 Just to try to synthesize the kinds of things that we had or I heard today and I'm not a very lateral thinker. I tend to think of or capture aha moments something that sparks an interest in me, so I apologize in advance if what interested me doesn't interest you and and perhaps one of the biggest ahas I thought was Ruth's presentation I I promised her that I wouldn't embarrass her in public, but I'm gonna do so anyway And at the top of her poster it says why bother And I didn't feel after being driven around in Ruth's bus that the question was answered But it the question for me is extremely relevant to what we're trying to achieve In the learning to innovate group and I think that for a lot of the people in this room is Essential to the work that they actually do and the question of course is is do we want to change things? And it was the only reason I got involved in the CG system And it had a lot to do with the fact that the CG system Operates under a banner that it says that it's a research for development system and I After three or four years in the system have become very very skeptical about that promise And I think that Alan's opening slide of of the unfortunate stickman pushing the big block of whatever it was is was a great way to to in fact start off this session and Several other things that came up firstly that Multi-stakeholder platforms are not there's no such thing as a blueprint for how we actually do it And I thought that it was interesting from Alan and and Andre's presentations that they both used value chains as a Structure within which they inserted themselves, but what is clear from it that was that the structure has sufficient horizontal flexibility That they can change and they can alter things as they implement and go along, right? I thought that was great I also thought that it was very important this point that other actors might get involved in the process late in Its implementation and that's definitely something that we've experienced in the Mekong is that this sort of snowballing effect as as our Reputation spreads that people want to get involved and I think that also Alan's presentation Made that clear. I also thought it was very important the point made by Andre that at the beginning of the implementation It's a very project-driven. You have to have a lot of goof and motivation to push this process along and it's only really Usually at the point when you're completely exhausted and you've lost all hope that it begins to pick up interest and lots and lots of actors I Also think the point about the need to focus on perceived problems now. I risk Donald Rumsfeld here in the sense that We hear a lot about this idea of needing to be demand-driven if we're going to improve our impact potential We have to address particular types of demands, but to paraphrase Rumsfeld a lot of people don't know what they don't know Okay, so there is a role. I think for a two-way dialogue between what research and covers and The demand that policymakers or local communities might actually generate I thought that Javier session Was extremely interesting He made the point of clarifying what the difference is between data information and knowledge and I suppose that his his ambition during his bus ride Was was for the information that he was providing us to turn into Knowledge and that was also something that emerged in this discussion that we had down here was was that very often these kinds of concepts of an emotional association with with Information and that then becoming knowledge these all terminologies that while Psychologists might have or be perfectly comfortable with them a lot of agricultural researchers are extremely uncomfortable with these kinds of Terms and yet. It's exactly in that direction. We as a system claim that we want to go and then the other thing that Really occurred to me was The point that Javier made about Organizational capabilities and I spent a moment thinking about that and and one of the key things I think in all of these processes Has to do with the capacity to listen. All right, and this it's amazing how rare Listening capabilities actually are but if you want to change things you there has really has to be that two-way Interaction between those who propose the change and those who we're trying to change Okay, and it and it raised the question for me whether or not Amongst its various Institutional capabilities listening was a capability inherent in the CG system. I Thought that the questions about continuity that what really came out in this group were were excellent now how how do we once we've actually implemented something do we actually continue it and and and Andre made a really important point about how much this costs to implement and and I wonder again into Adjectives that that a lot of researchers might be uncomfortable with but one of the key ones is of course trust and And the point being made is that it is only really when a relationship has been formed between individuals in the CPWF or whatever Organization it is that you work for and your target group and actually you you increase the potential for change Exponentially once trust gets entered into the equation, right at the beginning of the process when everything is so project driven There's no real interest in just wholesale taking on what what you propose. I Also liked the implicit suggestions made on several occasions about complexity and and I think this was also something that Really came out in the plenary sessions yesterday. I you know, I don't know about you, but you're Kim Your Kim's presentation scared the hell out of me. It was really it was a frightening Presentation and I just I looked at those slides as they one after the other came across the screen And it just looked so complicated, right? And I think that that's also something that When we implement our processes for change, it's incredibly important that they're sufficiently flexible to be able to with enormous degrees of complexity in the arenas where we work and leading off this is Something that Baru often talks about in Learning to innovate is is the idea of adaptive management and it's something that you know It's a it's a very ambiguous term I think that it's only very often that that when you've spent two years muddling through that you realize that that muddling through is essentially what adaptive management is all about But also within that is opportunism and and one of the things that we've found very much in our implementation is just how useful it is in terms of developing your multi-stakeholder platforms and Strengthening your networks is to be very able to very rapidly mobilize $4,000 $8,000 and throw it at an opportunity get your foot in through the door that increases the trust it increases the love It increases the respect it increases the hell of a lot of things if you can take advantage of of opportunities as they arise However, within all institutional bureaucracies, there's going to be an enormous pushback It's against the contract the auditors don't like it and so on and so forth So I often think that just by virtue of our compliance structures We are inhibited from changing the things that we would like to change. I just want to thank all of you for participating Thank you very much