the framework of human rights and international law. So I think the VGT's are the fundamental one. Luisa Castaneda, would you like to compliment? No, Jan, thank you. Okay, so thank you so much all. I would like to pass the floor to Luisa Cruz, who is going to wrap up the meeting and tell us about the way forward. Luisa, thank you for being with us and thank you for all the work you've been doing. Or to you. Thank you, John. And thank you, it has been really a pleasure to be here in this meeting. I think this conversation has been really stimulating and energizing, very fruitful. So, and we need a lot of this in these difficult times, right? So there were questions about what are we missing? We just heard, what are we doing wrong? And I think some of the very important remarks in this event have been that political power is not there. There is a symmetry that needs to be addressed through legal empowerment. There is a need for champions, but not champions that can be protected through legislation and through law enforcement. So access to justice is key. There was also addressed the role of the business sector and the importance of the right principles here. And I think issues of lack of knowledge are there, but also the importance of addressing government's respect and compliance with the human rights obligations. Also the importance of legal coherence. I think Alisa really, really, really strongly addressed this issue and environmental laws need to be improved in that sense. And also, of course, the importance of legitimacy. So these were some of the issues that were based in the discussion. And I think this brings light to the fact and let me say that I think here, all of us today, we have a huge responsibility to continue repeating the crucial importance of ensuring security of tenure for indigenous peoples for the realization of the rights of all the rights, the right to land, the right to self-determination, the right to food, which was really highlighted here as a key and as a core of the mandate of FAO. The right to live in dignity and peace and the right to life is really one of the lives that is compromised through criminalization and killings of indigenous peoples and human rights defenders today. But let me say that it's not only about numbers. It's not only about reducing the number of killings and indigenous peoples around the world. I think it is about respecting the collective rights of indigenous peoples, what we have been discussing here in this great event and these in accordance to international law. It is about guaranteeing the rule of law, which is at the core of SDG 16. And it's also about, it's at the core of our democracies. So I think it's about justice. It's also about inclusive policies. We cannot imagine and we cannot say that we're going to work towards leaving no one behind if we are not putting indigenous peoples today at the center of our work, all of us. So I think we have heard John important and ongoing efforts to increase the visibility of the realities of indigenous peoples on the ground. We heard about how FAO is putting collective rights of indigenous peoples at the center, which is something that is really, really important to take out of this discussion. We heard also about the strong collaboration with academia through the Elisa's intervention to shed light on the legal realities on the ground. And we have heard also what are the challenges, what are the problems, but we have also heard what are the opportunities today. So let me just say on these that we have today and we know, all of us, we know this, that we have solid international instruments that are there, declarations, conventions, treaties, but also national law and customary law are there for us to all of us work with these. And these are of great importance for the protection of indigenous peoples' rights and their entitlements. But we have also great soft law instruments. And I think Marcella did a really great presentation bringing the key and important aspects of the VGT's and also the other panelists highlighted their importance. So I just would like to say that, this is particularly important, the role of the VGT today in times of COVID-19. I think that the voluntary guidelines are a key avenue for these and for us as FAO to continue supporting countries in the respect for indigenous peoples' rights. But let me just say again that the numbers that we have heard today of killings, threats and imprisonment of indigenous peoples are of great concern for all of us and of great concern for FAO. And I think this is why we're here today. We cannot forget this. We have seen that COVID-19 is affecting not only the health of indigenous peoples, but their land tenure security and the collective rights to the territories more than ever. We have seen that there is a worrying trend to lower the legal safeguarding in the protection of their rights, either for economic reasons, economic reactivation reasons or simply because the eyes of everyone are now focused on victims of COVID-19. So what should we do? We have to make sure that legislation recognizes and protects collective rights of indigenous peoples. We have to make sure that the rights recognized at international level and in national legislation are effectively protected. And Elisa really highlighted these importance of bringing down all these international commitments and rights on the ground. As part of the technical unit in FAO in charge of supporting countries in the development of national legislation, which is the role of the legal office, we think that more definitely can be done today in developing and strengthening legislation that protects and respects indigenous peoples around the world. And I think parliaments have a key role in play in lawmaking and regulatory efforts that promote and really respect collective rights of indigenous peoples in budget allocation that really ensures fulfilling the rights of indigenous peoples. So it's about fair policies and strong institution. And it's also about an inclusive agenda today. FAO's efforts were mentioned here and I think we will continue contributing in achieving peace and justice. We will continue strengthening the capacities of public servants, indigenous peoples and other stakeholders on FPIC, which was strongly mentioned today. We will continue raising awareness on the importance of protecting and realizing the rights of indigenous peoples. For that, mapping of legislation for what is very important. And I think the role that we are doing with FAO Lex, which is a unique set of legislative database on food and agriculture is so important. So we will continue promoting and facilitating also policy dialogue to raise the opportunities for indigenous peoples to be there at policy making levels and also on legislative processes that are so important. But we're facilitating these for indigenous peoples to speak for themselves, not to speak on their behalf. And I think this is something that we need to take out of this event today. We have a lot of work, but we will do it together and the VGGTs are extremely helpful in that regard. Let me also say that indigenous peoples bring an important contribution. And I think most of the panelists today highlighted this important role of indigenous peoples because of their practices for sustainable agriculture, sustainable forest use, sustainable water resources use, their traditional knowledge, their traditional ecosystems management is a great contribution taken into consideration the upcoming food systems summit that is in a couple of months. So thank you for being here to all of you. Thank you to the members of the UN Permanent Forum. Thank you to the chair, Ms. Anne Nurengam for being here with us for having attended today. Thank you also to the panelists for the remarkable and rich presentations. I think they were really, really powerful today. Thank you, John, for facilitating this great event. And on behalf of the FAO, I would like to thank you all for this wonderful conversation. And I wish you all an excellent continuation of the forum. Thank you. Thank you so much, Luisa, thank you for those words. Let us take a group photo. If we were in New York, we will take a photo hugging each other, but that is not there. So let us turn off our cameras so we can take a group photo. And thank you so much for those words, Luisa. A lot of work to do on mobile livelihoods, collective rights, and asymmetries of power. Well, it's great to see you. Yes. I think we're done with the photo. Thank you for your smiles. Thank you so much. Have a wonderful rest of the day, wherever you are. Thank you so much for connecting. Have a good day. Bye, thank you. Ciao.