Thank you so much for being here. We'll get started. My name is Amy Duchel. I'm a scientist at CIFOR and on behalf of CIFOR, I would like to welcome you to this discussion forum entitled Learning from Red Safeguard Information Systems, Voices from Research Policy and Practice. This is a session jointly organized by CIFOR and by the Red Social and Environmental Standards Initiative. Respect for rights, promotion of stakeholder participation, conservation of biological diversity and other environmental services, gender equity, promotion of livelihoods. These are all issues that CIFOR has focused on for many, many years. What's new is that in partnership with the Red Plus Social and Environmental Standards Initiative, we're now more squarely focusing some of the evidence that we've gotten from this previous research and from the Global Comparative Study on Red Safeguards, not only the international negotiation process, but maybe even more importantly what's happening on the ground in terms of country-led processes, subnational jurisdictions, and even beyond the forestry sector to look at compatibility between safeguards and other principles and criteria. We have a lot of materials in the back that are provided by CIFOR, the Red Plus SES Initiative, other partners on the stage, so please pick those up, and we have a very distinguished group of panelists today. I'm not going to introduce them. Our moderator is, he is Peter Graham, the leader of the forest and climate program at WWF. Prior to joining WWF, he was the co-chair of the UNFCCC negotiations and lead red negotiator and policy advisor for the Canadian government. So I will turn this over to Peter. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you to the organizers of the GLF. Thank you, Amy. That's very kind, and thank you everyone for coming to the session. It is a very important topic for those who've been following Red for however long, whether it be just this session or over a number of years. As a former co-chair or chair of the UNFCCC Red Negotiations, I'm probably more comfortable being a facilitator than a moderator. I think I'll find out what the difference is over the course of this event and hope to generate some active discussion on the topic and based on the insights of the panelists and with your help, I think maybe we will be able to come out of this with some really interesting information and experiences that we can take forward in implementation, in negotiation, and to help the parties and those involved on the ground to respect and address the safeguards from Cancun. At this point, I'm going to, over the course of this, I'm going to try and keep my comments to a minimum. My experience in many of these sessions is that we run short of time to allow questions and a proper discussion with the audience, and so I'm going to do my best to shut up. And we have presented the panel with three questions. All of this information was on the website for this event, but I'm just going to go through those again. And the first one was, what are the key advances and challenges in implementing, in the implementation of safeguard information systems by RedPlus countries? Second question was, how can existing monitoring systems and data sets be leveraged to support safeguard information implementation? And the third question was, who will pay for safeguard information systems? How could these systems allow countries to access emerging financing opportunities associated with RedPlus? So, as Amy mentioned, there's a lot of background information research that is available. Just a moment, please. Okay, our sixth panelist will come up to the stage while I'm speaking. So as I said, there's lots of background information available on this, and hopefully I'm sure you've read it all by now. And the I'm thinking that the panelist, the quality of their presentations and the ability to to get their message across will be tested by your assessment of which question they're actually answering. And we'll see at the end whether we cover all three and to what extent. So, the order of the day will be, we're going to, I'll introduce our distinguished guests, and then each one will have maximum of seven minutes for their presentation, express their experiences and their views. And then we're going to have just a quick exchange amongst the panelist, one question from each panelist to one or more of the others, to either clarify or comment on those presentations, and then at that point we will open it up to the floor for your questions and comments. We have until, as far as I know, 3.45 this afternoon, and so at this point I'm going to start with the introductions. So, on my left, starting here, we have Joanna Durbin. Joanna is the director of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance, otherwise known as CCBA. And this is a partnership of NGOs with a mission to stimulate land management activities that credibly mitigate global climate change, improve the well-being and reduce the poverty of local communities and conserve biodiversity. I have known Joanna indirectly for many years, and she's definitely her work and the work of her organization has influenced the policies around social environmental safeguards for red, both through World Bank and UN red organizations over the years. So it's wonderful to have her here. Next to her is Ramiro Batzen. He is the director of COTSDIL in Guatemala. He is formerly the indigenous representative on the Consejo Nacional de Cambio Climático, and various other indigenous councils. You have a number in your biography, and so I won't go through them all, but it's a pleasure to have you here, and we look forward to hearing your views and experience. And next we have Toby Gardner, formerly with Cambridge University, now a research fellow with the Stockholm Environment Institute. He is the founder of the Sustainable Amazon Network, which is a network of over 100 researchers, local stakeholders, NGOs, and Brazilian government representatives. This is an organization or network that addresses land use sustainability, and the, sorry, sustainability challenges in the Brazilian Amazon. And as a point of notable success, he was awarded the British Ecological Society Founders Prize for a Contribution to Science of Ecology. And next to Toby, we have Novia Udianintias, sorry for the pronunciation, my apologies. Novia is the head of the Climate Change Division, Ministry of Environment and Forestry of Indonesia. And since 1995, which was then the Ministry of Forest, she's been working on forest products inventory, watershed management, and dissemination of research and development. And Novia, most crucially at this point, and relevance to our session here, is that she's been actively involved in the development of the Red Plus safeguard information system for Indonesia. And next to Novia, we have Michael Buki, or Mika as everyone in the negotiations know him. There's no bio for him, but I've known him for many years, and so he is a policy officer with the European Commission, which as a title doesn't do him justice. He is an expert on Red Plus and land use policy in the context of climate change. He has contributed innovative thinking to many aspects of Red Plus, and it's wonderful that we have him here. And finally, at the end, we have Senior Candido Mensua Salazar, and he is the Chairman of the National Coordination of Indigenous Peoples of Panama, or Kunapip. He is also the General Chief of the Embarah-Wunan Region, and Member of the Executive Board of the Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests. He has extensive experience in programs and projects and social and environmental issues, land management, and alternative dispute resolution and international cooperation. And for those of you who were in the main session this morning in this main plenary hall after Helen Clark spoke, we had the pleasure of hearing Candido's presentation as views on the landscape and development agenda, and it was greatly appreciated. It's the most eloquent definition of natural capital that I have heard. Thank you. So without further ado, I'm going to hand it over to the first speaker. We will be going almost in order, but first with Joanna, and she will give a presentation on country experiences, on how the development of safeguard information systems is evolving in the country she has worked with, and also providing us some examples and lessons learned from that. So please, Joanna. Thank you very much. So I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to share some experiences from the Red Plus Social and Environmental Standards Initiative. Working with countries over the last five years, and I prepared this presentation with a couple of my colleagues who are helping to facilitate the initiative. There's Aurelie Yumeau, who's here. She can wave. Hello. And Phil Franks. Thank you. And first just to explain a bit about the initiative. So over the last five years, we've been supporting countries. In those days, they weren't called safeguards, but now in the design and implementation of a safeguard information system, we put a big emphasis on an inclusive and multi-stakeholder process and supporting high social and environmental performance of Red Plus strategies and action plans. And it's important to stress this is a voluntary initiative. Countries, some of them have been using the principles, criterion indicators, and the 10-step multi-stakeholder process of the standards. And others have been participating in the exchange and learning and bringing their ideas and practices to help generate emerging good practices that I'll be sharing some of those now and some of the experiences and challenges. So the first thing to stress is that a safeguard information system exists not on its own, but within a framework or a set of other elements that are important for addressing and respecting safeguards. And safeguards are implemented through policies, laws, and regulations within a country's approach. And then it's also extremely important to have feedback and grievance mechanisms that's accessible and effective. There's a safeguard information system, which is one of the four key elements required under the Warsaw Framework for Red Plus. And all of that is supported by institutions and processes and procedures. So in the process of developing a safeguard approach, a country would need to work out what are the goals, what are we trying to achieve, what do the Cancun safeguards mean in our country, what are the risks and opportunity of our specific Red Plus strategy and action plans and are there any other international agreements we've signed up to that are important and what are our existing laws and policies. Then in addition, comparing those policies, laws, and regulations that they have against what they want to achieve and creating new ones strengthened if needed and also developing the feedback and grievance mechanism. But I'm going to focus now on this top row.  We've been working on it and developing it over the last two years with inputs and discussions with UN Red and FCPF and WRI and Climate Law and Policy and all the countries, because in fact, their experience has led us to sort of disaggregate a bit those steps at the top into these six steps. Then it's not a process that has to be done in this way, it's just a way of helping to understand what we're seeing and what's coming out of the countries. So the first one being defining the scope and objectives of the safeguard information system. So questions like what is the information for? Is it just for the UNFCCC and for donors or is it for to attract private sector investors? Is it to provide information to national and local stakeholders and to feed back to improve the strategy? And what are the activities that are covered by the safeguard information system? Is it those that are described in the Red Plus strategy or the activities that generate emission reductions? And then it's very important to build on existing information systems. Are there existing systems perhaps linked to policy laws and regulations in the country or reporting to other international agreements? And what are the gaps in those for what they want to achieve with Red Plus safeguards? And then what, sorry, it's a bit sensitive. So it's important to establish the institutional arrangements and the processes for stakeholder participation. Are there existing institutional arrangements? Do they cover what's needed and what stakeholders should be involved in the SIS and how? And then need to identify what specific information is needed. Sometimes it might be helpful to elaborate that in form of indicators and how will they be identified. And then going on to collecting, compiling and analyzing information, what methods and processes will be used, where and how will information be collected, by whom, and what type of analysis is there going to be to demonstrate that safeguards are going to be addressed and respected. And going on, finally, oops, to reviewing, reporting and using the information. Is there going to be a process of reviewing the information to check that it's accurate? And is that going to involve stakeholders, which could lead to a more credible set of information? And then who is the information going to be shared with and how and with whom? So going on to some of the country experiences and lessons learned, we've been working with the state of Acre in Brazil. Unfortunately, it doesn't all show there. So they have got to the stage of actually producing a report that's gone through stakeholder review and it's about to be published of assessing their progress against a set of very comprehensive indicators that were developed through a multi-stakeholder process. And they found that this multi-stakeholder process helped to ensure the credibility and build political support at all levels for their work on, for the implementation of safeguards. And also now they're at the stage of sharing that information. They're thinking about what format language and strategy for dissemination of reports to the information users. In San Martín, the region of San Martín in Peru, they've learned that it's very important to provide capacity building for specific stakeholder groups so that they can engage effectively and to assess and use existing sources of information and link with their information systems.  So these lessons are not only being found in one place or another, they're actually emerging from many countries but I'm just giving examples from some places. In Nepal, they found that for each, their first assessment, it was too demanding to look at everything and they're in the redness phase, so they prioritized and went through a very stakeholder intensive participatory process to decide which ones were the most important to look at at this current phase. And in Central Kalamantan, they're looking at how different communities and other stakeholders can get involved in providing information. So I'm just going to finish with a few final reflections that we're seeing a big difference in policies, laws and regulations across countries and in the context across countries and capacity across countries. And countries are going about this in different ways but they're finding that the safeguard information system can have objectives at different levels, have different objectives and at different levels. So for reporting, for results-based financing, very important but also for improving the red strategy, adaptive management and for building and maintaining stakeholder and political support for red. And finally to to effectively achieve at least two and three, we're finding or they're finding that a multi-stakeholder participatory process is important and the funding for that and arguably for the first objective as well, looking for credible information. Thank you. Thank you very much Joanna, that was excellent and on time and so I will go without further due to the next speaker. We have, sorry, get back to my right notes here. Ramiro Bacin will be talking about how to provide or sorry provide a view on his experience from Guatemala with the implementation or the design of the Red Plus safeguard information system or the experience in the consultation, the process and the challenge in designing that system. And so please, Ramiro, we look forward to your comments. Thank you. This process has also allowed the creation and installation of the National Safeguard Network Committee, which is part of that committee. And that committee is formed by seven sectors in these moments, among which academy or environmentalists, government dependencies, private sector, women, indigenous and peasants. Dicho comité creó un grupo facilitador, que es el que está operativizando como desarrollar, digamos, este sistema de salvaguardas. Dentro de ellos aparece lógicamente la institucionalidad gubernamental, entre ellos el Mar, el Conap, el Inav, también están apoyando, digamos, un programa de clima naturaleza en Guatemala, Estazotzil, UICN y CARE. El año pasado nos hemos dedicado, digamos, a hacer todo un trabajo de fortalecimiento de capacidades y se creó un módulo establecido que contempla cinco grandes módulos, digamos, un módulo de ejecución, uno que fue el tema de cambio climático y red. Primero, entender qué está pasando con la dinámica de cambio climático y con el tema de red a nivel del país. Cómo funciona red, digamos, en Guatemala. Aspectos legales y de gobernanza muy importantes, digamos, entender la legislación nacional de Guatemala, cómo la Constitución reconoce el tema de tierras comunales, pero cómo luego no encontramos una ley inferior que la operativice que le dé, digamos, un dinamismo al reconocimiento. El tema de los instrumentos internacionales, tenemos ratificado el convenio 169, se acaba de ratificar el protocolo de Nagoya, pero no encontramos, digamos, ese link para la hora de desarrollar todos esos procesos de implementación. El tema de la participación social, algo fundamental, digamos, que hay que trabajarlo. Y dentro de la participación social, estamos viendo bastante el tema de derecho de pueblos indígenas, el tema del consentimiento previo, libre, informado, el tema de la resolución de conflictos, que es uno de los puntos fundamentales, digamos, porque se ejecutan proyectos, las comunidades no están de acuerdo con esos proyectos, pero no existe un sistema donde pueda haber un diálogo y resolver esos conflictos que van a crearse, digamos, en su momento. Hubo también todo un módulo sobre el tema de salvaguardas ambientales y sociales, que significa el tema de salvaguardas ambientales y sociales versus las salvaguardas, entre comillas, llamadas culturales, o también derecho de pueblos indígenas. Es importante, digamos, migrar de salvaguardas ambientales a salvaguardas de derecho de pueblos indígenas. Actualmente a Guatemala se le ha aprobado su RPP y últimamente hace un mes y medio, dos meses, se le aprobó su Erping. El caso del RPP contempla un capítulo sobre el tema de participación, sobre el tema de consulta, y ahorita el Erping plantea todo un tema de implementación de lo que es el consentimiento previo, libre e informado. Esto es muy importante, digamos, de que podamos irlo viendo. A raíz de eso se vienen realizando varias acciones, un análisis sobre el contexto de salvaguardas en el marco de la convención, sí que significa el contexto de salvaguardas que hay en Guatemala sobre el tema de salvaguardas. Se está creando una estrategia que identifique el diseño de los canales de comunicación. Es importante, digamos, ver cómo los canales de comunicación no están funcionando en estos momentos entre los diferentes sectores. Como cada uno de los sectores tiene intereses particulares sobre el tema de salvaguardas. Se está elaborando también un mapa de actores red porque es importante decirlo, digamos, en Guatemala vamos a encontrar alrededor de tres tendencias en el tema de red, una que es, digamos, existen un grupo de implementadores red que están apoyando y al desarrollo del proceso. Otras organizaciones planteamos que red puede ser si existen el reconocimiento de derecho de pueblos indígenas y existe un tercer bloque que está diciendo no a red porque hay un temor grande, digamos, en qué va a pasar con eso. Es importante que las salvaguardas puedan hacer un diálogo con estos tres sectores y que puedan definir, digamos, un proceso de fortalecimiento. Y aquí juega un papel importante, digamos, qué va a ser el fortalecimiento sobre el tema de la institucionalidad gubernamental, ya. Como ese marco legal va a fortalecer a la institucionalidad, y amese con APMAR, MAGA, y en este caso, digamos, INAP también, que son los que están trabajando el tema de bosques, el tema de red, pero es importante fortalecerlos porque debe haber una estrategia unificada que reconozca, digamos, esos derechos de pueblos indígenas. Por otro lado, tenemos toda una institucionalidad indígena que hoy no existe, digamos, un diálogo, y que hay que acercar esos diálogos entre las instituciones de gobierno que trabajan el tema de pueblos indígenas y las instituciones de gobierno que trabajan el tema de derechos, y, perdón, del tema de medio ambiente y recursos naturales. Entonces, el tema de las salvaguardas en Guatemala se crea como una instancia que pueda permitir ese reconocimiento de derechos y que pueda avanzar de permitirle a las organizaciones y pueblos indígenas realmente encontrar una alternativa que apoye la conservación de los bosques y que reconozca el tema de las tierras comunales. Gracias. Thank you very much, Ramiro. I think your experience as a journalist came out there and getting many messages across very clearly. I just actually reflect on one of them regarding the legal context of each country, each region, and when I was involved in the negotiations of the safeguards that ended up being adopted in Cancun, that a lot of the difficulty was around how to accommodate at that point at a national level the different legal frameworks in different countries for particularly indigenous peoples' rights, but also just generally the social environmental safeguards. So thank you for that. And to follow from that perspective, we're very, very happy to have Candido Mesoasalazar here and very interested in your views and experience from Panama and also in your involvement in the broader indigenous community internationally on the implementation of safeguard information systems or the safeguards themselves. So, senor Candida, please. Gracias. Cuando hablamos de salvaguardas desde el punto de vista de pueblos indígenas para nosotros representa una forma, un sistema de cómo proteger la vida de nuestra población. Cuando hablamos dentro del marco de una iniciativa red o cualquier iniciativa red, entonces se convierte que las normas que favorecen los derechos de los pueblos indígenas llámese el marco internacional, el convenio 169 o la declaración, se convierten en estándares de salvaguardas para los pueblos indígenas. En el caso de Panama, las leyes comarcales también se convierte en nuestros estándares que deben ser respetados por cualquier programa de iniciativa global. Entonces, ¿qué estamos diciendo? Que para poder establecer salvaguardas deben ser estándares plenamente reconocidos tanto en el marco internacional como en el marco nacional. Los programas de iniciativa red, ONU red, FCPF o cualquier otra iniciativa también deben atender el respeto de derechos de pueblos indígenas. Planteamos entonces que un primer elemento dentro de la salvaguarda es el reconocimiento de la identidad de los pueblos indígenas. Ese reconocimiento implica una serie de derechos que van mucho más allá de la norma reconocida legalmente. Van a un derecho cultural, antes de cualquier norma. Entonces, este es el principal elemento que debe estar involucrado como marco de salvaguarda. El segundo elemento que debe estar involucrado dentro de este proceso es la necesidad de establecer un marco claro y definido de las consultas. Pero en el caso de Panamá, va mucho más allá. Va hasta emitir el consentimiento. No solamente vas a estar informado. No solamente basta que se consulte, sino que también es sumamente importante que se defina por qué razón estoy o no de acuerdo con un programa o con un proyecto. Y más que todo con una iniciativa global que va a afectar y viene desde un posicionamiento político, global, regional, pero que impacta en lo local y más aún todavía en lo territorial. Entonces, por ello nosotros decimos la salvaguarda base arranca con la consulta y el consentimiento. No se puede establecer un programa sin que las poblaciones indígenas puedan definir qué es lo que quiere. El segundo elemento dentro de esto ahora involucra entonces la participación. Como marco de la garantía de la salvaguarda la participación plena y efectiva cómo se da. Debe darse en todas las etapas y procesos que conlleve el programa. Y por ello es que decimos si nosotros no estamos como una garantía en las tomas de decisiones entonces la salvaguarda no tiene efectividad. ¿Por qué? Porque las decisiones de los programas se dan al más alto nivel. Se dan en los tomadores de decisiones. Y si la salvaguarda no establece como un marco de referencia que los pueblos indígenas tienen tomas de decision en cualquier programa, entonces no tenemos como se dice un vínculo de decisión que permita orientar o definir algún programa. Ejemplo está el caso que pasó en Conapy, Panamá, pueblos indígenas y el gobierno de Panamá. Voluntariamente accedimos de manera como se dice consciente y de manera inconsciente a apoyar un programa que nos prometió todo porque en su iniciativa temprana no se tenía con claridad qué es lo que iba a hacer el programa como tal. Estamos hablando del programa on the Red en su primera fase. Después de varios años nos consideramos que nuestro derecho había sido vulnerados. Que la participación no era plena ni efectiva. Que no se nos consultó ni tomábamos parte de las tomas de decisiones. Y que mucho menos teníamos la participación en la construcción misma de qué es Red para nosotros. En definitiva no había un sistema de salvaguarda propiamente que garantizara todos estos aspectos. Sobre todo porque no había una claridad en el programa como tal. Entonces, ¿qué se define? La salvaguarda es un parámetro estándar para que para los pueblos indígenas debe ser el máximo nivel. No el mínimo. Porque al parecer en el marco de las estandas de salvaguarda Red se establece como un estándar mínimo aceptable. No, debe ser el máximo aceptable. En este sentido la salvaguarda el sistema debe buscar un mecanismo entonces de asegurar que se cumpla un mecanismo de cumplimiento porque no había forma de cómo verificar si era aceptable o se estaba cumpliendo. Cuando intentamos los pueblos indígenas de programa demandar al sistema de Naciones Unidas a quién no estábamos enfrentando demandar a las 194 Naciones Miembros de Naciones Unidas un sistema de Naciones Unidas que debe salvaguardar los derechos de pueblos indígenas. Entonces, hay situaciones que ahora estamos viendo no estábamos preparado. Es necesario entonces tener las reglas claras. Y el primer elemento de todo esto es el sistema debe tener un sistema de mecanismo de cumplimiento. Pueden estar los estándares nacionales o los internacionales pero si no hay un sistema de cumplimiento que asegure ese estándar no va a avanzar. Los derechos son primero. Gracias. Who do you appeal to when you feel you are being wronged as a community or as a society and that of course is a key part of a safeguard information system in its sounds like a technical construct but in reality it needs to be clear for every person on the ground that they know who to go to to have their rights respected through this process. So thank you. So without further ado I'll move on to Tobi Gardner who will delve into some of the design elements of a good safeguard information system hopefully building on what we've heard so far and basically a question is how do you work with what you have to design an effective safeguard information system at various scales. I think it's interesting to be hearing my colleagues start off. I think that the language of safeguard and the language of information of the issues that we're talking about as Ramiro and Kamina have just eloquently told us safeguard itself suggests something reactive and information suggests something that would just be archived and not necessarily used. So I think critical to thinking about any technical issue is thinking hard about what is the most effective and realistic way in which a participatory process that can liberate and give access to the kind of information that is not a check and balance. It's not even a safeguard in the sense of avoiding risks and trying to capitalise upon co-benefits but instead it's a precondition to a process being effective being sustainable and being legitimate. So in that sense I just wanted to share a few thoughts on the differentiated kind of entry points that can already be tapped into to start, even if it's in a very preliminary and embryonic way, to start getting access to the processes and the kinds of information that are so critical to red. And the first point I just wanted to flag that came out of some work that a few of us did a couple of years ago now for the UN Red Plus process is highlighting again that a lot of the discussions around safeguard information systems are related to monitoring and assessment but there is a prior stage of planning where and what kinds of red activities are being talked about and the information regarding safeguards, social and environmental attributes and their distribution across space in the top there and the way in which our expectations of how different red plus activities are likely to affect those values and those attributes for better or worse needs to be thought about before any implementation is carried out and certainly before we worry about monitoring and that can identify both potential trade-offs conflicts it can identify perhaps issues where the process needs to be halted and reversed and go back to an earlier point of consensus and then once that's in place then a process of assessment can be thought about and again, key here as Joanna was saying at the beginning is a key aspect of being feasible is tapping into systems that already exist so most of the money and most of the interest of course behind red plus is being driven by reduced emissions reduced land-based emissions so any new data that's to be collected needs to tap in to an analogous conceptual framework and process and so understanding how forests and landscapes change and linking work that identifies how those changes impact on emissions factors and responses, measured responses of environmental and social values can be done in close partnership the second point that's the third point that's the first point again the second point is similarly to the conception of red red plus as a phased tiered implementation process we should also I think think about safeguard information systems we should think about these critical these critical measures of values of risks of key system attributes in a tiered way so even if the depth of information that we really need is not available in order to start that participatory process it's so critical to giving the system and the proposal legitimacy and to start putting these critical social and environmental issues on the table as early as possible then we need to use what we have and in many cases they may be global data sets they may be national data sets they may be secondary data sources but there's plenty of information out there my work on my own side has been more on the biodiversity end but there's plenty of information that we can already use without needing to reinterpret the wheel reinvent the wheel and the third point and perhaps my my key point here is that a lot of work on monitoring often assumes that we need to collect everything possible everywhere so if we take biodiversity as a quintessentially complex issue and collecting information on what red plus activities involve in a given place what the direct impacts of those activities are let's say a sustainable forest management action program and then also trying to collect detailed information on how species and populations are responding to that management program is unfeasible to do everywhere so that's what I'm calling here in this slide direct performance related information so information on the actual values that we care about, that we want to nourish and that we want to protect above carbon can be done in certain projects but ultimately our national understanding or our regional understanding of how well a given area is doing a given process, a given project is doing has to be based on what we see to be as good practice and whether that's manifest in a certification or whether that's manifest in a shared appreciation of what good practice is by a group of traditional people or an indigenous people it doesn't matter but it has to be based on the appreciation of what good practice is and then we can use we can use information at the project scale to iteratively calibrate what our understanding of a good practice system is it will never be perfect the concept of a sustainable sustainable system I don't think should be seen as a blueprint it should be seen as a direction of travel so if we recognize that from the outset that there are always improvements that we can make and that we will always require built into the process an iterative calibration and we can draw on detailed project scale information in order to achieve that and that can then feed in to our understanding of the system at national level of course there are measurements that can be taken proxies I work a lot in Brazil Brazil has excelled itself in developing national or biome level monitoring systems that can provide a really good interpretation of how things are going but it's not the detailed information as to the health of the forest it's not the detailed information as to the negative or positive impacts on the wellbeing of the more marginalised communities that you can get from those mapping or satellite based exercises so we need that calibration exercise as well and the final step is then that can feed into the international level so my key point is that given what we've heard already and I'm sure what many of us believe that we shouldn't see these these vital signs of ecosystem health for of wellbeing of local people as being a reactive check and balance but as preconditions to the system working well and given that as a starting point we need to find practical incredible ways to enter the process as soon as possible tiered process think about spatial patterns as well as temporal and temporal monitoring and think about the way in which we can use information on how well we manage ecosystems as well as our assessments of what that management system really means in order to get going thank you Peter I won't try and sum up but one thing that I'm going to mention now is a question that we can maybe answer later when we get back to that but linking the discussions from Amiru and Candido it's you've taken it from somewhat of a traditional focus on environmental aspects of the social environmental safeguards and they brought up a lot of issues related to the social side so I'm going to be interested to hear from you later on perhaps about how you might integrate traditional knowledge and systems into such a system but I'll leave that for later so next we have Novia who will provide us with a presentation on her experience with the development of a safeguard information system in the East Kalimantan and how that the challenges and issues that come up with the linking of that sub-national system to the national level and also if possible at the end some cost implications from the perspective of government Novia please okay thank you I would like to share our experience in developing the SIS-4 Red Blast in Indonesia which is basically the whole process that conducted during the last three years probably more since the 2011 and the first lesson is that information provision system the principle criteria and indicator for SIS-4 Red Blast and tools for assessment of safeguard implementation developers on the existing systems and this is taking into account policy and other relevant instruments and as we can see in this picture Indonesia started with identification and analysis of the existing relevant policy and instruments we have EIA or we call it AMDA which is FBIC and so on and then we come up with seven principles, 17 criteria and 32 indicators and also a set of assessment tools and today we have already web platform to provide the information and from our experience we also acknowledge the importance of multicycler processes for broader groups of Red Blast actors in Indonesia and the involvement of multicycler in the ITERN process of SIS development promotes transparency and participation and also increase the confidence of the diverse actors and this involvement of diverse actors since in the beginning of the process is very important since it creates a partnership and acceptance and ensure that the output fits within the national and sub-national context and then can be applied effectively. We also found that during the exercise of the SIS at the sub-national level we have exercise in two provinces, the first one in East Kalimantan and the second one is in East Kalimantan where there is opportunity to link the system at the national level to several provinces where forest-related information system are in place or under development and one of the examples I pick in this presentation is the case from East Kalimantan where the province and district-based forest information system are in place and we also have a collaboration with our partner GSFO Climb and we also see here opportunity to integrate or synergize the work between the system with other safeguards initiatives developed in East Kalimantan and also pre-sci principle, criteria and integrated of red-plastic cars developed by red-plastic agency of Indonesia. I think this picture is a more simple model that has been presented before by 2B this is the general model we have provincial model and also district-based forest information system in East Kalimantan this is now under development sorry okay on another perspective we found that SIS red-past also can be used to bridge safeguards interest at the international level with local or national level by internalizing guidance in existing systems and mechanism in Indonesia and also we can use SIS as an externalization in that way we can use the existing process in Indonesia to support the negotiation and implementation at international level so we can also use externalization and also externalization on SIS red-plus so with regard to the involvement of global institution and donors because there are some donors involved in the SIS development those that have or are currently developing their own safeguards framework would benefit from aligning SIS for example here a chart a pie chart that shows initial investment for national SIS red-plus development and some national try-in to provinces in Indonesia since 2011 to 2014 and this is very rough approximate calculation because I try to calculate in U.S. donors the building and then also from the stakeholders communication, stakeholder consultation expertise consultant hiring and also web development this is just to show the value of contribution of our partner donors and there are some upcoming challenges in front of us the one is that keeping the system operational will be very challenging since we have to managing we have to meet the start-up and web platform in a sustainable way and this will demand for patient dedication and sufficient resources including human resource so the need for support is there we found from our exercise in East Kalimantan and also in Jambi that we need to increase the capacity of human resources at the Sharpen national level and also the one that is very important is the commitment of responsible institutions so in the process of developing SIS we also design the structural design structure and organizational and institutional structure of the SIS and we found that the commitment of assigned our responsible institutions is very important otherwise we cannot move forward with the SIS and the third one is that there will be more work to do in integrating results and SIS development we have SES we have PreSci we have maybe some other initiatives related to SIS and the integration the synergy and interrogation of all of these parallel processes will be very challenging and then supports are needed and I would like to close this presentation with a question because this is our question will the initial investment set in our SIS development be sufficiently rewarded probably by performing peace payment as initially I know have this progress we have also some other safeguards initiative on progress now like Ibu Joana has explained before so will this all investment in SIS development Indonesia be sufficiently rewarded so I think this thank you thank you very much Novia that was an excellent presentation two remarks one of the things I have been involved in this red plus UNFCCC process since the beginning and it takes stamina patience and some bit of craziness but not necessarily seeing emissions reductions happening that quickly certainly was a challenge for the psyche to stay involved but there was progress along the way and different types of progress and I have to say in Indonesia their recognition through the process of red plus of indigenous peoples at the national level the government's recognition and implementing a law recognizing them was just an amazing thing to see happen excuse me and having maybe of course there was a social movement underneath that but perhaps red and the negotiations and this catalyzed that and so it was very rewarding to see that one other thing before I move on to Mika it was very interesting and that was that international institutions or governments who are involved in bilateral programming should design their safeguards based on your experiences the country's experiences with implementing them and that is I think something to remark upon in our discussion because it is definitely not the way that is in my experience been happening so that's we'll see if that's food for thought and so I'll move on to Mika and he's going to be building on if I believe the issue is related to finance and safeguard information systems and looking forward about with how is the Green Climate Fund perhaps going to address safeguard information systems their existence and their quality or other aspects so Mika please can you hear me yes okay thank you Peter thank you Amy thanks to the C4 good afternoon everyone indeed I will try to answer to Novia's question which resonates with the question put forward yesterday by Pak Eru do we want a red Ferrari or do we want a red Tata Nano we call it so what type of red do we want and how much qualitative elements we want red plus and can we afford these qualitative elements if we want that who's going to pay and how much so I like to stress first that these are just personal views it's not stating any official position of anyone or anything so before I talk about how we're going to pay and who's going to pay I like to be very clear on the other W questions and the first one is what we are talking about the seven Cancun safeguards it's just the tip of the iceberg it's clear understood that not all information that is collected at national level can and will be used at the international level so what I'm talking here in this presentation is the bit of information that make it to the international level and that will inform a decision to pay or not to pay from red plus donor country that's different from the the myriad of principal criteria and indicators that might be developed at the international level it's also different from the due diligence that would have to may or may not apply from financing institutions such as public or private banks what I'm talking here is really what is these systems that we need at the end of the chain to build up the summary of information that is one of the mandatory elements on which we base decision to pay or not pay and I must say we don't have a lot of experience in that at the moment as far as I'm aware there is only one summary of information that has been put online a draft Brazilian summary of information on safeguards and it looks like that well not really looks like that but that's how it looks if you make it a word cloud and I was looking at the 40 pages document and trying to make sense of it and does it answer to my question and I must say I don't know for two reasons first, I don't speak Portuguese and my wife does but I'd rather not understand when she talks with her mother it's not easy to tell at the moment whether this summary is enough for me so maybe it would be good at a later stage to translate it in French, Spanish and English because the learning value is huge of course and then more importantly it doesn't matter if I like it or not what matters to me really is if the Brazilian society all the relevant stakeholders around like it whether they're comfortable with the information that is provided and that's a little harder to assess but speaking of just my own expectation for what I would find in the summary of information we could break down the seven safeguards I mean it's a negotiation text it's open for interpretation by anyone and my guess is as good as yours but what I would be looking at is whether the Red Plus framework in the country driven by stakeholders in the country by the governments whether I'm confident that it will prevent conflicts and there can be many conflicts there can be of course the worst conflicts which are human conflicts sometimes casualties that's the worst one but there are also economic conflicts conflicts of interest between different groups in the country or outside the country there could be conflicts between different levels of law customary laws, national laws, international regulations and I would like to have some trust that these conflicts have been prevented as far as possible that talks to information such as governance law and institutions planning communication grievance and redress mechanisms this type of information I trust will be useful no matter what I think maybe they are not completely developed but they will need to be developed over time so I think this information although maybe it doesn't exist in the shape and flavor that we would like to see already exists somewhere then there is another block of concern is preserving and enhancing non-carbon benefits adaptation resilience health and development all these things here again I guess this information exists it can certainly be developed and it can certainly be adapted to the needs of red plus SIS but I guess it is somewhere and then the last one and maybe the most complicated one in my view as a scientist is avoiding that the success we achieve in red plus mitigation is lost over time or is just makeshift that it just give a false impression of good mitigation so I think it will happen just later or because they will be displaced to the next country or to the next region and that is a bit more tricky I'm not sure that the information exists or if it exists it's very partial so how do we get nationally relevant information about that to me that remains a challenge sorry then another question is when when do we get this information that the national the SIS is ready and I don't know here again it's something we will learn in light of experience but this what is on screen at the moment is the text from the UNFCCC decision regarding national forest monitoring systems and to me it fits quite well to what I would expect from the SIS that it builds upon existing systems as appropriate and that it enables the assessment of natural forest as defined by the party that it is flexible and that it allows for improvement that it reflects as appropriate the phase approach to REDPLUS that you will start with something and it will grow along the development of implementation in the country and that it may provide information to the SIS or the other way around the national forest monitoring system I think there is room for connections and integration I believe it's so much that I and other GRC colleagues committed a paper a few years ago here we go on how countries at early stages or with low capacity in REDPLUS could start developing their framework of definitions for forest and for different activities and integrates and I still believe that if you follow this logic that you will prioritize your REDPLUS activities in a way that is beneficial to natural forest and to biodiversity you will already have made a long way towards a meaningful implementation of REDPLUS towards healthy ecosystems and resilient ecosystems I mean ecosystems which are able to keep delivering our provisioning services to people and that are able to withstand climate extremes in the future so that's key and probably there are many ways to do that but I think that the intersect between national forest monitoring system and SIS is something still to explore now we come to really the core of the presentation it's the second to last slide I don't know how we're going to finance SIS so what I did is I spent my afternoon yesterday talking to everyone I knew in the rooms and asking them how do you think we should or we could finance SIS and I got a lot of very interesting answers the first one is it's not a very good one it's it varies depending on the country of course but it can be very different what it will require to build a good SIS in in Brazil might probably be very different from what it would require in one of the least developed countries there is really there is no one fixed cost for the Rolls Royce or the Ferrari of SIS first it's very variable depending on what you have and we're not sure exactly yet what is the Rolls Royce for SIS I'm speaking too much about cars I'm sorry I don't have cars so now only very few people were able and willing to give me a figure but some did and they told me it will be up to one million dollars to the cost that we need for the upfront design and implementation of SIS just the early stages of that but then of course you will need to add to that for each update you will need to add more information you will need to review and improve and you will add each time 10 to 20% of that so maybe 100 or 2000 dollars every 2 or 4 years when you report so it's not a minor cost and it's recognized and other from the private sector told me the price is irrelevant because if you don't do the safeguards you don't do red and that's easy as that it's significant it's true but it's not one on which you can spare so otherwise it will have no value on the market another consideration is that it may cost more time than money it may cost training people and consulting and organizing and it's not it's just it's just a room and a few computers I mean it's not that you would build huge data warehouse Google type of thing and super web platform the really difficult part of it is to get the right people in the right room and provide the information in advance and make sure that they have the time to read it process it and come back and be productive of whatever constituency so that process in itself takes a lot of energy and time another consideration is that it's part of the good policy management or program management anyway a lot of the information that are required in the safeguards they would be required for any policy or any project to work that's part of what you have to do and then the last point which I will conclude is that a fraction the cost of the SIS is high it's understood but it's still lower than what it takes to have a good MRV and the benefits of developing a very good safeguard information systems are at least comparable to the benefits of a good MRV system and I will prove that with some figures in the last slide here we are so that's the last slide it's a heavy one because I was limited to a few slides four actually and I made seven so I felt I had to need to compress the last one but there are two parts the left part is about how we are going to pay for emission elections under the climate fund that's public information you can go online you can see the methodical framework of the current fund is that the country will produce a certain amount of emission reductions but the carbon fund will not pay for all of these there will be discounts because we anticipate that there will be some risk and some precautions need to be taken in relation with those risks and I do believe that the information provided by the safeguard information systems will inform us on how sustainable the country approach is and it has a very strong influence on how much carbon could be sold in the end basically between 45 and 90% of the carbon that is generated and transferred to the carbon fund will be sold so it's a factor too basically if you do the very very basic MRV and very little on the sustainability aspects you will get twice less than if you did the perfect risk-proof version of Red Plus so I think it's a very very strong incentive on top of that the price the total price we have not set a figure yet but my own sense is that the more confidence we build in the Red Plus products the higher the attractivity attractivity of Red Plus will become compared to other mitigation options and the more demand there will be and therefore the higher the price so not only it changes the volume but it also changes the price and now talking of the total amount of finance the last graph I borrowed from a recent meeting at the World Bank also speaking about the coordination of finance for Red Plus and so it shows you the amount of finance that will go in Red Plus over time and you see that there will be a long-term investment and probably the lower one at the bottom that's the type of money that we will need to build the early stages of the of the of the SIS and then on top of that you will get more money from Red Phase 2 and Red Phase 3 which is at the top but the bulk will be a shift between and sustainable investments and sustainable investments that's really where the value of Red Plus is to me that we can catalyze with the information we get from Red Plus and from the SIS and from the national forest management systems that we can catalyze smarter investments from the public and private sector that's really the challenge in Red Plus and that's where the value of the SIS is and in the last session you could say we decided to put a tax on unsustainable practices that would be one way of hurting the red part of the graph or you could say we are going to promote the least controversial sourcing area and actually it used to be kind of a dream the SIS is developing a landscape production standard that also goes in that direction and they will feed from information from Red Plus to tell to Unilever and all these companies which are investing in land use activities in the tropics that's safe, this region or this country is safer if you invest there you can increase agricultural productivity without increasing deforestation and degradation that's much bigger than Red Plus Red Plus is the icing on the cake but the cake can be very, very big and so the financial impacts of a good SIS I think are worth the cost to answer your question I think they are and they must be worth the cost and we will do our best for that thank you very much thank you very much Mika and as I said an innovative thinker and there are a couple of things in there I'll just comment on while I let the people prepare their question for other panelists and we'll have a couple of minutes to respond but just to take a couple of things from what Mika was presenting first thank you, you did answer the question taking an innovative survey approach to the task and I also thank you for bringing us into the context of the landscape that we're in right now in the global landscapes form and acknowledging that there are non-mitigation benefits to implementing good safeguards monitoring reporting and reporting them and making sure they're effective that comes to your story about what was it it's not a matter in terms of the summary of information on how safeguards are respected and addressed or addressed and respected it's whether the people of the country agree and this actually reminds me of in forestry school in New Brunswick in Canada when we were out in the field and we were being asked by the professor how far, how close to the stream should we allow the logging and the students are looking at the topography of the hill well maybe at the top of the hill maybe about 50 meters from the top of the hill away and then somebody I think it was probably the professor because it was first year university students and we weren't very smart he said well why don't you ask the stream how far the logging should be to determine what the impact will be so similar to your question why not ask the people whether the safeguard information system and the application of them is effective so thank you for that and now I'm going to hand it back to the panelists this is a way of making my job easier and reflecting on the other panelists presentations the comments what is your one question for one or more of them or comment if you have to reflect on it so I'll start in order of presentation Joanna please thank you very much I had more than one if there's time we can come back so I thought Toby it was interesting you had this model of how you would need and could collect and probably provide more detailed information at a project level than might be needed or it would be appropriate at a national level and you were thinking about in terms of biodiversity information but I would say that seems to resonate also with social information and somebody in an earlier panel I wrote it down because I thought it sounded so good if you don't measure you can't manage so that the management unit whether it's project scale or jurisdictional sub-national is going to need some management information to know how its management is meeting its objectives and how it needs to adapt that it sort of comes a bit too meekest thing about how much of these things cost because part of the cost is actually part of the cost of management it's not just an extra additional cost that we have to do for those external UNFCC summaries and then you would expect perhaps more detail at the local or the sub-national level for Novia then you might need for the SIS coming up and stakeholders at the very local level might need a different kind of and more detailed information than is needed at the top level so I don't know if it's a question that's more like a comment but just to say it would be relevant for social information as well as bitoist information Thank you Joanna Toby would you like to start? Yes, just simply, yeah I mean I think it's a pragmatic thing we can't collect detailed direct performance information at every single place but we do need them to calibrate our understanding of what good practice is by anybody so we need some intelligent approach that balances collecting those detailed data to ensure that what we conceive to be good practice really is and do that iteratively I mean my concern is that the vast majority of monitoring data whether social, environmental, that are collected are never used because we've spent far much more time thinking about how and not enough time thinking about why so I think the why is the sideline that we need to give a lot more attention to that Thank you Ramiro question please Two things that I was talking about Michael and that are interesting to analyze one in the financial issue is more resources or more time what we need and I share with him how much time is spent because if we're going to see the issue of safeguarding with indigenous peoples we need to do a whole process of cultural mediation the whole issue of taking it to the languages the whole issue of understanding let's say there we're going to have much more time to do it and before that I was also talking about the issue of conflicts how are you going to create a conflict between the application of the norm of indigenous peoples of their own systems and how are you going to apply the issue of national legislation there is going to be a conflict let's say at the time of wanting to talk about rights of indigenous peoples on the issue of safeguarding Thank you Sorry We missed the first part of the translation but I assume your question was directed at Candido No Mika Mika please I didn't understand it as a question more as an agreement on the importance of time Sorry could you say that again I said I didn't understand it as a question more as an agreement on the importance of giving time to the process Perfect Sorry if you had anything to add to that or if anybody else would like to add to that That is excellent On this issue of preventing conflict it's a question for all the panelists and for the audience there are a good number of people you need to talk to to make sure that you have prevented conflict It's a mystery to me how the self-selection process can work so that you have the right people to assess that the key conflicts within a society have been detected and addressed from my very theoretical background it remains very complicated to see so any insights on that will be most welcome Thank you I think that will be an issue for further discussion with the rest of the panel as we move along Toby please I'm going to be a bit cheeky and take the question that you were going to ask me at the beginning which is how to integrate traditional knowledge into an indigenous knowledge into these processes where people who have far more legitimacy to answer it which would be Ramiro and Candido I think that recognition of the importance of traditional and local knowledge is gaining ground and rightly so but I think we've enormously underestimated how incredibly challenging this is the IPBS process has dedicated a lot of attention to discussing it but they're having huge difficulty in actually doing it in hearing from the experiences of my panel colleagues of what engagement they have already had in trying to to compile together information from very different mental models from very different value systems Thank you Toby perhaps Candido if the translation is following well and I'd like to thank the translators and I'm sorry I will try and speak more slowly but do you are able to provide some experience in how as you said, traditional knowledge and systems have been integrated or are being integrated in the development of systems in either Panama or other countries you're familiar with well we're following different models that are being given by indigenous peoples in different parts but I would like to refer to the Panama case when we talk about how knowledge is applied one of the elements that we apply in Panama is, for example, a methodology of the Valuvala which is a indigenous word but which applies to all indigenous peoples according to their particularity and characteristics of each peoples some more developed than others to give you an example practical knowledge in Panama a program was developed of adaptation and climate change for some millions of dollars in the end what was being built was a mechanism to build an early alert system one of the activities was prepared experts were hired climate experts engineers, hydrologists but they never asked themselves why the elders were there after two years came the great storm in 2010 and before the floods and before the communities were arrested the elders already knew that after 10 days of rain the first community was going to flood after 5 more days of rain 4 more communities were going to be arrested and they warned him with a month of anticipation because the current was going down slowly no one did 4 communities were arrested by the water what does that show? when we asked the elders if they knew, they said but if they asked me first what they invested 2 million I wouldn't have agreed there is a traditional knowledge that people don't ask so that kind of knowledge is good how to develop it how to link this to a safety system we have the same network case how to make things work before it happens opportunity is what must be of a safety system a system of information that must be agile before it happens and not a system of mitigation after or reactions after let's take into account in Panama's case something that came up that we had and here we have to recognize the vision that had one of the important people in the program of a network we want to create a mechanism of complaints as a way of reacting but we say it's fine as a way as a way of saving but a way of saving that must have how to do what you buy and not just accumulate complaints or reactions according to the needs but reactions opportunity the traditional knowledge has the same concept in all indigenous peoples try to have that knowledge and prevent it the saving system must be that and not wait for it to happen to resolve conflicts it must be preventive that's how the saving system should work thank you very much Candido I think just in interest of time we'll move on to the next question we've got I'm sorry thank you so much for listening to the explanations and questions I wasn't looking in my watch not a very good moderator and too used to the United Nations going over time so thank you everyone on the panel it's been a great discourse and I apologize to the audience I failed in the objective of allowing you time to ask questions but I think we did get a broad range of views and experience and I'd like to thank C4 for the event and for arranging this panel thank you very much everyone enjoy the rest of your day


that you're thinking. Thank you very much. First ball, can you all see me? Yes, can you all see me? Yes good. So cloud computing wire matters, quick introduction first, my name is Simon Wardley I work on cloud computing strategy at canonical and canonical for those of you who don't know is the company that sponsors and supports the good to. Ym bleddoch cyngorau. I'm a sciences by training which means I like graphs. Now I've crossed a quick graph. This is a graph at the level of audience pain that you against the number of slides given in a 20-minute presentation. I reckon there's a safe limit of around about 10 slides.  I know what you're thinking, but don't worry if you do get a bit lost, this is a talk on cloud computing being lost as normal. So what is cloud computing? Well on the way here I asked the taxi driver in London and he said it's like computers on the internet in it. That's actually very very good. So I asked the technology strategist and he said it's the future of technology and a disruptive shift of the computing stack to online services. Well that's just the posh way of saying it's like computers on the internet in it. So I asked the businessman and he said it's what the technology strategist said it was but it's also about the provision of computing resources like electricity and getting rid of expensive costs like sys admins. So I asked the sys admin and he said it's like software as a service or SaaS and infrastructure provision and platform as a service that's pass and utility computing being provided on public cloud which is different from private cloud which aren't cloud computing unless of course you're talking about hybrid cloud and it's height and locking did I mention infrastructure. So I often knew I found 67 definitions of cloud computing. Now once this doesn't help you if what you're trying to do is understand a field it does help me because I'm trying to pad out a presentation. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to look at those 67 definitions. Number one. On demand self service internet infrastructure when you pay as you go use what you need managed by a browser application API. The cloud computing market is broken up into six including cloud application, cloud platform, cloud infrastructure, brackets, c-cloud pyramid. So what's a cloud pyramid? Well it turns out it's another eight definitions and an entire argument over what the cloud is a triangle. And if so which way does it point? Lost yet you're already definition number two. Now I'm not really going to go through 67 definitions with you now so don't worry. But having done so I can tell you that there is no definition for cloud computing unless of course you're talking to a technology strategist in which case they'll normally define cloud computing as being their pride. So I looked around for analogy. Why are we having such a problem with definition? I found an analogy and that analogy is this. What is industrial revolution? Well I asked my taxi driver and he said it's like mechanised horses in it. Again very good. I looked on Google and I found 43 definitions again. So let's have a look at them. Number one. Broad socio-economic changes starting in the 18th century. Bad. Number two. Rapid development of industry in the early 19th century. Okay we can't even agree on which century the industrial revolution was in. Once you've gone through the definitions you find that there's no absolute definition. And this is 200 years later. Now at this rate by the time we understand what cloud computing is kittens will be online. Now the reason why there is such a problem with definition is cloud computing is simply not a thing. It's a transition. And this is at the heart of the problem so I want to go and have a look at the fundamentals of this using the example of the industrial revolution. So the industrial revolution was a time when we went from bespoke cottage industry to one of mass production. And that required a number of different factors. For example you needed the concept of mass production. You needed suitability of activities for mass production. You needed the technology to achieve this. And most of all you needed a change of attitude in society to accept these models. Now this is what caused the industrial revolution. And you can't define industrial revolution in terms of a product or in terms of a technology. Now the same is true with cloud computing. Because it's not just a technology it's actually a transition and transformation of that industry. And it's caused by multiple different factors. So this is where I'm going to start. And we're going to start with the concept first of all. Well the concept behind cloud computing is actually fairly old. Started back in 1968 with John McCarthy who predicted that in the future computing resources would be provided just like electricity. And this term was called utility computing. Now it's a great idea but where did it come from? To understand that you have to go back further and look at the electricity industry. So the electricity industry started off back in 1821 with the innovation of electricity production. And it was brand, it was hops, it was what we would call an innovation. And then over the years the number of spoke systems were created such as the hippo white pixie. And then we started to have products being produced. And so we got to about the 1890s when Edison of Western House created the first utility grids. Electricity had become much more of a commodity. It had become suitable for service provision. Then we had Harvey Hubbell created the plug. And then by the 1930s we had things like the national grid. So electricity provision had transformed from an innovation to something which was a client service. It had become ubiquitous. It had lost its spark. Now this transformation is known as commoditisation. And a similar pattern has been occurring in IT. So for example if we look at infrastructure we can go back to the original innovation of computing resources back in 1941 which was the Z3. You had bespoke systems such as the Leo computer in 1946. And then you had the first products, the IBM 650, around about 1954. So it was fairly logical the next shift for computing would be from products to services. And this is literally what John McCarthy predicted back in 1968. He made the conceptual leap to say that in the future what happens to the electricity industry was going to happen to the computer industry. So this is the basic concept behind cloud computing. The question however was always when was this going to happen? When would IT activities make that shift be suitable for that change from a product to a service world? Is there some way we can actually plot this? But actually we can. I'm going to plot a graph because I like graphs. This is a graph of ubiquity from something rare, like a good film with Tom Cruise in, to something common like a film with Tom Cruise in. And against this I'm going to plot an axis of ubiquity from something, no, well something which I, sorry, axis of certainty from something which I'm not sure about whether I'm going to finish this presentation on time to something which I am sure about which is how much time I've got. So I'm going to add some real data. This is TV's famous PCRs across against these axes. And what this suggests is that there's an escurred relationship between the ubiquity and the certainty of an activity. There is a pathway perhaps something which is rare and poorly understood and innovation becomes something which is much more common and well-defined or of a commodity. And ultimately something which is potentially provided through a utility-like service. So we can follow this. If we look at something like CRM, you have the innovation of CRM before we even called it CRM, which were the early list of the 1980s, to database marketing systems of the mid-80s, to the first C9 products in the 1990s, right up to the modern day where you have utility-like services of south spots. So CRM has gone from an innovation to much more of a service. Now all business activities are somewhere on that code and all of them are actually moving in that direction. And why is that?  It's warfare. And as soon as one company gains some sort of technological advantage, some new big gun, like an e-commerce site, then every other company will follow suit. This creates a constant pressure towards commoditisation. So what's happening at IT is a whole bunch of activities which were at one point innovations, but more recently have been provided as products, have become so widespread and so well-defined that they've moved up that curve and become suitable for service provision through volume operations. Now this doesn't mean everything in IT is on that path. IT contains a range of activities all in different areas of that curve. We're still innovating in the area of IT. However, some activities have become so widespread and so well-defined that they are now suitable for service provision. But concept and suitability is not enough. You also need the technology to achieve this. And the technology, while there's a couple of core pieces of technology here, one of them is virtualisation, but that's been around since puppet wrote the book in 1964. So from the point of view of virtualisation we have the technology, yes, it has been matured, but we can just take it as written while the technology to do this. But concept, suitability, technology is still not enough. You also need a change in attitude. And the change in attitude has been echoed. Business has been changing its view of IT ever since people like Nick Carr have written books which have simply pointed out that common and ubiquitous aspects of IT don't actually bring much competitive advantage. In fact, the strategic value of something diminishes the further it goes out that curve and the more widespread and commonly defined it is, the more of a cost of doing business it is. So these four factors are actually in play today. This transition from a product to a service world has been going on for some time. We've seen earlier attempts, like the ASP, attempts to take activities to a service world, but not all four factors are in play at the time. They are in play now, and that's why there's this big push, basically, from a product to a service world. Now this transformation is obviously highly disruptive if you happen to be a company whose entire business depends upon producing products where those products have become well-defined ubiquitous and suitable for service provision. So why does it matter? Well, there's another aspect to this curve, which is this. If you treat an activity as though it's an innovation, whereas in fact the rest of the market treats it as a commodity because it's well-defined as ubiquitous, then the only thing that you're going to create for yourself is a competitive gap between yourself and the rest of the market. The rest of the market is going to get benefits, and though some of those benefits are on a common scale, some of them are paper use, some of them are faster speed through componentisation, some of them are about being able to focus on poor activities, but overall those will create a disadvantage between you and the rest of the market, and that's why there is a constant pressure on you to keep up. To go back to my cash analogy, if we take the fighting cash, there's no pointing up to the battle with a snazzy rifle if everybody else has bought tags. All organisations need to continuously evolve. You don't have a choice in this. So I'm going to quickly recap because I've covered a lot of ground there. We've looked at what is cloud computing, and I've looked at the answers from the sublime to the absolutely ridiculous. Cloud computing is not, contrary to popular perception, a new concept. It describes a highly disruptive transition of IT from a product to a service world, and we really don't have a great deal of choice about whether we're going to adopt it or not. I'm going back to the example of the Industrial Revolution or what I like to call Mrs Muggin's Inc. I mean we can know more avoid cloud computing than Mrs Muggin's could avoid the Industrial Revolution. So that's the theory. What about the practice? Well, as I said, activities which are on ubiquitous world fire are becoming suitable for service provision, and that's not just one particular aspect of IT. Those activities can occur anywhere in the computing stack. This, unfortunately, has given rise to what we generally call the different asses of cloud computing. So, for example, you have software as a service, or SaaS, where you have providers like Salesforce, you have SaaS or platform as a service, providers like Windows Azure, and you have IaaS, which is infrastructure as a service provider, like Amazon. I'm not a bit fan of these terms, because you may as well just call it software as a product, platforms as a product, infrastructure as a product in the old world, so SaaS, SaaS and IaaS. It's simply all of this is doing, it's reflecting the fact that these activities have shifted from a product to a service one. But it has one important distinction. It creates a boundary, a division of responsibility between you and a provider. So, for example, let's pretend that you aren't using a company like Salesforce. Well, you're obviously concerned about your data, whereas Salesforce is concerned about providing the application, and all the things underneath that, so the framework is built in the operating system, the machinery in London. Anyone of these layers, whether it's software, whether it's platform, whether it's infrastructure, is all about some components being on your side that you're concerned about, and some components being on the provider side, and what they're concerned about. Of course, but unfortunately, this is actually a delusion. The reason why it's a delusion is because your data actually doesn't exist outside of this. It actually exists on their system. And that actually creates a risk. So, the types of risks it creates, and there are two basic forms, there are transitional risks related to the formation of this new industry, and that's things like management, trust where you trust the vendors, where there's transparency in their operations and the security of supply. But it also creates the normal outsourcing risks of suitability of the activity, pricing competition, locking and second sourcing. Now, second sourcing isn't important, so I'm just going to pick on this one for a moment. If we take the example that you're using a software as a service provider, so they are concerned with the underlying systems and your data exist on that system, if something goes wrong and it could be a disaster, it could be it was bought out by another company and then closed down, then you've got to somehow get your data out of that system. But the thing is, you get your data out of the system and that's pretty useless because all you've got is data. So your choices are to rebuild everything they've done in order to run it, or you need to find another provider. So you shift your data over to another provider, but of course your data's only going to work in another provider if they're pretty much running exactly the same systems as was originally in the first provider. In order to get second sourcing, you actually need these things. You need portability of data code, whatever happens to be in that provider. You need a choice in destinations. You need interoperability or standard outputs between the providers and you need easy switching. Without these, you do not have second sourcing. But we've actually been here before. The whole thing about standard outputs, easy switching, all goes back to Paul Brown's work on security supply back in the 1960s. Now for those of you who don't know, Paul Brown's work led to an awful lot of different network protocols. What we ended up with many years ago was a mass of different protocols, IPX, SPX, Banym Vines, Able Tool, SNA, DECnet, until we got consolidation in the industry around one particular protocol, TCPIP, principally because it was open, and also because it was supported by our stream open source systems. So if we just take the infrastructure layer of the computing stack, where we are today is something like this, we have a mass of different protocols and different APIs, none of which have become the de facto standard. We are in that sort of IPX, SPX, versus TCPIP, versus DECnet stage. Now of these, one, and that's the Amazon EC2 API, is the most dominant. So, as in Ubuntu, what we've actually done is we've said, well, rather than create our own API, which seems to be the flavour of the month at the moment, everybody is creating either an API or an API of APIs, we would actually adopt someone else's API. So we found an open source system called Eucalyptus which actually matches the Amazon EC2 API. So we introduced this last April into the Ubuntu distribution. And principally, this enables all the Ubuntu users in the world to build their own private clouds which match the Amazon EC2 API and also to run Ubuntu on Amazon EC2. So you have much easier switching between the two environments. Now, this is a first step. What we're actually trying to do is create a competitive marketplace of different providers, just like you have within the electricity industry. But in order to do that, we need to get standardisation, we need to get standardisation around APIs. And the reality is that's only going to happen if those standards are not specifications but actually defined by running code or open source records models. So to quickly recap, fact computing, underneath all the noise, it really just describes a disruptive shift of IT activities from a product to a service world. And it's governed by a number of different factors, the concept suitability technology and attitude. Now, we can't really avoid this change. I know people talk about while we may not adopt it, but you can no more avoid it than people could avoid the industrial revolution. There are obviously risks. Some are transitional, will be sold. Some are all to do without sourcing and things like locking and second sourcing options. But there are solutions to those risks and we've also been here before. So the real question is whether we're going to learn the lessons of history or whether we're just going to actually repeat them. And unfortunately, at this moment in time, in the cloud space, repeating the same lessons of the past seems to be the way we are going. So thank you. Can I, just before a sparrow? Did you all follow that, or did I lose it? A horrified face, though. Did I lose you? We...


Hi everyone, thanks for joining us to hear more about MTSS Intensive Support. I'm Steph Lundgren from ESU 8's PD department. And I'm Tony Ehrhardt, the MTSS and peak coordinator at the ESU 8. Welcome. Today we're going to talk about the basics of MTSS. Then we'll go into intensive supports and what it looks like at tier three. We'll talk about diagnostic screeners and how they can inform your intensive supports and also about the support you can receive from us at ESU 8. So MTSS, Nebraska defines it as an educational framework for continuous improvement, problem solving and decision making. It promotes an integrated system connecting general and special education along with all teaching and learning components into a high quality standards-based instruction and intervention framework that can be adapted to meet students' academic, social, emotional and behavior needs from preschool through graduation. And we just really want to emphasize that it truly is that framework or a structure that you're using for decision making regarding your students' needs. And when we talk about MTSS, lots of times we use this pyramid model. So tier one is at the bottom. It's core supports. It's the things you do for all students and that should meet the needs of 80 to 90 percent of your kids at least. So you have really strong instruction within your classrooms that meet those needs. At tier two, you might have some 10 to 15 percent of your students who need a layering of additional supports on and you might have interventions for those students. In tier three are intensive supports for about one to five percent of your students and that's what we're going to talk about today. When we talk about all these supports in the core, we're talking about academic and behavioral needs for your students and when we address both of those together, we tend to get the best results. And as we work through this process, we're also addressing all of the tenants of A-Quest. And also just a note that a lot of MTSS is really focusing on what we do as teachers. Not just the outcome of the kids with the instruction given, but how can we strengthen our strategies and our implementation of programs within our school? All right. Intensive support. Intensive support is in tier three. So this is for a few students and usually about one to five percent of students fall into this category. If your district is seeing a bigger number than this, this is where you'd want to look at your core and see if you can strengthen it. This is also targeted instruction based on what the students need and if your student is receiving this intensive support, they're also receiving that tier two additional support and then they need this support layered on because it's in addition to that support. So this is extra intensive support and in a few slides we'll give you some ideas of what that intensive support may look like. So how do you determine intensive support? This intensive support is based on the school's universal screener in that subject area and that'll predict the area or the skill that that student needs. There are diagnostic screeners which can be administered also and we'll go over those two. Your data and decision rules, you should use those to make your decisions on what those students need. So what interventions should those students need and when should they be put into those? In all areas, reading, math, behavior, social, emotional, they can receive help from those areas. They can go in and out of the tiers also. Make sure you really look at that data and if a student doesn't need to be put in intervention, they're put into the core and they should always be receiving that support also. This is in addition to the core. If students aren't making gains from tier two, this is when you do add in that intensive support. So you're giving them another layer of support. We always want to use research-based interventions for intensive support. They are targeted and specific, often provided in smaller groups. We want to produce student responses and the explicit instruction is very important. Here are some links for reviewing your interventions materials and delivery practices. So here are the ones that we would refer you to to look at these first. And then on this next slide here are some additional ones that you can look at. And we'll have the link to this presentation in the description of the of this webinar. So you can access the all these links that are there or you could just google them too but they're easy and linked for you. So you know when we talk about intensifying the support some strategies that you might use are really looking at your group size. So especially for tier three students you want to keep that group small maybe two to four. You know there's been some research to show one-on-one isn't always the best situation. So you know groups of two to four can work really well. Time per week might be increased. So in tier two your kids may have been meeting for 15 minutes a day for their intervention and maybe for tier three you're going to decide it's going to be 30 minutes per day five days a week and it just does not get interrupted because it's that important. You might increase progress monitoring make sure these kids would be definitely progress monitored each week and we're going to talk about that in a moment. The teacher conducting the intervention is definitely going to be trained in that intervention. You need to make sure and that's a good practice for any intervention that the teachers are trained in it. And when we think about you know our tier three kids and even tier two kids our neediest students are with the most qualified teachers and so think about on your staff do you have somebody with a reading specialist degree if we're talking about a reading goal or something like that then you need those neediest kids with them for intervention. And maybe classroom teachers are working with some of your middle students and then maybe pairs are working with your higher students on some extension activities so make sure your most qualified teachers are with those neediest kids. And then also we have quick paced lessons not so fast that kids don't get it but you need to have that mastery component in there but we need to have that perky pace that Anita Archer talks about and keep moving and keep them thinking on their toes. Also on specialized programming that specializes in only a few key skills at a time so really we're using that diagnostic to inform what we're doing with our intervention and focusing in on which dynamic indicator of that early literacy that they may be working on or which exact area of math that they need to work on or behavior and on and on. We have a variety of practice opportunities so we know that it's not just the direct instruction but we need to practice practice practice. We might also use things like modeling and scaffolding. Anita Archer talks about I do it we do it you do it and not just that quickly but I do it we do it we do it we do it we do it then you do it so scaffolding for your kids that way. Systematic and explicit instruction for students on these skills is very important. We have positive corrective feedback encouragement and self-monitoring activities and you know that error correction is super important in in these four kids in tier three and then active instruction with them. Okay so when we want to monitor that intensive support we think about progress monitoring and in our area most students or most schools use a cadence to do that and this could be weekly or bi-weekly again once we get to tier three it's usually pretty much a weekly practice that we're going to progress monitor our students and think are these interventions that we're using working. So again they provide that ongoing feedback and you really hear the kids read you hear that the mistakes that they're making and can analyze those you determine students progress toward those important meaningful goals so you're always looking at that aim line are we following the aim line are we staying too far behind are we going above the aim line and we can make timely decisions about changes to instruction so if they aren't following their aim line we might decide hey we need to intensify this intervention a little bit more we need more time we need to tighten the fidelity to the program so our progress monitoring really does tell us a lot as we go through but also we don't make changes too fast right so even you know we have to give a program a little bit of time to start working and to start seeing those effects go up. All right and then how do you evaluate the intensive support so this would be at your team meetings you're going to look at that data you're going to look at that progress monitoring data check the attendance engagement engagement and accuracy first so I think it's important to check those things oftentimes we skip to changing the time person or even intervention but just like Steph said we need to really look and see if that intervention is working and look at the attendance engagement and accuracy of that student first before we change it and then you would look and see if you need to change the time person or intervention lastly and three diagnostic screeners so for diagnostic screeners these provide your in-depth information about the student skills and instructional need this is not used with all students so it's only when more information or data is needed. Diagnostic screeners would be great to use with the tier three students because oftentimes we need more information with those tier three students and oftentimes they do struggle in more than one area so we want to pinpoint out what it is they're struggling with so we can really get the correct intervention to work on the skills that he or she needs to be improved and your ESU 8 psychologists can help administer these diagnostic screeners or they can help steer you in the right direction on which one to give here are some types of diagnostic screeners for reading we have the Acadian's Reading Dibbles D, the past test by Dr. David Copacic, the corophonic survey and then there's a really great reading diagnostic also these are just examples of reading ones we have if you guys need any more help on any other area you can ask your ESU 8 school psychologists and what do we do with these I kind of touched upon this before but you use this assessment to inform instruction and intervention and make your instruction more focused and powerful so you're going to use this screener to drive your instruction what do those students need help in and for ESU 8 support um uh Tony has a nice um chart about her support to schools here on the left um and Tony is our MTSS coordinator so she's always here to answer MTSS questions but I'm here too out of the PD department please contact me as well as your school psychologists who are in your buildings probably pretty regularly, weekly and then also we have some days coming up so I'm going to move our picture so you can see that just a little bit better and in the next few school years we will have people in to work through a five-year process and starting with year one and year two next year and so those dates are on there those exact dates are on there and just know that we're here for you to work through this whole process and we're we're willing to come out to your schools we're willing to zoom with your teams so we'd like to be a part of your meetings as well as your sites would like to be a part of that so yep and with those days um they give you information and help guide you on the MTSS process and you can choose what what's your area of need and they also offer on-site coaching with fidelity checks also to help you go through that MTSS process so please reach out to us and we just want to thank you for joining us today um uh and um if you have any questions at all please do not hesitate to contact us here's our information thank you thanks so much