 Thank you, Padanyal, for carrying us through the slide of call. It's really interesting to gauge opinion of the group of participants and people who have joined us from far and wide. And it certainly, as you said, will set the tone of our discussions and provide us some more insights into these relevant topics. So our next session is a panel discussion and we are very honored to have four imminent members to join this panel. I'll provide a brief introduction of them and then we will start with the presentations and their inputs or insights. So first we have Professor Gusti Ansari. He is a professor and chair of master's program of environment, soil, science department as Tanjum Pura University. He's also director of the center of wetlands and people in the biodiversity. He's an expert in tropical peatland and has published large number of scientific publications related to tropical peatlands and climate change. We are very honored to have you here with us today. Next member of this panel is Dr. Yuti Ariyani. She is a postdoctoral researcher at Nanyang Technological University. She has also been part of our webinar series that Padanyal mentioned previous year. Her research focuses on role of community participation in peatland restoration projects within Indonesia. Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Yuti. Our third panel member is Dr. Michael Brady. He is principal scientist at C4 and leads the value chain finance and investment team. He manages programs in Asia, Africa and Latin America and his program or his team is responsible for achieving sustainable value chains and commodity supply in forest landscape and developing business models that deliver improved social and environmental outcomes. Thank you for your time, Dr. Brady. Last but not least, we have Dr. Harry Pernomo as our panel member. He has a PhD in forest management and policy as well as MSc computer science, which was interesting to know. I just came to know about this today. So, Kurt and he conducts research on criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management, adaptive collaborative management of forest, company, community partnership and forest governance. And we are very happy that you've joined here on this panel, Dr. Pernomo. So, without further ado, let's get our discussion started. We have about 40 minutes. Some time may be used by me for your introduction. So, what we'll do is we will have a round of small presentation, which could be with slides or just as a monologue. for each panel member. And then we will have a more sort of an interactive discussions. I will also be willing to take any questions or any comments that is coming from audience as you are sharing your perspectives and insights. And we will follow the same order like we had in slide of all in terms of the four aspects and we'll start with by a physical aspect. And so I invite Professor Christian Sari to start our discussions over to you. Thank you very much, Dr. Rupes. So, I would like to say screen first. How do you see my screen now? Good afternoon or good morning, everyone. Is this a honor for me to give this presentation? So, my title of this presentation is Pit Restoration, Making Tropical Pit Swamp Forest Ecosystem Alive. So, I'm Busti Ansari, Pranta Jhupura University. So, as you know, the tropical pitland as a wetland forest ecosystem that contain living creatures. I know that the Tropical Pit is an ecosystem of wetlands and it is also a place to live from people like Flora Fauna, like the people of the forest. Then there is also organic soil, which also covers the ecosystem of aquatics, like water. So, we can see this as a tropical pitland forest that lives and accumulates. The level of organic soil is higher than the level of decomposition itself. And the accumulation level of organic soil is the same as the composition level of the soil. So, there is also a tropical pitland that has no living, living with the composition level of organic soil that is higher than the accumulation level of organic soil. So, what does it mean by degradation of tropical soil? So, based on the rules, there is a gap that experiences deforestation and also experiences conversion. But it is not natural, it is different. From the ground surface, current pit fires occur and they might have period oxidation in the coastal pit area. And also, if they have from Karangas or heat forests, may have a sense exposure. And if we look at the report of IRC, IPCC, working group too. So, in the near future, 2020-2040, there would be an increase in pit fires. And also rainfall for humidity that might change the productivity of vegetation of tropical pit zone forest. And also high temperature that enhances pit oxidation, in particular in permafrost pitland. So, let's move on to these three principles of pitland restoration. First, like we see in our fall, we need to keep pitland as a wetland forest ecosystem that means high groundwater table and also high organic matter. Second principle is keeping pits and blackwater acidic as natural. And the third principle is keeping both terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity native to pit zone forest. These are three principle I think, this is very crucial. And then, according to our regulation, the environment and forestry degree, number P14, year 2017, they have listed data and information that we need to assess the pitland. Of course, the coordinate, groundwater table, land cover, the existence of protected flora and pona, drainage, water quality, inundation type. Of course, pit thickness, very important in Indonesia, pit thickness, all pit greater than 300 cm depth, considered as protected pitland. And also we need to know proportion of organic matter, pit degradation condition, characteristic of mineral substratum and also characteristic of soil and pilot or sulphidic material underneath the pit. And from my point of view, so as required in this webinar, so first of all, what to do or what we need to do the pit restoration. I think at least we need to have four criteria or more indicator. First of all, we need to have a pit map. In this pit map, of course, we need to have the coordinate of pitland hydrological unit. So it's quite easy maybe to do to have this and elevation of picture face is quite maybe from medium to heart is difficulty land cover is easy land use is easy. Pit thickness is could be easy if the pit is shallow, could be hard to if the pit is remote and depth and drainage is easy. Fire history can be easy, can be not so easy. And then groundwater table, according to our regulation, must be below 40 cm all the year is very hard to achieve this. And number three, selected properties of the soil or histosol, the composition scale and we use spawn force is quite easy. pH is easy to measure, but density can be not so easy. Yeah, because we need to know the volume, how to collect the sample and then percentage percentages of total organic carbon and nitrogen can be difficult if we don't have the elemental analysis. And then we need to know organic matter and ash content is easy, we use just oven and furnace. And maybe we need to know the iron concentration. It's not that so difficult and real vegetation can be very easy can be very difficult, because as we know that the vegetation is very not very much trial in our pitland restoration program right now. So we need to focus more on this. And we come to the optional requirement here. So let me, we need to measure a sufficient rate. So this is a long term, yeah, maybe every six months. And then if we have the equipment, we can measure greenhouse gases, CO2, yeah, CS4 and 2O. And then we need to observe water quality, water pH, salinity, dissolved oxygen, dissolved organic carbon, and also iron in the water. And lastly, monitoring of flora and fauna. It is very important, it's long term. So both flora fauna on terrestrial and also aquatic ecosystem. So this is my, my thought. And this is my last slide, give me some of these. So restoration of the graded pitland is absolutely needed. Yeah. And then restoration needs time and let natural restoration processes take place. So it's a very long term. And from an ecological point of view, pitland restoration is not only to let the tropical pit forest ecosystem alive, but also to provide economic products and environmental communities or services to humans. I think that's all my presentation. Thank you very much for your attention. I returned to Dr. Rupes. Thank you. Thank you very much. This was very succinct, and definitely on time. We appreciate it. And I think your key messages are very punchy and true to the spirit of our discussions today. The pitland restoration won't be possible overnight. It will take time. It will take continuous efforts. And during that time we need to monitor to see where our success where we are headed, if there are any sort of interventions needed. So this is all our discussion about today, how do we do that monitoring while restoration efforts are being made. So by mentioning those discussions, you've heard from Augusti on the biophysics and ecological aspects of pitland and pitland restoration. And now we switch over to the social aspects, and may I invite Dr. Rupes to share her thoughts on social aspects of pitland restoration. Over to you. Thank you very much. And thank you for having me here. I'm very happy that I can be part of a continuous process. So I'm going to present my work as part of my position as a postdoctoral in Nanyang Technological University. And I'm going to look at the criteria and indicators from a social perspective. And as you may already kind of like guess from the polling as well, it's kind of like tricky to talk about the social aspect because what there's like a lot of diversity and also like diversity thing so I start my presentation with the question like how can we standardize criteria and indicators be implemented in a diverse settings because when I did my field work in the villages, there are many social aspects that cannot be compared like from people to April between villages. And through this presentation, I'm hoping we can reflect together on how we can have like comparisons but also like prefer, like before and after, because once we have like a general idea with kind of like lost on the identity of the villages as well. But I think it's still important to have like a general indicators and we will reflect later on. So this is like one of the regulations that related with the plan restoration in Indonesia. So there's always like, if you're talking about the filigree, there's always like a combination between like top down approach and bottom up approach. So based on the regulation, it sets like there are many like regulations to have like a filigree plan restoration project. And but there's also like a lot of problem based on what's happening on the field. So this is like from from literatures were saying that there's like a conflict and integrations of rewriting and revitalization activities with village development plan. So when there's like a different restoration project coming from the governments. So it's like, quite standardize, because it's usually like a different project is being called for one year. And sometimes it's clash with the village development plans. And there's also like the lack of knowledge of positive and negative impact of ecotourism locally so sometimes in the restoration project, they promote like ecotourism, where people can see the plan and how it's good for the environment and how to deal and interact with the plan. But then it's great like it's backfired the plan because then people start to coming and it's start to kind of like destroy the plan as well. So there's like a lack of knowledge. And there's also like an ongoing community use of panels so in my field work found that there's this is an restoration where the rewriting needs to follow like a specific design. So what happened to the at the field is like they kind of like did what the design said, because to kind of like avoid corruptions they need to follow a standardized like weight and also like depth and also like the materials that they're using. But then after the project and they just like reconstruct the canals block. And the reason for that is because they need the canals to park their Sagu. So there's this kind of nuance in the field that needs to be addressed. And as a social scientist, the question is always about like how can we increase like participation. But then in the field there's always like a contestations where they're like, Oh, we need to kind of like be accountable to the design. And then there's no room for modifications, whereas like, like during my discussions with the decision maker they said, Oh, like the community can redesign, but there's no communications in the field so this one's going to be addressed as well. So, some of the interviews that they got. Because the restoration so we sustainables then it needs to be include like various actors and then like community participation and when the community also support the different restoration project they will kind of like maintain it. But based on the on like some of the interviews they said like once the project and returns the land management student nature conservation agency, not to be RG, if the project is done in the community land we return it to the owner. It's different than this is another project from international NGO that has no affiliations and therefore didn't last long. We are going to get another vegetation project and the fund that I'm going to manage is 1.5 billion. So this respondents basically mentioning like, Oh, we got this project and then we did all the plantations we didn't like we basically follow all the procedures, but then once the project and we will just like hand it over. So, the idea of like community participation in this particular like statement is just like, we're doing peter restoration for the sake of being paid for doing the project. And there's also like another respond and saying like when the head of BRG came to our village who he offered fun to support peter restoration, as long we form a group and develop a plan. This statement, this statement basically kind of like representing how the local community follow the government's rule, because to get like the funding from the governments they need to create like a proposal. And even like during the interviews they also say it's like, Hey, you know what, like we are villagers we, we, we, this is like our first experience a writing proposal so it's also creating like an hierarchy in the villages on who can access the, the grant for doing the peter restoration, and this kind of like creating like an elite local elite but from my experience, the presence of local elite is also very important in the sense that they are the ones who's doing the project they really know what to do and they really can write all the report that it's needed for the accountability for the project. But then we also need to be careful, because as they said like there's a corruption in here. At the end they asked me to sign a month bigger than the one I received so whenever this local people involved in the project and they need to be signed like, like, like a piece of paper. And then by by by signing this they will receive some money but then apparently like the money that they receive are smaller than the one that they signed for. So there are these cases. So this is kind of like the indicators, general indicators that can be translated differently based on the different situations at the village level. So, based on the workshop that we had like earlier in 2020. We had like CIFAR and with all the support from the collaborators. We had like the flow of like indicators so for social capital it's important to have like gender equality. But again like when we, when I went to the village then the idea of gender equality is also kind of seemed like critically, because even if we promote like inclusiveness. The idea of gender is like, oh, we have to have like a certain percentage of women inside the meeting, but they don't have any voice. Are there cases where the funding is really going for like a woman's group. The way they got the funding is also quite interesting because I've been called by the head of the village. And he asked me whether I want to have this restoration project. And at the end it didn't work out because they, they create, they plant red ginger, and then it didn't work out because of flooding. So the interactions between like the social and ecological aspect is also very important. But then sometimes when we're talked to the village it's really about becoming like the social elements and they kind of like ignore the ecological aspect. And there's also like the idea about social welfare so it's need to have like the local community need to have like water and food security access to education access to health services, and also like in terms of social Because there are many areas where there's a lot of immigrations due to transmigration since the 70 but also later on because there's many opening of the forest and migrations and benefit sharing and benefit sharing is also kind of like highlighting who benefit from the restoration project. Like probably Harry Purnoma will talk more about the governance side of this. So the key message is to go beyond technical procedures because at the end like the, the, the villagers really afraid of the, of the regulation like oh really, really need to focus on what is being designed and they cannot reconstruct it. And to focus on social cohesion because at the end it's really about like how the local community deals with the restoration project and the local elite as a double you have 30 seconds. Okay, yeah. And the impossibility of marginal people with the rate of land is sustainable people and it's just like impossible. They need more support and continuity of people and projects depend on all stakeholders and sometimes you cannot have all you have to prioritize and, and yeah, and sometimes you need to focus on ecology or the economy. Thank you very much. Sorry for the No worries. It was exciting discussion and we will touch upon this will return back in more discussing session. So we will touch upon these things that is our experience to from previous webinars that these socio economic and governance aspects are a little more entangled and need much more discussion dialogue participation and sometimes there is no straight way forward. So, I believe with our this kind of deliberation and learnings like what you shared from the field, we can find some ways and hopefully criteria and indicators as an approach can invite those learnings and can be refined to at least give some semblance that when people in restoration is conducted or carried out. These aspects are not missed out. So with that, I would like to invite Michael ready to share his views. Michael we have about seven minutes for you. Okay, thanks for that. Well, I'm going to talk about economics, and it's very relevant and based on the overarching principle of a viable sustainable Pete land based economy, focus on economy. Economics is balanced within the three other sustainability aspects we're hearing about now by a physical social and governance, all related to restoration and addressed in today's webinar, but I would review some economic basics relating to scaling up and I wanted to talk about three basic elements of economics. The first is costs of restoration that costs are efficient, and more importantly the costs are actually known. So we know what restoration requires and the cost for those requirements. The second is payments or funding for restoration. The source of budgets to pay for restoration whether this is coming from public funding, private funding, or a combination, or, you know, we typically call blended funding. And that's critical for providing necessary funds for restoration. How we generate revenues from restoration. So the contribution to, for example, livelihoods will restored areas lead to alternative livelihood generation income generation. And finance a key aspect to budgeting will funds for restoration be borrowed will earnings or investment from outside sources be used to fund restoration. So finances is critical and again public or private. We consider investment for restoration. Again, public and private to build up operations or to purchase, for example, investment products. We consider the investments such as equity in storage areas. And along with these funding issues goes collateral. If, if restoration is financed or if there's investments. Obviously there's going to be a need for collateral. And this can be in the form of land or movable assets. And this is more focused on commercial funding. The third aspect is another goose to refer to this as a competing use of funds. So we've got what I think we're mainly talking about is assisted restoration, which has an intensive requirement for funding. But we've also got natural restoration, less less intensive, but over the longer term, I think we're seeing that natural restoration is a viable approach. So if it's a piece of peatlands, if water tables are not actively restored, natural restoration may not be effective. But both of these restoration approaches should also be compared to conservation of intact peatlands. And we need to balance out investments in restoration versus investments in conserving the remaining natural intact peatlands. And I refer back to the discussions earlier on the peat hydrological units where restoring and conserving peatlands is complex. So to refer and consider the entire ecosystem or hydrological unit. Another aspect to this is identifying cost savings by avoiding future impacts. So the short term impacts of fire, emissions, erosion, siltation, there can be considerable cost savings, which needs to be balanced looking at the economics. The economic concepts are well addressed in the recent C4 aircraft working paper on effective monitoring and metapete lens restoration. The paper includes five criteria and many, many indicators. These can be challenging and costly to monitor and evaluate. I certainly agree with the five criteria selected under the economics heading. But there are many, many indicators identified and these could pose a challenge to select. So among the five criteria, which of the many indicate indicators identified are essential and most feasible in my view. So one sustainable and just value chains. I've identified five key indicators that I think are most, most important from an investment perspective. So provision of raw material, process goods, value addition, wetland based small and medium enterprise development and wetland dependent site side industries. So criteria two, which focuses on economic incentives for peatland restoration. I thought one of the indicators was particularly relevant and this is return on invested capital under criteria three, which focuses on wealth. I thought there were at least four key indicators related to revenue or proportion of sustainable products and services generated household income, annual household savings and sustained long term revenue growth. Under criteria for which focuses on economic valuation of services. I would add products and services. And I had identified two key indicators, which I think are most important. These are valuing ecosystem services and cost savings due to avoided environmental disasters. As I mentioned earlier, things like fire, saltation, cost of haze. Under the last the fifth criteria on human resources. I thought there were two key indicators from my perspective, a job and workforce creation due to wetland based enterprises and improvements in human capital. In conclusion, economic considerations are essential for successful restoration basics. Priority criteria are important to decide on and must be verified through field testing. Value of products is as important as value of services and should be included. Often value of products is easier to identify than services. The ongoing management monitoring and evaluation are critical for successful investment and the costs of management monitoring and evaluation must be provided in planning and costing. So that's a key element of cost. With that, thank you very much. Thank you, Michael. Thank you very much for the economic aspects. Very clearly and also providing feedback on our working paper where you have a list of highlighted the list of these criteria and indicators for all these four aspects. So one can identify and recognize challenges to sort of monitor or measure all the indicators what Augusti was sharing like you know easy, difficult or possible kind of some scheme would be helpful. You can also identify which indicators can be easy to sort of get the information and measure in the field and what indicators although very relevant but might be really difficult to obtain the data. So those could be done at sort of lesser or a longer time interval and the easier indicators can be tapped at a shorter time duration, something like that. Before we start this session, I'd like to invite Dr. Furnomo to share his views on the governance aspects of the illustration. Thank you, Dr. Furnomo, in about seven minutes. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Good morning, good afternoon everyone. I would like to talk several things first on the strength, opportunity, challenges as well as my feedback to the poll. Very interesting actually. On the strength, the CI and I approved, it is a very powerful to develop standard. We have a standard for good forest management and then becoming a certification, create an indicator. So it is good to gather here to develop to understand what the ideal between restoration and sometimes the ideal of restored a bit. Sometimes it is different between pitland restoration and restored pitland. The first one, the second one is the opportunity to us to unify, to understand the performance of pitland restoration everywhere in Indonesia and beyond. And also to provide model. If it is good, according to our criteria, it is good. It can becoming a learning site for everybody to understand. And also important to talk about how to score. It's not black and white, but there is a scoring, I think, a lot of techniques to be developed for scoring the criteria and indicator. And then the third one, I think is part of my work is the challenges. So if we are talking about standard based on what usually we categorize three dimensions, whether we are measuring the inputs, what kind of regulation we have, or which kind we measure the process, whether the regulation is being implemented. That is a process. And sometimes we measure the outcomes, whether the regulation able to change the behavior. So we need to be clear. We are measuring the input, the process, as well as in biophysics and social issues, the process. Sometimes we measure the process. The behavior is not really big, but it is in a way to be something better, as well as the avoiding emission based on what dimension and also what level. And we talk about social and also governance, whether we are talking about landscape or PHU with Hydro-Legal Units, or we are talking about jurisdiction. Because a lot of regulation, I think, based on the jurisdiction is Kabupaten province being, is not based on the Pitland Hydro-Legal Unit. The governance of PHU is not clear to me, but the governance of jurisdiction is very strong and mandated by people who has a mandate to regulate, to govern one PHU. BRGM is no way. So now it's very clear the jurisdiction. So we need to be clear. And also, I think it's what you mentioned about diversity of place. Whatever standard we have should be adaptive to the place, to the community, to the culture there. Otherwise, it's quite difficult to, every day is strict. Every indicator in Sumatra is the same as we have in Papua, for instance, or in Pahang, Matang, Malaysia, Sarawak, Sabah, should be a kind of diversity. Also, we develop for human, this kind of standard, whether it is for government, for community, for private sector, for donor. So we need to understand who will use this indicator. And my last part is related to the polling. I think it's very interesting, particularly on the governance. Just perhaps if we are talking about regulation. Regulation is, I don't know whether it's enough. There are many, many regulation in Indonesia. If you develop kind of network of regulation, you confuse yourself. Every month, every year we have new regulation. So it is lack of regulation or lack of implemented regulation, rule of law. It's not having new regulation, many regulations, better than having less regulation. To be honest, many regulations. It's difficult for me as Indonesian to follow regulation coming from Ministry of Forestry and Environment, from BRGM. The ministry is under the minister and also to local governments, so many. So we need to differentiate between regulation, number of regulation, and rule of law, how the regulation implemented. Also organization, we need to differentiate between many organizations and also institution. Institution means organization as well as rule of the game. Whether we have rule of the game, in particular KHAG or PHU, rule of the game. Rule of the game can be based on the existing regulation or based on the common understanding, based on the customer institution, based on the local institution. To be, it doesn't really matter whether it is government or agreement among people, as long as it is implemented and enforced. And also the accountability, who are accountable, for instance in particular PHU, whether BRGM or Kepala Desa. Because when we talk about the economy aspect, I think a lot of people talking about the household in KHAB. The household is very small, mostly related to the village. It's not related to the half million hectare of peatland, hydraulic unit. So scale matter to me whether we are talking about a million or talking about a village. And my last point is also because it is government that's power, who control the restoration. Whether government control the restoration, let the restoration or community. So who has a power there or whether they have a balance power or dominated by hand leads. It is different. Who dominates the restoration activity? Even in one committee base can be dominated by two or three local elites. It is a problem of governance. And the last one is corruption. Corruption is who control the corruption there. Corruption is related to abuse of power. Someone who has a much powerful, there's no control and becoming dominant and get a lot of money from restoration without clear accountability. I think that's all. My point right there. Thank you. Thank you. What is interesting hearing all four of you talking about these aspects and the issues or challenges that one kind of encounters when you try to tease these apart. Just reminiscing about what by Harry just mentioned about who is regulating, who is controlling, who is enforcing, what is the role of institutions, what is the role of organizations. How can we make this process more inclusive, how we can make them diverse, diverse so that they incorporate local traditions, local wisdom. These are, I think, very practical and important challenges faced when we talk about regional restoration. The idea for this panel discussion and I am afraid we are a little bit over time, but it was important to hear all panel members be able to share those thoughts. But if I can take maybe two or maybe four extra minutes of time and can ask each panel member to just say briefly maybe in 30 or 35 seconds in terms of criteria and indicator approaches focusing on your aspect. What would you think is a positive aspect if we can use criteria and indicators approach to monitor these people in restoration. What's your opinion and your thoughts in 30 seconds. Over to you. Thank you. Rubens. It's very important question. And of course, like we agree that we need to have the pitland is moist or wet. So we need to keep the water table high. The second one is, we need the pitland restoration to be a vegetation. The vegetation is lacking right now. It is important issue that we need the vegetation back in order to return the function of the pitland ecosystem, but of course needs time. This relates to our opinion poll to if I recall it slider poll, under the vegetation it was not ranked very high, it was below educate so this aligns well with what your thoughts are. Over to you, you have any thoughts, maybe 30 seconds. I mean like related to the indicators I think like power relationship is number one. But then the question is like resonating with Harry. Just mentioned about like who owns the given restoration, because at the end like the villagers, whenever the projects and they also think like oh we don't have, we don't get money anymore so accountable to whom. So, like, if you asked me to ask one then it's like the power and power to decide power of ownership and power to participate as well. Thank you. That's that's very element and I take that point. Over to you, Michael, your thoughts. I did go through the five criteria and identified what I thought were measurable or more, most easily measurable and an important indicators, but I would like to go back to my comments about the very basic issues of restoration, you know, assisted versus natural restoration and the substantial cost differences. And I think that's now emerging as a key discussion, you know, to what degree is natural restoration, you know, should we be prioritizing that, and that has big cost implications, and then again versus the alternative of conservation, a focus on preserving un, you know, unmanaged or intact peatlands as well. Thank you. Thank you. By Harry, I know you kind of summarize a lot of things, but you have something that's high on your priority. My priority was using nested CNI approach. It's not one CNI. So scale matters, whether you are at the village level or at the jurisdiction level. So we need to understand that because committee sometimes is not relevant. We talk about half million hectare and you are talking about mastering the household income. It's not connected at all. And the second one, of course, the list can be as common in government. We have to find the voice, the participation, accountability and transparency, equity, inclusiveness, effectiveness of a government as well as control of corruption and all whatever criteria should be able to modify adaptive to a specific level. If you are talking about participatory, ask the stakeholders there to develop. Maybe it's not the indicator, but the verifier that relevant to social as well as culture as well as my physical things there. Thank you. Thank you. This is very invigorating discussion and a lot of learnings for sure this will go into our manual too. And I take your point by it's important to see the, the level that you are operating with it. It's a PHU level, whether it's a community level or it's a large level, it's important. So with that I end this discussion for now. And I thank all of our panel members, and I would like to apologize for Daniel that I kind of took this session and use some of the time. But without further ado, I'll hand over the next session.