 Good afternoon everyone. I'm glad to see a Good turn out for the session this afternoon. Let me introduce myself. I'm Peter Deweese I'm the forest advisor at the World Bank, and I'm also the program manager for pro4, which is the program on forests pro4 is a Program hosted by the World Bank, which carries out analytic work supports partnerships shoots blinding light in your eyes and Supports analysis and partnerships and the development of tools which are broadly meant for People and develop the development practitioners with interest in forests While we're based at the bank We're not really part of the bank in a way, but if you don't know pro4 I would encourage you to to dig into our website at pro4.info And one of the reasons we're here today is because we work very closely with with two sets of partners in particular first of course C4 the Center for International Forestry Research and also with IUCN And we're funded partly through a window through from DFID Which is funnily enough called no for I won't dwell on that too much but here we are And it's brought us together today to talk about how we impact policy change through knowledge and This is a common challenge that all of these institutions and many of yours deal with We tend to look at various problems from a research perspective But if we really want to have an impact We have to show how we can leverage policy change and that really is a subject of the discussion today So what we've done is we've brought a group of colleagues and friends to talk about how their own experience in developing Knowledge products and developing analysis has been used to leverage policy change and policy a Different policy outcome than one would normally have expected I'm going to start the way we're going to organize this we're gonna Give each of the panelists five to ten minutes to talk about their particular case their particular experience to give you a flavor of the kinds of challenges that we face in Trying to leverage policy change through some of this type of these types of analytic studies and pieces of research and so on and then at the end of that we're going to be asking you some questions and I'm going to turn that over at that point I'll Turn over to a to a facilitator to to work that process through But we really want your views about this too because we think in this room There's a really rich body of experience of people who've had this this challenge How do you change policy as an outcome of the kind of research and and experience that you've all collectively had? The first panelist today is Maria Brachaus. Maria is an economist and a policy analyst working on forestry and agriculture sciences She's worked at the interface of research and development economics and policy in anglo and francophone countries in the Middle East and West and Central Africa She has a really sound practical experience in agriculture and forestry erosers sociology and economics and since 2009 She's been leading the research on national red plus strategies and policies and C4's global comparative study So Maria over to you. Thanks Yeah, thank you very much Peter. I think I will stand up because it's easier. I Did bring a presentation which should be And Yeah, thanks. First of all, thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak here a little bit and I just got shown the time and what's the pointer and What I will do is I will explain a little bit what we are doing and see for in this global comparative study on red plus And I will use that as an example then to answer the following questions Which we got as speakers here for this panel. So Peter was Providing us with questions such as what makes knowledge generation and uptake successful How well do we know what other people need to know and also linked? I think what are some of the barriers to sharing knowledge and what kind of tools could help us to achieve that and As I said, I will talk about C4's global comparative study and I guess some of you have heard about that already The objective we have this is a project since 2009 going on and what we want to achieve is to support red plus Policy makers practitioners the whole community with information with analysis with tools guidelines To ensure 3e outcomes and 3e means to make sure that whatever kind of red plus will happen that it is cost-effective carbon-effective cost-efficient and also Delivers on equity and delivers co-benefits and The way C4 is doing that maybe some of you have seen that already is we are working with for scientific With for scientific modules that try to generate the evidence We then want to disseminate with our fifth module and I think we will hear from John more about that one is This kind of very active engaged knowledge sharing but the evidence comes from a module that looks at national policies a module that looks at Demonstration sites at project activities a module that looks at MRV issues, which are cross-scale and also at Carb management in the landscape, which we discovered was a gap in our earlier design so We work in Here I'm saying 12 countries, but in fact now we are working in 13 countries all over the Tropical world and just to give you an example of knowledge output because again this whole session here is about Knowledge knowledge generation knowledge dissemination These are some global products C4 has produced coming out or guided by this global comparative study And the analyzing red book from 2012 is the latest latest global one But in my presentation, I will focus on a different type of knowledge product We have gotten out over the last yeah three years now And these are the so-called country profiles and maybe some of you know them as well So for the 13 countries, we have a process where we try to understand Guided by a step by an established methodology to ensure comparability We try to understand the context in the in which red plus is emerging so we do look at Drivers of deforestation we try to understand the political economy behind it. We try to generate knowledge on institutional distributional aspects of red plus but also existing in the country so again the whole question of in which context is red plus emerging and What we do is we we think these country profiles are quite Successful and we do things so because we have to download figures and again something John will maybe talk a bit more about So we do have download figures We understand that people really are keen on those country profiles that they provide a knowledge We get anecdotal evidence for There is knowledge that is useful in this whole policy and practitioner arena Even though unfortunately, this is what the scientists would do is you look up your Citation, but policy makers do not reference or rarely at least very rarely So still we do have some evidence that these country profiles are quite successful and useful and What we think is that the basis for this X success are basically then The engagement with national partners. So again C4 is doing this Global public goods at an international comparative level But what we do is we engage with national partners who then are not only the ones who have access to grey literature Who have access who are actually actors in this kind of national policy arena? But they are also the ones who then carry this evidence. They themselves have generated They carry this evidence exactly where it should be and that is where the needs are in the national policy domain and That means what we have with that and you can ensure ownership. I think is key So there has to be ownership over these knowledge products in a respective country Otherwise, you will not change anything because you produce and your products your knowledge will not reach and The thing is that what I anticipated was that by engaging with national partners We would have a full understanding of who is in the policy domain But obviously also our partners as well as C4 we operate and many other Organizations as well we operate with the same set of partners often and we think that our old context our own networks are the ones That are relevant, but how updated are we and the big question is what kind of tools do we have to verify that what we assume are The key partners the boundary partners are then in fact really the ones who are relevant and what we did in this design for this global comparative study and Then I'm entering the second part of my presentation is So we employed policy network analysis as a tool to understand first of all to identify Who are the actors in the policy domain? So the question was who is considered as relevant? By the other actors but also by themselves as relevant for red plus as the policy arena and We use policy network analysis also to identify and those of you who are familiar with that method is You can identify structural holes and you can identify Brokers and bridges which means what you have to envision is a network policy domain actors that are nodes and Then what you see in this you can analyze those structures by understanding who is connected or was which relationship with whom So in fact This policy network analysis is currently ongoing in eight countries. I should say that we do have a special issue coming out on that rather soon and With papers from Brazil Cameroon Indonesia Nepal Peru Papua New Guinea Tanzania as well as Vietnam and What we try to do there is to assess this kind of relational aspect So what what is the structure in this policy arena? We are working with who should know what? What is knowledgeable and who should know what we think are relevant is necessary evidence? And that brings me already Basically to the end of this Just to give you an example of some questions We were asking so what are who is involved in this national policy making but also what are the networks of information and influence and I brought with me a number of examples for this policy network stuff and one is for example from Indonesia what you see here is a typical bridge and I should say I think Moira if you could wave quickly So for people who have questions to policy network analysis in Indonesia My colleague Moira Mollono should be here and can answer there. She is waving Then I brought also Brazil and I think Maria Fernanda Gebarda can answer questions for that one and Peru I will skip and The most important part I have to say is and then I really leave the floor is this slide here Just to understand it's not only a policy network analysis We do but these are national partners These are individuals in the different countries and without those the whole work wouldn't be possible. Obviously, so thank you Maria, thanks so much Thanks very much Maria. The second speaker today is is a good friend and colleague also with C4 John Comey is a director of communications and one of the reasons why The global landscape forum happens at all is because of John's hard work that has gone into it He's spent more than 25 years working in Africa Southeast and Southeast Asia Seven years as a senior researcher 12 years as a foreign correspondent Worked for time for a while has degrees in forestry and communications from the University of Minnesota In economic geography from the London School of Economics and in journalism from the Columbia University So John over to you. Thanks Yes, that's it I'm also going to stand up. Can we go to the beginning? Okay, I've been told I have seven minutes, so I'm going to go through this very very quickly I'm using the global landscape forum as an example of a no-for in action this this forum is actually supported by the no-for project and working with World Bank and Oxford and our partners in IUCN and others I'm also going to show you our communication model which came out of the project that Maria was talking about The model has been very successful. She was talking about downloads by using this communication model We have in her case one of those publications was downloaded over a million times We've cut printing down by 75% and saved over $400,000 a year in printing and shipping using downloads So I'm going to move through very quickly on the landscape forum and how we are building a communication program for policy impact around this forum First I'm going to go back that when I first started in communication 25 years ago This was the CGI our communication model and this is a 1998 Cover there was award-winning and I always thought something was wrong with it and over years We start to see what's wrong with it because research starts in the middle Papers produced another papers were produced and by the time it gets to policy. It can be eight years it's a very very long time and even though at the time we thought that was very progressive and I'm going to say something. I'm really sensitive to the tragedy in the Philippines But I don't know how to show my model without it one day We were looking at hurricane Katrina and we said what happens with communication? How does it move around the world if you've got 2.3 million billion people including a hundred million 150 million internet users in Africa even though a lot of those in South Africa, etc And this is the model that we produced out of it. Usually I put C4 in here, but today I put global landscape forum this model is Is like a hurricane impact is constant and and frequent its web-based Leveraging social media it combines with traditional outreach very important the traditional you can't forget that If you look at President Obama, he's still reading the Washington Post So traditional media is still very important and a conference is still a traditional media And we leverage the conference to build a program around it. We monitor it. We've been monitoring the data I'm gonna talk about some of that every week and we've been monitoring the websites on GLF We've been monitoring everyone that came on and where they came on from we've wanted to everything about it and We change as we see the data coming in So what do we do with the landscape forum we started working on this about eight months ago We thought okay like for a stay we can leverage the UNFCC Conference of parties We can leverage the power and communication assets of the 52 organizations involved. You think about FAO IUCN World Bank their communication assets are phenomenal. So what can we do if we get all those working together and What happens when we have what we have now we have over 2000 people registered for this conference We had 850 today going up to 900. We are only expecting 400 tomorrow We expect we'll have 1400 every single individual coming now we get them doing Twitter and other things and spread the word 120 speakers all of those come from organizations and 350 delegates like for a stay those delegates or where we where we start to play Impact policy and we're gonna expecting 350 UNFCC delegates tomorrow We started communication campaign that started the DG wrote if you might have seen five or six blogs on landscapes and others We leverage the media presence and we leverage the power of our host country partner and this university itself, which is just such a fantastic place What were the challenges in this one? landscapes is pretty complex We weren't sure how I was gonna go over it's kind of intangible It is silos when I first went to the Minister of Forestry. They didn't want to work with the Ministry of Agriculture This is not it You know people aren't used to working together and everybody said you could never succeed after Forest Day Everything will fail after that so that was a tough one on the other hand the opportunity was to connect new communities And there's probably people in here I've I've went done four forest days and we saw everyone every year We used to say hello and we knew everybody by the fourth year, but now there's a whole new group of people We're reaching out to all new people. It's very exciting. We're linking to the global issues more than just UNFCC but STG's and We're reaching into new stakeholder groups We had one objective You've seen that a lot. We're gonna inform the UNFCC agreements Agriculture for example is is not in the agreement forestry. We succeeded all of us together starting in Cancun and And also reach into the sustainable development goals that are happening right now So we're leveraging that media attention and activity around those STGs as well We had a lot of new innovative Approaches this website. We did something different. It's something. We're doing new at C4. It's non branded C4 it's not branded by C4. We have these seven organizations getting involved with in 150 partners working on it We found that if you don't brand it other people were willing to come on and you don't have to approve their work so much So we're gonna be doing more of that. It becomes more of a meeting place If you haven't heard of paper league you should it's a new thing coming out. We developed research partners I mean media partners that help us and give us free access So that was the website like I say 150 partners This has been one of our most successful websites in over a month 24,000 a week people visiting That's a lot for a tiny little website in the middle of nowhere Social media and then we get the social media going that was around that with twitters We reached 1,300,000 people the Twitter Ridge with the group of people that were coming on board on the landscape Paper Lee is create your own newspaper Twitter chats. We did two or three very successful Twitter chats They're Google group connecting and we had this is one of the things we do at all these conferences now We do here. We did a boot camp Sometimes we do media training and then what you do is you do the boot camp. We have 60s on site social reporters We have an outstanding media trainer social media trainer, and then we let them loose on the conference We don't try to control them We don't try to edit them, but you end up with a huge amount of information going out of the conferences and then we tap the the strength and Encouragement and passion of the youth. So this was an experiment this time the youth The youth session and we had just a fantastic response. I mean we how many people Michelle was also young was the one that came up with this great idea and worked through how many people applied to be speakers 150 speakers and we chose no Then we chose 10 and then we had 13,000 votes It was a huge group of people that got involved in the twitters and the Attention and now they're heavily involved with the conference is the first time we're going to start doing that every time now to have a youth session Oh, sorry So this is the last slide. What do we do with all this? landscapes.org was our vision idea on On Monday, we're going to transition the conference website into landscapes.org I'm going to go to every all the 57 Organizations, and I'm going to ask them to participate in the website itself and keep it going on its own So this will now be a media platform That's why I bought landscapes org For this subject and we'll be able to reach lots of different groups and we'll be inviting others to put their blogs Etc. Etc. And That's what I've got. Thank you Thanks, John. Thanks very much, John. That's that's great. It's Always always it takes my breath away when I see kind of how you're reaching out and the footprint that you've got in in In the internet and elsewhere It's a really interesting story I want to turn it turned out to Another old friend Jill Petrakowski who is with the Biodiversity Institute at the University of Oxford She's also working closely with C4 on a on an interesting Initiative which focuses on the quality of evidence for science policy dialogue and for constructing relevant research agendas She is leading a collaborative project Partly coordinated by C4 to use information management to extend stakeholder engagement Mechanisms to identify policy priorities and for science and to improve the quality of science for policy and here I mean, this is a particularly resonant question For us in the World Bank As some of you know, we've had a new president now He's been in place for about a year and a half and one of the first things he said to us when he when he took over that position He said, you know, you guys are supporting development work I want to make sure that it's evidence-based and so the importance of evidence the kind of kind of work that Jill is working on in Terms of generating evidence to inform development outcomes to inform policy. It's hugely important and very much Resonant with my own institution over to you Jill. Thanks. Thank you very much for that nice Introduction Peter. It's always horrible to have to follow John because John's message is so exciting And in fact at the heart of my work the systematic reviews is very careful quiet sitting in a library being somewhat dull But nonetheless as Peter says I believe it's exciting. I'm passionate about it But so so let's go as Peter says I'm now actually in the long-term ecology and resource stewardship group and our Evidence base has come some such things as pollen cores from lake sediments and ice cores going back into the paleo So we really do believe in very long-term data sets Which might become apparent as I go through some of the things that I'm talking about Thanks very much C4 for the opportunity of participating in this session. It's great. It's great that it's so full Okay, I saw this slide recently a lot of you have seen it. It's a fantastic little graphic on how to Influence certain negotiators all good stuff What worried me to a certain extent was this little bit over here It's good advice get to get get get up to speed on data and facts Use infographics and so on way before you reach the stage of actually being loud and blogging and tweeting and all the sorts of cool things that John's just been talking about The boring thing for me the boring worry that I have I suppose is I would want to say what facts what data How reliable are they and what are you doing about the bias inherent in those sources? So that's the kind of the policy context the influence that I worry about and that I my research kind of deals with Just those four questions to a certain extent because I see the the landscape of this This discussion being here encapsulated in this diagram The policy context knowledge the knowledge that we're using to influence policy So it can be good information great information well collected It can be poor information and then it can be really well done It can be it can be done Effectively and engaging me in the way that John and his team do or it could be done. It could be presented rather poorly Bottom line bad information presented poorly not such a problem good information great information presented well is great It's what we're all aiming for and again I have this worry about the really poor information that looks rather good and looks influential And it's often the stuff that policy makers might grab at so That's the context that we're working in to try and solve some of those challenges and the other context as has Been alluded to in the last few speakers is that policies now really in this bigger picture game This is a slide that Peter Holmgren DG of C4 has been using a lot this summer very effectively It's it's describing how pop forestry now sits outside its own little domain It has to interact with these other very important Policy arenas, so we've got to do something that that that tackles Poor information or bad use of information and and and is outside our comfort zone Perhaps and and how we we're going to be tackling that now the medics with their enormously broad topic set Networks came up 20 years ago with something that they called evidence-based medicine some people don't like the term Evidence informed medicine is is a nice term and perhaps one that I prefer myself And we thought perhaps we can we can look at how this might work in forestry, and it's reasonably simple It's getting together the best science that you possibly can Those people who are involved on the ground and have real expertise in working with communities or something people like Maria And so on and others here and society's needs and preferences because what science says does not in a linear way Necessarily feed into what we're going to do for society So in the middle sits evidence-based medicine in the medical field, and we hope will fit evidence-informed forestry So that's the model that we tried to build on and there are many many Long-standing successful examples of this being used in other fields, not just medicine. So we've drawn on all the the great information and resources and experiences in these other other areas and C4 has led a Coalition if you like a collaboration with these partners here that you can see with diffid funding generous funding We've actually started to explore how evidence-based forestry systematic reviews might play out in our fields. So The current Desire I suppose of this program is is mainly to conduct systematic reviews And I'll tell you a little bit about those in a moment But also importantly to get people talking together in that collaborative three-circle model that I spoke about earlier To identify good questions for reviews and good policy where we need good policy to be developed So these things work outside just the systematic review and also to promote good practice so that we're not constantly doing that Bottom left to top right poor information used rather attractively kind of model So that's where we are looking at very broad types of questions with complex landscapes And perhaps rather narrow questions about sort of methods of measuring things in our traditional forest domains All of these scales are able to be tackled in in the program So really the systematic review Sits in that circle of best science, but it itself is is collected using a collaborative approach So although it informs good science it is done with a lot of stakeholders It's not just talking to your best friends and coming up with the best papers Which happen to be mine or Peters and nobody else's it's a real attempt to be broad and collaborative and Inclusive and it has it has a very strict methodology Which I won't go into too much today because I've only got six minutes or or fewer So, but it's a three-stage process really to find the question. Is that an important question that policy makers want? Do we have enough evidence? Scientific papers and others to support such a question if we have let's let's review it and let's review it in a very thorough comprehensive transparent and reliable way repeatable way and it's set up exactly like a Scientific project would be with a good method a Method that's peer reviewed then the results are looked at that's peer reviewed then the conclusions are drawn That's peer reviewed so it's set up although It's a slightly dull narrow reviews sitting in a library looking at published literature and other forms of evidence It is set up as a scientific experiment in that sense. It is it's a it's a scientific approach to Literature review it's as almost as simple as that and then very importantly a particularly in the context of this session Is this wider engagement and sending your results out using such tools as John's got? available through C4 and other important influential relevant For that speak to the audience is that you want to reach I won't go into great detail about the stages But perhaps people who are interested can talk to me later these slides will be available anyway And we might want to get into some discussions around our tables But essentially those are the steps of a systematic review as I say they're like a scientific experiment where you go through in a very very Rigorous way and there's slightly shorter versions of these called systematic maps which are rather exciting We're starting to look at those where you just concentrate on those first Six stages and these can be also very powerful tools to tell policy makers How much information is there out there in the question that you're interested in and what kind of quality is it? So that there's a kind of landscape if you like of the research and other evidence in your field So good progress in the 12 months since we've been up and running lots of systematic reviews are up and running. We've got a steering committee with our partners Keeping us on track if you like and and trying to it's not really keeping us on track I don't know why I said that it's trying to Discover together what we might want out of this So it's it's very open early days really and we're being guided by these other initiatives, but not bound by them This is something we'll have to find out for ourselves in the forestry and landscape community I'd urge you to look at the website that's hosted by C4. It's a nice little website lots of stuff on it We've just had a call for new proposals for systematic reviews. Some of you in the room may have submitted some I hope so some fantastic ideas came through and we'll be choosing some new topics later These are the existing topics which I'll leave on the on the slides for you to look at later But you can see just looking at this a very widespread of questions Which have policy relevance they have plenty of literature that will inform them and they're pretty interesting to do so Those are the kinds of questions will look at but we're looking at different scales different types of question Which will inform different policy arenas So there's more work being done You can get involved. We'll be announcing something called t20q quite soon Which will be a collaborative bottom-up way of asking you what you think are the most important policy and review questions and we'll be rolling that out I think in January February and perhaps launching it in March if we can get up and running and we're really hoping to have the Delphi phase of this where people have collected all these exciting ideas that come in through Internet personal contact and workshop Situations and a Delphi group of people who'll look at those and push them back out to the community We hope will be sitting in Salt Lake City connected with the UFO Congress, which which seems like a very good broad-ish Arena for us to make those decisions But this will be announced. Please do keep an eye on the c4 webpage We'll reach you because John knows who you are John knows who everybody is and with his incredible databases and those of the partner Organizations we really are interested in reaching out to as many people as we possibly can to find out what you think are the important questions In the way that the youth session did so that's it. That's the web page The questions that were on the tables for you to discuss later. I truly believe that the systematic review approach Speaks to all of those questions in one way or another So I would urge you to ask questions of throw out some ideas and engage with that idea when we when we sit around the Tables later and if there are any particular questions about the process I realize I've covered it in very quickly and there's a great deal of detail that I haven't said just grab me at some point today or tomorrow and Thank you very much indeed for listening Thanks very much Joe We're gonna turn now to two very interesting cases of how Research has helped inform inform policy and I want to start by saying Talking a little bit about some work that pro for supported a couple years ago We're working with the global partnership of forest landscape restoration the GP FLR Commissioned a study looking at the potential for restoring degraded landscapes through through reforestation through a forestation farmer managed natural regeneration and so on and That mapping process or that process generated a map a global map Which identified somewhere around two billion hectares of land? Globally which could be restored through these through these types of measures and what was interesting about the map was it kind of Conveyed the message. It got a very high profile when it came out. It conveyed the big picture message We have two billion hectares out there. We should be able to do something with but the practical question after that was well So what do we do about it at the country level? And how do we inform policy at the country level to bring landscape restoration much more fully into the policy framework and As an outcome of that discussion Pro for working with IUCN IUCN with support from pro for Finance the preparation of a national assessment of the potential for landscape restoration in Ghana And the idea was to develop some tools about how you would go go about doing these types of assessments to identify the specific locations where landscapes could be restored and so on and That tool now is being rolled out in a serious way globally with IUCN partly funded by by DFID through no four and The next two speakers will be talking a little bit about How they've been working with the landscape restoration assessments? The first speaker is Andrea Nahara Achevero who holds a bachelor's degree in biology from the university University that del Valle de Guatemala She has a master's of science in ecology and a master's in political science as well She holds a conservation biology professor position and today is managing the strategic ecosystems Conservation program at the National Forest Institute in Guatemala. So Andrea, please Thank you very much for the opportunity. I'm going to present The potential for restoration of forest landscapes in Guatemala and its impacts on national and regional policy This is an example of how to link like science and policymakers some first of all Guatemala and that is Guatemala and We have 34% of the country with forest cover that means 3.7 million hectares approximately as in 2010 and more than 146,000 hectares of forest have been lost between 2006 and 2010 that is a high risk and the rate Excuse me. The rate is approximately 38 100,000 hectares per year that is like Very a lot of hectares lost each year and that makes that the country has a great potential for restoration Unfortunately because we have a lot of deforestation. We have a great potential for restoration What's a mile has signed international conventions that include restoration targets that should be met For example, the bond challenge the convention on biological diversity, etc Also national policies make it mandatory to for example the Constitution the forestry law The law and protected areas and the bio biodiversity policy make it mandatory to restore degraded areas So what have we done in Guatemala and here are the three examples that I want to show you The way in which we fill that gap between science and policy or we try to fill it First of all, there is an interest in recovering degraded areas in the whole country Second or maybe the first example is the economic incentives for a forest station that have been Started since a few years ago by the my institution the Institute of National Forestry Second is the map of potential areas for a forest station And third of all is the national strategy for forest landscape restoration, which is in process right now So I'm going to go through these three examples And the first of all is the economic incentives for a forest station my institution since 1998 Since 1998 gives incentives for reforestation and restoration The name of the program is pinford, which means forestry incentives program In 15 years more than 112,000 hectares have been reforested from 1998 to 2012 This program goes on right now. We don't have the data for 2013 More than 149.2 million has been the amount of the incentive or the investment that the government of Guatemala has made in this Reforestation and natural generation There have been approximately 335,000 recipients that means People that have received those incentives for keeping their land reforested or let it restore The second program is called PIMPEP. It is mean Incentives program for small landholders. That is the difference between the previous program PIMFOR is for great landowners and PIMPEP is for small landholders This program is more recent It has been from 2007 until now it's still going on and it has been a 2792 hectares were for a study in these six years the amount of the incentives has been 2.0 million of dollars and This includes reforestation, agroforestry and this amount of recipients This is the second program that the government of Guatemala has implemented to Promote reforestation and natural generation And these both programs have been created by First of all knowing the natural landscapes the ecosystems the degraded ecosystems etc. So that is This is the the summary of the two programs PIMFOR and PIMPEP the Reforested area the incentive or the investment in Reforestation and restoration and the number of recipients that has been from these two programs The second thing I want to present you or the example is the map of potential areas for Restoration and the criteria we used first of all There are three critters. The first one was areas without forest excluding Intensive agriculture for example sugarcane or watermelon which are like extensive very extensive in Guatemala and intensive It includes agroforestry Forest landscapes for production forest landscapes for conservation for example in protected areas and Sylvopastoral systems The second criteria is riparian forests and lakes We have a buffer from 50 to 100 meters in rivers and lakes And third criteria is mangrove areas the forest between 2008 and 2012 So these are the three a criteria that we used to create this a restoration map and Here it is and this is still on work. I mean it's not a national Approved yet, but it's it's ongoing and here you can see in green all the the areas potential for restoration That is I mean, this is a very useful instrument for us in Guatemala because it shows potential donors or potential Scientists where we need their help we need to help for example in river in forest in mangrove areas in wetlands In agroforestry systems in Sylvopastoral systems in forest for production and forest for conservation They can work or help us work outside protected areas inside protected areas, etc. These are the proposed areas for restoration I just told you which them were and in total we have more than 3 million hectares as Potential for restoration you can see here the percentage of the total of lands available and the the types of Things I just tell you The third example is I mean the incentives that I just told you and the map are like ingredients or main main things So that we can start yet in Guatemala the National Forest Landscape Restoration Strategy. This is a process Which has been very participatory including national institutions NGOs international cooperation Agencies Municipalities civil society and Academy we are building this strategy right now using the map using the incentives Using private sector. I mean participating in private sector, etc. The strategy should be finished by 2014 next year hopefully And the impacts on regional and national policy that all has all this has First of all, it is a national interest the good the actual government It has one of the working spheres Regarding a forestry a recovery recovery of forests and that have been degraded, etc The recovery of the great ecosystems Has of course environmental goods and services that have really provided to the people protection of biological diversity Carbon capture and all these will entail poverty reduction improvement of food security mitigation of climate change incentives for investments community participation and information for decision-making This is exactly what we want to show you that through science I mean knowledge generated by scientists. We can inform policymakers We have made incentives the the two programs that I just told you the map and also the national forest landscape restoration strategy so That is what we want to keep on going with this with these goals and The conclusion and challenges for what the mala is well as I told you we have more than 3.5 million hectares available for restoration Many of them are in poverty zones or vulnerable areas of the country especially And the question that we have in the country or in the institution is how we will pay for this restoration actions in Guatemala Of course, the government is very interested in GO's communities But the idea one of the ideas that we have we have is that we have to create sustainable business models Restoration should become a benefit through ecosystems goods and services for the communities and the government and not a cost That is the idea that we have we need to pay this Restoration or we want to pay this restoration because of all the benefits that I just showed you in the previous slide But we don't have it. We don't want it to become a cost We want to become a benefit for the communities for the government for all the people The thing is that private investments are possible and in some point necessary to we maybe can't do it alone Only the government and communities and Academy. We just we want the private sector to be involved There are good samples for from the sugar cane owners That they have been investment investing in in this restoration actions And at last the national commitment and external cooperation are necessary in Guatemala We fortunately count with support from from international organizations The government as I told you is very interested is one of the working spheres of the current government and so around we are very very excited about future outcomes and That is all. Thank you Thank you so much. Andrea. That was really interesting. I really like this convergence of interests around landscape restoration development The issue of financing and how the different tools have been mobilized to bring a different outcome to bear The last speaker today is Enrique Munoz Lopez He holds degrees in geography from the School of Geography at the National Autonomous University of Mexico From 1995 to 2012 he served as chief manager of geographic information systems at the National Commission for Knowledge and the use of Biodiversity and he's now the coordinator of spatial analysis In the bio biological corridors department in the National Commission for Biodiversity in Mexico So and Enrique over to you. Thank you. Thank you and I Will like to show them my presentation in seven minutes or less This is the original title for the project and we We was working in a special objective like we will I would like to show the topics about the Presentation the international programs the background objectives methodology results national level this is a special Temp and regional level conclusion Available on the website We are working with the the different institution in the international programs This project was possible for by IUCN and we are working in the different projects mainly in the sustainable a prediction systems and red plus program for monitoring support of the red and advancing red now this is the objective general objective the challenge is to Identify identify the space for restoration then for the restoration the object is was to Identify potential areas to implement initiatives of forest landscape restoration in Mexico the information generate use a Tool to manage local international financial reserve to write restoration efforts in in that picture We we were in the in the place in order to verify the information about the model that in the next slide Explained the the model the model was in the Create with these these topics the defined criteria Gathering information or collect information with different institutions that process evolution multi-criteria with different experts in the difference organization join in the workshop and define the the criteria in order to put the Integrate the values in each map and mapping First define criteria we In the workshop participate process with institutional actors more or less Professional to define ecological and economical and social criteria and and then gather information working with another institution mainly with the official institution in Mexico about the Geography and the statistical the idea was to collect all the information because if you have the the information is very easy to model the In the project, but if you don't have the the information the information you have with this and That is the the main the main information for example the we Were process the forest sonic for the National Commission for its in three levels high median and Slow and then the forest and ricks this includes the different social impacts for human the potential and real land use This is the special variable because we Use only the high ricks to what extraction? And then the erosion ricks what is the the main soil so it's with the different problems like According with the erosion And this is the the next variables level of reservation vegetation Vegetation primary vegetation or natural vegetation and five resilience and each Vegetation has a value for resilience and of the fire Claude forest. It is important element in Mexico because it's a special vegetation in Mexico We only we have Small areas in Mexico with a huge biodiversity This is the the the model in three In three sentences cartographic overlight processing geography the first time we do yes values in for a classification final weight in the Put the information in each map adding mark with a most fragile ecosystem like the Claude forest and then when you combine this information and with the value of change the Cartographic and this is the final result in Mexico the the suggest surface for forest landscape restoration is 13% the country of the country and You you can see different levels in red is the high level for attention to the forest landscape forest and Median and are low in the in the yellow color Now in order to verify the model we we were In in that place in Chiapas state because in that place we We have the different organization that we were working with with them This is the the model when you have a day the model in that For example in Mexico kids very big in Mexico you need verify the information and the the red colors like This is the the results the High and medium and low For the landscape restoration and with the classification land use what happened when you Put the information over the land's classification. We verify the information About in order to verify the this point Obviously we need to Define the variables when you are working in the in the level in the different scale like the particular scale with with this when you obtain the information the idea was to put this information available for all the people and this is a Essential that information for Priority potential site for restoration the map is a good reference tool for future work in conclusion We know their institution involved in forest resources in Mexico It showed the potential of information management technology and modeling geographic space to others complex problem for of land use When the information is available it's easy to Compare with different organizations in order to take the decision or make decision or support some projects or Or combine this for example you can't Combine with a corregions in Mexico or the areas or important based conservations Priority terrestrial regions by the interlocal regions when you combine this and you can You can put the disinformation and You can see the the relation with biodiversity For example with this information, this is the the same process more or less the same process with the landscape forestation and then yesterday was integrate these maps available on the website of Conabio and Let me show the address The the map now available in In Conabio more or less Conabio has Almost for those and maps available in in Conabio The idea is to combine this information with any any any maps that that you need to analyze for example with the biodiversity species if you choose any species Landscape reforestation is You have an idea in order to support some projects or some Spaces in Mexico now you can download this map with metadata geographic metadata and you can obtain with the with a link the methodology all the methodology that was created this this map and And the end I think this the last slide. Oh, this is the website. Thank you very much Thanks very much Enrique. That's also a really Very interesting example both Guatemala and Mexico I find really fascinating in terms of how this kind of analysis is being used to inform investment You know you start with a demand for better information about where you need to bring landscapes back into productivity And then you use technology and mapping exercises to help you do that and then you Move the investment in those directions I'm going to invite my colleague Vanda Santos to to to take the next the next role For the session. She's a knowledge sharing officer at C4 and before that She's only been at C4 since September before that. She was at FAO as an information officer She owes a PhD in information management from the University of Madrid And is an information expert focused on knowledge management knowledge sharing communication liaison capacity development and outreach And she's going to help us kind of tease out some of the questions that we've already posed to you So Vanda over to you Thank you so much I'm trying to figure out how we're gonna do that and we're gonna do it together We're going to break into groups because the idea is you have the opportunity to talk to the Speakers and and interact with them But instead of it being in a plenary you're going to do it in a small groups so we're going to break into groups of seven people and the idea is that you can move your chairs and Get a group of seven people We're going to have four questions that we're going to discuss in these groups and Those questions Will be each group will discuss one question and then we'll move To the other group to discuss in the next question So we will have 40 minutes to discuss Four questions and also to interact to each other to try to do a Knowledge sharing. I think we get a lot of information in this room A lot of knowledge in this room and this will be the great opportunity for you to talk to each other So, please can you get seven people? Together and start talking Okay, let's do it this way. I'm going to start here one two three four One two three four One No, it's it's it's needs to be I'm going to do it's four groups That's going to discuss four questions and we will have many many groups that we need that will discuss question one question two Question three question four Okay, so let's try to do it together Again one two three Four one two three four one two three four One two the lady with the computer hello One two three four You are one two three four Again one two three four So what is going to happen is all the ones will get together Up to seven people all the tools will get together up to seven people Are you with me? Okay, thank you, and then you can grab your lunch and just get to the group Tell me okay We need us to get the group I Yeah, maybe how many of you guys actually research Everyone here I Think I But really, one way or another, it's one set. For my point of view, I also said that how do we know the way to do it? Well, one way or another, we are in a country of one specific kind. We can come up at the end with strong assault assaults that we have to the police. For example, the police make use of, don't understand many statistics and analysis. So, at some time we need to skip the statistics part, the mathematical part. I suggest to validate if no good methods, but careful methods, careful methods designed to identify against the same strategies again, before identifying your actors or your policy number. Identify your state or your structure. But I would say that one issue is that we understand the wrong part. Because I may have wrong, but I have a feeling that we are in a very strong pre-conception of what stakeholders are. The policy makers never read more than six pages of different schools. Or maybe there are, again, tailors. But to package, we need to know who are these people. And we are back to the actual question. Also, one other question was, what do they need to know? So the first one is the research question. So what you feed into this window between policy makers and science, the second one is, but who is at the receiving end? And how does the product have to look like? Maybe one step before the motion asking what do they want to know. Maybe that's all of these answering questions, which I actually love the question. And first of all, you should listen to what is actually going to be the next year. You already came from that group to this one probably. So Michel, you need to share with them what they are at the group. How do you make sure that the research you're producing resonates with the people it meets twice? Do you have to make these decisions? Thinking that we know what stakeholders want in that actual determining requirement. And it's very different stakeholders from the beginning of the discussions. So if you're keen to know what, how do you guys think you determine what stakeholders that you're trying to address need to know? I think it's really difficult to decide. I mean, I think it's really difficult to decide. How well do we know? I mean, sometimes it's hard to know what to speak to. As you know, who's engaged in the questions. But in the same time, we can actually see some of the values that are being used from the standard to know exactly what the other stakeholders are. We can ask them sometimes. Yeah, we can ask them. Yeah, so Michel's got the answer. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Organizational boundaries. Where they identify these gaps and then you come up with like important things. So the suggestion was trying to create a different sort of economic scale. So a small research organization trying to communicate with a large family. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, rather than to ask everybody to kind of get back in the lines of chairs, I think what we'll do is just go very quickly around each of the four groups and ask if you can make just two key points that came out of the discussion. And it's very hard. So that's why there's a repertoire in each group, pick one or two points, key messages that you'd like to be conveyed through this process because we're going to try and summarize some of these points going forward. And then I'm going to ask a colleague from DFID, Katrina, to make a few closing comments. So where shall we start? Floor? Are you ready? Okay, who has question one? Okay, let's go ahead. Okay, I win. Two key points. Okay, the question was making knowledge generation and uptake successful. So two key points are that the people who are going to make use of the knowledge need to generate a common language with the people who are developing that so that they're able to articulate their requirements effectively. And the second key point, after half a point, which is we need effective dissemination back, but also that as researchers we shouldn't only be guided by those requirements and often it's the role of researchers to challenge the existing requirements and states of knowledge as well. So that introduces new sets of challenges, but it's not something that should be ignored. It's the role of critical research in that cycle as well. Very excellent. Thank you. Okay. Question two was what are some of the barriers to sharing knowledge about landscapes? And that's missing from up there about the landscapes. But I'd say the first one is, well, what is a landscape? And then a lot of confusion about perhaps it's as a concept, there's some immaturity though my colleague sitting next to me right here says, no, he's been working on it for 40 years. So maybe not. Challenge of labeling it. Is it necessary to label it? Is it necessary to have a common label and a common understanding of what a landscape is? Another issue that we touched on was sort of the political economy of knowledge as a barrier. So for example, you'd have the challenge that a small NGO has in communicating with a large palm oil plantation company, for example, an indigenous group, the challenge an indigenous group has communicating with a large research organization. And then one other one I'll just touch on is a willingness to share knowledge. Some organizations seem very willing to do it and others less so. Okay, great. Thanks very much. Question three. Question three is over here, which we define as the difficult question. How well do we know what other people need to know? So this is a question of defining our audience. And what the discussions really came out with was it needs to be a participatory and iterative feedback process. So, you know, often people don't necessarily know who their audiences are when they start out the research question. And there needs to be definitely a commitment to figuring out who the audience is, what they're interested in, and what the knowledge gaps are so that the research is relevant to those questions. But it's also important that, you know, there's no preconceived idea of what we think others need to know and that we think we know who our audience already is. And that was mentioned by Moira actually that, you know, often people go to workshops and they think that, you know, they're engaging with the right audience, but it might take them a couple of years to realize actually that's not the real audience at all. So being open and making sure that we are aware of our assumptions that when we assume who our audiences are. Great. Thanks. And question four. Key messages. One, similarly, understand your audience using different tools like scoping, exercise, network analysis, working your contacts in ministries, going to government workshops, being proactive, also using different methods to talk to different members of the community. For example, women might require different listening strategies in some communities. And then phase two in designing effective products is being able to translate and re-translate and reinterpret what knowledge you want to pass on in different formats, different media, combining online and on-life offline jumbled. Very important in some, still today, there's a sense that knowledge networks that only, and knowledge products that only exist online are not as effective as knowledge that's carried through face-to-face workshops and radio and some communities paper is even not that effective. So really translating and spreading the word. Thanks very much. We are going to save all of these and try and make some sense out of them. I don't think we don't want to lose the richness of the discussion. I want to ask Katrina if she could make just a few quick comments and then we'll close up. Hi. Well, firstly, I'd just like to thank everyone for their participation and especially the speakers. We gave some really interesting presentations and I think that we've referred to them as well within our groups. I think that we're at a time now where knowledge and evidence is really critical, especially coming from a donor perspective where we need this to go forward with our programming and that's why it's really supportive of these initiatives and the work of Profor and the other speakers as well. So I just really want to say that thanks to everyone for participating and what we're going to do is we're going to use the outputs from this as Peter was saying with the landscapes. I think maybe it wasn't Peter actually, sorry. I was mentioning that we're going to use the outputs and have all this kind of knowledge that we've all been learning from and sharing with each other and put that out after this event. So yeah, I think thanks everyone for participating. It's been great. Thanks so much and thanks also to DFID for being so supportive of NOPOR and the team. So with that I'd like to bring this to closure and I'd like to express my thanks to the panelists and also to everyone who stayed. It always impresses me when you have a group of people who are really interested in a series of questions, they make it work and that's what you've done tonight so we really appreciate that. It's a really very interesting and useful event for us. So thank you very much and I hope you enjoy your evening and tomorrow as well. Thanks very much.