 Welcome to the LEN Dialogue Webinar Series, organized in partnership with the Ford Foundation, the LEN Portal Foundation, the Tenure Facility, and at the Thomson Reuters Foundation. Thank you for joining us. My name is Thin, and I'm an independent food and climate journalist, and I'm delighted to be moderating today's discussion on financing LEN rights, investing in people and nature, which also happens to be the last one for this year. Now, when we were planning this event, we wanted to highlight how LEN rights for indigenous communities have historically been greatly underfunded. Now, the good news is that that is about to change because two weeks ago, during COP26, a group of donors announced a 1.7 billion funding pledge to do just that. Let me just repeat that number. That's 1.7 billion to help indigenous peoples and local communities protect their land. Well, we have four fantastic experts, including from one of the donors who will be unpacking that pledge, what it means, and other issues around financing in today's webinar. First, some housekeeping rules. Number one, this webinar is in English, but we have simultaneous translations in Spanish, French, and Portuguese. To access the translations, you just need to go to this little globe icon at the bottom of your Zoom window. You need to click on it and then select the language that you want. Number two, this webinar will last 90 minutes. We will first have a discussion for about an hour with the panelists, and then this will be followed by about 30 minutes of Q&A. Now, if you have questions to the speakers, please post them in the Q&A box, not the chat box. Three, please feel free to tweet using the hashtag lend dialogues. That's hashtag lend dialogues in one word, and you can follow the live tweeting from the land porter and tenure facility Twitter accounts as well. Now, we're also recording today's session and we'll be sharing the link afterwards. And finally, please use the chat box to let us know who you are, which organization you belong to, and where you're logging in from. I know that we have about 550 people who have actually signed up for this webinar. And I can see that already the number of people who have logged in are more than 100, which is great. And it reflects the huge interest in today's topic, which, like I said, is around financing the land rights of indigenous people and local communities. Now, again, as I said before, this has historically been greatly underfunded in a study released by the Rainforest Foundation Norway earlier this year, found that in the past decade, less than 1% of climate cooperation funds were allocated to forest management or to legalize indigenous territories. And only 0.017% of these funds, that's 0.017% less than 0.02% of these funds actually mentioned an indigenous organization in the implementation. And this isn't because of a lack of evidence because research have consistently shown that protecting indigenous territories mitigate climate change and conserves biodiversity. It also decreases the risk of zoonotic disease spillover. Besides, defending community land rights is also about addressing inequality and human rights. So why have donors shied away from funding this given the benefits? Why now? And now what with this pledge? How can this money support indigenous and local communities? How do we make sure that it reaches those who need it most? What are the opportunities? What are the limitations? So many questions and so little time. But we're gonna try our best with the help of four excellent speakers. And let me introduce them to you in alphabetical order. We have Harold Liversage, who is a land tenure specialist at EFAD or the International Fund for Agricultural Development, a Rome-based UN agency. We have Kevin Curry, program officer at the Ford Foundation. We have Nonnet Rojo, who is the executive director of the tenure facility. And last but definitely not the least, we have Tontiak Katane, who is the general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities or GATC for short. Now Tontiak will be speaking in Spanish. So how this is going to work is that I'm going to ask a few rounds of questions to our speakers. And I would really like this to be a discussion. So I would really encourage the panelists to sort of respond to each other's answers and built on them. And then if you want to speak, I would suggest you should just raise your hand like this and then I'll bring you in. Now to the audience, please use the Q&A box to send your questions. And if possible, please also identify yourself and then the organization you belong to. We'll get to them during the Q&A portion of this event. Now I'm going to start by asking all of our speakers to tell us about the significance of this 1.7 billion funding pledge because why not start with some good news for a change? And I would like them to take no more than two to three minutes each to answer this question. And actually Tontiak, I am going to ask you to start first and tell us what does it mean for your community and the communities that you work with that there might be this large sum of money to protect Lenrights? Buenos dias con todos. Mi nombre es Tontia Catán, de la Amazonia ecuatoriana. My name is Coniada Recoica and Coniador General de Alianza Global. En el frente a los anuncios que se hicieron sobre 1.7 millones de dólares aparentemente para muchas comunidades, parecería una suma muy grande, pero sin embargo es un porcentaje el mínimo a nivel global. Entonces por un lado, sí, saludamos esta iniciativa que anteriormente no se habían hecho para los fuertes indígenas y comunidades locales que hayan anunciado un grupo de gobiernos y filántropos privados. Sin embargo, lo que sí estamos planteando es que haya claridad, haya claridad de cómo se va a movilizar esos fondos para que realmente lleguen a las comunidades y cuáles va a ser el mecanismo para evaluar para que los fuertes indígenas estén en el comité, el asiento de verificación, evaluación y toma de decisiones. Entonces, aquí ahora el reto está. Ya hay un anuncio político global, el reto está cómo se va a trabajar con esos fondos con pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales. ¿Qué mecanismo se va a utilizar y las comunidades indígenas cómo van a ser insertos en toma de decisiones de esos fondos para poder ser ejecutado en el territorio? Ojo, el tema de financiamiento tiene que ser para nosotros es con enfoque de derechos. Esos financiamientos que no potencializa los derechos de los pueblos indígenas y no fomenta, no fortalece la implementación el ejercicio de los derechos en todo el contexto de los derechos para pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales no va a ser existente. Muchas gracias. Muchas gracias, Satyntiak. And particularly for emphasizing that, you know, the number is big but that on a global scale this is just the beginning and of the end and the importance of having people like yourself, indigenous peoples right, you know, to have a seat at the table when decisions are made. Actually, Kevin, can I come to you next because your organization is one of the ones who were part of the funding pledge and the Fort Foundation has been working on indigenous rights issues for a very long time. So I'm imagining you might be able to answer actually some of the issues that Satyntiak himself has raised. Well, I agree with Satyntiak. On the one hand, it's a big number. You don't often hear indigenous peoples in local communities and then billions of dollars in the same sentence. So I think it is a historic announcement and a really positive step in the right direction. If you look at the data from Rainforest Foundation Norway, it shows over the last 10 years it's been average of about $140 million a year going to indigenous local community, land rights recognition and forest management from bilateral government donors and philanthropic donors. This pledge of 1.7 billion over five years which comes from a group of five bilateral donors and 17 private funders. That's about two and a half times the average amount that's been going to this issue. So it is a significant step up, but you can also look at the overall set of financial commitments made at the COP for forest and land use, which is around 19 billion. So this is still a tiny fraction of the overall amount of money out there for forest and land use and the overall amount of money out there for forest and land use is still way too small. Only about two or 3% of climate finance goes to forest and land use. And you can see that the money for indigenous peoples and local communities is still a small fraction of the percent for forest despite the fact that half the world's land is managed by indigenous peoples and local communities. So Ford Foundation is really proud to be part of this pledge and we think it is a step in the right direction but it's also a wake up call that we're going to need to see new commitments like this coming out very frequently because we're way behind in raising the money or what ultimately is not just a massive human rights violation that's taking place across the world but really under the valued climate change solution. We have the ability to recognize indigenous community rights at scale. Communities are ready, the infrastructure is ready. What's been missing is the money and we're happy to take one small step forward in making some of that money available. Great, thanks so much, Kevin. Harold Nannette, who wants to go next? Any... I don't mind either way, Nannette. If you want to go, I'm happy to... Go ahead, Harold. Okay, great. Well, thanks Nannette and thanks to the organizers for this opportunity. Well, I have to agree with both Tuntiak and Kevin. I think it's a most welcome announcement, this pledge but really it's not enough. Very quickly just to say if that is the International Fund for Agricultural Development we're a financing institution that's part of the UN system. We finance agricultural rural development programs focusing on empowering rural communities in the developing world. Indigenous peoples and local communities in over 100 countries. Our sort of annual investment target is around one and a half billion per annum in various agricultural rural development programs. Now what we recognize is securing land and natural resource rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities is fundamental to achieving development outcomes and the sustainable development goals. Our support for tenure security measures can be quite diverse from recognizing and recording community or collective rights to supporting land recordation at a family level which is especially relevant for women and for youth access to land. Supporting land and natural resource management plans codifying documenting traditional customary land natural resource management practices. So quite a range of measures but our investments in these measures can be quite modest but I think one of the key messages I would make have is to say it's a modest investment but it has a big impact. So we estimate around two to 5% of our funding goes into securing land and natural resource rights. If you take it as a total amount of 1.5 billion it might sound like quite a lot around 20 to 30 million but spread over many countries and many communities it's still a very modest amount. I think what's important is also to in terms of I think the good news is that if we work with local communities indigenous peoples in supporting them in securing their land and natural resource rights it doesn't have to cost a lot. The actual work doesn't have to cost a lot but they can't do it on their own either so it's important that we have a range of partners supporting and above all the governments in those developing countries also playing a role. And I think that's where if I can play an important role in helping to leverage resources to support those communities. That's it from my side for now. Thank you. Great, thank you so much. Nenette before I come to you actually I'm just been told that one of Harold's colleagues who actually works with indigenous communities in particular is here very briefly. Antonela do you want to say anything about the funding pledge? Thank you very much. Thank you for this opportunity and the time that you have set up this webinar soon after. We are not yet recovering from the COP ourselves. No, it's very important. Yeah, what strikes me is first of all the good news. Finally, indigenous peoples are recognized. Finally, we understand that the ancestral knowledge of indigenous peoples and that is what I told while we were there is the knowledge to provide the nature-based solutions and the solutions that humanity in large is looking at. Now we need to unpack this pledge. We need to understand exactly what is behind this pledge. And as already I've seen also in the Q&A how indigenous peoples can access it. Now at EFAD we have already 15 years of experience of managing a fund which is not only dedicated to indigenous peoples, but it's managed itself by indigenous peoples. And this is the indigenous peoples assistance facility. It is a fund where the board is formed by indigenous people, representative, the organizations at regional level who are supporting the implementation of the projects are indigenous and indigenous peoples community can send their proposal. So they design, they receive the funds and they implement with the support of regional indigenous peoples organization for building the capacity. And the access to me is crucial because we know that you cannot flood communities with money. We know that the reporting is not an easy way and we know that unless we accompany through indigenous peoples consultant organization to support the capacity building at the country level and the community level, money is not enough. So it's very welcome, but let's also understand how this money will be channel and how this money will really empower the community at the ground level and particularly the youth and women. To me, this should be the focal point. We know it's climate financing. We know it will focus on climate but indigenous peoples don't think sectorial. It will not be climate because indigenous peoples think holistically. So it will be land rights. It will be a transfer of knowledge from generation to the other. So this is now our role also to understand all of us, what is the role we can play, but also to be vigilant on how really supporting indigenous peoples to be able to attract these resources their own rules from their own perspective and from their self-determining development. Over. Great. Thank you very much, Antonella. Nanette. Thank you, Antonella and everyone. I'm very pleased to be here. For me, I would like to share a few things. The tenure facilities perspective is taking into account years of work that indigenous peoples, local communities have done over time to have their rights formally recognized or have some court decisions such that their rights are recognized. So what we do is to advance that support directly indigenous peoples and local communities who actually have been, and this is where the fund is very clear, managing forests and are in their territories standing are the forests that we value for this work in addressing climate change. So to advance this in the tenure facility, we recognize there is an ecosystem of actors that are supporting indigenous peoples. But what we do is directly fund indigenous peoples organizations with larger funds, $1 million a year average, up to five to six years. And for this, they have in the last four years achieved 14 million hectares in advancing tenure rights. Now, why tenure? So this fund is actually to add to the work of recognizing tenure because they are the ones that are protecting nature and are key in scaling up nature-based solutions. So the way to address climate in this fund is to fund land rights. And so that I would contribute our lesson here is that we don't do this alone. We do this with a huge amount of recognition of the movement that has started a long time ago to get indigenous peoples to where they are now and we need to invest in having larger funds go directly to them. So having interviewed many of their leaders in the COP, their values are important, what they say it's direct, it has to be flexible, it has to be trust-based and trust means networks, networks that actually had been working with them for a long time, that some agency they give to some organizations if they do not want to handle the funds directly, but they also choose to handle funds directly, long-term, it can't be short-term. Now our challenge here is that some of the donors actually have time limitations, right? Now indigenous peoples, we all know it, they don't operate five years, they're operating generations, intergenerational commitments. So that's so important for us and respect for their culture. Their culture is a different world where we know it, they also consider nature as beings. So they wait, they're patient, they're observing, they're looking at patterns, sometimes our funding cannot justify some of these, waiting too long, receipts don't come back too fast, they're all over in the interiors, it's hard for them to come back. So these are the things, it's not because they don't know how to report, it's just their systems are different. So our systems now is very much driven by accountability from the perspective of which worldview. That's our worldview, that's the donor worldview, that's the big organization's worldview. And it is their need, it's not like we're judging this, this is the need of the donors and the big organizations. Now how can we make the change that's needed for the indigenous organizations who are strong in what they do to receive this funding directly? So that is our challenge, that's our question. And this is something that we're strongly discovering in the tenure facility. What we realized, indigenous peoples actually report, they're accountable, they're very good at this much funding, at this much funding. So that's now, so if this amounts of money are channeled, how can we make this better? Plumbing is really important and that's, I think I'll stop there, but it's very clear, their message is very clear. Give it to them directly and then help support that, but don't hesitate and recognize their systems, our systems will have to adjust to theirs. And how do we do that? Thank you, Nonette. In fact, we have a question that looks specifically also to make sure, how do we make sure that the money goes to those who needs most and that's coming up soon. So I hope you can elaborate a little bit more there as well. And if I could again, just remind all the speakers, including myself, to slow it down when we speak. So that it actually helps the translators. Now, for the second question, I actually want to step back a bit and ask a very general one. How does secure land rights for indigenous peoples and local communities help with climate and conservation? Now I mentioned this link in the introduction, but I think it'll just be great if the speakers could explain this in a bit more detail. Harold, can I come to you first for this because you're a specialist on this issue. Thanks very much. I'll try and talk slower. I'm also mindful that we want to say a lot in a short space of time because there's a lot to say. I think it's very clear that, well, if I put it in the negative, without secure rights to your land and natural resources, your ability to be able to invest in climate change, adaptation, sustainable land management, et cetera, is undermined. You're more likely to be in situations of conflict or disputes. So we recognize that securing people's land and natural resource rights is fundamental for climate change, adaptation, for conservation, but it's much broader than that. I think, as I mentioned earlier, it's fundamental to the realization of development outcomes more broadly and in particular the sustainable development goals. I don't know if people know that there are tenure indicators included in the sustainable development goals that its goal one, focusing particularly on poverty eradication and goal five on gender equality. Now, what that is talking about is that tenure security is fundamental for socioeconomic empowerment and development of rural communities in particular and for social inclusion. Rural communities, poor people in those communities, in particular indigenous peoples, women and youth. So it's fundamental for this. The one thing I wanted to also say, although our focus today, the discussion is on the role of communities in managing, sustainably managing forests and recognizing that they have been the custodians of vast amounts of tropical forests. It is not just communities in those environments. We also need to recognize that communities, that the range lands, that carbon sequestration in the range lands also has an important role and that indigenous peoples and local communities, the custodians of vast amounts of range lands, woodlands, in semi-arid and arid areas. These are also the areas most being impacted by climate change but also coastal communities, the oceans, wetlands and the Arctic. So we need to look at broader in terms of, I think in terms of what can be done in securing land and natural resource rights of rural communities across the world as they are the main custodians of land and natural resources and therefore we'll have the key role in climate change adaptation. Thank you. I hope that was fine enough. No, thank you, Harold. Thank you particularly for bringing in and I think sometimes when we talk about indigenous peoples and local communities, at least I know some of the people who might not be in the thick of things, think about rainforest. So thank you for bringing in all the ideas around semi-arid area and range lands and all those places as well. Now, who wants to follow Harold to talk about the link between the land rights of the indigenous peoples, local communities and climate change and conservation? Kevin, Tontiak and Nanette, anybody wants to go next? Yeah, just because I have to leave, I apologize, I have an overlap. It is very important to acknowledge that indigenous peoples' land hold 80% of the world's biodiversity and deforestation in places where land rights are recognized and enforced is 24% lower. It is really important to note that and 20% of the world's carbon is held in indigenous peoples' lands as well. Thank you. Thanks Nanette. Kevin, do you want to go next? I think just to step back and put the importance of tropical forests in context. We know that if tropical deforestation was a country, it would be the third largest source of emissions. And we also know that to stay on a 1.5 degree pathway to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we not only need to bring tropical deforestation to zero, we also need to greatly improve the ability of forests to remove carbon from the atmosphere. And the latest science is showing that more than a third of the climate change mitigation needed to get us onto a 1.5 degree pathway by 2030 is going to come from forests and land use, mostly from stopping deforestation and improving forest management in the tropics. If you look at the evidence for what stops deforestation, it's crystal clear that the best strategy is recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. More effective than creating protected areas, more effective than other kinds of private management. We now have hundreds of studies from all over the world that are showing this. It's been recognized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, by top experts on biodiversity. So the science is settled. If you wanna protect forests, recognize the rights of the indigenous peoples and look with communities living in and around those forests. We can also do this affordably. If you look at the work of wonderful organizations like the tenure facility, they're finding that they can recognize rights or something on the order of a dollar a hectare. So it's orders of magnitude cheaper than other kinds of climate change solutions out there. It's clearly effective. And there's a massive opportunity to scale. There's at least 789 million hectares of tropical forests in the global south, where indigenous peoples and local communities are managing them, but don't have legally recognized rights to those forests. That's an area basically the size of the continental United States. So again, incredibly important climate solution, clear scientific evidence and a massive opportunity to scale. If you're looking for climate mitigation, this is the place to look. Great, thank you so much, Kevin. And those numbers are really interesting on a dollar a hectare in terms of if you're talking about returns on investment, how important it is. And the opportunity and the potential there as big as continental United States. Tuntiak, I'm going to come to you last for this question. As an indigenous leader, can you just explain to us a little bit between your land rights and the climate impacts and conservation? Tuntiak? Exactly. Well, yes, I'm sorry because here there's a flood in rainforests, so there's nothing new. So, well, in our coalition, as a global alliance of territorial communities, we have five organizations. We have the Congo, Amand, Indonesia, AMPB of Mesoamerica, Coica of Amazonia and Brazil. Among the five organizations in the last study that we launched in the COP, a study together with RRI, it is estimated that the tropical forests governed by these five organizations are around 858 million hectares of tropical forests, of which it is also estimated that 250 million tons of carbon are in those tropical forests. Imagine for yourself, that is, our territories, our forests are completely and directly related to the issue of climate change and mitigation. At this moment, the 50% of the 958 million hectares of tropical forests that are in our power, let's say, governed by us, are titled. The rest of the 50% are not titled. So, one of the strategies to fight climate change would be to reach the population of around 500 million hectares that are not yet titled legally. So, of course, our contributions through our territory, through our knowledge, have to be recognized and supported in all aspects, at the level of the United Nations, at the level of the governments and at the level of private contributions for the fight on the issue of climate crisis. Thank you, Tintiak. And in a way, I'm glad to hear that there's a lot of rain in the rainforest, even though it made the connection, you know, your connection with us a little bit more complicated. I'm going to go back into the financing side of things. Nonette, when you were answering the first question about the significance of the pledge, you know, one of the things that you talked about was to ensure that the money is channeled through the local communities and indigenous organizations. And you gave an example of how the tenure facility is doing that. And, you know, because there's been this debate, right, around whether local groups have the capacity or the bandwidth to manage it. You talked about some of the reporting requirements, you know, being far too complicated because we're looking at it from the perspective of the donors. Can you give some examples and, you know, based on your experience and the work of the tenure facility in making sure, you know, how to manage these large amounts of funds to the people who need it most and through the communities who are doing the work? Yes, thank you, thank you, Thin. We are still trying to figure this out much better. So what we do now that works is we make sure the organizations of indigenous peoples or local communities are at the very beginning aware of what these responsibilities are for them. So the way we look at that is a clarification of the systems that we're using and an understanding also and clarification of the systems that they have. Now, at that point, they have a decision to make. They can say, we can do this or they can say, we assign an organization to do this for us because this is too complicated for us, but these organizations are gonna do it for them is fully accountable to them and we'll be able to report to them. So that's the way we do it now. And in some places where they don't have someone to trust and they can only manage so much, we create a system where there's an inception where they begin to learn how to do it incrementally and build their capacity. Common to this is, of course, our commitment to build their capacity. They though determine what kind and who will build that capacity for them. So we offer it to them, but they also have people they trust in the system in their countries. The organizations are way advanced and are able to and will commit to help them because they have longer term relationships with them. So this is the thing. We do not create these partnerships. It's already there. Yeah, we just really enlarge it, enhance it by the larger funds. So that's where it works. And we still have a lot of adjustments to do. They have a circular reporting accountability system. Everybody knows what's going on, but that takes time, right? And ours is a triangle. The director knows everything and they have two signatories and you do all of these things. It's very different, you see. And so some of our consultants and finance development officers are actually trying to understand this better because we need to understand them better and then see how we can make these adjustments. It's not the other way around. It's almost like sometimes we just train them down, what everything we know from our Western perspective just ram it on them and have them do it. Well, this is a mutuality. This is a partnership. We need to understand them too and really bridge because we also need to really address the needs of the donors and those that are contributing. So what's the balance? And that to me is still a question out there. And there's so much of so many of us doing this. It's not just a tenure facility. Yeah, and those systems work. If that system works, other systems work. We just need to bridge it, bridge it better. Yeah. Great. Thank you, Nenette. That's really fascinating hearing your insights. Who wants to go next? Harold, Kevin, Tintiak, anybody? If not, I'm gonna have to be like the school teacher and start calling you by name. I'm happy to go next. Firstly, I can't agree more with what Nenette said about partnerships, but also some of the challenges. And as I said, we're a UN agency and we also, as Nenette rightly pointed out, we have to account for the funding that we support the disbursement of. I often say that we receive funds from the people of the countries who support us, which are our member countries. They provide us with funds. And in the end, we need to be able to show how the money has reached poor rural communities, indigenous peoples and local communities. So it's quite important that we are able to account. But really, I think the key mechanisms that can be developed, I think Antonella has already mentioned, we have some good lessons to be learned from the indigenous peoples assistance facility that Antonella mentioned. It was set up in 2006. It's very much about strengthening indigenous peoples communities and their organizations to be able to develop project proposals and secure funding for it. We've managed to support and there are regional organizations that are supporting this. And through these organizations, we've managed to provide support in strengthening the capacity of indigenous peoples and local communities in over 90 countries. We've received 4,000, or they have prepared 4,200 proposals. The amount set of going to these communities is fairly modest, but it has a big impact in terms of securing their rights and improving their livelihoods and strengthening their capacity. I think there are still some challenges. Well, firstly, let me say that in terms of the governance of the facility, there's a board which includes indigenous peoples representatives. And then as I said, there are indigenous peoples organizations at the regional level that are supporting these communities to put together their proposals. There are some challenges and indeed one of those is being able to monitor, to better account, to better demonstrate the impacts. There's a need for more peer-to-peer learning, knowledge sharing between organizations. There's a need for continuing to strengthen the capacities of organizations and their ability. And of course, they know their situations, as has been already said, they know very well what their needs are. But in some ways it's about then it's about, as Donetsk said, about the two-way process of us better understanding and reaching out and engaging with communities, local communities and indigenous peoples. And perhaps for them also to better understand how they, you know, what it is that organizations and need to be able to more effectively dispose their funding. So these are some of the challenges we face, but there are definitely good lessons to be learned from our indigenous peoples assistance facility and other mechanisms that have been developed, not only by IFAD, but I think by many other partners, including the tenure facility. I stopped there. Thank you, Harold. So yeah, I think what's coming out, at least from both what you and Donetsk said, is that, you know, there's already quite a lot of effort has gone in. I think there just needs to be good lessons learned and to actually sort of understand what those lessons are and to implement it, particularly with now that, you know, there's this funding pledge. Tintiak, actually, I might come to you. I mean, what advice do you have? What advice do you have for donors and organizations, you know, who wants to, you know, work directly with indigenous communities and to channel the funding through? What are the things that they need to know? Yeah. It's very clear the report from Noruega and there's also a report from the World Bank that the funds don't reach the communities. Very few do reach the communities. And this needs to be clear, both through the big NGOs and through multilateral and bilateral systems such as the United Nations. Por lo tanto, lo que yo he propuesto es reimaginar un cambio estructural en la arquitectura y en el mecanismo que están manejando tanto los sistemas internacionales, tanto las ONGs y los mismos gobiernos para que se destrave, digamos, la dificultad que se está teniendo para movilizar los fondos hacia las comunidades. Ese destrave significa que no solamente hay que fijarse en las condiciones y en los objetivos que están proponiendo y poniendo los donantes. Desde mi punto de vista, personal como Tuntiac, los fondos actuales están enfocados en cumplir los objetivos de los donantes y no los objetivos del terreno, no los objetivos concretos en el terreno. Por lo tanto, ahora hasta ahora se ha visto a las comunidades indígenas y pueblos locales como beneficiarios. Se estructura un financiamiento, se hace un proyecto, un programa y luego se va a apoyarlos como beneficiarios. Eso ha sido uno de los errores. Ahora los pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales tienen que ser vistos e incorporados como socios estratégicos en todos los mecanismos. Por ejemplo, por eso estoy pidiendo en este fondo de 1.7 millones, los pueblos indígenas tienen que estar sentados decidiendo desde la creación hasta la implementación de esos mecanismos. Entonces, eso es el planteamiento que estoy haciendo y por otro lado, debido a que algunos mecanismos internacionales como Fondo Verde Global, como Guest y otros mecanismos que usan las Naciones Unidas es hecho tencado con un sistema de gobierno, con un sistema de organizaciones internacionales y no con un sistema comunitario. Por lo tanto, desde la alianza global de comunidades territoriales, hemos planteado una nueva visión, una nueva arquitectura en mecanismo financiero que se llama mecanismo Shandia, que significa mayor inversión en el terreno, mayor inversión en el terreno, acceso fácil para las comunidades para que puedan implementar sus iniciativas. Por lo tanto, hay que invertir más en el fortalecimiento, en el fortalecimiento de la estructura de las iniciativas que tienen los pueblos indígenas y obviamente este fortalecimiento va a significar mayor capacidad para ejecutar el terreno de los fondos recibidos. Muchas gracias. Muchas gracias, Tantieca. Kevin, so you're going to be the last person to answer this question. Can you give us an idea of how, you know, at the Fort Foundation you have worked? But I also want you to start the next round of question, be the first person to answer it, but I'll ask the question later. Maybe let's start with the funding. How do we make sure, you know, that money goes to those who need it most and how do we work directly with these communities first? Well, the signatories of this pledge have agreed that we'll convene on a regular basis to share lessons and experiences with getting the money out the door. Keep in mind this isn't a pool fund. All of the signatories will be making their own grants and disbursements through their own systems. But we will collaborate and discuss how we're doing that. We will have collective dialogues with Indigenous peoples and local communities in tropical forests. And we'll report to each other and to the UK as the secretariat of this group on how much money we're getting out the door and where it's going, so that we can be accountable for actually delivering the funds. On the Fort Foundation side, we've put in $100 million into this pledge and we're thinking of dispersing that basically to four kinds of organizations. First of all, directly to Indigenous peoples and local community groups and networks on the ground. You can think of something like QOICA, a Jimtiaks organization, or Amman in Indonesia, and Indigenous peoples organizations and networks who can directly receive funds. Secondly, to locally controlled funds which have been set up and are managed by representatives of Indigenous and community organizations. And the Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests is creating a really interesting example that's called the Mesoamerican Territorial Fund. We think these locally controlled funds are really promising new development. There's been some really successful examples in Brazil and they're emerging now in several other places. Basically, it's an architecture that allows communities to control where the funds are going so that the funds are allocated to the places and communities that need the most, but that have a basic administrative and government systems in place that can be done in requirements. So that's the second category. Third, we'll be supporting intermediary organizations that have developed those relationships with Indigenous peoples and local communities. The Tenya Facilities, one fabulous example of that and we've already enjoyed a longstanding partnership with them that have been amazed with the results that they've delivered in just a few years, 14 million hectares secured, really fantastic progress. Global Green Grants Fund would be another example. And then we think there is still a need for to fund NGOs who are partnering with Indigenous peoples and local communities and providing technical assistance and other kinds of accompaniment to their efforts. So those are the kinds of organizations that we're thinking of supporting. I'll just say quickly that I think one of the reasons that money has not reached communities is that donors have misunderstood the risks of reaching Indigenous peoples and local communities. I think there's a misperception that it's risky. Some of that probably stems from ignorance, some of it perhaps from in green biases and racism. And so the tendency has been to fund governments or to fund big NGOs, big conservation organizations registered in the US and Europe. I think that actually exposes a different kind of risk which is wasting money through not delivering results. Because at the end of the day, what Indigenous peoples and local communities have shown is that they get the job done. There's a track record of success there that scales. And so I really think we need to reframe and reanalyze how we're thinking about different kinds of risks. And I think we've been overestimating the risk of mismanagement of funds by Indigenous peoples and local communities and underestimating the lack of performance by others. Thanks, Kevin. That's fascinating and really interesting to hear that perspective from a donor organization that's been working in this space for a very long time. One last round of question to the speakers. We have about 10 minutes, so I think we can do this. Kevin, I'm gonna ask you to start again, actually, because so we've been talking about this funding pledge. It's great news, it's the beginning, but there is obviously still a long way to go, right? That's what I've heard from all the speakers. What else is needed to make progress? What are some of the practical things that donors and Indigenous organizations can do? Well, first of all, I think we need to recognize that this is very dangerous work. The local witness estimates that four land and environment defenders are killed every week around the world standing up for their rights. And so communities are under threat, not only individual activists, but entire communities. And so we also need to be thinking about our funding protection for people that are literally putting their lives on the line to protect their land and to protect our planet. So that's one thing that I think needs more attention. Secondly, even though we know there's a lot of progress that can be made right now in recognizing land and resource rights, we also know that many countries still have legal frameworks which are not up to the task, which don't recognize community rights adequately. And there are also countries where things are moving in the wrong direction, where governments have been, in many cases, colluding with companies to roll back protections for land and resource rights. And we see threats to community land rights accelerating, not only from the expansion of commodity agriculture, but also from extractive industry, fossil fuel exploration, mining, oil, gas. These are sectors that are pushing into forests and displacing indigenous peoples and local communities. You know, screwing our climate just as they're violating the human rights of the very people who are protecting it. So I think we also need more focus on protections for communities and continued focus on going after the drivers of deforestation and rights violation that are pushing communities off of their land. Just mentioned one really positive development yesterday, the European Commission released draft legislation that would require companies importing forest-risk commodities into Europe to do due diligence to ensure that those haven't been produced through the clearance of tropical forests and that provide criminal penalties for companies that import products that are driving deforestation. I think those kinds of regulatory measures are really important, not only for protecting forests, but for protecting the rights of peoples living in and around forests. So that's another area where I think donors need to pay more attention. Great, thank you so much, Kevin. I really hope that agencies and donors are listening in because I think you just gave them a really good list, a to-do list of things to look out for. And thank you again for emphasizing the risk that land right defenders and environmental right defenders face every single day just to protect the lands and environment. Who wants to go next? Harold Nanat-Chontiak, any takers? Yes, yes. Yes, indeed. In summary, accounts like Global Alliance, like COISA, too, what we've been thinking is five fundamental aspects for protection, to achieve climate mitigation. First, the security of territorial rights. Second, to stop criminalization, killing and murdering of the leaders' sensors that are protecting the territories and forests, the tropical languages. Third, the recognition and strengthening of traditional knowledge and practices of indigenous peoples to combat the climate crisis and preserve biodiversity. Fourth, any initiative that is done in the territory has to do with consent, not only with the consultation, but with consent. Fifth, direct access to climate funds, to global funds to manage, to potentialize what we are already doing, what women are already doing, what young people are already doing in the field. Because we are already doing preservation, we are already doing restoration, but we need support from different sectors. That's why, from the initiative of Shandia, we have thought of it as an ecosystem, an ecosystem that should take advantage of all the initiatives, financial mechanisms, social mechanisms, and techniques that exist to cause all these knowledge, these energies to the land, to the communities, to indigenous peoples. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Tintiak. Nonette, would you like to go next? And then we can close off the panel discussion with Harold before going to Q&A. Yes, thank you. So what else to do? Just in addition to what Kevin said about the danger of this work, it's really important that we address lawyers, making them available immediately and be very responsive to when indigenous people stand up and protect these forests, that they have their defense. So legal support, legal empowerment, and also their ability to be safe. So some funds that will enable and secure leaders who are being threatened to have safety. That's very, very easy to forget, but it's really urgent. And the third is to ensure that we really listen, listen well to the aspirations of the indigenous peoples. They have their life plans, and they have a clear understanding of what their model of economic development is. And this doesn't necessarily contradict the current development model. It's just that it is sustainable and it really relies on this type of interconnectedness and interdependency with nature. So you cannot just do short-term. It's really long-term, but they're willing to engage. And so the third part of this is what else is to really open up to networks that are much more responsive. Technology, government allies, some private sector that really listen and are actually positioning themselves to really respond in the right way. These are not like, they're not like us, they're not like advocates, but they are very, very important for us to shift and to really achieve the change and transformation we're needing right now. And then lastly, the next generation. It's really important that we pay attention to the next leaders and have them take leadership now and not have them wait until they get old. So we have to get to the back seat, let them drive. They have to be the one now, and then we can help them. But it's urgent. Thank you. Harold? Great, that's a tough act to follow. I think firstly, I would agree with all that's been said in terms of the empowerment and defense of forest communities of Indigenous peoples and their representative organizations. Indeed, we have to recognize and appreciate the challenges and the risks that they are facing. Again, it's not only forest communities, but there are similar challenges, threats of people living in arid, semi-arid, rangeland areas, vast dispossession, people moving off the land. So we also need to recognize those challenges. I agree also that corruption, inefficiencies, the abuse of power exist and they need to be addressed. And this is complex and quite challenging. But at the same time, I want to say that, you know, there are governments and government agencies that are and private sector impacted are responsive and passionate about supporting rural communities, Indigenous peoples, local communities. And so let us recognize those, identify them, work with them as well. And it's very much about the recognition of equal partnerships between stakeholders, multi-stakeholder responses with Indigenous peoples, local communities at the center of that. So I think the, and then it's about setting up the appropriate mechanisms that enable those dialogues and discussions amongst those that are supportive and willing and that are going to commit and contribute to the transformations that are needed. In the end, the main challenge really still is about scaling up our responses. And for that, we need a collective action across many stakeholders. Yeah, I think I stopped there. Great, thank you so much, Harold. Let's move on to the next part of the event, which is the Q&A when we have about, almost half an hour for that. Nonette, I know you have to move to another meeting, but I want to go through about at least a few questions while you are still here, so you can answer to some of them. We have a lot of questions coming through, so I apologize in advance if we are unable to take all of them. We will try our best. I'm going to just go through three questions now. And the questions are for all panelists, but please feel free to pick and choose which you want to answer, because we might be here all night if we answer all of them. So the first question is, what are the greatest needs right now from the IPLC partners and communities besides funding? So we've already, and I think both Kevin and Annette, talk a little bit about some of the needs, but it would still be interesting to hear a bit more. And this is, what are the greatest needs besides funding? What kind of support do they need? That's one. Another question is, does the funding pledge include measures to promote the restitution of lands to indigenous peoples and other rural people in communities? I'm referring to lands that have been taken away from these groups historically through colonialism and or land grabs. So either historically or recently from monoculture, industrial projects, et cetera. So that's the second question. And the third question is, could the panelists provide more specifics on what areas and activities should be prioritized for extra financing? So there's three questions. Annette, would you like to take any of them? I know, again, you have to go. So I want to give you the opportunity to go first. Thank you. What's really important is actually to be really listening to indigenous peoples and respecting. So where I see, I can respond to this question of restitution and reparation. This is the least addressed and it is also very, very prominent in many places where indigenous peoples had been either moved or are put still in places where they are still feeling highly vulnerable and in danger of returning back to their territories. And this in their territories are actually under threat because they have been moved out. And that to me is an area that both governments and donors and donor governments need to talk about more. And it has been raised in several occasions and that's the least answered question. And I think the big part of this is also the leadership of the organizations that are supporting and the indigenous peoples themselves that are feeling and are really needing to address this. I think I'll stop there. And the others had identified many. And it's all the Timotheo Mesh's question is on advocacy as I was reading that too. That's an important, very important role that funding is dedicated to. And I think this funding is also addressing that. Great, thank you, Nonette. Harold, would you like to add or do you want to let others take fast or? I'll have a go at it. I'm still reflecting these are deep questions and quite challenging. So what are the greater needs besides funding? I think above all, as we've been saying, I think is recognition. Recognition of the fundamental role that indigenous peoples, locals, communities will have in resolving the challenges that are being faced globally in terms of the climate crisis and in terms of recognizing that they are the main drivers of going to be the drivers of change and where the solutions lie. So for me, it's about recognition. I think what specific areas to prioritize, and this is where I'm still reflecting, I look at my bias. I've worked for 40 years on land and natural resource rights. I think it's a neglected area. So this is something that has to be prioritized. It starts with that. Securing rights where rights are now under threat, ensuring that people do not continue losing their land. It starts with changes in policy and legislative frameworks, but fundamentally it's about developing the capacities on the ground for people to actually be able to record their rights and then in a way to reflect that and to be able to present that more effectively to outsiders. I believe that's still important. But I think what's been raised is one of the biggest challenges is the restitution of rights that has been lost. And I think that is still a bit of an elephant in the room. I guess even for if our focus often is on how do we secure rights so that people do not continue losing those rights? And in many parts of the world, this is still extremely, extremely important. We should not lose sight of that. But there are many places where, as has been said, colonialism. By the way, I'm South African, so we have a bit of an understanding of these legacies in terms of what has to be done in redistributing or returning rights that have been lost through colonialism, but also more recently in terms of large-scale land-based investments. This is an elephant. And I think the question is how? How do we do it? There are some lessons, but there's a way to go in terms of how we address this fundamental question. Thank you. Thanks, Harold. Kevin and Tintiak, would you like to pick on any of those questions? Do you answer? I have a question. Yes, I do. I want to quickly respond to the question. This financing should obviously support the issue of land restitution, which is fundamental on the whole planet, land restitution to rural indigenous communities. The other issue is what are the other areas for extra financing? What we are talking about, mainly, is that financing has to guarantee the right to land, but also cultural rights, economic rights. Therefore, we believe that with financing we have to work on the issue of preservation, what we have to preserve in the forests we have to restore, invest in communities of indigenous economy, which has to do with all the sustainable initiatives that men and women of the communities do. Thank you. Thank you, Tintiak. Kevin? The land-backed question is interesting because it's a reminder that these are not just problems happening far away from those of us in the US and Europe, but that actually these are problems that are part and parcel of our own histories. And for a lot of places in the global South, colonialism is still jeopardizing the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities because the imposition of land tenure systems, many of which have their legacies in colonial histories, those systems still don't recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. And so that land has been, quote unquote, taken from them, even though they still have customary tenure over that land and in most cases are still managing and controlling it. So there's land that hasn't yet been actually taken away, but through changes to legal systems, we can increase the security of tenure for communities to stay on that land. So I think preventing that kind of final land grabbing is really important. There's also been some interesting work looking at restitution for communities that have recently lost their land through, for example, expansion of palm oil and the Forest Peoples Program has done some interesting work with the RSPO looking at grievance options for communities in those cases. And then I think there's lots of work that can be done with governments and government agencies. Ford Foundation has done some work in the past partnering with public prosecutor's offices in Brazil to help sort out overlapping and conflicting tenure claims often as a result of fraudulent titles which have been created by folks in the effort to grab land. So I do think this is going to be an increasingly important area to work in the future but my message would be, we have a chance to stop an enormous land grab here. There's still a huge amount of tropical forests that remained in the hands of indigenous peoples and local communities. Governments don't recognize their right to it but they're on that land, they're protecting those forests. And what we need to do is get the legal systems in line with reality so that those communities benefit from legal protection that makes their tenure more secure. Great, thank you, Kevin. I realized Nenette said that she has to now leave for the next meeting but thank you very much, Nenette. Even if you're still here, thank you. Thank you for joining us and for your insights. I have a few more questions and some of it may be, I think actually, Kevin for this particular one maybe perhaps you could answer this. This is 11 countries and the EU pledged 12 billion in global forest finance pledge, saying parts of the money would be used for supporting IP tenure and forest rights. This money, whatever it is, is it included in the 1.7 billion pledge? That's one question. And the second question is actually from the Secretary of the Committee for World Food Security, CFS Chris Hageddon who asked that we will be celebrating in 2022, so next year, the 10th anniversary of the CFS voluntary guidelines on the governance of tenure which has become a global policy reference document on land tenure, land governance issues. How can this voluntary guidelines be leveraged even further with this new funding pledge and new emphasis on indigenous land rights? That's the second question and the third one and this is actually almost a composite because this is what a lot of people have been asking on chat as on Q&A is, how do we access this money? How, what's the process? Does anybody know if there will be, Kevin you talked about how each individual donors will be sort of like have their own programs and ways of determining the grantees perhaps maybe if you have any idea, any knowledge on how that will work with perhaps some of the others please enlighten us. So three question, one is whether the 12 billion pledge, the 1.7 billion is part of that 12 billion pledge. Another is on the voluntary guidelines on the governance of tenure, whether they can help, how can they help to further the cause? And the other one is just literally how do we access the money? How do we do this? Great, on the first question, so there are five government donors who are part of the 1.7 billion pledge for indigenous peoples and local communities that's the UK, the US, Norway, Germany and the Netherlands. Some of those countries have also counted the money that they've put towards the indigenous peoples pledge as part of the overall 12 billion pledge for work on tropical forests. But what I would say to all of the donors who are part of the global forest financing pledge of that 12 billion, if you want return on investment, if you want impact, if you want results, you should be investing that money in indigenous peoples and local communities and in their effort to secure their rights and protect their forests because that's where you're gonna see it the biggest thing for your buck and that's where you're gonna see the most impact on the ground. On the VGGTs, I think it's an excellent question and I would like to hear how Chris would respond to that. I think the VGGTs have been a very important set of principles for governments. I think what we do now is a much stronger advocacy push to really make sure that practices are meeting policies and also more outreach to companies to make sure that their practices are aligned with the principles contained in the VGGTs. The third question, yeah, this is where there's still a problem between money in the world and communities on the ground. What I would say is I'm happy to talk to folks around this webinar to give advice offline on where they might wish to, which donors they might wish to approach for funds. The regional networks of indigenous peoples and local communities, things groups like Amman, the Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples in Forests, Quaca, Apivia in Brazil, the Asian indigenous peoples pact, those are good places for local communities to approach to get a better understanding of what donors are funding. The tenure facility is another great example, but I think this is the next area of work for all of us in this community is what kinds of institutions and structures, financial and otherwise, can we put in place to kind of close this gap that does still exist between donors and communities on the ground? Great. Tuntiak, any thoughts? Yes, in addition to what Kevin said, and with respect to the third question, there is no clarity on how these funds will be accessed. I think it would be great to create a committee, a committee where the follow-up is evaluated and part of the indigenous communities and local communities have a hearing section, a proposal section, and give a follow-up to all of that and create a channel, a facilitation so that the funds are accessible. So I think that is the topic that should be worked on, because if not, each donor will use their own mechanism and it will be difficult to give a follow-up to everyone, to both the governments and the private ones. On the other hand, companies, let's say, private philanthropists, companies that have joined this commitment, they must have a fundamental principle, which is the protection of rights, a fundamental principle that not only gives you money, and you don't have any responsibility to mitigate, to improve, in terms of their emissions, of greenhouse gas, so the fundamental principle is human rights, the rights of indigenous, territorial, but beyond all of that, the rights of life that we all have and must be attached to that basic fundamental idea. That's my part. Thank you, thank you, Tintiak. So a lot of good things, good news with the pledge, but there are also still unanswered questions to some in terms of how it's all going to work. Harold, your thoughts to some of those questions. Okay, I think, I mean, this is the big question for all of us, is exactly how that will be channeled. And I'm going to be frank, I think we have to also anticipate and anticipate, you know, I don't want to say be business as usual, but most of this will be coming through a range of intermediaries. I mean, as Kevin has said, there's the government, the governments that have made the pledge. And I believe that they will be looking at going through their normal programming. Some of that might even come through EFAD. We don't know, for example, but also I'm very interested to understand how those private sector foundations, including Ford Foundation, how they will be channeling that funding, but I anticipate it will be through the intermediaries, some of which have been mentioned. Beyond that, I think we must not lose sight that there are other pledges, there are other initiatives, other sources of funding. So really it's about how we can come together and influence collectively, ensuring as much as possible, more efficiently that these finances get to the ground. For EFAD, it is most of our funding is channeled through government programs. As a UN agency, we are accountable to our member states, which are governments in the end, but we also provide a lot of funding through civil society organizations. I've not mentioned, we've mentioned some of the support we provide to directed to Indigenous Peoples communities, but also we provide a lot of support through other mechanisms, including to farm organizations, supporting a range of farm organizations so that they can better engage and influence their governments at the country level. And so that's something very important to do still, I think just very quickly on the voluntary guidelines or the government's tenure guidelines. We were an early collaborator with FIO, both financially and technically in terms of actually the development, the formulation of those guidelines. We have our own land policy, which very much draws on the tenure guidelines. We have a robust, we continue to strengthen, I'd say, our safeguards, our do not harm measures, but also specifically focusing on enabling measures. How do we ensure that support and for tenure security contributes positively to project outcomes? We continue collaborating with FIO. I haven't had time to mention, we're developing capacity-building training programs with FIO and also with other partners looking at women's land rights, youth access to land, et cetera. And so we will continue working with FIO and other partners in promoting the voluntary guidelines and other mechanisms for continuing to put issues of land, natural source tenure on the global agenda. Thank you. Great, thanks Harold. I'm going to quickly go through, I guess two more questions, actually three, but I'm gonna try and combine two into one because it's slightly similar and it's the same sort of sentiment that has kept appearing in the chat box and in the Q&A throughout this discussion. The panelists have already discussed these issues, but the fact that they're still being asked again and again, I think just meant that there's a lot of interest and people want more clarity and that's also why I'm repeating these questions. One question revolves around sort of whether there are mechanisms already in place to make sure that the funds actually, do go to indigenous women and indigenous led organizations and particularly from bilateral donors who tend to have very bureaucratic requirements that generally keeps the funds from getting to grassroots organizations. So I guess there's a two-part thing as in like, can bilateral donors, do any of you have any insights as to whether there might be some flexibility around that? If not, are there already mechanisms in place that can sort of help channel those things? I guess perhaps beyond the tenure facility, that's one. And the last question, it's really quite technical, but I'm gonna try it and see if anybody's willing to answer and this has actually to do with the sort of the cost of carbon. And let me just make sure that I am reading and understanding that right, because obviously one of the big things that came up at COP26 recently was talking about carbon markets. And the question is currently international pricing for the a ton CO2 equivalent is significantly below the estimated social cost of carbon. How then can we support, how then can the support for IPLCs that is motivated by GHG emission avoidance or reduction or sequestration still avoid the moral hazard and that it just doesn't just become a subsidy for the status quo. So to one question is around still making sure that the funds go to those who needs it most who can actually do the work. Another one is around carbon pricing. I'm just throwing it out there. If anybody wants to take that, please go ahead. Kevin? Yeah, sure. As I mentioned, the donor signatories, we've all agreed that we'll report to the UK how much money we spend each year aligned with the criteria of the pledge. So there will be some public information to build on that. The Ford Foundation also posts all of our grants to our website and we welcome people to have a look at that and to offer their feedback and let us know how we're doing. The question of carbon and carbon markets, I'll just answer that in my own individual personal capacity. I'm concerned about the surge of interest in the voluntary carbon market and what that might mean for indigenous peoples and local communities. Obviously, there are communities out there that see that as a promising source of revenue and in those cases, I would be interested in supporting them to access that. But I think the safeguards in terms of recognition of the ownership rights of carbon for the communities that are managing that carbon, protection for the right to pre-burn and carbon for consent and consultations around involving community lands and carbon market schemes, I think those are still either weak or untested. There's also the fact that community land because of the management of communities tends to have very little deforestation. And so programs that are compensating for reductions in deforestation don't work for communities that have, because of their good management, don't have deforestation in the first place, even though that could rapidly change because those lands are under increasing threat. So I think the question of whether the carbon market is going to be a revenue stream for communities managing for us in the future is a very thorny one. I think there's a lot of uncertainty and a lot of questions, but I would say this is also an area where there's a lot of strongly held opinions. And perhaps what's been missing in that discussion is consideration of the right to self-determination for indigenous people in local communities, which is to say they should have access to the information about the costs and benefits of participating and they should be able to make their own informed choices. Thanks, Kevin. Harold, very quickly before we end with Tuntiak and then we close the webinar. Any thoughts? Okay, thanks. Maybe I'll just stay away from the carbon markets because I don't understand them that well personally, people in my organization would do. I think that I just think it is kind of a zero sum game because it's about trading carbon credits if you like. So it's a short-term solution at best, but I think we have to look more fundamentally. I think in terms of the mechanisms, we've heard there are various mechanisms and it's understanding, making those mechanisms more responsive. We've heard how the tenure facility hopes to do that. As if we have our indigenous people's assistance facility, but we also have, and I forgot to mention this, a sort of an adaptation fund that focuses on smallholder farmers. So for us, these are very important mechanisms, but even there, our challenge is, how do we better link this to our overall programming? And that's where, how do we use that to better influence the one and a half billion dollars a year and ensuring that this is getting to smallholder farmers, rural communities, indigenous peoples? That's still our challenge. One other thing I wanted to mention is the International Land Coalition. We actually host the secretariat of the ILC. It combines some of the larger intergovernmental organizations, if had ever, will bank at the UN agencies with a range of civil society organizations from NGOs to constituency-based organizations. And for us, this is a really important mechanism that we would look to continue being part of and collaborating with others. Thank you. Thanks, Harold, Tintiak. Thank you very much. I'm going to start with the question if there are any specific mechanisms to get to the indigenous peoples and women sector. I think it's a very important question and I know that there must be, right? Small funds, something like that, but strong and strong funds, easy to get to entrepreneurs, young women, I think it's still a debt that must be made, that must be made concrete. On the other hand, the issue of carbon is very important and is related to the indigenous peoples and local communities. To answer this question, I'm going to start with the fact that the indigenous peoples, we have a close relationship, a very strong bond with our territory, with our jungle, with our biodiversity. This relationship, some of you can consider it as spiritual, as a way of life, of living. And now, going from this point of view of the indigenous peoples, like the land, the territories, the forests, like something holistic, something integral, to talk about markets of carbon, where they put some platforms, they put it like 10 dollars per ton of carbon, of toxic forests or general forests. For us, it's like saying, well, we're going to put a price for a minimum part of what is a language. So, you will know, protect the tropical jungle. Not only talking about the tropical jungle, there are other languages on the planet, but protecting it means a lot more than, I mean, it's only 10 dollars per ton of carbon. Therefore, for us, the one that is talking about only the function of carbon, that has tropical forests, is not coherent with our life, with our mission. Therefore, I have thought, if there is a platform, if there is a mechanism that is talking about carbon, it should change perspective and talk about mechanisms more about carbon, taking into account that the territory, the jungle, we have water, biodiversity, the cultures and everything that contains the territory. So, there should be a different approach and those investments that are generated through those voluntary processes should be to guarantee rights. It has to be with a right focus, not with a market focus, but with a right focus considering, entirely, holistically, as areas of language, areas of life, that are helping to mitigate the climate crisis and that are helping to preserve the biodiversity that we have discussed in this panel. Therefore, my suggestion is that the existing mechanisms now on the issues of the carbon voluntary market should no longer be discussed only in function of carbon, but rather in integrity, based on the rights of life, the rights of nature and the rights of indigenous people that are already safeguarding the territories, forests that contain the carbon. Now, to finalize, to finalize the issue that has to be on the table is of who is that right of carbon that is in the indigenous territories. Because now, today and today, through the governments that are making reports, that are making, let's say, the national contributions determined that are already being held, include indigenous territories and already hold the carbon that is in indigenous territories and generate their national information to report to the donors, both public and private donors. So, in the end, it has to be recognized those rights that indigenous people have in terms of carbon, but also, more carbon in terms of everything that is the territorial context as we indigenous people understand it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Tintiag. We have actually ran a little bit over time. So, I'm going to wrap this up very quickly. But I do think, I mean, we've had such a fascinating and insightful and wide-ranging discussion around financing for the land rights of indigenous peoples and local communities today. And it's all thanks to these excellent speakers. So, I actually want to trouble them one last time before we wrap up. And that is all of our speakers to give us one final takeaway from this webinar. If you have one message, very short, hopefully no more than 30 seconds. If you have one message that you would like the audience to take away from this webinar, what would it be? And I'm going to go again in alphabetical order. So, Harold, I'm afraid you're up first. Whoa, I was still thinking. I think, as we said, indigenous peoples, local communities are at the center of the solutions for the world. They need to be recognized, but multi-stakeholder partnerships, they can't do it on their own. It's about multi-stakeholder partnerships that equally recognize the roles of others. Thank you. Thank you, Harold. Kevin? We have more work to do. It's great to have some money on the table, but we need to mobilize a lot more resources for this. We need to build different systems that allow us to get money to communities more effectively. But we also need to expand on what we have. And it's great just having a look at the participants here. I mean, there's dozens of organizations represented that are already doing incredible work for or in partnership with indigenous peoples and local communities. There's a lot that's happening. And I think in terms of climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation, development in human rights, recognizing IPLC land and resource rights is going to be one of the most exciting spaces in the next decade. Tintiak? One last takeaway. What message do you have? Yes, I want to say very clearly that no international political commitment, as you say in the COP, no financial announcement for more than millions of people who don't work with indigenous peoples as strategic partners with local communities as strategic partners won't be able to achieve the objectives of Metres de Paris won't be able to combat climate change, climate crisis. Therefore, the recognition of the contributions that indigenous peoples are making has to be at a high level, not only a romantic recognition, but at a high level and specific support to the specific channels so that the different indigenous peoples on the planet can access that support. And all kinds of support, not just financial support, all kinds of support. We are strategic partners to combat climate change. We are not beneficial. Thank you very much. And there we have it. I don't think I would have been able to summarize it any better than our speakers. Thank you so much to the panelists. And Nonette had to leave. But thank you to Kevin, Harold and Tintiak. Can we give them a virtual round of applause, please, for their insights? And of course, thank you to the audience as well for your participation. Thanks also to our hosts, the Ford Foundation, the Land Portal Foundation, the Tenure Facility and the Thomson Reuters Foundation. It's been a real pleasure for me to moderate this event. Have a great day, afternoon, evening or night. Goodbye. Thanks very much. Well done.