 in. I think they will show my slides and you can just make it in presentation mode I guess. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, you can next slide. So thank you very much and I'm happy to be here again to speak with you all and provide the key takeaways from this morning until just now that we finish the breakout sessions and it's quite challenging to try and incorporate everything in such a short time. So I hope that I do justice and apologies if some of the points have not been captured but I am trusting that this would cover most of it. So this morning we learned basically the whole framework about a free prior and informed consent. It is an international standard protected by international human rights law in terms of all people's right to self-determination and participation in decision making particularly recognizing that which will affect people's well-being. It is a right to process and as Oxfam had also provided us with the framework and the definitions and the context for free. What is free? What is prior? What is informed? What is consent? Key points around that would be that the process free from manipulation or coercion there's a process that prior to the consultation and the engagement with communities a prior process that would be within the community and also following their traditional governance process. In foreign being that it is facilitative and there's a sharing of objectives that are accurate and easily understandable and finally it allows for right to say no to provide the yes or no to a particular project. For most another context or definition about FBIC is that for most it's a safeguard which has its origins according to the universal rights of indigenous peoples and in recent years it has become part of the social safeguards framework in climate change related agreements. In many cases it's already captured a national policy and regular regulatory frameworks however it still remains to be limited. Next slide please. So where have we gained these takeaways? I think I may not have exhausted everyone or mentioned everyone here but we find the logos of all the organizations including also companies that have presented earlier and thank you for for giving us all these examples of FBIC in practice and we heard from this morning from Oxpam in developing practical approaches to FBIC in the Mekong countries the public private partnership on Red Plus in the coffee sector in Vietnam with Cafe Red and the Borapa Agroforestry case and then there's several from the breakouts examples and inputs from CSO presentations in context of conservation protected management and others. One of the major thing kind of the overarching message from this morning was that FBIC is possible to gain. It is not a zero sum gain that it's something that we cannot avoid but more so from Kim Lai it is important particularly in the Mekong region where there are many there's a significant proportion of indigenous and ethnic populations in the region from which the origins of FBIC is really in terms of responding and respecting their rights. Next slide please. So okay so I have five key takeaways and the first one is that FBIC could easily be seen as a challenging process that it's costly and could be a bed of conflict and distrust. There's lack of clarity in laws and institutions to enforce FBIC and this lack of clarity may contribute to this conflict and distrust but there are also instances where many countries have national laws meant to ensure just processes of land transfer consistent with the requirement to obtain FBIC but few have yet adopted national laws that explicitly mentioned FBIC as an obligation. But FBIC requires that communities can meaningfully participate in decision-making process and that their concerns, priorities and preferences are accommodated in project designs, indicators and outcomes. This may require more time at the start of a project but we heard also from the speakers earlier that ultimately in the end if this is taken up it could lead to avoidance of disputes over land and resources claims later on and there was also an argument that cost of conflict could in fact be much more costly for companies and therefore it's better to be addressing this and at the end of the day it's also a good return on investment. Next takeaway is that as a process consultations must be done in good faith and should be genuine among government, private sector and communities. Some examples are already demonstrating this and we can build from this. In the example of a public private partnership on red plus in the coffee sector in Vietnam promoting deforestation free coffee and sustainable coffee agroforestry bottles we learned that by using community engagement and making that an ongoing process is quite important and is required. In fact we even heard one of the companies mention that it's already ingrained in their DNA to actually be doing this. This can provide opportunities to build more experience on the practical application of EPIC. We also heard Graham also mentioned about profitability is equated to responsibility. Oxfam also showing their their community engagement index where there are already some companies exactly in the Mekong region that's already saying yes to EPIC and so hopefully that this would continue. The third takeaway would be that meaningful engagement in various forms such as structured and multiple dialogues at different levels accessible and appropriate communication would constitute good practice. Apologies that the slide got cut but a tangible result of good EPIC practices can be the building of community engagement and trust among stakeholders contributing to inclusive and gender sensitive participation of communities in decision-making processes that affect them and thereby the long-term sustainability of the investment or project. As mentioned earlier, meaningful engagement could also be around putting it in the project cycle of the companies and making it an ongoing process rather than it just being kind of a thick-on-the-box and just at the onset or outset of a project and not really continually consulting and engaging with the communities. There is also an important message from the breakout group that I joined about meaningful engagement that it is not only about being legalistic and legalistic in the interpretation of the guidelines or what EPIC is all about but it should really be an embedded understanding of the spirit of EPIC and so that's one of the important points that we can take in terms of what is really meaningful and genuine EPIC. I would also add to that in terms of the meaningful engagement and also the forms and types of actions that are included in EPIC. It's not only about multiple dialogues at different levels, having also locally consultation materials and local language but it also should include treatment of the violations of the right of communities and where the exercise of EPIC might not be truly meaningful and genuine and that there should also be proper grievance mechanisms included in that engagement and also the disclosure processes as part of good practice. The next key takeaway is that it is important to understand the enabling policy and business environment to widen application and practice of EPIC. We must move beyond concept but as a widely held and applied process from a rights-based perspective. We've also heard in the breakout, some of the breakout sessions that there are already opportunities and entry points existing nationally and in ASEAN and even the MRLG program itself could already be a facilitative program for widening and broadening the practice of EPIC. The adoption of EPIC as we know and as we heard is already promoted in international instruments so that can also be part of that enabling policy and business environment. How do we intersect the new responsible the guidelines for responsible investments in agriculture? How do we also integrate the other frameworks like the UN SDGs, UNDRIP again and also the CBD and climate change frameworks. The next key takeaway is another part of that policy environment and this was mentioned in the breakout that there are potential entry points within ASEAN to advocate for EPIC and there are particular working groups that already exist that can be tapped. It's also good there's a quote here that I got that starting off at the ASEAN level would be quite good to break the ice and from where we can expand the the understanding of the spirit of EPIC that beyond just the indigenous peoples that it's for the good of all society and having this due process could also be encouraged nationally and that there could be a shared road map that could be developed at the regional level. Few working groups that exist already that can be good entry points would be the ASEAN working group on social forestry, the ASEAN working group on agricultural cooperatives and also the ASEAN Commission on Human Rights. The last key takeaway is that CSO indigenous peoples and local communities, ethnic and local communities still need to increase their capacity and knowledge and EPIC to better and strategically advocate and lobby for its full and effective implementation. They need a platform and save space to raise and discuss experience and importance of EPIC and connect with other stakeholders such as the government and private sector to communicate the need for EPIC. One of the other aspects to be included within that whole process of capacity building and knowledge building is possibly also the development of community protocols, conduct assessments on quality EPIC and make this information public and essentially what we need to see is really having everyone in the process that's involved have to be at the equal level of capacity and knowledge and understanding about the process and more so also with the indigenous people, ethnic and local communities for them to also be able to build their ownership of the process and internalize their stake in it. Finally, the use of platforms and engagements as mentioned earlier in terms of entry points could still be used in the next couple of years. I'll leave you with a slide that Oxfam had shared with us which gives also some very basic key points. The top line is basically one of the the deeper spirit of EPIC is that the community has a right to decide and communities have rights but EPIC involves everyone. So that's the key takeaway and then a last request. Next slide. We are all invited to participate in a consultation by going into menti.com. It says here we are in a unique position to have a gathering of more than 700 experts and land issues here in the Mekong. We cannot miss this chance to get a snapshot of your opinions and some of the issues presented here. There will be two polls during the forum, one to place already yesterday and the other one is scheduled for today. So for today we have here the code 74143422 please.