 Thank you, we this has been a nice progression because we started at the the national level We've moved down to through Ashwin through this sort of multi-level now We're going local here with this making red benefits relevant for local people So We are focused on what we're calling these subnational red initiatives These include both programs and projects at the local level government run NGO run private sector run kind of a diversity of initiatives and Since about two thousand seven hundreds of these have emerged and then they've evolved and then evolved again and They're really interesting because they provide on the ground evidence for how local could people could actually benefit or lose lose out from red So we're working at in six countries Peru, Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Vietnam and Indonesia at 23 sites in 190 villages and Have interviewed over 4,500 households This is a this is a huge Huge labor of love as you can imagine and not only did we interview all of these households in about 2010 2011 But then we went back this year and Visited them all again and asked them all about their land use and livelihoods and perceptions of of these red initiatives So this fits nicely with with Sven and Ashwin and others have talked about that this idea of Disentangling red interventions, so you've got the incentives the carrots that don't just include sort of what we might imagine is the Classic payments for environmental services, but you've got other kinds of subsidies Technical assistance certification schemes Disincentives which are you know these taxes and regulatory measures really the monitoring and evaluate Enforcement that's the sticks you've got the sticks the carrots and then these enabling conditions, which are some called the red readiness You know the tenure regularization the environmental education the the preparation for some of these other instruments and So we I don't know why that that value is like that, but anyway You know Ashwin was saying yeah, there's a mix on the ground of these things But we actually counted them at these sites and there are about 467 different kinds of interventions going on 52% of those were carrots 18% were were sticks and then these these other rest which I don't know what that value is somebody else can do the math Those are the enabling conditions So somebody in the global landscape forum this weekend said we have a carrot's problem and this graph which we maybe we don't in terms of Numbers we don't have a carrot's problem But interestingly is that of these incentives only 18% are actually conditional on sustainable land use behaviors and Actually, so the 9% of the total pie are conditional. What does that mean? It means that? They're not necessarily going to have the carbon and and land use outcomes that were initially intended So we looked at this from two angles the benefit sharing Discourse I guess the first Thinking of that engaging local people in red for greater relevance and design of benefits and this goes this follows nicely from Ashwin's public consultation And so we asked our local people aware of red initiatives and do they participate in design and implementation? Again, this was at the onset of these these initiatives, so it's important to qualify that but a few years ago only 22% or so of the households interviewed had heard of red and About one third had heard of the local red initiative with the primary source being the implementing organizations And most of those in all of the countries really linked those initiatives to forest protection That's what they felt. This is about Importantly was at the the onset of the the initiative, but there were already activities happening, so It's we say that the part the knowledge was low We're giving the implementers the benefit of the doubt to not raise expectations at that point But interestingly and Larson's just finalizing a paper that actually shows between between women's Groups and mixed groups the women's groups were much less knowledgeable than the men's groups either the mixed groups even at this early stage, so There are some the interesting issues to explore Of those who knew about the red initiatives of those third only about 27% had participated in some way in the early designer implementation and Most of this was passive or consultative going to a meeting and learning about what was going to be done in the community But not necessarily having a say about what was going to be done and then we asked what their hopes and worries were for red and The H is the hopes the W is the worries and if you go along the horizontal access there You can see obviously that most Local concerns were focused on income and welfare, so we hope that this initiative will improve our incomes We worry that it's going to it hurt our livelihoods these kinds of responses We hope that this initiative will protect our help protect our forests We worry that it won't be strong enough to exclude the oil palm companies or the timber companies that are causing Causing the problem you kind of go down the line here So then and then we're also asking that's the participation part But then we're also asking or saying that it's important to understand local livelihoods for better targeted interventions So we're asking can red interventions actually promote social benefits while minimizing burdens at the local level and here we looked at some of these local land use practices and livelihoods and We saw that you know nearly half of the households in the sample Had cleared at these at the red sites had cleared at least one parcel for us in the lat in the two years prior to the survey Most of that clearing was done for agriculture If we look at household income shares at these same sites The majority of it the blue is income share from crops The gray is from livestock and the green is from forest Well in most countries, it's the crop and livestock income that makes up the bulk of the cash and subsistence income locally With the exception of Peru where there's a the Brazil not site that Ashwin showed and a timber site in Ucayali Those forest products are very important What what this means is that if you're going to promote forest conservation if you're going to Apply disincentive sticks and say people can no longer clear for sweat in agriculture Which is a pretty common intervention at these sites there is a risk of of burdens and and and actually harming local livelihoods as opposed to promoting benefits But we did see that there is alignment between red interventions and local livelihoods So these are kind of the same same types of figures, but in a different form So the purple is the share of income from livestock Which at the two the two Brazil sites here of the sample livestock is very key Followed by the red red pie slice, which is crops And and actually the interventions that the implementers are promoting there are very much focused on livestock Sustainable milk production best practices for cattle ranching. So they are aligned actually with local livelihoods likewise in Peru And Madre de Dios where Brazil nuts are really really important share of income They're actually focusing on this Brazil nut processing plant in Ucayali where it's small-scale timber production They're bolstering FSC certification and trying to to open new markets for for that But livelihood portfolios are heterogeneous. This is the show. It's a proponent sorry principle component ordination and essentially what it's showing in a nutshell is that The red circles the one on the bottom there is this from Indonesia And it's essentially showing the bigger size of that circle there means More heterogeneity between communities within the same site And then you can see in Brazil the smaller circle shows that the the communities in that site are actually more More homogeneous in terms of their livelihood portfolios. This is important because we often find implementing organizations that say oh, we're going to Promote fish farming at this site so that people stop going into the forest to hunt. We're going and and they're sort of uniform One-size-fits-all type interventions that may have very different implications among different kinds of communities that have different livelihood portfolios and Then you look within the community and it gets even crazier, of course, and we know that communities are heterogeneous But it's it's pretty interesting to look at some of these measures I mean this top graph basically shows two communities in Cameroon The bigger polygon shows that households are very diverse in their livelihood strategies And the one in the middle shows that the actually they're a little bit more homogeneous but if you would just take an average of income or The kind of portfolios that I just showed they might look quite similar So so there are some interesting things that you know Proponents cannot explore these things, but they do need to recognize the heterogeneity to be able to promote equitable benefit sharing So in conclusion we did find sort of generally low levels of early local participation in subnational red initiatives Forest clearing and reliance on agriculture are the most important characteristics of local livelihoods at these sites Highlighting the importance of complimenting Disincentives or sticks with incentives carrots Livelihood heterogeneity makes it challenging to promote equitable red benefit sharing at the local level and really the importance of involving local people in developing an Effective and equitable mix of red interventions. It's again links to what us and was saying You know there was a I went to a community meeting at this site in Brazil and the people were saying please don't pay us $50 to stop doing agriculture Instead, can you just give us a cooler for our so that we can actually freeze our fruit and sell it later on? I mean these people know what will incentivize them. They know what they want And so but we just actually need to listen to them to try and understand how best to design these these initiatives. Thank you