 or data and evidence shows that there are five important drivers of displacement to disasters. Those five is climate and climate change. There is lack of governance. It's uneven development. It's development of cities in unplanned development of cities and development in hazard prone areas. Those five four are directly related to policies that you can change now. Poverty you can address. Lack of governance you can address. If you address those policies immediately, you will be able to reduce the risk for displacement by climate and climate change and disasters and disaster events. Both weather related disasters, but also your physical disasters. So as I was saying in my speech, it's not possible to say that climate change alone is the only driver of displacement. It's a multiple set of drivers. It's a tight connection of drivers. But we can address some of those drivers and some of those drivers are important because some of the drivers changes the quality of people also when they are not displaced. Lack of governance affects the lives of people also when they are not displaced. And even development changes the life of policy and provokes conflicts, provokes tensions also when there is no displacement. So when we address the common drivers for displacement by disasters, we will also reduce the risk of displacement and we will reduce the vulnerability of people. And that ultimately can improve the protection of those who are affected by climate and climate change. Climate, climate change, disaster, disaster displacement is a very complex thing or data shows that more and more people are increasingly affected by displacement and they are in huge risk of displacement in the future. How did you change this? You cannot change it by one actor or one government. You need to change that cooperating both with information, with analysis, with action and defining policies and funding policies for between, it requires an action, a cooperation between national governments, international actors, international banks, NGOs, IGOs, civil society. This is too complex for one person or one entity to change. The challenges that we have now requires that everyone do the best to reduce the risk for displacement. There is a debate about that migration can also be an adaptation to what is going on to climate change. In clinical terms, it's an adaptation to the reality which is affecting people. But the consequences is not an adaptation. It's the end of something. It's the end of the life they had before. It's a devastating situation for many small communities and small nations where they are physically and perhaps forever losing their land. It's not an adaptation. There is no voluntariness in that term, in that situation this is affecting them. There is a coercive factor and the coercion is by climate change. They have a gun in the neck and they need to move. Of course the solution for them at a certain point will be to adapt, to change, to move. It needs to be voluntarily and it needs to be also fully protecting the human rights and it needs to be in dialogue with them, with those communities. Where do you want to go? What will you do? When will you go to go? Will everyone go? All those questions and all those answers, they need to be responded in fully compliance with human rights and need to be in dialogue with these communities. What is already happening to them is devastating. We should not make decisions on behalf of these nations. The human rights system as we know it today was created after the Second World War, after a major crisis that happened to hundreds and hundreds of millions of people. The world said we need something different. We need to acknowledge that human beings have rights and the national governments are responsible for those rights. Now everyone, East and West, North and South, we are now in front of a new crisis. It's a new stress. We need to check. Do we have sufficiently strong human rights tools as we have them now, as they were envisioned after the Second World War? Or do we need to adapt, improve those tools in order to protect people to hazards that we have yet not seen how powerful they can be? The Refugee Convention only in 1951 was created to protect the refugees of the worst in Europe. Then in 1966, 1967, the international community said okay. There are more people than those who were affected in Europe who need protection. So then it was adapted. Protocols were made. We are facing the same challenges for international protection of human rights. We need to check in. Do we have sufficiently strong tools? Are all those political measures that we are now doing with the climate negotiations are also those taking into consideration the need to protect human rights? I don't know the answer, but I know that we need to check. And everyone needs to do that assessment. How do we better protect the human rights of people affected by climate and climate change?