 I'll talk about local perceptions of tenure in both, in two sites where we've been working. Now this is what that's again contributed by the whole group, and the title is A View from the Inside, Forest Communities, Perceptions of Tenure Security in Selected Sites in Indonesia. Again, just to show that many, the many partners were engaged to it. And CalUPSIA is actually the acronym for the project, Collaborative Lunges Planning and Sustainable Institutional Arrangements, which is really the vision. I'll begin real quick just to talk, talking about our objectives. Then I'll provide, Ninning has done a good job of talking about the study setting, so I'll just also breeze through that. I'll mention some of the methods that we used, and I'll go into the findings and make some concluding remarks of which it would be helpful. I think I'll end up with questions, and that will be the basis of our discussions. Okay, so our objective is really to try and identify local forest resource, tenure and resource management systems, and in particular to get a sense of local perceptions of tenure security, given the things that are happening around people. And some of the questions we're trying to ask is, what are the property rights and tenure arrangements that regulate access and use of forest? What are the roles and responsibilities of different actors, especially the actors at the local level? We're focusing very much on forest adjacent communities, and then what are some of the things that constrain access and use, and in particular, what are people's perceptions of tenure security? Now this is all part of the land use planning process, and clearly tenure is actually central to land use planning. Can you imagine that it makes a lot of sense to try and get a sense of what are the key interests in land and in resources during a process of planning? The setting is as Ninning had shown in West Calimantan and in Central Malukas. So that's Calimantan, and Serum Island is around there. So this is just the location of the project within the broader Asia region, Southeast Asia. So just to talk a little bit about Serum Island, as indicated here, it comprises quite a huge proportion. Oops, what did I just do? A relatively large part of it is a national park. Population density is pretty low, about 15.2 inhabitants per square kilometer. Generally in Indonesia, I think it's 128 people per square kilometer, so this is pretty low density area. And the main economic activities are agriculture and fisheries. Now these are the sites where we collected our data from. Yellow spots is a village, so there are about 20 villages that we worked in. But the purpose of this is also to show you that there are quite a number of issues, conflictual issues that have a bearing on tenure in and around the villages. So for example, there is some issues of conflict of access between people and the national park authorities. Similarly here we have again issues about oil palm expansion, plantations. Again in this region, the issues of again conflict over land with Manusella National Park. So all around where our villages are, there are certain issues with regards to development, plantation development for oil palm, for cocoa. But also the long standing issues with the Manusella National Park. Now this is a Kapuas Hulu site. Again, an even larger part of it comprises protected areas, two national parks and forest reserves. The population density is even lower at seven persons per kilometer square. And the main source of revenue and incomes are agriculture fishing, but also forestry, timber and non-timber forest products. Now again, the areas we work in, there are increasingly issues about oil palm plantation expansion. Mining, the mining industry is also big, they are gold mining. And so these are just some of the key development issues that affect forestry in the region. And that potentially could affect people's forest adjacent communities access. In terms of method, those villages, we selected about 20 villages randomly selected. We conducted a series of household surveys which I won't be reporting on today. We also did key informant interviews. But I'll present the results of focus group discussions which were conducted amongst, in all, you know, 20 villages in Saram and 20 in Kapuas Hulu. And the focus groups were disaggregated by gender and age with 35 years as the cutoff. So we have a total of about 120, and each focus group averaged about six individuals. So what did we find? In terms of forest use, of course, diverse users of forest by people. And the users span from sources of income, daily subsistence, but also cultural users, especially in Saram, where you even have sacred groves and burial sites which are protected and set aside. But importantly also, people talked about the environmental services that these, the forests that they use, that they take care of, use and manage, provide including disaster prevention and clean water. So clearly multiple users for the different users at the local level. And this just shows you, this slide is really just a table showing what are the, what the different users people have. So they are wood based products, there's firewood, timber and leaves for, and then that as well as rotten. None timber forest products from medicinal plants, honey, et cetera. But also they hunt game, which you saw over there. Now in terms of forest management, there does appear to be broad participation in managing. And there are different management functions here from protecting borders which are, it's a responsibility to enforcing rules, to monitoring compliance, resolving conflicts and, and, and sanctioning. And you will note that on this side, this is the Saram, oops, there, right there. And that is for Kapu as Hulu. The table shows who does what of these different functions. And in both cases, villagers are involved and their leaders. But in the Saram Island case, what you will find is that there appears to be some kind of cooperation between officials, between external actors in enforcement, in the different management functions, as opposed to Kapu as Hulu, where the management functions are concentrated with local, you know, level actors, both villagers and their customer, the customary authorities that are, that authorize use. Again, in terms of rights and access, what we find is that for the shared forests, for the village forests, because there seems to be two categories of, of, okay, thanks, Ninning. The shared forests and land parcels for cultivation. Again, we do find that people have withdrawal and management rights. They can harvest products. They are able to have responsibilities for protection and management on, on shared forests. But they also have land parcels for cultivation. And this is through inheritance, you know, the land is passed through inheritance across different generations. So what are the source, where do these rights come from? Overwhelmingly, the respondents talked about customary rights as authorizing their access and use. And then customary authority as being at the head of, of, of, you know, being at the forefront of regulating their use. They also talked about geographical proximity and, and, and also indicated that clients, you know, these, these are, the rights are exclusive to people living there and who are also members of different clan and kinship groups. What's interesting is that there's a general unawareness of, you know, of some of these regulations that are coming from the top down. I think Moira did a good job of, you know, indicating that a lot of the forests are supposedly state owned. But people do think and they believe that they're the, the, the genuine and rightful owners with very little knowledge of those, that there are other laws of which they are subject, except for those who live in direct, very close to national parks and other protected areas. In terms of tenure security, most people perceive that their rights and access will not be violated now or into the future. But, and they believe they will continue enjoying access to forests under these customary authority and rights that they have enjoyed over time. Families will continue to have their own plots for cultivation and they'll continue to access the shared forests. And they also believe that the, the forest areas that they have are vast and that customary restrictions will, will maintain that. But however they do indicate that there are certain, you know, things that are happening like all palm plantation, mining national parks. And they do see opportunities such as, you know, involving more stakeholders in management. And the issue about having some clarity between household land and forest areas. Since I'm running out of time, I think I'll just go ahead and make my concluding remarks. It seems then that there are, like any other forest anywhere in the world, there are multiple users. And multiple values that people have for their forests. Clearly, customary authority is really strong. It is legitimate and it is respected and people comply with the rules. In Saram, in particular, in one part, we did see some, a lot of interaction between officials and customary authority in terms of monitoring and also with regard to sanction. Okay, so there was a lot of interaction between those two organizations, which I think is very interesting. Because mostly customer and state are usually in contestation as opposed to being in cooperation. So overall, villages tend to believe that their rights are secure regardless of the things that are happening around them. Which I think, to me, I think that's really interesting coming out of this. And it's one of the puzzles that we still need to think about. Why would people who are confronted with different kinds of things, conflictual, which may have impact on their access in the future. Why would they perceive and believe that their rights are secure? We're still trying to think about this. But I think we'll still go back to the issue that they still pretty much have access as they did before. So these things that are happening haven't yet completely disrupted or violated their rights. But meaning might say something different because of an example in Saram. Moreover, they do not perceive scarcity and so they're not yet competing for resources. These are still questions that we're asking. And importantly, they continue to receive benefits, streams from the resources as they expect. But then the question is, does this disconnect that, first of all, is it real? Is it a figment of my imagination? But if it is there, does it really matter that there is a disconnect? I don't know. And what exactly is at stake? Some scholars say that property rights scholars, a number of them say that people's perceptions are the best indicator of insecurity. But others say that this has to be combined with the so-called objective measures of security, which includes issues about enforcement, about just and fair conflict resolution, about the clarity of rights. So I'd be interested to know your thoughts on how to think about this disconnect and whether it really matters at all, although I would pose that it does. I think that's it. I'm done.