 In this sustainable agriculture or plantation cultivation as long as it is a practice conservation principle and use the appropriate technology. I think, yeah, from my view, giving the increasing need for network or cooperation between district and provinces and to take some issues in the sub-national level. I think this is the common understanding or should be delivered to the local governance. I think it is very important. Yes, and then do the wide scope of activities in the pit line management, the implementation will involve many institutions. This requires effective institutional cooperation and coordination. I think this is the common understanding. Next, please. And then the three things have been pressured by all parties related to the parties since I think 2000. And then this is about the in order to gain the function and gain the natural resources of the pit line. I think this is necessary to have a balance between aspect conservation and sustainable use of this area. This condition can be made based on the identification of the potency and existing obstacle with approach to the balance, the needs of the conservation and utilization. I think as Paaya mentioned before with the criteria indicator, I think we have to see with the situation under pressure to the local government. Also, regarding the management and natural resources including pit line, this cannot be carried out by 10 parties only. I think the rules not only for the local government but also for all parties. For me, cooperation between institutions is the key. The color institutional frame at the central and sub-national level must be able to work together to integrate commitment to sustainable pit line development. I think its institution is expected to develop participation and then work with the local community with the community empowerment approaches, decentralization, and many system development. I think what I see the cooperation between institutions in the pit line management should be seen as a guide and mutually important cooperation while still providing the work unit with independence in managing their perspective. For cooperation between institutions is expected for the poster division of the rules for each institution in order to prevent duplication or program or even struggle for a role between institutions. So, this is the, when we talking about the governance, I think we also link to the criteria indicator, I think we have to see the reality institution. So, I think next, to translate this element and governance component into miserable indicator for the reduction of sustainable fall for some general consideration. I think my view is very important to see the finding of balance across different sustainability dimension. Konomi, sosial, implementer, and good governance including transparency issue, and I think both are connected and addressing that across this dimension. Ya, some people is now trying to have the jurisdictional approach and then they are also using the stepwise approach. It is combining outcome and the process indicators. So, if we see the CNI, what Pa had mentioned in the beginning, I think we will see the balancing of each aspect. And then also in the audience oriented, we indicated that relevant and include to various perspective group including national government, district government, trade partners, and consumers. In this record, I think we also, we have to see the new policies of Cipta Kerja, new policies, I think we also, we have to do the orientation by national government. Also, looking at the feasibility including by taking into the conductability and using the different, using FEC and I think this is still our homework about the data and then also about the, how the method to collect the data. And then also now we are also need in the baseline data and baseline data in the field and then we have to check because we, I think the data is a fairly key, also key aspect if we looking for this criteria indicator for the government. And then check the all government documents and other. And then the last, I think the next map, and then I think the potential criteria and associated with the indicator can be useful in the monitoring and assessment of the plan. I think, yeah, some indicator I think already mentioned by Paheli, the first is improving the participation. I think participation, profitability and productivity of the small holder in different commodity supply chains. I think now we have to open the open eyes because in the field land because there are the farmer also they have potential commodity to be. Also, they just see for their conflict and profit in human rights including labor and individualist land rights. I think this is all issues but still try to be struggling to have the solution for all the conflict, typology conflict. Result is reducing deforestation and forest regulation in high conservation solute and high carbon. I think in the last, in the last week now also the government still drafting the new regulation about this issue. And then the fourth is stock area, including primary and secondary forest as well as the land in the governance in the local or subnational governance. It's still we struggling working with the local government with the jurisdictional approach to have the clearly the data and the area. And then the last is reducing fire and hedge. I think it's that my view, my perspective if we see the role of the local government with the facilitative system of the climate management. Thank you. Okay, thank you Ibu Dia, very interesting part. So the speaker will be Mr. Hasbi Berliani. He will be talking about regulatory and policy measure to support the climate restoration. Silakan, Mr. Hasbi. Thank you, Pak Harry. I will try to share the screen. Okay, please. Is that already appear? Yes. Okay. Thank you, Prof. Harry. Ladies and gentlemen. We've been the participants. Very good afternoon. First, I would like to introduce myself. My name is Hasbi Berliani. I work for KEMITRAAN, an organization at the national level, working on promoting multistakeholder partnership in promoting good governance. I would like to thank SIFOR, Daniel Murdi Arso, and colleges in SIFOR to give me to share our experience in the sessions. KEMITRAAN, in the last three years, working closely with the BRG on empowering the local community and village governments through the state plan care village. They supported the GAMBUD programs, one of the main program of the BRG. Through this webinar, I think we know that PITLAN is very important to support our government's priority programs to protect the PITLAN to handle the fire and also to achieve the global and international commitments through NDC and another climate change agreement. We will be not participants. We certainly know that in addition to the biopisical, economic, and social aspect, the government aspect is one of the important aspect also, as explained by Daniel Murdi Arto in the first sessions. Ini sangat penting dengan mengenai tarjab PITLAN restoreasi atau menggunakan pimpin PITLAN. Apabila kita berbicara tentang pemerintah, saya rasa kita ada beberapa prinsip. Saya rasa kita berbicara dengan ini, tapi dari kelihatan saya, dari prinsip-prinsip-prinsip-prinsip-prinsip-prinsip-prinsip, kelihatan dan kelihatan akan sangat penting dari sisi saya. Ini adalah prinsip yang penting yang kita harus melihat dalam pemerintah PITLAN. Dalam prinsip-prinsip-prinsip ini juga, kita tahu bahwa ada beberapa pemerintah yang penting untuk mendapatkan pemerintah yang baik, namun pemerintah pemerintah, pemerintah psikologi dan psikologi. Pemerintah psikologi juga termasuk PSOs, akademisian, komunitas lokal, media, pemerintah pemerintah, dan sebagainya. Tapi satu masalah penting yang penting jika kita berbicara tentang pemerintah itu adalah aspek pemerintah. Pemerintah tidak hanya berbicara tentang kelihatan dan kelihatan, tetapi ini sangat penting untuk melihat framework, pemerintah, dan juga prinsip-prinsip-prinsip. Dan juga sangat penting untuk tahu tentang pemerintah dan kelihatan. Jadi, dalam beberapa kelihatan, kita memiliki banyak kelihatan dan kelihatan, banyak kelihatan, tetapi kelihatan, kelihatan, dan kelihatan. Jadi, kelihatan baik, itu adalah tiga aspek, kelihatan, kelihatan, kelihatan, dan kelihatan, tetapi juga untuk kelihatan dan kelihatan. Jadi, jika kita berbicara tentang kelihatan dan kelihatan dalam pemerintah dan kelihatan, menurut kita bahwa pemerintah dan kelihatan akan sangat penting untuk membahas kelihatan dan kelihatan, terutama pemerintah dan kelihatan. Tapi, kita harus menggantikan prinsip-prinsip-prinsip-prinsip-prinsip untuk membuat kelihatan dan kelihatan. Dan juga menginsurkan kelihatan yang enggak efektif untuk semua pemerintah dalam proses dan juga mengekalkan semua aspek. Seperti yang saya katakan, kelihatan, kelihatan dan kelihatan dan kelihatan dan kelihatan. Jadi, dari kelihatan ini, dari pengalaman kita, saya propus untuk, seperti yang saya katakan oleh komite, saya propuskan beberapa kelihatan dan kelihatan. Saya mencoba memasukkan kelihatan dan juga kelihatan yang bisa digunakan dalam prinsip-prinsip-prinsip-prinsip. Tapi kelihatan, saya mencoba memasukkan beberapa kelihatan atau lebih spesifik kelihatan. Tapi dari prinsip-prinsip-prinsip, saya pikir kelihatan juga bisa digunakan kelihatan dan kelihatan juga bisa digunakan kelihatan yang lebih spesifik jika membutuhkan kelihatan. Pertama, saya propuskan kelihatan dalam prinsip-prinsip-prinsip dan kelihatan. Jadi, beberapa kelihatan yang saya propus, seperti beberapa kelihatan, saya mencoba memasukkan kelihatan dan kelihatan dari semua kelihatan dalam prinsip-prinsip-prinsip. Jadi, jika pemerintah mencoba memasukkan kelihatan, itu penting mengenai bagaimana kelihatan yang dikasihkan dari prinsip-prinsip dan kelihatan. Saya juga memasukkan kelihatan dari beberapa kelihatan, berprinsip-prinsip, dan kelihatan yang dikasihkan dari semua kelihatan dari orang indigen, dari orang margen, dari orang lokasi dapat menghasilkan prinsip-prinsip dalam prinsip-prinsip, bukan hanya dari sisi negara dan kawasan. Pertama, saya propuskan kelihatan adalah prinsip-prinsip-prinsip dan prinsip-prinsip yang dikasihkan untuk kelihatan publik. Sebenarnya, saya juga memasukkan kelihatan dengan prinsip-prinsip atau prinsip-prinsip. Pertama, saya propuskan kelihatan adalah kelihatan dalam memberi informasi dan kelihatan dan mengenai kelihatan untuk semua kelihatan untuk informasi itu. Kita memiliki seperti di Indonesia, saya pikir perusahaan dan perusahaan dan juga BRG sudah mencoba membuat informasi yang kelihatan dalam perusahaan perusahaan. Tapi juga perlu membuat kelihatan untuk membuat kelihatan yang mudah dan kelihatan untuk informasi itu. Pertama, saya pikir itu sangat penting untuk membuat semua kelihatan bisa membuat kelihatan yang mudah dan kelihatan untuk informasi itu. Pertama, kelihatan terakhir, saya propuskan kelihatan publik dan mengenai kelihatan dalam perusahaan perusahaan. Pertama, kelihatan terakhir dalam perusahaan dan perusahaan. Pertama, saya pikir itu mungkin juga untuk kelihatan pribadi yang mengenai kelihatan dan juga mereka mempunyai kelihatan publik. Mereka juga memiliki informasi mereka dalam perusahaan. Dan juga kelihatan mengenai kelihatan publik dan juga kelihatan untuk mengenai kelihatan. Pertama, kelihatan sudah seperti di Indonesia, kelihatan sudah mengenai kelihatan, tetapi itu tidak terlalu efektif dalam implementasi. Saya pikir itu penting pada masa depan. Kita coba mengenai perusahaan dan perusahaan. Saya pikir perusahaan dan perusahaan itu adalah perusahaan saya ketika kita bisa berbincang dalam perusahaan. Terima kasih. Terima kasih. Terima kasih, Pak Asbi. Jadi, sebuah pemeriksaan kita akan mengenai perusahaan dan perusahaan selama 5 menit. Jadi, kita ada masa untuk berbincang. Oke, Pak Harry. Boleh Anda membuka kondisi saya? Ya. Boleh. Baiklah. Baiklah. Kondisi saya hari ini berhasil dengan perusahaan dan perusahaan dalam perusahaan dan perusahaan. Sebenarnya untuk kondisi yang terkenal untuk kita. Perusahaan baik itu adalah sebenarnya mengenai perusahaan dan perusahaan dalam cara yang semua aktivitas harus berusahaan, berusahaan, berusahaan, berusahaan, berusahaan, dan berusahaan dengan perusahaan yang baik. Dan salah satu perusahaan yang baik adalah perusahaan atau perusahaan sosial. Perusahaan sosial dan perusahaan sosial dalam Restorasi Pitland adalah sangat penting karena Restorasi tidak memiliki perusahaan konservasi, tetapi juga perusahaan sosial dan perusahaan sosial tersebut sangat penting untuk membuat perusahaan yang baik di mana Restorasi menerima dan memiliki perusahaan sosial supaya Restorasi Pitland menerima perusahaan sosial dan perusahaan sosial. Perusahaan sosial dalam Restorasi Pitland adalah juga sangat penting karena perusahaan dan perusahaan sosial sangat penting dengan perusahaan sosial. Menerima semua perusahaan sosial untuk membuat perusahaan sosial berusahaan. Oleh itu, perusahaan sosial atau perusahaan sosial adalah penting. Saya ingin berkongsi ada tiga kriteria untuk perusahaan sosial dalam Restorasi Pitland. Pertama, menerima perusahaan, perusahaan, dan perusahaan komunitas di sisi. Pertama, kriteria menerima perusahaan sosial dengan sisi. Pertama, kriteria pada perusahaan sosial menerima perusahaan sosial untuk membuat perusahaan, perusahaan, menerima perusahaan, menerima perusahaan. Jadi, ini kriteria untuk perusahaan sosial dalam Restorasi Pitland yang bisa saya berkongsi. Dan setiap kriteria, perusahaan kriteria adalah tiga indikator yang saya pikir memutuskan. Pertama, perusahaan dan kultur adalah berkongsi. Pertama, perusahaan sosial dengan sosial, perusahaan, dan perusahaan sosial dengan keberlangganan sehingga keadaan komunitas. Pertama, perusahaan 3 dan berkongsi yang dihentikan. Pertama, perusahaan tersebut menggantikan Sites of special cultural, ecological, economic, religious, and spiritual significant are identified. The second indicator measures to protect such sites are agreed, documented, and implemented accordingly. The third indicator activities that potentially impacted the sites should be consultation made through the epic process with local community. The third criteria consists of four indicators. First indicator community granted epic for restoration activities. The third indicator relevant and appropriate stakeholder identified. The third indicator mutual understanding agreement and working mechanism achieve throughout restoration processes. The fourth indicator dispute resolution mechanism mutually develop and implemented. So these criteria indicator that I thought very important to be considered. The final conclusion is social engagement is key to successful restoration project and social engagement should be started from the very early stage of restoration project. And the last point is at least three criteria are considered with few indicator for each criteria. Thank you very much. Thank you, Padre, and also for being on time. So there are three speakers already. And now I would like to invite Marcel Silvius to provide comment or suggestion to the ideas coming from three panelists. So the floor is yours, Padre Marcel. Yes, thank you very much. I think we've seen a whole range of... Hello? Yes, Padre Marcel. We've seen a very interesting set of presentations. Or coming from different perspectives on what and those could be restoration and the governance mechanisms for that. I think often people think about governance just within one dimension like looking at it from the social political aspect. But of course governance deals with all the different aspects of our society. We need finance, environmental governance, social governance, political governance. But then in Petland also governance in terms of landscape level or jurisdictional levels. We need to govern the water in the Petlands. And we also need to govern the monitoring. And in the end everything that needs to be done is about processes. About principles, criteria and indicators. A lot of it comes down, I think, not just to outcome indicators, but particularly also to process indicators. And I think this came out of a lot of the presentations that we saw today. Where Fr. Ibu Dia mentioned the need for common understanding. And I think that needs also be translated to similar levels of understanding between the stakeholders as a basis, a very practical and basic basis for for cooperation. I think several of the speakers mentioned the need for local and also linked to decentralization processes with international guidance international regulations. There's a need for accountability. And a lot of process oriented indicators identify whether or not we're on the right track. I think a lot of scientists think more about outcome oriented indicators. Whereas I think if we talk about governance, it's the process that counts. A lot of speakers mentioned we need to have the transparency in in the process. And we need to have the consultation process from the outset. I think if you talk about consultation, it's not just consultation in the beginning of the process. It needs to be consultation throughout from the very beginning. But also during the implementation and also in the monitoring of the results and the monitoring of the processes in all these aspects consultation is required. So consultation is not something that happens at the beginning of the project consultation is part and parcel of proper governments. Part and parcel of successful implementation. Without consultation throughout the process, the project will fail. That's that's I think a given. To be able to come to a proper governance of these processes. One of the first steps that needs to be created needs to be made is to come with all the stakeholders to a common vision. And we all know that every stakeholder group has different ideas has different priorities, different needs and requirements. But to come to a common vision is very difficult. But I think in Peatlands, there are a few items that are very clear where there needs to be a common interest and that is, for instance, the prevention of disasters such as fire and haze. We want all to have a productive landscape. One that provides profits that provides livelihood that provides basis for our economy. I think there are common common ideas and it's on these points, I think, even between the stakeholders where a company may have a different perspective than a local community. I think there are certain commonality that we can build on in the development of the common vision. But it needs to start also on a basis where stakeholder groups can have an equitable position in the processes. And this is defined by simple items, which, for instance, I haven't heard today yet, like land tenure. We all know this is extremely important. I think it is included maybe in Padwis mentioning of rights and indigenous peoples, a rights-based approach. But it starts with a government granting rights, clear rights to the stakeholder groups, including to the communities in, for instance, or through, for instance, land tenure. This land tenure needs to be clear and it needs to be long term. And that provides a basis for consultation and for fair negotiation. I think we need to have clear commitments. We need to work towards clear commitments from all the stakeholder groups. And again, these needs to be arranged around the common goals. We need to have clear planning processes that are well coordinated. The science base needs to be brought in, but also the local knowledge needs to be brought in to the planning. And then I think on basis and through these processes, we can come to a definition of what appropriate restoration is. Because restoration means so many different things for different stakeholder groups. What is appropriate restoration in the peatland? Is it just restoring the environment? I think it was mentioned by some speakers. No, it's not just the environment. Particularly, I think it is restoring the productivity of the landscape, restoring its capacity to serve the economy, to serve the local livelihood. And then in relation to those societal requirements, I think we need to define whether or not we need to go to partial rewetting of a peatland, partial reforestation, or full reforestation, or full rewetting. That all depends on the perspective of the stakeholders. In terms of commitments, we also need to have longer term financial commitments. And again, the finance field is rife with different views and different needs and criteria. And there are many players fields from institutional finances, impact finances or investors, national and local banks, international finances, the government that comes in, the local communities that provide finance and provide equity also through their own involvement. It may not even be in terms of dollars, but it can be in terms of time. That is finance as well. And then when we talk about local communities, we need to take the gender aspects into account within the communities. There is a lot of differentiation as well in terms of perspectives and views. So we must ensure that all different parts in the community can have their say in the processes as well. So women must be enfranchised in that process. The other vulnerable groups in the communities need to be brought into the planning and we need to see how we can bring them into the processes where they can benefit from the landscapes that we are aiming to restore. So I think that that sketches a whole realm of governance items that we need to take into account when we talk about peatland restoration. One additional item is cost effectiveness. We can talk about all kinds of nice things that we want to achieve in the landscape, but it must be cost effective. One of the things that many stakeholders always look at this, it must be cost effective in the sense that I must be able to make profit out of it. And that is a very powerful argument. But I think there is also, there needs to be the recognition of the common values in peatlands where they provide ecosystem services to our society at large. And when these ecosystem services and these ecosystem values are being jeopardized by degradation, it comes at a great cost to society. So profitability does not lie only in individual profitability or profitability for a particular stakeholder group. But it also lies in preventing major economic costs such as we see coming from peatland fires that creates billions and billions of economic negative impact on various economic sectors, but also creates situations for local people that are just unbearable. People living months on end in dense smoke, having the health of themselves and their children impacted by long term air pollution. I think these aspects often are not taken into account into the into the books, into the accounts that are made up at the end of the year of companies or of government. But they are extremely important values that need to be brought in to the whole planning process. And they provide a picture as well as to what kind of investments are justifiable. If we know that for every El Nino year, we can count on a major fire season in the peatlands of Indonesia that creates tens of billions of dollars of economic costs. Dan I think it is very justifiable for government to say, okay, we are going to invest several billion dollar, not just a couple of hundred million dollars, but several billion dollars in peatland restoration in Indonesia. And I think there are a lot of other stakeholders, also international stakeholders that want to assist Indonesia with that. But it all comes down to bringing these kind of interests into proper governance structures, both at the national level, provincial levels. So these are the jurisdictional levels, but also then at the landscape level, and we need to recognize that to be able to create a common vision and to create a common goals. We need to have new structures for governance in play. And these can be jurisdictional platforms. They can be landscape platforms where we bring stakeholders together throughout the process, not only in the beginning, but throughout the planning and implementation and the monitoring where all the information can be shared, all the experiences can be shared, the local knowledge can be shared, where the stakeholders can listen to each other, and where in the end common decisions can be made. I leave it to that and open the floor, I guess, to the questions. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Marcel. We have nine minutes left before we back to the plan array. So, there is one question in the chat box. In decentralized governance with different landscapes and resource management authority. For example, forestry, agriculture, plantation, ETL, BPN, local government, like in Indonesia, how do we base approach institutionalization of the proposed indicators to all level of governance that can help to ensure effective implementation and integrated measure of pitland restoration? Thank you. Paneris, we're going to respond to this question. How to institutionalize the criteria indicator? Ah, Harry. Yeah, Aswin, please. Yeah, from my side, I think one of the important roles of the BRG is the coordination roles among the ministries, related ministries, related agencies, and also to the local government and other stakeholders. So, I think one of the strategy that already taken by the government is to form the BRG, establish the BRG, and then also take the roles in coordination roles. But I think it is very important to also encourage the change of the culture, how to work. For pitland restorations, as mentioned by Marcel, it is related to many stakeholders, then it is important to work together in the collaboration platform, engage all stakeholders from the beginning until the monitoring. So, I think the change of the how to work is very important. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, I would like to add what Aswin mentioned. I think the process of development of criteria indicator should be multi stakeholder processes from all level of government, from all level of stakeholder types, from community level until official level. In the second one, of course, with the principles of participatory processes is very important, configuring all the input from variety of stakeholders and enabling stakeholders to say what they thinking about the criteria indicator. So, I think the very important process is make sure that development of criteria and indicator is through the process of multi stakeholder and participatory. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Nadia, please. Yeah, I think I agree with Paahas, and then the key is collaboration between institution in the land management will be develop and contributed through synergic and mutually reinforcing operation. I think while still providing the work unit with the independence in managing their repressive sector or the field, I think still also in the field level. So, I think operation between institution is expected to the possible addition of the rules for each institution in order to prevent duplication or program or even strategy for rules between institution. And then I think as Marcel mentioned, it is not only about the activities also, it is about the budgeting. It is about the who is real work in the field. And yeah, I think regarding to the criteria indicator in the beginning, it is develop together with them and then see what each level can work together. Thank you, Paahari. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other question before I let Marcel respond? Marcel, you have any response to the command? The question is about how to institutionalize the proposed indicators. So, I think I mentioned what I think that is needed because we need to work at the landscape level. We need to work at provincial, jurisdictional level, and at national level. It is important that indeed the whole set of indicators is kind of institutional. And I think Indonesia already has this. Of course, Indikala has procedures, the environment impact assessment and procedures in Indonesia. In principle, that already provides a very nice framework for this. But that's often seen as a process that just ends up with a little report. Once a report is that, it's kind of a greenwash brief to continue with your development. And I think what we discussed today, and what all the speakers mentioned now, this needs, this is a longer term process. It's not a matter of producing report, but it's a matter of providing or creating a common understanding and a common goal and common way forward for all the different stakeholder groups in the landscape. And you can only do that by institutionalizing the processes that we discussed. And I think what you need for that is a landscape platform for stakeholders. Of course governed by the government, either at district level, or that sometimes peddlins will cross district boundaries and you need to have it at the higher level of governance. But where all these different stakeholders can be brought together and where they on a regular basis, long term. So coming together multiple times every year to share the lessons learned and to review whether the processes actually are functioning appropriately and being implemented appropriately. Then by having them also monitoring the processes as a multi-stakeholder platform, I think you can institutionalize this process. But I don't think that at the moment in the Indonesian regulatory framework such landscape platforms are recognized. So I do think there's a little bit of homework here for the Indonesian government specifically for peddlins where you need to work as Pabudi mentioned in the beginning of this webinar, you need to work at the hydrological unit level which in peddlins can cover hundreds of thousands of hectares. So and then you will have tens or often up to 50 villages involved in one landscape. All these stakeholders need to be brought together. So how do you do that? What structure could the government provide link to the current regulatory frameworks but what additional aspects are required to enable due recognition of such stakeholder processes in the planning and in the decision making as well as in the monitoring. So I suggest strong emphasis on creation of such multi-stakeholder platforms at the landscape level but later also multiple landscape platforms coming together in jurisdictional platforms. Thank you. Thank you, Pak Marcel. We have 20 seconds left so I will not open for a new discussion. So I will actually provide some wrap up so I'll read it during the plenary. So thanks all for participating in the government aspect of credit and indicator. Thank you, Pak Harry. Thank you. Thank you, Pak Harry. Thank you. Thank you, Marcel.