 In 2011, EcoTrust conceived an idea of having sustainable forest management with this particular community and this is the time when we as researchers came in to see how sustainable forest management, which was geared towards improving local livelihoods, could be used as a pilot in looking at how red could be used in this particular trials. During this time, they were helped to the communities to begin to become a formal institution where they started getting very formal and making a constitution, defining what they are all about, and EcoTrust did help these. So they actually had to go through the demarcation of the resource and also trying to get a land title. As I speak today, they have a constitution and I think they are properly registered now. But as we got into this particular community, we are very interested in looking at the socioeconomic characteristics and most of the households practice subsistence farming. This is farming for mainly household use and the major crops were basically tobacco rice and maize and tobacco being the main cash crop. And this was right as far back as 2011 because 2012, as we speak today, tobacco has been banned in this area. So it's no longer a major commercial activity, which also will have an implication on the rate. So clearing of land for cultivation and extraction of poles for both subsistence and commercial activities were the major drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Most of our focus group discussions were disaggregated by sex and this comes from the culture where we come from that the women hardly speak out in the presence of the men. So for you to be able to capture what the women feel and how they relate to some of these aspects, you needed to put them in different groups. And this is where it gets interesting because most of the people were clearing for us to be able to have bigger areas for agriculture. The women preferred package five where you had agriculture. The men preferred package three where we did not have agriculture. You name it. There are quite a multiple benefits that we get from marine and coastal ecosystems. If we look at fisheries alone, particularly in developing countries, they are the major source of food. In some countries they are probably the main or the only source of animal protein. Particularly in developing countries we're talking about as high as 75% for instance in places like Sierra Leone or Senegal. Now the interesting question to raise is the government is providing some compensation to local households. But as we saw earlier, it's a pretty much top down approach where government is providing some amount of rice and alternative income generated activities and some cash. Is that really what the local people want? From our initial findings, what we could find was there was more preference for rice as opposed to cash obviously because we're talking about some of the most marginalised sectional society in Bangladesh. So rice is a staple food in Spain, very important component for their daily life so there's very high preference for rice. The other interesting finding that we found in this study is the divergence that we observed between the preference of these fishers and the compensation package that they are provided by the government. A classic example is they handed out sewing machines to women-led households. Of course they had a very positive intention to the government, they wanted to help these women and so they distributed these sewing machines but they don't even know how to use these sewing machines. So the obvious reaction was they just sold the sewing machines in the market and they used the cash for some other purpose. So this shows the inefficiencies that may be created as a result of the divergence between the preference of these communities and what's being provided by the government. There's an obvious sort of inclusion and exclusion error as well which means that some people are not meant to be included, we're being included and some people are meant to be part of the scheme are not being included. So there's that sort of exclusion and inclusion error that needs to be fixed. When you give up rice, rice is the most preferred food for male subjects in an average house in the Royal Bangladesh. So when you're giving up rice that means you're benefiting the men more than the women. Women traditionally normally eat in Bangladesh at a floor for instance which is not highly preferred grain by male subjects in Bangladesh. So that also raised the issue of intra-household distributional issues as opposed to just looking at between households which I think is quite interesting. So we need to look beyond the fishermen and look at other segments of the site to whom might be affected by this sort of scheme as we talk about the distributional implications of these kind of schemes. We are testing what's called the conservation auction in one of our watersheds in Indonesia. We offer a conservation contract to the farmers and then who beats the lowest will be the winner. Yeah, as this auction actually we want to see how we can allocate the conservation contract more efficiently. And here in this payment for some services so we consider the farmers as the land managers. So we consider them as the decision makers on how they will cultivate, how they will manage your land. We also have some research in eCraft. ECraft stands for the World Agroforestry Centre and we also see how this agroforestry system can provide and maintain the watershed function. If the sedimentation is high for sure it will give them more cost in cleaning their filter. Then this is how we try to develop our PS mechanism. While we hope that by reducing the sedimentation in the upstream area so the water or the hydropower company can reduce their cost and can save some of their money as the incentive for farmers for doing good management practices. Actually it's not that simple to start in Sumer Jaya because there are many other problems such as the land conflict. As you see that 50% of the area are consisted of the protected forest by the state. And while on the other hand there are also many migrants coming to this area particularly from Java. First for sure we want to make sure that this is a participatory approach. So we engage the farmer in determining the hotspots of erosion, what are the problems within the watershed. And also talk with them what type of contract they would like to see and then what type of solution they provide to reduce sedimentation. So here we would like to bring the local knowledge into the contract as well. It is our area in the color and in green. It is a priority area for the next. And it is our buyer for the next. We still have the Krakata Tita industry and we have a new buyer for this year's as high as chemical is the chemical company and government. We need 500 billion per year if we pay 3000 hectares. But until today we cannot pay all our area because we have only until 2019, 180,000 US dollars. The major quantity of the fishermen in this area are illegal. We don't have all the information together and it's difficult for the government to make decisions without writing information. In the case of Bangladesh, they have enough knowledge of the chain value of the species. This is very interesting because in our case we don't have enough information. We know of the market, we know that it's very important for our country. But we don't know exactly the number of fishermen or their livelihoods, conditions or the conditions of the market. In our case, if we compare with the payment for environmental services program for the forestry program, now we are competing with other resources in the country. And we need to justify every year that we need the money for that because the education program needs money, the other parts infrastructure in our country is very important and maybe one of the main issues right now and we need to compete with that. PES or other types of instruments in marine ecosystems is really tricky because it brings up the big problem of the commons up to the front. It's a huge problem in there but also monitoring which always is our Achilles heel in all of these small holder projects. So when you go to visit the households, chances are that the responses will be made by household heads who according to that survey would be 82% male. So you wouldn't get the views of the female. When you're implementing a project like this, it really calls for adaptive management. So you have only principles set in stone. The rest changes as you go along. And for us it is not a choice making process, so to speak, you put these permutations and whatever the best guess the highest vote is what you apply. It is a negotiation process. So Sinema Gulcawcha is one of the leading driver of deforestation. So it does not make sense not to support Sinema Gulcawcha. However, Sinema Gulcawcha will not be sustainable if you do not create a market linkage to it. So what happens is that the information that comes out of the focus group discussions is not about choices but it informs if you are to invest in these incentives. What are the factors that you need to consider and therefore what would the interventions be. When they are beginning, their needs are very basic. It's about access to water, to food, to building homes. But once they satisfy those needs, then they will grow to the next needs. But also you begin with having very limited resources. So as you design the project, you keep identifying, okay now we are getting money from carbon payments, maybe we should access water credits as well. Then donor funding, because the needs are going to be changing and one needs to come up with ways of enabling the communities to, the needs will be changing but also the opportunities will be changing. And also your understanding of what more you can do with the communities. Then we realise that actually you can use your carbon agreement as collateral for a loan. So we went into a negotiation with the bank where the farmers can use their carbon agreements as collateral for loans. It's important of how this money from carbon, from cash in into ecosystem services is more likely to work if you can understand really how this feeds into existing value chains. So what's the point in trying to add productivity if you can't really capitalise on that because there's no market. When you go into a community as a researcher you already have your perceived minds of what to expect but when you get there it's pretty difficult.