Hey. Hello, everyone. Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, depending on where you're logging in from. Welcome to the LEN Dialogue Webinar Series, organised in partnership with the Ford Foundation, the LEN Portal Foundation, the Tenure Facility and the Thomson Ratesha Foundation. Thank you for joining us. My name is Thin and I'm a journalist specialising in food systems and climate change. I'm delighted to be moderating today's session, which is reflecting on the outcomes of COP 27 climate negotiations that concluded two weeks ago. Now, I remember moderating a LEN Dialogue Webinar last year right after COP 26, and there was a lot of excitement over this $1.7 billion funding pledge to support Indigenous and local communities who have historically been greatly underfunded. There was also acknowledgement of their role as guardians of the world's forests of COP 27. And they'll tell us about what happened, what needs to be done to ensure that this renewed and continued focus on supporting community land rights and governance of territories, and that not only is their funding, but that the money is fit for purpose. We will also be presenting and discussing the recently launched Indigenous Peoples and Local Community Forest Tenure Pledge and your report 2021 and 2022 as well. Now, before I introduce you to our speakers, let me just go through some housekeeping rules. This webinar is in English, but we have simultaneous translations in Spanish, French and Portuguese. To access the translations, all you need to do is go to the globe icon at the bottom of your Zoom window, then click on it and then select the language that you want. And this webinar is going to be for 19 minutes. We're going to first have a discussion for about an hour, followed by a Q&A for about 30 minutes. So if you have questions, please post them in the Q&A box and not the chat box. But do use the chat box to let us know who you are, which organisation you belong to and where you're joining us from. Feel free to tweet also using this hashtag, lend dialogues in one word. And you can also follow live tweeting from the LAN Porter and tenure facility Twitter account. And finally, we are also recording today's session and we will share the link with you afterwards. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let me introduce you to our star studded lineup of speakers. And in the interest of fairness, I'm going to introduce our speakers in alphabetical order based on their first names. So first, we have Casey Box, Director of Global Strategy at the Christensen Fund. Now, Casey has over a decade of experience with expertise in advocating for Indigenous rights, participatory grant making, network building and environmental issues. Casey previously served as the Executive Director of Land Is Life. We also have Christina Koch, the Cacti Mayan Community Leader from Southern Belize. Now, Christina is the founder and program director of the Julian Cho Society, which is dedicated to conserving the environments and rights of Indigenous peoples of Southern Belize. She's also the co-spokesperson for the Maya Leadership Alliance. Next, we have Jenny Lopez, LAN Governance Advisor, who's responsible for LAN tenure rights programming and policy work at the UK's Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, or FCDO. Now Jenny has been supporting the UK's role as chair of the donor working group to deliver progress on the COP26 IPLC Forest Tenure Pledge commitments. We also have Juan Carlos Jientiak from the Shoah People of the Ecuadorian Amazon. Juan Carlos is the Executive Secretary of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities and Senior Advisor on International Affairs to the Coordinator of Indigenous Organisations of the Amazon Basin or Quaker for short. Juan Carlos was previously served as a focal point and co-chair at the Indigenous Caucus at the UN at Tripoli. Juan Carlos will be speaking in Spanish. And last, but definitely not the least, we have Toya Manchaneri from the Manchaneri People in Acre. Now Toya is the coordinator for the Articulation of Indigenous People of Brazil, ABIP. Toya is also a member of the Coordination of Indigenous Organisations of the Brazilian Amazon and Area Coordinator for Territory and Natural Resources at Cauca. Toya will be speaking in Portuguese. So how this is going to work is that I'm going to be asking a few rounds of questions to our speakers, and I would really like this to be a discussion. So I would encourage the panellists to, you know, if you can, respond to each other's answers and built on them.  Now to the audience, again, please use the Q&A box to send your questions and also please, if you can, identify yourself and your organisation and we'll get to them during the Q&A portion of the event. Now I'm going to start by asking all of our speakers to share the reflections of COP 27 and if possible, I'd like them to take no more than two to three minutes each to answer this question. Juan Carlos, I know you were wanting the other Indigenous leaders to speak first, but you know, you have a lot of experience in the international arena and you had a previous role as well with the UNFCCC. So if you don't mind, I'm going to come to you first. Now compared to COP 26, how did COP 27 go? Did you think the promises and the pledges from last year, were there any progress to them or are you disappointed with the outcome? What are your reflections? Thank you all. Thank you very much for the invitation to this webinar and the opportunity to share and greet my brothers and sisters, leaders, leaders, Pistina, Toya, my colleagues, my colleagues. I think it's important to understand the long journey that the indigenous movement has had from the territory to the international system. It's important to recognise that the organisations, the communities are constantly working and they carry the demands to the international system. Many leaders and leaders have worked in that line. The climate change issue is one more arena, COP 26, COP 27, and those who come to raise the demands to coordinate and propose our rights. Now, by recognising all of that, we evaluate, we connect to the international arena, to the indigenous communities, among others, and we prepare to connect and evaluate, to present, to coordinate, among us, among the seven cultural regions, which is called the climate change indigenous forum, on the climate theme. That said, it's important to mention that the indigenous peoples raise a loud voice to claim the issue of finances, the financing. There are more claims, but it has been a critical moment, double to understand where these commitments are going. How are these commitments being activated? These promises, the 1.7 million that came out in, we rescued, we applauded in COP 26, has had a process of communication dialogue to implement. COP 27 has connected us to look at this opportunity if it can be implemented or not. My sisters, my brothers, young women, come to these moments to claim, to propose the proposal, but claiming that everything is fine in the territory. They are not reaching their financing. Finally, however, it is very important to mention that the dynamic on the financial issue has been opened. There is the financial issue on the debate table. How are we going to address this? We believe that it is important that the dynamic goes between communication, between transparency and respect that we have to have organizations, communities, indigenous peoples and local communities in itself. There must be a mark of action, action and 1.1, application and action. 2, application and action, 3, application and action. And that is in summary the living memory that is being lived in this place. We are in the expectation to fulfill these promises already in particular. There are many dynamics, there are many ideas, there are many plans, but we believe that the indigenous movement is solid in the framework of its rights, rights to the issue of information and transparency and to land these resources to the territories. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Juan Carlos. We are going to focus the next round of questions specifically on financing, so definitely want to come on how to make sure that not just that there is money, but that money is going directly and it is also fit for purpose. But Christina, can I come to you next? What are your reflections and thoughts from COP 27? Thank you kindly. First of all, thank you for the honor and the privilege to be a part of this very important webinar. I bring my greetings from my people. My impressions of COP 27, I imagine that in COP 26, which I didn't attend personally, but I follow, there were many promises made, including the pledge for funding to towards climate action and towards in particular indigenous peoples' lands and territories. In COP 27, my impression was that there was a lot of backtracking, there was a lot of attempt to remove even the basic language of indigenous peoples' rights and human rights in particular. Given that in COP 26, there was this insistence on recognizing that indigenous people are the guardians of the world's forests, but when it came to the Implementation COP or what was being referred to as the Implementation COP, we quickly saw a diminishing of that perspective and that focus and that emphasis. And so my impression was that while this was one occasion where we were able to mobilize the largest showing of indigenous peoples at such an important forum, unfortunately, we were still invisible and we were still not being heard. It was very difficult to even try to put our demands and our interests at the fore. We were looking for ally countries as a global indigenous caucus to really bring forth the concerns and the issues that indigenous peoples globally are raising. In particular, the focus of COP 27 was on loss and damage and in that particular area or in the particular agenda, we want to ensure that whatever climate action is being proposed or accepted, that it does no harm to indigenous communities, that it holds the rights and the interests of indigenous and forest dependent communities and in particular that it be done within the human rights framework. And so we found it very difficult to really find a way to get our agenda, our interests, our concerns heard in a meaningful way. And I think this is too important of a forum to have the voices of indigenous people invisible. And so our demand is that world leaders recognize that climate change cannot be confronted without the meaningful participation of indigenous peoples globally. Thanks, Christina, very sobering reflections. I now want to go to the two donors actually, whether they, you know, had the same experience and drew the same conclusions or they saw something slightly different. Casey, can I come to you fast. Sure, thank you COP 27 set a historic record for participation of indigenous leaders as was previously mentioned. I think it would be easy to say that even the word indigenous itself was mentioned more than all the other cops combined. As many of you know governments and philanthropy signed a historic $1.7 billion pledge to support indigenous peoples and local community efforts towards forest tenure rights and tropical and subtropical forests, of which my foundation the Christensen Foundation was one signatories of the pledge. In COP 27 the signatories also known as the forest tenure Thunder group release their report which you can find on land portals website on where they stand on commitments, perhaps someone can provide the link. And while we are collectively on track to meet our commitments, only 7% of the $1.7 billion pledge made in Glasgow has been sent directly to indigenous peoples and local community organizations. While this number was originally expected, it is embarrassing. So as the world seems to address climate crisis, it cannot be done exclusively in the hallways of closed rooms and climate conferences. We must recognize the rights and ways of life of indigenous peoples and local communities has how they have been stewards of ecosystems for the world that is now racing to protect without them, we are hopeless. All too often we speak of lack of capacity of with of local organizations to do more effective and receive more funding indigenous peoples and local communities have capacity, they just need direct funding. It is time that we view capacity as a two way street donors have a lot to do on their end to see how we can work better and more directly with indigenous peoples and local communities. Thank you. Thanks, Casey 7% that's that is that is quite a shocking figure. Jenny, can I come to you next. Yes, thanks everyone thanks for this opportunity to be here and I'm very privileged to be with our other speakers today. So I think Casey summed a lot of it up very well I'll just build on that and that's on behalf of the pledge specifically. I think for us that it was never going to be at COP 27 these the big, you know, grand announcement as as we achieved at COP 26 on on the 1.7 billion the purpose of this year really for us at COP 27 was about how we can really you know held held accountable what our latest how we can report on what we've managed to achieve this first year. And that was as Casey said that was part for us of the launch of that first public report from the donors and that's part of our accountability and we know we've said very early on, we now have this commitment as donors to be held accountable and increase transparency so the report was the first sign of that and we're really looking at that ongoing. As Casey said, it showed that one fifth so that's 90% of that 1.7 how has now been dispersed, but that figure of 7% reaching IP and LC led organizations is of course, very much needs to be increased and donors very clearly acknowledge that's not good enough. However, it is an increase on that 1% which in the falling short report was was was that Rainforest Foundation Norway produced in 2021 it does show that there is starting to be an increase, but as as we're all saying it's not good enough we need to demonstrate a greater shift and as the report demonstrates as I think all donors will will very clearly agree. It's it's not enough and we need to be held accountable for that. And I really like Juan Carlos is framing that the pledge right from the beginning was a dialogue it will continue to be a dialogue. And I mean I think now it's at the stage where we need to work together not just it's not about the announcement it's not just about the the amount it's about how we're going to deliver that but also how we're going to do it at scale. Just two more points for our finishes. What one thing I think was really exciting and important was at COP 27 at the World Leaders Summit. We had IPLC leaders from GTC speak for the first time alongside government leaders think that was a really significant and historic moment and we had that again at the World Leaders Summit this year again with two two leaders from GTC speaking and this time it was on stage the President of Norway, Presidents and Prime Ministers from from all over the world. And I think that's also something we need to continue those opportunities to have visibility and high level platforms which IPLC leaders are a part of. Finally, I think one thing that was encouraging was we had three new donors that were announced this year to the pledge that's well spring philanthropic fund two members of protecting our partnership challenge planet challenge. So that's Boba Link Foundation and the International Conservation Fund of Canada. So that again is just to demonstrate and have how more donors are recognizing this agenda and want to be a part of this dialogue. Thank you Jenny so yes essentially 7% is is a is abysmal but it is an improvement and you know it seems like there are more funders coming in and there's a con if there's at least people are aware that this needs to change which is good news. Could I just actually remind all the speakers again to speak a little bit slower than you normally would. I'm hearing requests from the interpreters that they're sort of having trouble following if you speak very very fast so again if you could speak a little bit slower, we would really appreciate it. So yeah, can I come to you last to round up the reflections you you heard from all of the other speakers. Again, you were there in person you saw all the debates. What are your reflections, you know as an indigenous leader on what happened at COP 27. Thank you. Okay. I want to thank you for inviting me to this moment to this live. And to say that the copies, not only the 26 27 but earlier, she brought a lot of progress in a debate about the climate issue, right, but about the color of Paris and then comes the issue of the red, right. And more recently in the 26, the promise of the resources destined for indigenous populations. The question is how do we all, the donors, the partners, can put this resource in the territory, right. So the big question is, do we have 1.7 billion, or if we had 10 billion, right, as 50% or 70% of this resource would benefit the indigenous populations, right. In this sense, we have worked, right, the strengthening of a fund, right, which is called Podale, right, which is the indigenous fund of the Brazilian Amazon, right, through this fund we can directly reach indigenous populations, right, to the territory, right, which is important, right, that these resources really arrive in the community, in the villages, right. Because there, which is suffering from all the impacts, right, whether it is the climate change, whether it is the destruction, right, of illegal invasions, right. So it is necessary that we listen a lot, but also the paths that we can, right, are making a better one for these resources to arrive, right. COP 27, right, we went there while Coyabe, while the PIB, the indigenous movement of Brazil, right, with the goal of tracing these paths, right, to see really, right, more clear than how the partners, the climate funds could, right, be working on this resource, right. And that, in fact, we didn't see that, right. So again, the resources are there, but there is no way yet, right, so that we can take them to the territory, right. It would be good if we could, together, right, destination these resources directly to the indigenous territories. And in the museum we have this mechanism, right, which facilitates, so much so that one of our two paths, which are supporting this live, here is the Ford Foundation and Tenuri, right. We have a direct contract, right, so that they come to assist within the territory, right. The Ford Foundation is more of a partner, right, of institutional strengthening, and Tenuri is now in the phase that is, which I think is also part of the resource of this 1.7 billion, to strengthen indigenous territories, right. So if we have this direct path with the partners through our fund, we can do with which communities can have direct assistance, right. And with this work, for example, we are here, right, almost 2 million reais goes to a community, right, for us to help in combat the disarmament and that they can have their territory protected and demarcated in a case here in Brazil, right. So if we work all these issues, we can, right, give a better assistance to the indigenous people. The COP27 for me, right, it had important moments, which was the participation of Brazil, President Lula, with the indigenous peoples, right, the seven continents. I think that there it opens up space for Brazil again to return to the national scenario, right, the Amazon, right, the debate, right, for Brazil as a country, right, which has already been launched in the environmental issues, right. I think this was a positive point, right, that I see, right, where President Lula promises to work, right, not only on environmental issues, but also on the right of the indigenous peoples, right. Thank you very much, Toya. I want to come back to you later with a question on, you know, what we can look at now that Lula's back in power, but that'll be for the next third round of questions. But, you know, we've heard a lot from and thank you very much for very practical, you know, suggestions on how to improve the direct funding. And because we've been talking a lot about the financing and of course that is a very, very important aspect of it. So for the second round of questions, that's what I want to focus on how do we get this financing right.  So, Jenny, do you mind if I start with you. Can you tell us what's currently being done at a bilateral level to make sure that the amount of money that reaches indigenous people, you know, will increase in the future. Thank you. And I guess that that is the critical question, particularly for bilateral. So, I mean, we know there are great challenges for bilateral donors. Particularly, as I'm sure everyone's aware, there are much greater restrictions on the way bilaterals can fund programs work and particularly individual organizations. This as everybody knows there's a lot more administrative and reporting requirements. And, you know, at the moment, many of the IP and LC led organizations do not have the capacity to absorb that funding at scale. There are many examples of smaller individual projects and programs that at the scale that we're looking and needing to really increase that 7%. That's where that's where there's the struggle and it's that that we are looking to address. Part of what donors are looking to do. And again, there's there's examples of this is to increase the capacity of these organizations. And I think it's so it's funding different stages of where we need to get to to ensure that that direct funding can can get there. And so, for example, and I think there's kind of a bit more of a breakdown of the analysis that is in the report is 50. Well, 53% of the overall donor funding went to strengthen and build capacity of IPs and LCs to protect their rights and manage natural resources. And 51% of that went towards IPLC conservation work. But although international NGOs with a largest funding channel 51% went to that went to that group of of the ways that the money has been dispersed for public donors that represented 41% of their funding channels. And for example, for the for the public for the private donors that a lot more support 51% went directly to national NGOs national social enterprises. So I think it's creating those shifts and even if the funding has to go via partners and trust that intermediaries, it's the level and the types of those intermediaries that donors are also looking to shift. Moving from more global organizations to national organizations, or to, you know, even more smaller organizations who are working more directly with those indigenous and local communities. I mean, there are examples of where direct support is being increased by bilaterals. And if you look at the report, there are examples of that. So for example, Norway, very clear states that are committed to increasing that direct support and they actually have been working on that for many years. So an example is the seed funding they provided for many indigenous funds such as the Fundor Pardali and the Fundor Rio Negroes. Forgive my pronunciation in Brazil. So there are examples of how seed funding has been put forward by donors to to really increase that at scale. But I would say, finally, there will always be differences, I think, in how private and public funders are working to support IP and LC organization. So I think as well, we should see that as an advantage in many, many cases and actually use those opportunities of how actually that can add value. So for example, public donors are often in a position to really work with governments at the level of reforms and the systemic changes which create those, I guess, the foundations and a lot of those enabling environments that will then allow a lot of the work that's happening on the ground to actually be scaled up. So I think that's an example of where there are differences sometimes in the different levels of that funding. But actually, what we're looking to do through the pledge is have better coordination between the private and the philanthropic donors for how actually that can be where we can increase those opportunities where that can create value add and actually be more supportive of each other. So that might be coordination at regional levels or national levels. But I think there are there are opportunities in the different ways and the different opportunities that different funders are able to work with. Thanks. Thanks, Jenny for that. Casey, can I come to you next and get the perspective, you know, from the private donor, which, like Jenny said is quite different from the bilateral work. Yeah, definitely. I think Christensen is a bit different in this group because 78% of our funding is going directly to indigenous organizations that we're an organization of nine people. And I think all too often we talk about capacity on one end, which is usually indigenous peoples and local communities when we need to address the capacity of donors. And I think it's time that we as donors really challenge ourselves. I know the bilaterals are a bit different, but I think as private philanthropy, even though Christensen's numbers are pretty good, we still have areas where we can improve on how can we make things easier. How can we invest more general support and the infrastructure and the kind of plumbing of indigenous organizations to help them function better and be able to receive funding at scale, as Jenny mentioned. And I think it's this pledge, despite the challenges I think as Jenny highlighted there's real opportunity for more flexible private funding with more complicated government funding to potentially work together to help get resources to the ground. Great. Thanks, Casey, and really great points around capacity building being, I guess, going both ways. Toya, can I come to you again? I mean, you gave a very detailed answer just now in terms of what can be done to get funding directly to indigenous communities. What do you think of what Jenny and Casey have just said? And do you have anything else that you want to add there in terms of financing, getting financing right? Toya? Okay. And the two things I agree, which is the issue of the increase in percentage, the environmental issue. One is the issue of strengthening the indigenous organizations and funds. For example, we had a partnership, or we still have one with the Christensen Foundation, which was for the strengthening of the podium. And in this way that we are now getting the resources, because we created an indigenous-capacitated team to conduct the process of the resources management. So it is really necessary that the foundations, or the climatic funds, and the state can also be investing in the management of this fund, in improving the framework of indigenous technology for the implementation of the territorial projects. Because when the state is going to implement a program, it receives all the necessary support so that the program can really work in its implementation. So it is necessary that the organizations and the climatic funds can also think in that sense, that Peru's brothers call the conditions that enable the climatic funds to be implemented, the climatic resources that can be implemented in the indigenous territories, so that we can really support the actions in the territories. Because that's where the situation happens, that's where the wood is being removed, that's where the indigenous people are being raped and murdered. So I think that what Keis said is also to see the capacity of the financiers to change the idea too. To look at the climate issue and look at the indigenous people's reality where they connect. Because often the funds think more about the state level, they don't think a little about the indigenous people's reality. I think that this issue also has to be, we have to talk more so that we can together use the resources and make an implementation that has results in the territories. Thank you. Great, thank you very much, Toria. Christina, can I come to you next? And I want to ask you actually about the Green Climate Fund because they have a big pot of money and they also have an indigenous people's policy. How are they actually doing and what's their reach to communities like yours? Thank you. I think this is a very important conversation. And having heard both an example of the private donors, we have also been beneficiaries of the Christians in the Fund in the past with very good experience. But we've also seen how the bilateral and the public donors have also tried to reach indigenous communities. Now, the situation is that, for instance, with the Green Climate Fund, it is important for governments and for donor agencies to ensure that governments are held accountable to report where these funds are going and that these funds really create no harm and does no more damage to indigenous territories in particular. One of the things that we find in my experience and believe is that sometimes these projects, these climate projects, climate actions that are funded by funders like through the Green Climate Fund have, in fact, this and franchise, even for indigenous communities. For instance, we find that while these funding have an indigenous people's policy, the implementers of these projects do not know and are not aware and are not prized of the indigenous people's policy and guidelines. And so it's very important to include indigenous people from the design of these projects to incorporate their inputs and to ensure that not just indigenous peoples understand their rights and understand these policies that protect their rights, but also the governments that you're working with, the intermediaries that are implementing these projects. And so while it's important that funding goes directly to indigenous peoples' organizations and indigenous communities, it's also important that if funding goes through intermediaries, which is what we're trying to balance, that they are aware of these policies so that they're very clear, whatever climate action, whatever efforts are being made, that in fact follows the respect and the rights of indigenous peoples. I also wanted to comment just very quickly on the issue of the capacities of indigenous peoples. It is very important for donors to understand that the capacity of indigenous peoples also require the strengthening of indigenous governance institutions who are the direct representatives of communities. And so I think that it's important for us to have long-term partnerships with donors because, you know, land tenure rights, climate change efforts are not short-term projects, right? We have to see them as long-term partnerships. We're in this together. And I think that it's important to underscore that the investment in indigenous peoples' capacities to administer to scale this kind of funding is critical if we're going to see successful results. For instance, right now we've been partnering with the international land tenure facility. And I think that over the last year, they themselves have been evaluating how it is that they partner with indigenous communities and provide funding directly to communities. They've worked very diligently to try to make it a simpler process to try to help to build the mechanisms necessary for indigenous organizations to manage the size of funding. And for us to really scale up our dialogue with our government so that there is a coordinated national effort to really look at what is it that we're doing to combat climate change. Thank you. Thanks, Christina, for those very, very salient points. Juan Carlos, coming to you last for this round of questions. What are your thoughts when it comes to challenges for indigenous people and local communities when it comes to direct financing? In the territory of indigenous organizations for many years, Jimero speaks of the security of his home, the territory of his people, and the real threats. It's not just money. It's life itself that has to be secured. The security of his home and where he's going to feed and where he's going to live. More than anything, it's important to understand. Those demands are connected with a claim of the right to be human, to the right to respect. Those rights that many governments say we put them in collective rights and have to respect them in the local, national and international. The financing, the issue of financing is important. Yes, because after you secure your home you have the governance. In that governance, it has to be articulated. If you reach 1%, the collaboration that makes 1.7 billion is applauded. It is recognized that historically the governments and the philanthropy are donating. More than anything, after that context, it is applauded to see how it is going to be distributed. There has to be transparency in the process. There has to be real actors in the process. The consultation, the full participation, from the beginning to the end. It's okay, 1% was not correct, but then it goes up to 7%. We see that it's moving forward. There are many entities, as my brothers and sisters mentioned, that are collaborating, portaling philanthropic entities, Fundación Ford, Christen Soundfong, and others that make the effort to support this collaboration. Many funds disappear from above and a drop comes a little below. It's not good. In order for it to be effective, we must recognize the capabilities. There are very strong examples in the territory. We don't have to reinvent ourselves in the water or discover the game. There are jobs, there are proposals. We, the indigenous peoples, territorial in the global alliance, with territory, with resources, with structure, with history, in terms of finances, in terms of politics, in terms of rights, carrying that demand of emergency, we say and propose what the model of financing of Schande means. First, it means that we have to have transparency, respect for structures, to the rights of the peoples. It's a global political framework where we look and understand that there are other financial systems that many are already working in the territory. And others that we have to evaluate. Others that we have to change. So it's important in this emergency not only to look at the monetary issue, the economic issue, it's going to be a deeper question. The process of human rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, the rights of territorial communities, the security of the house, and the currency, those instruments in the financial models collect all the political framework of Schande. We go to the world, they still don't understand what the Schande model means. It means that we have to have a cordial articulation, transparency in the financial models and continue to support the systems of the structures, of the organizations, of the associations, of the women, of the young people, of the territories of the indigenous peoples and of the locals. We applaud the collaboration and we always recognize the support of the donor organizations. Great, thank you very much Juan Carlos. Jenny, Casey, very, very briefly, I wanted to ask, give you an opportunity to ask if either of you want to come in very briefly to address any specific concerns or points raised by the indigenous leaders before we go on to the final round of questions. Anything? No? Okay. Jenny, did you want to come in very briefly? Well, I was just going to say I found that really interesting and I think actually that shows to me that we're a lot more on the same page in terms of how we need to and should continue to work together and it's really recognized from what I'm hearing that we're all saying that that capacity side, the different ways that things need to be scaled up. Actually that partnership and that dialogue, it seems that there is a lot of shared agreement on that. So just it's really encouraging from what's been said to hear that. Yeah, I'll just say finally that transparency needs to be increased on all sides, donors, grassroots, including intermediaries. And I think intermediaries, both indigenous led and non-indigenous led need to have accountability as well as the increased financing is not reaching the ground, it's going to other organizations and those organizations are intermediaries. And what if we could work towards a world where communities could actually choose the intermediaries that they want to work with rather than the other way around. Great, thank you so much. Now, last round of questions before we open the floor for Q&A and for this particular round, I actually want us to look into the future. We've talked about lessons learned from COP 27. How can we use them to get things right at COP 28 next year or even COP 15, which is the biodiversity negotiations that are starting in a few days. That's under a different convention and framework. So they're not the same, but maybe there's still quite a lot of things that can be done. Toya, can I ask you to start for this discussions and perhaps talk about some of the changes that we can expect now that we have Lula, somebody like Lula, an environmentally conscious leader who has promised to protect the Amazon. So what does the future hold? Well, after four years in the blue sky in Brazil, we see, let's say, a light at the end of the tunnel. And with President Lula commanding the Brazilian state, we now have a working group that we can present to the Lula government the 100 days of actions that the government must do on indigenous issues. One of the issues that we see here in Brazil is the strengthening of institutions in the FUNAI, which takes care of the rights of indigenous peoples. CESAI, which is a special health secretary, the education, right? But the global level, which we also look at a lot for the Brazilian Amazon, for the Amazon, for tropical forests, is the commitment of the Brazilian state through the Lula government to demarcate indigenous territories. I think that for the future, what we want as indigenous, I think not only the Brazilian Amazon, but of all the seven continents, is to see our territories guaranteed so that our population can live in peace and dignity in our territories. But also to keep all this wealth of the biomes, not only for the indigenous peoples, but for all humanity. So I see a future that through Brazil we can take this message and that it would also fit the climatic funds, to contribute part of the resources for demarcation and titularization of indigenous territories. Because we would also guarantee not only the land in the hands of the indigenous peoples, but also the preservation of the biomes. And of course, using it in the best possible way. This is what I see in the future. Thank you. Thanks, Turia. Great point you make about now. You see light at the end of the tunnel. Casey, can I come back to you again? Because when we were planning discussing this particular webinar, you were talking about how COP 27 had a very, very narrow focus on carbon and that how this could lead indigenous peoples behind. Can you explain a little bit more about why you're concerned and what can be done to address this in COP 15 as well as in COP 28? Yeah, definitely. And I think our indigenous leaders could probably speak to this better. So I'll be brief. But I think carbon was a big theme at COP 27. I think world leaders are seeing carbon as one of the go-to solutions to addressing climate change. And what does that effectively do? It allows most governments and countries to pretty much operate as normal while placing the burden on indigenous peoples' territories. And I think the questions around carbon, the benefits towards communities and whether these processes will respect indigenous peoples and local community rights are definitely in question. And I think indigenous peoples were very loud and clear that they do not want to bear the burden of the world's climate change solutions without change on their side as well. Yeah, that's a pretty good point. Christina, can I come to you next? Like I said earlier, COP 15 is just around the corner. What recommendations do you have for those who are attending to make sure that indigenous voices are heard and also feel free to respond to what Casey just said about carbon and this burden being placed unfairly on indigenous people to solve all the problems that the developed world has now created and then being put on them? Thank you. I think that a few points I'd like to raise is the overarching concerns of indigenous people is really to ensure that whatever is done, that it protects the indigenous collective land tenure systems that exist globally first and foremost and that it upholds the international standards that exist to protect these rights, for instance, free prime form consent processes and that strengthen the decision-making capacities of the communities. For instance, right now we have before us COP 15 where we're talking about biodiversity, but you cannot talk about biodiversity in the absence of indigenous peoples and their relationship to their forests, their relationship to their lands. It's important also to make the distinction between indigenous peoples, indigenous communities and local communities. It is very clear that a lot of times we get sort of pulled together and so the real concerns and interests of indigenous communities are often diminished in these dialogues. I say that not to say that the concerns and issues of local communities are less, but only to say that indigenous peoples have, they are rights holders. They have a set of recognized international rights as indigenous peoples to their lands and territories. They often live on autonomous territories and more importantly, they have important value systems and Cosmovision that really speak to the stewardship of their natural resources and forests. So I think that it's important then to recognize and underscore and not forget that the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples is pertinent in the dialogues and the discussions around climate change. I mean, we cannot overemphasize that indigenous peoples themselves are already taking affirmative action to adopt to some of these climate changes and already putting in place measures to mitigate but we can't be doing this ourselves. I mean, we really have to hold the polluters responsible. We really have to hold governments responsible and I think that we are doing our part. We've been sounding the alarm for a long, long time and it's important that now we recognize that look, we're all in this together and I think that it's important to really see the importance of the voice of indigenous people in the design, in the decision making we can't continue to operate on the margins. Otherwise, we will all fail. We will fail our future generations. We will fail our children and we will not be able to deliver a home and a planet to our future in a respectful way the way that we have enjoyed our life on this planet. Thank you. Thank you, Christina. Powerful words. I want to move on to Jenny. Jenny, can you tell us more about this Forest Tenure Funders Group and what they have installed for the next COP and beyond? Thank you. Yes, so the Forest Tenure Funders Group is essentially a donor working group which was established in January this year to really take forward and ensure that together we're delivering on the pledge commitments. So this reflects that it was never supposed to be just an announcement, but it was about how the donors can work together and with other and wider stakeholders such as the indigenous and community organizations themselves, wider stakeholders such as implementation organizations to actually achieve those pledge ambitions such as looking to how we can develop and scale up those funding mechanisms that are more effective, or as Casey and I think framed it very well, how we can ensure that certain types of intermediaries who are trusted partners, for example, are being invested in in a greater scale. So the donors that are in work in group over this first year as it's been established has started to conduct some more research into effective what is working, what isn't working in terms of those funding mechanisms. Another area we've been working on is how we can develop a set of donor principles which can really underlie the way donors should be and would like to be aspiring to be over the course of the pledge funding and supporting work on secure Forest Tenure more effectively. I would also emphasize and perhaps we haven't said this enough during this call today is that the focus of the pledge is on secure Forest Tenure very specifically. Obviously that can encompass many things but in terms of looking forward over the next year I think and in terms of the questions on CBD and COP over the next couple of weeks I think we see that secure Forest Tenure is a really critical foundation to achieve many of those conservation goals and ambitions so I think it's also how we can over the next few years really try and increase that security of Tenure for those forest communities which will then allow more of those conservation and biodiversity goals to be achieved. I think something else I'd say and certainly from our perspective as a bilateral as the pledge has influenced in many ways some of those policy developments because of the pledge and that visibility and momentum it's made more awareness of how that needs to be included how IP and LC rights needs to be better included in such documents how land rights need to be included so I hope over the next few years we'll see that increasing as we have better awareness of how important that is and sorry back to the funders group perspective we are still to we're having a meeting next week where we develop and decide our goals for the year ahead but I certainly think that working with others too on those funding mechanisms and how they can be more effective and as Casey said how we can identify intermediaries that are working more effectively with organisations led by Indigenous communities will be a critical focus. Thanks Jenny. Last question before we open to the floor to Q&A Juan Carlos can I come to you tell us about your hopes and what you want to achieve for COP28 what should be the goal? I think it's important to understand two things in this framework of this question first what is the relationship why there is this recognition of the 1.7 any number in the world there is a recognition of the international system the 1.7 billions of dollars for Indigenous and local communities what is the spirit of this? what is the spirit of this? what is the spirit of this? and there is a recognition and there is a recognition the science recognizes the research mentions Indigenous peoples and what is the proposal that makes the global alliance of territorial communities what is the proposal what is the spirit of Shandia Shandia collects the vision of the Indigenous peoples in the territories the biodiversity it cannot be separated it is one Indigenous peoples and the forest the territories are super connected culturally with vision, with history, with language it is difficult to transmit but Shandia collects that it is not only the financial issue but it reclaims the distribution of those funding of those promises the other context is the the dynamic of the collective collaboration that we have to recognize the Indigenous peoples and local communities we live in areas extremely protected that we are taking care of those resources forests virgins we give life, we give oxygen we contribute to the planet but we have serious threats serious demands daily daily persecutions rights against Indigenous peoples etc etc I can continue but there are struggles there are proposals there are exercises and that is what we claim with Shandia to present a system of financing that exists we call awareness it is not only I give the money I wash my hands and I will destroy the other side we are collective we work collectively with Indigenous peoples globally with the tropics with the mountains with the deserts we connect the spirit the spiritual language of the Indigenous peoples local communities and we have maintained these unique ecosystems and the challenge is to continue to work on the platforms and on biodiversity in COP15 we have to continue to work communicating in unity because work is still the demand is still it is not now but there is hope there is hope there are very good people who want to support thanks to the work of the leaders and leaders thanks to the organizations our claims but the cost is high the cost is high there is a lot of politics minute by minute in the territories they are losing the lives of the rivers the contamination deforestation and above all we have to take care of the lives of Indigenous peoples respect the lives of Indigenous peoples you are respecting the mother earth and the ecosystems thanks now we are going to move on to the next part of them we already have quite a lot of questions coming in and we have about 20 minutes so I am going to try and put like three questions at a time and then just throw it to the speakers and ask them to respond some questions directed specifically to people and then I will ask them to respond otherwise I will ask the speakers whoever wants to respond can do it for the first round I want to take three questions Juan Carlos has already briefly spoken just now about the Shandia Mechanism but Toya there is a specific question asking you to explain more about it more about the Shandia Mechanism so that is the first question the second question the attendee is asking that one of the differences between COP26 and 27 is that governments are now facing austere budgets and there is a global economic downturn would that lead to any donor backtracking it is not directed to any speakers so I will leave it to speakers to decide if they want to respond to this and then a third question is specifically to Casey and Jenny is how do you think donors can or may support advocacy in countries where there are repressive conditions to receive funding for human rights work and that the speakers mentioned earlier that in most cases the national level organizations are the conduit for funds but what happens when the government is repressive Toya can I first come to you to explain a bit more about the Shandia Mechanism and then maybe to Casey and Jenny about the donor and then I'll ask whoever wants to talk about the concern around donor backtracking maybe Casey and Jenny you could also perhaps touch on briefly on that but Toya can I first come to you so you can explain a bit more about the Shandia Mechanism thank you Shandia our fund is a fund built by the indigenous peoples and intended to help 170 indigenous peoples in the Brazilian Amazon so it has an indigenous administration and in this first administration it is fully led by women and this is a little bit of differentiation it makes the capital of resources and distributes through the indigenous territories so this is one of the principles that our fund works on capital since the power of indigenous associations in the matter of management is less so it will also distribute resources in the value of 50,000, 100,000 up to 200,000 reais around 40,000 dollars in this way the resources come directly to indigenous territories so the fund does the following of the project guiding the community how to do the report how to do the accounting so that the communities through their associations can strengthen the information area which is important because what we want is to have resources but also to qualify our staff so that this resource is used as best as possible so the fund is distributed of resources on the themes that were released by the assembly to be worked on in the Amazon thank you Juan Carlos, do you want to come in briefly because Toya just said that you'd be the better person to actually explain the Shandia mechanism you spoke about it just now in your answer but is there anything else you might want to add? No, simply I want to recapitulate and many years ago many years that the indigenous movement began to organize there was a lot of support for the organization of the governance territories but there was a prohibition a mythification that we should not understand the financial system well that's what I call the spirit of Shandia is to be transparent in that ecosystem to be transparent how the financial mechanisms work globally that go to our territories it's not an invention of us science investigations are saying that they are not getting all those money to the territories the Shandia mechanism is the political framework is the space so that it can be a direct form those resources that my brothers my sisters, young women are working in the territories day by day in the territories so the Shandia mechanism claimed the world and it's the platform and it's the ecosystem where it talks converges, coordinates with other mechanisms to reach the beneficiaries directly intermediaries is another thing there is a lot to talk governments is another thing but in the international system in the framework of the rights we say we are not only beneficiaries we are partners because we have rights and we are actors in this process with us we can't leave behind the solution for this crisis for this moment is with us with the peoples and with everyone we have to work Shandia mechanism works in the financial line studies the financial line and the protocols principles that collects to coordinate not to fight but that is a change of mentality it's a change of philanthropy it's a change of paradigm to the global financial system that is the spirit of Shandia that collects the feelings the thoughts of the peoples and nationalities that they want to work in their territories thank you KC Jenny can I come to you first how can donors support advocacy in countries when the government is repressive and Jenny maybe you can respond to that and also talk about this question whether there are concerns about donor backtracking because the question is about governments facing more austerity in the future KC yeah that's complicated I would say the politics change so invest in organizations infrastructure now so that they can be strong organizations in the case that they are under oppression in the future additionally investing in intermediaries at times like this and indigenous led funds does allow for flexibility when supporting these situations thank you KC Jenny the majority of the funding is going to international NGOs so it's not governments themselves it's non-governmental organizations that's already what's happening I'd also say that particularly in the case of bilateral donors a lot of it is not given to the governments directly where we are working with governments it's capacity building for them so it's funding through intermediaries who are working with governments and that would be on how to improve the rights including human rights of communities so I think there's work that even though you're working with governments sometimes it's on how you can ensure that certain requirements or reforms are in place I'd say that also from a bilateral perspective it's an ongoing part of the way that bilateral's work in country is how to ensure that issue it is being addressed so I think there's many different levels to ensure that we are working to change those structures but also to ensure the funding is not going directly to those regimes where there are those issues great thank you do you also want to touch on briefly whether you know from just based on your experience and what you're hearing from whether there are concerns of donor donors not being able to you know provide the pledges or you know commit to their pledges because of the economic downturn yes sorry yes good question and I'm sure I can understand why that question is being asked I think in some ways that and I can't speak on behalf of all the donors bilateral donors but certainly from what we understand in a way that was part of the purpose of the pledge in itself and having that announcement and such a visible public announcement at COP26 so whether or not things might change the point is that we have that accountability and if anything changes we have that accountability to explain why I mean I think that having that very public announcement does put that pressure internally on organisations to have to find every way to meet that there are many of those bilaterals including the UK who have released their figure their contribution to the pledge so increasing the transparency in that way will increase how donors are held accountable thank you Jenny I'm going to take another round of questions three more and it will be great if the speakers can you know keep the answers to about two minutes each now the first question is for either Toya or Juan Carlos they're asking and I think Christina you could probably answer this as well have there been incidents of reprisals against those communities who have received direct funding and whether this contribute to or create any community dynamics that's the first question and then another question is perhaps maybe this is something either donors or the indigenous leaders can respond to how can NGOs who have been asked by indigenous peoples to support their community forestry land concessions access the funding from the COP and the third question is that indigenous peoples are asking for a transparent database of individual donor grants so that they can track the money and this person asked that while the UK the US and Germany have complex reporting requirements for indigenous peoples I have learned from my reporting that these bi-lectures actually refuse to publish information about their own individual grants and they only publish collective amounts in their progress reports and the question is first to Jenny in the case of UK what's the justification for not publishing individual grants and then the second question to Juan Carlos or Christina is they would like to hear your thoughts on this lack of transparency from donors but first maybe Juan Carlos or Christina can I hear from one of you about whether there's been incidents of reprisals against communities who have received direct funding. Toya do you want to go first first of all I would like to congratulate the organizations who received direct funding and the partners who also believed in these organizations and financed directly I don't have any knowledge about if any community or any indigenous organization suffered this type of action much on the contrary including the grants that were given we have the greatest care of with the partners of how to say in Brazil how to play it is so much the work we are doing with Ford and with Cristis and with Tenori is the construction of partnership in dialogue building our project together so in this way we create a dynamic of closer partnership and responsibility between us And of course, not hiding anything, both our weaknesses and our weaknesses as a institution, but as our positive points. And together we will try to heal these negative points so that our project can be well implemented and that our communities can have the best possible result of this project. And it would be good if more organizations could make this contribution, with this trust, with this transparency, right? Because the partner also has to be transparent and say, no, my resource will not support this type of action, so that we can build projects that really focus on the community. Don't focus only on what the partner thinks about, in terms of international policy on climate. But also think about the day-to-day, the project of the community. So, we don't have any case of this type. What we have now in Brazil is the question of carbon credits, right? So, we are seeing a lot of incidents in this community. We are trying to take information so that the community can have more information and if she wants to do the contract, she does it. Otherwise, she leaves it there, right? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Toya. Christina, can I come to you? Do you have any comments on this response, to direct funding with your experience in Southern Belize, but also a comment on this transparency question as well? Well, certainly, as we have said before, direct funding to Indigenous Peoples is very limited. I have not really seen direct reprisals, but I do see where there are systematic ways in which Indigenous Peoples are punished in some ways. For instance, when Indigenous organizations and in my own personal experience, whenever you try to apply for funding from bilateral agencies working with the government, often there is a requirement for you to have the endorsement of the government. Bear in mind that this is the same governments that you have been in battle with overland tenure rights. Perhaps in instances like in the Maya case, we have taken our governments to court for failure to recognize our land tenure rights and protect it. We're not necessarily... One of the conditions that is asked then is, are you in good standing with the government and the government determines what that means? You have no access to these fundings. In addition to that, we find a lot of times that a lot of the funding that's targeted towards Indigenous communities, governments often want to avoid these problematic communities, and so they take this funding and make it a national funding. Often, that is one way in which we are restricted. I would like to change the question just a little bit and emphasize the importance of direct funding to Indigenous communities. What it does is that it gives you leverage. It gives Indigenous peoples positions leverage. What I mean by that is that it helps to shift the power imbalance that exists. Governments with a lot of funding can do a lot of damage to Indigenous peoples' territories. Indigenous peoples with direct funding can leverage that power imbalance and can be able then to continue to advance the protection of their lands and territories. For instance, the support that we have right now with the land tenure facility has really made significant contributions towards our advancement of the implementation of our land tenure rights. Another big issue here is that a lot of this funding comes to large conservation organizations. What we see often happening is a tremendous amount of land grabs from Indigenous territories that, in the name of conservation or in the name of carbon credits, have taken away a number of communities' Indigenous lands and they have really threatened the security of tenure for our communities. I would like to see a time because Indigenous peoples, we must recognize that we have our own dreams and visions for our lands. We have our own dreams and visions for our wellbeing, advancing our wellbeing and we must be careful not to risk restricting these advancements. We are prepared to engage with donor communities in joint ventures. We can't always be on the receiving end, just accepting development that is imposed upon our communities. We are prepared to propose joint venture initiatives, initiatives that leverage our cultural heritage with our natural resources. I think that it's important when we think about Indigenous peoples and funding that we think about, what is it that Indigenous peoples are proposing? What is their dream for their future and how is it that we can support those efforts? I would like to see a time when governments are asked to produce a letter of endorsement from Indigenous communities or intermediary organizations are asked to produce a letter of endorsement from Indigenous communities to access these funds. Great. Thank you so much, Christina. We are really running out of time, but I do want to make sure that we've actually answered the second round of questions and I also want to ask the speakers to give one last final thoughts before we end. Juan Carlos, do you have anything you want to add in terms of this lack of transparency question? If you want to, if you could keep the answer very, very brief, that would be great. And then after that, I'm going to ask Jenny to respond and then end with Casey responding to the question on accessing the COP funding. Juan Carlos, do you have anything very briefly that you might want to add? Bueno, muchas gracias. Yo creo que es importante conectar lo que manifiestan mis líderes y liderazas de los territorios. Y es importante sintetizar y transmitir al sistema internacional. Es importantísimo también no perder ese caminar que han hecho nuestros líderes y nuestros mayores que están en el destino, en la tierra, en el más allá. Reconocer ese proceso porque bajo esa dinámica llegamos a este punto, a un punto de que reclamamos justicia climática, derechos, el tema de reconocimiento, visibilización, pero manifestando el tema de la transparencia sobre los financiamientos, se tiene que cambiar el sistema del paradigma, se tiene que reconectar y reevaluar. Eso es lo que reclaman ya el sistema internacional. Financiero. Entonces, hay una conectividad, hay una visibilización. Los pueblos indígenas están con propuestas, están trabajando y están en territorio. Es el día a día en primera línea. Vi para finalizar. Creo que es importantísimo recordar las menciones que hacen nuestros hermanos y hermanas en las comunidades locales. ¿Dónde está la mayor diversidad? Esa biblioteca que milenariamente ha transcurrido en el tiempo. ¿Dónde están esos saberes? ¿Están en nuestros territorios, en nuestros bosques? Ya no hay tiempo. Tenemos amenaza y estamos en puntos muy, muy irreversibles. Es el momento de actuar ya. Thank you, Juan Carlos. Jenny, do you want to respond to that question around the transparency? Just very briefly. Yes, I'll have to just do a very brief initial answer. So the UK does have, we do have a very strict policy on the transparency of how, the way we're working, who we're working with. There's a platform called Dev Tracker. I can share this in the chat, which gives detailed information about who we're working with. There's annual reporting on how that's been implemented, progress towards the program targets. I can't speak on behalf of all the donors, but I know that many others have this in place because there are transparency requirements. So there may be more information out there. And then really just back to the pledge and that commitment to transparency and greater accountability. And as I mentioned earlier, I think already, even just over the course of this last year, we've seen increasing figures being released publicly by organizations. Casey's one example. And as I say, there's been further information coming from the bilateral donors as well. So I do think that that pattern is increasing as well as the kind of breakdown for IPNLC organizations. And how we meet those particular, our commitments towards the pledge, I do think that information is flowing and will continue to do so. And to say through the pledge, we look to, I guess, increase that, I guess, through ourselves and through the donors. I think that there will be greater accountability and almost pressure on us to do that. Thank you, Jenny. Casey, do you want to take the last one on how to access funding? Sure. I think it's important to look at the reporting that's coming out of the cops. So I will post in the chat now, a link to the report from the Forest Tenure Funders Group that links all of the organizations that they're giving money to. As Jenny highlighted, most of them are intermediaries. So I encourage you to reach out to those intermediaries, see how they're using their funding from cop pledges and see if you might be able to access that funding. And additionally, finally, I would say, reach out to donors directly. They're putting their pledges out there. They're being public. I think it's time that we have better communication and transparency between donors and grantees and not view them as grantees, but view them as colleagues, because we're all needed in this kind of collective effort to address the world's most pressing needs. Thank you so much, Casey. Unfortunately, we have run out of time. We're six minutes over from when we were supposed to do to finish. So we're going to have to end the event right now. Thank you so much to all of our speakers. Can we give them a virtual round of applause, please, for all of their insights and for the candid, you know, thoughts and reflections? You know, we've had a very wide ranging discussion around what went right, what went wrong, what we could do better, and also a lot of actually, you know, despite some sobering thoughts, a lot of opportunities and things that are being worked on as well. So, you know, thank you so much to you as well, the audience for your participation and for staying long after, you know, six minutes after when we should have finished the event. Thank you also to our hosts, the Fort Foundation, the Land Portal Foundation, the Tenure Facility, and the Thomson Riches Foundation. It's been a real pleasure for me to moderate this event. Have a great day, afternoon, evening, or night. Goodbye and thank you. Muchas gracias. Hasta luego.


Calling all optical nerds. Hey, I got a question for you. What's the best way to get new patients? Patient referrals. Referrals? Of course. Referrals. Patient referral. Yes, sort of mouth patient referrals for sure. Referrals, of course. Referrals. Of course it's referrals. It always has been and it always will be because that person is speaking a testimony about you and of course that's going to make them want to come to you. It's way better than getting patients off of some ad they see on a billboard because they have that testimony backing them. Now here's the kicker about referrals. Referrals have changed.  And she says, oh, well, after this I have an eye doctor appointment. Oh my gosh, I have been looking for a new eye doctor.  Or when you're standing in the line at Macy's and the cashier goes, hey, those are really cute glasses. Where'd you get those? Oh, I got them at Family Eye Center just right up the street. That's typically how referrals work. But referrals are so much more now. Take a look. Proper use of social media can get you a ton of new patients. But the reality is most opticals are terrible at social media. I'm going to give you a list of the five social media mistakes that every optical makes. And then I'll also give you a peek into the social media hacks that we have mastered to bust every single one of those mistakes. Follow me to Spexy to watch a full video of social media insiders. Go ahead and click on the link below and I'll see you on the inside. So what if I told you that I pick at you referrals right now? Let's go. How do we do this? That would be awesome. That'd be awesome. Yeah, sign me up.


న్వాన్ల్వా్స్దాసాడికార్ల్త్సం. క్వానకికాసాకాన్, మ్లానాసాల్లు. మ్సాన్వాసాయామ్న్ సమ్టాన్ త్సారాధసికాన్ంట్ా청చిలర. So, in the order, the Cheomskian notion of language and the Federation notion of mental representation under minds that linguistic activities are conscious activities. This is very fundamental to the naturalist. So, in fact does not clearly post this to us, continuing to as but he has something to tell us like this glow language stick rules unwisely followed no as I a mentioned� ako in that the sense of not unconscious be understood or it can be yonding rules that is to say the individual just follows or just performs certain activities. So, there is no question of consciously following the rules he just does it. So, this idea of a rule following or following the rule consciously and how it has been interpreted by the naturalist zan yiy아니 t Denis prase Tan nya te rl a nd a bl y  perceber ఽెవ్వ్వతి గాస్న్లంలి ఆర్లిస్వార్తాక్త్డిస్వేట్లిస్త్యి న్త్తికువర్ంద్నాకున్దార్ట్యం ?! maya tyal su terrific features of thought unbound in scope and controlled by stimulus conditions though appropriate to situations available for view in whatever contingencies thought processes can comprehend this creative aspects of languages use is a characteristic species property of humans. Chomsky points out that the very notion of language use that individuals they remain very different and theirasserelements흥 America Vilig , s visitors of the humanity known as the Belomini.ylan also całow n Movementастal superlations for the human beings, particularly with reference to the background conditions, the prelingustic styles of little this letter is left సిం ఱ౟ాచీಂటి ఇబ్ ఇర్ ఎఫ్ క్వప్ వియొటైộదitute creepyని abloంత్వరు ప౓వ ని . But today, as I mentioned earlier that we need to study what is the essential or what are the essential points that విuschంది . . . . . . . . . атtera . . Y . , , , It is something which is specific. In that sense, there is no behaviouristic understanding of language. That language is a dispositional ability and whenever an individual encounters a stimulus, then he exhibits or exhibits the linguistic behaviour.  raft is not hold here by Chomsky. Whether Chomsky says that this very use of language, the language that is available to the individual human beings are something very special and it is a biological capacities. Chomsky's understanding of language is again naturalistic As next week, as Serl's understanding of language is a naturalistic one. According to Serl, language has evolved following the natural history of evolution. Language is an institution which has been created by certain prilinguistic form of intentionality, so intentionality So, Watson annuality is prior to independence tropoli according to Chomsky what is prior to this language when you say that human beings use language now waddare the prior conditions which makes the human linguistic being  enm shreyam skiis naturalistic position, suggest that there is a naturalistic approach to linguistic and mental aspects of the world, seeks to construct intelligible explanatory theories, talking as reel, what are laid to posit in the quest of hoping for eventual unification with core natural sciences, unification not necessarily reduction.  overst interestingly reduction now most of the cognitive scientist today when they talk six  prise newe stanse __ so the cognitive states are constitutioned in the form of a physical objects in the form of the neural states and the function of the neural states are such that they not only explain the semantic content involved in the neural state how the semantic content becomes part of it. So, this idea of linguistic activities or language carrying a semantic content, an intentional content which we have discussed earlier is reduced to certain neural states, to certain physical states. Now, Chomsky does not believe in reductionism. Chomsky is not emphasizing reduction, rather Chomsky is emphasizing that the physical theory or the naturalistic theory of language talks about unity, talks about the principle of unification between language and mind. And this principle of unification is something very special about Chomsky's theorization of language, because Chomsky as I mentioned here takes a very realistic position about the language. He is not an idealist, he is a realist and he is rejecting the metaphysical notion of mind, the metaphysical notion of language, rather he tries to project that mind and language are connected, are causally connected and this causal connection should be construed in terms of a kind of a unification. There is harmony in this relationship, in the relationship between language and mind. So, Chomsky is not emphasizing reducing the language to certain cognitive neural states, he is not doing that. Then the question is how do human beings acquire these linguistic abilities? The answer would be linguistic abilities are biological in nature. So, it is part of the biological system and so the growth of language is due to the constant interaction between the individual and the linguistic community. However, Chomsky also talks about or in fact takes an internalist position and that is the innate capacity of the human brain, the capacity of the human mind.  Chomsky as I said takes an internalist position, the internalist position shows that there is a innate capacity mind is having and it is this capacity unfolds the internal connection between mental representations and the neural behaviors of the brain. So, linguistic activities or the activities or the of thoughts or the certain function of mental representations are happening in the brain. So, that is something which is important. When you say that linguistic ability is biological and brain is certainly a biological phenomenon for Chomsky as well as for Searle. So, Chomsky is taking in a kind of an internalist position. However, one need not understand Chomsky notion of innateness or the innate ability of the brain in terms of Descartes notion of mind. Chomsky is certainly giving a Cartesian interpretation to the notion of mind, but he is not like Descartes, who would hold an internalist position. He would hold on to a metaphysical notion of mind. So, for Descartes the sense of self is an innate idea. This idea revealed when I am conscious of my own being, it is revealed through introspection, it is revealed through self-reflection, etcetera, etcetera. So, Chomsky is not holding to Descartes notion of mind, rather Chomsky is only posing a kind of a hypothesis to us that this ability is something very innate, something which is something in worm and it has the biological root. So, linguistic abilities are biological abilities. So, in that sense this is there in our mind. So, that is a kind of an internalist position that Chomsky is holding. Then the question is, what is there in the mind or what is there in the head, which makes language possible. So, Chomsky talks about generative ground, generative ground, generative ground, generative ground, generative grammar. How language exists in the mind, that is the existence of language in the mind in a syntactical form and there Chomsky talks about the notion of generative grammar. Now, language as we all know operates in two level, one is the surface level and another is at a deep level. So, there are two structures available to us, one at the surface level we understand a particular form in which language is used. At a deeper level, we have another form in which language is, language operates. It seems to me reasonable to propose that Chomsky writes, in every human language surface structures are generated from the structure of a more abstract sort. So, Chomsky is visualizing a case, is hypothesizing a case that this surface level language, that the language at the surface level is connected to a deeper level and at that level he says the deep structure by certain formal operation of every special kind called the grammatical transformation. So, there are certain symbolic element which is connected to a deeper level. So, at this level the function of this symbols, let us say, helps in transforming mental representations into linguistic representations, helps in transforming or expressing thoughts into, you know, in terms of language. So, that is why, you know, there is, there is a deeper level or a deep structure and the surface structure talks about. At the surface level, we have various rules like phonological rules, principle of rule ordering, etc. At the deep level or the, the deeper structure of language refers to the pre-linguistic symbolic system. Now, this pre-linguistic symbolic system is similar to the pre-linguistic symbolic system. Something that is there in human mind, that is there in human brain and we do not have access to that symbolic structure, how the symbolic structure is all about. Chomsky or following Chomsky, we can theorize about that deeper level, how the deeper level exist in mind and how does it operate. How does it operate in this sense that, how does it function when we try to express a mental representation in the form of a linguistic representations. So, how does representations are being expressed. So, in, in that sense Chomsky is trying to hypothesize a case or theorize a case of language existing at a very deeper level of mind. So, that is what is called the deep structure, the structure which is about a pre-linguistic symbolic system. Now, relating the mental with the linguistic system. Chomsky further writes that we may have to conceive mind as a system of mental organs. The language faculty being one each of the organ has specific structure and function determined by the general outline by the genetic endowment interacting in ways that are also biologically determined in large measure to provide the basis of our mental life. So, we need to conceive mind as a kind of a mental organ, the language faculty being one organ has a specific structure and functions. So, Chomsky is trying to conceptualize a case that, the linguistic abilities or the language is located in one part of the brain and it has certain specific structure to talk about, how things are being expressed in language. So, there, and this is something very biological and that is why it is called the genetic endowment. So, things are to be biologically determined. Now, when we talk about the unity between the language and the mind or the unity of the mental organs and the grammatical rules, Chomsky certainly talks about the naturalization. Chomsky talks about the naturalization of the theory of language and mind. As I said earlier, Chomsky is not holding to the reductionist. Rather, Chomsky is trying to project to us a kind of a naturalist theory of language and showing that this naturalistic relation is harmonious and the harmony lies between the way language functions at the social level, at the surface level and the way language is functioning at the deeper structure of the mind, at the pre-linguistic, you know, language existing in the pre-linguistic symbolic form. So, there, there is a kind of a harmony between the two. So, Chomsky is posing a kind of an abstract condition about this unknown mechanism that has to do with the language and how language is connected to the mind or to the human beings, how language is connected to the human life. So, Chomsky is posing a kind of a theory where language is related to our biological life. Now, the question is, can we be able to access this relationship and that was a question of the human being. So, Chomsky is posing a kind of a theory where language is related to our biological life. Now, the question is, can we be able to access this relationship and that was the fundamental question that we had initiated in the beginning. What is the relationship between language and mind? If mind is in principle a kind of a conscious phenomenon, then does the mind know this very fact that the mind is in principle a kind of a conscious phenomenon? Now, the question is that how this pre-linguistic elements are functioning in reality corresponding to our, you know, expressions corresponding to the very fact of language use. So, that was the basic questions which we had raised in the beginning about the language mind relationship. Is it the case that the human beings are aware of the very fact that they are following these rules, they are following these grammatical rules or is it the case that we unconsciously follow the rules? So, that is the point which Chomsky, you know, coming to talk about here in this particular quotation. He says, a language is generally known as the language of the human being. And that is what he calls as the pre-linguistic, you know, symbolic form that is embedded or that is there in the mind. So, that is the point which Chomsky, you know, coming to talk about here in this particular quotation. He says, a language is generated by a system of rules and that is what he calls as the pre-linguistic, you know, symbolic form that is embedded or that is there in the mind. Rules and principles that enter into complex mental competitions to determine the form of meaning of sentences. So, the meaning of the sentence is determined by the pre-linguistic symbolic form that is there in mind. These rules and principles, principles and rules existing and deeper structure of the mind are in large measure unconscious and beyond the reach of the potential consciousness. So, this is a very fact that when I say something, I am aware of this fact. I am intentionally making this expression, but what is it that we are in a state of consciousness? I am unconscious about how these propositions or sentences or words are put to you.  I am intending to say to you and that I am aware of, but I am not aware of this very fact how it is being said and that is what is philosophical about Chomsky's position, that here in large measure of unconscious and beyond the reach of the potential consciousness, the very fact that mind is potentially conscious and that potential consciousness would not reach to this level of the unconscious symbolic systems that is functioning at the deeper level of the brain processes and that is what is, you know, very significant, where Chomsky is holding to the potential consciousness. The notion of mind, which is linguistically able and we are not aware of that how this ability functions. So, that is where Chomsky probably holds on to some kind of the Freudian unconscious mind and Searle would reject mind, which is Freudian notion of unconscious. So, this is the basic difference one would find when he tries to compare Searle and Chomsky, particularly with reference to the notion of unconscious. Our perfect knowledge of language we speak gives us no privileged access to these principles. We cannot hope to determine them by introspection or reflection. From within as it were. So, the very Cartesian notion of self-reflection or introspection can only tell us that what I am conscious of, I am conscious of certain thoughts, I am conscious of what I feel, I am conscious of what I would do right now or what I am doing. Now, all these facts are directly accessible. My consciousness reaches to all these facts, but my consciousness does not reach to this fact that how things are happening particularly, how do I say things. I am saying this and I am not aware of it is something very typical to Searle and Chomsky, because Searle also suggests that these rules are unconsciously followed. But as I mentioned earlier that Chomsky to great extent holds on to this idea that at a certain level the mind is unconscious and the potential consciousness that we find in general in a Cartesian theory of consciousness or Cartesian theory of mind does not tell us about how certain activities in the brain, particularly the linguistic activities happen. Since we are not aware of these happenings, I understand that Chomsky is holding to the Freudian notion of unconscious. I am intentionally bringing this point here because we know this very fact that when Searle says that all mental states, they are not intentional mental states, some are intentional because they represent things, they have a reference, but some are not having this representational content meaning thereby say for example, certain relation, feeling of joy, fear, anxiety not represent the very fact that there is an object of reference. Searle also make this point that we are not conscious of all mental states. Now, there are many mental states which are unconscious, there are unconscious mental states.   They are potentially intentional. They are endowed with this power of, power of intentionality. Hence, they can represent things. Hence, they are representational states. They have this directedness. Now, so, so Searle's notion of unconscious is not Freudian because Searle in principle asserts on this idea that mind is intentional, mental experiences are intentional experiences. So, hence, one is able to experience his thoughts, one is able to experience his feelings, but these experiences do not tell us that they have access to this very fact that how does an individual human being use language. Or how does one follow the grammatical rules? In other words, how does one make a grammatically correct expressions? So, at this point, there is a fundamental difference between Somsky's position and the position of Searle. Now, coming to the Freud's notion of language, one finds that there is a kind of a similarity between Freud's understanding of language and Somsky's understanding of language. Now, Freud talks about language of thought.  So, the syntactical features transforms the compositional features of linguistic representations. So, therefore, we need to understand what Freud talks about the mental representation, what is his notion of mental representation and how does he explain this transformation with reference to the language of thought. Now, Freud wants to clarify two things. One is that the intentional content of mental state needs to be specified and that can be specified when we talk about the relationship between the propositional attitude and the semantic content. The propositional attitude talks about, suppose we talk about desire, that is something I desire, is something that there is a mentalisation and there is a connection between the mental state and the philanthropist relationship. importance of mental rights should be specified and that can be specified when we talk about the relationship between the propositional attitude and the semantic content. The propositional attitude talks about suppose we talk about desire that something I desire I desire a Ṭ이어, Ṭélior, Ṭ Short, Ṭago, Ṭigit of desiring Ṭiität pup. Ṭ hospital Ṭæ short Ṭibeno Ṭ Yoo Ṭ care Ṭien Ṭareide and Ṭæ support enjoy Ṭa Ṭaf.іeten pourrait to specify the intentional content, the 2nd thing he talks about is the symbolic structure of mental state defines the function of mental processes. So, there is mental content and there is a symbolic structure, structure available when we talk about mental states or about mental states or what you called some kind of cognitive states. Now, these cognitive states are nothing but the neural states. So, when we try to talk about mental representation, we must explain how semantic content is incorporated in the mental states of or the network of mental states. So, these are the two point specifying the notion of intentional content or determining how the intentional content is part of the mental state. And the symbolic function of the mental states.  So, there is a specific mechanism in the brain that transforms the representation into the internal representations. So, the very fact that I am seeing things, I am looking at the mental states. So, the mental states are symbolic. So, the very fact that I am seeing things out there and there is a mechanism in my mind or in my brain because for further mind and brain are identical. You all know that further is functionalist who holds on to this proposition that mind and brain are functionally identical.  So, there is a mechanism in the mind which transforms that mental representation to thoughts or to a kind of a linguistic representation. So, this mechanism which Chomsky was talking about a kind of a pre-linguistic symbolic form. In a similar way, Fodor is talking about koa language that is the language of thought to preserve the syntactic and the semantic properties of content of propositional attitude. So, propositional attitude like a desire, intention, etcetera are symbolic has a kind of a syntax and it also has a kind of a semantic content. So, there is a syntactic content and there is a semantic content to a mental states. Now, it is through that koa language, Fodor determines the semantic part. The syntax is anyway available to us since the semantic is that element which is hard to determine through syntax and that is the view of Searle and here Fodor is proposing a thesis that how to determine the semantic content. So, Fodor in that sense is a reductionist or a naturalist who try to determine the semantic content through syntax. Whereas, Searle though talks about the ability of the background, the background ability, the pre-linguistic background ability, intentional ability and he tries to show that the semantic content is irreducible. Whereas, Fodor talking about the reducibility of the semantic content to the syntactic level of the brain functions. So, what is the koa language is about? Now, here is a quotation from representations. Koa language is presumably having syntax and semantics specifying the language involves saying that what properties are in virtue of which its formula are well informed and what relation obtain between the formula and things in non-linguistic world. I have no idea what an adequate semantics for a system or an internal representation will look like. So, finds that if the positions come in at all they come in here in particular nothing stops specifying a semantics for the internal representation states by saying that some of its formula express propositions they are mediated relation to propositions with internal representations doing the mediating. So, there is some kind of a language which mediating in this and that is what is Fodor emphasizes. So, mind has a kind of a structure or this representations mental representations are possible because of certain some kind of a cognitive architectures and this cognitive architecture is built following the causal power of the particular system the causal network of the structure of cognitive states is what is being emphasized by Fodor. This is language of thought want to construct propositional attitude tokens that is the token mental states as relation to the symbol token token symbols in questions are neural objects. Now, symbols have intentional contents and token are physical in all known cases and co-physical symbol tokens are right sort of things to exhibit that causal role. So, the causal capacity which is in indeed an innate biological capacity of the brain creates a kind of a cognitive symbolic structure a structure which helps the cognitive structure which helps in translating or transforming reproducing the representations mental representation into the linguistic representation. So, that is the basic model which the naturalist project to us showing that this mechanism does not involve consciousness this is a purely a kind of a causal process this is purely a biological causal process rather and it is through this process we can explain this very fact that how human beings are able to produce linguistic expressions how human beings are able to express the mental representations. So, basically the causal analysis of the brain processes or certain pre-linguistic form of language which is there in the mind and it is there at every unconscious level and it is theoretically impossible to have access to that level shows or projects to us that mind is like a machine a robot a computer and computer through a kind of syntactic language tries to receive the inputs and produce a kind of an output. So, you have a kind of a language that which what are called language of thoughts or the generative grammar that Chomsky talks about it is there in the mind like certain programs are there in a computer and it is through this program encoding and decoding are happening. So, one receives the input and produces an output and this way when we define the mind and language relationship we find that this is the way we define the mind and language relationship we find that consciousness is being nullified the role of experiencing the content experiencing thought is being nullified, but we are not like machines. So, we are human beings being who experiences things being who feels who has this feeling sensations thoughts etcetera and so we need to talk about how referencing is possible without falling into the reductionist understanding of language and mind relationship and we also need to avoid the metaphysical notion of referencing which Searle talks about. And that was prevailing in the case of Frege and others where the sense exist in in independent realm look at what Searle says Searle says the linguistic references is a special case of intentional references the intentional reference is by way of relation fitting to meeting or satisfaction it is not necessary to postulate any special metaphysical realms in order to account for communication and shared intentionality the possibility of shared intentional content does not require any metaphysical apparatus any more than the possibility of shared works. So, here Searle talks about language linguistic communication in particular without posing a kind of a metaphysical thesis and that is what Searle says it is natural it is natural which appeals to our commonsense which appeals to our convictions commonsense is embedded in our convictions. So, the realistic account of Searle's mind and language relationship is not holding to the reductionist or the Chomskian kind of unificationist approach rather trying to project a thesis which is non-metaphysical, but very much embedded in our conviction that how we use the language in our day to day life and that with the help of such a thesis we can explain how meaning to be understood and how the content is being experienced by the individual human beings. So, it is that experiential factor it is the factor of conditional satisfaction that determines the notion of intentional content or the ontology of intentional content which is irreducible to certain causal functions of the brain mechanism with this I conclude the lecture on language and mind with reference to further and Chomskian. I will come back to what is Searle's position and how does Searle critique them in my next lecture. Thank you.