 I'm just going to present, given the time limit in 15 minutes, four or five ideas of what I consider to be some of the key issues regarding governance of landscapes for sustainable development. And I've tried to shape this both in terms of where I think there are some very key challenges but also where I think there's grounds for optimism and new opportunities. And to make sure I respond to Marie Claire's request mentioned two minutes ago, I'll start out by just a simple statement of what I think are some of the issues that need to be looked at at a broader scale. Human induced environmental change associated with the advance of the Anthropocene is projected to increase due to population growth, meeting higher per capita resource demands and some quite profound dietary and social changes that are occurring in many emerging economies. Current sectorial approaches to address the challenges associated with the land and resource management are invariably inaccurate, inadequate, to address particularly the complex challenges of addressing poverty alleviation, food security, energy security, biodiversity conservation and climate change. And this is particularly the case in contexts that are distinguished and have been distinguished over the last 20 years by an effective decline in the regulatory leverage and reach of the state, the growing commodification of nature and it appears the renewed faith in both global development but also in instruments such as multilateral environmental agreements. The recent and renewed I stress interest in integrated landscape approaches, so I'm responding to Marie Claire, notably some of the work that's been done by Jeff Sayer and my colleague Terry who's sitting at the back of the room, Terry Sunderland, is suggested as one of the ways to try and manage the very complex trade-offs between these different interests to see how we can balance the competing demands in terms of access to and use of these resources with the aim of achieving sustainable land and resource use and hopefully to establish more viable landscape governance systems. Now what I'm going to do is simply select four or five themes where I think there are still very large challenges. Perhaps not surprisingly the first one I want to talk about is a very broad area that I call and we refer to in our research as C4 land governance. Now for many this relates simply to the questions of securing access to land and your secure rights of tenure to access and use the land and all resources on the land. But I think there's been more recent interest in particularly a rather emotive term that has emerged in the literature namely land grabbing to look at much broader issues that have been associated with some quite fundamental changes particularly in sub-Saharan Africa in terms of the large areas of land which have been acquired by different mechanisms to support investments in many of the agricultural commodities the world increasingly needs. And the research at C4 has highlighted that based on some of the most recent estimates in the period after 2005 we've seen something of the order of 22 million hectares of land in sub-Saharan Africa which has been acquired for these purposes. And again it's a generalization so treated as such with a little bit of caution. The overwhelming evidence suggests that many of these investments in these large scale land investments have been relatively poor performers when it comes to both social and environmental performance. And so I partly to be a little bit provocative based on our research want to throw out a suggestion particularly given the fact that we have a large number of lawyers in this room and given the knowledge we have now of the multiple complex associated with the existence in many countries particularly in sub-Saharan Africa of both statutory provisions vis-a-vis access to and use of land but also the vestiges of many customary laws associated with access to land and resources. And based on that complex I think I would like to suggest as we also raise during the earlier cites that perhaps we need less law and much more emphasis being placed on ways in which we can improve institutional performance on the grounds that there is no shortage it would appear in legal instruments. Now that might be a bit controversial in this context but I'm throwing it out for reflection. It's also based on the fact that I think by focusing our attention more on institutional mandates on institutional capacities on institutional incentives and accountability mechanisms of those institutions we may actually be able to move further forward than simply focusing our attention on further legal reforms. So that's my first suggestion vis-a-vis the complex associated with land governance. The second one you may have heard something about yesterday during the cites workshop and that is I think the overarching concern vis-a-vis capacities and I think again based drawing on a large body of research by C4 and others we see that capacities in many developing countries remain weak. This has been alluded to by many presentations this morning and during the cites workshop yesterday. What I want to focus on in particular are jurisdictional sub-national capacities, local governments and their capacities to actually translate and transform the noble aspirations that are implicit in many of the international agreements into action on the ground and given the theme of the conference biodiversity sustainable development and the law. I want to focus on some recent research that's been published just a couple of months ago. Versera Guignet at the University of North Carolina and she's published a very interesting piece which is highlighted based on an analysis of 21 different types of environmental and or biodiversity guidelines. She's concluded that very few of these are of actually any use or relevance to many local governments for a number of different reasons. And these include the fact that many of them are very much based on a biological approach that's species specific in terms of the data and information requirements. This is often not available and or costly for local governments. It's based very often on not being particularly prescriptive or not providing clear guidance in terms of action in terms of follow-up and intervention. These are very often guidelines which tend to be very complex and there are far too many items that need to be considered. They're very often non-sequential and few actually incorporate some of the critical socioeconomic constraints regarding biodiversity conservation. So this is work that's been published just a couple of months ago and highlights some of these critical capacity constraints particularly at a subnational level. Again this draws on from my own experience as well much of the interface that I've heard referred to rather than integration between multilateral and environmental agreements and national governments remains largely at national governance levels. It very often does not trickle down to subnational institutions which ultimately have the responsibility for implementation. So this is a critical area where additional capacity building is needed. Now my third point is I think a trend that provides many of us I think with some hope in terms of the very recent gush I think I would call it of interest and expressions of interest in meeting the ambition of transforming global commodity chains into zero deforestation commodity chains. You're probably aware that Bank in Moon shared a session in New York that resulted in the New York Declaration on Forests where if I recall among many other governments and NGOs there were 40 of the world's largest corporations who are involved in the production of much of the world's food who have now committed initially with an accent particularly on the oil palm global value chain but increasingly to a large number of other commodities. And these are corporations including Cargill, Golden Agri resources, Wilmar, Simdabi, many around the world who are simply some of the largest players in terms of the landscape transformations that are taking place in many parts of the world. But the caveat to this is what does zero deforestation actually mean? How do you measure whether a corporate actor has actually moved in terms of changing their current practices and their current behavior towards reducing deforestation in their supply chains? And how do you ensure that there is some form and degree of independent verification of the claims that are made by those corporate actors are actually variably independently verifiable? Many questions which I think provide new opportunities for research institutions such as C4, universities such as Cambridge and many others but which will need to be unpacked if we are to see any real change in corporate behavior. Linked to that I want to also flag something that's come out of some recent research I've been doing in West Africa looking at a very important agroforestry parkland system that occurs across more than 4,000 square kilometers of West Africa, namely the sheer nuts parklands of West Africa which remain to the present day a very significant source of income for particularly women and women headed households. The empirical work that's been done by Becker and others suggests that this represents more than half of all income for women in terms of the incomes they can control but which as a parking system is increasingly threatened by probably three dominant forces. One is the fact that following legislative changes by the European Commission that allow the use of five percent of what are called cocoa butter equivalents in the production of chocolate, a multi-billion dollar a year industry, the demand in West Africa for sheer as one of the best cocoa butter equivalents has increased tenfold. This is resulting in changes in both the structure of the global value chain which for at least 250 years has been managed controlled by women and increasingly three global companies out of the four that control the production of cocoa butter equivalents are increasingly evident in these value chains. But increasingly it's not just this new global demand, it's the growing demand to meet food production based on the classic neoliberal model of large scale investments has resulted in the clearance of these parklands particularly for example in northern Ghana and certain landscapes in southwest Bukina Faso so that mechanized agricultural production can result in the increased production of food as well as the demands for firewood to meet the demands growing demands in urban centers. These are all having impacts on the sheer parklands and potentially on the livelihoods of tens of thousands of women who depend on this value chain. The glimmer of hope that I want to draw attention to is a new initiative which I think represents perhaps a novel approach that is being used in other contexts and that's the namely the creation of multi-stakeholder platforms as a platform that attempts to try and bring together the large number of actors who intervene in a landscape and have interest in the landscape to try and negotiate under more formalized structures and outside of any international treaty but negotiate ways in which the different interest groups in the landscape can be resolved and here I'm referring to something called the Global Shear Alliance and this is a new platform that is emerged in West Africa partly representing interests of collective action amongst many of the women's associations but also representing the oligarchy of the three big companies AAK, IOI, Lauders-Cocklin and 3Fs, Fats, Foods and Fertilizers if you want to know what company that is it's an Indian transnational corporation and I won't give you any prizes for guessing what their particular interests are given that name so I think this provides an opportunity look at ways in which we can perhaps outside of the established frameworks of say multilateral environmental agreements look for creating new platforms that can perhaps provide ways in which we can achieve greater negotiation, greater communication between the different actors to look at ways in which we can resolve these very different and competing often interests in the resources the same resources across the landscape so those are my just my four points I don't know how much more time I have I want to make one last comment though more as a plea and in the hope that perhaps there may be some donor communities donor representatives in this audience I don't know if there are one thing that struck me vis-a-vis much of our own research and the growing influence of what I would call a monitoring in in a valuation culture which I think we are all affected by in universities in research institutions in maybe the secretariat of the conventions and I think one of the perverse effects of that monitoring and evaluation culture is that we are increasingly confronted with quite unrealistic time frames to achieve the expected results that are written into many of our project documents and I think this is a worrying trend I think we're being asked to deliver more far too quickly and we've seen this for example in the negotiation of the UN framework convention on climate change and the whole discourse around fast-tracking well I think it's a fast track to nowhere if we're going to obviate the risks of avoiding getting involved in the complex issues surrounding resource access and resource governance and as an example of this we've contrasted in some C4 publications the difference between the process that was adopted under the forest law enforcement and governance and trade initiative in Indonesia which involved a 11 year long process of defining legality under the what's called the SVLK the legality legal assurance system specific to Indonesia as a way of ensuring that all actors who have an interest in the timber trade in Indonesia were involved were consulted not once not twice but multiple times through the creation of another type of multi-stakeholder process in contrast what we've seen under the red policy initiative is an attempt to try and fast-track all this but red is ultimately part of one of the biggest governance challenges we face today the international community has endorsed a new value for forests it's called carbon and what that new value has done has opened up a Pandora's box of new claims new contests but it hasn't resolved all the old standing claims and the old unresolved contests and we have cases that we've written about in Indonesia where we have for example multiple claims to the same area of land the same piece of property we have claims that are recognized under a statute of the adept communities the indigenous peoples in the country we have claims on the same piece of land by an Australian investment bank that wants to develop a red project we have claims by Indonesian companies that want to exploit the brown shale the below ground resources and we have claims by other Indonesian investors who want to convert this forest to oil palm what we don't have is an institutional and or legal framework that actually provides for any form of arbitration who actually decides which of those claims is valid all have the requisite documentation to justify why their claim is valid so I'll stop here now Marie Claire's asked me to shut up I will oblige thank you very much feel for parents thank you