 The broader theme, incredibly broad theme of energy, healthcare and environment and any questions that anyone would like to ask our speakers on these topics, sneaky double questions won't be allowed. Thank you. The gentleman here. And then Pete with some from the panel. Hi. I'm very impressed with what you all presented. And what I'm mostly wondering, how do you interact with external partners who are specialists in these type of areas? How do you make sure that you acquire information and look at the innovation that's happening outside and try to integrate it into the MSF framework and MSF operations to say so? Is that a question to anyone in particular? No, to the whole panel. Any volunteers? Whilst composing their response, if we can have the questions, online question from Pete, please. We've got one for Matt. A study in Bangladesh indicated that higher iron levels led to lower free chlorine residual. Did you see any impact of the iron levels in Uganda? And also one for Eric. Would the SOC system be more cost efficient in small hospitals like the one you showed in DRC or in big provincial national hospitals with higher O2 needs? Two specific questions, feel free to answer the first one as well while you're at it if you would like to. So on the iron levels, so it's slightly different because in Bangladesh that's high iron levels in groundwater which is then directly chlorinated. In a surface water treatment plant, it was the surface water which had high iron levels. It was then pre-treated with sedimentation, well coagulation, sedimentation before then being chlorinated. So actually what we were doing is in the first process was removing the iron and over the course of the intervention through the year, vast, vast quantities of iron removed from the water and then it was chlorinated. So yes, iron does have an impact on chlorination because it will increase the decay of the chlorine, because it consumes chlorine, but we did not see that problem in Uganda. Right. I can say a little on external partner interaction to start with. For the solar power installation in Shawana, we were luckily, we had most of that expertise already although we haven't used it much in the organization, so that worked out well for the SOX project. That became very obvious that we, I mean that's nothing we can develop ourselves or should develop in ourselves in the organization, so we really need that kind of external partnerships to get that forward. And maybe we can be the force to start things, to provide a testing ground and then assure that the product will eventually come back from our external partners. Where this would be most cost efficient, the oxygen production, I don't think there is a tremendous difference really. In a way, if you compare to diesel generator running oxygen concentrators, the highest costs we would probably get in a small facility where this is a large proportion of the energy consumption, then the liters per cubic meter of oxygen would be higher and the cost efficiency a little bit better maybe. But I think it would be equally applicable for a larger facility. And especially if we eventually could go for the high pressure solutions, it would also be more, increase the availability through the bottle oxygen. Thank you. More questions please. One here. Can we get any other questions? Can we get the mic in the right place please? Put your hand up if you have a question. Thank you. Hi. So Michalis working with Watson for OCB. I guess it's a bit of a white question, but maybe a bit more for Matt. So it's very refreshing to see the finally OCBs. MSF is going into less traditional health risks when it comes to water. My question is, I've seen around a lot of paranoia, let's say, as to added things into water. And then I've seen it specifically also with chlorine. I've seen people quoting studies on three hollow methods even when we chlorinate groundwater. So I assume you must have had some sort of health promotion campaign to go together with your handover process to share. But if you have such challenges yourself and how do you address them? And while you're composing your answer, if we can take a question from the gentleman. Yeah, everyone, I'm a laboratory advisor with MSF OCA. My question is for Maria. So besides looking outside for getting knowledge and understanding possibilities that are there, are we looking enough into what others are doing? Are there opportunities to have other people provide energy? I mean, I'm thinking my last visit to South Kivu, some Italian NGO was putting, I don't know, 100 square meters of solar panels on the hospital in Uwira as a standalone thing. And are there more opportunities like that to be done? Because it sounds like the initial investment is scaring people off. I'm struggling to get that myself in projects where we don't have AC and everything breaks down all the time because of that. Thank you. So, Matt first, then Maria, if you can put your hand up, if you have a question, please, we'll get you the mic. OK, yeah. It's a very good point. And there's a few things there in relation to that intervention. The first thing is an obvious one and relates to all interventions. I mean, the risk, the health risk from not chlorinating water and particularly surface water is much, much higher and certainly in the immediate term and that's why I make reference to the quantity and the nature of the emergency. In terms of, and actually everyone, I mean, the World Health Organization is very firm on that as well in most of its discussions about disinfection byproducts and certainly for this kind of water treatment. In terms of the acceptance and the community in that settlement, that was a very interesting one because there was another actor who will remain nameless who was trying to distribute water from a groundwater source which was not chlorinated. The population actually initially refused this water. They liked the water that came from the plant. They were used to the chlorine levels and actually to be honest, in the end what we treated that to was the fact that when we were monitoring in the camp in the very initial stages of the emergency, we and the staff with us were drinking the water from the tap stand. So the perception of the population and the acceptance was very good. And actually the impetus for looking into this issue did come from an allegation of over-chlorination from UNHCR. We had the data to prove that we were compliant with their very own standards. And then on top of that I wanted to look into this issue as well. It was not something, I agree people bring it up sometimes, quite often people don't really know what they're talking about but they can find some reference to a study, etc. And all I can say at the end is it does get fantastically complicated. That is for sure. But I still think it's an important thing to consider. Thank you. When we, of course when we have to decide which energy solution we are going to provide, of course we need to look around what are the possibilities that we have. Even if it's city power, even if it's what others are doing. I wouldn't say that much maybe to provide energy supply from other organizations because we are quite tricky or stricken in the quality of the energy that we receive. But maybe for example for the maintenance strategies or for the handover process. There are a lot of NGOs, development NGOs that are working a lot on rural electrification, on energy access, etc. For example in refugee camps right now there is a movement quite big right now in energy movement that are providing energy solutions. So maybe they are the ones who can provide energy solutions in training, in materials, in all these parts that we are not so good at it, but we need it in order to give some sustainability to our energy settings, especially when we do the handover process. Thank you. Short questions, I'm encouraging you to come up with. Okay. This is perhaps the broadest possible question and the answers may not be forthcoming from the panel. I really welcome this session. I think it's incredibly important. To me it's a matter of basic ethics really, along the lines of first do no harm. I wonder if you've got any comments, anecdotes or suggestions about potential barriers to taking up this agenda in terms of MSF organisational culture. Thank you. And you can think about that in a few seconds. I think then we'll allow one of our panellists to respond to that whilst we take another question from the gentleman over here. Anyone like to respond? Barriers. There are huge barriers in perception of what we should work with, whether this is in line with the emergency organisation and all of that. But I think we got a little bit of way yesterday with the session in actually concluding that, yes, we have to work with the consequences of global warming, but we cannot forget the mitigation. We must be better at working also with that. Please turn my head off. Very quickly. David, Sweden Innovation Unit. Welcome to Maria. It's a question around big project versus small. Canama is a big hospital. It's a big structure. Is there an interest from MSF to also look at so many more smaller structures that we have in terms of energy? So all the small OPDs and is there an interest to look? I can imagine it's a bit of a testing project also, Canama, how we can do it for big hospitals. Thank you. Yeah, it's true that Canama is a very big project and we used, it was when we were developing the energy vision, it came like an operational request. So we thought we could not have a vision without the operations involved. So it was the first request that we had that operation was willing to do it, to there to do it. So we just, okay, let's go on and let's move on and let's see what it goes, no? But of course, that doesn't mean that we only want big projects. The idea is to put this under a big umbrella. And this big umbrella, we have big projects but also we have small health centers in the bush or a lot of different projects that we can tackle. They are popping up. We just presented this one you know, a fancy one. But there are other that are coming up and of course the idea would be to see the differences and also in several projects its renewable energies can be a solution, but in other projects maybe not. But maybe we can use energy efficient technologies maybe work better on how we manage our loads, in order to not spend so much fuel. This is also part of the strategy, no? Part of the vision. Thank you. So it falls to me to feedback in two minutes, which I will try and do. I'm delighted that this topic is here on the agenda and being discussed and I thank our presenters for their stimulating presentations. I know three things about the presentations. All three are considering the consequences of our actions and what we can do better. All three are considering what happens when we leave. And all three are field led. These three things are essential for us to consider at the strategic level as we move forward in MSF. These issues haven't been at the governance leadership strategic level at least in my recent experience of MSF governance and I'm delighted to see them having increased prominence here. Thank you again to our speakers.