 Now we want to hear from the practitioners, from the government, if what we are doing or what we are trying to develop are making sense. Now we have Pak Budi in the room and Ibu Yosi Katarina and also Pak Francis Kus Harum. If the three of you can turn on your video and then we will give each of the panelists seven minutes to present. Pak Budi, if you're ready, I think we can start with your talking points. Selamat soremba, Anna. Thank you, Anna, and good afternoon. I have sent you the material to send to Kania, my presentation, but perhaps I'm going to skip some parts in the interest of our time. Now, can you see my presentation, yes? Thank you, so I'm not going to repeat the background segment of my presentation since we've discussed that in earlier sessions. So what I would like to focus on in this presentation is the challenges for our way forward. The work of C4 team, the question that you have is whether you can verify the CI that you have developed and verify the applicability in the field. And we also have seen the criteria and indicators. I'm looking forward for peatland, I see that there are increasing challenges, we're also seeing more challenges. In the 20 new net sync follow 2030 that the president has stated in the COP26, there's an increase of almost 5 million hectares for peatland. It consists of deforestation and degradation control, that's also part of the net sync follow. And for concession peatlands are located in either forestry or plantation concessions. We want to improve their hydrological management and governance as well as we also want to focus on the economic approach in peatlands. And also important is sustainable peatland management by utilizing restoration hydrological management, aquatic culture, fisheries and so on. Under Article 6 of Paris Agreement and the UNFCCC, the requirement is that for NDCs achievement, there should be international transfer of mitigation options. I think we need to then ensure robust and global standard CNI so that the calculations or measurements that we do in evaluating emissions reduction is accurate, is clear and transferable at the international level. We've also heard from Ibu Mirna that BRGM is developing this PHU model and there are also questions about the institutional model of PHU. Perhaps not a formal one, we can also consider other models for example forum based and we also heard from Ibu Mirna about consolidation in one PHU. And so we are seeing more challenges for CNI because each PHU is unique also with different land use and the stakeholders that have access and rights to a PHU are varying and so their roles and responsibilities are also different. So this PHU model has been developed or articulated in the BRGM strategic plan until 2024. So the model will be developed, implemented and monitored until 2024. We hope of course this model can continue because part of the BRGM's work going forward is not only project implementation but also to engage other stakeholders, especially for the purpose of funding activity, sustainability. And we want to transfer that in one complete PHU where we can have both pragmatic and scientific approaches in a sustainable and long term manner. And next is the practical use, we know that there are tools of information that we can or information that we can get from remote sensing technology. But we've heard that field measurement is very important and primary data are important as well. And there have been approaches developed since the BRGM. We have been working with FAO to use their system to measure for example moisture level. The moisture level that we gain from remote sensing can be verified by SIPALAGA station. So we have SIPALAGA the information system to measure water content of BEAT that can measure the level of water table in BEAT lens and to also measure rainfall. So what we see or visualized in special data can be verified with measurement data generated by this tool and this tool is automated. And so the information can be accessed or can be seen in the BEAT lens restoration and information system or PRIMS. There's a website page for PRIMS and you can also see the activities of BRGM, who's doing what, when an activity starts, as well as information of before and after of an intervention. And we can see whether there's an increase in moisture, for example that we can measure using these tools as well as remote sensing technology. And in going forward, capacity building and institutional support are important because we've heard about tier one who's going to do tier one or who is capable to implement tier two ferry fires. But it's also very important to make sure that the local community can also access this information, especially in periods where it's more prone to be fire. So the key message is the science of restoration is growing and including the sophistication of CNI, the practical use of CNI that can address the needs as well as the different level knowledge of the communities are very important to consider as well. Perhaps to respond to Paheri's point about the nesting approach. I think it's something that we, it's a good idea to consider. And the level of nested or information or how we can manage CNI that will need more development focusing on capacity building focusing on the tools, or the methodology or process to assess the indicators and data that we can use as verifiers. And we also going forward, we need to have robust and globally accepted CNI for high quality offset to NBC commitment, we've also heard about funding can, it can be a challenge. So is the question is, can pit restoration gets funding from carbon offset. But of course, to determine carbon offset when it accurate and robust information and also globally accepted. And for the purpose of global or carbon transfer in Indonesia and globally. So global recognition is very important, and we are thankful that this webinar also has global participants or international participants, this kind of information exchange platform is very important. So that the work of scientists can be included in negotiations and decision making processes. And we've also heard from some of the questions as well as our previous panelists comments about flexibility reliability and attain availability. So flexibility doesn't mean we compromise robustness. At the same time, reliability also needs to meet global standard can be verified and attainability means information can be attain implemented and can be easily used or in decision making mechanisms. So the key message is that continuous consultation between practitioners and researchers are vital to response to growing needs of CI. Thank you, Anna. Thank you, but we did thank you for being on time seven minutes and the message is, I think we need to be flexible, but without compromising robustness. It's a challenge, but it's something that we have to think about going forward. And the next speaker, next panelist is Ibu Yosi Katarina. Hi, thank you. So following on the footsteps of Pabudi, I'm also going to deliver my contribution in Bahasa Indonesia. As Ibu Anna mentioned that we have potential users and you want you want to get input from potential users, I want to make clear that I'm not from the government. In the USAID, I'm the Environmental Governance Lead in the USAID Cigar Project. So we're helping BAPENAS, the National Development Agency of Indonesia to create or develop a subset of indicators. Henry previously talked about scale, and our scale is to measure the performance of Regency or Kabupaten in their sustainable plantation communities. I think to a certain extent, I see some relevant experiences that I can share in this platform that can contribute to improving or enriching this discussion. Topik I know is the utilization of CI. I did not prepare a special presentation because Daniel confirmed that I didn't need to. But I think that I can show you this one slide from BAPENAS that I feel can be valuable to give you an overview of institutionalization for terpercaya project. So terpercaya has gone through all of the phases that BRGM and C4 are going through. So we have done the trial in 2021. We went through our third phase, we develop relevant policies. We also develop the market instruments. We've heard about this as well in the previous section, and we also focus on multilateral cooperation as part of the project to make sure that our indicators are adopted in multilateral cooperation. So in this process, we use a theoretical framework developed by Sinclair, and based on the theoretical framework, we see there are three, or identify three approaches to develop a set of regulations. We have command and control, economic instruments, and others, and others would include self-regulation and information strategies. So I want to cover three areas, or three important key takeaways from terpercaya process. One is to select approach or combination of approaches that Gunningham-Sinclair developed. And these approaches serve as the overarching framework for the criteria and indicators. And to select which is the best approach or combination of approaches, we know that there are instruments that can help us reaching our decision, for example dynamic modeling. The challenge is in the context of Indonesia, data availability or data quality is not optimal as we've heard from other speakers. And as a result, the modeling or the outcome of the modeling may not be very accurate. And that's why in the Indonesian context, we use piloting as the method that we rely on to test the policy that we want to develop. So to determine the approach, Harry earlier mentioned that there are key questions. And for me, to be honest, I'm still also trying to grasp this whole process. For example, the goal of the indicators and who are expected to use the indicators, is this a policy instrument that you want BRGM to use to direct the local government, for example, or to guide villages, or is this a BRGM internal evaluation to assess the effectiveness of their interventions. And the next question is, who's going to conduct the evaluation? Is it going to be done based on fresh or primary data? We've heard about this from Ibu Anna and team looking for the verifiers, or will the process rely on aggregated data from other institutions? And then who will then supply the data? For example, at the village level, who's going to capture a recorded data district level, or perhaps directly on the field by teams like Ibu Anna's team. And knowing that local governments are now flooded by data requests, then what we can do is to use data proxies from national level government, because local government would also forward their data to their relevant line ministries. Now the policy is then how can we ensure that the data from local government transfer to the line ministries can be translated and standardised by BAPENAS, and that is why we have the one data policy. So these are the things that should help institutionalising indicators. The other question is, will be affected by these indicators in all sense, including the data collector, or perhaps we have target of behaviour changes because of the data collection. I think these questions need to be answered first before we can determine which approach that we want to take to institutionalise the indicators at the policy level. We know that as Paheri also mentioned, as well as Bhudi also mentioned this, there are three things that are usually considered primarily by the government in developing policy regulatory basis, the institutional setup. These are two different things, like Paheri mentioned, and then the funding of the budget. I believe that these elements have been considered by the team that will work with BRGM in developing or institutionalising these indicators going forward. And there are two other things that are very important in my learning process. One is, how do we communicate this idea to the public so that the public can understand these indicators, because we know that there are so many indicators out there that are being implemented by different institutions with different goals as well. And the second, also very important, is we need to have some kind of task force that is part, perhaps in the policymaking in BRGM, that can consistently work with stakeholders. Because the first step will not be perfect, and we may see many adjustments as we respond to market situation, to regulatory situation, and so on. And that is why we need to have a task force within BRGM that work alongside stakeholders to continuously refine this set of CI. And so don't expect that on the get go that you will get everything perfect, especially as we know the situation in Indonesia and the diversity in Indonesia. Dan, but if we have in place a mechanism to capture ideas or plan to make sure that the indicators are consistently refined, I believe that it's a very important thing to consider. So that's it, Baana, hopefully this has been beneficial to you. Thank you. We also agree in our team, we agree and we have started questioning on who's going to use the indicators, who's going to do indicator measurement, where can we get the data and so on. And I think this confirms what do we need to do in going forward. So thank you so much, Ibu, you'll see. And listen gentlemen, if you have any questions, you can raise them in the chat box. We're trying to monitor our chat box conversations. And while we're doing that, we also have the final presentation from Yasin. Are you there? Okay. I hope you can hear my audio. Thank you. Untuk waktunya, silahkan ada tujuh menit untuk mulai menyampaikan. Thank you. You have seven minutes. My apology, Baana. I just use my colleague laptop. And I'm not sure how I can share my screen from my laptop. Or perhaps you can send me your file, your presentation file. Allow me to send you my presentation file. But you see, did you say something? I was about to mention that I had to join another meeting. So if there is any question raised to me, we can keep in touch. Thank you so much for having me. Thank you very much. Mas Yasin. I hope you have received my PowerPoint presentation file. Sorry for the technical glitch. This is the last presentation. So I will, I might repeat several points that have been touched upon by previous speakers of Gusti Ansari as mentioned about the indicator of damage to pitland ecosystem. So we have the criteria regarding pitland ecosystem damage. There are five criteria. The first one exposed sediment reduction of the area of coverage and the criteria in terms of the water table. We, looking at this criteria, we have formulated what to do. So in BRGM, we are developing the concept of three, R, reweighting, revegetation. And okay, the first R is reweighting. Reweighting is conducting to maintain the water level in the pitland ecosystem, to maintain the function of the pitland ecosystem. So after building the infrastructure, we also conduct the operations and maintenance. And the second R is the revegetation. What we would like to maintain is the water level in the pitland ecosystem. So most of the pitland is receiving the first of water coming from the rainfall or precipitations of water. So therefore we will maintain the water from the existing canals. And the second R is revegetation. And the last R, the third R is revitalization. The revitalization is the community empowerment. It's more on the economic aspect. So we agree as what has been mentioned by Anna, Meli, and Chakim in terms of the criteria of indicators. In addition to biophysical indicator, we also have social, economic, and governance aspect. The third R in this case is more on the social and economy. And as for the governance, we have pitland villages. Disaparulip gambut. It is on how we can mainstream all of the elements in the utilization of pitland and incorporate that into the village governance in the village level and also the local government level. And as for the monitoring itself, we have heard from Pabudi that we have prims here. So you can check that in the httpsprims.brg.go.id. So you will be able to see the indicators coming from the existing canals, the fire area, the land clearing area. So you will be able to see those in real time. In addition to prims, we also have Cipalaga. www.cipalaga.brg.go.id. So we have sensors here and in the chat box, Mr. Nyoman has mentioned also, in addition to the water table, we also need to see the precipitation level. And we have homerogen pitland. And the water table plays a very important role in relation to the precipitations or rainfall. So we'll be able to see the category level in line with the rainfall level. And we have implemented 100. We will add 30 units. And our hope is that with these indicators we will be able to see the level of damage and the level of effectiveness of what we have implemented so far. And we also conduct the assessment of the canal blocking that we have implemented or we have constructed. So we do the assessment in some location. We've seen some damages to the canal blocking. As we know, there might be some challenges and also damages caused by natural aspect and also made-made cause. And we conduct improvement or repair to the damage that is happening. And out of these three R and also the assessment regarding the canal blocking, the second R, and the third R, which is revitalization. So we also look at the qualitative and quantitative assessment, the percentage of growth in line with the regulation. The level of success of revitalization is 500 plants per hectare. And for the third R, we also conduct assessment in the community for the developed business. We also provide some empowerment to level up the value of the products produced by the communities. And this is the key message, important learning from what we have done so far. The first one. In pitland restoration, we can see that the regulations of the pitland was issued in 2014. So previously, earlier than that, pitland had been used by concessions and small holders. And you can see some are protected pitlands and other types of pitlands. So there are 12 million hectares of pitland. It's very wide and even wider than Java Island in terms of the area. And the next one is less effective partial restorations in the protected area. And therefore, we can see that in terms of the hydrological aspect of the pitland for more effectiveness, we need to look at the landscape of the pitland itself. The next one, it is not only biophysical restoration, but we also need to look at the social, economic, and institutional aspect. So this is something to adopt. So perhaps we can also test this one in the PHU that we're going to work on. And then this is concerning the PHU from the learnings that we have taken from what have been done so far. In the PHU management, there should be a multi stakeholders collaboration. So PHU cannot be done in silo. There needs to be an engagement of many parties. Local governments and other stakeholders. So this is the concept to be offered. So to see how much is the degradation in the PHU, the damage level, degradation level, and we will determine the purpose of the PHU. For example, in a particular PHU, the PHU can cause damage to pitland ecosystem. So we will map the purposes. So each stakeholder purpose so we will map their purposes and goal and also we will collect the commitment of all stakeholders, for example, to achieve the goal of zero burning. There must be programs relevant to the zero burning goal. The pros and cons that determine the goal. So this is something that we are working on. The next one is so these are the PHU that there are seven PHU that we have determined. Masiasin, my apology, your time remaining is 30 seconds. Perhaps you can wrap up your presentation. So there are several typologies. Island PHU in Siakampar Most are owned by companies. Some are owned by Regencies. So some PHUs will be used as a pilot model for the PHU management. And here we are very happy to have heard from previous speakers. And if we are able to implement this indicator and criteria we'll be able to see which to improve in terms of the criteria from the aspect of governance, social, economy, or biophysical aspect to define this model PHU. So perhaps this is the end of my presentation. Thank you so much for giving me more time. So yeah, that's a very important thing. The last message is about collaboration and to enhance the criteria and indicators and to see in which aspect we can conduct improvement and all of the indicators and verifiers. Thank you so much for your presentation. Mas Yasin thank you so much and Josie as well without further ado due to the time constraint I would like to give the floor to Pas.