 Our session is ensuring an effort in the red, and we are co-organizing, I'm from C4, and also a research institute for humanity and nature, Kyoto, and we have a kind of project working on market-driven resource management system like red, FSE, and how it's impact on the social community. And also I'm co-organizing with Yuki from Global Environmental Forum, Japan, and since many of you know that yesterday the SUPSTAR red SEFGAR meeting was, I don't think they're now going to have a conclusion for this, I don't know they might walk in today or tomorrow to kind of come back next week, but for the SEFGARs I think quite important issues on red and we want to discuss on how the AFPIC is playing this SEFGARs discussion and also for this we also want to discuss not only red but we also have some FSE and also other case studies from Asia and Latin America and South America. Now, so currently also Japanese government now tried to start a joint credit mechanism, it's kind of bilateral mechanism for the climate change and the possibility to expand this joint credit mechanism into red, and it's kind of bilateral outside of, it's kind of voluntary mechanism outside of UNTCC, but we wanted to see how this is evolve in next few years and Yuki is working on how to ensure SEFGARs aspect and AFPIC aspect for that kind of bilateral project, so maybe I just give a mic to Yuki and start our presentation, thank you very much. So, and since we have less people please come forward so that we can have more, have a warm, we can more easily to discuss and please feel free to ask questions after, we have six speakers so after two speakers we have our questions, then we pass on to next speakers, thank you. Thank you very much, Daisuke. My name is Yuki Sakamoto from Global Environmental Forum and Non-profit Environmental Organization based in Tokyo. First of all I would like to express our gratitude for the participants and speakers on behalf of organizers of this session. I hope this panel could be a good opportunity for all of us to explore better ways of implementation and designing of AFPIC guideline or process sharing our experiences. I'm here to present our project to develop AFPIC guideline primarily targeting Japanese organization and private businesses that are interested in REDD projects. In 2012 two Japanese organizations, namely Global Environmental Forum and Japan Tropical Forest Action Network launched the project to develop, test and promote social safeguard guideline which contribute to forest conservation in developing countries. We had learned AFPIC is the core concept as social safeguard for REDD but at that time there was not enough information and experiences shared among Japanese society on this issue if we compared with environmental safeguard issues such as biodiversity conservation. Now we have another concern as the Japanese government is actively promoting joint crediting mechanisms, JCM, as a bilateral scheme to tackle climate change using market mechanism. This is covered under JCM and it should have safeguard rules and guidelines but it's not clear yet it will be the same level as other scheme under UN FCCC so that we won't demonstrate our AFPIC guideline as one of the important tool, safeguard tool for JCM. We developed the guideline by doing bibliographic research and getting comments from Japanese and international experts through interviews and workshops. We compared and analyzed requirements of the existing guidelines such as REDD plus SES, UN Red Programme Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria and also FSC's guideline on AFPIC and Forest People's Programme guideline on AFPIC and we picked out the essential point from those guidelines. Here you can see the four elements of AFPIC. AFPIC is an acronym standing for Free Prior and Reformed Consent. It refers to a right or principle applied to the case in which Indigenous people and other communities determine if they give consent to a project that may affect their land, territory or resources. AFPIC was originally recognized as a right of Indigenous people by the United Nations and the other organizations but recently it has become applied to not only Indigenous people but also local communities. In practical implementation of AFPIC where forest dependent people live in or near a project site it's impossible to develop the project without any consent or participation from them. In our guideline we therefore assume that AFPIC is applicable to all communities that have legitimate rights whether they are Indigenous or not. Here you can see the structure of our AFPIC guideline. One of the features in our guideline is indicating eight steps plus 36 activities to implement AFPIC in time series. These steps are tailored for LED leads on the project basis and address each phase of the project development. I will briefly explain eight steps. Step one preliminary arrangements with proponents. Purpose of this step is to do internal preparation within our proponents. Proponents need internal preparation and arrangement by establishing human rights policy. Their concept of respecting human rights is being specifically defined. This policy is then informed that entire staff of the proponents as well as announced to the public to a certain realization of the concept. At step 1.5 communication needs to be two ways exchange. Proponents need to pay special attention to vulnerable and marginalized groups within community. Step 1.6 within basic concept it's important to set adequate purposes of the project as it's essential not only for implementation of the project but also for monitoring. Step 1.7 project impact assessment should cover not only social and environmental aspect but also human rights aspect. More specifically it's important to predict who are likely to be affected and how they are likely to be affected when the project is implemented. Full assessment is conducted under step 4.2. Step 2. This step is relevant to preliminary phase of consultation with communities towards obtaining ethic. In this step proponent initiate actual contact with indigenous and local community which live in or near the project sites. Proponents identify the indigenous and the local community which will receive positive and negative impacts from the project. As well as roughly figure out what rights and interests they have. Who needs to be sold ethic and who doesn't need ethic. It means merely stakeholders. Proponent then present their own human rights policy and the basic concept of the project. For step 2 please pay attention to 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. These are about how to identify rights holder and their representative institutions. At step 2.2 in identifying rights holder proponent needs to take into consideration not only written laws but also customary rights. And at this stage they should ensure all stakeholders can apply for recognition as rights holder. But as these claims are when such claims conflict with each other, proponents are required to suggest and facilitate the people involved to discuss it among themselves and resolve the matter. At 2.3 and 2.4 in identifying representative institutions proponents should respect the method of community's own choice. On another front they also need to encourage the establishment of the institutions which ensure that the interests of all level of the community members are represented through confirming how marginalized and vulnerable groups are included into internal decision making process of the communities. Proponents confirm and verify if interests of all level of the community members are represented in their internal decision making or representative institution and their processes by gaining feedback from marginalized and vulnerable groups such as women and youth. This is not a one-off event and hopefully continue if possible throughout the implementation period of the project. At 2.7 proponents first confirm that indigenous people and local community understand the human rights policy and the basic concept of the project and then seek consent to move on the next phase from these communities on which the project may have most positive and negative impacts. If proponent cannot obtain the consent they need to take some measures such as excluding the area related to these communities from the potential site of the project. Step three, goal of this step is proponent confirm and agree with the community on the process itself during obtaining ethics. They also implement capacity building activity which enables the community to effectively participate in consultation and project development as well as establish the mechanism to deal with complain or problem which may arise in such consultation and project development. Step three, proponents preliminary discuss confirm and agree with community on their engagement process to seek and obtain ethics from the community and the methods they use. Conformation should also be made regarding not only negotiation process between proponents and the community but also decision making process within communities. It may seem troublesome to confirm that proponent should seek ethics from the community in accordance to a mutually agreed process in other words to agree on how to agree. However, not only the FSC but also UN Red have a requirement to make the agreement ethic process which cover almost the same points to check. Step four, participatory project planning. Step four, participatory project planning together with stakeholder involved in the project proponent works on mapping to identify their rights and based on the information gained through this mapping implement human rights and social and environmental impact assessment. Furthermore, in light of result from mapping and assessment they design the detail of the project with participation of indigenous and local community. At the end of this stage proponent needs to obtain consent on entering the final negotiations. Step five is a step for negotiation towards concluding agreement. Step seven and step eight is a project implementation phase. In proceeding with the project it's important to monitor whether the agreement terms are being met. Following the monitoring plans developed in step four and five proponents confirm with the participation of the community where the agreement terms are being met. They should publicize a monitoring result and if needed negotiate with them on withdrawal of the consent. Finally, we found some four point four challenges in designing and implementing epic point one gap between host country laws and proponent policy to follow international norms on epic. To deal with gap between host country laws and proponent policy on epic we require proponents to conduct survey or legal system and standards on host countries. If proponents unable to comply with their own human rights policy due to domestic circumstances of host country they have to seize the project or consider the measure to respect as much as possible international recognized human rights principle. Another challenge is participatory mapping. Regarding participatory mapping we have raised one question. To what extent project proponent can identify right holder to show legal and customary rights to land territory and resources as well as the actual land use situation. As these interventions could cause conflict unnecessarily among groups in the communities. To deal with question we put to ensure any individual group or entity can apply for recognition as rights holder in step two and two. Number three, balance between respecting traditional ways of decision making and attention to vulnerable groups within the community. Number four, verification of epic process. Verification is very important to show epic process is adequate enough as safeguard to satisfy standards or indicator such as CCBS if proponent wants to get certification. That's all now. We have our guideline on our website. We are very happy to have your comments on the guideline afterwards. We can share the guideline and handle it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Yuki. Then the next speaker is Alison and she's working for FSC for certification for ecosystem services and also she has experience on FSC issues and FSC implemented this new guideline 2012. Then I think FSC is really working on how to actually impact this. Thank you. Thank you. I have good news and a bad news today. In your introduction you mentioned the fact that it's unlikely that there is an agreement within the next days on FPC around red. The good news is that at FSC there is an agreement. The bad news is that we still have a lot to learn yet on how it's happening on the ground. First let me introduce myself and then FSC and then we'll see what's happening regarding FPC at FSC. I'm Alison Kettler. I'm the global project manager for a dedicated project at FSC which aims at testing ecosystem service certification on the ground. I'm not a social expert. I studied business and I will bring you a bit of my business and management background in that presentation because we work for people, right? So we have a common concern. So I'm not a social expert so I have to apologize in advance if there are some questions that I can't answer. We have a social expert at FSC. She's called Vanessa Linforth and I'll give you her email so that you can link with her if you have any further questions. First of all who is FSC? FSC stands for the forest stewardship council. We are celebrating its 20 years anniversary today. It's 20 years of existence. FSC is developing standards in order to set best practices regarding responsible forest management and it's a pretty unique organization regarding forest because it looks into three pillars, social, environmental, and economic aspects of forest management. And today we will focus on the social side. Just a quick figure. FSC is certifying over 180 million hectares in the world as of today. That's a big step for us. But FSC has FPC guidance since 2012, so since two years. Sorry, it's going a bit crazy here. FSC always had strong safeguards regarding social aspects, regarding indigenous people, communities in and outside of the forest management unit, what we call forest management unit, the forest. So there is actually the new element within the FSC system since 2012 is the prior part. FSC had already free informed consent in its principles and criteria. Now we have prior. And the other thing we learned is that there's actually very, we have very few examples of free prior informed consent implementation on the ground or the use of FSC in an FPC context. So since 2012 FSC has guidelines. It's a quite long document. It can be very theoretical. And so the first thing is I would like to, if you want to have a look at that document, I give you the insider tip, which is to look at page 25233 where you will have a summary and a checklist of each steps regarding FSC and FPC. And regarding the steps, I was talking about my management background. It's really going crazy. It wants me. So regarding management, the first thing we are told when we look into implementing changes on the ground, our teachers are telling us people are not usually not interested on the ground to know what will change. They are interested to know what will remain because change can produce so much stress on the ground. And so I like your presentation, Yuki, because we saw what are the requirements regarding FPC and there's a lot of similarities within the FPC guidance. But there is one thing that I would actually like to bring you from the ground. Going crazy again. I don't know. I wanted to show you a bit of a nice picture from Nepal, but we'll see if it comes. So like two months ago I was in Nepal in a small community in the eastern region where we are testing ecosystem services certification. And so we tested as well the FPC guidance at FSC. And you have all these requirements, these six steps, it's overwhelming. There are intermediary steps and the intermediary requirements. And after five days workshop with all stakeholders from that forest, the forestry agency, the indigenous people representative, the forest owners, the forest owners association, we worked with many stakeholders. We looked at what actually how compliant are they, how compliant are they with these six steps. And actually after asking many questions like how is your decision making process, how are decisions taken, how do you involve everyone in the community, we realized that in Nepal small holders have such a sophisticated system in place already that the good news at the end of the day is well you're already fully compliant with FSC, FPC requirements. And so I think that that's actually a good news for these people because the conclusion of these days, they thought we would be working five days and that would be actually the beginning of a long and painful process, thinking how could they do better, that we would leave, they would have an action plan. But at the end of these five days they actually had the confidence that what they are doing is already very close to well as practice. And so that's what's going on at the moment. We are, FSC is testing the FPC guidance in more than 10 sites in the world in very different setting. We are testing it in every continent in order to collect experience, to make the guidance more practical so that we can bring real cases. So there will be a second version of the guidance by the end of 2015 and you're more than welcome to bring in your comments into that document. Where can you find that document within the FSC website and also don't hesitate to contact Vanessa Linforth, our colleague at FSC who's in charge of social policy at FSC. You have your email there and don't hesitate to contact her. Thank you very much. Thank you, Allison, to make your presentation very short. And yeah, so FSC really has a lot very detailed experience on how actually guidance is very thick and I'm also involved in the consultation process, but it's guidance is very thick, but how you actually make it impractical is also another challenge. I think it's looking forward to see how FSC try to work on. Okay, and the next speaker is Grace from Tabatega Foundation and hope she could bring some aspects from the indigenous community. Please. Thank you very much and thank you very much for your presence here. I'm Grace Balawak. I am from the Philippines. I am from Tabatega. This is the indigenous peoples international center for policy research and education. We are based in the Philippines, but we have worked globally within 13 countries and at the same time we work very closely with other organizations like the Asia Indigenous People's Path and also of course the Forest People's Program and other programs which have direct work with indigenous peoples. How is this? Okay, I just focused my presentation on the key questions that were suggested in this presentation. So I will be very much focusing on Red Plus, on why does Red Plus needs FPIC and then why does a process that respects the right to FPIC consists of and how should FPIC be applied in Red Plus projects, but of course this one will also still apply to all other forest related initiatives and other development initiatives within our communities. And then I will present a specific case in Vietnam which was facilitated by the UN Red with the government at the same time with the participation of indigenous peoples and who are very important lessons have been drawn up in this and it was the basis of improving more the guidelines that was finalized with UN Red. And then of course I will provide you some key challenges in relation to our experiences on the ground and then the opportunities also. As an introduction, FPIC was hardly, we are very glad that FPIC has in the other organizations have now developed their own guidelines and have given importance really to FPIC in relation to various projects. And what was presented earlier by Yuki and also by Ali is a very detailed, stepwise process and we very much appreciate that because what I will be presenting is much more on the broad areas of FPIC and of course the basic principles and some of the areas where confusion usually or conflicts usually are encountered in the process. So anyhow, yeah, I just very much focused on this. Everybody knows about this but I just would like to remind that in Red Plus we have the Cancun safeguards and for us indigenous peoples FPIC is one of the rights of indigenous peoples which is integrated in one of the safeguards in relation to the respect for our knowledge and rights and by taking into account international obligations such as the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Of course we also know that one of the safeguards is the full and effective participation of all relevant stakeholders including in particular indigenous peoples and local communities which are forest dependent. And of course we also give emphasis on the actions that are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity. We know that these are what we are pushing for in relation to the Cancun safeguards and we will really be monitoring very strictly on this on the ground. Yeah, of course another thing is yeah one of the safeguards is respect for our knowledge and rights and for us FPIC is a collective right of indigenous peoples as defined by international human rights standards and also by the UN DRIP and ILO 169. And as a collective right it has a set of principles that define the process or the mechanism. The ones presented already by Yuki have already defined some of the processes that we have to undergo here. Of course basically it's an independent collective decision making process with a full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and yeah we're appropriate this should be done at all levels at the local subnational and national levels. Also as mentioned already I'm repeating some of the points that they have already said but we also reiterate that FPIC requires disclosure of all necessary information which will serve as the basis for indigenous peoples to either accept or reject any proposal, project, policy activity or action that really has impacts on their lives and our rights to the development of our lands, territories and resources and our being. Yeah so what does this consist of? This is one of the cartoons made by the asian indigenous peoples in relation to FPIC because they have developed a visual and a comic yeah comics on relation to the conduct of FPIC. Yeah as I already mentioned this but I would just like to emphasize how we define consultation and consent because these are two different aspects that we have to consider. Of course as have already mentioned by the other two speakers consultation is a process and a mechanism for information sharing and exchange of views, opinions on a certain proposal or action. So it's a continuing and iterative process really and it's not only one time consultation and that's it and then the consent will result from all of these collective discussion making processes, decisions arrived through these processes with the appropriate and necessary information that is provided, internal deliberations among indigenous peoples ourselves and our own independent decision making process. The process will really result in a collective decision of either giving or withholding our consent in relation to any project or action or decision. And how should this be applied? Of course as we have said we in the red plus process FPIC applies in all the phases and at all levels of decisions and actions on red plus. Yeah I'm repeating again this that consultation effective participation of IPs at all levels and all phases with Julie selected and authorized representatives identified by the indigenous peoples themselves and yeah I mentioned also that it is a continuing process and the basic information as well as appropriate community-based trainings, capacity building should be provided in order to really understand what are all of these proposals and in relation to that that may have impact on indigenous peoples lands, territories and resources. Now we have identified some critical issues for indigenous peoples in relation to the red plus process. For example there these are some of the continuous issues that we really have to take in consideration in relation to the FPIC process. For example in identifying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation our traditional management of forests and our livelihoods in relation to rotational agriculture or what they call in other areas a sifting agri cultivation or had been some countries have mentioned that this is one of the drivers but basically we insist that this is part of our traditional management of the forests. We also the land tenure rights is also an issue wherein we still insist on the respect and recognition of our customary ownership or control or management of our lands, territories and resources and the communal land rights and security of indigenous people should be recognized. Under forest governance of course we have also insisted that we have been managing the forests and we have been stewards for generations of the forest so our traditional sustainable use and management and other ecosystems should be taken into consideration and the most important is because we have customary laws governance and institutions in in our governance systems. Another point is on gender and intergenerational considerations. We have to take note of the role contribution and participation of women and youth and of course with respect to the role of the elders in our communities and then as we have always said red plus is not only about carbon but non-carbon benefits and benefit sharing should be the basis of why we have to participate in all these red plus processes. This should include our cultural and spiritual values enhancing our economies and traditional livelihoods and of course increase the land tenure security enhancing biodiversity conservation improve forest governance policy reforms among others and of course we should do this with equity based on the needs and priorities defined by IPs in accordance to their management capacities. Yeah as I said I will zero in on this Vietnam experience in epic piloting. Yeah this is already documented and have been circulated by the UN red has one of the experiences that they have undergone and this was done in the province of Lamjum, Lamdung who are in the ethnic minorities are the main respondents and the participants in this process. Yeah there was a facilitation team that included ethnic minorities that's what how they call the indigenous peoples of Vietnam but this team had locked substantive knowledge and understanding of red plus, ethnic peoples rights and their livelihood systems. There are effective forms of communications like posters, booklets, brochures but these were not extensively used because of time allocated for information dissemination which was limited and then the information was not sufficient and lack substance on the rights and natural resource management of indigenous peoples. Yeah and the focus was merely on the forest conservation and economic benefits of red plus. Consent was taken merely by asking whether they want their forest to be conserved by raising their hands and by secret marketing in some of the communities and of course it's devoid of the potential risks and implications associated with the land in your livelihood systems and identity of indigenous peoples among others and this is explicitly explained already by the steps that Yuki had that we have to take into consideration as explained by Yuki and the other lessons was that there was no time and opportunity for the community members to independently process in compare with information from alternative sources and then discuss and deliberate on their understanding views and concerns collectively prior to the decision making. So it was just a one-time process of information sharing and then they wanted to house a decision immediately and for indigenous peoples this is not the case supposed to be the case and then village reports were reported by the local facilitators which lacked information on the issues and concerns which were really raised by the community the ethnic minorities in the villages in the course of the meetings and then lessons the good part is lessons from these experience was taken into account for the further development of the UN Red Guidelines on FB and despite the weaknesses and limitations of this experience it was a still positive learning process especially with the support and cooperation of the government of Vietnam. The report was fully disclosed and presented in UN Red meetings and then also in the regional meetings and served as basis for as I mentioned to further development of the guidelines. Yeah and if you go to the chief challenges yeah it's always the case that there is lack of adequate information on the red plus or any other project that is being discussed on the community level and of course the forms and manner in in in forms and manner that should be understood by the communities yeah we always require translation of all of the documents of the government sometimes and that's very expensive or the corporations who come to our communities who say it's very expensive but we always insist that but this is necessary for us to be able to understand what you are proposing and in relation to red plus there is always a lack of understanding on this in the earlier days but maybe I think after some process of awareness raising capacity building engagement with the government this has all been improved for now but still these are the key challenges for countries who are in the early processes of red plus and your own other projects for yeah in the Philippines for example we have an Indigenous People's Rights Act and we have a very good guidelines on in relation to the conduct of FPIC but still with corporations and others like mining the other executive industries there is always misrepresentations meaning they pick up the Indigenous People's Leaders that they want to talk to and then sometimes they manipulate and fast-track the process because they just want to get already the FP in a quick time so that they can already implement their projects and this is always the case and I think this is not only in the Philippines this is also being done in some of the most of the countries and and then as mentioned also this is one thing that we want put in place independent monitoring the course mechanisms you had also mentioned this so we have to form pretty many videos with deep understanding of IPS rights and experts to be doing this and it should be accessible to our communities and there should be money to address that sort of bias and violation of the physical and processes of FP. Now the opportunities as we can see with the experience of the Global Environment Forum and also the Forest Historic Council there are already new international and national standards and guidelines governing red plus and FPIC and other climate financing that are emerging and FPIC guidelines developed by various red plus mechanisms and other multilateral international agencies and the good part also of this is they're very open for comments we have been receiving some of all these guidelines to provide comments and suggestions on how to improve these guidelines and of course some of the red plus countries are already piloting these efforts at some national levels and improving their lessons learned in the process with the participation of indigenous peoples and the other countries are now showing willingness to undertake FPIC there is also support for indigenous peoples information systems and capacity building to engage more effectively and there are now indigenous peoples who are more active and capable to engage constructively in red plus processes and also in other mechanisms at the global, regional, national level and the other levels yeah thank you very much and for more information we also ask you to visit our website and the website of the Dubai and also the website of the Asian indigenous peoples thank you very much thank you Grace for a very comprehensive explanation by the indigenous community I mean by red they are very active for them to secure the indigenous communities rights and okay so now thanks to the Latin America case and Conrad from FPP I think could explain about the cases in Latin America and red thank you that's the next one my name is Conrad Feather I work at the forest peoples program which is an international human rights organization and working in solidarity with forest peoples and indigenous peoples around the world and I'm going to talk along the lines that Grace referred to um thinking about some of the the key issues that lie behind FPP why it's important and um I think the first the first point to highlight um is that FPP in its uh true sense is about leveling the the power asymmetries that are present out there in the in the real world um and as Grace highlighted when it's a case of a large extractive company or a major development project in the national interest and often the rights of communities even though they're excellent even though there are four more requirements for FPP that are required those those requirements are sort of undermined or manipulated or distorted in the process and that's why the C in FPP the consent is absolutely crucial because in most cases where it's the case of a large extractive company or a state project um it it's that there's largest significant power between the two actors the community in the state or the community in a multinational company and it's the consent the ability of the communities to withhold their consent that's really the main um bargaining chip that the communities can use to try and level that that field so if that consent isn't there then we can't um we can't even talk about how um FPP could be implemented um now the other key issue that I want to highlight today is you can't also talk about FPP if we don't know what we're talking about FPP is fundamentally about lands and territories and resources and if those land rights and resources haven't been identified as Grace has highlighted um then we can't even begin to be talking about FPP and that applies to red as well obviously as well as any other project because red is about carbon the carbon is in the trees and the trees are in the territories of the communities and indigenous peoples um you occupy the land so um just going back to the main point of why does red need FPP it's a key safeguard um let's not forget that red is about uh placing a value on forest that may not otherwise been there so it's obviously potential incentive for land and resource grabbing um uh and just like any other external project proposed from indigenous peoples lands it could involve the uh you know changing the way that people that the land is used or affecting the lands that will uh affect people's collective rights remember that FPP is Grace said is also a collective right we're not talking about the FPP of an individual the leader of a village we're talking about the collective right and that's why FPP also needs to um face the challenge of being captured by elites internally to the village which may often be manipulated by external interests as um a leader of a village may be um manipulated into signing away uh rights on behalf of their village of course there are all sorts of as well as avoiding risks uh there are all sorts of positive reasons why any project will want to secure uh any external project will want to secure FPP from from from communities um obviously requesting permission from the people you're about to work with is a minimum uh the minimum basis of any respectful relationship between two parties and without which no benefit would be able to flow into local communities so that's FPP in a more general sense um and obviously FPP this should be applied to both lands that are legally recognized in national legislation and lands that are recognized because even if even if lands are recognized legally then people's rights um to that land can still be um can still be overwhelmed by uh distorted processes of FPP uh or no processes of FPP um but why is red different from other other projects well fundamentally we can't forget that red um is about proposing changes to how people use their lands and resources so it could uh it could involve a loss of access to the forest and the risk of food security livelihoods and cultural identity which is associated with livelihoods it involves um often involves projections into the future about how forest can be used for the next 20 30 40 years it may be linked to um a commercial contract um with conditions imposed on how forest can be used with long term implications and we've seen in several cases where um failure to comply with conditions means that their the communities will face liabilities or even loss of rights uh and access to forest and of course there are even cases there have been several cases in Peru um involving contracts uh written in English uh with uh highly unfavorable terms being signed by people who often uh it's for eating in Spanish um signing contracts for up to 40 years using using their land as um so involving clauses that would if people didn't meet conditions then land would um be held in the form of a deposit by the uh by the commercial operators and extremely unfavorable terms uh just commercially the other feature of red which makes a difference is that really still the best word for themselves is actually that um there's a development so that raises the question of whether you can actually do everything about it if you don't really even know what it's about um because of course effort requires full disclosure and of course another issue is if it's been related to the carbon market then um that involves ethical considerations um you know off-setting isn't highly controversial issue and communities will will need to have full information in front of them in order to make that um extremely critical decision so as everybody has said there are some key elements that um any ethical process could consist of which i won't go into too much but just to highlight that first of all there's no um uh an ideal process would involve um a process set out by the village or community or people themselves about who is going to represent them how the process is going to to work how it's going to be validated and the timing and and everything else um and some peoples may have their own ethical protocols already in place it involves an iterative process in which communities can withhold their consent uh various points that decide to go on or suspend the negotiations rather than a one-off yes no decision and fundamentally involved in it must require the prior identification of those of land rights even if they're not held uh legally in national terms by the community then um it's fundamentally very interesting so that's an example of um of a sort of this kind of iterative process in which questions are asked and at various points um communities can decide to withhold their consent and not continue discontinue the discussions maximum rec off publication that you can access it's very interesting now just a couple of examples just to highlight um how this is actually implemented um one one example is from Peru where there was a um uh a non-carbon market uh reforestation project with a with a with a village indigenous village which or two villages in fact which was then transformed into a full-scale avoided deforestation project um there was a there was a concept note developed there were advanced discussions with the financiers and um and so on uh there the operators claim that they've been done they did effort for it was in process um but when uh local organizations suggested that effort hadn't been implemented they were acting extremely aggressively um but it resulted in them actually providing their documentation of what they considered to be epic um and from this we can see the following in the first village um eight out of 75 adult members according to their information had had been present at the meeting where the project was approved and the second village 35 out of 102 other members this is their information um that they were providing um it was just a one-off decision about whether they wanted to opt in or out um there was no discussion of carbon uh because it was deemed to be too complex and could raise expectations that um would would be a risk to the project there was no involvement of the the people's own representative organizations um because they were deemed to be too uh complicated as they would raise objections and criticisms and concerns and when that organization requested information to be able to provide back to their communities um they were not provided with it um there's a report the fqp um has just released on a on a demonstration un read a demonstration project instead of wacy um in the last few days uh where which is which again evaluates claims that fpick has been secured um on the good side one of the first villages approached in this part this demonstration project rejected the project and uh no negotiations were were continued um but in the subsequent villages um we see that it was a village where customary lands uh were actually included within a national park um including farming lands um but the land tenure identification of the project um didn't recognize that it just recognized the national park the state and not customary land and therefore the effort of communities wasn't um uh wasn't required um and again we see that um fpick was reduced to a yes no choice um but the evaluation revealed that communities were asking questions such as what will be done next and uh what will we get from this project which indicates and how long we'll be able to access our gardens in the forest area after un read which indicates that several key questions still haven't been answered for them so i'll leave it there so we can continue the discussion and thanks again for your time yeah so that i think it really explained the difficulties of red like you promised something for the effort but you don't know actually giving giving up your rights for what's in the effort for the rent so that's nothing quite unique for the rent compared to other states okay so uh maria for this it's for your case no good day everyone i'm from syrinama and i think most of you don't know where syrinama is or do you let america i'm not going to talk about let america all those countries because and i know i know i can't talk about syrinama that cannot talk about all these countries in let america with their own dimensions syrinama is a dutch colony former dutch colony so we speak dutch we have indigenous peoples in syrinama this is about four percent of the total population is indigenous peoples but we also have dissentments or the slave race we call them maroon actually we call them tribal peoples in syrinama because we want to make the distinction between indigenous peoples and tribal peoples some of you will say that indigenous peoples are also tribals so that's true but we want to make this decision because indigenous peoples in syrinama are the authentic the first peoples from syrinama while the maroon are the people who came in later but at the same time we recognize their rights at the same way we recognize indigenous peoples' rights and i think most of you have heard about the xamaka judgment and that was in the court of the OAS how you call it the human rights court of the latin america of the americas and this case of the xamaka people who are tribal peoples were just decided as the same rights of indigenous peoples i'm going to tell another kind of story here today and i'm going not i'm not going to talk about the different step and the processes we're watching here before in the other presentations the presentation of me is more like what we are experiencing right now it's more about the relationship we are building with an institution this is the institution could be maybe your institution and it's more like this institution decided to have a project and within this project they want to strengthen our government to have a better relationship better engagement process with indigenous peoples in syrinama it's about the capacity building of the government it's about capacity building of the government about the rights of indigenous peoples actually well i come you will see it later as well but this id is coming from the resolution the pc resolution when the rpp was approved in 2013 that was then we like indigenous peoples were in that meeting in a pc meeting and we were able to speak up and we said syrinamas syrinama doesn't recognize indigenous peoples rights legally so we don't in the xamie indigenous peoples in syrinama doesn't exist for that reason all these things like f pic are very very important for us of course we are fighting for our rights have our rights legally recognized but at the same time we are working with things like f pic like as if we have land i think Conrad was talking about that part as well we are during the fcpf meeting the pc meeting last year we said one of the things we should have in our rpp to prepare ourselves for maybe a red project um is that the capacity of our government need to be um um strengthened they need to know more about indigenous peoples right because they just don't know if you're talking about land rights i think like that they are still saying you want to build a state within a state so um these are not the ideas what indigenous people in syrinama have about land rights so that's the reason why one of the reasons we want to strengthen their capacity and the idea was that within the money of the finance of the fcpf is that a part of that finance will go to the indigenous people so that we can have the ownership about that finance and see how we ourselves can do this capacity building process with the government and that's still in the project document it is approved now so um we are looking forward that we are getting this finance sooner or later but at the same time this institution in syrinama decided to do the same thing when they heard about this part of the rpp they decided okay but we can do that as well so they started this project the project was approved and they started the project without speaking consulting indigenous peoples and tribal peoples in syrinama but the project was approved by an international government and actually the first time i heard about this project was last year in warshow at the cop in warshow i heard this institution during an inside event telling about the project and saying yes and syrinama is one of the countries who is part in the of this program and we will work in close collaboration with indigenous and tribal peoples from syrinama but we were not even informed by that time yet so what if the institution approach which approach you as indigenous peoples organizations since i'm working for an indigenous peoples organization and ask you to consult they do consultations with indigenous peoples in syrinama if this institution explains that indigenous peoples to continue to the content of a project but this project is already grafted and approved that the goal of this project is to strengthen the capacity of the government to better the engagement process with indigenous peoples and make fpik an instrument used by the government because that's one of the important goals of this project of the this institution what if this institution is an environmental organization maybe i don't know if you see the link but the strengthening the project strengthening the government but this institution is an environmental organization and this institution will make you partly responsible for the outcomes of that project and what if the indigenous peoples has no good experiences with this institution in particularly some individuals and that the indigenous peoples are also worried about the political position of this institution especially the way their policy about the relation between environment indigenous peoples territories and if the indigenous peoples stress that capacity building of government by indigenous peoples organizations should be part of the implementation of the rpp that's what i try to explain just before that it is now becoming part of the has become part of the project document to prepare ourselves for the for i don't know maybe red plus project the process of engagement this is what i call the process of engagement and most mostly i will talk about that i'm not going into detail about of the we are not we are very in the beginning of the process so i cannot speak about how the process will go further but for us this is at this moment a very important part of the process and i think maybe this can be the most important part of the process because if you are indigenous peoples and you have to work with other partners but you cannot trust these partners but you have and you need to work in collaboration with others and if your engagement part is not a good part then you might have a problem with that so these were our questions of course to this institution well why should we start to work in collaboration with you this is what i mentioned it was said in the resolution in 2013 when um Suriname's case was approved and this says that we will in collaboration with indigenous and tribal peoples representatives in the work and start a process to identify the need for and to provide capacity building and government institutions with respect to indigenous and tribal peoples issues we started our own internal presentation consultations only for the question if we want to work in collaboration with this institution why should we do that and why should we invest in in this whole process the chiefs because i'm working for the chiefs agreed to try to start and to build a relationship with this institution because they think it is very important to work in collaboration with other partners so they said we can work together but we have to do everything every step based on fb i very quickly will only mention this because of lack of time but because this institution only knew two kinds of type of contracts they offered us a contract like a consultant and within this contract it was said that we would they will get all the own all the products out of this consulting consultancy job and the consultancy job was actually to one of the parts was to talk about the consultation how should the consultation process be and so they wanted to have all the products and all own all the products but how can you hand over communication strategy ideas about communication you have with your tribal peoples which are indigenous peoples you cannot hand that over you can of course advise them and tell them how to do but days it was written in their contract that you everything you will put a paper will be owned by them i will close and this was not possible for us to sign such a conflict so we had a whole long discussion and that's why i'm calling this the second phase of the process we had a whole long discussion talking about this issue we spoke with the lawyers who are based in the headquarters we had to come we ourselves had to come with solutions with wordings they could use within the contract where we can feel ourselves satisfied but they didn't the lawyers didn't have the idea of this international institution how to formulate some language where indigenous peoples can find themselves as collective people can find themselves comfortable to sign agreements like this so we ended up because we came to a solution we we did sign the contract we were still called consultants but the part of the ownership we came to a solution and i just hear heard last day one of these days that this institution now have a third kind of contract because of the process because of talking with each other because it was really a long process and we invested a lot of our time to speak with the institution to tell them how we feel about things and how and now they started to understand us so this institution now have a third kind of type of contract so it will be more easy for indigenous peoples now that's what they say i haven't seen the contract but let's trust them because this whole process is also a process of trust and other than that i can not tell you about how it will go further we are still in the process working with this institution we are now facing problems because they are saying you don't have enough time anymore we have to go to the communities we have to have the consultations there time is lacking now so there is a bit of time constraint there is no budget to go to all these communities they say so we have to figure out how we will consult all these people because we cannot go to all these communities and yeah there are still some challenges but still we are trying and it's also for us a learning process but we see that as most ways also the institution and i think that's more the message also the institutions who are saying we are working with both fpik and we are fpik is within our policy that will mean that you will change your own policy to make fpik work yeah thank you thank you very much to share your struggle on this course for all the process of preventing tension okay so the last speaker is Martin from his uh as a lawyer he could also uh experience his work on uh case management okay thanks very much um thanks for the very good proceeding presentations which picked up some of the issues i was going to touch on um just by way of background i'm both a lawyer who works for a private firm but also on the board of ngo wf in australia we're doing a lot of read work so i see a lot of things from different perspectives um the first thing i want to say is i think the comments that were made earlier that really is very difficult what we are basically presenting here is for presenting an entire new suite of legal rules and concepts that are being applied to an existing resources base so you're basically going into a country and saying a forest or areas of forest that are already subject to either um they're either owned by indigenous groups called the national park or they are subject to forestry concessions or mining positions or a range of different uses is then being put over the top with an entirely different set of um rules which were also introducing brand new concepts carbon rights non-carbon benefits all these these things which we talk about which actually are not defined in law so no way in the university agreements is actually to find what a carbon right is or what a non-carbon benefit is there's a lot of talk about it but it's actually not in the agreement the second thing is um it is also an issue that will bring up conflict and it's conflict because of the fact that you have competing interests um from the outset and thirdly we are worlds apart here in talking about what an indigenous group um or indigenous community may want in terms of their own forests and what a financier sitting in whether it's the Norwegian Ministry of Finance or sitting in the World Bank under the FCPF or they're sitting in the private bank in Europe they are worlds apart in terms of what they're thinking but there is one very significant common goal people who finance read want to make sure that FPP works because if you are a real financier and you're really concerned about transferring money whether it's public donor money private money FPP is absolutely critical so the examples that you gave are about bad FPP performances I would say that is not indicative of most people in the carbon market or the finances that want to pay for environmental services that they are very bad examples and we've seen throughout history in the carbon markets particularly places like P&G some very bad examples of failure to consult but but at a general level um part of the the reality of safeguards is that most of the people now who want to fund and finance results based in the red space think that FPP is very important um so ultimately who will FPP be be driven by either be driven by Swedish national rules as they develop it'll be driven by domestic governments who say we require certain things to happen it will be it will be driven by by indigenous peoples who are saying you know we have an expectation that we understand what is happening and it will also be driven by donors and finances who are saying that you have a certain level of expectation to be made before it happens um the other important thing is that quite often we've seen examples of where I think there was a comment made that often indigenous groups don't really know what their rights are we're increasingly seeing um we've seen that the law has been lawed and that in many countries indigenous groups actually have very strong constitutional rights which are overlooked and governments make decisions on or make decisions on allocation of resources ignoring the constitutional right indigenous groups to resources and we've seen Indonesia and that community rights have been awarded by the High Court there we've seen Brazil decisions have been made in other countries as well so I think sometimes we forget that they're actually some quite good strong constitutional grounds for for um for uh local communities just groups to claim a very strong standing that you that you must deal with us as well um and then he's also on on on top of customary licenses so the the one sort of thing I wanted to just give an example of today is that ultimately a lot of what we talk about here is a partnership it's a partnership we talk about red red will not succeed unless there is money on the table and it's all very well to talk about we want people of carbon benefits and non-carbon benefits but unless someone is appeared actually pay for those and actually and it doesn't necessarily have to be the market context but simply by being results based manner it will not ultimately succeed and the view of donor countries is that we're happy to kickstart this but ultimately we expect the private sector to come in and also help fund a lot of red so if we are going to a private sector finance we need to accept that that's going to happen and we need to then make sure that fp is is carried out properly so ultimately a lot of this means a partnership between finance partnership between indigenous groups and the partnership between people who are implementing projects now one of the interesting models and a lot of the talk today about the problems so one of the ways is what are some of the solutions that we can do to get past that and one of the models that's been adopted you know it is in a developing country context sorry developed country context is in Australia for me Australia has a long history of indigenous presence there over 40 million years we've had the aboriginals in Australia and what happened was the Europeans came to Australia and the government declared all the land to be crown land owned by the Commonwealth of Australia and for many years that indigenous rights were ignored and what is what ultimately happened was in there was a high court constitutional case by gentlemen called Edie Marbow which led to an act called the Land Rights Act and now indigenous groups have land rights in Australia where they're able to claim ownership rights over land at the same time many of that Commonwealth land which is subject to native title claim is also subject to mining uses or forestry sources or other concessions so what the government has introduced are these agreements called indigenous land use agreements where the parties come together and negotiate an outcome and that process generally takes two years but it's a matter of everybody sitting down around the table coming to an agreement about who has what rights and how okay and so issues of land tenure are not really relevant in the sense that we've identified players who have an interest but we try to resolve through these agreements and again they take a long time but ultimately they result in an agreement as to who can use the land in what context try to have mutual recognition of different rights and allocate the benefits between different parties so we also need to look at if it's critical and we need to look at solutions in which we can get good ethnic outcomes and at the same time set that as by finance if we want to have we're involved so that's just just one example I wanted to give but it is a is quite a useful example which can be applied in many contexts thanks thank you very much for summarizing and that's a very great summary of what we're doing so finally we just open for all four questions we kickstart five minutes later we are having five minutes or ten minutes for the questions so any any questions or comments so we just get a couple of questions and thank you I'm standing from human indonesia I just want to add one more comment on what's already reflected by the presentation from Conrad then we have begin Central Surrey Zidane by UNRAT actually it's not it's even it's not even done it's a it's five spheres in the model of claiming ethnic as an instrument but as a way to support the rights of this state to the constitutional area so those that gave the consent to the ethnic process is not communities but the minister of forestry so that's the key lesson from Central Surrey Zidane if you don't start really with the clarification of Daniel and and rights to land then it will be ended up in giving a blank check to the government to check their own rights that we own this land and this is what happened the second one is regarding the informations whatever the package look like to make people understand about the information but if it's not clearly guide the people on how to understand the language is and it will be trapped again into the like giving junior high school lessons but no have no direction on what exactly the objective of information is and third sorry I want to ask one more thing on the legal questions to Martin because we also work on the same process in Indonesia regarding the constitutional code the problem for the legal question is because all of this territory has been established in the past and there's no uh uh retroactive principles in law to take back again the land that has been claimed by the government or by the state and it's difficult now for example for Indonesia a constitutional code is to implement because all of this land has been in service in 1960s 1970s and it's it's it's now for example for indigenous people trying to claim back the land but how they challenged before the court the court is you know 2012 but the decision on land is already you know even before the even before the forestry lawyer the system is on the 1960s so that's the question actually for us as a lawyer I'm also a lawyer like Martin and it's difficult to answer those questions when people really want to ask whether they land can be taken back or you know just leave it like this and governments will claim it is a state forest or state land thank you so I take a couple of questions please thank you mr. moderator my name is Gatrud Kenyanji I'm from Uganda and Uganda is participating in both uh red plus and UN red we are a community based organization i'm a representative of a community based organization that is expected to be a practitioner in implementation of red but we are also very worried about red for historical reasons in the past powers came and colonized Africa and took away most of our resources when we are looking and now still red is a top down approach it's not conceived as a grassroots level it's not our idea it has come we know that there's free prayer and informed consent but it's not our idea we have not conceived it and you're saying you're going to benefit shame that you are going to uh how can we guarantee that it will happen when the things we could see were taken from right hand angle and now this couple dioxide which you cannot see will not be taken the same way yeah so that's one of our reasons why we are worried about trade which we don't apply here because it's in Africa it's in Africa but red is red we're right thank you very much thank you so many okay so the batteries so you just try together thank you my name is Patrice Levin I'm working for c4 um more globally about the AFP process there is a basic assumption which comes out quite often is community comment decision making and so on and so on and the dissipating assumption is that communities speak in one with one voice and when we talk about power asymmetry I agree that it's in making a lot of progress in solving asymmetry between the state and big companies with communities but these communities are made up it's a bunch of individuals with very different interests and who is speaking in the name of the communities it's generally very specific people aristocratic groups castes and so on and I have an example a recent example in Liberia where a big company tried to not to access to land other word to poland grabbing and they were accused by local NGOs of not taking the proper ways to dispose of people so what they did is they started all over again they hired an NGO paid the NGO quite well they organized an EPIC and they got the approval exactly what they wanted before so I'm this is one example but it's what comes up very often if you really want to get people's voice just have an NGO talk in the name of the people and you get what you want so one more and I will thank you very quickly because because of time limited I don't have a specific question but just very to short coco and the first one yes EPIC it's a fundamental principle right and and and mechanics for each of these people's and their communities but it's it's it has a very strong relation to land rights issue and the other issue is how to incorporate EPIC principles to the national and domestic legal framework and the second comment is there are a lot of institutions international ones and even financial institutions NGOs and these people are very actively involved into EPIC development and promotion but we should keep in mind that the next step of development of EPIC it's a negotiation with business business aside and we should think and create specific venue to invite business to be a part of dialogue because it's it's it's two ways roads so and we should and approach as soon as possible in the future thank you so maybe colonel go study just for two quick responses one in everybody's presentation and as you've said land tenure and land rights come up it's not like one point is that in many countries we will never resolve it if he's a generational issue there's often dealt with in very different ways and there's no easy way to fix it so we actually have to find ways in some countries that go above land tenure by saying we don't know what the tenure is but everybody is involved in this is how the government manager is so we do need to think beyond I mean I would love in many ways to be resolved but in many countries it will just not happen before for generations so we need to think about alternative laws secondly your point is very right about business and then the point that you were making so the Australian example you just picture this 200 years of white settlement in Australia where land has been granted to people under a land system 200 years later is completely over not overruled but it's completely subjected to a new regime where indigenous rights are granted and over certain areas owned by the government much of that land is given back or if you're a farmer or a pastoralist or a minor you have to now deal with that land in a way that that works with indigenous groups and therefore all these parties get together and they have to come to an agreement and in those situations you can have 15 different indigenous groups all who are represented by different people who conflict and have different views and you have to make provision for future groups which you didn't make out for all the time and it's a very interesting process and it takes a long time but at the end of the day it incorporates dealing with Kenya dealing with benefit sharing dealing with under their ownership and making sure that customer rights are acknowledged I think most of the interventions will mainly be a comment but yes Patrice was it Patrice? Yeah I mean yes of course a lead capture is a real risk because everybody's highlighted and that's why it's it's necessary for people to come together themselves and decide how are they going to make a collective decision because effort was originally conceived from a medical model in terms of getting security individual consent from patients for medical interventions and that application to collective processes is not necessarily something that's customary held by communities of people but in many cases it is or in other cases it needs to be developed and that's why you need this time as Marcin has indicated we need time for those people to come together and develop their own processes and work through all of that messiness and that time can't be constrained by some requirement but 90-day requirement with decisions to be delivered and I fully agree with our friend from Uganda at the fundamental point the problem and we're not in a red implement so it's not our problem but I can see the places red implemented sort of term gray when they see this huge list of requirements but that's because this is a top-down idea it's not coming from communities and presents some sort of risks and challenges whereas if it's a there's a bottom-up idea coming from communities it's a completely different issue. Just one final comment I'm not sure I agree with Marcin that we have to go beyond land tenure. I'm not aware of many initiatives in the world at the moment where I can see that governments are really trying to address or dedicating energy to addressing land tenure and in the case of Australia really different from most other places. There are pledges and commitments where governments do lip service to land tenure in Peru for example they say yes if you compare the amount of energy or funds they dedicated this issue to developing guidelines for FPEC or building the Lima metro example we'll see it's clearly not a priority certainly in Peru there are very clear ways to resolve that people have been working on their own making maps doing agreements boundary agreements with neighbors the maps are all there the claims are all there this has been there for decades but the group of governments don't know anything about it so I think it's a case of a political commitment because when they want to resolve land tenure in favor of forestry concessions mining concessions rural concessions they can do that very quickly but it comes to communities which just doesn't happen. My point is that in many countries not everywhere yet but particularly Africa there are no land tenure systems or you find pieces of land that may have 17 or 18 different claims and everyone thinks that if we solve land tenure it will solve the root problem I mean in an ideal world you're right clearly for always there to possibly do it but I can tell you there's one of the requirements in the FCPF contracts is that land carbon must be emission reductions must be transferred free of any encumbrance and free of any claim to many other parties well if you're talking about transferring carbon for payments from land that has 18 different claimants on it it's not a clear transfer so I think that we sometimes underestimate in a particularly in the Indonesian context where the mapping has now been placed but I can give you areas of land with such 15 different claimants and which have been granted and they're all valid legal claims they all totally conflict some are mining some forestry some are traditional so I just think it's dangerous to think that if we can't solve land tenure we can't solve real land tenure it is important it's fundamental rights but sometimes if we can't resolve what we need to go and move on and find another solution Thanks Grace Yeah I would be very brief I would just say that in any development proposals without the required FCPF and also decisions from the ground to approve this or reject this can we deal with initiatives that will be successful really if we do not respect the process and also to consult the the real representatives of the communities because basically as I said one of the challenges really is representation and also manipulation of the process I also mentioned in one of the meetings with some government in who are the Red Cross countries are is that we have all these guidelines very good guidelines but the implementation of these is country specific or area specific because and depending on who will be implementing these guidelines because guidelines can be manipulated really depending on the interests of those who are getting our consent or just for the sake of enforcing their plans but definitely all of this did not be successful in the end because it did not go through a process of of pro participation and decision making with people who are really on the ground and who will be impacted on these projects and other initiatives thank you very much okay thank you so we are kind of taking some last thank you i'm Richard from Uganda i'm just asking about the scope how wide shall it like ourselves if i'm going to implement a red cross project within the boundaries of the national bank for example investment or capital stocks no this national banks are managing to the behalf of the people of a country should i consult the whole country should i consult the neighboring communities last comments okay thank you for your presentations and i did not think so long keep you here because it's already just i'm from south korea it's great to have your presentations here i have one question and you mentioned the non-carbon benefit can be paid and it's not fully discussed in the cab or any decisions so far then could you please explain how it can be happened without any like standards or procedure like suggestions thank you yeah in relation to the scope definitely it will involve it's supposedly going to involve everyone within the the defined territory that is being covered sometimes in in most cases before we do this they also map out which areas are are affected with the implementation of a certain project so if it is crossing boundaries etc they have to settle conflicts among the people who will be there who are there and who will be affected with all of these uh projects so so either you it's area specifically depending on who are the defined rights holders of the land and who are going to be impacted with these either directly or indirectly so all of these are going to be considered in the process that's why on the stepwise presentation of beauty there is a need for identification of the land owners land rights holders or whatever you define them the managers of the land or whatever so that it would define the scope and yeah in the people that you are supposed to be getting their consent the question benefits so i think the fundamental point about for us is that obviously it's not because everyone knows just about carbon it's about all the benefits that are there the agreements talk about mission reductions and all of the value that's used in terms of in commercial transactions to date whether it's the vcs the fcpf even to some extent the Norwegian allies talk about mission reductions um so uh so i think and it's it's the unit which is which provides the monetary currency for doing these transactions we need to be able to now move to talk about non-carbon infants so people will under the gold standard ccsp they will put more value on projects that have any benefits and that's a pricing issue but um at the end of the day what we're trying to do here in this process is to create a value for the non-carbon benefits and to recognize that they have a value as well as the carbon and the challenge today is that the value of forest is more than to work or in the minerals underground or in chopping it down for palm oil then it isn't giving those benefits so one of the steps to having results based on finance is to say one of the results is to say there's no benefits and that will get us on the journey towards defining those benefits and there are very few schemes around the world or very few programs that define the benefits that there are certain schemes that particularly in the states and elsewhere that define water rights or to find biodiversity rights to find diversity credits they're fairly few and far between but but hopefully that through a results based finance mechanism by saying the results we want and not just carbon savings but biodiversity savings indigenous community benefits etc we just start to to define those so FST is developing ecosystems and ecosystems certifications to you and that's actually well first there's no standard out in the world that covers so many ecosystem services from the forest we are actually developing a system which which will allow governments investors and companies to be confidently invest into ecosystem services and from managed forest and that's a process that's developing so that's something we can definitely aim at covering over time. The carbon benefits with all other types of benefits from the forest they are already safeguarded by FST the thing is that certificate holders are not able to make claims yet right we had certificate holders calling FST I'm sorry about the sound and calling FST saying well I have a river running in my forest I'm not using my forest for timber I won't use the FST logo on wood but actually I'm FST certified because FST is giving me a benchmark on how to manage my forest and I would like to be able to make claims about that water what can I do I would like to be able to make claims about the carbon I'm already a VCS certified but I can't really use my certification so we are adapting a system so that certificate holders can be can get the credit can be rewarded for the still achieve they are doing on ecosystem services that will mean additional work but that will mean probably hopefully additional benefits okay thank you very much for staying until the last time and since the issue is quite everyone is really this is key and safeguarding so on and I think since most of the described money involves the public money so I think this is how we can able to try some way to ensure how the sector for sectors are ensured in this red system and we actually still our writing is still it's working progress so we have to express it if you are interested then we try all kinds of issues and so hopefully we could continuously for maybe next year or something like that and hopefully continue on this work and so thank you very for the panelists and also for the participants and for the event staff and translation thank you very much too and it's really great that we could have this kind of discussion today and also Yuki of course