 being monitoring of land governance issues and also democratizing the land information ecosystem and promoting a global debate on land issues. Let me first thank our esteemed side of panelists. I will introduce them in a few minutes. Thank you for being here and also thank you to all of you who are connecting from all over the world. You are many today. Thank you for joining us. This webinar is convened by the Land Porter Foundation in partnership with TMP Systems and the Overseas Development Institute with the support of the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. Land Porter is very proud to host this webinar and we have been collaborating together over the past year during the Legend program for many years with these institutions. So very happy to support this webinar today. We also have been an active partner on this topic of land investment. So very happy to host this webinar today. The author will present the results of this report, the financial cost of mitigating social risks, costs and effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies for emerging market investors that will also look into stimulating discussion on how enhanced investment strategies can increase tenure security. So we all know the land investment has increased in Africa and in general in the global south in all emerging economies over the past years but also disputes with local communities are also on the rise exposing businesses to severe risks at the project level. So how can we effectively mitigate it? How can we make sure investors make deals that don't affect negatively communities and how do we reduce the financial risks of those investments? The quantifying tenure risk project is a joint research initiative from the ODI and TMP Systems which provides the data and analysis that businesses need to reduce land conflict and improve land governance through better informed investments decisions. The land portal has hosted this initiative since 2018 and providing an entry point that consolidates in one space the outputs of this initiative. We also have more resources and library documents and reports and articles on land investments, more than 3500 on the land portal topic page on land investments and we also developed the responsible land-based investment navigator in partnership with the International Institute for Environment and Development last year which is a tool for the private sector to guide through selected manual and other material on responsible land-based investment. So my colleague can share the link on the chat. So this webinar will begin with a presentation of the new report and then we'll follow by responses to the report from three discussions. After this we will have some reactions from the audience through a question and answer session. So I encourage all of you to post your questions using the question and answer feature in Zoom. So allow me now to introduce our panelists. Joseph Fajertag is a research fellow focusing on climate and sustainability in ODI. He joined the ODI in 2018 after working as an agricultural economist in the private sector for five years. So his research focuses on how to mobilize socially and environmentally private finance in emerging markets. Welcome Joseph. Ben Bowie is a partner at the TMP Systems. He has successfully directed projects across more than 25 countries in Africa and Asia relating to poverty reduction, human rights, small-scale energy, gender equality, climate change, and sustainable agriculture. Welcome Ben. Charlotte Van Andel has been a senior environmental and social officer at the Dutch Development Bank since 2007. She supports the implementation of FM or Sustainability Framework. She works on the OICD guidelines and other certifications at corporate and project level, mainly focusing on lentennial supply chains, labor conditions, cultural, social contexts, et cetera. She mainly operates in Africa and Asia with a focus on agribusiness and forestry. Lorenzo Coutoula is a principal researcher in law and sustainable development at the International Institute for Environment and Development. He works to address issues at the interface between land governance and foreign investment, collaborating with researchers, civil society governments in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and also worked with bilateral and multilateral development agencies. And finally, Shivani Kanabiran is the policy advisor for the Responsible Business Conduct Unit of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development at OICD. She's a specialist in corporate social responsibility and supply chain operations. Shivani provides advice to governments and companies on how to implement a risk-based approach to supply chain due diligence. Welcome everybody. Now, before I give the floor to the authors of the report and the discussions, let me give one minute floor to Chris Penrose Buckley. Chris, we're very privileged to have you here today. Chris is a senior land policy lead at the UK's Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office. He will provide some background on this project, how this project came about, and also a few remarks on how it fits with the general FCDOs working priorities. Chris, over to you. Thank you very much, Laura, and a big thank you to Land Portal and to our colleagues at GMP Systems and ODI who have produced this report. I was just thinking earlier how this project started a few years back. I think initially discussions with Ben and colleagues, particularly about how we could change the nature of the conversation with investors and businesses on land tenure risk, trying to take it out of an issue which tended to be stuck in a conversation around environmental, social, and government risks, and often with the people who led with that in companies. It was quite hard to get the ear of the operational people in companies and people working on the deals, and that's really where we wanted to have a conversation to say this is a material risk that you need to take seriously. I'm really delighted that from those initial conversations, the project has come to this point with two stages, as they will say later, one which I think many of you will have seen, which was published last year, the year before last, on the costs of tenure disputes going wrong with businesses, and then now this second stage looking at the costs of getting it right. It's great to see so many people on the call, and just looking at the chat also from so many different countries. On the one hand, you could say this is a research project, and it certainly has been, as you will see from the presentation, a lot of thought and work has gone into both stages and getting the methodology right. But really, this is about action. It's about people using this in their conversations with businesses, with investors to change their understanding of the risk, and to start plugging in the data to quantify it, and to change practice. I really encourage everyone who's on this call to share this far and wide to use it, and I think also to build on it. I think Ben and Joe will admit this is an important start, but I think there's a lot more work that can be done to refine this data, to look into other regions, other sectors, and get a better handle on the costs of tenure risk and also what it costs to do it right. One last point I want to make before handing over to the presentation is that one thing that has come up, one thing we've discussed with the team as they've worked on this, is that we didn't want to suggest that by putting a cost on getting it right, that it was possible in a sense to buy consent, and I think they've been clear throughout that this is really important, I think it's really important to demonstrate that the upfront investments needed to achieve proper community consultation are relatively small compared to the risks of when it goes wrong. But clearly that doesn't mean that investment in consultation always means that a project will go ahead, right? What you what you facilitate through that is a robust process, a pre-pri informed decision rather than always consent, because that obviously will depend on the community itself. So I think that's an important message to kind of keep in mind, and also maybe for the discussion later, which I think is really important, but clearly doesn't take away from the value of the results, and they really start messages about how much business sense it makes to invest upfront in managing these risks. So let me stop there, a big thank you again, and look forward to hearing the presentation. Thank you, Chris. And without any further delay, let me give now the floor to Ben and Joe to present the results of the report. Over to you, Ben and Joe. Thank you very much indeed, Laura and Chris. And I'd like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to the LAN portal team for their excellent organisational efforts here. And of course, to our wonderful panel, we'll try and keep this presentation fairly short and sharp so we can get to their comments and to yours. But finally, I'd really like to thank our donor, the SCDO and of course, Chris in particular, who's been extremely supportive along the way with this project and has made it all possible. I will briefly take you through our objectives, what we're trying to do here and how we've done it, before handing over to my colleague Joe for a discussion of our key findings. And then I'll round us off with a discussion of our recommendations and some thoughts on where we would like to take this work next. As Chris mentioned, this is a start and I think a very powerful start, but we would like to take it further. So as Chris mentioned, what we're really trying to do here is build a business case for better investment in methods to identify and manage tenure risk. That is, we are looking to show that there are material or financial reasons for companies and investors to invest in avoiding disputes with local people over land and resource rights. And this work has proceeded in a couple of phases. The last phase of the work, which was published now back in February 2019, so a couple of years back now, really looked at how much does it cost if a company gets into a dispute with local people over land and resource rights. And what we've found is that those disputes drive long delays for agricultural businesses in Africa, over 500 days on average according to our research. And that translates into significant lost value and foregone revenue up to $100 million. We looked at in some of our example cases, but the fundamental point here is that these disputes can be extremely significant from a material and financial perspective. And so there are strong incentives for avoiding them. This phase of the work, which we are very happy to present today, really provides the second half of the business case. So how much does it actually cost to start to avoid and mitigate the risk of these disputes? Now, this kind of comes in two parts. First, we want to put an overall cost on how much investors and particularly responsible investors from whom we can get data at the moment, have been spending on social risk mitigation. And what we found on average is that they're spending 2% of overall project expenditure on these social risk mitigation efforts. But how effective is that spending? We also need to know that if we are to provide businesses with a clear financial rationale for these investments. And what we found in this study, and Joe will take you through these findings in considerably more detail later, is the efforts to manage these risks cost about four times less than the risks themselves. So there is a good financial reason and perceptions among businesses of these actions are good. In some cases, over 90% of our survey respondents found that actions to mitigate social risk were cost effective and in fact a very good provided very good value for money. So what we hope that we are providing here and presenting today is a strong set of incentives for responsible investment in emerging markets. We're showing that even in challenging locations, actions can be taken to engage with local communities, build strong relationships, and ultimately develop effective social license to operate, which allows for smooth operation and win-win outcomes, not only for investors, but also for the people affected by their investment. And before handing you over to Joe to talk a little bit more about our key findings in some detail, I'd like to just discuss the way that we put together this report and the methodology that we've followed in our research. And we've used a free pronged approach to try and deal with the inevitable data challenges of researching investment and specific spending in emerging market investment processes. And the first kind of foot of our stool, as it were, the first and one of the most important pieces of our data comes from the public domain. And here we've relied heavily on information from development finance institutions. Development finance institutions are publicly or government owned banks that invest in emerging markets, both with the objective of getting a financial return, but also with a very clear objective of driving development and social and environmental improvement. And because of their public nature, DFI's are obliged or development finance institutions are obliged to provide a lot of detail on the way that they spend their money. And we've used that detail to derive a few very important data points. So first, we looked at these 137 cases to see how much overall was spent by DFI's on them. And then we've pulled out the proportion of that spending that could be allocated to actions that reduce or avoid social risk. These are actions like consultation processes, potentially land mapping, establishing grievance resolution mechanisms. And then finally, we've used the techniques that we've developed in the last phase of our work to show how exposed to social risk these 137 projects are. And so what we did is then compared the exposure to the spending to see whether the spending provided good value for money in terms of the risk avoided. But we do certainly realize that DFI, that using this sample of cases from development finance institutions, it's not a normal sample. These are responsible investors. They do not behave in exactly the same way as a mainstream business might. And so we've sought to back up that public domain information and that large sample with a survey that we sent out to over 800 businesses. We got 85 responses to that survey. So pretty good response right there. And you can see the distribution of responses we've got. And this data has been extremely useful for us to start to understand the relative effectiveness of different actions or at least how they or at least how their effectiveness is perceived by businesses. And so not only does this survey provide a useful kind of adjustment to what is an unusually responsible investor oriented sample from DFI's. But it helps us to start to break down these issues and see how different actions might be combined, put together, or even given less priority in investment processes. Finally, we conducted 35 interviews with investors and informants. And this just allowed us to provide further texture and further understanding of the effectiveness of different actions, why different actions were perceived to be effective or ineffective, and perhaps how they could be improved to be cheaper, as well as more effective in the future. And so we use these three sets of data to provide a kind of robust basis for the research that we're about to present in more detail. And so without further ado, I'll pass over to my colleague Joe to take you through how you find it. Thanks, Ben, and thanks, everyone, for joining. I'm going to present the three main summary findings. The first finding really covers the costs of doing it wrong, as Chris has put it. So in the first phase of the research, we essentially retraced our steps and estimate the costs of tenure risks using the new data, but the old methodology. And this reconfirmed what we had previously found about two years ago, that tenure risks are endemic in emerging markets. What do we mean by this? 46% of investors that we surveyed in Sub-Saharan Africa reported that they had experienced disputes with local communities. We don't really want to dramatize this. What came out from the interviews is that many of these disputes were wearable or involved minor issues, such as petty theft or sabotage, stealing from trucks, stealing fuel from trucks and so on. However, even these types of disputes reflect some kind of grievance, which is typically persistent and can eventually evolve into larger scale disputes that cause the delay or the complete disruption of operations and the financial costs associated with that. We also looked at 137 DFI investments, as Ben said, development finance institution investments, and found that 30% of them had experienced delays of at least a month, which we could trace back to issues around land tenure. And we captured that by speaking to the DFI's themselves, reading project documentation or media reports around those delays. And finally, we updated our existing due diligence tool with the new project locations and financial data to estimate that these delays would have costs between 25 and 40 million dollars in terms of the lost revenue and the continuation of operating costs of those projects. That represents about 24 to 37% of the net present value across those projects, keeping in mind some of the variations. So you did have some projects that were worth a billion or plus and would have therefore have experienced greater costs in terms of those delays, but you also had some much smaller projects that might only have incurred costs in the thousands. So the figure here is really an average across those 137 projects. And just to reiterate, the figure is estimated using the impact of delays caused by tenure disputes and operations and lost revenue. It doesn't include additional costs related to mediation, legal procedures, or additional compensation, which I'll come to now. The second finding is around the cost of doing it right. So keeping in mind that the cost of doing it wrong are typically 25 to 40 million dollars or 24 to 37% of the net present value of the average investment we looked at. By contrast, we estimated that the cost of doing it right are around 10 million or 10% of the net present value of the project. In other words, we found that there is a clear business case for spending on actions that would mitigate or avoid to tenure risks. This is because the financial risk is up to four times higher than the financial costs of those risk mitigation actions. And this was found by analyzing the data from the 137 DFI projects that showed average expenditure on social and environmental risk mitigation related to land rights to be around 2% of the overall project costs. So that 2% in turn represents about 10% of the NPV, the net present value, or 10 million in absolute terms. Again, this is an average. There is variation and depending on the project, the costs could be higher or lower. Now there's two more interesting things to note from the data given its variability. The first is that the 2% figure that we're quoting here is quite a high or a conservative estimate as such. A vast majority of projects spent between 0.5 and 2% on social risk mitigation procedures related to land. However, the average is pulled up to 2% by those projects that go seriously wrong and that end up involving very high compensation payments when we looked into the data. And that represents an additional financial risk which manifests itself in the form of costs of complex legal and dispute resolution procedures, additional compensation and so on. And this doesn't even include the additional financial risks related to stranded assets, reputational damages, loss of share values and so on. And the point we really want to make here is that the risk-reward ratio, if you put it that way, is probably much higher than the one in four that we've calculated using our methodology. And the second interesting point is that although the cost of risk mitigation does increase depending on the risk score of the location, that's what you see in this diagram. We can see plenty of examples of projects in high risk areas that are able to avoid long delays or disputes despite high risks in those locations. It's therefore evident that investors can succeed even in challenging locations and perhaps we can draw a comparison here to the slow or quick death of the World Bank's ease of doing business index. Third and finally, we found that we looked at the types of risk mitigation actions that were considered effective. Now, it's obviously not possible for us to prove this using the number of examples we have. So this is where we really looked at the business perceptions and that's where the survey comes in. So when we asked investors as part of the survey and in interviews about which actions or procedures they considered most effective, we made three broad findings. The first is that community meetings, which we more broadly classify as social dialogue processes, were considered most effective in securing local buy-in, both in terms of efficacy and cost. So overall, 90% of investors agreed that these were very or somewhat effective and nobody thought that they had a detrimental effect. 74% thought that social dialogue was a good investment or represented excellent value for money. And you can see here that stakeholder mapping exercises, training or operational monitoring were also considered highly effective by around 80% of the investor surveyed. The importance of social dialogue, including the value of soft skills and basic processes to establish trust, were also a common theme in the 35 interviews we had with businesses. So here's a quote from a horticultural producer in northern Nigeria. I won't read out loud, but it highlights what many investors said in the interviews, which is that they found community meetings a useful way of understanding the needs of local communities and establishing that mutual trust. Identifying these needs allowed them to adjust their behavior and target the investments at areas of greatest importance to communities and thereby maximise the value of their social risk mitigation efforts. The third finding under this broad third finding is that social risk mitigation activities. The survey shows that social impact assessments, monitoring efforts were considered least effective. So about 15% of respondents even considered these efforts a wasted investment or not the best use of money. And many interviews considered some of the rigid procedures that were required to implement as part of global national guidelines, an unnecessary pop sticking exercise, and a waste of resources, which didn't adequately capture the needs of communities in a particular location. And several interviewees also considered formal grievance resolution mechanisms or geospatial participatory mapping schemes designed according to international best practice guidelines as being much too inaccessible and technical for some of the local communities affected. Again, here's an example from one of the interviews with a commodity producer in West Africa. It shows how in some cases investors felt compelled to employ international consultants to meet international standards when using local channels for resolving disputes and settling boundary disputes would have been more effective. We should say here that in general all the procedures enjoyed board support. And there's also another caveat, which is that this obviously only represents the views of the private sector on what is most effective. It may of course not reflect the views of local communities who may well consider some of these ESG standards of formal grievance procedures as being effective tools for risk mitigation. Over to you, Ben. Thanks. Thanks very much indeed, Joe. So I will very briefly take you through some of our key recommendations and where we want to take this next. And then we can dive into the interesting and important discussion with our panelists and of course with you, the audience. So in terms of recommendations, we can split this broadly into kind of two categories. We have a set of recommendations for businesses and a set of recommendations for government and regulators. So on the business side, this is a message you probably now heard quite a few times during this presentation, which is we have a business case for investing in social risk mitigation strategies. We can identify a set of actions that are effective and that merit investment. You know, we need to understand more about the way that we put these different actions together. And we do recognize that some strategies are more effective than others. But what is clear is that there is a basis for companies to take this much more seriously, not just as a CSR issue, but as a core operational and financial concern. So moving on to our kind of recommendation for government, we think that there's a good argument for mandating minimum spending on social risk mitigation processes. This would enable more rapid and investments with higher rates of return, but it would also result in better impacts for local people and a more vibrant investment environment. That may sound like a fairly radical suggestion, but it is in fact not at all unprecedented. In the South African renewable energy sector, Greenfield projects have to spend more than this already on community engagement processes. And that is thought to be one of the reasons for the fairly rapid rollout of renewables in that country. But we also do recognize that there is, you know, as noted, much more that we can learn about how you implement these actions at a lower cost and with greater efficacy than they typically are at the moment. And so we would like regulators to ask for disclosures on the way that these spending, the way that spending on social risk mitigation strategies is being executed. So that disclosure can certainly help us to understand whether businesses are doing enough and can help with the process of audit and project assessment, but it can also help with this ongoing process of learning and improvement, which is vital. So moving on to how we would like to see this research moving forward, we would like to apply this, we think this methodology is robust. And we think that the approach could be replicated in other areas where there are issues that are hard to quantify, but which are certainly important for business. And so those areas could include social issues, the kind of primary example that stands out for us at the moment is labor rights and labor disputes, which of course are an important part of the kind of broader social license debate, as well as environmental issues, and in particular water risks, hopefully correctly in parentheses. So moving on to our second point, and building on what I was just saying just now, we can do much more research into how these actions, how these social risk mitigation processes, both identification and management can be done in ways that are cheaper and more efficient. That research can help inform disclosure standards, but it can also help help host governments to better understand what they need to do to genuinely improve ease of doing business, i.e. to provide an enabling environment that attracts responsible investment, that attracts businesses that are both successful and that deliver on developmental terms. And finally, we think that there is rationale for looking at some of the benefits of responsible investment and some of the upsides. I think at the moment we've talked a lot about the way that disputes create costs for companies, but responsible investors also see a host of benefits that are both material and reputational. And then we also think there could be value in looking at what we could call externalities, meaning that impact investors and responsible investors are interested in the degree to which their investments can deliver social and public goods. And understanding the degree to which those investments do deliver those goods or, of course, drive negative impacts could help to build a more complete case here. So I'll stop there and just say, thank you very much indeed to everyone for taking the time to listen to us present this. And now I'll hand over to our panel. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ben and Joe, for this great presentation, very clear. Congratulations for this very robust study and all the data and interviews, a lot of work behind it. Congratulations. So before I collect some questions from the audience, I see questions are started to come. I want to give now the floor to our free discussions. So I will start with you, Sherlock, as a representative of a development financing institution. How do you see this important publication? What these findings tell you? So what is your reaction, first reaction to this report? Over to you, Sherlock. I'm afraid you're on mute, Sherlock, at the moment. Maybe, Ben, you can stop sharing your screen so we can see, Sherlock. Does it work like this? Yeah, perfect. Over to you, Sherlock. Well, first of all, congratulations with this wonderful piece of work. It's really thorough and it's underpins what is known, of course, but until now it was more in the midst. And I think this report just, as with a lot of social items there, especially people who are in the financial world and very accustomed to all kinds of numbers, it blows away the blur and it translates it to hard currency. And in the end, money talks. So that's a very good thing. And it's taken into account in simple because of the price tag. So very happy with it and also happy with the confirmation that what I see with clients, for example, implementing on their own processes, focused on their own activities, and finding out later that, yeah, maybe I forgot something. Dammit, those were the communities. Yes. And sometimes hesitating to go into a dialogue with communities because the company who has dealt with their activities before them made such a horrible mess of it that they don't even dare to communicate with communities, but leave so much space open for all kind of speculations and not taking that really into account. Also, I've seen a whole team working and doing really good work with communities in livelihood, but there was no reporting from that team to the management. So what they didn't have on the radar is that there were still land issues to be solved. So, yeah, it can go wrong in a lot of things. And that is also why social dialogue is seen as quite complicated. For example, talking with a village head and not noticing that there are all kind of different groups within that village, different ethnicities, age, gender, background, vulnerabilities, parts of the village who were already resettled in an earlier phase, and that the daughters of the village heads ended up with solar panels on their roofs and not any of the other village members. Also, not taking into account that as a village you can't oppose government. If you go to a village and you have a very nice chat and you find out that there's lots of land available without noticing that just before you, a government official went to this village and indicated this and this land has to be allocated to this company. All very understandable, but yes, if you pay attention to that, it can be avoided. And also happy to see that and realize that we can and we are progressing. Even policies and frameworks, they change and they change our priorities. For example, with the UNGPs putting human rights more in the center, it makes the priority for stakeholder engagement much higher. In the past, it could be done that the whole management system is installed, all the activities are operational, and let's do stakeholder engagement plan. That won't happen anymore. Something else I want to mention is also that in the past, often it was a kind of we indicate what we are going to do and okay, we want your advice on that or we want your reaction on that, but nothing was done with it. It was not noted down, not feedback was given on what was decided and why it was decided or any opinions taken into account and then those decisions were changed. That is what I also see happening. It's getting more participatory both in consultation and in decision-making, which actually is really something that is a big improvement. So yeah, all bits and pieces you can find back in this report and I think that's really great to see. Looking a bit forward, I think that what is important also to see and what I see as one of the future steps is putting the needs of the communities in the center and putting around their stakeholders and bringing them together and looking for win-wins, which are often for example for a company in trainings, but also partnering and looking for partners in, for example, schooling, but also water projects and just also being a good neighbor, sharing resources and have attention for that and as last also on the agenda, profit sharing. Profit sharing, it's something which regularly or we see more regularly these days, but in some countries it's just a regulatory item. As in China, in India, you see that part of the profit needs to be spent on communities and communities have a clear say in that on where it's spent. So it can be also governmental requirements there. As a last, I would like to say that and that can link to incentives. You can give tax exemptions, but you can also say, I don't give a president upfront as a government, but if a company can demonstrate that they have a good management system with feedback loops in evaluation, setting targets, KPIs for management, then they get a reduction, for example. I would think that is much more the future and having not environmental impact assessments more as a core part of social dialogue start, but having the management system as a dialogue start and seeing that that fits into the whole system and management of a company, including all the parties which are outside that company. So thank you so much. It's really a pleasure to read the report. Thank you, Charlotte. Thank you for all these extra analysis that you provided, including the incentives to companies that do things in the right way and the importance of building relationship with communities that are affected by the investment and these putting the needs at the center and look for alliances is key. Thank you so much. This is all very insightful. Let me now turn to Shivani from the OECD privileged position to work with companies. Shivani, sorry, can I just ask you, Ben or Joe, to stop sharing your screen so we can see the panelists properly if you can please stop sharing so we have a full screen for panelists. So Shivani, what is your opinion? What these figures tells you? What is your opinion about the report? How can we best use it? Over to you, Shivani. Thank you, Laura. And let me just say, guys, congratulations. I've been talking about this for years, it feels like. And as you know, when working with companies, the question is always show me the business case, show me the financial, show me the numbers. It's one of the rare reports of actually seeing net present value in like page two. So that's exciting. Look, I think you've done a really tremendous job. I really like the fact that the methodology is it's actually quite conservative actually the way you've done it. So I think that's actually really good because sometimes we have information that's actually just based on few anecdotal things and then it's sort of stretched and that doesn't get us very far because the financial guys will dig deeper. So that's I think really great to have pretty decent level of data methodology. Of course, it's, you know, it's you can make you know, I say like, well, maybe this is not is this applicable to other parts of the world, etc. But it's a really great start. So first point is great, great that the business case, it's there. This whole four times the value that's that's just a fantastic takeaway already. So great job there. Second of all, I guess what struck me and I didn't get this in the report, but when I guess you went into a little bit more detail on the what are the actions that actually work and what actually are not what I consider almost, I guess it was a little bit playing a bit devil's advocate, but a bit of waste of time almost, but it's really useful to to get that. And I think that that is some area that I would love to actually go deeper into because I think that is important. We need to start getting into where we're most effective. So I think that from our point of view on our work at the Responsible Business Conduct Center, I think that might be something we should really talk about in more detail. The next thing I wanted to just highlight is that look, so now we've got the business case, right? So that's that's this data, this research. We also actually have recommendations that I mean, the OECD certainly, you know, Charlotte is probably well familiar with the work that we've done on the we've got the guidelines, which are this high level, very high level, normative expectations, we've got then the OECD due diligence guidance in which stakeholder engagement is really woven in throughout the whole due diligence approach. And I don't know if folks know, but we also put out back in and think maybe four or five years ago, even additional guidance exactly on what exactly meaningful stakeholder engagement is and what are some of the other steps that can be done. And it was it was directed towards investors in the mining and extractives sector. But really, it's a blueprint for good stakeholder engagement more broadly. But I think I'd be very interested to hear from, you know, maybe post this webinar from TMP and ODI, because I think there's an opportunity for us to maybe based on that guidance that we have that we can tease further with your data. What's the more effective one, because that we need to get into that effective question. The, and I guess I'm going to just I'm going to end soon, because I see a lot of questions that I want folks to be able to get to you, because you guys are the ones that can provide us some of the further insights. I just would leave with the with the call, we need action. We've got the business case, we've got recommendations on what can be done. So to the investors out there, and in fact, we even have the the the feedback from investors themselves that saying, you know, 90% say that this is actually a good thing to do. So let's let's start seeing some action. And this is where I think it's really important if you know, we can actually drill down on what are the more effective and efficient means of of of making sure that the action we do, it doesn't just, you know, pour money on to on to sand, so this we go like water on to sand. That's just it. I saw I saw in the chat, there was some questions on training and things like that. I'm happy to share with folks. After this this webinar at the OECD, we've just launched an e learning set of modules, it's all free. It's not exactly on land 10 years right, I apologize for that, but at least provides you on due diligence aspects of what that means stakeholder engagement could be a good good starting point. In any rate, it's you know, it's a self paced e learning course, about three hours of your time and it's most importantly, you just have to sign up, you don't actually have to to put your credit card on it. So that's also quite nice. And it's thanks to the EU for that. Okay, but I'll stop there. Again, congratulations. It's really great to see this and I'm sure will be will be in touch and and trying to see if we can take this deeper down. Oh, and then your point on the what governments can do very interesting very yes quite. That's that is quite I would say yes it is quite radical but that's an interesting that's an interesting thought let's let's let's go deeper on that and see. Yeah, I'd be very interested to to take you guys up on that as well. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much, Shivani. Thank you for your extra thoughts. Value for money indeed. And the point of getting away from anecdotal information and providing a real business case no numbers and quantifying the value, the value for money that it brings that this methodology brings and also the call for collaboration with the OECD. Thank you. This is all well taken and I think that Ben and Joe will respond to this point later. Let me now give the floor to Lorenzo. Lorenzo, you have worked with the civil societies and local communities a lot. So certainly you are the best position to provide your reflections on this report and the potential that it has not just for reducing the risks for investors but also reduce the risk for community conflicts. Over to you Lorenzo. Thank you so much Laura and congratulations Joe and Ben on this report which I found really really helpful and the whole project earlier work as well the report published a couple of years ago. So yes, it is a policy research institute so I can speak as a researcher a lot of the work we do is in collaboration with governments with civil society we work to reform policies and regulations on land and investment. We think that this strategic focus is necessary if we are to see systemic change. Often land disputes arise not so much from the fact that companies want to do the right wrong thing but rather because there are systemic pressures and governance failures at play. So the project as such is focused on the strengthening the business case, bringing the financials in and sort of creating that sort of robust business case for responsible investment conduct. I can see given the perspective I'm coming from some complementary or follow on work to strengthen the case for policy reform in engaging with government, in engaging with civil society and those affected by investments and I think that sort of work might highlight some of different perspectives for example as to how land disputes are understood, the social costs that are associated with them, the approaches that are most effective for different groups and so on. But I think for the purpose of today's discussion what I like to focus on is the reports finding that from a business perspective it is more cost effective to do things right than to get things wrong and then try and correct later and I think that this finding itself has some policy implications which I would like to explore. One starting point is the fact that many large scale investments have social costs that remain that are not internalised, they remain invisible. A few years ago to share an anecdote, I was in Ghana to study two agribusiness projects and I was really struck by the particularly precarious land tenure position of migrant farmers, migrants in the context potentially being people who have been there for generations but not owning the land and in one case in particular the project came outside the growing season so the farmer had no standing crops as a result of which their connection to the land was completely invisible they had no compensation they just had to leave right so that sort of social cost in an economic terminology remained an invisible externality. Now I think that numbers can really help make issues visible and what I understand what I take from the project and the report this latest report also is that some costs are ultimately internalised yeah so some of the participating companies in fact many I think half in this report of the participating companies reported experiences of land conflicts with significant financial repercussions but I suspect that even those who did not report any land conflict probably did face some land issues that perhaps have remained latent yet to fully develop into disputes and work within a few years ago as part of the legend project on legacy land claims showed how land disputes can often flare up years or even decades after the events right so the issues are very significant. Now I think how does this connect to the policy issue it does because many governments are under pressure to attract investment even most of today and the pressures for an economic recovery post the post pandemic and in some conversations there is you know the distinct distinctive sense that social and environmental safeguards are perceived or can be perceived as a an obstacle for investment something makes investors life more difficult and the temptation then in some circles to dilute the safeguards to make life easier for businesses and we have already seen actually during the pandemic several examples of regulatory rollbacks where existing safeguards have been partly diluted. Now I think arguably the social and environmental safeguards are important to promote quality investments knowing that just more investment alone is not going to produce positive outcomes we need better investment but I think what the report shows is that even just in pure business terms the financial benefits of doing it right outweigh the costs of getting it wrong and what makes life easier for business then is not cutting the safeguards but actually having effective systems in place applicable to all businesses for example on how to ensure respectful legitimate tenure rights conduct social and environmental impact assessments secure free burden from consent etc etc meaning that policy or governance reform in these areas is not only necessary to protect local rights it also contributes to making investments more sustainable in the longer term so in making the case for policy reform I can see also that this is an important part of the jigsaw now I think one question is what if the numbers were different what if actually it turned out that irresponsibly acquiring land irresponsibly dispossessing people paid off and I think it'd been interesting perhaps to understand more also some of the questions that come up in the chat box about data collection how many of the respondents were linked to dfis and whether the sort of businesses that participated in the survey and also in the sort of financial contributed financial data indirectly at least sort of other sort of businesses that if a social problem arises they want to address it and so they have to face the cost of addressing it but what if you know we know that there are many bad practitioners out there this in this space and and I guess what I'm what I'm getting at is that some for some companies maybe they don't face the same cost they will have you know they will have somewhat different ways of hiding or overcoming what they see as sort of the resistance or opposition to the project to the project so I guess what I'm getting at too is that if that is the case sort of subject to some better understanding what's in the in the data set then the numbers arguments that the project so powerfully articulated is one argument which in my mind supports compliments but doesn't replace other arguments that are perhaps more normative in nature around aligning national legacy governance systems with international human rights law the voluntary guidelines etc etc so I think that for us in our work in policy support to governments and civil society this work this project and this latest report is going to be super helpful and I look forward to using it more and I'd love to hear more about some of the some of the questions that have come up in the chat box including this aspect about the sort of composition of the the data sets and what that means if anything about the the the general ability of the of the findings thank you Lorenzo thank you so much thank you for mentioning already some of the great questions that are coming in through the chat and I will give the floor to the audience in a minute to pose their questions so we read the questions for you and address to the panelists and indeed the question you were referring to is the question from Scott Shunk from Landesa who's asking if it was possible to tell how many of the survey respondents were supported by DFI's in the form or another and whether you can say anything about the nature of those who responded so let's say something more about the sample the people you interviewed etc etc so let me give the floor back to Ben and Joe to react to the discussions and maybe ready address this question if you want over to you sure should I should I take this yeah please go um yeah let me just try and try and share my screen I hope you can see that to give you a bit more information on on the types of of investors that answer the survey I think we mentioned this in the in the presentation but just to just to sort of highlight this again mostly mostly in agriculture mostly producers but obviously some processes and and traders as well and here again is the geographical distribution of the survey respondents are mostly West Africa Southern Africa there were 800 in total that's kind of all I can give you in terms of in order to protect the anonymity of the survey respondents lots of them did indicate that they were happy for their names to be mentioned but but many didn't and we decided just to just to do a blanket let's let's not mention names and and avoid sort of complicated processes around signing non-disclosure agreements and so on and so forth what I can tell you is that anecdotally a lots of the lots of the investors that we spoke to had dfi backing strangely enough lots of them have since had dfi backing so there's been there's been a spate of investments quite recently and I was surprised to see that quite a lot of those investors were ones that we had spoken to I think by the very nature of the survey the way the survey was structured what you saw happen was that a lot of a lot of respondents stopped answering questions as soon as they came to asking what kind of social risk mitigation procedures they had in place so that gives you an idea and I think that's a problem we you know we're not reaching we're not able to get those obviously we can't get opinions from investors that don't have these these procedures in you know in place and those are the ones that we really need to target I should also say that originally the plan was to organize three field trips and that sort of relates to my work in the private sector which is is much easier to speak to these companies directly on the ground than try and get in contact with them online especially companies that don't have a big CSR presence and certainly don't have any you know means of contacting them but obviously those plans were hampered by COVID-19 we had to cancel the field trips instead we put together this this list of 800 companies I would say I don't have the figures right in front of me most of those companies were we got information from a land matrix which is a really really useful resource which I sort of recommend to everybody I think they celebrated the 10-year anniversary or something 15-year anniversary the other day so so congratulations on that and if anybody from land matrix is here then big thank you on on all that in-depth information a lot of the contacts came from personal contacts and some of those weren't DFI backed and then we also collected information through the DFI fund portfolios that was another useful resource for getting in touch with companies so I hope that's the best I can do to answer your question in the end we had a really like a really good representative sample I would say of companies of different sizes different sectors locations and we also managed to use some local networks as well there's big thank you to Ibrahima Ka who used to work at the land ILC sorry international land coalition but he put us in touch with a lot of companies in the Francophone area that we previously had very little penetration of thanks Joe I'll just follow up there and just start by of course thanking our panelists for their reactions that I thought were really interesting and for offers of collaboration which will certainly pursue but I think just broadly one challenge we face with this research is of course that this is a kind of embryonic area so of course the number of people the number of organizations that are you know taking this seriously at the moment is far fewer than we'd like to see it's an unusual dataset they behave differently to others and that creates some challenges of course for research but I'll just kind of underline a few kind of conclusions from kind of from from there one is that you know many of the guys that we're looking at are spending probably a lot more than than your average business might to mitigate these risks so while you could argue that you know these reputation exposed people know they're more likely to come unstuck reputation near operationally because of a tenure dispute they're also more likely to spend more and that kind of relates to what Shivani was was mentioning when she says that these figures are kind of quite conservative it's likely that you could that in time if we understood these things better we could show that you could invest a lot less for a greater risk avoidance impact so I think that's kind of important for us to underline I think the second thing is from the anecdotal evidence that Joe kind of mentions it's clear that this idea that you can kind of get away with this even with kind of active collaboration with the host government of course that happens and still happens and that's tragic of course but that is becoming less and less common over time there are a number of reasons for this from higher consumer expectations better disclosure standards but probably most importantly the people being affected have mobile phones you know so they're going to call up if somebody is you know not doing right by them yeah of course there are always going to be significant problems there and our report cannot possibly hope to address those we also certainly not seeking to replace the extremely strong ethical arguments for doing this but what we are trying to do is say that we recognize that there are business there are people within businesses either on the operational side or indeed on the CSR side trying to persuade those on the operational side who require a financial case you know to respond to their fiduciary responsibilities to fulfill their contracts you know and so in order for those guys to do the right thing they can't simply recognize that it's the right thing to do there needs to be a material case and I think we we can start to build that here but I think what we'd find if we had a better kind of fuller dataset is is my is I think that's a stronger rather than a weaker case thank you so much Ben thank you Joe for responding to discussions and thank you everybody for the great questions let me just now start and read in some of those and particular because we touched upon the the sample and the type of data that you collected there is one critic that I want to address is from Douglas Hertzner from Action Aid who says that the report is intended for use by businesses but to be honest I'm not sure how useful a report is that does not really take into account community perspectives so land tenure changes are often very permanent in nature they involve changes in power dynamics with social and environmental impacts go well beyond the life of an investment I think I think that centering a business perspective on this issues risk undermining the long-term perspective and centrality of social culture and economic human rights so it's open to you Ben Joe but also the other panelists maybe Lawrence also want to step in here I'll take the first shot but I'd love other people to jump in here I totally respect that perspective I don't personally agree I think that in my experience when trying to persuade people making financial and business decisions this approach is by far the most effective and I'm sorry to say that lots of these people will see adding moral arguments or adding community perspectives social impacts that are currently externalities they will sadly see this as muddying the water and I'm not saying that I agree with that perspective you know my perspective is certainly that there are huge costs and benefits that are just simply not captured within the current way with which we assess them but this is the current way in which those assessments are made and so you know we need to try and you know get businesses to start taking action urgently and we think that what we're doing here is highly complementary to the excellent work done by organizations like ActionAid and like some of the other groups on this panel to kind of build a multi-dimensional argument that shows that you know there is a strong alignment between you know these these these ethical arguments and and material benefits. Thank you Ben anybody else want to reacts to this question to this point or can we go to the next question? I'll just very briefly say that I think we did list that this is a caveat you know especially when it came to looking at the effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies we said you know this is the business perspective is certainly that represents an area of research. What I'll also say is that you know having been a part of the land community for quite a few years now this approach is quite unique and I think there are numerous other approaches out there by various other members and actors of the land community that represent that that community perspective and that champion it which is great. I think this just adds to that right this is a way of targeting business directly and trying to change their behavior. Great Joe thank you anybody else? Laura can I just come in? Yeah sure. Yeah just to pick that up also from my point of view I think I mean Doug you're absolutely right of course community's perspective and the costs to the communities is real and fundamental and I that was never never understood as something sort of that was less of a priority right I think I think clearly more work is also needed to do to understand those costs and now often I mean even the term externalities is a horrible term that's not how we see it right but the reality is that many businesses aren't aware of those and that's not going to drive business decisions rightly or wrongly I mean wrongly in almost all cases so this is really a tactical question like how can we make the case businesses to bring us into other decisions and to speed that up whilst obviously we need to carry on working on all fronts and also try to kind of get away from economic models where these are treated as externalities but obviously that's a long-term challenge right and that's not going to happen anytime soon. Thanks. Nice Chris and just I guess one more just point out here is I think the incipient research we have here demonstrates that businesses that put the community perspective at the center of their efforts to manage these risks are much more effective and that's something that I think we could possibly stress a little bit more in the report but we didn't want to speculate too much we wanted it to be as robust as possible but what we did definitely see is that these soft skills you know that really genuinely understanding local perspectives not seeing local people as an obstacle seeing them instead as a counterparty in the deal was you know and yes I think I can see why people would have an instinctive reaction to some of this terminology but I do think that nonetheless the arguments that we're putting forward suggest that you know centralizing that community perspective is again materially as well as ethically significant. Great thank you so much everyone I think there is a more technical question from Lynn who asking how the risk how you calculated the cost I don't know if they answer your question already or you want any clarification so was the data provided by investors from other sources maybe you want to spend a few words more Joe to explain how the calculations was made or Ben I don't know whether you want to take it I mean we can certainly answer these questions now I would say not to spend too much time on it we do have detailed technical appendix which we can send your way that details all this but Ben if you just want to say a few words that would be helpful. Yeah I mean I think this is actually quite an interesting question because when you're looking at the DFI data from development finance institutions we clearly have a chat I mean the DFI's don't use the same terminology certainly businesses in general don't use the same terminology for the different actions that are taken you know that's another indicator of kind of the embryonic nature of many of these issues but you know it clearly when you're dealing with you know the itemization of the costs you can see quite a lot of detail in terms of you know community meetings dispute resolution mechanisms there's then a kind of a bunch of costs that kind of fit into a slightly more gray area which would be you know mitigation of environmental damage protection of local water resources which would sometimes be categorized as environmental costs but are clearly related to you know to to social risk mitigation so all in all I think that I would underline this by saying that some of the costs that we've included here have significant benefits beyond social risk mitigation either for compliance or indeed for environmental purposes so you know I think we've been pretty conservative in what we've added in and where we have included it it's to increase the kind of the overall cost and again kind of fit in with that conservative argument but yeah we can provide further detail than in the technical appendix. Great thank you for clarifying these points and the Raye Kebede Ketema also asks on the possible collaboration overlap with our other frameworks in guidelines he says some countries carry out the environmental and social management framework ESMF analysis before handing over land to large-scale investments so he's asking it is wise to recommend quantifying social risk on top of ESMF or do you recommend revisiting the existing ESMF so I'm not sure who can best respond to this question but I opposed to all the panelists who want to take it. I'm happy to have a go having been involved in some of these due diligence processes myself I think the I think the way they work and what we want to avoid is for this just to be a box-ticking exercise it's not enough and I think you know this explains a loss of the and in my view other people have different views but if we if we go back to the late 2000s and the land rush if people follow a legalistic procedure or simply you know literally tick boxes and say we've done this we've done this we've done this the investment's okay that's that's where the risks and the dangers lie I don't I don't think ESMFs or environmental social impact assessments are bad things I think I think they need to be done to some extent but but we need to we need to go beyond that and and have a bit more of a flexible approach along the lines that we suggested which actually involves speaking to the communities themselves and understanding their needs because a lot of the frameworks can't can't be structured in a way that takes into account each and every single local need in some geographies some things will be more important than others and and that's kind of what we want want to get around I think I think you know like just going back to some of the stuff that Shivani said as well because you know the OECD has done you know really excellent work putting together some of these guidelines and and I'm trying to sort of strike that balance a bit between sort of rigidness and and flexibility and and making you know and making sure that the that the due to the processes that are used are flexible enough to take into account those local needs and and I and I also realize just reflecting on Lorenzo's point which is the way the the way and speed and and and some of the interviews this came came out as well so the findings could be read as if companies want to dilute some of the the rules and and regulations that are that are imposed on them they see them as a barrier that could be one way of reading it and I can I recognize that but the other way and I really genuinely got this from some of the interviews is that it prevented the company from investing in those in those processes that really mattered be if they are simple setting up WhatsApp groups and you know and have and building like long and trusted relationships with people on the ground that can actually reach out to the community and and improve that relationship between the investor and community make sure so there's a really it's a bit difficult to strike the balance between those two those two but I I think we need to do more to to to reach it I'll stop there great shifting the focus a little bit on small enterprises I think Lisa Coel asks to show a lot I think but anybody else can answer of course so in terms of small and medium enterprises and investors where can they get the expertise so she get the feedback that for many companies just don't have it on their rather and then also they don't know how to implement activities to manage their tenure risks so I don't know if shall lot you want to take it or anybody else just to give the floor to the other panelists as well of course I can take that just having being on mute as you know it happens but yeah I think that that's what I I've worked for Dutch funds quite some time as well which were really small and medium enterprises dealing indeed also with land issues and helping them out on you know making things fit to their size is is is a key issue there and sometimes what you see you know instead of a whole elaborate report which was done by a big consultant with a little help they also could you know just invent their own spreadsheet and and see how they could manage which takes stock of what is being done in until now what are follow-up actions how are these mitigated reporting back on that checking with communities and it fitted in their skill and it fitted also the the general purpose so it's and there are lots of tools on the internet not only at the World Bank ISP but also at the OECD and and lots of other institutions where you can find tools how to set up such systems and do stakeholder engagement do a management system and and have a guideline on what is the general line where's the dot at the end and how can I in the meantime make sure that it fits with my organization which is actually the key of of of things else you you have a baseline and you won't ever do anything with it and again great thanks I just like to come in quickly here because you know this is something that came out really clearly in the in in the surveys and the interviews that you know the implementing agent is as important as the process so you know we talked a bit just then about the smf but you know clearly you know there's a big difference as Charlotte mentioned external consultant coming in or somebody who's already trusted by the local community and this is something that tmp has been working on for the last few years with londesa and we set up something called the social license platform that is designed specifically to help particularly those with you know higher cost constraints to connect to local experts who are vetted and highly skilled but also trusted by local community and have these kind of soft skills that have come out as such an important thing and that's really sits behind some of the comments that I've made about you know the opportunities to drive down the costs of of these processes in the future as we have a better ecosystem of of suppliers and of course better general understanding about how these things should be done in different locations recognizing there's no one size fits all kind of solution great thank you and there is also a question about whether there's methodology changes if we have to deal with a community that lives under customary regulations so under the customary tenure system so how this company investment can be managed in these areas that have recognized high risks who want to take it lorenzo please you have your hand raised you know if you want to respond to these or you have a comment on previous questions the floor is yours lorenzo mine was a comment on earlier questions although i think this one is a very important question and i think very often the problem arises from the lack of recognition and visibility of customary practices including customary rights and i think better systems for understanding customary tenure and for recognizing customary rights has got to be part of the answer here i just very briefly i mean first of all really interesting discussion i just wanted to pick up on a point that jo mentioned just to sort of which resonates strongly and just to sort of clarify i guess that what i was suggesting is not going to say that companies themselves want to dilute the safeguards by this very often governments that have been doing that over the past year and a half or so i guess thinking that the where you have strong rights for communities and we're working in one country just now that where this is an issue with strong rights for communities strong consultation processes that that makes it more difficult to get investments going and so the then the temptation is oh we need to ease these systems and i think in our experience quality investors often do not want getting rid of the safeguards what they want is a level playing field where you've got clear and effective safer safeguards that apply to all investors and if anything then the problem is you know being clear about how certain legal provisions are supposed to be applied in practice and you know developing more effective systems for making them work for real and and and so on and and i think this also links back to the point that was discussed earlier following the question from Doug that you know we're looking at complex problems and as such they require complex responses right change needs to happen on multiple level we need better policies or more effective policies that recognize local systems that protect local rights we need change on the community level more better equipped to articulate advance their own vision of how they see development in their own localities and we also need private sector actors who are better equipped to understand and address the issue so i think i guess looking at these projects not in isolation which is i guess also what i was trying to get to in my in my brief remarks not in isolation but as part of a wider program of work where you have the multiple strategies working at the community level working with government and also making the case within the private sector as to why it is actually in their own interest to to get it right and i think it's in that sense that i see the real value of of this of this contribution thank you loren so we have many other questions but it's also three minutes to four so i guess we have to close i would like to have a round of last remarks from each of the panelists on how you see the way forward for this report and your last thoughts yeah before we close please go ahead lorenzo you have the floor ready well i just spoke and i will have a few minutes left i wonder whether the other panelists would like to go first and if i then okay perfect yeah let me give the floor to shivani any last thought any reflections on the way forward shivani yeah i think please let's try to get action to happen now i really can't over stress it i think that's that's to me action now no more excuses great very strong a lot over to you yeah i keep it very short as well and i think just to relate it to to social dialogue is also deliver what you promise and not only for companies but also for governments and that will help also a lot great christ do you also have any last minute remark or thoughts to share thanks a lot well just just say thank you and i think clearly this this is only one part of a kind of a broad strategy with lots of different ways of approaching it right so i think that's important to keep it in mind sunny from the way we see it as a donor funding it this is there's lots of other work with supporting around community legal empowerment etc etc and that's that's as important but i think yes i think this is going to be important that we we start using it so anyone on the call please provide feedback spread it and hopefully we can build on this and get better data and get it used more by investors and companies so thank you very much and thank you chris and now the last thought from the two authors of the report joseph over to you yeah just just to say thank you to the panelists i was very rude and just responding to immediately to what they said without without really thanking them for some really for some comments that really got my my sort of brain buzzing so you know i think i feel like it's something that i could discuss for for hours on end i'm sorry that we haven't been able to address all the questions but please just email us ben and i and and we'd be happy to to to respond to those directly and i'll ask ask land portal to to give us the list of questions as well so that we can prepare written answers we'll set up a call to discuss them with you individually and yeah third i think just on the point that was made in the discussion about you know the externalities maybe one way of putting it i think you know i've certainly made it my life long mission not just to try and convince companies to not do the wrong thing but also i'm fully convinced that doing the right thing pays off in the long term so that there is there is an argument to be made that social or positive social and environmental impact really entails long-term productivity gains or whatever you want to put it that and that makes a complete business case to do so so that would be the next step for me and i think that would help capture some of those those sort of externalities that we that we spoke about earlier that's all for me ben indeed ben over to you yeah just very briefly so adding my thanks to to everyone both participants and audience here i think you know what we've been doing here is putting numbers around a fairly simple principle which is treat people like people you know recognize that a personal approach is likely to be much more effective than a compliance-based one recognize that you should follow up on what you've promised and that you should communicate regularly and clearly these are all of the things that you would expect from any interpersonal relationship it's not as complex as some people like to make out and then second you know you know it's more speed less haste you know as we say so we've got some massive gaps coming the infrastructure gap the renewable energy gap we need to roll these things out quickly but to do them quickly we need to engage and have effective processes if we try to push forward and act like there aren't obstacles what our research shows is that there are delays cost money and that it kind of poisons the well for future activities so if you as an investor a company want to get something done quickly and with higher return you have to engage with people so yeah thank you that's it thank you so much everyone is two minutes past four so we are perfectly in time thank you everyone for attending the webinar find the financial cost of mitigating tenure risk it was a great discussion thank you to all the panelists thank you to the audience yes we haven't been able to respond to all your questions please take few minutes to take the survey and put there any additional questions you want to ask to respond we will make sure the panelists will have an address those questions thank you again and we look forward to have you again in the coming in the next webinars thank you thanks a lot thanks a lot bye bye everyone