This language is critically important but has yet to be operationalized in many areas. And so, despite the fact that we have made many advances in red, there is still ongoing destruction of forests around the world and risk to forest peoples, and their rights for the well-being and their cultural heritage. There are ongoing expansions of infrastructure, monoculture plantations, logging, and support for mitigation actions, such as biofuels, natural gas, and large-scale hydropower development are all driving this trend. And these are only going to intensify. These worrying developments emphasize the need and obligation for countries to adopt a rights-based approach to climate change mitigation, and the gains achieved in Cancun are now at risk of being lost and have money and young. And we all together here, those of us on the panel, must think about how we can ensure that not only do we are losing the progress that we achieve, but also we actually capture the momentum and moving forward. So there's no one definition for a rights-based approach. However, it's described in academic articles, and the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights suggests that a rights-based approach is a conceptual framework for the process of human development that's based on international human rights standards and operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights. Within the climate context, this focuses on obligations, inequalities, vulnerabilities, and unjust distributions of power that in key progress for sustainable and low-carbon development. But our panelists today will explain what it means to them, to community members, to advocates, and describe a specific definition to apply to the land sector. And so due to it, they'll explain why a rights-based approach is so critical when talking about the land sector. Well, my friends and colleagues, we will talk about their views right now. Again, we want to hear from you. So let me start by introducing Nina Sentra. Nina is a Dalek Pompang from West Kalimantan. She's the Deputy Secretary General for the Indigenous People's Alliance of the Archipelagoes known as AMAM. And she's reframed the discussion about rent, implementation in Indonesia to ensure the rights of Indigenous peoples. Thanks for joining us. Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. I think this is a really perfect forum to talk about the rights-based approach. And I want to start with a question. When we talk about a right-based approach, who is the right holders? Indigenous peoples, when you talk about landscape, about the red, about territory, about forests, it's clear for us that Indigenous peoples are the right holders that we are talking about here. And we've been... I don't want to talk more about what we've been through. So many people already know what happened in Indigenous studies and what happened to Indigenous communities. There's so many things. Even until now when we are talking, actually some of our minority communities are being criminalized and in jail because they are living in the territory which is claimed by the government as a national park. One thing when we talk about saving the forest, the territories when we talk about the red, we have to ensure that any policies or agreement related to that must not be aggressive in the context of saving the territories. What I'm going to... What I'm trying to say is that in our experience with the national park conservation areas and protected forests, for example, many Indigenous peoples have been victim of the ideas of saving this territory environment and nature but not involving Indigenous peoples. We have to face problems in this kind of... this type of ideas. At the same time, we also have to face problems with oil mountain plantations, mining, monoculture, triple plantation and others. So we have to face everything at the same time and for us this is really a big challenge for Indigenous peoples to continue to protect our territories. For us the call is now how to translate if there is a good will. We start with... Well, there is... In Indonesia for example, there are several law and regulations that actually recognize Indigenous peoples' rights. Although we don't have yet the national law that recognizes Indigenous peoples' rights. We have sectoral laws that recognize Indigenous peoples' rights but we don't have the umbrella law that recognizes us. Although we have that, but these problems still keep happening. The question is how to provide an evidence of the good will that's been already there with some of these laws and regulations. How in one hand we provide law and regulations but in another hand, the situation on the ground is still not changed. We are still being arrested, being criminalized. It's so many... I think in this discussion, so many puzzles that we have to really fill in. There are some good law regulations, good agreement, good MOU, LOI and everything. But in other hand, does it really change the situation on the ground to be Christians? Maybe that's very simple question but until now it's not yet answered correctly. So I think that is the question. As the rights holder, it is important for us to understand or to challenge the government and everyone that is not going to be government, how to realize the change in the community and to provide this evidence of the good will. I think we can start... The government can start by stop violations and criminalization of indigenous peoples. And after that, we can start with dialogue because I think the obstacles of indigenous peoples to have communications, to have dialogue with governments and also companies and others is trust. That is the biggest challenge because we want to trust but in other hand, it's still happening. We have good papers, good documents, many of them already in international instrument and etc. But the situation on the ground is still the same things happen all the time. So how these right ways approach can really change the situation. I think that will be the question that we have to answer with it. Maybe that's for the opening. Hello. The next person that will speak is Azad Girmali. She is an advocate on climate policies in LBCs in Africa. She's currently on a campaign with the LBC Watch International. Azad. Thank you. Well, it follows in the lines of my colleague. I am going to speak on food security and the importance of land for security. I mean, this is an obvious link to all of you. You know that. But I guess I have to say again what is obvious here. When we are talking about land and considering it in the upcoming 2020 climate agreement, we have to know that land is a very critical area that we have to establish principles before we can engage in drafting and formulating guidelines and climate policies. This is critical because land is not just land, particularly for countries in the LBCs, Africa, and a country where I come from, Ethiopia, I can say this from experience. Land is not just something that we can look at it from its potentiality, from carbon markets. But when we talk about mitigation, land in LBCs in Africa, as you all know, I'm sure you do, is about food security, about livelihood, about jobs, about people's security as it is. People without land in those countries are almost nothing. Their livelihood, their whole security depends on their land. So we have to be careful when we consider land including it into the agreement. So we say that when we are talking about land in the climate agreement, we have to recognize the rights-based approach to be designing the principles for that. In the ADP, as I said, rights-based approach should be in the center because land is about rights to food as it is to water, land, and seeds. But when we concentrate on land we are talking about food and I would go further in that. So it is to safeguard the sole source of food security which is land of the majority of multitudes of people in Africa and the LBCs. The most vulnerable are actually impacted by climate change. Therefore, we feel that in these climate policies we have to look into which ones would be that would secure or safeguard the security of these vulnerable communities. And I can comfortably say that adaptation should be as a critical element or policy that can do that. Safeguard the rights of people because we have seen studies we can just even indicate the IPCC report, the fifth IPCC report and the UNEP adaptation draft report in 2013 which said that adaptation in Africa is a must now because our ambition in a mitigation has failed so far and the committed warming now will require us to do adaptation in Africa in all the LBCs. There is no other way. No matter how we close the gap in emission we will not be able to go further for people to survive without any adaptation. And this is actually indicated we have in the convention Article 4.1 is a commitment for all to say that adaptation should be done and this is an area that will ensure rights of people in those countries. When we say adaptation it can be invested in our ecology which increases resilience and improve quality of soil and yields. Then when we think about mitigation mitigation action we have to identify who should mitigate and when we analyse mitigation we have to establish equitably to establish equitably who should mitigate we have to analyse it in per capita because we cannot see in aggregate which countries are which should commit to mitigate. In general yes we know that 14% is coming from agriculture but when we look at it in per capita in countries the developed countries are responsible to mitigate and when we go back to small scale farmers they are not when we see it in per capita and in their practice the systems doesn't produce that much of an emission but large scale agriculture which is mostly in developing countries and huge amounts of consumption of meat is the driver of climate change in the world so these are the areas where mitigation is emission is driving so they for small scale farmers the right is to keep their agriculture safe but not to engage in mitigation as I said adaptation is the area where we ensure their rights to produce food in general we have to look into the areas where the right space approach is going to be advanced only when we see that adaptation is the area where we have to concentrate on in the 2015 agreement so apart from that engaging countries in the vulnerable countries in their adaptation is also one particular area that also is indicated in the convention after 4.7 that it's like vulnerable countries have the right it's the commitment of others to recognize that they have to engage in development rather than mitigation so this is why we say that we have to establish the principles before we engage in drafting climate policies to ensure the rights of the people also people thank you for making sure that we are well aware when talking about the land resector we can't just focus on mitigation but also incorporating the adaptation our next speaker will talk a little bit more about accounting and other issues related to the land resector Kate Dooley is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Melbourne evaluating the ambition and the distributional impacts of weather and how the land sector is integrated into the future climate agreement just firstly there's quite a few seats at the front if people from the back want to come up with a front and also I'm going to talk about the role of ambition in how we characterize the role of ambition and the rights-based approach and for those of you who have the document one of our principles is ambition and in terms of that we mean that we in responding to climate change we have to effectively reduce emissions and how does this look for a rights-based approach the impacts of climate change on human rights across a whole variety of spectrums is very severe so if climate change is not mitigated you will undermine human rights at the same time addressing human rights strengthens our responses to climate change and we think this is particularly evident in the land sector where we have the issues that Mina and Zev have been talking about in terms of tenured security for indigenous peoples and food security these are issues that addressing those can also help us to reduce emissions and so we want to tie all this together in a conceptual framework as Ali said for a rights-based approach so I will talk about reducing emissions aspect of that, oh that seemed to change the level of volume so firstly the first question there is what is the role of the land sector in ambitious climate mitigation we hear a lot about it particularly if you're working on forests or land sector mitigation it can be very easy but it's a very complex and big area that we spend our whole life looking at the forests or the land use aspect of climate change but if we look at emissions from climate change this graph shows the emissions from fossil fuels and cement rapidly increasing over the last century and the proportion of emissions from land use change is in brown or yellow whatever colour you might call that and it's obviously a much smaller proportion and the good news is it's actually decreasing now this graph is showing land use change it doesn't include agricultural emissions so it doesn't include methane and nitrous oxide which as Zab said is represents around 14% of global emissions what we're looking at here is a contribution of around 12 to probably in the last year increasing to 8% of global emissions from land use change just to put it in context that to effectively reduce emissions a really large proportion of our effort needs to go into combating fossil fuel emissions in terms of understanding what this means for land climate policy in terms of how we reduce the land sector of the emissions what I'm mostly going to talk about here is the global carbon cycle so a lot of this should be very basic knowledge but this is based on a paper that was published two years ago in Nature Climate Change called Untamed and Confusion around Land Carbon Science as well as a lot of figures and graphs etc in the most recent IPCC report because what we have in there is reflecting the basic science of the global carbon cycle and I think that all of our climate policy needs to be based on adequate or credible understanding of that science so what this picture is depicting is different carbon stocks so we have a land carbon stock in green the ocean carbon stock in blue and the atmosphere is also a carbon stock what the red arrow represents is a one-way flow of emissions from the fossil carbon reserves underground to the atmosphere it's important to note that red arrow only goes one way once we've emitted fossil once we've burned and emitted CO2 from fossil fuel reserves does not go back into that fossil fuel reserve until a very long time scale process which I will briefly run through which is illustrated in this picture so once emissions go into the atmosphere around 50% stay there and approximately 50% are taken up by the land and the ocean carbon stocks that's the green and blue arrows now you notice those arrows go both ways so they don't just go down once carbon so that 12.5% a quarter of the carbon flux is taken up by the land carbon stock it doesn't just stay there and it's permanently safely tucked away the residence time of carbon across all of the carbon cycle actually varies from decades to millennia so when we talk about permanence of carbon sequestration when carbon comes into the land or into the ocean there isn't a single time frame that there isn't a single number that explains that permanence in policy circles we use 100 years because the IPCC has 100 year equivalence of greenhouse gas emissions impact on the atmosphere but in actual fact around 40% of the carbon in the atmosphere is not removed back into the into what we could call permanence carbon it sinks for hundreds of thousands of years so while it may be sequestered into land it stays there only for decades or perhaps centuries so the main point to take from that is the impacts of climate change are felt by from the cumulative emissions in the atmosphere that accumulate over centuries and not from the contemporary balance of sinks and sources when we account for carbon in, say, Luu CF under the Kyoto Protocol we're accounting for sinks and sources but that is not the main impact of land use on atmospheric cumulative emissions so the next point I want to make is how does this all relate to the climate change negotiations so this is just a bit of a time frame schematic that shows where land use is occurring in different parts of the negotiations the green boxes are land use negotiations and initially once the Convention on Climate Change was established the Kyoto Protocol was agreed and eventually as part of that agreeing of the Kyoto Protocol land use was included in that as Luu CF land use, land use change and forestry and the inclusion of land use in the Kyoto Protocol was quite controversial at the time because of that carbon pressure cycle line just outlined as well as something I haven't talked about yet the difficulty of monitoring emissions from land use change this is a graph from the IPCC that just shows a range of different estimates of land use change over the last 30 years pretty much all of the major studies estimating land use change so there's a trend there but there's obviously a large range as well so Luu CF was quite a controversial inclusion in the Kyoto Protocol because the focus at the time was on reducing emissions from fossil fuel some countries argued that the land use sector is important which it is but the complexities around how to account for it made the discussions very controversial in the end it was included as a political compromise to keep the US on board with the Kyoto Protocol obviously not big enough to compromise and then what ensured was what this picture depicts is something like 14 years of complex negotiations on how to actually account for the land sector we then under the Bali Action Plan have read reducing emissions from defrostation and degradation was agreed which is how dealing with the land sector in developing countries because Luu CF only applied to annex one or developed countries and now we're in a position where we're looking at a new climate agreement that applies to all so there's a lot of conversation around how there's also agriculture under the Bali Action Plan but that's only been discussed in the context of adaptation as they've emphasized so the question now is how does all of this how is all of this going to come together and be discussed in a new climate agreement and in terms of actually getting effective emission reductions we think the land sector is important emissions from defrostation even though decreasing we're reducing emissions here I'm turning the lights off even though emissions from defrostation are decreasing proportionally it's still important we stop those emissions but it's important to recognize that the forest conservation and reducing emissions from forests avoids future emissions but it doesn't in any way offset or compensate for ongoing fossil fuel emissions so once we accept that as a basic principle then we can start to talk about how to deal with fossil fuel emissions how to deal with land sector emissions and how to balance that mitigation action in the land sector with other competing priorities for land such as food security and land tenure and all the other uses of land and if we approach the the question from that perspective we think that we can come up with a rights-based approach to land mitigation thank you thanks Kate I think it's really important to note how technical, some of these accounting principles are and how the policy levels are critical to what's going on but that Nina and Aza also demonstrated that there are serious implications for these decisions that are happening at the international level and how do we then take what's happening on the ground and share those experiences with what's happening at the international level how do we actually apply the rights-based approach in practice how do we evaluate that how do we account for those ideas and our approach and Francesco Marconi will tell us a little bit about an initiative that he's been he's been very much involved with that actually takes the rights-based approach to the next level so Francesco is a policy advisor for the forest peoples program he's been working on red and the UNFCCC negotiations we're going to kind of close up our panel to talk about how we can actually apply a rights-based approach with a particular initiative thanks Francesco thanks for everybody yes my organization forest peoples program has been working in support of indigenous peoples both in terms of ground level works, working directly with communities but also bringing the experience in terms of capacity building and support for recognition of rights up to level so my job has been that of trying to create this linkage between the work we do at the ground level and the work that is happening in the international processes to have this kind of feedback loop I say this because I do think that the discussion we're having here needs to be clearly distinguished according to the policy levels and the political level we're talking about and ensure that there is this kind of feedback loop because I really appreciate the discussion on carbon and on land-based mitigation and land use is still at very exceptional pace I mean everybody understand that's an issue I think that the graph that Kate showed to us clearly described that this is a clear challenge but also there is still needs to be a lot of work to be done to define the actual criteria in terms of the level of negotiation we are talking about so we don't know yet how land applies to carbon climate change we know it is an issue but to me this requires an immediate application of a precautionary approach so that every time we discuss about land in climate there needs to be a precautionary approach because we need to protect or to prevent that this discussion actually creates more harm than good and but the reason why is because I mean I realize that there is a kind of a crash time here if you look at the negotiations outside one of the recurrent terms is accelerating is moving on accelerating providing input to enhancing action that means that the discussion in the COP is more than that about removing barriers that could be like safeguards or social conditions to any kind of policymaking in climate change than actually acknowledging the right-based approach so how do we do this I mean how do we deal with this how do we deal with the crash time that we are experiencing working on the ground where we notice we had we organized an international workshop in Palakkaraya, Borneo in March with indigenous people from all over the world what they told us and what you can listen to them on Monday in the event we are organizing in the Cumbra de Uspuegos is that their land is being strengthened that the invasion and the land is being progressing that we are talking about 200,000 hectares of great land a year and the indigenous people are now basically fighting for their own survival and how do we reconcile this urgency to take action to protect their land with the long term that is needed to define the material for carbon accounting and land use I think this is a real issue we only talk about a right-based approach it is very important to place it in the international negotiation but it is also important to have a different view to kind of equalize in the terms I mean when I listen about drivers of the forestation and I put myself in the perspective of somebody that tries to work with indigenous peoples the concept of driver does not include the human rights threats and the violation of rights that I am let's say a so-called distorted land that brings with itself when we talk about carbon I mean I realize that the discussion on carbon benefits and values in the red negotiations has not led us anywhere so if you look at carbon as the key point of entry for a right-based approach maybe this is not the right place because you end up by having the same values and the only thing you talk about is the right to carbon but not necessarily the right to land and the right to land for indigenous peoples the right to land for indigenous peoples is not about only the use of land for food it is an intrinsic element for their identity the spiritual value the collective cosmovision the same survival the self-determination so how do we reconcile these elements when we decolonize in the debate I think that I was in the global landscape forum last year and I started thinking about global landscape and forum and this is why I am here because global, okay how do you reconcile the local needs for resistance and the protection of land with the global policy making landscape, who defines what the landscape is what is the landscape is it about land is it about humans power asymmetries in the use of land or access of land is it about conflicting land tithing 80% of the forest the roots of conflicting land titles you have indigenous peoples land and there is an overall lack of mining and infrastructure development this is an issue about power asymmetries and then I heard in the global landscape forum last year, well the solution is a multi-stakeholder approach to ensure a rights-based approach and participation a multi-stakeholder approach does not capture the power of symmetries indigenous peoples for instance and local communities that are excluded from policy decision making processes have not the same bargaining power of transnational companies or of land scale and owners so I think these are issues that to me really have to be taken into account and lastly maybe when we talk about land rights we don't need to reinvent the wheel the FAO, the opposite the whole, I heard a very interesting presentation the FAO was talking about the voluntary guidelines on land tenure that do recognize the priority for consent, they're voluntary though so they might just need to be mega-operational and then we will start from recognizing the rights of land and then see how this could actually have an also spin-off or carbon sequestration or carbon mitigation but if we start from the carbon perspective we risk of getting the old rights-based focus a bit diluted so I think these are actually very challenging discussions and I hope to see you also on Monday to continue to share the Palakari declaration is a declaration of indigenous peoples that formulates very clear demands protection of the rights of the land territory and resources stop consumption, trade and production of deforestation products, recognize the role of indigenous peoples with their traditional knowledge in mitigation and adaptation and support access to financial resources but also to international making policies. Thank you so much Francesca I think from the four of your panelists here you've heard different perspectives on the various principles that we've identified thus far as a rights-based approach we've talked about rights from the land perspective land rights we've talked about we've talked about ambition and we've talked about it not only from the international level but we've talked about it from the ground there are a lot of rich ideas that we've shared and questions that we have that we've been grappling with amongst ourselves we're hoping that if you haven't thought about this before that these short introductions sparks some interest amongst some of you and we'd really like to ask for some opinions from the floor either about any of the one principles that we've shared in paper and what we've talked about here as well as kind of digging a little deeper as to what Francesco said with regards to how do we actually apply a rights-based approach how do we use it to deal with these power dynamics so I guess first we'll start with questions or ideas and then if people don't have any general ones we have plenty we can target are there any microphones in the back or should we follow up on Francesco comment because as soon as you mentioned security has started thinking of rights-based approach to food security but there is a right to food so is it being used in these processes or not should it or would it make things more more important than necessary can you introduce yourself my name is Felix Daldin I work for the World Bank any questions you have thank you my name is Carl I work for Care International and it's directly related to the first question on the right food there are some rights-based avenues that are that offer perhaps less complexity and more opportunity than others land, tenure is complex and controversial and some of the other issues that have been mentioned by the panel are complex one that might offer opportunity and the question is to the panel is to look more at the right food in terms of the right to health so the nutrition dimension I think most of us are probably more interested in the food security of the bottom billion rather than the 6 or 7 billion that we have so I wonder if the right to health from a nutrition perspective is an angle that we could take that is less complex because most governments wouldn't argue with that since those two questions are somewhat similar I think maybe we'll start with that and see if anybody yeah the question is quite simple I think you were asking whether the food security issue has been taken care or taken into consideration in UNFTC that's what we're talking about well the answer is that there is a letter of a special rapporteur of the UN Human Rights right to food, right to health, right to people's rights that actually is completely wrote to the UNFTC to urge for a clear insertion and consideration of the right-based approach into the climate change negotiations to me this is an answer to the climate change negotiations although there's been a lot of recognition like the Cancun agreement put in their preambular that climate change if a human rights issue that mitigation and adaptation actions should be also respecting human rights but then there is no step forward in terms of operationalizing that safeguarding the rights and promoting the rights in all these actions and then I would also recommend that when you talk about food security we also talk about food sovereignty because food sovereignty is about self-production of food it's about challenging also the production, the transformation of food as a global market commodity because you can secure food but you can secure food by providing access to money that can be used to buy junk food for indigenous peoples and you talk about food sovereignty you talk about the capacity of producing your own food to continue to nurture, it depends this relationship to land in food as part of your constitution your identity of self-determination I just wanted to say maybe it's an addition simple thing is that the process is the agreement in the framework it's going so fast although even the objective of the convention is really to mitigate, not threatening food security food production in general but such elements like carbon utilization in the land sector going fast can endanger the issue of food security so there is a fear that this will be undermined people will be only thinking of the market than the security of food for people and this is why we have to shout that we have to remind negotiators to think first of all when they are looking into markets that they have to recognize the principles when we are talking about carbons and land they have to think of food security for people that is the major issue in several countries so I don't think it is looked as a major issue I want to add to that a couple of years ago there was a report by a special report on food security about the impact of the food industry to the food security and especially in the industries it's including the oil contentations that it's threatened the food security of the people I think you can also look at that report it's very interesting report and there was some exchange letters with the special report on food security with the special report on the accepted industry and I think that you can check on that report as well let's go for some more questions or comments and make a approach to the land use center thank you for the excellent final presentation my question is specific to Miss Hazel I would say land giving rather than land grabbing because countries are continuing to give away land for large scale investment if I want to know from Miss Hazel whether it's the last cost in Africa countries are continuing to give away land we are replacing indigenous people and you know all these questions come after that so what's happening and what can be done thank you can you introduce yourself we're trying to create a dialogue even though we are on a panel and it's hard we do think it's important to know who's in the room and how we can contribute to building this idea of a rights based approach moving forward we're really really hoping that you want to be a part of this this is a critical time for us to be working on this approach with some principles and we know they need to be developed further and so it's helpful to know so I would like to say please introduce yourself my name is Satish Kumar I'm working for Agis Yavobayenosti from Ethiopia and I definitely would like to be part of the group that you're sitting in can you take one or two other comments and questions I'm Yudas Haim from the Jove Development Institute I have a comment and maybe a question so I think WRED widened a lot of agency for indigenous groups and communities all over the world to highlight these structural inequalities and also some other existing power symmetries at global venues the Global Landscape Forum or the Kumbhura-Arath Prevost that we have next week and I did research on WRED plus projects in Peru and Indonesia and we found for instance that indigenous communities have quite good access for instance in Peru to civil society platforms to influence also the formal process so somehow indigenous groups like this have been able to argue for at least for new mapping exercises and things like that but on the other hand we have for instance non-indigenous migrant groups that are so their voices have not been heard so far so they even have in some situations less rights than indigenous people because they do not have the opportunity to to claim land to claim land because they don't have access for rights and for instance I found in the WRED project in Indonesia the situation that in fact only indigenous communities have the opportunity to access community benefits and so the migrant groups that somehow even got the permit of the indigenous people to live there but they have not the opportunity to access community benefits so and somehow these in some cases even poorer communities are let out of the debate. Thank you. I'm Ceci. I'm coming from Cameroon. I'm leading a regional network we call the African Humanity Network for Community Management in the Forest. I mean maybe also a question. My comment is on right-based approach adaptation I'm lacking the gender aspect of that I'm always very curious to to understand how you consider the relation between men and women in all these approaches we are talking about if you go to adaptation and if you go to food security and we try to understand who is doing what to ensure food security, you will see that the role of women is extremely important in that. If we get back to the tenure issues you will understand that the situation of women compared to that of the men in accessing land or getting right to land is a very difficult one in all LDCs of African countries. So maybe is it not possible when we are building up this type of exchanges or reflection to really consider the women. We are talking about local communities. I agree with that but local communities is not an homogeneous group. It's very heterogeneous. Even if we get back to the indigenous people they have men and women and they don't have the same status when you have men or women can we really make sure that gender or women especially are also part of a specific group of interest in all what we will be going through in this right-based approach. How can you see any experiences where you really think it's something we can just say local community or indigenous people it should be something very specific. Maybe a question to Kate. I'm very much interested in the way you analyze the global warming but you know in all these questions and I will come back to land grabbing how do you see the relation between deforestation through the land grabbing system and the global warming do you have any information on that are we considering that it's a little bit smaller than the global response to the global warming. Thanks for all your questions I think we'll start with just to quickly answer as you know land grabbing in Ethiopia so far is not connected to carbon market but it will very soon. Well in a way it is but yeah most of it is biofuels and food production for other countries but it will go to that and that's why we have started this campaign now that when the new agreement is coming that it has to concentrate to show what has happened and what is going to happen because of this carbon market so I don't think it's a lost case it is something that we can correct but we have to campaign very hard from now the gender issue it's just a time constraint the right space the approach itself includes gender issues I think it's within it it's not that we didn't say that I'm sorry I didn't say that but in the early seas in Africa I think when we talk about farmers we can easily say female-headed households, farmers are the majority who are vulnerable to climate change and because they are mostly involved in agricultural practices so you are absolutely right it's just an omission because of time and the setup of the discussion but I would say that but it was a land grabbing issue was stated in the conceptual presentation at the beginning by Elie herself okay I want to respond a little bit to the land grabbing giveaway and land grabbing question from Cecil but also the land giveaway concept and also to speak to the previous question about is the rights to food being discussed in the negotiations and as the other panelist said it's not that this whole rights to food, rights to health even rights to land are not really prominent in the negotiations what we have there is as I pointed out in that schematic the ADP is being negotiated under the convention the convention includes certain principles including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and equity and when we just when we elaborated on food security in our principles document it comes out of the principle of equity and this is talking to the idea of equitable share of the atmospheric space for all and this relates to food security in terms of if we look now at what as I have said if we look now at consumption of of food like to me consumption in particular but consumption of commodities and food items which give rise to the emissions from agriculture it's overwhelmingly in developed countries or even without it mattering if it's developed and developing it's overwhelmingly in a minority of countries and by a minority of people who are consuming and leading to agricultural emissions so what this means in terms of land giveaways is Ethiopia or any other country is not running around begging other countries to take away from it they're sure the government plays a big role in in terms of weak laws and regulations but it's due to pressure from global demand and consumption that that land is being given away so it's not a one way thing nor is it a one way land grabbing thing but I think we have to recognize the role of consumption here and so if we address consumption from the perspective of equity then we're reducing consumption reducing the pressure on land giveaways and also giving space for food security by allowing some countries with lower share of agricultural emissions to increase those emissions for food security and that usually comes down to small holder farmers and then you get to the issues of rights and women in communities in different stakeholder groups and the reason why we're talking about rights more broadly and it's fantastic that we are is that in the land sector discussions there are these different technical experts because of the way that we've been talking about these issues in the convention there are experts in agriculture and the land sector offers us a very important opportunity to be able to come together share expertise and make sure that we understand where each other is coming from and so by framing it in terms of rights we're not only talking about right to food and right to land right to water we're talking about right to participate we're talking about a right to a healthy environment we're talking about we have to include that environmental respect in addition to the human rights as well and these are important to incorporate and as we evolve with this idea again we're getting feedback from partners who are in these different sectors saying we want to see biodiversity we want to make sure when we're talking about food security we're focusing on the small farmers we're not talking about the industrial drivers in the resolution so other questions and comments Hi, I'm from the University of British Columbia I'm back with you for our student and I'm a student associate with an industrial development organization planning the project which was made of thinking about the larger scale pressure of industrial drivers on forest loss one area that I currently focus on are forest mining conflicts from the informal mining sector so this is an artisan scale operations that tend to have very rudimentary techniques and very few incentives to restore the environment but a lot of the time we contribute to forest loss, contamination and increased incidences of the HIV as well as malaria and so in terms of thinking about the impact of landscape legacies and long-term contamination I was wondering if there's any sort of discussion of these more informal sectors that are very very extensive such as ancient Asia as well so just a question First question Thank you My name is Shikaro I just have a few comments and one question My task for me is we are put together in different frameworks and as I said we try to for some of you who are when you start rights in a talk the opening up a lot of noise in the morning but they seem to be a mismatch between the issue of global rights discussion and the national discussion in a sense that what we have come to understand is that rights must be demanded at local level that is where I think many of these forums miss it if I give an example the rights of indigenous peoples this has been done to meet an exception of art that one of them respects in its way but the question is what happens at national level that we don't always discuss this because you know national level discussion is always the legislation and to me it's where we have problems if you do a survey of some of the LDC countries and you look at how they respect rights of even the minority societies talking about indigenous peoples and the forest communities you never find them recognizing the legislation and I always laugh because I had a colleague who was telling me some of these conventions are the principle of faith for some of the lawyers which we are implementing international laws even when we have no legislation still that is not enough and it is what I put into the panel is how do you guide some of us even in this legislation to feature such a discussion or such an inability to framework lastly is the UNFCC as many of you know it's a convention and it's simply a climate convention but over the years I know with growing science we are bringing so many things to the UNFCC you know the recent discussion has been the standing commission finance to discuss forest finance in the other way and in the other way we may focus on the standing commission in the aspects and the discussion because we do not want them to open and the same thing here looks at the right based action is that what specifics should we have discussed in this format Thanks, I think we'll take one more and then jump into some more questions Thank you Hi, my name is I am Peruvian I work at and I have a question first I want to comment and then I'm going to ask a question and I expect answer from the panelists but especially from Francesco so here's my question Naturally red is focused on carbon because carbon sequestration is an ecosystem service that benefits the whole world especially under the UNFCC's objectives this is basic now red plus in Peru is funding governance strengthening initiatives and this definitely helps us to reach a more fair scenario on land use in Peru now it is a market mechanism and that is why I think we should give a market mechanism its own fair position but it shouldn't be central to our governance policies and I was wondering what do you think about red plus and what position it should take to reach national policy on land use thank you for your question we'll work backwards the questions are fresher yes I will answer because I think this is a very challenging and interesting question and it has been cutting through these last years of advocacy of working with indigenous people but also with more let's say environmental groups and also groups that are critical to red so I can start because there was another thing I wanted to touch on I've been following also part of the discussion on red plus in Peru especially the work done by the forest investment program and I think that and many also Mina can actually contribute many indigenous organizations that be looking at red as a window of opportunity to introduce those governance changes you were talking about and basically use it as a trojan horse to open up a platform a negotiation with governments on issues that otherwise would have never been touched upon and as somebody was saying before the UNSCC is a climate change convention but it's also a forest convention by proxy if you look at the past history of the failure of Rio 92 to establish a forest convention and then the need to use this vector to introduce forest really issues again it's a proxy and red has been considered from any organization as a proxy or a trojan horse to engage with governments on the issues of land rights and you know recognition of indigenous people's rights to free private informed consent this is not the case in Peru when you talk about consulta previa the point we have I mean some of the issues that are still very relevant that does not have been properly addressed in red discussion especially what we're talking about red what we're talking about we're talking about the readiness we're talking about implementation or results based payments and we've only been experiencing this problem in the sequencing because we started the readiness when you actually have to deal with the right with the landscape the political landscape with the instruments that are required to ensure rights but then all of a sudden you jump immediately to the results based payments so there is yet no clear mechanism in place to ensure the respect of rights while there is a lot of pressure to start dealing with carbon but still red has been a very interesting vector and it can still be as far as it's a platform where these kind of negotiations can take place the second point is about the land conflicts and the competition over scarce land yeah the other question to ask to our society whose land we're talking about and indeed this brings me back to the memory when I first looked at a map that was designed after 10 years of work by indigenous people in Guyana, the Wapichang I was looking at this map and I couldn't realize how important it was for them that they had a map where they could visualize the land and the borders of their right, the suffering rights and then I asked one of the chiefs from Guyana said tell me I mean I see these borders some of them are clear designed others are just random, there is no coherent line, what are these all these are the areas we renegotiate so when we're talking about completing land land tightening, we're talking about drawing borders right and I realized that indigenous people can draw the borders from within but they also should negotiate the borders from without what does it mean that when you talk about small scale landowners that are having or people that are receiving rights to land thinking for instance about Santerre in Brazil you need to create a situation where those excluded from access to land or land rights can negotiate, can create a common platform can don't be end up by being actors of a war against the poor but you know just being able to negotiate and to recognize that each of the people rights holders that live in Alaska actually have access although there is a distinction because indigenous people talking about self-determination rights that are specifically different from other local communities or farmers lastly red, my organization has been engaging also in a kind of assessment or we are at in terms of red and we ended up by thinking that already discussion has been very helpful in identifying some tool kids or some tools for indigenous people to reclaim their rights bring it more down level to district government there is a big enthusiasm and now from local government district government to have local regulations that the indigenous people's rights and also customary forest and my organization we are working now with several local governments supporting them on making the local regulations for the rights of indigenous peoples we already have some local government coming up with it's called PRDA the local regulation like money now is kind of like that and about red plus how we saw that for us in Amman especially if you go back to ten years ago there is not much discussion about indigenous peoples rights we try to bring this up to the government but now actually we have more recognition of our rights especially on our territory what the challenge for us is how to provide evidence that we are the rights holder and this evidence we provide with mapping, participatory mapping with documentation of our traditional knowledge on managing our territories and I think this is the way we start working with governments for now and I think this is the way we start working with our indigenous peoples for now thank you thank you there on the global rights discussion and the national rights discussion where there is a mismatch coming from Africa I will understand what you are trying to say and that's true at the national level there is no mechanism to implement those it is in the books it is clear but it doesn't because when it is there for people to ask for it it should be demanded but I think that's the responsibility of civil society in those countries to create awareness amongst the communities to raise this issue that is very clear I think we can ignore because at community level or at the national level there is no demand that international levels will have to ignore setting up principles from the beginning in any climate policies I think it's essential first of all we have to have that but our struggle at national level should be you know accelerated it is an area where there is a critical problem there is something that we have to work on we've had some really great questions and we do want to continue this dialogue with the last week in Lima I think we'll take a couple more questions and I'm going to send around a name and email so you can sign up and see if you want to be included in these conversations either by email or in person while we're here and then know that we'll continue this conversation in the future but I saw a question here and then one at the back I'm Joanna Durbin of the Climate Community and Environmental Alliance and it's a very interesting discussion and actually the question I had formulated earlier Francesco dealt with a bit and also just now the rights based approach it sounds clear different groups and different people have rights and they need to be respected but of course you've referred to this there are conflicting rights there are groups that have rights to food and food security and others that have rights to land based on ancestral tradition and sometimes they come up against each other and you mentioned an approach of negotiation and I suppose it's just a comment but also an interest in your feedback as to whether there's a reflection in this approach of how that is dealt with and of course thinking about rights of current generations and future generations who are not here to negotiate or un-contacted people it gets complicated so I'm just interested in your reflections on how that is recognised within a rights based approach Hi, my name is Lela Agiliel and I work at the Centre for International Environment along with Ali Can I stand here so people can see me so I had two reflections that I wanted to share and I'm very interested to know what the panel thinks the first is it's really an opportunity to point out that we're having a relatively focused discussion on the land sector but these issues of rights do impact other sectors and there is quite a bit of talk right now about climate change and human rights a rights based approach to climate change and what can be done in the context of the 2015 agreement to have that overarching message conveyed to ensure that countries are respecting their rights but there is a specific call for respecting the existing obligations that they have at the international level there's a letter that's going around that over 160 organisations have already signed and I think they're still trying to gather momentum for this call and I think just in response to one of the questions about what does that mean concretely or if we can call for the recognition but then what next and there I wanted to draw attention to the fact that 28 independent experts of the Human Rights Council wrote to the electoral C parties and called for this recognition of human rights but also they suggested having some kind of work programme you know we can debate whether or not that's the right thing but I think there is an opportunity there that there are experts in the human rights regime who are ready and willing to work with the UNFCCC and to get the style of going about what in fact it means to work at the intersection of human rights and climate change and there could be a lot there both more broadly but also for the land use the land sector because there are some things that are unique like the fungibility question the inter-connection with mitigation and adaptation that brings me to the second point and this deals with this question of carbon and focusing on carbon yes the objective of the convention says we have to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change but it also mentions that we have to do it in a way that allows ecosystems to adapt naturally that we have to do it in the context of sustainable development so to me the convention is not just about reducing emissions it matters how it matters how we reduce emissions and this is playing out in little ways the non-carbon benefits discussion in red plus in the green climate from the discussion of co-benefits but the concern that I have is with this focus of carbon it moves ahead leaving everything else behind which means that you're not actually taking an integrated approach where you're finding that sweet spot with mitigation adaptation rights biodiversity and I talked about environmental integrity in this context not from just from an accounting perspective on biodiversity so I just I wanted to throw that out there because of the ADP discussions that are so focused on mitigation and emission reductions and you know what we need to be doing there to try to address some of these issues thank you I think these are really good questions I hope you are as excited to continue to talk about them as we are here or finish up with responsible questions and then last minute thoughts I think we could almost just finish here because that was a great input from Nero but as a quick response to those one of the earlier questions referred to carbon sequestration and I just wanted to sort of emphasise the point I was making in my presentation is that there are environmentally determined limits to sequestration in land it's called sink saturation in terms of conserving existing carbon stocks and conserving existing forests there are not limits to that which should conserve all existing forests but there is no scientific credibility to the idea that conserving forests or avoiding deforestation in any way justifies ongoing fossil fuel emissions now that that actually exists in current policy it's called forest carbon offsets and it's that that leads us into a lot of accounting complexity and a focus on carbon what we're trying to say here is if we pull back from that if we recognise that those two types of carbon terrestrial carbon emissions and fossil carbon emissions are not fundable we could have much more simple accounting regimes in fact they would be called reporting requirements that already exist for developing countries under the UNFCC they already report on their land carbon stocks and that simplicity would leave more space for issues like Francesco was talking about the focus on carbon means we just get straight to carbon rights and we're not dealing properly with rights we need to simplify accounting and actually deal with rights we pull back from the focus on carbon we can address food security we can look at ways, we can look at exactly what Nero was saying exactly how we reduce emissions in the land sector not just looking at carbon but how we reduce them so that they address biodiversity and they address the whole range of concerns and so I think that we're not saying mitigation from the land sector is not important specifically in bottom but it's not fundable so we don't need complex accounting rules and we need a broader definition of how we report and look at that mitigation I think that Joanna pointed a very important element about that actually reads the belt to me because when we talk about the rights-based approach they'll be looking to the operational aspects of it so you establish safeguards but then you need to establish an implementing framework and the compensation framework requires also the capacity to recourse to complain so the capacity of having an independent body for indigenous communities local communities that are affected to seek for compensation for arbitration and so if I look at for instance what we're talking about here land-based approach to mitigation adaptation and we locate the discussion in the climate change there is no such a thing as a recourse mechanism or a complaint body actually there is one but it's just for the interests of the shigs I mean that the forum on impact or response measures is only about how to compensate for the losses of the oil producing countries because you actually have to address the issue of fossil fuel consumption but there is a space so maybe that forum could be retrofitted to become a space where rights holders can go and seek for compensation for the response of wrongly designed response measures or impact or wrongly designed response measures like red, mitigation or adaptation so sometimes you actually don't need to reinvent the wheel but just we're creating you on what the institutional framework offers you I just wanted to say I wanted to refrain from saying this but I think I should and it's a simple thing with the human rights issue I always thought that the climate issue is a human rights issue because for what I said I mean especially for countries in the developed world because their life is disrupted because of other people's responsibility so their right is violated so I think it should be out of all of the discussion of climate change I think it's a simple thing but I think it's a very difficult issue how do we insert it, how do we do it it's a very complicated issue I can't comment I think I will close by just trying to motivate you again to join us in this network we are at a very critical time right now as we're negotiating the next climate agreement the ADP where this idea of the land sector and how it's going to contribute to mitigation and adaptation is a perfect place and a perfect time to do this again we're not just focusing on mitigation here the ADP has allows us to focus on both and this is the time that we're going to do it it's wonderful to see so many people here thank you so much for your time and your comments as I said I'll put a sign up sheet on that side and on that side and maybe you can come up and share your emails and we'll be in touch with you have a great rest of the day


That tech is like 100 years old. There are five big tech news headlines from 1924. Number five, movie makers Metro Pictures and Goldwyn Pictures merged in Los Angeles to form Metro Goldwyn Mayer, aka MGM, now owned by Amazon. Number four, on June 5th, GE engineer Ernst Alexandersen sent the first fax across the Atlantic Ocean. Number three, Greenwich Mean Time begins. Hourly time signals are broadcast for the first time from the Royal Greenwich Observatory, and the BBC took over broadcasting those pips in 1990. Number two, the Computing Tabulating Recording Company, or CTR, changed its name to International Business Machines, or IBM. At number one, Scottish engineer John Logiebert demonstrated a working analog television system to the Radio Times. 1924, it's like 2024, but without all the pain and agony yet? If you could support us on Patreon, do it. Patreon.com slash DTDS.


The beauty of preservation is that one small change can set off a ripple that helps to revitalize an entire neighborhood or city and one person's actions can improve the lives of countless American families. So I'm here really to argue to advocate for an engagement with creating a more complete American identity, a more complete identity when it comes to telling the stories that have made this nation. Because the reality is what you do is so much more than historic preservation. What you are doing through historic preservation is you are telling story of a community.  You're talking about our struggles and our journey. You're helping us understand who we are so we can pass that on to the next generation. You and I, we do the same thing. We're in the story biz and so much depends upon us and that's why I love that tagline. Past forward. By understanding and reconciling the past, we can find a beautiful road forward, but we have to be honest and truthful about it.


Okay, let's go. So we have to read Hebrews chapter 11 verses 5 and 6. We're just going through Hebrews 11. Just wanted to get a real feel of the fact that people in the Old Testament also walked by faith in God and chapter 11 just highlights different ones. So let's read it please. Verse 5 and 6 of Hebrews 11. Somebody could read that for us. Verse 5, why faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death and was not found because God had taken him. For before he was taken he had this testimony that he pleased God. Verse 6, but without faith it is impossible to please him. For he who comes to God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. Thank you. So the next person, so you know literally the writer of Hebrews is starting from the very beginning, Abel and that he's going one after the other and saying hey right from then people walked with faith in God. So he's talking about Enoch and he says you know Enoch by faith he was taken away that he didn't die. Now it doesn't mean that he used his faith to go to heaven or what it means is in his day Enoch walked with such faith in God that he pleased God, the end of that verse. He had this testimony pleased God. So Enoch walked in such a manner that he's so pleased God. Enoch by faith walked in such a manner that he's so pleased God that God decided to just take him. And then he goes on into verse 6 and tells us, teaches us that it is faith that pleases God. He's already mentioned that in verse 2 because he said look it's by faith you get a good report from God. But he's now bringing that same truth out in this context of pleasing God. So Enoch by faith he walked in such a way he pleased God. So did people in the Old Testament please God? Yeah they please God. How do they please God? By the works? No. By faith. By faith in God they pleased.  Enoch was caught up. Verse 6 it says so he's saying understand this that without faith it's impossible to please God. I mean there's no or you can put it in another way there's no other way to please God. No other way. We have to walk by faith or we can say this faith pleases God. When you and I live by faith in God his word his promise it actually pleases God. God says I love it. I love to see my people my children walk with faith in me. So faith pleases God. And it says well when you come to God I'm looking at verse 6 when you come to God you must believe that he is. You must have faith that he exists. So how do you know that God exists? I have faith. Faith is the conviction of things not seen and my faith says God is. God exists. Now is there tangible proof to the existence of God? Yes. The first big tangible proof is all of creation. Romans step to one. It says you know the invisible attributes of God are revealed to us in creation so that we are without excuse. Nobody can say I didn't know God was there. God says hello all of creation is a big evidence that I am here. All my invisible attributes are revealed in creation. For instance somebody might ask why is there such a big universe? Because the universe is expressing this attribute of God that God is infinite. So when he creates something he has to create something that expresses who he is. He's infinite. So that's why the universe is so big it's infinite. We don't even know what's beyond the universe. There could be other universe we don't. So it's infinite. Why? Because God is infinite. Why there's so many billions and billions and billions of stars because God is so big. So the invisible attributes of God are revealed in this creation. So it says here Hebrews 11 6 when we come to God first we believe that he exists. I know God is because I believe I believe I have faith faith that God exists. Secondly says you must also believe that he rewards those who diligently seek him. That means the time, the energy, the effort that you are making to seek him is not wasted. Because you believe you and I believe that God rewards those who diligently seek him. So when you are diligently seeking him what does it mean to be diligent? It means to be consistently consistent in seeking him. That means you don't just seek him one day but diligence is expressed through consistency. But on the second day and the third day and the fourth week and the fifth week you're constantly diligently seeking God. You're earnestly consistently seeking God. Why do you do it? Because you're convinced you have faith that he will reward those who diligently seek him. So our faith helps us to understand this that we are pleasing God when we walk in faith. Secondly we have faith that God exists. Thirdly that God rewards us for diligently seeking him. So that's verse 6. By faith this is what we believe. Verse 7 and 8, someone else? By faith Noah being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith. By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance and as he went out not knowing where he was going. So Noah was another hero of faith and what did Noah do? God spoke to him ahead of time of something the earth had not yet seen. So God spoke to him, said Noah this is going to become a flood so I want you to build an ark. The earth had never seen a flood. Noah probably didn't even understand what a flood was. They never seen it, never experienced it. And so God spoke to him of something no one had yet experienced and he built an ark. And the Bible says by faith he did it. So today you and I, maybe God speaks to us of things yet to come. And he says I want you to do take this action because of something that is going to come. And so you and I by faith do it. That's what Noah did. And then verse 8, Abraham, Abraham was a great man of faith. In fact the Bible calls him the father of faith and in the next chapter we're going to focus in on the faith of Abraham. How did he have faith in God? So verse 8, by faith Abraham, what did Abraham do? Abraham obeyed and what do we know about Abraham's faith? The last part of verse 8 says he went out not knowing where he was going. Just think about that. Abraham went out not knowing where he was going. So he obeyed but he didn't have all the answers. And that's faith. So faith obeys God even when you don't have all the answers. Because he didn't know where he was going.  So he got up and it was a daily walk of faith. Day by day he was joining with God and finally he came to the place that God said that's the place I'm going to give you as an inheritance. But it was a walk of faith because he really didn't know where he was going. So can you and I today obey God? Even when we don't have all the answers. Even when we don't know everything about the future. But you obey God. That's what Abraham did. Abraham obeyed. He trusted God that God will give him this inheritance although he didn't know how he's going to get into that inheritance. He obeyed. He went out not knowing where he was going. He didn't have all the answers. And God calls you and me to walk by faith in a similar manner today. You just obey and you know that God will give that to you. But you don't know exactly how to get there. You don't have all the answers of how are you going to get there and how it's going to be done and how God's going to give it to you. You don't have all the answers but it's okay. You just obey God. He'll get you there. That's what Abraham did. Verse 9 and 10. Verses 9 and 10 please. By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country. Dwelling in tents and ends with Isaac and Jacob. That has with him of the same promise. For he waited for the city which has foundations whose builder and maker is God. So thank you. So when he came into the land of promise, which he did, you know, so Abraham basically began his journey up somewhere near the river Euphrates, modern day Iraq. And then he made his journey down south into modern day Israel. So he came into this land of promise. And he lived in tents with Isaac and Jacob. In other words, God is saying this is the land I'm giving you. But right now you're dwelling there in temporary dwellings in tents. I got to this land I'm giving you. So you're tasting of it. But at the moment everything seems temporary. But verse 10 says he was waiting for our city whose foundations, builder and maker is God. He's in the land of promise. But he's dwelling there in temporary dwellings. And he's waiting for God to fulfill the promise and make it permanent. So that's another aspect to walking by faith. That is, you're joining, you're coming into the promise. But then you're going through what may be temporary while you're waiting for what is permanent, the finality of everything. So Abraham did that by faith. So God, okay, I'm here. I know I'm dwelling in tents, but I know this land, you will give me a city that you have established. You will give me a permanent dwelling here. You will do it. So even so, this is talking about our journey of faith, that you're going through the temporary believing God for the permanent. Verse 11 and 12. By faith, Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed and she bore a child when she was past the age because she judged him faithful who had promised, therefore from one man and him as good as dead, as honest, many as the stars of the sky in multitude, innumerable as the sand, which is by the sea shore. Powerful verses. In verse 11, Sarah, it says by faith, by faith, Sarah, she received a work of God done in her physical body. So our physical healings there in the Old Testament, of course, many of them, and Sarah's one example. She received a healing taking place in her body because it says here she was past age. She was barren and she was old. So she had two problems. One is she was barren. She never had children even in her young age, but at this time she was old. But when she had faith, it overrode those natural limitations and she conceived and bore a child. Why? Because it says in verse 11, she judged him faithful who had promised. She judged him faithful who had promised. Now, when we look back at Sarah's journey of faith, she also started from the place of no faith. And she came to the place of little faith and then she came to this place of full faith. So how do we know? Because remember, if you read the story of Abraham and Sarah, you know, in the beginning, Sarah was the one who said, maybe somebody else born in my house would be the descendant God is speaking about. So even she didn't think that she would have a child. She thought somebody else would have a child. Then God had to correct that and say, no, no, no, Sarah, you're going to have a child. And when the angel of the Lord came and said, you know, Sarah, you're going to have a child, she laughed. Right? So she like, how is it possible? You know, so her reaction was one of disbelief. So she went, she was still in a place of little faith. But eventually she came to this place where Hebrews 11, 11 was true. That means she counted him faithful or promised. So somehow she owe that 25 year period. She made that journey from no faith, a little faith to complete faith. She judged him faithful or promised. And then she received strength to conceive seed and she bore Isaac. And so we see a physical miracle through faith. We also see a journey in progressive, increasing faith in the life of Sarah. And then it goes back to Abraham verse 12. I think this is such an amazing verse. It says, here's a man was as good as dead. And yet from a man who's as good as dead comes a nation as new like the stars in the sky and like the sand on the seashore. Can you imagine? He has a man who's dead. Like nobody expects anything from him. He's as good as dead. There's no life. And yet from such a man, something impossible comes out. Descendants like the stars and like the sand on the seashore. How? By faith. So tells us, you know, this is what happens by faith. When people have said dead, nothing can happen. It's over. Then God releases something so beautiful, so powerful. It staggers human understanding. So verse 12, verse 13 and 14. All these people were still living by faith when they died. They didn't receive the truth from us. They only saw them and welcomed them on this planet. Admitting that they were foreigners and strangers on earth. People who say such things so that they are looking for a country of their own. So the writer of Hebrews says, you know, these people had faith even for their future. God had given them promise. They were journeying into it, but they didn't come into the fulfillment of everything. Because he will explain this later on towards the end of this chapter that God wanted all of us to enjoy the fulfillment together. So they saw things happen in their lifetime. They saw the work of God. They saw certain things fulfilled. But there were still things that they saw afar off which they didn't experience. And they died without those things. So you and I can also imagine even in our journey of faith. For instance, all of us expect to be in heaven. All of us expect that we will have a mansion in heaven. All of us expect that one day we will rule and reign with Jesus in the millennium. All of us believe that there will be new heavens and the new earth. But today, we are only seeing them from afar. But yet we embrace them as though they are real. That's what these people did. They embraced and confessed them. So you and I embraced these things. We confess it. Yes, I believe there's a mansion for me in heaven. Yes, I believe I'm going to see Jesus. Yes, I believe, you know, we embrace and confess these things. But yet we know we will die should the Lord tarry.  And we're not going to taste those things here. The same thing with these Old Testament saints. They experienced certain things in their lifetime which God wanted them to fulfill. But they were also looking at things into the future which they embraced and confessed but they didn't experience. Same thing with you and me today. In our journey of faith we embrace and we confess things that we believe that are out there and we're going to die. We may never experience it. We will not experience it in this side of life. But Hebrews 11 when it closes it says together the Old Testament saints New Testament saints together we will enjoy these things. A city whose builder and maker is God. Revelation chapter 22. That's the heavenly Jerusalem. Together the Old Testament saints New Testament saints together will experience that. So it's teaching us here in verses 13 and 14 that faith enables us to walk today our life on earth embracing and confessing things about our life in the future. Just like them so do we. Verse 15 and 16. Verse 15 and 16 please. Verse 15 and truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out they would have had opportunity to return but now they desire a better that is a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God for he has prepared a city for them. Very interesting. I like how the end of verse 16 ends. God therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God. Isn't that interesting? Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God. God is saying like hey I'm really happy if you say I am your God. Therefore meaning on what basis verse 15 and 16 tells us that these are people who are not looking at their earthly things but it says in verse 16 they were desiring a heavenly thing that means they lived their life with their eyes not on the temporal but on the eternal. They lived their life on earth as pilgrims, people just passing by.  That's the heavenly, the eternal, the unseen. You all with me so far? You understanding these things? So we are learning about the faith that pleases God Hebrews chapter 11 and these are the different aspects of faith the faith life that is being highlighted. Verse 17 and 18 I am trying to go a little fast because we want to finish this. Verse 17 and 18 By faith Abraham when he was tested offered a bicycle and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son of whom it was said in Isaac your seed shall be called. Thank you. So now another aspect of faith Abraham was tested by God. So just a side note here there's a difference between a test and a temptation. A test comes from God a temptation is from the devil. A test is for us to move to a new level a temptation is for us to go down. A test is for us to go up a temptation is to pull us down. Genesis 22 verse 1 God tested Abraham A test calls us into a greater level of obedience. A temptation always induces us to a greater level of disobedience. So these are two separate things. When God tested Abraham so here it's saying that Abraham responded to God's test by faith. So how do you and I pass the tests of God by faith? And in Abraham's case the test was Abraham I've given you Isaac but can you offer Isaac up as a sacrifice? Now the real test was do you still believe my promise my word? That's the real test. God's tests are an invitation to a greater place of faith. Do you still believe my word to you? And the Bible says here Abraham responded saying yes God even if I offer Isaac as a sacrifice you have to raise him up because your word says in Isaac because God had given his word Isaac is the seed through which the promise will be fulfilled and Abraham believed that means he had come to this place where he was he just believed the word the word of God if God had spoken it will be so and that's why he was able to go up to the mount to offer Isaac as a sacrifice and God said don't kill the son you've passed my test that means your faith is still in the word. It also tells us one thing before receiving the promise our eyes are on the word of God after we receive the promise our eyes must still remain on the promise of God maybe you and I are believing God for something looking at the word the promise of God Lord I believe my needs will be met or I believe my body will be healed or you know whatever and then God fulfills the promise you receive it. Don't take your eyes off the word of God and put it on what you have received no keep your eyes on the word of God keep your eyes always on God and his word not on the blessing that's what Abraham did and that's why he was willing to let go of the blessing because he knew if he let go of the blessing God still has to bring the blessing because God is faithful to his word okay verses 19 and 20 please concluding that God was able to raise him up even from the dead from which he also received a figurative sentence by faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau considering things to come so verse 19 is actually the continuation of Abraham's faith that when Abraham obeyed God he was believing that God would raise him up from the dead verse 20 is talking about Isaac that Isaac could bless Jacob and Esau concerning things to come so by faith Isaac prophesied over Jacob and Esau if you want to just put verse 20 very simply by faith Isaac prophesied over his two sons that means he spoke of things that was still in the future verses 21 and 22 by faith Jacob when he was dying blessed each of the sons of Joseph and worship leaning on the top of his staff by faith Joseph when he was dying made mention of the departure of the children of Israel and gave instructions concerning his bones so you see some similarity between Isaac Jacob and Joseph all three of them by faith spoke of things in the future they believed it and they spoke of it so Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau of unconcerned future Jacob he blessed all the sons of Joseph speaking of their future declaring their God's plan for their future same thing with Joseph he was dying but he spoke hey you know he was an Egypt but he said God's going to take you back to your land to the land bones and bury me there so he's all he's speaking of something out in the future so by faith you know we are speaking for prophetically we are speaking for the purposes of God verses 23 and 24 please by faith Moses parents hid him for three months after he was born because they saw he was no ordinary child and they were not afraid of the king's edict 24 by faith Moses when he had grown up refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter thank you let's just go on and read the next two verses let's read this full passage concerning Moses verses 25 and 26 somebody else he chose to misunderstand mistreat along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of the sin for a short time he regarded disgrace for the sake of the Christ as a greater value than the pleasures of the Egypt because he was looking ahead of his reward yeah okay so let's comment on this some Moses here we read about Moses parents again they acted in the present believing God for the future right it says they hid him they were not afraid of the king's command why they saw he was a beautiful child I mean they saw something in him they said okay we're not going to let go of this child we don't want to end this child's life so that was an act of faith on the part of Moses parents right and then about Moses himself that was 24 25 and 26 that though he you know he grew up in the house of Pharaoh he had all of these things he let go of all of that to step into what he believed was God's call right so he believed that God called him to be a deliverer of the people of Israel in his heart so he let go of all the riches of Egypt and he said I'm going to step in there to be a deliverer of my people so that is really expressing you know that he said why the pleasures of Egypt he could have stayed there and maybe he could have become the next Pharaoh and ruling over Egypt he said no I'm letting all of that go I'm going to go out and I'm going to identify with God's people and you know move into the call of God so that's what Moses did that's verses 25 and 26 he looked for the reward he's looking for a future reward also leads us to do today that there are times God calls us to make these kinds of choices and we do that we let go of things that we could enjoy in order to pursue the call of God on our lives and to fulfill what God wants us to do right let's look at verses 27 and 20 27 to 29 please by faith he first of Egypt not fearing the wrath of the king for he endured as seeing him who was invisible by faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood lest he who destroyed the first born should touch them and verse 29 also by faith they passed through the Red Sea as by dry land whereas the Egyptians attempting to do so were drowned so each of these which we you know we read in the Testament were acts of faith so by faith Moses stepped out of Egypt why did he do that because it says he was seeing him who was invisible right so he was not afraid so that's basically saying he's stepping out of Egypt going out of Egypt was an act of faith and the reason he did it is because his eyes was on God by faith they even kept the Passover so God had spoken do this but for them to do that was an act of faith so as they kept the Passover by faith and you know God protected them by faith across the Red Sea and each of these you know we know the stories connected with each of these how they were standing before the Red Sea and you know God says Moses stretched out your rod and the sea parts and they cross over the Red Sea and so this is that also was an act of faith but you look at all of these things the act of Hebrews was saying hey you look at the people in the Old Testament they were all people of faith and they did all these things by faith in God so they were people of faith let's just quickly try to finish up let's read verses 30 to 34 please 30 to 34 somebody by faith waltz of Jericho fell down after they were encircled for seven days by faith the harlot Rehab did not perish with those who did not believe when she had received the spice with peace and what more shall I say for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon and Barak and Samson and Jephtha also of David and Samuel and the prophets who through faith subdued kingdoms worked righteousness obtained promises stopped the mouth of lions quenched the violence of fire escaped the edge of the sword out of weakness were made strong became valiant in battle turned to flight the armies of the aliens so the writer of Hebrews he started listing one by one and then he says even the walls of Jericho came down by faith we know the story they had to march around it you know seven days that was an act of faith they obeyed the word of God Joshua just obeyed what the angel of the Lord told them and they you know it was an act of faith and they saw the result and then he begins to mention different people Rehab the harlot how she would receive these spies because she believed God would protect her even though she was a Gentile then he mentions Gideon, Barak, Samson all these people and through their faith in God they did great things in their day and time so he mentions they conquered kingdoms they received the promises stopped the mouth of lions escaped the edge of the fire all these great things in their lifetime they did by faith so people throughout the Old Testament they also walked by faith in God they believed the word they did the same things you and I are called to do today okay let's continue we'll read from verse 35 to 40 let's finish it verses 35 to 40 please women received their dead they wasted life again others were tortured not accepting deliverance that they might obtain a better resurrection still others are trial of mocking and scouting yes and of chains and imprisonment they were stoned they were sown into two they were tempted were slain with the sword they wandered about in sheep's skins and God's skins being destitute afflicted, tormented and desert and mountains indents and caves of the earth and all these having obtained a good testimony through faith did not receive the promise God having provided something better for us that they should not be made perfect apart from us so the writer of Hebrews he lists some amazing accomplishments that women receive the dead life again great things happen through faith but then he also shifts emphasis and says hey but also endurance the ability to endure the ability to stand strong through adversity the ability to go through persecution and difficulties in life is also a work of faith right so there are two sides to this on the one hand we see the miraculous we see the supernatural we see the wonderful works of God that is also through faith but the other side is we go through the hardships of life we go through the persecutions the difficulties of life that also takes place through faith that is also a work of faith right so I want us to keep that in mind that while you know the supernatural displays of God's power and glory our expressions of faith don't forget that in the event you and I are when God's people actually make this journey of endurance going through hardship that is also an expression of faith don't only think about the miracles miracles are true but also the ability to endure going through challenges difficulties hardships that is also an expression of faith and then he says you know about the Old Testament people they all lived by faith I was 39 and they caught a good testimony so again that's what he mentioned Hebrews 11 verse 2 that means God gave them a good report through faith but they didn't see the culmination of the great things that God had in store why because God kept that for us and he's kept it for us and he wants to make sure that they together with us will enjoy what he has prepared for us which he's referring to all the good things that will come out in the future we are going to be with the Lord in heaven we are going to rule and reign with him here on earth we are going to step into the new heavens and the new earth so all that we are going to enjoy together both the Old Testament and New Testament Saints but Hebrews chapter 11 it's in the New Testament but it's actually talking to us about the Old Testament it's talking to us about all the Old Testament Saints and says hey look at these people different things they did they did it through faith okay now I'm just going to quickly share my notes I know we have only a few more minutes but in this pdf I have already mentioned it as we went through Hebrews 11 but I'll just highlight those things so we looked at the whole chapter so what we mentioned walking in faith gives us a good testimony before God so this is how we obtain a good testimony when we walk by faith God sees and God himself gives us a good report second we live by faith in the promise of future things so just as much we have faith for the now we also have faith for the future like we shared and then we see that through faith the people inherited the land of promise that means what God has promised for us now we also inherit so there are things that we will walk into here and now in this life by faith but we also have faith for things God has kept for us in the future and talks about David you know I just highlighted we can highlight each of these people Gideon and all of them but if you look at David and how Shepard killed a warrior it's just an amazing amazing story of how a David all odds when we put it in our language today we will say the odds were against David so imagine David going out there facing Goliath I had David facing Goliath who's going to win well most people say hey Goliath is going to win David is an inexperienced young boy Goliath is a soldier who's been trained up from his early days and their meeting in man to man combat who's going to win but it's just through faith David that means we kill our Goliaths just like our David did through faith in God and God takes what we have what he has put in our life and he uses it to conquer the Goliaths that you and I might have to face in life so I just want to leave us with that thought here you see there are things that God wants to do through each of us there are Goliaths that he wants to kill he wants us to conquer who are you and I going to conquer the Goliaths we face just like David through faith through faith we will conquer every Goliath that we face so what we're going to learn in this course is going to help you and me like David conquer Goliaths and do great exploits for the kingdom of God okay so pause here next week we'll get into chapter 7 where we look at the faith of Abraham and we're going to study the steps of faith how if you and I want to exercise faith what the steps we must take in order to exercise faith in God we will learn that from Abraham alright I would like to invite somebody to please close in prayer and then we will dismiss for our break we will just pray with us as a class and dismiss us father we come to the throne of grace in the name of Jesus Christ your son we ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit I pray for all my teachers and my fellow students body we thank God for your grace we came till here we thank you for each and everything we started on 2nd August and today on 3rd September we have completed your one month by the grace of God may it continue forever and may God be with us in Jesus name we pray amen thank you alright everyone thank you for being on the class today have a good break enjoy your next hour I'll see you again next week God bless thank you


Endometriosis is a major cause of disability and compromised quality of life among women. A chronic disease, which is under-diagnosed, under-reported, under-researched. For patients, it can be a nightmare of misinformation, myths to booze, lack of diagnosis, and problematic hidden mistreatments overlaid by a painful chronic stubborn disease. Pain is what best characterizes the disease. Pain. Painful intercourse. There are many other periods in infertility. About one in a dozen young women suffer, and it counts for about half the cases of pelvic pain and infertility. It's caused by what's called retrograde menstruation. Instead of the blood going down, it goes up into the abdominal cavity, where bleeding tissue of the uterine lining can implant onto other organs. You can have the lesion surgically removed, but the recurrence rate within five years is as high as 50%. Now endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent disease, so might the anti-estrogenic effects of the phytoestrogens and flax seeds in soy foods help as they appear to in breast cancer? I couldn't find studies on flax, but soy food consumption may indeed reduce the risk of endometriosis, but I couldn't find any studies on treating the disease with soy.  Seaweeds have special types of fiber and phytonutrients not found among land plants, so it's not like choosing to get your beta carotene from carrots versus a sweet potato. If you want these unique seaweed components, some of which may have anti-cancer properties, we need to find a way to incorporate sea vegetables into our diets. Anti-cancer properties such as anti-estrogen effects. These women have among the lowest rates of breast endometrial and ovarian cancers. They have longer menstrual cycles and lower estrogen levels circulating in their blood, and that may help account for their low risk of estrogen-dependent cancers. We assume this was their soy intake, but the seaweed might be helping as well. You can drip seaweed broth on human ovary cells that make estrogen and see estrogen levels drop, because it's either inhibiting production or facilitating breakdown of estrogen and may even block estrogen receptors lowering the activity of the estrogen you do produce. This is in a Petri dish, though, but it happens in women as well. They estimate that an effective estrogen-lowering dose of seaweed for an average American woman might be around 5 grams a day, but no one has apparently tried testing it on cancer patients yet, but it has been tried on endometriosis. Three women, with abnormal cycles, two of which, with endometriosis, volunteered to add a tiny amount of dry powdered bladderwrap, common seaweed, to their daily diet. It effectively lengthened their cycles and reduced the duration of their periods, and not just by a little. Check out subject number one. A 30-year history of irregular periods, averaging every 16 days, without having just a teaspoon, a quarter teaspoon of this seaweed powder a day, added 10 days on to recycle, up to 26 days, and a half teaspoon a day, brought her up to like 31, nearly doubling the length of her cycle, and they all experienced market reductions in blood flow and a decreased duration of menstruation. Poor subject number one was having periods every 16 days that lasted 9 days long. Can you imagine? The 30 years of this kind of craziness, just a half teaspoon of seaweed a day, and she was having periods just once a month and only lasting about 4 days. Most importantly, in the two women suffering from endometriosis, they reported substantial alleviation of their pain. How is that possible? Look at their drop in estrogen levels, a 75% drop after just a quarter teaspoon of seaweed powder a day, 85% after a half teaspoon. Obviously, with just a couple of women, no control group. We have to do bigger, better studies, but look when this study was published. More than a decade of going on a single such study has been published since. Does the research world just not care about women? Millions of women are suffering with these conditions. Who's going to fund it, though? That much seaweed costs less than five pennies, so a larger study may never be done. But with no downsides, I would suggest endometriosis sufferers give it a try.