Please be seated. Your Majesty, the King and Queen of Sweden. Your Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the second part of the seminar on the role of Forestry for Sustainable Development. C4 is honored to host the Majesties of the Queen, the King and Queen of Sweden at C4 headquarters in Bogor. C4 and Sweden have a strong ties from the founding of C4 in 1993 by Sweden, Switzerland, Australia and the USA. Together with the Indonesian government, to C4's current director general, Dr. Peter Holmgren, who is a Swedish national, C4 is co-hosting the Southeast Asia division at Ecraft, whose incumbent director is also a Swedish national. So together here, Indonesia and Sweden is making these strong ties ever stronger than before. C4, Sweden and Indonesia shared a vision, the vision of a more sustainable world in which forestry research and innovation plays a very, very critical role. Sweden's sustainable forestry practices, where the replanting of trees to compensate the cut trees has been mandatory for more than a century, are aligned with C4 and Indonesia's ongoing effort to highlight and disseminate sustainable forestry practices locally and globally. So today it is an honor to be here in one room where we have all the distinguished researchers who will share their experiences, the lessons learned with everyone here and also at the global level to share the knowledge, how is it that we can achieve sustainable forestry for sustainable development. In the next one hour there will be six speakers. The first speaker is a welcome address and also reframing about forestry and sustainable development, which be presented by the director general of C4, Dr. Peter Holmgren. So let us welcome director general of C4 to present his welcome remarks. Thank you Dami for that introduction. Your Majesties, your Majesties, Excellencies, colleagues and friends. I recently visited the forest faculty in Umeå in the north of Sweden where Ansofi and I studied forestry once upon a time. It was a good feeling to be back and distract me again how much Sweden and Indonesia can learn from each other when it comes to forestry. Today we have a moment to demonstrate how important forestry is for the future we want. Nothing is happening with my presentation. Sorry about that. Today we have a moment to demonstrate how important forestry is for the future we want. We want sustainable development for all and in this seminar we want to show how forestry contributes to every dimension and all the goals. So if we talk about eliminating poverty and hunger, improving health, building smart cities, providing water and renewable energy, education, ensuring rights, gender equality and equal opportunities, building strong institutions, securing climate on earth, conserving and restoring life on land and underwater, making reliable investments and value chains and building new partnerships and perhaps most of all caring for the well-being and future of our children and their children and so on. Forestry embraces all of this and therefore is what our efforts at CIFOR are about. Our strategy as you can see on the screen is designed to contribute to all of the 17 sustainable development goals that the world has agreed on. Through our research teams we ensure that focus is maintained on each aspect of the SDG framework. In contrast, in the public debate among advocacy organizations in national policies and in international negotiations, we usually hear about forests as an environment issue. Global challenges such as climate change, ending deforestation and protecting wildlife take up most of the bandwidth in media. And of course these are real and very, very important challenges. But unfortunately the priorities and needs of local and rural communities seldom make the headlines. Communities which are often among the world's poorest and disadvantaged. This is where the benefits and opportunities of forestry come together and have the greatest impact and this is where our focus needs to be. So seeing how the wealthy parts of the world consider forests, one could say that forests have been put in the global environment corner. And to that I say, nobody puts forest in a corner. Let me turn to the topic of research. Everyone here in the global forestry hall agree that research is an essential ingredient in development. This is why CIFER and our sibling organization ICRAF deliver high quality science that is credible and relevant for policy and practice. This is the core of our mission. But science is under threat. Defending the credibility and relevance of science has become a mission in itself. We live in a world where post-truth populism and alternative facts often set the political agenda. A world where scientists see the need to take to the streets to advocate for their mission. And in that process risking to profile science as just another special interest. As a result, funds for research are increasingly difficult to mobilize. We feel that pressure as well. It is less politically opportune to invest in science. I want to extend my hope to Indonesia as our host country and Sweden as one of CIFER's founding countries and a leading forest country in the world to stand up for science in general and funding of forestry research in particular. Science, however, necessary is not sufficient. At CIFER we are clear that doing excellent research is in itself not enough to achieve the impact we aspire to. So that is why we also emphasize learning. We help develop a forest faculty in eastern Congo. We support Indonesian students to acquire master degrees overseas. We carry out a variety of trainings and prepare educational material. Learning, based on science, is the basis for that sustainable future we want. We also emphasize outreach and engagement. Forestry research is not worth much unless it is communicated, understood, and ultimately used by many. This, we believe, is also the path to regain a broad trust in science. Post-post-truth, if you like. Finally, I want to talk about landscapes and the need for integrated solutions. So much of our future depends on how we manage our landscapes. In the Nordic countries, we share a history of poverty. Many of you recognize this painting from the late 19th century. It's from Finland, but it could have been Sweden. The situation of poor people living off the land. And in our countries we've made a long journey since then. The thing is, we still have this reality in many places around the world. This is a recent picture from Brazil, and I'm sure you can see the similarities. So we can say that if we are to achieve sustainable development, then it is in landscapes we must place our hope. We have a tendency to isolate sectors as experts and to isolate institutions. But in the landscapes the solutions must come together across agriculture, forestry, mining, energy, water, finance, infrastructure, tenure, rights and law. We don't seem to pay enough attention on how this integration is to happen. And actually real landscapes are where our science and research can become most useful for people. This is why integrated landscape approaches has become an important foundation for CIFRS work. We challenge the conventional institutional fragmentation to seek new ways of collaborating and discovering opportunities and solutions. It's not always easy. Habits, safety and comfort in our own sectors, in our own institutions may make us feel threatened. The roots are deep. So we need to work in new partnerships. CIFRS leading the Global Landscapes Forum which has become a platform for thousands of partners from every sector and walk of life. We want to advance sustainable landscapes. In the next five years we aim to reach and involve one billion people as a global community of landscapes. We think that like the World Economic Forum the Global Landscapes Forum is on track to become a major positive factor for sustainable development founded in research and focusing on local priorities. So Your Majesties, Excellencies, it's been a privilege to share some thoughts about the breadth and diversity of forestry. It's also a privilege to work with all members of the CIFRS Global Team to really make a difference that counts proving how forestry and landscapes can enhance environment and well-being for all. Thank you very much. Thank you Peter. Our next speaker is the Senior Advisor to the Minister of Environment and Forestry for Industry and International Trade from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry Indonesia. Let us welcome Ibu Lakshmi Dewanti. The floor is yours. Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. A very good afternoon. Your Majesties, King and Queen of the Sweden, Excellencies, Distinguished Participants, Ladies and Gentlemen. First of all, allow me to convey a best regard from the Minister of Environment and Forestry. Let me convey her message. It is my great honours and pleasure to welcome His Majesties, King and Queen of the Sweden in this nice city of Bogor. I wish you to have a very successful visit in Indonesia. On these occasions, I would like to also express my considerable gratitude to the Sweden Delegates. I also would like to extend my sincere appreciation to the CIFOR and collaborations with the Sweden's Swedish Embassy in Jakarta to organise this important event. The role of forestry for the sustainable development indeed is a very challenging topic and it's timely relevant with the present situations, especially to the environment and forestry sector in Indonesia. I'm sure this event will highlight the strong roles of forest for the sustainable development goals through exchange of knowledge, information, experiences, visions, know-how between all of us here in this even. Majesties, Excellencies, Distinguished Participants, Indonesia is a country which is blessed with remarkable forest resources. It's a place for abundance, spacious of flora and fauna as regard to the mega biodiversity. Since the Earth Summit in 1992, Indonesia has been actively promoting the implementations of sustainable development both at the national and international levels. Indonesia always concerned to all international commitments on environmental and forestry, both legally and non-legally binding documents. To some extent, Government of Indonesia has already ratified legally binding documents into laws and government regulations and implemented it at the correct growth levels. In relation to the sustainable development, Indonesia has already launched the Agenda 21 documents, overview the implementation of the agenda, evaluate the progress of the Maniangium Development Goals, and now we adopted the 70 goals of the Sustainable Development Goals into the National Development Plan documents. Indonesia has been conducting its way of sustainable development step-in-step-wise with a key progress, challenge, and way forward. In order to meet future generations' needs, Indonesia has to balance social, environment, and economic aspect of development. We believe that this ancient self-platform of sustainable development in Indonesia is a good governance, democracy, and high-quality environment. To respond, this platform, Government of Indonesia, has been promoting collaborative action on all development activities toward the sustainable economic development. At the national level, President Jokowi began his presidency by setting the nine priorities agenda called as Nawa Cheetah, that defines nine sector-specific outcomes which represent a huge opportunity to strengthen collaborations or coordinations among sectors, namely national priority, for instance, addressed to mandate the development of food security, health security, education, energy security, tourism, poverty alleviations, and infrastructure. This interrelated national priorities program has opened our mind to have a broader vision in seeing the resources of this country, including forest resources as well as human resources with their diversity and complexity. A proper valuation of Indonesian natural resources, including forests, is important and required to demonstrate the optimal value of forests for people to serve as a strategic planning to our forest asset and seeks to balance the economic, social, ecological aspect of the forest and hence to meet the visions of our nation to elaborate the national priority agenda. Majesties, Excellencies, and Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen, this priority agenda forced us to think and move our national in maintaining environmental quality, protecting forest resources, and balancing ecosystem and the presence of resources in an integrated way. Addressing the roles of forest ecosystem would need to consider several aspects and approach, including institutional and policy regulations and with support from research and innovations toward appropriate action and practice. In order to respond to sustainable development, we have already set up a forestry as a pillar for sustainable development by 2025. As described in Indonesia, we have a forestry long-term development plan 2006-2020. From this long-term planning, we elaborate five years' development plans. For 2015-2019, Ministry of Environment and Forestry has issued the strategic plan which comprised three strategic objectives. First, maintaining environmental quality in order to increase carrying capacity, water security, and community health. Second, utilizing forest resources and environment potential in order to increase economic and community welfare. And the third, maintaining ecosystem, equilibrium, and biodiversity and the existence of the natural resources as a life support system in order to achieve the sustainable of the livelihood of Indonesia. In this regard, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry formulated environmental and forest policy priorities, including promoting of sustainable forest management, including the establishment of forest management unit, forest protection and conservation of biodiversity, controlling the environmental pollution and climate change, strengthening the law enforcement and conflict resolution, as well as the management of waste and hazardous waste. Ministry has also undertaken forestry reform which holds principle of sustainable use, people-centered equitability, synchronized transparency, and integrated. The policy for the forestry reform includes action, such as macro and micro delineations, giving access to local communities, prudence in permit issuance in natural forests and conservation and conferencing, acceleration of rehabilitations and planting new trees. With regard to the policy and regulation, Ministry of Environment and Forestry has launched a new people forest policy strategy to placing foundation for a greater access for the community, especially for those living inside and surrounding the state forest to utilize forest resources and to resolve conflict. The recent policy is to establish 12.7 million hectares for community forests, including customary forests, private forests, community forest plantation and village forests. Agroforestic practices, to some extent, can maintain biodiversity and mitigate climate change. This policy is followed and will be followed by the guidance and the practical implementation. Within this new paradigm, Indonesia forests are now being managed in such a way where we could not neglect the demand for the development, for the welfare of the society for the six of the forest sustainability. But we have to create the balance. In the context of the global climate change, Indonesia continuously committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. As we all aware that the world community through the Paris Agreement maintained global temperature increased below two degrees Celsius, due to its irreversible and will cause a terrible disaster for human lives. In our first national determined contribution under the UNFCCC, Indonesia commit to reduce 29% of its emission by 2030. Out of 29%, 70% emission reduction target comes from the land-based sector, which are mainly forest. Therefore, sustainable forest management has been one of the focus of attention and work of the Indonesian government. And the ministry has been seriously addressing the climate change and it would also accelerate the challenges of the national growth, including increased adaptability and welfare of the local communities. Excellencies, Majesties, Distinguished Participants, I believe this event will provide broader perspective on the key developments and challenges for the greater roles of forest on sustainable development. And to conclude, let me reiterate my appreciation to the king and queen of Sweden, to these distinguished escalancies who are present in this room and all the stakeholders for your continuous commitment and support to the sustainable development. I thank you. Peace be upon you. Thank you very much Ibu Lakshmi on behalf of the Government of Indonesia for the remarks. Your Majesties, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, the next agenda will be presentations from senior researchers and also from our distinguished guest, Ibu Sinta. And I have been told by the organizer if there are some burning questions that there might be opportunity to ask a question, one or two questions for the speakers that will come. So, let us welcome Professor Ingrid O'Born, Regional Director for Southeast Asia, Iqraf, and the title of her role, the title of her talk will be the role of smallholder forestry and farming in Sweden and in Indonesia. Your Majesties, Excellencies, Representatives of Government of Indonesia, Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm going to make a talk trying to bring together our two countries. They've been privileged to come from Sweden being a professor at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, but I've taken the last five years being on leave to work with more global issues and the last one and a half year I've been here. So the role of smallholder forestry and farming in Indonesia and Sweden, what do you really think we can have in common? And to come to that question, I wanted to start to introduce a little bit about the Swedish forestry and farming for all our Indonesian friends. So the total area of land is 41 million hectare and more than two thirds, nearly 70% of the land is forest land, most of that productive forest. Agriculture, as you can see, is only 3 million hectares, 8%. So it's a minor part, but as we all know also food production and here very much livestock and dairy production is important around the big lakes in the coastal zones and along the big rivers. I can also say that you cannot really be a farmer in Sweden without also being a forester. You can possibly be a forester without being a farmer, but all farmers are also relying on forestry. And the forestry has been very successful. Over the past 100 years, the volume of the standing forest has doubled. Thanks to forest policies, thanks to not needing to use charcoal any longer, thanks to not grazing in the forest and so on. So the forest produces a number of things, timber, paper and pulp, bioenergy, hunting, recreation and environmental services, and all those products are very important. Looking at the global trade, the ranking of the Swedish forestry products sort of in export terms is number three globally and Indonesia is number eight. And the current forestry policy that has been going on for the last 10 years gives equal priority to timber production, production part and the environment and conservation, which means that in all forests, more or less in all forests, all foresters are dealing with production and environment conservation together. Of course there are a few national parks, but in general that is like a trade-off that all foresters need to deal with. There are discussions, but I would say it's working reasonably well. Family forestry dominates Swedish forestry. 50% of the forest land is owned by family forestry farmers and this is producing 60% of the harvested forest products. This is quite a lot and many of those family foresters are organized through the Federation of Swedish Family Forest Owners. There are different associations, membership organizations for parts of the country, where also parts of the value chains are controlled and owned through their own industries. So this is a way to even having quite small pieces of land and still get sort of access to value change, with planting material and the products. And what is this? And what does this have to do with the talk? Of course it's something you find in every farmer's, foresters' home in Sweden, maybe most other people, who have coffee, chocolate, tea, teak furniture, rubber boots, and some tires, both for summer and winter, because every car in Sweden does summer and winter tires. It's a good market for rubber. So what does it have to do with Indonesia or other things? It symbolizes that actually smallholder farmers contributes highly to global production of all these items. So did you know, and I hardly knew it myself before I started to look at this, 90% of all cacao globally is coming out of smallholder farmers' production. 75% of the rubber, 67% of the coffee, 25% of the tea, and 20% to 30% of the teak, which means more than 60 billion dollars worth of trade per year. And looking at more deeply... No, this one we should not have. In Indonesia, this shows five major tree commodities. It shows where Indonesia is ranked in the global production, but the key things are the red numbers. We can see that for coffee, 96% of the area grown by coffee in Indonesia is grown by smallholders. 85% of the rubber area, 94% of cacao, and 46% of tea. That is a huge proportion of the areas in Indonesia. And looking to the far right, where you can see the percentage of natural production, we can see that for coffee, it's the same value, 96%. It means that the smallholder coffee is as productive as the plantation coffee. For rubber, you see it's a little bit lower, it's 80%. Sludgy lower for cacao, and much lower for tea. So it shows that smallholder farming is keeping up. There's still a lot of efficiency gains, sustainability aspects to do with both social, environmental, and economic sustainability, but smallholder really matters. Here you can see the bottom figure is latex from the rubber trees. And it's very much, I mean, when I think about how smallholders can together work on the rubber, it's very much when you think about many dairy farmers, everybody's having one-two cows when we started the whole dairy factories. You need to milk every day, you need to collect the milk, bring it together. It's the same with the latex. If it's waiting there too long, it gets hard, and it really has to be collected, brought together, and farmers need to get organized and get linked to the industry, and without too many middlemen and traders who would dilute it, cheat, and do different things. One of the things discussed in Indonesia now, how the smallholder rubber can be boosted. What more can we say about smallholder farming and forestry in Indonesia? We heard a little bit already from the representative from Indonesia, Ibu Laxmi, but it's 26 million farmers in Indonesia, which is, of course, very many more than in Sweden. 50% have some engagement both in agriculture and forestry, so this is really a similarity. The average farm size is small. One hectare can be smaller, can be bigger. And I brought an example here about the teak since we were looking at the teak furniture earlier on. So in central Java, there are many one and a half million farmers growing teak, providing a lot of the timber to small-scale industries. We discussed that with ITI in the first session today. It's a bit too high-value timber for them, but there are other parts of industries that more can have niche markets with the smallholder teak, which would be an excellent raw product. And as you also can see on the bottom, picture when the teak is small, they are growing granites underneath, and when the teak is a little bit bigger, this is ginger production. So you can also have multiple crops on the same land with a smallholder teak. Social forestry was also something we just heard about from the government representative and also earlier in the first session. And this is forest managed by communities. So it was initiated in Indonesia as a concept already in the early 1990s, but it is just in a few years back, the government decided to allocate 12.7 million hectares of state forest to be managed by communities through social forestry schemes. It can be everything from non-concession peatlands to other non-concession lands, but it's also where it is concessions for companies. Part of that, 20% of the land and the concession can still be for agroforestry, because in many of those areas, the people are already there, and the thing is to find out how to work well together between the companies and the local farmers. And agroforestry, the combination of tree crops and livestock is recognized as one option in the social forestry. So smallholder, to conclude, smallholder forestry and farming in Sweden and Indonesia, what are the commonalities? The number of smallholders compared to the total number of farmers is very large in both countries. And smallholders contribute a very high proportion of tree products. And reliable value chains are key in the livelihoods and for the sustainable management. And I hope we can explore further collaboration between Swedish and Indonesian farmers. Thank you very much. Thank you. I think the 10 minutes is up, so there will be no question. Thank you. Okay. Thank you so much, Professor Ingrid O'Born. The next speaker is Mrs. Shinta, Vijaya Kamdani. She is the President of the Indonesia Business Council on Sustainable Development. Your Excellency, His Majesty, the Queen and Queen of Sweden, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, it is truly an honor for me to speak in front of His Majesty and the Queen and such distinguished group of people to address how actually Indonesian private sector move forward to foster sustainability of the forestry sector. Indonesian rainforests, as we all know, are one of the Earth's most biologically and culture-rich landscapes. The world's largest archipelago that consists of more than 17,000 islands, spanning between the Pacific and the Indian Ocean, containing the largest expense of rainforests in all Asia, it is home of hundreds of distinct indigenous languages and over 3,000 animal species. As recently as 1960s, about 80% of Indonesia was covered in forests. Since then, however, the demand for commodities combined with problems such as corruption and land-right uncertainty caused massive clear-cutting of the rainforest, destroying critical habitat for endangered species and sowing social conflict with communities that depend on the forest for their livelihood. And sadly, with current rate of loss, tropical lowland forests, the riches in timber and biodiversity will have disappeared from Sumatra and Kalimantan within the decade. Deforestation rates have accelerated since 1996 and are now estimated at about 2 million hectares a year. Therefore, the Indonesian government has taken steps to tackle deforestation, especially in prone areas such as Riau and Kalimantan. Not only forests, the Indonesian peatland and swamp is estimated at about 13 million hectares, which makes us the largest tropical peat swamp in the world. Illegal logging, dying up and land conversion are the main challenges of peat swamp degradation in Indonesia. Responding to the situation, of course, the government realized that forest revitalization is important. They have produced a series of commitment, actions and policies towards this end. In 2009, Indonesia made a bold move by voluntary pledging to achieve a 26% reduction in emissions against the business-as-useless scenario in 2020 and 41% with international support. And also, as mentioned before, the national action plan on reducing greenhouse gas emissions was soon issued to guide its implementation. To support this purpose, vehicle for financial instrument, the government appointed Bapanas to our planning agency to establish Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund in 2009. Indonesia also stepped forward to fight for red, reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation at the 2007 Bally Climate Change Convention and become one of leading countries in red plus preparation. Also, in May 2011, when an MOU, as you know, commitment from Norway of $1 billion was signed, which also act as a major catalyst toward a chief carbon emission reduction target. In the early 2016, the government formed the Peatland Restoration Agency where it tasked to prevent forest fire that particularly occur in Peatland and to restore such area gutted by it, particularly in Sumatra and Kalimantan Islands. All these are very good, good initiative by the government, but what is actually happening on the field? I guess that's your majesty what you want to hear from us, the business. As you know, the Paris Agreement has recognized the role of business as part of non-state actors in climate change governance. It is clear that business is now expected to contribute in reducing carbon emission in any form. Can we do it? First, I would like to share with you some of our challenges. First, fulfilling the National Emission Reduction Plan where forestry sector is expected to contribute around 17% of the reduction. This is a very ambitious target. That means our level of business supply chain should feel that they are part of this process, not only the big companies. Second, the increasing awareness of the consumer to an environmentally forest friendly products. Therefore, business should ensure that their products come from sustainable sources. Third, better management practices in business, including respecting indigenous community, is necessary. Maintaining this rainforest and ensuring that indigenous and frontline communities have legal rights to the land are critical to protecting human rights, endangered ecosystem, and our global climate. Community development should be embedded into inclusive business model as it will reduce potential conflict with communities. The fourth, building trust and conflict mitigation. Our research at IBCSG on cost of conflict of land use based company shows that on a per conflict basis, evaluating only tangible costs, the range costs resulting from social conflict, ranging from three months to nine years in duration, is approximately 700,000 US dollars to over 10 million US dollars. This finding also indicates that the costs relative to conflict are significant, misunderstood, and potentially pose a serious obstacle to productivity for companies, communities, and the government. There need to be a trust-building process between all the stakeholders. I think this is the key, Your Majesty, and this is really where our government, our stakeholder has tried to fulfill building this trust and narrowing the gap between us. It is a very big challenge. On the fifth aspect is also the need of synchronized regulation between central and local government. Different regulation between central and local government is one of the most challenges for us as the private sector. We can't work with many overlapping regulation and inconsistency. What have we done and what are we going to do? In terms of, as I mentioned before, the Peatland Restoration Agency, where it starts to prevent forest fire, as you know forest fire is a very big issue at the moment in Indonesia as well. Some company has actually put initiative in initiating what we call the ecosystem restoration projects and develop new business model to attract investors. So this is quite a big initiative for the ecosystem restoration projects and we have started with some still very small number company executing now this on the implementation level. Also, on our commitment in land and forest issue, we also have worked together with the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce in working on conflict resolution unit program since 2016, which was established to create public confidence that mediation is an effective alternative distribute resolution option for resolving land use and natural resource management conflict. The result of the program is expected to provide a range of support services to ensure best practices in this field. We have also aimed to accelerate the commitment of company in forestry to eliminate deforestation from their supply chain by playing a role as a regional host organization for Tropical Forest Alliance 2020 for Southeast Asia since 2016. In this program, we expect we can reach the target by 2020 through engaging government of Southeast Asian nation, local and provincial government, NGO, indigenous people organization to focus on how to reduce deforestation and forest fire in a manner that boosts economic growth and people well-being. The question remains how can we balance critical issues such as economic development, food security and environmental concern in one of the world's most populous and biodiverse countries such as Indonesia all while remaining competitive and meeting market demands? So these are some answers of the questions that we would like to move forward with. First, clarifying land use concession and permit through what we call the one map movement. At the moment, the government doesn't have one map, so this is something that definitely government needs to do to give clarification. Second, facilitating land swaps and collaborative land use planning. Third, identifying and creating incentive for protecting of high carbon stock and high conservation value for us. Fourth, effectively disseminating best practices to small hoarders and last, creating financial incentive for red projects. Your Majesty's distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, the Swedes have learned the hard way for not keeping their forests. In the last century, they nearly clear-cutting all their forests for agriculture and industrialization and thankfully, they realized that it was not the right path to take. Since then, in less than 100 years, Sweden forest assets have doubled. The volume of forest continues to increase by a net annual increment. Now, around 70% of Sweden land area is covered by forest. If Sweden can do it, why can't we do it? On behalf of the IBCSD, the private sector of Indonesia, I would like to express my thanks to Saifor and the Swedish Embassy to help us in sounding the sustainability in forestry as part of sustainable development. I mean, thank you. Thank you, Ibu Shinta. Our next speaker is a senior scientist, social scientist from C4, Dr. Bimbika Sijapati Basnep. And she will be addressing gender issue and if you realize, actually, all of the speakers are all women here, except Peter. So please welcome Bimbika. Thank you very much. His and her majesties, excellencies, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen. My name is Bimbika Sijapati. I'm a social scientist and gender coordinator at C4. Today, I'm going to give you a brief overview of how C4 is addressing gender and rights in our research globally, including in Indonesia. And in the process, I will represent my own views and also summarize many of my colleagues' work who are present in this room today. So, okay. So the forestry sector has a long history of engaging with gender issues. For instance, in my home country, Nepal, women's inclusion in forestry programs dates back to the first master plan in the forestry sector in the late 1980s. But for gender issues to be considered seriously in forestry policy, practice, and research, it had to be framed in terms of how gender equality and women's empowerment would contribute to sustainable forest management, reduced deforestation, poverty reduction, and other environmental and developmental goals. As a researcher, practitioner, and someone actively following progress on women's rights both globally and in my home country, I found these concerns relevant but inadequate for three reasons. First, why cannot gender equality and women's rights be goals in and of themselves? Why must they be viewed principally as instruments for reaching other objectives? After all, there are glaring and persistent inequalities in rights, resources, and representation in most of the developing countries. And the forestry sector has much to contribute to addressing them. For instance, research in India has shown that reducing deforestation can augment access to forest foods and income and are particularly important for poor women. And I saw that women, just as men, are differentiated along class, cost, and other social differences. And women, just as men, are not conservation-friendly if there are no adequate incentives in place, if their entitlements over resources such as land are insecure, and if the responsibility for caring for children and elderly falls disproportionately on their shoulders. So just adding women is just not sufficient to guarantee better forest management outcomes. When women are just added into existing forestry and conservation programs, without thinking through how these policies and programs could also be beneficial to them, then women's presence is just tokenistic. And even worse, existing gender inequalities are heightened because women now need to add participation in forestry projects and programs alongside everything else that they have to do every day. Under the global framework on sustainable development since mid-2000s, I have witnessed a substantial change. The MDGs recognize gender equality and women's empowerment as a goal in and of themselves and also integrated into other development goals. But the SDGs have gone further and included many of the underlying causes of gender inequalities such as access to land and resources, distribution of care, and women's movement have been advocating for many generations. The Swedish government's feminist foreign policy 2015-2018 and efforts to channel support and funding in a way that strengthens women's rights, representation, access to resources serves to add further weight and legitimacy to these global agreements. At C4, we've embraced these broader changes and aligned our work within this global framework in terms of the research we undertake, how we communicate our work, and the range of actors we work with to ensure that gender equality and women's empowerment objectives are at the heart of sustainable development debates and solutions. This is just a global map of where we're working. So please allow me to give you a few illustrations from the work of many of my colleagues. So on forests and land rights, C4 has a very long history of documenting progress in handing over forest management rights and responsibilities to local and indigenous communities. C4 researchers working in Uganda and Nicaragua have gone a step further and worked alongside women and men in local communities to document the range of rights that women access and how this compares to their male counterparts. The researchers found that their glaring disparities in rights and yet responsibilities for forest management are shared between the genders. They also found that when women feel their rights are secure and not dependent on men's, they are more likely to make investment decisions that are good for them and good for forests. On climate change, C4's research on red plus, the main core and cross cutting issues has been tracing whether and how women participate in red plus framework from subnational, national to global levels. For instance, across five countries and 60 plus research sites where this research is underway, C4 researchers have found that women know much less about red projects and are involved in very marginal ways. Hence, in decisions that could fundamentally alter the landscapes in which they live in, women have limited voice and influence. C4 researchers working on red plus are actively working with relevant government agencies such as the Ministry of Women's Empowerment and Child Protection in Indonesia as well as National Women's Machinery for developing principles and guidelines for integrating gender in red plus design and implementation. C4 researchers working on climate change adaptation, medication and on the synergies between the two are also drawing on their research to inform a wide range of policies at the global level including the upcoming gender policy of the Green Climate Change Fund. In addition to embedding gender considerations more deeply and systematically in the themes that C4 has worked on, since the center was first set up, we are also actively expanding gender research in new and emerging areas. We are working towards expanding the global debate on corporate commitments to eliminate deforestation from supply chains by monitoring whether women have a meaningful voice in decisions related to land conversion, whether corporate practices uphold global standards of decent employment and whether services that are extended to local communities and small holders target both women and men. In the process our work is informing alliances and platforms for implementing and monitoring zero deforestation commitment and multi-stakeholder processes such as those establishing social and environmental standards. One of the major drivers of forest and land use change in many tropical and subtropical countries is migration organization. In Nepal, remittances contribute one third of the GDP and 90% of the migrants are men. We are finding that the impact of male migration for women who are left behind can be dramatically different depending on forest management institutions and social structures they have in their communities. We are actively working with our research and development partners to understand the kinds of policy reforms, institutional changes and cultural shifts needed to support women who are left behind so that they can be at the forefront of forest management efforts. So in summary, the forestry sector has much to contribute towards combating gender inequalities and enhancing the full enjoyment of human rights by women and girls. But aligning seaforce work closely with the global framework and sustainable development, we hope to contribute knowledge and evidence to advance a global vision rather than strive for results in a peaceful and isolated manner. Thank you very much. Thank you. Lastly, we will hear a closing remark on the Excellency, Miss Anna Johansen, Minister of Infrastructure, the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation, Sweden. Thank you very much, Your Majesties, Your Excellences, ladies and gentlemen. For almost 25 years, seaforce has played an important role in carrying forward research and making better use of the knowledge and the information available on intersectoral approaches in foreign landscapes. It is indeed a great pleasure for me to be here with you all today. With the, again, the 2030 and its SDGs, as well as the Paris Agreement, natural resources such as forests has been acknowledged for playing a much greater role for sustainable development and climate than ever before. Forests and other natural resources are now recognized both with specific targets but also seen as an integral part of achieving many other goals and targets as clearly spelled out in the recently adopted UN strategic plan on forests. Indeed, rather than focusing on individual targets, it is the integration across the SDG framework that can make a real difference. With the SDGs, we see the whole world unit in one single universal agenda. We have one planet, and it's our shared responsibility to ensure that it can support the needs of the present and the future generations. Sweden is committed to this agenda more than ever. In just a few weeks, Sweden will host together with the FIDG-1 Ocean Conference to focus on GUL-14, conserve and sustainable use of the oceans, seas, and marine resources. Later in July, during the UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, Sweden will voluntarily report on our efforts to implement the SDGs both at home and abroad. Sweden has a long experience and knowledge of restoration and sustainable management of forests and monitoring our forest resources, as well as technology and innovative solutions. We are very happy to share this with the world, and we are at the same time very happy to learn from others too. During this afternoon, I have learned quite a lot on many things, including Indonesia's efforts to tackle deforestation. In addition to its domestic efforts, I'm pleased that Indonesia has negotiated with the EU a voluntary partnership agreement to promote trade in legal timber products. It is clear that this has significantly helped decreasing the rate of deforestation. CIFOR is leading the way here. For many years, CIFOR and ICRAF have been in the forefront of providing research supporting and more people-centered development, in which many different sectors intersect and being translated into practical application at the landscape level. Sweden is in the middle of giving new form to forest policy in order to enhance our bioeconomy. The Swedish government has made significant investments in the bioeconomy by allocating resources for research. Furthermore, the Swedish government is working on developing a national forest programme. Sweden needs a long-term forest strategy that optimises forestry opportunities and contributes to the Swedish society and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. We like our coming forest programme to communicate a positive signal about the sustainable use of our forests for the climate, jobs and sustainable growth. I hope that our joint efforts to preserve our forests will have good results. And I also hope that the forests will return to many places that have been deforested and degraded and bring back life and new beginnings. And I also hope that we will move forward realising that it is possible to use the forest in a sustainable way. Thank you very much for your attention. Your Majesty, the King and Queen, your Excellencies, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, we have come to the end of today's session, today's seminar, and we have heard how sciences has generated knowledge and how science is now under threat because of this post-factual truth. Let me close today by quoting a quote that the first time I heard it, it stays in my heart. The saddest aspect of life right now is that science has generated knowledge faster than society gains wisdom. Sustainability is about wisdom, and we have heard all the sciences and the knowledge. How can we as a society gather wisdom? That is our homework. With that, I would like to extend on behalf of CIFOR, our deepest gratitude to the Majesty, the King and Queen, to the Excellencies, to the distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, thank you from the bottom of our heart. Thank you for being here, and we hope that this has been a fruitful meeting for all of us. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, may you please stand up.


Welcome to TechSoup Talks. My name is Kami Griffiths, and today's webinar is Staying Legal with Checking Best Practices, our presenters are Cindy Comple, Emily Chesson, and Francia Fajardo. Before we do introductions, I'd like to tell you a little bit about TechSoup Global. We are working towards a time when every nonprofit and social benefit organization on the planet has the technology, resources, and knowledge they need to operate at their full potential. Here's a screen grab of our homepage. There's quite a bit going on. We have a learning center full of articles, donated products from companies like Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec that you can request for a large discount. There's a community forums where you can post questions and have them answered by volunteers. We've got a blog where daily new messages are being posted and information about technology-related topics for nonprofits and libraries, and a special program just for libraries. Much more going on, so if you have a chance to go to our website and check out more about TechSoup. Now I'd like to introduce our speakers and have them say a little bit about themselves. We really appreciate the time that they put into making this presentation possible. I'd like to start with Cindy. Can you tell us a little bit about yourself and the Mott Foundation? Yes. My name is Cindy Comple. I'm a CPA, and my background is Audit and Compliance Work. I've been with the Mott Foundation for 12 years. I work in the Grants Administration Department, and I'm responsible for equivalency determinations and compliance reviews for all of our international grants. Approximately 30% of Mott Foundation's grants are international. The Charles Stort Mott Foundation is a private grant-making foundation based in Flint, Michigan. We have four program areas, civil society, environment, Flint area, and pathways out of poverty. In addition to our home base being in Flint, Michigan, we have two offices, one in London and the other in South Africa. Some of the areas that we grant in are, of course, the United States, the Great Lakes, the international arena would be Central Eastern Europe and Russia, the Western Balkans, Western former Soviet Union, the EU member states, Latin America, and South Africa. The mission of the Mott Foundation is to support efforts that promote a just, equitable, and sustainable society. And that's all I have. Great. Thank you, Cindy. And now I'd like to introduce Emily Chesson. Can you please introduce yourself a little bit about what you do at World Resources Institute? Sure. So I work at the World Resources Institute. We're an environmental think tank. We're located in Washington, D.C. Our mission is to move human society to live in ways that protect the Earth's environment and also its capacity to provide for the needs of future and current generations. We have four different programs within the Institute. We have one that focuses on climate change and energy policy, another program that focuses on trying to shift kind of Fortune 500 companies in large banks to be more environmentally and socially sustainable. So they focus on kind of markets and enterprises. We have another program called the People and Ecosystems Program that focuses on improving the management of different types of ecosystems to be more sustainable. And then we have the program which I work in, which is our Institutions and Governance Program, which tries to improve the governance of different types of institutions, whether government institutions or financial institutions around the world. So we work all over the world, mostly in developing countries, in trying to improve opportunities for public participation within decision-making processes, increased transparency and accountability within those decision-making processes. So I focus on a project that deals with international financial institutions. It's called the International Financial Flows and Environment Project, and we work to try to shift their investments to be more environmentally and socially sustainable. We focus a lot of our effort on banks like the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, so mostly public financial institutions. We've been a MOT grantee for about 10 years, and I'm the program coordinator in our project. So I'm responsible for the majority of the administration and management processes and responsibilities within the project. So that includes list checking, which we'll be discussing today. Great. Thank you so much, Emily. And now I'd like to introduce Francia Fajardo, who works with me here at TechSoup Global. So Francia, tell us a little bit about what you do. Hi. My name is Francia Fajardo, and I am one of the Cisco Program Administrator at TechSoup Global. What I do is I review Cisco grant applications and determine if the charity is eligible for the program. And I also assist on selecting which Cisco products can be offered through TechSoup. That's it. Thank you. Excellent. Excellent. So now I'm just going to quickly run through our agenda today. And this will last for 50 more minutes, so we should wrap up at the top of the hour. We're going to start, we've already heard a little bit about the MOT Foundation, but we're going to go in deeper into talking about the Patriot Act and the compliance that is the reason why we're here today, and what MOT has asked their grantees to do for list checking to make sure that the money that's being re-granted is not going to terrorist organizations. We're going to talk about how you can find and research and document the grantees, and we'll do a demo on how you do a search manually as well as how you would do a batch, a group of names at one time using a special software called Bridger. And then we'll have some time at the end for questions and answers. So I'm going to now turn it over to Cindy.  Okay, I'm going to give us a little bit of background as to why we have found ourselves in the position that we're in now and why we require those grantees of ours that re-grant to list check as well as the MOT Foundation we require ourselves to list check. So this came all about because of the response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The U.S. government issued an executive order that prohibits transactions with individuals and organizations deemed by the executive branch to be associated with terrorism and allows the government to freeze all assets controlled by or in the possession of these entities and those who support them. Prior to September 11, 2001, federal law included criminal sanctions for persons who provide material or financial support for terrorism. In October of 2001, President Bush signed the USA Patriot Act into law and that contains various measures directed at strengthening the federal government's ability to combat terrorism. So by passing the USA Patriot Act, the federal law now can impose significant fines in terms of imprisonment for any entity that provides material support or resources knowing or intending that they are to be used in terrorist acts or by the foreign terrorist organizations. At the end of June of 2002, the federal criminal law was again supplemented this time to criminalize the financing of terrorism. So the new provision now says that they can punish an individual or an organization who willfully prides or collects funds with the intention that such funds be used to carry out acts of terrorism. In response to the USA Patriot Act, Treasury issued what's called Voluntary Treasury Guidelines to assist nonprofits and grant makers in complying with the Executive Order and the USA Patriot Act. The Voluntary Treasury Guidelines consisted of four sections. The first three sections were Governance, Disclosure and Transparency and Governance and Finances, Financial Practices and Accountability. And those three sections outlined principles of good governance which are largely already observed by the well-run foundations and nonprofits. So there really wasn't any new challenge in that area. The challenge came into the fourth section which is entitled Anti-Terrorist Financing Procedures. In summary, this section proposes that foundations and nonprofits attempt to implement a compliance program to ensure that their funds are not used to support terrorism. We should also note at this time that it wasn't just the United States government that responded but also the UN and the European Union passed laws that were similar in the wake of the terrorist attacks. So that gets us to why we're list-checking. So what Matt did was we talked with our legal counsel and came up with a program between them, our grants administration department, and we've come up with a program of compliance which is based on the knowledge of our grantees. We have program officers that work closely with each of our organizations receiving grant funds from Matt. That relationship is really the basis for compliance and assuring that grant funds are not diverted from their charitable purposes. In addition, upon the advice of legal counsel, we added additional measures. One is list-checking which means essentially cross-checking grantee organizations in the subject context against the official terrorism watch list. And the second thing we did was we added language to our grant agreement prohibiting violence and terrorist activities. Since 2001, a lot has changed. It's a rapidly changing and complex area. So Matt reviews their policies and procedures in this arena annually. However, we now require all of our grantees. I'm sorry, I went ahead too far. Any grantees that re-grant with Matt funds are also required to do list-checking and changing of their grant agreement. Again, we want our organizations that re-grant with Matt funds. We want them to know their grantees. We want them to cross-check organizations and contact information against the official terrorism watch list, in particular against the U.S. Treasury Department's specially designated nationals list, which is the SDN list. And we want them to adopt changes to their own grant agreement with their grantees along the lines of what Matt has done with theirs. So that is what gets us to why we list-check and what we expect our subgrantees who re-grant with Matt funds to do. So now we're going to get into the actual what happens with list-checking. List-checking is really...it's complex when you first start it, especially if you have a large volume of grants. But once you get the process down, it's a fairly easy and quick task to get some assurance that your funds are not going to be used or given to an organization that would use them for terrorist activity. But before we get too far, as most people will probably know, it isn't unusual to have a hit. And a hit is just some type of match. The Matt Foundation recognizes that with similarities in names and the use of acronyms, list-checking may create a lot of false positives. And any hit must be reviewed and documented. In a rare case, if it turns up a true hit, then you need to not make your payment. We always list-check prior to our payment, as well as we do it once a month on all open grants. But you should always list-check before you make any grant payments. So as grant makers, we collect a lot of information regarding our grantees. And as a result, you would usually have most documents in-house that could be used to confirm whether the hit was a false positive or a true match. So for example, if we were list-checking an organization and a hit came up, first of all, the information that would come up on the hit, it would give you the name of the organization, the address of the organization. So you would look to the documents that you have in-house, and if you don't have them in-house, you would need to get them from the grantee, which would have their, you would look at some of their, let me go to the next screen. You would look at governing documents, registration documents. If it's a U.S. organization, you can go to GuideStar, get their 990, get their employer identification number. But if it's a foreign grantee, an international grantee, then you would have, typically you would already have their governing documents and a registration document, which would give the legal name, and then the governing documents may also give a shortened name. So when I had, just recently, I guess maybe last month I had a hit on one of our international grants. And what it was was there was two words in the name of this organization that was also included in the name of the organization that showed up as a hit. They were in two separate countries. The director of the organization was different. The registered name was different. So it was obvious to me that we were talking about two different organizations. So I was able to say I talked to the program officer to confirm a few things. And we documented what we had found and said that this was a false positive and it was not a true match. If you were to hit with an individual, then there are other documents that you may need to review. And this has happened as well. Sometimes we collect bios on contacts. We might have to look at a passport. We might have to review a driver's license. You may have done a site visit and met the person or a colleague has met the individual and knows them well. All of this can help you. We had an incident here in Flint actually where the name of an executive director popped up on the list. And the date of birth, of course, the name of the date of birth was on the list.  However, we knew the executive director, he's in the same building that we are. And he obviously was in his 30s and not 70s. So we knew that these were two different people. So again, that was a false positive and not a match. But if you ever run into a problem and you're in doubt, don't make the payment. Because if it's a true match, you can't make the payment because if you do, you're going to risk your organization's assets being frozen. So this gets us to the documentation process because it's not just enough to do the list checking and to say that, okay, we had a false positive or we've had this or we've had that. Now you've got to document your verification. And this is kind of where it gets a little bit tricky because it's hard to say you know, there's no cut and dry as to what's proper and what's not and what's enough and what's not. So if you're one of MOT's grantees and you're re-granting and if you have any questions about it, you can contact your program officer who can put you in touch with myself or Mary Galbraith and we can help you with the documentation process. What you want to do though is you want to record your results of the list checking and then you want to record what you've looked at, you want to make copies of it, you want to have it all together so that if anyone was to come in, somebody from a taxing authority or even Treasury was to come in, they would be able to see why you listed this as a false positive and what you had to support that basis. Sometimes here I'm not sure if I've got enough written down and so what I'll do is I'll have somebody else who's not, somebody else in my department but who's not closely associated with list checking and with the situation to read it and say, you know, does this seem reasonable to you? Does this seem like it's going to address concerns of somebody coming in here auditing or reviewing our documentation. And if not, then I'll beef it up a little bit and if so, then I'm content to move on. So again, like I said, we document, you record the results of the list check and any verification you did, you want to print the results because you want to have a hard copy but we also save, we have a folder in our directory where we also keep an electronic file of all of this. So we have two files, the manual and an electronic one. We're actually talking about, I said earlier that we look at our processes annually and we're actually talking about not having a hard copy because our files are backed up on a daily basis. So we're considering just doing the electronic copy but right now we still have a hard copy in the electronic copy. And you're required to retain these records during the terms of the grant and for five years thereafter. Again, let me just reiterate that we do require that our grantees who re-grant list check and prior to this year or maybe even two years ago we changed our policy, we used to have them submit some documentation to us to show that they had list checked and that they had looked into any false positives or any hits that they had had. But we don't do that any longer. We put it in our commitment letter that they need to list check and we just ask that they keep the hard copy in the electronic copy and if not should come in and want to look that they have that available to us. But we no longer require our grantees to submit that documentation with their reports. So we do again expect our grantees to know their grantees. We expect to know our own grantees. We want to revise commitment letters to add the anti-terrorism language and then we want them to list check. So that pretty much sums up the documentation process and now we're at the resources. The Mott Foundation, when all this came about, and I think it was in 2003 when we really started implementing these changes, we knew that this was going to be a burden to our grantees that re-granted with our funds. So I think it was in 2003 that we entered into an agreement with TechSoup. They were known then as CompuMentor and they worked with our grantees that re-granted with our money and helped them to get the list checking process up and running and to supply them with technical support. The management of the Mott Foundation didn't want, they knew that they were putting another additional step on the grantees and it's an onerous one and so we wanted to help them as much as possible. But at the same time, we wanted to make sure that we were doing all that we thought we should do to make sure we were in compliance with the USA Patriot Act. So in addition to all of that, the Mott Foundation has a website, www.mott.org and we have a grant resources section and in that section we have different items such as accounting, grantee reporting and then the USA Patriot Act. If you look in the USA Patriot Act, that's where you're going to find some of the information on the list checking and on the requirements and those kinds of things. There's a wealth of information there and not only just in the Mott Foundation's website but also if you went to the Council on Foundation website, they have a book and let me see if I can find the name, a handbook. Hang on one second. I can't see the name right now. We can send a link to that information in the follow-up message as well. It really is. It's a handbook and it's about the Executive Order, the Patriot Act, the guidelines and what they're trying to do to help nonprofits and foundations be compliant and there's a wealth of information in that as well. So I think that's it. That's wonderful. Thank you, Cindy. So there's a lot of information. It looks like it's fairly well organized on the Mott site. We'll include links to this site as well as the individual pages in the follow-up message that I'll send this afternoon. I'd like now to move on to Emily and have her do a demo of how she does her list checking. She's going to first go through this list, her own list of her process and then do the demo for you. So I'll turn it over to you, Emily. Great. So can you all see my screen now? Yes. We can see your browser if there's ready talk. Okay. The PowerPoint slides that I had are not showing up, but that's okay. I can just talk through it. Oh, sorry. If you wanted to go through the slides, I'm going to stop sharing and then you can just go through these. You can go through this list and then we can go back to sharing your desktop. Is that okay? Yeah, yeah, that's great. Sorry about that. So as I said before, WRI has been a grantee of the Mott Foundation for about 10 years. And this is the first year we're actually going to be re-granting funds. We were going to be re-granting funds to four different partner organizations in Mexico, Indonesia, South Africa, and the Philippines. And we found out from our program officer that before we could re-grant the funds, we had to comply with the U.S. Patriot Act and list check all of our re-granting organizations against the specially designated nationals list. So since we were only checking for organizations, it wasn't going to be too cumbersome, so we were able to do this manually rather than using one of the services that we'll be talking about later. So I'm going to just walk you through the process that we take to manually list check our different organizations. It's pretty simple. And you can kind of see the steps that I've outlined on the slide. And so I'll just walk you through these steps. And then we can see if there's any questions at the end. Okay, so the first thing that you want to do is set up a Word document with all the information that you're going to need to list check. So this information includes the organization name, the organization director, and the project, your main project contact. So the person you're going to be working with the most closely throughout the project. You also need to include the...there we go. So you also need to include your search date, the staff member who's going to be doing the list checking, and then also once you complete your list checking, you're going to need to sign off to verify that you were the one who did this and keep it for your record. So I usually make a Word document that includes all this information to start off with. And then your next step is you have to go to the U.S. Treasury's website. So you go to the website. And then the first thing you have to do is you have to download the SDN list, which is the specially designated national list in PDF format. So you would click that and download the list, and then it looks like this. So if you were to scroll through the list manually, it would take a really long time to list check those three pieces of information. But luckily they have a find box, like many PDF documents do. So you want to click on the arrow and go to Open Full Acrobat Search. And so we've already set up our Word document with the information we need to search for. So the first thing that we're going to search for is the organization name. And the organization that we are looking for is called General Organization for Tourism and Affairs. So you would type it in, and then you would press Search. And it shows that there's zero results. So that's good. You do not want to get any positive results. So to document this, you would want to do a print screen. So you would press Print Screen, which is normally on the upper right-hand side of your keyboard. And then you would want to paste this into your Word document. So as you can see, I have pasted this into my Word document. You see the organization name. And you can see that there's, you can see the search box, which shows that there's zero documents with zero instances, which is great. It's exactly what you want. So then you would go along and do this for also the program projects, contact, and your primary organization contact. So the primary organization contact is Mohammed Dubey, and the primary project contact is Mohammed Latif. So we'd go through and do it for those three as well. And you'd do the same thing. You'd do your print screen, you'd, and then you'd paste it into your Word document. So then you end up having a document that has all three pieces of the information. As you can see, this document does. And then the last step you'd want to do is you'd want to save this for your record. So you would save it to your electronic files. And then you'd also want to print it, sign it, and then put it with your hard files, your paper files, and put that away. And then you need to keep them on file for five years, as was said. And that's about it. So it's pretty simple. You just follow those steps. And then as long as you have not had any positives, then you can go ahead and begin the re-granting process to your partner. Excellent. Thank you so much for walking us through that. And I hope for those of you who are new to this idea, if it didn't go too quickly, remember this is recorded. So if you want to go back and replay it and use this as a guide for yourself later, please do so. We're going to move on to – I'm going to stop sharing and move on to Francia. She will be showing us how we do our list checking. Oops, wrong slide. Thank you. How we do our list checking here at TechSoup for our donor partner, Cisco. So we would like to now pass it over to Francia. Hi. As mentioned earlier, my name is Francia, and I'm one of the Cisco Program Administrator at TechSoup. And as part of our process in reviewing Cisco product donation requests, we also perform Patriot Act checks. And we use the Bridger Insight online tool for that purpose. So just giving a little bit more information about Bridger, this online tool contains 25 terrorist watch lists, and it includes the SDN list as the speakers mentioned earlier. And there are two ways to run searches on Bridger. So let me show you how that works. So I just logged into Bridger, and we have a search option called Check Names. If you have just a few names to search, you can just type it in. I'll go ahead and type in my name, and then just click Search. And as you can see, no matches found. And then there is this other cool feature where if you have a large number of grantees and you want to check those names, you could use this scan file option. So to start with that option, you first need to collect or prepare your data by retrieving the information from your database. So let's say the information you got is this list. And the way at least my input format is configured is you have to, if it only scan names in one column, so I have to combine the organization's name and the contact, the primary contact for the organization into one column. So I did that right here. As you can see, they are all in one column. So going back to the Bridger Insight tool, so you do a scan file, and under input format, this is my personal configured format.  And as you can see, so when I save my file, I save it as a comma-delimited file or a CSV file. So that's the format it accepts. So verify format. So just simply follow the step-by-step instructions. So when you click on verify format, just click Start. So the list is fed through the search and then to feed the results. So we've fed the sample data that CSV on today's date. And as you can see, there are four names that were found. So let's take a look at that. So I highlighted the name of the file and I clicked Search. So for one of the organizations' names, it's called Radio Unidas. And as you can see on the score, it had a score of 88. And the higher the score, the more it's closely related to the match. So let's see. And the cool thing about this is you can click Print Details and it would give you all this information which you could use to document for matches. So let's see from the information for Radio Unidas, if the country is different from what's indicated on here which is in Colombia. So it has all this information which you could use to verify if it's a false positive or a true positive. So that's basically it. So how we do it for the Cisco program is if the score is high and the matches are really close to each other, we do escalated Cisco in their export compliance team. They do extra research on their end and then they will let us know if they are good to go for the Cisco donation. So that's how the Bridger online tool works. So back to you, Kenny. Excellent. Thanks, Francia. I also wanted to let you know that there are a few products out there like Bridger. And I'll include links to those in the message I sent out this afternoon. One is called IST Watch. It has the option of searching individual names as well as searching in batches. So you can see the benefits of batch searching if you have money, many people to look up at any one time. So I just sent a message out via the chat asking you to submit your questions if you have any. Before I move on to questions I wanted to quickly point out in the PowerPoint we have some resources that are listed, some links to places on the TechSoup site, to places within, more information on what we were talking about today. So there's been a couple of questions posted so far. And I think I will fill them out there and see who would be, I guess Cindy would be the best person for this first question. So this is a question that Sarah asked earlier. To clarify a little, does this list only US 503s? Her grantee organizations are all overseas. Can I use this list for them? So Cindy can you answer Sarah's question? Yes. The answer is yes. The SDN list is put together by the government. It's all organizations that are linked or individuals or persons that are linked to terrorist activities. It isn't just 501C3s. It's worldwide. So you're safe to use that. Excellent. And another question that Jeff had, approximately how much does bridge your insight cost and is it useful to our organization that only grants in the US? Now Cindy, do you have that information? I believe and maybe Jennifer you might be able to tell me if I'm on track again. It used to be about $1,000 for a subscription for a year. Does that sound about right? Yes, so we're having a hard time getting Jennifer on mute. She's my coworker here and she's helping on the back end. But she did agree with that. And again we'll send out links to the bridge your information. Okay, so I'm just only interested. It's only good for people if they're in the US. Okay, my apologies, my apologies. We need to work out our unmuting. So we've shown you and again I'm waiting for more questions. If any of you have any questions please submit them now or raise your hand and we can see if we can answer those questions. The two examples we've shown you, if you have a small number of grantees to do the list, the manual list, it is a bit more work. And then Bridger allows you to put in a bunch of names out once and it also checks multiple lists. So was there any other questions out there or do the presenters have anything that they would like to add that maybe they didn't get to share earlier? Okay, well I think that we did thank you presenters for taking time to show us your processes. And Cindy, thank you for explaining the Patriot Act and what the law says. I think it's something that a lot of folks aren't aware of. I know I've had some conversations with people that do re-granting and they've never heard of this. So it's nice for us to get the word out. We hate to see people have their assets frozen because they just didn't know that this was in the law. So expect a message from me this afternoon or in two or three hours from now. It will include the recording to this webinar, the PowerPoints, the audio file, and links to the resources that we talked about today. You can also email me at any time if you have questions. I'll give you another email in a second. But before I close this webinar I want to let you guys know that we have some other upcoming webinars. We do webinars like these on a weekly basis. Not all of them are so specific to a type of organization. So if you're available next Tuesday we're offering a free webinar on social media decision making and the following week on donor management solutions. So I will include links to the registration pages for those webinars. And I would like to thank you all for attending today. We have an email address down here at the bottom. If you have any questions, email Mott at TechSoup.org that will go to Jennifer. She'll be happy to help you with any questions that you have related to this topic. If you wouldn't mind taking a second to fill out our post-event survey, letting us know if you had any questions or comments and if you have any suggestions for future webinars. So I really appreciate your time and thanks again to the presenters and have a great day. Bye everyone. Bye. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Thank you. Please stand by.