 Well thank you very much Andrew Magnus and Giovanna. I wasn't too sure when I stood here this morning what the three speakers, four speakers were going to talk about, but I'm very impressed by the variety of topics that we've been engaged with in the last hour. So thank you very much everybody. I'm sure we must have quite a few questions. We'll start with two or three questions from the floor and we'll ask the speakers to respond to those first before we look at for the online questions if there are any. Thank you. Eitgen Romsom, energy cc, I got a question for Magnus as you set it up already. So I've got a long background in the oil and gas industry and actually 10 years ago I was looking at deep sea mining as an opportunity in a previous life. And a lot of technology is now available through the subsea developments in oil and gas. I mean oil and gas is going down to 3000 meters depth setting quite complex permanent infrastructure on the seabed for long term operation of oil and gas fields below the seabed. So technically there's been a lot of development to be able to do work at those sort of depths. However in the oil and gas industry one should work under the premise that ultimately you need to know the impact of your activity. It means environmental impact assessments and also when the work is done a complete remediation of the area where work was undertaken. Now I'm very much aware that doesn't always happen but that's the standard. Now for sea mining and particularly deep sea mining there's so much still unknown about how the deep sea actually interfaces with smaller seas and new species are being discovered quite regularly at these depths and so we actually know very little of what goes on in the deep sea. It's a very much unexplored area of our planet. So how do you see then how one should move forward evaluating this as an opportunity when there's a considerable risk that we don't know what we're doing when we start doing. Thank you very much. My name is Es Ramadzwanika. I'm working for African Texas Administration Forum as the research manager. Firstly I want to thank the presenters. I think I was impressed with all the three presentations and I really want to thank you for that. Just a comment for the presentation from Steve. I think it resonates well with the work that we have also done on the extractives and we have also developed a few ideas which I saw were quite linking with what he was suggesting. Perhaps just one question for Steve is where we mentioned about the involvement of the states in mining. What should the state bring into the game? I'm saying so because there are countries like I'm coming from Zimbabwe. We at one time introduced what you call the indigenisation regulations. Where we were saying for a company to come and invest, the nation should also get a stake of 51%. But we were not prepared to offer something but we're saying so it was a difficult thing for the investors and it created a lot of tension until we sort of set aside that regulation. So what should the country also bring to the table where it is going to shape profits? That's for Steve and then I have a question for Jovan. I think your presentation was very interesting. I really liked it and it was also exposing the corruption that comes through the different licenses or contracts that are offered in the mining sector. My question to you is we have seen, especially in Africa, where most of the contracts that have been negotiated previously have been re-looked in Tanzania as one of the examples where actually there was a renegotiation of the existing contract because the state realised that it has not been done well. So my question to you is I think so many countries are facing that problems. We have already alluded to sometimes this corruption involvement or politically connected people. So it means when the license are offered, they are not offered in a transparent way. So it means if there is new government, there might be an opportunity to renegotiate that. Do we have that capacity, one to renegotiate and is it feasible from the legal perspective to renegotiate existing contracts in the mining sector? Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any more questions from the floor? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I also have a question for Dr. Marco Longo. I really enjoyed the presentation. I'm Esteban Manteca from the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, and so we work a lot with that information as well. Two things. The first one, it was a little bit sad to see that you had to pay for data to do your research. I think that should not happen and we are pushing for that to actually not happening anymore. It will be really interesting to see if future iterations of this paper can actually utilize data that has already been public in different countries that are implementing the ITI standard. In that, I think one of the most interesting projects we have had recently in Colombia and now, just last week it was announced in Nigeria as well, we were launching a project called Joining the Dots with the support of directorio legislativo, CSO in Argentina. What they did was based on information on sworn declarations by public officers, they took a list of all the different extractive licenses that existed and they highlighted some potential red flags in terms of politically exposed persons and extractive activities in Colombia. I think mixing these two would be a fantastic next step because then you can see exactly whether this offshores have also politically exposed persons and then that could strengthen the linkage. On that note, I have just one question. Is there any way to identify, for instance, the different sectors that these offshore companies are listed in? For example, I'm thinking that there might be some financial companies or there might just be others that are dedicated to different things. Thank you. You had a question from Etienne. Yes. Somehow Etienne, I think we have the two of us, a little different view on the technology necessary, but we can put that aside. I think it's quite a different thing to do the oil extraction, but I think there are several options here. I mean Norway is intending to start the operation on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the Norwegian authorities have asked for proposals how to do this and what will be the environmental effects and so on. I think, I'm not quite sure, but I think that process is still underway and that previously it was thought that that could be completed already this year and mining activities starting next year. I don't think that will be the case, but I think that's one way that various countries and perhaps it is illustrative that the Papua New Guinea government, they were very excited about the opportunities in the Solvara project. And they actually invested, I think, I don't know, in the order of 50 to 100 million dollars, which were completely gone and after that there will be no more deep seabed mining in PNG for a long period of time. But I hinted at the possibilities for the international waters and that is really to try to strengthen the role of the international seabed authority. If there is a moratorium put in place, that will be in the stop of all, end of all research on the environment. Most of the research has been funded through the exploration conditions that ISA has set up. So I think strengthening the international seabed authority and using that as their research and the conditions to their exploration licenses is a way forward. There are a couple of papers on this and they are cited actually in our report that the dangers or the effects of a moratorium will be, yes, more, it will be a complete stop also on the more general research on biology and found and environmental effects. And I think that's a pity because in some instances it might be useful into the future considering the high demand for some of these metals in the green transition. But at the same time I think it's important to understand that the growth rate of copper demand and nickel demand that is projected by the international energy agency and others into the future, they use the absolute numbers they are staggering, but the relative growth rates are not much higher than what the land-based industry has managed to supply in the past 20 years during the super cycle when demand increased quite rapidly. So from a demand point of view I'm also a bit sceptical, but I think of course that there should be readiness so that as I said the international seabed authority is unique, it's a no mining has started and the regime is being discussed and debated. Our little group has done studies for the international seabed authority on what royalty rate should be, for example, so that work on the regime and the environmental effect should continue until so that when the extraction from the seabed is economically feasible, all the regulations and dangers in the environmental side and for that matter also socioeconomically are in place. Thank you for that question. Actually, I have a very radical answer which I normally give. When you are negotiating with the foreign entity in terms of joint ownership, the first position of the government, should be that the reserves are ours. The investor will bring in the cash, the country will bring in the reserves. That's already a basis for 50% ownership. This is what Boswana did. When the bearers went to Boswana to start mining, they said you want a joint venture, they said you have to pay for the shares. Boswana said no, no, no. The reserves are ours. For us, that constitutes 50%. That's the beginning point. Governments need tough negotiating teams. If they cannot manage tough teams, they can get help from other sources. Of course, if you want to be more lenient, more economic, there are other methods. One of the methods we looked at was that we could use a royalty flow. I can't remember the word now, Steve. This is where you agree to the ownership, but then the government says, look, I don't have cash. From my royalties or from my share of the profits, I'll be paying off for this shareholding and tweets it's paid off. Between those approaches, I think we can achieve what we are looking at. I hope that Zimbabwe can, you know, revert to this. I know there's so much mining coming up in Zimbabwe from Chinese and so forth because of the platinum. So I think this is a good approach. Thank you so much for that question and for all the other questions that have been brought up. Let me just emphasize two things. One, of course, indirectly you're talking about private sector participation in mining in Zimbabwe. I've always been fascinated by this tension between private sector development and what the countries really want. So I once wrote a small paper and said private sector development, but whose private sector? So just imagine a scenario where you have no way, which has a lot of money, but you have a private sector owned by Ugandan's. Ugandan's own everything and it's still the private sector, but people are going to be worried. So, you know, grumbling, maybe revolution even. So you need resource nationalism is going to be with you whether you want or not. And so part of the political economy is how to manage that resource nationalism. It could be by giving government 51% or whatever it is. But I think the trick is to find ways of doing it in a strategic manner in an efficient manner. And there's a lot of run standing all over the place from the side of donors and so all the private sector must come in but have to be very, very careful what kind of private sector you have. Let me just make one other point. The so-called key principle, which Andrew, you know, so essentially, so keep it simple. Some people say so, others say stupid. Keep it simple, stupid. So it's too complicated. There are also so things in this, but let's try to keep it simple. And what does that mean really? That you are running these things to make a bit of profit. You're running mining. You don't want to destroy essentially the endowment. You're trying to preserve some money for future generations. The issues are quite simple. So try to make it simple. The more complicated it becomes, the more difficult it is to actually get some benefit for the country out of it. So thank you so much for your questions. And I'm going to reply to your question on three points. So about renegotiation on contracts. So I think again, the key is, as we heard in this morning as well, is about transparency. So I think as long as the terms of the contracts are being published and available, then at that point, then it becomes that not only the government is going to be involved in renegotiation, but also the citizens will have the ability to see what is happening. And therefore, at that moment, not only the multinational corporation, if that's the case, has to officially say what his standards are, but also the government has to respond to the citizens. Then the second one is coming from 80, actually. So 80 is promoting initiatives that are on standardising, for example, the ways that the revenues are accounted in the different countries when these revenues are coming from the extractive resources. So I think this is useful not only to have transparency again, but also to have comparisons. So once we know that the numbers that we're putting when we're counting, for example, revenues are accounted in the same way in different years, then it's going to be easier to make a comparison across the years, and also to learn from the past and see what are the terms that we're negotiating, how they compare to the different years. So I think it has a point on making the government and the corporations accountable, and then there is a point on being able to look at the data over time in a way that we can learn better how to learn from the numbers that we have been publishing. And then the last point, I'm going to borrow it from yesterday keynote, and it's going to be about the trade-off between the short term and the long term. So sometimes corruption is coming because who's involved in it, and maybe the public figure that's involved in it is giving more value to the short income that could be what ends up in his pocket or her pocket versus what the long term could be, what the money could be used to build, as it was saying. So it's going to be made like schools, hospitals and roads. But then at that point I would say, why not making the renegotiation or the contracts conditional on these long term outcomes? So it's being like, okay, together with these terms of the contract it's going to come that how many jobs are you going to create? And so at that point you not only have something that is a long term outcome, you also have something that you can measure. And maybe because I'm an economist by training, but I do like to have things that can be measured in an easy way to know whether like I've reached the goals or to at least evaluate the impact. And to the AT, and so thank you so much for the ideas definitely, and I look forward to joining the DOTS project. And the reason why we had to purchase the data unfortunately was because we were looking at an analysis that was across country and that was actually again like standardised, like the data was reported in a similar way across different countries. But we would love to have a publicly available database on licensing, also not only for example on oil, but also on minerals and mining. And then about like your idea is definitely like something we should look more in detail and looking like joining again, like what are the companies they are linked to perhaps. So the tricky part is that for example when we look at the Panama Papers sometimes like we can link the country of the beneficiary, but often time it's not the person that is like for example a minister or public figure, maybe it's not going to put his name and so it's going to be tricky. But it's definitely something to look more into. Thank you. So I think we have one online question, so make them stay with me, we'll have the one online question and I think you have a question as well. Yes, thank you. And from the online, from Nana Gwaison, the question is where the sector becomes more competitive and there are more countries or organisations seeking to explore the international seabed for minerals, how might the allocation of rights or permissions to explore these resources have to change? Thank you. That's it. Thank you very much online for that question. I have to disappoint you. I don't have much of an idea how to do that. It's true that the present system is fairly complicated with you have to have a sponsoring state that supports the various companies that do apply for exploration licences. And I'm sorry that it's a question that I don't have any good answers to. One of the, if I may say so, problems with the United Nations Convention Law of the Sea is that United States hasn't signed it. They decide to not sign it before it was even completed. So that's the reason why some companies then from the United States can circumvent some of the problems. But I'm sorry I have to disappoint you there. Just check. We have no more questions online now. Okay, so are there any more questions from the floor? So yes. Thank you. Lorsic Manorad. It's more kind of a reflection and we'd like to solicit your reflections on it. And these days there is a rapid evolution and growth of carbon offset markets. And there is a keen interest in many African countries to benefit from this market. There are various issues. I think the growth is very much related to many companies now trying to become net zero in terms of emissions. So there are kind of business opportunities. And I wonder if you have any kind of reflections on possible to speak experiences, lessons learned from the mineral sector. That might be useful when African governments start to regulate and benefit from this. There are challenges with integrity. There has been talk about the need to have jurisdictional approaches, not only to have product by product approaches. There are of course issues because land is involved, how is benefits to be shared between government concerned people living in these areas. So there are some, I can see some parallels to the mineral sector. But of course it's different also. Could I just say one or two words and then Andrew could round it off. You see what I sort of say is that there are a whole lot of incredibly good ideas out there in the marketplace. Carbon capture, of course essentially planting trees in various places. But you see if it's not driven by governments themselves. If a company is coming in, a lot of companies have come in and have introduced rapidly growing trees. I forget the species. But those might not be necessarily the stuff you need. They're not indigenous in a way. They find trees that sprout in 25 years but come in with also some problems, diseases and so on and so forth. So there's that problem. Everybody is very anxious to come in. The governments are very busy fighting jihadists and all those kind of problems. I might not be quite focused on these issues. So the agenda is completely overwhelming sometimes. So I don't quite know which way one could. I mean maybe these are part of the donor community could come in and give a lot of these countries a soft landing. While they might be sort of diverted by other social issues on the ground that have become too complicated. That actually the donor community, why they're self and so on, which is already, this is what it's doing. Find some kind of common ground. Does it need legislation? I mean, can you possibly let the market begin? We're taking these offset trades already. Probably not. Companies multinational that are trying to deal with scope 3 emissions are doing offset. So let them fight it out on the... I can understand. You're saying markets will eventually find a solution. Very interesting. But if you're saying that institutions are not working at the moment because of XYZ reasons. Definitely your markets are not going to work in Asia and Mali and Gabon now because of political reasons. So the situation on the ground is a little more complicated than we think. Thank you. Are there more questions on the floor, please? Sorry, Andrew. Just to add that this issue of carbon credits offsets is gathering momentum. I know that in Zambia they are trying to build some capacity through the minister of environment and green economy. The focus initially is on the forested areas. How we can do that? But I think the idea of extending it to mining would be also a very, very interesting prospect. I think that should also come up. For countries like Zambia, which have a lot of mining, the regression is also getting stronger. I don't know whether you heard that the government in 2021 gave a mining license to a concession to start mining in the lowest and busy. The lowest and busy is close to the border of Zimbabwe, close to the falls, close to the game parks. So these guys, we are almost mobilizing to start mining. And then the new government, using the environmental authority recommendations, has put a stop to that project. I think that's one way that governments, by strengthening a regression, can bring into this offset of credits. Not only in forestry, but also in mining. You had a question for Andrew. It's a question for Stephen and Andrew here. In the 60s, Zambia nationalized its mining companies. So my question is what lessons have been learned from that very quickly, so in order to make the present idea of buying 50% more feasible and to work in the proper way. I'm all for it. But the government moved to take in the mines. What they did at that time was that they acquired 50% of the assets which were then controlled by Anglo-American and GRST. The move itself was very much commissioned. But what KK did, they agreed that we don't have the cash, but we are going to use stream royalties to pay for our share of the capital. By apportioning a certain amount, maybe 2% to whatever, every year until the capital is fully paid up, the companies were very happy with that. The things are working, that was in 1969. But the big lesson which came up was that in 1972, KK was very proactive in the present. In 1972, KK got impatient and said no. This arrangement of buying shares and paying slowly is not working for us. So he moved to pay in full for the shares which they could have paid for over maybe 20 years. They went to the World Bank, borrowed money and paid off the mines. That was the biggest mistake they made. Otherwise the idea of acquiring through gradual payments was genius. So I think for me that that's a lesson that can be taken up in looking at the future. So it's something that can be looked at. Thank you. Thank you very much Andrew. I think we've come to the end of our time. I think we've had three very interesting presentations and some good questions on the floor. So may I ask you to thank the panellists for their contributions and thank yourselves for your very good questions. Thank you very much.