 Great. Well, good morning or good afternoon, everybody, it's nice to have a good group of people here. I'm assuming that you can all hear and see what you're supposed to, if not please do support something in the chat box. So Aditya Bahadur and myself both work in the human settlements group at IED and over the last 14 CBA conferences and we've tried consistently to have at least one thread of thinking in the conferences that consider some of the issues facing low income groups in cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America, usually around how community groups and community action can play an effective role in building resilience to climate change. So the session today is really a continuation of that thinking. And what we have is a set of ideas really that Aditya has been leading on developing that I've been working on as well. And where we try and frame some new thoughts about the nature of risk facing cities in the global south and particularly facing their lowest income residents and thinking about what a different mode of resilience would look like in response to that. So that's the framing of disruptive risk and disruptive resilience minutes or so and then hopefully we'll have a good amount of time for reflections and comments and discussion about the value of this and crucially I think as well how we can take some of these emerging ideas on disruptive resilience and turn them into practically useful policy relevant responses. Thank you very much David so as you rightly indicated the narrative for our presentation is fairly simple. Our contention is that the nature of risk that cities are facing is shifting and therefore we need to change in risk management and resilience processes protocols and practices. And when we say risk is changing. We talk about how outlier events that our climate extremes are increasing the IPCC special report on extreme events outlined how a number of climate induced extreme events are on the rise. And with COVID-19 this is more evident than ever statistically there's around a 1% chance of a pandemic like COVID-19 happening in any given year. So it's definitely a clear outlier event. At the same time, risk is now taking place at a large scale. Most countries across the world are ready for emergencies and exigencies unfolding in a few different places concurrently, but in large countries like India, Brazil, the US, every single state, every single large city has faced an onslaught from COVID-19. And the fact that this has been a protracted crisis that has delivered an acute shock on an ongoing basis has also meant that a number of other shocks and stresses now take place even as one shocks shock is taking place to give you one tangible example of this. Earlier this year when Cyclone unfun battered the southern coast of Bangladesh and the eastern coast of India, just at that same time that at that point, these places were also experiencing COVID-19, and in Odisha that has traditionally battered that has traditionally been exposed as a number of cyclone shelters in place, but at this time 25% of all the cyclone shelters that had been built were being used as COVID-19 isolation centers and therefore resources are really being stretched thin. All this is exposing weaknesses in existing systems. We've all heard about, you know, the lack of ventilators and then a shortage of intensive care beds, but really more fundamental weaknesses and existing protocols of risk management are really now coming to light. For instance, I read a fascinating article that talked about how India's Disaster Management Act that was launched to much fanfare in 2005 after the tsunami, people are now realizing that it fails to adequately classify what a disaster is as a result of which certain institutions in India's National Disaster Management Authority that are about to deal with an emergency such as this are not leading on COVID-19 response, and that's actually being led by a whole host of other institutions. David. The final point here is around some of the other new forms of risk and some of them are ones which I think have been recognized in the community that's meeting here in the CBA conference for some time, but I think have become increasingly recognized by wider policy audiences as well. So here we're talking about teleconnected and transboundary risks where the effects of a particular hazard or event in one location have significant knock on effects for locations elsewhere, or for people who are not directly linked with them. So two specific examples here I think would be disruption to food chains and when their food supply chains and when there is disruption to agriculture of production that's critical for particularly for crops which form the basis of low income, the diets of low income people in cities and how food price rises as a result of disruption to agriculture which can be hundreds or thousands of miles away can have significant effects on the health and well-being of people living in distant locations. Another would be around supply chain disruption and again a particularly urban phenomenon I think where manufacturing and industry and where the effects of climate related disasters in one location can disturb the supply chains of production systems in very distant locations with a knock on effect on the on the economies of those places and on the livelihoods of people there. A last element here as well which actually forms a good bridge to the first point on the next slide at each year is where there are compound risks of various kinds. So if we look at the complexity of risks in urban settings and the stronger scientific evidence for example around the compound effect of higher temperatures and air pollution on human health. So new forms of risk that are increasingly both being realized and being and being recognized. So the point here as well is that then we have a certain reasons why urban areas and low income groups in urban areas have magnitude have have have greater levels of face greater levels of disruptive risk. So a couple of the particular characteristics of urban settlements that helped to to drive that I hear on this slide. So the complexity of urban settings this isn't to say that rural areas do not have their own complexities. They certainly do and I think one of the things we would be keen to stress. The argument arguing for understanding and these disruptive risks and resilience in urban settings and doesn't seek to supplant discussions of disruptive risk and resilience in rural settings as well. But particularly in urban settings the reliance on complex networks to supply food to supply water and complex economic systems around the provision of basic needs. The need for an infrastructure and networked infrastructure for risk reduction, all of which requires high levels of coordination between different actors and agencies creates one of the settings, which is a particular form which drives particular forms of urban risk and density. Similarly, the concentration of people and of economic activities, and it's a found in urban centers creates different forms of risk where, and whether it's for the spread of communicable diseases, or whether it's because the effect of a hazard on a relatively small geographical area and can have a substantial effect on a very large number of people, or a very large number of industries or other economic activities. And the fact that cities are dynamic and have fast movements of goods and people in and out of their boundaries leads also to them becoming at risk of particular kinds of hazards. For instance, 90% of all mortality and morbidity from COVID-19 has been in cities. The fact that people from different geographic backgrounds, different linguistic backgrounds, castes, classes, all live in similar neighborhoods means that cities pose particular challenges to participatory methods that are predicated on generating consensus and also behavior change protocols such as lockdowns that require changes in behavior. At the same time, these challenges, these pillars of urbanization that pose challenges, if harnessed can also pose substantial opportunities. The fact that cities are dynamic and diverse means that there is a potential for surfacing innovations and for solutions. Just to highlight also the fact that cities have a complex and dense means that there is a certain amount of governance capacities in cities that can be harnessed to manage risk. For instance, through the New York Mayor's Office of Risk and Resiliency, and the fact that cities are dense means that you could target people at risk more effectively. So this is all to say that cities are facing destructive risk, which entails outlier events, which entails trans-boundary risks and which is rendering existing systems less relevant. And while the concept of resilience with its emphasis on flexibility, modularity, buffer capacity is more relevant than ever, we argue that changes in methods and practices of building resilience are needed, specifically in five strategic areas of action. David. Yeah. So we've looked at a range of areas where we think that there is potential for new forms of resilience to be developed. Some of these drawing on existing sound practices in urban areas around community upgrading, around informal settlement and community upgrading, around economic empowerment for low income groups, and around the movement towards more inclusive and sustainable cities. So we have some good examples around that show how things can be done differently in towns and cities, which we think can be applied effectively towards resilience as well. So the next slide then goes into the five of these in more detail, which we can look at the transition from what the business as usual has tended to look like, to what a new form of disruptive resilience can look like. So we're going to start with the one on informality, whereas in which urban development as usual has often overlooked, ignored or outlawed the informal settlements and the informal economy, where there's been tended to be antagonism between municipal governments and low income groups. The assumption being that slums and informal settlements are seen as a problem. They're seen as an ISO they're seen as something which needs to be removed from the fabric of the city. I think to date we've seen positive movements in urban resilience, where there's been a recognition of the need to have informal sector participation in resilience planning, whether it's through creation of through problem identification, whether it's through adaptation planning, or it's through the creation of projects that take place at the community level to reduce risk. But that this is still largely been framed in the language of low income groups living in informal settlements as being beneficiaries or being as recipients being seen as a recipient of projects recipients of aid. What we're proposing then is a disruptive model of urban resilience, one that's driven by partnerships rather than participation, where there is a deeper level of engagement in terms of problem identification, and in terms of identifying the appropriate responses and in terms of actually implementing the solutions. And so this is a model of decision making which is bottom up and driven by local experience, of course involving different actors because one of the critical elements of the way cities function is this complex interaction between municipal governments, national governments, private sector, and citizens, and but a decision making model which is more, more genuinely based on that deep level of partnership, and that sees the levels of flexibility and the ways that inherent in the informal sector, the informal economic sector and informal settlements as being a part of the solution. And Aditya can speak to the Dharavi example better than I can. Just to add that it's really interesting to see that the city of Mumbai has defaulted to this model of engaging with the informal sector during COVID-19 when an emergency of the scale hit the city where unlike the rest of India where there's been a very top down COVID-19, when a cluster of infected people were discovered a few months ago, there was mass panic because given because Dharavi is the most densely packed settlement on earth. And therefore the government decided the only way it could be contained was by inculcating local level leadership and really engaging with Dharavi in a spirit of partnership. What this meant was that the government drew in the informal and quasi-trained medical practitioners of Dharavi into a network and allocated different sectors of the settlement to them. They engaged with community-based organizations that are already operating in Dharavi. They recruited a cadre of volunteers drawn from local residents to work with municipal employees to help survey the situation and what was going on and really relied on the local knowledge of people to make decisions. And we've included this example not only to demonstrate the salience of this approach, but also to say that this is not business as usual, right? We're not simply talking about participation and forging spaces where we invite communities into decision making that has already largely been set. This is about inculcating local level leadership, which is slightly different from what's going on. And there are other examples of this, which includes urban poor funds, which includes county climate funds in Kenya where international climate finance flows down to the local level. And there are a growing number of institutional examples that prove that this is not just a value laden pie in the sky type of statement. It's actually something that can be done and is being done in pockets here and there and needs to be scaled up. This is similar to our next pillar, which is on urban services and systems, which is such as waste management, transport, energy, water. When it comes to these services and systems in business as usual, risk management is largely limited to contingency planning. There isn't any resilience thinking per se. In urban, urban resilience programs have certainly emphasized urban systems and services, but there's been an explicit emphasis on the installation of hard infrastructure to make these services more resilient to the impacts of climate change. Don't take my word for it. 97.6% of all the money that has gone from the global in my metal facility into urban areas has been for the installation of hard systems. 60% of this 97.6% has been focused on the development of transport infrastructure. Capacity building and training and developing the capabilities of people running these systems has largely been ignored and therefore in our concept of disruptive urban resilience we propose that there is a sharp focus on developing the capabilities and capacities of people running these critical urban systems to make decisions under uncertainty. In this context, existing ideas such as adaptive management have taken on a renewed significance, and there is a growing emphasis on approaches such as tactical urbanism, which entail low cost and temporary experiments to meet exigent circumstances. So instead of sinking money into an expansion of cycling during COVID-19, what some neighborhoods have done in London and New York, they've painted over bus lanes because people are not using buses anymore and made them cycling lanes to make it safer for cyclists that have numbers of which have rapidly expanded. And also strategic ambiguity, which is another idea that comes from the corporate world, and in fact we read about it in the Harvard Business Review, is when you build in ratchets for transitions to short-term planning horizons in long-term plans. So for instance, if IBM has a five-year plan in that they build in a ratchet to say that we shift to a 90-day planning window, discard this plan temporarily if there's a big earthquake in California. And once again, it's really interesting for us to see that during COVID-19, a number of cities across the world has shifted to an adaptive management mode of doing things. And this is evident through the fact that a public transport and public spaces are being opened and shut in concert with the rise and fall of infection rates in cities like London and New York. This is happening reactively at the moment, and we argue that the capacity to do this proactively needs to be built within these service delivery sectors. Moving on very quickly, given the highly unprecedented nature of the disruptive risks that cities face, it will be essential to innovate because we don't know what awaits us. At the moment in urban development, as usual, there's very little innovation. There is some innovation, but it's rolled into hard infrastructure. For example, Ho Chi Minh City is building a new metro system. It's a flood prone city, so they developed new technological solutions for insulating mechanical and electrical parts of the subway better. And so the model of innovation when it happens is kind of structured, static, and Eurocentric. Urban resilience programs in the mold of international development like the ones funded by big international donors certainly have innovation. But these are limited to management approaches, new ways of engaging with communities, new ways of doing city resilience planning, new ways of influencing government. They are largely led by experts and the sustainability of these quote unquote resilience projects is suspect. And therefore, we argue that there's a need to pivot to a much more frugal bottom up iterative model of innovation that aims to deliver solutions that are good enough, rather than best possible. There are different names for this model of innovation in India. It's called Jogar. In Brazil, it's called, I forgotten the name, what is called in Brazil. In Kenya, it's called Joakali. And big corporations across the world are embracing this form of frugal innovation to meet with developing exigent emergent situations. And again, in the time of COVID-19, this form of innovation is everywhere. You must have seen recommendations for how to enforce social distancing on planes by reversing the middle seat. But also interestingly, there's a long article in nature recently that talked about all the alterations and amendments to established vaccine development protocols and have taken place to develop a COVID-19 vaccine. And the fact that multiple different experiments are being carried out simultaneously and they'll scale up the one that works best. The fact that regulatory processes have been abridged. And the fact that we are basically aiming for a COVID-19 that's going to give us temporary protection for a couple of years and we'll need another booster dose. After a while, all is emblematic of these Jogar modes of innovation. And therefore, we argue that this ability to do this kind of innovation needs to be built proactively by, for instance, organizing challenge funds where you throw out a big challenge to grassroots innovators and reward people who come up with solutions to particular problems, or by supporting existing networks of grassroots innovators like the Honey Bee Network in India, or simply by training the staff of Urban Resilience programs to recognize these local innovations when they're working within informal settlements and other parts of the city, and scale them up as opposed to ignoring them for more top-down solutions. David, over to you for the next pillar. So the financial pillar is probably one that people have engaged in throughout this conference will be quite familiar with some of the core arguments around making the drawing on the evidence of the limited amount of climate finance which has gone either to urban concerns or to adaptation concerns, and specifically to the concerns and priorities of the lowest income groups and other marginalized groups in cities. And for each of those we can begin to see the gradual thinner and thinner slicing of how climate finance goes primarily on mitigation, that that goes on adaptation doesn't go to the local level, that that does go to the local level on cities, which tends to be privileged around things which are hard infrastructure priorities, rather than on building the broader resilience of low income groups, and through strengthening adaptive capacity and through addressing the basic needs of basic services which are fundamental to longer term resilience. Firstly there's a relatively small amount of funding that goes to adaptation issues in cities. And secondly is even where there is a focus on resilience, and this is still limited amounts and the very high barriers to access if we look at the conditions associated with access to climate finance, and the capabilities of many of the groups in urban areas which are focusing on building resilience for low income groups. And we find that there's not the capacity of the right not the type of capacity that is expected to be able to access those funds. So we then propose a new models of finance for building disruptive resilience models of finance which are faster and more flexible, which are accessible by actors at the city scale, whether that is by municipal governments, or whether it's by grassroots and civil society groups. That it is that these models of finance are accountable from the bottom up as much as from the top down in that the models of accountability are whether they, whether this finance meets the needs of the groups that it's supposed to be helping. The willingness to explore different modalities of finance included blended funds that bring together different sources of government owned source revenue, municipal government budgets, climate finance grants from different sources. And so both have changed in the approach to funding and in some of the modalities of funding. And this is going to require revisiting some different forms of finance that have already been that have been tested but that's a definitely tricky in an urban system. For example, municipal bonds and green bonds of various sorts which have begun to be explored in some middle income countries, particularly as a different way for cities to raise funds which could be applied to resilience activities. But also a tricky issue because while they do have a level of autonomy and targeting to the particular needs of cities. And they also do have me erase questions about the ability of cities effectively to manage finance, particularly in cities with limited technical and financial management capacities. And also questions about the, the appropriate way in which cities and sub national governments are able to take on debt, underwrite debt on their own. So a complex set of issues which need further exploring, but the conclusion really being that radically different forms of finance are going to be necessary for disruptive resilience. And I think this point of bonds is really interesting because suddenly again in the time of COVID-19 they seem to be everywhere. And I think six or eight weeks ago, the US Federal Reserve announced that they're going to buy $500 billion worth of bonds from small and medium side cities across the United States to aid in COVID-19 recovery. And I know that we also have some guests from Cape Town today listening to us. And I think it'll be great to have they have any thoughts on Cape Town's recent experiment with a green and resilient bond. So just to finish up the final pillar of this framework is around data. And in urban development as usual is very little risk data that's really used. Yes, there is some risk data that's used. But that's primarily used for climate proofing and this essentially entails calculating the probability of certain extreme events and building infrastructure to that specification. Now, this is problematic for a number of reasons, mainly because historical patterns are no longer a good guide to tell us what's going to happen in the future. And across the world we've seen this approach to using data for urban development fail. What happened in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina is a sum of many different complex factors. One of those factors was that the flood protective infrastructure around the city was built to withstand a one in eight year event whereas Hurricane Katrina was a one in 400 year event. So that shows you some of the drawbacks of using a certain kind of risk data for climate proofing in urban resilience programs. There is certainly some use of risk information. People use downscaled climate models, satellite data, household surveys, census information to understand hazards, exposure and vulnerability, but all these are kind of centralized, expensive, arduous and expert led. And to deal with the kind of disruptive emergent exigent problems we talked about at the beginning of this presentation, it's really important that we adopt distributive data approaches to understanding risk. And by this, we mean two things. We mean distributed data that can come from ICT sources, ICT devices and can be seen and we can be called big data. And this has proved effective in experiments all the way taken place all the way from Bangladesh to Peru, where for instance, people have understood that pinging off people's cell phone is really a useful way of figuring out how many people live in the path of hurricane, or another experiment that has crowd sourced battery temperature data from cell phones to understand which part of the city is going to face a heat wave. Happy to go into details about this in the question and answer. But equally important, the other kind of distributed data that we're talking about is data where people living in informal settlements survey themselves and make their localities visible to planners and decision makers called self enumeration data. Slumweller's international has used this extensively in countries across the world to influence policy, but other cities need to wake up to the potential of these two different kinds of distributed data approaches. Again, it's interesting to see that in the time of COVID, both these type of data approaches are everywhere. Suddenly, un-innovative, unresponsive government institutions have realized the value of big data in decision making through applications like contact tracing. But equally, again, as we were talking about Dharavi earlier on the slide, in Dharavi, the government recognized that the only way they could really understand what is going on in this neighborhood was by inviting people from the neighborhood to help them understand what's going on. And therefore, in this way, through new ways of participation, through new ways of building the capacity of people delivering urban services, through new modes of innovation, financing and data, we argue that we need to disrupt the way in which urban resilience is currently being done and transition to a new way of doing these five things in order to deal with the kind of risk that we face. Now, I'll shut up in a minute, just two or three things to end with. One is that we understand that, yes, there's very little to disagree with here. All these shifts are great, but we are very happy to be disagreed with, of course. But for us, really meaty questions are on the factors that inhibit these shifts. What are those factors? How can we overcome them? And then really studying examples of where some of these shifts have been overcome and really distilling what we can learn from those shifts. So if there isn't anything else from David, I'll stop there and hand over to all of you for your questions. I'm wondering if Becky, you want to help us moderate some of these questions. Do please tell us who you are before you ask the question. And also please advise us on how we can take this agenda forward, what more we can think about, and any other suggestions on improving this would be really appreciated. You can put any questions in the chat or you can raise your hand if you'd like to speak. We can do that for you. Oh, we have a question here from Tim, who said it's a really interesting framework. Resilience frameworks have been criticized for legitimizing general places and people to solve these problems on their own. How does disruptive urban resilience take this criticism into account. So Tim, fantastic question. I'll give a quick response and then hand over to David. First of all, we are very actively positioning this, not as a framework as a proposition, but not to not to quibble on that. I feel this, our proposition is actually stem from an acknowledgement of all the criticisms that have faced risk reduction approaches in urban and non urban areas over the decades. The fact that we're arguing for community leadership stems from an understanding that local communities that really are at the forefront of the battle against climate change have not been empowered to make decisions themselves the fact that we're arguing for capability and capacity building stems from an acknowledgement that hard systems have received way more attention than this crucial part of building resilience. And the fact that we're arguing that cities need to have indulgence capacity to raise financing stems from an acknowledgement about how multilateral and bilateral financial sources are not enough to deal with the scale of risk that we're talking about David. Yeah, very little to add on that. I mean, and there is as a very, you know, they're very valid critiques. I mean, I'm thinking of a, an academic critique by Maria Kaika, you know, probably something don't call me resilient and how actually framing people as being resilient as often justified, non intervention or inadequate intervention to support people who actually do, do need to be, to be supported rather than being left, left on their own, all thinking about the other critiques around the way in which resilient this agenda has sometimes sat too comfortably alongside neoliberal models of urban planning and urban design, that it's not this year it seemed to imply continuity, rather than fundamental change. I think again that's what we're trying to buy by inserting the word disruptive here. I think there's an element which is, which is tactical I mean there is a resilience agenda which has a significant swell of action and investment behind it, that I don't think is going to go away. And so there needs to be an internal challenge to doing that differently and better, and hopefully to disrupting the way that it is, the way that it's actually done. I think the next question there actually links very nicely to this as well as from Sushila about incorporating gender and inclusion issues is also really substantial challenge here. And I think, you know that there's a, there's a very strong case that as we develop this further, and we would need to it would be appropriate for us to ask the question, how has urban development as usual, and treated issues of gender and inclusion, in which case we would say things like urban development as usual hasn't taken issues of universal design seriously, has tended to create public spaces which, which don't adequately take care and take account of the different gendered usage and different levels of gender and comfort within those spaces. I think we could say the same for urban resilience as usual where there's been a sort of an assumption, perhaps more of an assumption of gendered assumption of women as victims rather than as active agents, and there's a disruptive urban resilience ought to move towards a more gender transformative approach as well. So I mean, I think, I think that this is a good, you know, a good point to for us to reflect more and elaborate more and I don't know if you want to pick up on that. No, I agree with everything you said David. And I think you're absolutely, I think the comment the question is very well taken I think we need to do a better job of surfacing the gender dimensions of the five shifts that we're proposing. But they're very much there. I mean, I just want to be clear about that by by making sure that we have a more democratic model and local communities are in the driving seat, we also want to make sure that women and other marginalized groups part of those communities in the driving seat by ensuring that we have distributed data approaches that communicate what's really going on on the ground, we want to make sure the realities of all groups including and especially women and other marginalized groups are communicated to decision makers. So it's very much there but we take your point I think we need to do a better job of surfacing that to take the easy way out and ask somebody to please come on the mic and explain to us, explain our question to us. So we can have a little conversation on that because I think it's quite a meaty question. Thank you at the end at the risk of keeping my video also open for a bit. Thank you so much for coming home and there's people coming in and out. I basically been reading this paper by Roberts at all you may have come across it from this recently released one, which captures the resilience journey of Durban, and it talks about and very nicely captures the different kinds of resilience. I also cited there yours and cameras, and that's actually cited alongside Gina's one, you know, sir for bills one which of course people from us are also contributed to which speaks to this just and negotiated resilience, which is a step further from the critical resilience So I understand that a lot of the critique that has been discussed already has now been parceled into a social ecological resilience, which goes along with the neoliberal agenda probably, or can However, the critical and just and negotiated ones are then forefronting For example gender issues, class issues, caste issues. So my question is, I very much find this a very exciting proposal, as you have said it's an idea, but it does look like a paper in the making also My question again is because of the time period that we are in and you spoke about the business model of using a window for trying lots of things, you know, and if you map that on to the adaptive renewal cycle that Gundersen and Holling obviously use for Pena key etc. There we are in that phase of birthing and experimentation of lots of things. So are we then saying that this disruptive resilience is temporary. So this model is not recommended forever, but it's specifically for a certain window of opportunity that the covert pandemic represents and and there may be some elements of it that can then be combined with those that have really been fought hard for I feel the The critical one and the just and negotiated one which speak to the slow urbanism narrative that others colleagues from SBA have worked on. I forget her name. I think Iona that has spoken about it in terms of smart cities. So yeah, just I know there's a lot. Thanks for making all these ideas come up through your presentation. Thank you for attending this and for your comment. I might take the easy way out and go to David first. I mean, I thought for thought provoking and helpful and I mean I think the, you know, the the Durban, the written up Durban example that you point to is a really useful one here, because it tries to unpack the ways in which the externally defined resilience agenda can Well, and an extremely well intentioned and well resourced but externally defined resilience agenda and can meet all sorts of difficulties when it comes into contact with the particular the particular messy politics and society and the and also where there is a highly skilled set of people locally as well to be able to address resilience. I think that I think I find I find that challenging piece to engage with because an awful lot of what we're trying to do is to make a case which can be taken to different places where which can be taken to 10s or hundreds of people that haven't yet engaged with this agenda seriously, but being aware of the pitfalls of putting forward this sort of approach is a in in in a vacuum almost. The way we would try to respond to it is by grounding grounding the particular conditions of the particular recommendations with examples from particular conditions to show how ideas and lived realities need to come together and be negotiated in a particular context, which I guess is also one of these things about how effective approaches to addressing urban poverty through community driven approaches have tended to operate as well to take the the local extremely seriously. I mean there's a lot more in what you said Samita which I need to sort of reflect and engage on so I mean thanks thanks for pushing us on it. So there's a question sorry reading it very quickly on identifying. So I think that's a very good question on how do you identify different people who are at risk in the city. And I think the core the core tenant that cuts across our five pillars is about individual agency and all these actions are in one way or the other gear to making sure that people who are on the front lines of risk have are empowered to deal with them. And I think the to speak to your question more directly a pillar of data as tries to embody that principle, most directly by talking about distributed data where people in informal settlements have a platform to make their own spaces and their own individual risk context visible to decision making decision makers, but I also think that big data can be one of the solutions here. And I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this from the community development folks I'm not saying supplant or exchange I'm saying complement existing approaches of doing robust participatory work with new forms of big data applications that are proving relevant, even in developing country context which have high internet penetration high mobile penetration, allowing for even marginalized groups to make their realities evident in decision making processes. Any other questions before I just seen one of them. There was one from Sushila who said another one and who she asked so the chair of the slum dwellers said that they should know rural or urban different dynamics rather a continuum and what were your thoughts on this. Well, it's a yes and no. I mean I think what we what I tried to say earlier on is that there are certain features that do create particular forms of risk that are urban, and that have particular forms of risk, which affect low income and informal neighborhoods in urban areas. I think it's perfectly possible to say that and accept that without saying that there is a clear breaking point at which, you know, something ceases where where there is a fundamental difference a fundamental breaking point between an urban and our rural reality. I mean the other element of course is that with the recognition of connected risks, and just thinking about the most basic of the of the urban systems that are necessary to sustain life if we're thinking about food, food security and food insecurity in in urban areas where food comes from outside the city but it's not just produced and then consumed there are these complex networks of food production distribution, marketing and storage preparation. And at all of these stages they can be links between the rural and the urban, or the way in which water supplies reach urban areas and that are extracted from river basins far away or extracted from groundwater within the city. And so the connections between urban areas and the and the surrounding areas are just so dense that they can never be fully unpacked. I think the, I think yes and no is actually a fair answer. And there are links, but equally, and the density of political connections and economic connections and the reliance on markets and the density of people do create some features which need a distinct focus than if we're dealing with a primarily agriculture based economy or a more dispersed pattern of settlements. I know we only have about five or six minutes remaining love to take more questions, but also I was wondering if I can abuse my moderators privilege here and pick on a couple of people to share their experiences. Please feel free to refuse. But if there are no more immediate questions, it would be really great. Olivia, I don't know if you want to talk a little bit about Cape Town love to hear whether you feel how this resonates with what's going on there. And also to know what you think about the resilience bond. Hi. Yeah, happy to. I can't speak to the resilience bond of though I'm afraid that I do not have any particular expertise or knowledge on so maybe someone else could pick that side of it up. But in terms of the discussions around sort of embracing informality and a bit of work and one of the things that I found in that in my previous research that I'm taking forward into my PhD and is that when I spoke to and when I spoke to government officials in Cape Town and specifically around the water crisis and resilience of informal settlement dwellers a kind of common response that I received through the whole through quite a few interviews was and obviously I'm paraphrasing but you know we don't really have to worry about them too much they're already resilient because of their circumstances and which I found to be interesting and also very concerning because it did mean that there was this invisibility for them within the policies the actions the the work that was actually taking place and and when when you spoke when I spoke to people in informal settlements they said the complete opposite no we're not resilient we are very vulnerable and we need help so there was a complete kind of mismatch between what the what the sort of assumption was for the informal communities and what the informal communities were saying themselves and so that's sort of what I'm taking forward into my PhD research although I'm just going into second year now so I haven't and obviously I'm COVID delayed and so I haven't done or the new interviews yet but that will be sort of the beginning of the next year so I didn't have much more to add at the moment I'm afraid that's really that's really useful thank you for joining us today might ask Mary to jump in very quickly Mary Dupa from CDKN may tell us a little bit about how this aligns with the lots of the urban resilience work that CDKN has undertaken hi nice to see you all and thanks for the fantastic presentation I got so much from it I think that you know we've been doing some case studies and I popped something in the chat there about one of them that we just published based on some work in northern India I guess that our kind of experience would align with with your findings and recommendations quite well one thing that you didn't explicitly know I don't think was about the role of knowledge brokers or intermediaries I know it's a bit of a sensitive one because they can be part of the problem as well as part of the solution is you know very much a case by case thing but I suppose that we are seeing in places like Gorakpur in northern India that where you have a very credible trusted and sensitive NGO you know they can be really instrumental in sort of helping the community members to build their capacity sort of working on a very equal partnership basis with them to understand what they think they need and you know what the intermediary NGO can provide and also universities actually you know can play these kind of facilitating roles we had some work in the previous phase of CDKN both in Brazil and in Jamaica where actually students were very instrumental in sort of again consulting with community members on a very kind of peer to peer basis on what they felt their vulnerabilities were in resilience needs and then enabling the introduction of technologies and I mean particularly mobile apps and that type of thing which the students co-developed with them to help them to sort of track different climate impacts and vulnerabilities that could then be aggregated via the apps and then fed into governmental decision making processes to mobilize funds more appropriately so those would be I guess two more thoughts to add to the mix and then just on Olivia's last point about oh actually I'm not resilient I'm feeling vulnerable you know I think one of the things that our voices from the frontline initiative with ICADS has really highlighted that has been an initiative to really gather a community level stories of coping with the sort of cascading you know risks of the COVID pandemic along with economic shocks and stresses and climate impacts is that you know communities are demonstrating absolutely extraordinary coping mechanisms but they do also need forms of external support but what they can really do so it's not an either or it's a both and what we're coming out and saying more is see can is that you know they're articulating very specifically the types of external support that would be helpful so it's like listen be more open to them because you know if donors and other external actors including different arms of government would listen in a more meaningful way to what they are saying about what specific types of external support would be useful then everyone would be better off Thank you Mary that's really useful because just to tell you I think we want to progress this work on by looking at examples of where some of these things are taking place so I think your direction that we should look at some of these case studies is really very helpful. I think we're coming on to one hour. I think maybe we can take another burning question if there is or call the session to a close if there are no more comments or questions. Everything is helpful all comments welcome please. David any final thoughts from you. I wanted to respond to the question by by Tim and realize that my, my attempt at irony might not have come through in the text that I've written where I say that's a nice easy question. I mean it is an incredibly complex and challenging question. I want to make sure I make sure I'm clear on that. I mean I think that the, you know, a lot of the questions here are challenging about what the underlying, the underlying drivers are that create risk for low income groups in cities. I think that the, you know, the extent to which resilience agenda can genuinely engage with and transform some of those underlying drivers. And I think that's a very good, you know, very good challenge for us to take away. I think the inclusion and gender and diversity challenge is another very good one for us to take away. And I would say as as we're over time is, yes, as a teacher put into the text box as well. We've we've shared the briefing paper that we've been trying to use as a means of floating some of these ideas a bit more and then do do get in touch with them with either of us if you'd, if you'd like to engage on these topics and find ways to, and to take them further and work together so from me. Thanks very much. Thank you all very much for me as well. Becky, any final thoughts from you. No, no. No, that was really good really interesting. And thank you everyone for engaging so much in the in the chat box. It's really nice to see as an organizer of CBA 14. So thank you and if there isn't any more I'm going to end the meeting now. Thanks bye. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Thank you.