 This session here is about synergies between adapting to the mitigating climate change in forest and agricultural landscapes. That's the title of the session. My name is Henry Neufeld. I'm head of the Climate Change Unit at Pickraft, the World Agroforestry Center based in Nairobi. And let me give you a quick sort of summary of the background. Then I will introduce the speakers. We will have one keynote speaker and then three respondents. And after that we will have a discussion. We have lots of time for discussion after. So the respondents will have possibilities to sort of emphasize and add more detail to their statements as we move forward. So let me just read the summary to you so you get a background what this is about. And then we have three questions framed, which I would ask you to bear in mind so that we frame the discussion around these questions. But of course, you're free to ask whatever asks you one of the things. There is a growing recognition of the potential for jointly achieving climate change mitigation and adaptation through land management. Landscape approaches to enhancing multi-functionality have been identified as a promising pathway to synergies between mitigation and adaptation besides helping achieve other livelihood needs through ecosystem services and functions provision. This discussion forum explores what is known and gaps in understanding of synergies and trade-offs. It also explores the necessary enabling conditions that help promote synergies in order to realize the benefits of the approach. We build on an ex-post analysis of the systems in Tanzania and selected examples from agroforestry practices to inform the discussion. That's the summary, the background. Let me give you the three framing questions. What are the main trade-offs and synergies between adaptation and mitigation at landscape level and how do they vary from one context to another? Second, what are the key lessons from research and implementation of landscape approaches that are relevant for enhancing synergies and managing trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation? Finally, what are the necessary enabling conditions for incentivizing and operationalizing synergies between mitigation and adaptation at landscape level? So these are the three framing questions. Let me first ask Lalisa Luguma to come forward and give his keynote presentation. But first, let me introduce the panel and maybe just briefly stand up so that everybody can see you. So Lalisa is a post-doctoral fellow with the ASC partnership for the tropical forest margins and world agroforestry center-based in Nagorno-Bekinia. That's Lalisa. Emmanuel Tourbio is a researcher with CIRAD, the French Agriculture Research Center for International Development. Welcome. Bruno Castelli works on forest and adaptation to climate change with CIRAD and C4 in his base in Peru since couple months. And Pino Renan, he is the science domain co-leader at the World Agroforestry Center Environmental Services and Global Coordinator for the ASV partnership for the tropical forest margins. Here. OK, so these are our panelists. Lalisa, floor is yours. As Henry has introduced, my name is Lalisa Luguma. I work mainly on synergies between mitigation and adaptation. And what I'm going to try to highlight a little bit is trying to look at synergies between mitigation and adaptation, particularly from the landscape perspective. So you've heard a lot about mitigation and adaptation in these two days. And we're trying to make it more of a practical, from on-ground experiences. What are there? What can we learn from those? What were the enabling conditions that made those practices effective? And we are going to pick some selected examples where we show what we did, how we did, and how we think it is complement, how we think it supports the synergy idea. So the outline of my presentation will be first. I will try to give how adaptation and mitigation are seen in the current climate policy and actions. And what are the limitations associated with that? Why do we need to move towards the concept of synergy? And then moving to the landscape context, I'll try to be emphasizing a little bit. What is the linkage between mitigation and adaptation within the landscape context? That will be followed by a case study, which I will be showing, where we show, OK, what are the approaches that could be really taken as an example for synergy. And then that will be followed by these reflections from outside. What should be done? What is the way forward to promote synergy within the climate policy and actions? So if we generally look at the evolution of the way we have been addressing climate change since the 1980s and to date, we have three distinct categories of generalization. When it first began, it was mostly about mitigation and all the activities, all the finances were mainly geared towards this mitigation. And that could be considered as the mitigation era, which is completely almost dominated by the mitigation aspect, even in discussions, decisions, negotiations, and finances. And we moved to the complementarity era because there was a big push from the developing countries who say we need to adapt. We need a support for adaptation. So there was a move to make a core benefit idea. While we do mitigation, we need to provide some adaptation support. So this complementarity is where we are actually now, where we are discussing, OK, we need to support adaptation while we are also doing mitigation. So the direction which we are taking now is more towards synergy. That is more of a systems thinking behind the climate change measures. And I will be mainly emphasizing on those dimensions of the discussion. So generally looking at where are the segregations, particularly when we look at adaptation and mitigation. One is from the policy side, where we have NAMA and Red Plus for mitigation and NAPA for adaptation. And when we come to the institutional level, also, they are treated as separate roles within different institutions. That's what is quite very clear with many of the activities going on in different countries. And also, we have separate financing schemes. For adaptation, we have adaptation fund. For mitigation, we have Red Plus finances and so on. But we are asking, are these really sufficient? Is this mechanism of treating adaptation and mitigation as a segregated approach? Is this sufficient? Is it also effective? Is it efficient? Particularly looking at the context of tropical landscapes where we have a dynamics of elements and processes in the landscapes. So we tried to review what are the limitations of these segregated approaches to adaptation and mitigation. And one of the very strong papers was the one by Klein, which says, we are sure it is inadequate. That's a big issue. The second one is the issue of inefficiency, where this segregation is really pushing climate policy to be very costly. If we are able to aggregate or bring them together, we can have a chance of reducing the cost of climate policy. And that still relates very much to the duplication of activities between the two interventions. And there are one very good example is from Tanzania, where there is an overlap of 60% between adaptation, the NAMA activities, and the Red Plus strategy document, where the Red Plus activities are listed. So we see if there is a possibility to bring together adaptation and this mitigation effort, there is a likelihood that we can reduce the cost of the climate policy. Because we know when climate change is said, there is a resource, there is a finance. Both are addressing climate change. So they compete for resources too. And the first key limitation of the current approach is it masks the potentials of those practices that could provide both adaptation and mitigation benefits. So what is this synergy we talk about? And if we just simply look into the Oxford Dictionary, it is the process where the interaction or cooperation of two or more elements or processes results in a better value compared to the effects of the individual pieces when they are summed together. And a very good example is, for example, we assume we have four components or elements. And in synergy, it is more or less moving towards this direction. So there are three main key goals, why we need to move to synergy, or when somebody or an institution decides a concept like synergy, we have three goals. One is increasing effectiveness. The second one is about reducing cost. And the third one, which is often not spoken within the climate debates or discussions, is about risk. In order to ensure adaptation to continue, we need also to put mitigation components in the vice versa, because both are complementing each other, which I will be coming to within the landscape context. So two key things are important for synergy to happen. The first one is resource-relatedness. Components that will be brought together should have some things they share in common, like activities or resources. And when we look at mitigation and adaptation, we have many elements that are very common. For example, both are land-based. When we take the land-use sector, land resources management activities are existing in both. The skills and know-how of natural resource management is also a component for both. And both are targeting reducing impacts of climate change. These are some common examples that we can pick easily when we consider the resource-relatedness issue. And the second very important element for synergy to happen is resource-complementarity. This is like saying, if we do adaptation, it should add a value to mitigation. And the vice versa, if we do mitigation, it should add also a value to adaptation. That's where we consider these resource-complementarity contexts. So looking at all these things, why is synergy important in the land-use sector besides the main goals I have mentioned before those three elements? So synergy would simply help us to link climate change issues with development objectives. That's one main thing because the biggest challenge is now, how can we address development goals while also tackling the issues of climate change and related problems? It also helps us to understand the interactions, interconnections between processes and elements that are occurring within a defined area because in synergy, you need to understand how the interaction is resulting in something. The third one is it creates a platform for actors and the institution that work within the landscape or within a defined space that we are dealing with because when mitigation and adaptation are brought together, for example, the institution that engage in adaptation and those from mitigation should work together and they should come to a platform where they discuss to design activities that are needed to implement their goals or objectives. Looking at it from a global perspective, synergy could enhance the engagement of developing countries in mitigation because when both are in one scope, then it's by default they are doing adaptation and mitigation and also it could enhance the engagement of the developed world into adaptation effects in the South. Besides, synergy can also enable the efficiency and effectiveness of the climate policy which I have been discussing before. So what is the link between mitigation and adaptation at landscape level? Particularly if we see within a scope of the land use sector in a tropical or subtropical context. For example, here we have some elements that could be considered as adaptation, agro-biodiversity conservation, increased agriculture and forestry productivity, and agroforestry, for example, is contributing to both mitigation and adaptation. Soil and water conservation is still contributing to both this one and to the adaptation. Ecosystem services, because carbon is an ecosystem service element, so it contributes to this one. And these ecosystem services, they usually stand between both adaptation and mitigation. So simply saying, if you look at these boxes in the middle, there is a strong connection between what we talk about adaptation, mitigation, and the in between. There was a very good saying by a person who spoke this morning at the other session and he said, for a farmer, we don't say today I do mitigation, tomorrow I do adaptation. It's all in one package. This is just a word by word quote from what he said. He's a farmer from Malawi. So, yeah, frankly, they don't say we are doing mitigation, we are doing adaptation. They just tweet in a way it is integrated. But we need to realize, okay, now I will be trying to look into how to, how do we do this assessment of whether a practice is really fitting into the synergy context or not. And that will be taken into account, a study we did in Northern Tanzania in a Shinianga region, which is a semi-arid area which is receiving less than 800 millimeter of rainfall in a year. And the community is agro-pastoral. It's once termed as the desert of Tanzania. And then suddenly there was a decision to clear all the woodland in the area because of tri-ponosomiasis which is transmitted by SSF, it's a livestock disease. So they cleared everything. And then there was a villageization program where they have to move to village. So there was a sudden shortage of wood for construction and energy. Then they realized there is a big threat coming forward which is drought in one context. Ecosystem is totally deteriorating. There was a scarcity of wood, food and feed for the livestock. So in general there was a crisis in the social and livelihood system of the society. So they decided, okay, we have to do something. And the first thing was ecosystem restoration by using local practices that are complemented by practices like agroforestry. And this was done in 1986 by the Tanzanian government in collaboration with donor agencies from Norway. Sorry, what I forgot here, step one, which is here when you go to a landscape to assess those things, the first thing you have to do is to understand the context of the landscape. What is going on? What is history? What are the drivers? What is the threat? What are they doing within the landscape? So the second step is what are the practices within the landscape that are existing? And how do those practices interrelate? And how does that interrelationship affect adaptation or mitigation? So what we did was we just, we went to the area, tried to talk to people, tried to assess all what is existing in that surrounding land users practices. And you see, this is a complex network. It's not easy. That's where the landscape context comes because complexity is one feature of a landscape. And we are talking about mitigation and adaptation within the landscape context. So we tried to assess the impact pathways between practices and what are the associated processes that link to adaptation and mitigation. So this is a net of processes that we came across. So I don't think there will be really a strong need to explain all this, but this is what we have to do as a step to assess the roles of the practices and processes to mitigation and adaptation at the same time. And the fourth step is realizing the values. What are the values within the landscape? Within those practices that are being practiced. And what are the processes resulting in? For example, in terms of social benefits, environmental benefits, livelihood benefits. We tried to examine what are the economic values associated with that restoration system. And if you see here, the per capita economic value associated with the restoration mechanism is 168 USD per year, while the rural expenditure per year is around 102. So that restoration mechanism has really changed the livelihood of the community in terms of the income, in terms of the economic benefit. And also we looked at the carbon sequestration aspect. In 1986, there was only a 611 vegetation cover, in 2005 there is almost 370,000. And we tried to convert this into carbon, which is the emphasis for mitigation. The biodiversity you see here, there is a big change in number of bird species that reemerged after the restoration was done. Mammal species, plant species, there is a big change. And one very important aspect is the social and intrinsic values. Social cohesion, social security. That's related with, people have begun to be settling in their areas. They have begun to be grouped, because they are now managing their ingutilis or their ecosystem together. What really made this area to be a success at least, to see some main aspects? There was a big support from the national policies and the strategies. Particularly there was a strong will from the government to support this restoration program at the landscape level, then resulting in a big success that we have seen before. The second one is there was a long-term commitment, because these days we take the approach of project which runs for three years and then it stops. But in this case, in this restoration case, it was running for nearly 15 years by the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. So they were really able to continue the process of restoration over a long period of time. And there is a blending of local knowledge with practices which are complementary, like agroforestry. So they did not only rely on new technologies or new interactions, practices from outside, but they were also using their local traditional knowledge of restoring the ecosystem. So in general, some key reflections that I took as key point is it's possible to enhance the efficiency of climate, the effectiveness of climate policy if we can pursue the synergy aspect. And there is a need for policy processes and financing mechanisms to shift the paradigm of doing things because so far there is no option outside funding mitigation or funding adaptation. There is a need to consider funding also, such processes like the synergy which could provide both adaptation and mitigation benefits. And such policy processes and financing strategies should also transcend across the scale because if we only do it at the national level and if there is no support from the international level like the UNFCC, there would be a problem. The third one is issue of metrics. How do we show synergy works? What are the things we look at? What are the indicators that we are going to pick that are applicable over a wider area? There is a need to work on this dimension to inform the policy and decision-making processes. And finally, there is a need to really do a bigger research on practices that are complementary that provide really synergistic opportunities in order to guide the policy processes to develop synergy in a wider context. These are some of the institutions and some are my institutions and I will be very grateful to thank them for all their support in this work. This is just a glimpse of what we have done. It's not capturing all the things because of the time I have to limit to one practice. Thank you so much. Thank you for this introduction to this topic that we will not discuss a little further. I would like to ask the panelists to come forward now so that we sit here and we'll just take turns. Each of them will give like five minutes response, comment to this presentation and add possibly their own experiences, ideas and then we'll have a session with a lot of time in conversation there. Do you want to kick us off? Give us five minutes. All right, thank you. I'll try to say a few words, trying to add some reflections about what has been presented. We discussed among us before to prepare this session and we say that there should be somebody in the group able to sort of downscale what has been said before. In other words, somebody has to play the devil's advocate role and I'm going to try to play that role today. So not everything is rosy and synergy may not always happen as has been presented in this case study. We know that the situations where trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation are very important. For example, if you want to increase yields using fertilizers, then we all know that then greenhouse gas emissions will increase or if we want to increase carbon sequestration by tri-planting, but if on the other side we decrease water resources or we use more land or decrease biodiversity. These are clearly trade-offs which occur when you want to combine the two and it doesn't work very well. So there are some key lessons which we tried to spot which could explain why such trade-offs occur and why it's not always very easy to have those well-working synergy effects. First, we detected that often we may end up finding it difficult to work out whether it's synergy or trade-off because we lack quantitative evidence on the different processes which are happening at landscape level. It's not easy because of the different components within a landscape to make sure that we quantitatively follow what's happening. That may hamper our assessment of whether we are on synergy or trade-off. Then Lalisa said it, we need clear indicators to tell us whether we're working in one dimension or the other one and very often we don't have those indicators very clearly once again because of this landscape level. We have to make sure that the different policy context from different sectors, mitigation and adaptation are analyzed together or otherwise once again we are not able to detect what's happening. Funding streams also are very important. Lalisa said it, the streams from mitigation and the streams for adaptation. Typically mitigation funds are international funds working at global level while adaptation funds are funds working at local level. Then we have a series of socioeconomic hurdles which may refrain us from assessing, which may refrain farmers from really taking advantage of some of the synergistic process. Poverty might be one. Education levels very often are important to explain that income level of farmers, access to market, access to credit, access to investment to support the initial changes which are requested when practices are changed and problem with tenure regulations also may be a problem. Lastly, we know very well that for farmers to be able to develop synergistic systems a lot of background information is required and very often farmers do not have sufficient information or the training which is required to embark into major innovations because these indeed are major innovations for farmers. Eventually what is required are adequate climate services. In other words, farmers need to know what's gonna happen to the climate where they are. Not only seasonal forecast but long-term forecast and trends so they can take those forecasts into account in their practices. Thank you. Let's give him a round of applause please. Thank you. Okay, the next speaker would be Bruno please. Five minutes. Thank you Henry and thank you very much also to Lalisa for this very interesting presentation. I would like to elaborate a little bit on the rationale or the motivation for integrating adaptation and mitigation. We have seen in the presentation that there are many reasons for integrating or many benefits resulting from this integration of adaptation and mitigation. But from the point of view of a project developer what is the motivation for doing so? Let's imagine for instance an adaptation project in a watershed. Why should the project developer integrate mitigation aspect in this project? Well, what would be the benefit for him or for the project to do so? Another example would be a Red Plus project. What would be the rationale or the motivation for the project developer to integrate adaptation objectives in the project? So I would like to reflect on this question of motivation from the point of view of practitioner, natural resource manager, project developers. So to explore this question we conducted an analysis of more than 200 climate change projects either adaptation or mitigation in forestry and agriculture. And we found quite a good number of projects addressing at the same time adaptation and mitigation like almost like 40% of the 200 more projects. And when we started to explore the project documents to see what was the motivation for this integration we didn't find many reasons or many clear argumentation of why adding mitigation into adaptation or vice versa. But we found some reasons. So some project developers integrated adaptation into mitigation for increasing sustainability or increasing the permanence of carbon storage like in a red project. Another reason that we found that adding adaptation to mitigation would increase the local legitimacy of the project and its local acceptance by local population because adaptation put the focus on local issues. Then a third reason and it seems that it was the most important one was to get a certification. So some mitigation projects were interested in being certified by the climate community biodiversity standards, the CCB standards. And so for getting the gold level of this certification they needed to integrate adaptation into mitigation. So it was the kind of major motivation for this integration. And then when we looked at the adaptation projects it was very difficult to find projects in adaptation integrating mitigation and explaining why they were doing so. Maybe one or two projects were clear and they were saying that they were doing this in order to get some carbon funding. But given the transaction cost of carbon funding we may imagine that that's not so easy for an adaptation project to receive mitigation funding. So as a conclusion I would like to say that we have been talking a lot about synergies between adaptation and mitigation but if you look at this issue from the point of view of project developer the rationale or the motivation for this integration or for the synergies are not very clear. So we need national and international policies for facilitating this integration and the synergies. And we need also funding streams that recognize that it's possible to do both adaptation and mitigation at the same time. Thank you. Okay, last but not least Peter who is substituting for Adamola Brimo who was supposed to be here from the World Bank but unfortunately couldn't make it. So Peter please give us a couple of insights from your side. Okay, thank you very much Henry. I think if I don't make sense please forgive me because I'm not sure that I was very ready but I'll try. I think I'll try to focus a little bit more on the finance side of the question the sort of investments in climate change the way they motivate or not motivate synergies and how that can be sort of enhanced. Basically if you look at the finance landscape at the moment some of the recent reports say that you've got about 193 to 100 billion dollars in climate finance at the moment and about 93 billion of that is going into mitigation. So we've got a tiny bit of about four billion that goes into adaptation. That's a huge, huge difference, yeah? It's really huge. But I think it's not the value of the investment so much that really matters at the moment. I think the biggest part of this story especially coming from a developing country perspective some of the analysis that we are doing at the moment what you find is that there is, there are these streams come down to the countries as two separate streams in the way it's discussed in the climate change negotiations and that motivates competition even between different government departments. For a lot of countries these two things are run by different departments. Like in Liberia adaptation is run by the EPA and mitigation is run by the Forest Commission basically through Red Plus. And so it becomes an issue of who manages what funds come into the country for these different things. So there's competition and very little talking between these people and that generates a lot of inefficiency and sort of perpetrates at national level this dichotomy between adaptation and mitigation. But even if you look at some of the funds that do not come directly from the sort of adaptation fund or the red funds, if you look at some of the funds I don't want to name some of the agencies but really big agencies have some clauses for example that say the funding that they provide should go to global benefits as opposed to local benefits that automatically disqualifies adaptation which is seen largely to be a local benefit. When you have those big agencies making those kinds of statements, official policies, India, climate funding agendas that becomes a huge, huge issue. But basically it's coming from a global perspective and not from a very local perspective. I think the third part of the story I think comes from the fact that we've looked at a lot of, we've been analyzing within the synergy context in terms of what sort of countries have any policies that refer to joint adaptation and mitigation and any sort of policy or investment that relates to this kind and little over 10% of the countries do anything of that nature. Sort of investing in climate change at all, talk less of investing in policy frameworks that relate adaptation and mitigation. You've got very rare countries. The BRICS countries seem to be high on the agenda in terms of funding joint policy agendas. Very few rare developing countries really like, what do you call them? These countries that were funded by the adaptation fund. LDCs. LDCs actually do that. I mean, Kenya is one of the rare cases that has funded a global climate strategy that has in it both adaptation and mitigation. But you don't find in most countries doing this sort of investment in the countries. So, and I think the other side of the story, I think which Bruno started highlighting is the whole project level, landscape dynamic level. Who is willing to invest in synergies? And I think Bernard Giroux mentioned that a little bit in his talk about who's paying for externalities within mitigation projects. Who's paying for adaptation? That's a huge question. As Bruno was mentioning, some of the, I think in one of your papers, there is an example where there is a coffee project in Peru where there was an agreement with the certifying company that is buying it to say, can you invest 10% also into adaptation as a condition for us to be involved within the project. So that's an interesting mechanism that is evolving at sort of local level. That's a good example of how you can start looking at financing synergies at the local level. The private sector is coming in, but largely from a corporate social responsibility perspective, funding these projects, some of these projects, and maybe emphasizing a lot of the synergy bits within that. But I think if we do not move from the global perspective in terms of how the GCF approaches synergies in the next round of financing, then that vacuum stays, it will not in any way enhance synergies between adaptation and mitigation. I think I've seen in the last few days a couple of papers saying you should keep, a lot of some institutions came in with some argument in the last week saying these two students should be kept separate. Maybe that's a political reason for doing that. From a practical perspective, from a developing country perspective, it is a dangerous thing because take Tanzania, for example, and many other countries. If you get 60% of the strategies outlined in the NAPA, overlapping with the strategies outlined in the red plus strategy, what is the justification for investing in these two students separately? It doesn't make sense because it's the same things that are going to be done to achieve the same objectives. So that's a bit of a difficult situation that has to be discussed and that has to be approached in that way. I think also that maybe one option that needs to be discussed further is that there is no, I mean, and from a developing country perspective, there is no regulation actually that stops developing countries from actually organizing themselves to bring these funds together at national level. Can they themselves create a mechanism that allows them to bring both adaptation and mitigation funds together and manage that in a more coherent fashion and have a logical framing of an investment policy that allows these two to come together. There is no legislation at the moment except you get funds from these big agencies that say, okay, don't invest in local benefits and only invest in global benefits, but those are largely bilateral. We don't find any restrictions in government, given their national circumstances, which is a very nice clause within the global discussion that gives them some latitude to bring these funds together. That's a possibility and we need to start looking at the logic and the legal and institutional implications of that kind of arrangement within the synergy context. I think that is a useful way going forward. I think probably the biggest potential lies in value chain approaches, maybe in terms of looking at specific practices like agroforestry and what comes from these practices in terms of the longer term benefits are not necessarily looking at strictly the climate benefits. To have these practices as a package and look at the overall livelihood benefits and the additional benefits that you get from adaptation and mitigation, but that really needs to have a very strong, because it has its own challenges and trade-offs as Emmanuel was mentioning, so I'll stop there. Thank you. Okay, thank you. No, sorry. We've heard some very interesting positive benefits between adaptation and mitigation at the landscape scale. At least I showed us very clearly that there are benefits between adaptation and mitigation that we can build on. But then when we had the responses and I would say all three of the respondents took the role of devil's advocate to some role, no one extends. We could see that there are trade-offs, but they're not at the landscape scale. They are at institutional scales, at local, national, international levels. And I think that's the framing that we need to have in this conversation that we will now open. I'd like to ask you for the question. We'll take three, maybe four questions. I'd like to ask you to tell us who you are, who you work with, and then it's possible also to identify who you would like to ask the question to, okay? So please, I have this gentleman here and I have you, sir, and then the madam with the structure. Thank you to all the speakers. My name is Tim Forsyth. I'm at the London School of Economics. My question is that I'm not yet clear what people mean by adaptation. And I want to direct this firstly to Lalisa because you said that if we have adaptation and mitigation, then we can also prove that this has livelihood benefits, which connects to the second question, which is from where I come from, livelihoods is a form of adaptation. So I'm wondering how far you are including livelihoods in your definition of adaptation. And when you talk about livelihood benefits, I wasn't actually clear from your presentation whether you meant that people are simply making more income and therefore they have livelihood benefits, or whether you mean it in a sustainable livelihood sort of sense, in which when you say livelihood benefits, do you mean people have more diverse, more resilient livelihoods, therefore they are more resilient to change rather than just simply richer? Okay, yes. And they could be more resilient to change when they're richer too. Yes, please, sir. My name is Carlos Canales. I work for Federal International in Germany. You probably recognize the Petri label you were talking about, products that are certified in this whole new month. I coordinate managed our global work on climate change and I'd just like to share something with you and then pose a question. From a producer perspective, our producers are increasingly affected by climate change. So we have producer networks in the free continents and they're all saying climate change is increasingly affecting us. It's actually, our years are decreasing because of that. So that's what we have on one side of the coin, on the other side of the coin, they're getting increasing pressure from the market to think about climate change mitigation. So that's on the other side of the coin. And these are the struggles that our producers are dealing with on a regular basis. What we try to do in order to address this, we obviously try to tap into the funds available, but one of the difficulties obviously is the fact that the funds are divided. So there's funds for adaptation and there are funds for mitigation and they're not necessarily interrelated. We are, today we've been more successful in tapping into funds from the public sector for adaptation and from the private sector for mitigation. For some reason, the private sector is not really interested in adaptation. They're more interested in climate change mitigation because of a business, rationale behind it and also because of communication. For instance, a business, for a business more interesting to say, we are planting 500,000 trees than saying we are funding a training course for producers to adapt to climate change. So this is one of the struggles that we have and here is where my question comes from this challenge that we have. Do you think it's possible or is this something that you recommend that we focus first on adaptation given that the constraints that we have, financial constraints on me and then evolve from climate change adaptation towards mitigation? Do you see that as a potential alternative given the financial constraints that exist? Okay, thank you very much for that question, sorry. Please. My name is Natalia Calderón. I am from Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza in Bolivia. So I would like to address this question to Bruno. One of the reasons that, maybe one of the reasons that we cannot find projects that are adaptation projects that are addressing mitigation is because of the methodological complexity of mitigation. What do you think about this follow accounting framework and how do you think it will develop and if it will facilitate the integration of mitigation into adaptation or if it will limit the implementation of this integrated adaptation and mitigation project at the landscape level? Wonderful, thank you very much for these questions. Bruno, why don't you start off with a question that was directed to you and then if you feel you want to answer one of the other questions, please go ahead and we'll just go through the side of the other side. So yes, adaptation project may not be addressing mitigation because of the methodological challenges. So you refer to the complexity of accessing the carbon funding from the CDM. For instance, we know that the mechanism is extremely complex. So, but more generally it's not only the question of methodological complexity, but more question of transaction cost. So it's extremely costly to get access to this market. But in fact, if you also see the problem the other way, you can also notice that some mitigation project are not addressing adaptation because of complexity as well. Complexity in terms of understanding adaptation or analyzing vulnerability and so on. So we are really in a situation where we have to separate communities and so the mitigation community doesn't know much about adaptation and vice versa. So I think this is part of the barriers that we observe in the field, barriers to this integration between adaptation and mitigation. And just before finishing, we have an example, we have an interesting story happening in Bolivia on adaptation and mitigation synergies. So maybe later, could you comment a little bit on this on the national level approach to this synergy in Bolivia? Okay. I'll try to say a few words, trying to answer your question on whether we should start by adaptation and take care of mitigation next. I would say, why not? But we need to perhaps make a difference between the type of farmers and the type of landscapes we are talking about. I think if we are in developing countries context, I would certainly recommend handling adaptation first for the very well-known reason that farmers from developing countries are not responsible for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions and they discuss the mitigation objectives. But second, because adaptation, if it is well-designed, well-designed, I think should be seen as a form of adaptive development where whatever is done in terms of adaptation ends into some improved income or improved livelihoods for the farmers. So that would be the way I would look at it from the developing countryside. And then, once adaptation has been handled, then we can hopefully hope that mitigation will take place. Now, I would not say the same for industrial agriculture of the North, where probably this adaptive development I was talking about just now, doesn't make as much sense, but mitigation makes more sense. There was even some comments made this morning by somebody at the Climate Smart Agricultural Session that this synergy between adaptation and mitigation and food security was perhaps making more sense in the industrial agriculture of the North than for small farmers in the South. That was a sort of bit of a provocative statement, but it holds some truth. And so for industrial agriculture of the North, we could perhaps not start with adaptation, but be strong on mitigation, leaving to farmers the activities on adaptation. I'm just sort of throwing a guide to see whether it makes sense to this audience. I'll be a bit more adventurous, I think that. I kind of feel with your question on the adaptation and mitigation, I would say does it really matter for whom? The reason is we're working with farmers that we work with, mitigation doesn't really bring any burden to them. If you start the debate, the discussion with carbon, sorry, it doesn't mean much to them. It's, you know, I'll give you an example. Some people in one of the carbon projects we're working with in Kenya I was asking at a certain point. You know, how are these people going to transport these trees to South Africa, the bank that is going to pay for the carbon, you know? How are they going to transport this carbon to South Africa? It's not their world. It's not what is priority to them, frankly. Some of the challenges like the stresses that they face on a daily basis might resonate more with them, which means, and if you look at Tim's question, if you translate those into what you now refer to as adaptation, the stresses that they have, maybe that resonates with them a little bit more. What we kind of feel at the moment is that discussion about whether or not mitigation or adaptation should come first may not be the best way. The best way might be, what are their primary interests? What sort of objectives do they want to meet within their development context from a livelihood perspective, from a resilience perspective? Simple things like, you know, we need more income. That's one part of the story, but not the whole story. The second thing is, we don't want to have a season where we don't have any food. Yeah, that's one part. So having food throughout the season, so they have well-nourished through the season is one part of the story. The third part of the story is, we don't want to plant amways today and there's no rains and then we don't have seed anymore to plant because it's going dry and we need to plant again because of seasonality. Simple questions like that in terms of the whole objective that they want is the entry point. And what do you then do, you say? What are those land uses that can address the majority of these needs that they have? From an agroforestry perspective, we think it does. It does give them more income. The trees are not subject to stresses they do produce, you know, within those periods. So what we normally would think is, yes, if you address it from practices that are more resilient, that can solve these problems of the earth, but at the same time, mitigate and help them solve some of these stresses. Then you, by so doing, address both at the same time. This is a more practice approach because they do need both. They might not know about the carbon side of the story but the primary entry point should be they are on interest, they are on needs and they are on response to different stresses. And then you find the mechanisms to bring this adaptation and mitigation into play. At least from a practice perspective. Lalisa, do you want to have a? Yeah, sure, sure. Share some thoughts. Yeah. For the first question on adaptation versus livelihood and the sustainability of those benefits, we are not only looking at the income, but that figure is the converted figure. We use some economic estimations. There are benefits for direct economic values. There is a value from timber, fodder, milk, all those aggregated together. So it is not just the monetary value alone, but it is estimated based on the market value of the product. Even it includes water. And the time they spend going to the forest through the water resources and getting all those things in the previous versus what they get now after the restoration mechanism, all those converted into economic, like saying monetizing those benefits. So it is diverse benefits put into one figure. And for the sustainability, this practice has really proven it is a very promising one, but there are things that need to be done because it is on a slope of still increasing trend. It is still expanding. To what extent should it expand? That's a question because this is a pastoral area, a semi-arid area where you have the majority of the livelihood based on livestock. And if this expansion continues, what is happening is now the vegetation cover is really closing. And Akeja is one of the dominant species. And once the canopy of the Akejas begins to close, if they continue restoring the system we're using such species, then the likelihood that they have fodder feed for the livestock is going to be a challenge. So we need a kind of ecological balance where we say, okay now the threshold is here. So as of now, it is really going up, but we need to define where it should stop because of those needs and challenges that may arise in the future. For the second one, do we need to push adaptation and then evolve into mitigation? I have a different perspective. We need both at the moment because if you see where the climate related disaster events are happening is mostly in the developing countries. And if we really push only the adaptation side now and leave the mitigation, then the impact is accumulating and it's getting to be even bigger on them. So we need to address from both dimensions in a way that this effort is put into adaptation can also support some mitigation. Let's just take a simple example in a forest landscape. If we are doing better in the farm fields, if we intensify using like systems used like agroforestry, we can reduce the impact on the forest logging such as illegal timber logging and so on. So we reduce such impacts using mechanisms that complement one another from outside and inside the system. Therefore, I think to me it is very important that we address both adaptation and mitigation from a holistic perspective like synergy. And that's why we are pushing for this. Thank you, Alisa. Okay, let me just share some sort of an example that shows where mitigation finance is contributing to adaptation. This is based on one of our affluent projects together with care of the agroforestry in Western Kenya where the finance comes from mitigation. It's about producing carbon in the landscape. That's the primary idea. But what really makes this work is the fact that the farmers who have barely any carbon benefits, these are really, really, really small, like $70 over 25 years roundabout. It's just, you know, forget it, ridiculously small. What makes this interesting for them is the fact that by diversifying their practices, by planting the trees, by using conservation agriculture, they reduce their climate risk. They produce higher yields. They have firewood. You don't have to go spend lots and lots of time collecting that firewood, you know? So the women can do something better with the time that they're not collecting that firewood. And if necessary, they can sell the poles to these trees on the markets, which have a high value. And with that, they can pay for their kids, school education they can pay for, hospital or any other emergencies that may occur. And by doing that, they are building their resilience. They are reducing their climate risk. So mitigation is essentially paying for food security and adaptation. And being opportunistic, having much, much, much more mitigation funds available, I'm very opportunistic. I think it's a good way to increase farmers' livelihoods in that way. So that was just one example that I'd like to share with you. Let me just open up the floor for a second round of questions. I have Debbie here, and who else? Yes, I'll take you again, Natalia. You can share this biolivian approach to synergies, and I'd like to do something about that. And yes, sir, please. Debbie, why don't you start it off? Yeah, what you said. Can you introduce yourself to the... Oh, sorry, I'm Deborah Mosse, I work for the International Center for Tropical Agricultural Seed Out. And two things I wanted to bring up. The first one was that yesterday in the investment, rethinking investment session, we were talking a lot about what does it mean to invest in a landscape in the first place, and how do we even define that or think about that? And one of the things that makes sense to people and is very clear that investing in a landscape, in part, will mean that you need to bring together sort of multi-sectoral investment, because you need to be paying attention to the forest and to the water resources and the soil resources and the different kind of business opportunities. So it's about bringing together multi-sectoral approaches in a landscape for these co-benefit kind of things across the landscape. But now, I was listening to you talking, complaining sort of and being concerned about the fact that the NAPAs and the NIMAs and the adaptation and the mitigation financing is all these different sectoral silos. But on the other hand, you're saying that they're exactly the same interventions. So I'm kind of wondering through that whole uphill battle of trying to combine these sectors when the interventions were the same in the first place and so you could go at the same thing from either place and you don't actually add benefit by it. You know, it's a lot of institutional problems. So that's one question. Do you have another question? Yeah, my other question is just a little bit provocative maybe to an all you people, but it looks like you're talking about climate smart agriculture and that you didn't say the word climate smart. And I'm wondering if there is a difference or if there's a reason, because there seems to be so much groundswell of attention behind the climate smart agriculture and you're coming with a different rhetoric synergies. And I just wonder why not. Okay, great. Natalia, I'll take you last. Yeah, okay. Let me hear you. Please introduce yourself, sir. My name is Sven Zäberg, University of Kostam. And I'd like to hear some words because we're always speaking about small haulers. Agriculture here, but I'd like to listen to words about big companies, international operating companies and their deeds, also in the developing world. Because to me, word climate smart, agriculture, adaptation, resilience, more or less, it's just a replacement of the same word or we have had all the work for that. That's just sustainable land use. I think the content of that is helped really much different and to approach a term sometimes easier to just reverse it. So what is the difference of climate smart, maybe climate stupid actions or climate stupid agriculture? What was the most climate stupid agriculture we had in the last decades? I think it was cutting down Amazon forest, transforming it into cattle ranges or cutting down lots of the Asian rainforest and transforming it into motor cultures for agro, yeah, for biofuels. So I think it's not all about the small haulers. I totally agree and compromise to all which is there, but I think there's still a big elephant in this room and that is the role of the international companies and policies towards that. Okay, excellent question. I think that will sort of spark a bit of discussion. Natalia, please, why don't you share your synergies example? Yeah, well, I will suggest you to follow the Bolivia's proposal on the joint mechanism adaptation and mitigation for the integral management of forest and the mother earth, it's a long name, but it is being discussed in the non-market based mechanism discussions on the negotiations. Bolivia is proposing these mechanisms, these joint mechanism adaptation and mitigation as an alternative of red Bolivia is against carbon markets and carbon credits and carbon financing, but it wants to establish some mechanism Bolivia for working in this mitigation and adaptation strategies for forest. So they already have established a national public policy that is called in Bolivia the mother earth law, that is the umbrella of different laws, the forest law, the land law that is going to be developed this year in Bolivia. So there's an example of actually what you were saying that it doesn't matter where, if it's framed on a number of maps there. This year, 2014 will be a key year for Bolivia to develop the technical issues about the synergies about the synergies between adaptation and mitigation. So I think it will be really interesting for us that we are interested on the synergies between adaptation and mitigation on seeing how this proposal of Bolivia goes into the negotiation, but it has already been aligned in the Durban decision, so now Bolivia is really active on pursuing these joint mechanisms and we will see if this year we have some examples of the implementation of these mechanisms, but not as a market based mechanism related to carbon financing, but showing the contribution to the mitigation of climate change and adaptation. Okay, so maybe there's a different view that you're referring to, and if you have to unpack red and then adaptation funds put everything back together. That's really good. Okay, on this I'm going to start with La Lisa to give us short answers to one of the questions maybe explaining which one you want to answer please. For the first question from Debbie, what is the added value of bringing both together? Looking at the current constraints of finances for climate-related activities, wherever there are overlapping activities between the NAPAS and the red plus and NAMAS, if we can avoid those overlaps and one institution or one body takes care of the activities, then we are reducing the cost and investing in another climate-related issues or actions. So it's about effectiveness and cost efficiency. That's creating, okay, from an institutional aspect there is a problem because nowadays the adaptation-related institutions, they want to work within their comfort zone. The mitigation-related ones also want to sustain themselves in their own area of operation doing almost overlapping activities. So as a responsible people, we should tell, okay, these are overlapping, so if you put these together, then you can reduce the cost and use the reduced, the amount that is remaining for another activity. So there is a high probability of increasing the effectiveness of the climate policy if we reduce those activity duplications. The issue you raised about climate-smart agriculture, within the context of synergy, what really makes more sense is climate-smart landscapes. If we really focus only on the agriculture aspect, there are so many activities that are taking place within a landscape and those interactions between the practices, processes within a landscape are more defining what we call the synergy than when we look only at the agriculture as one sector. Yeah, I wanted to add something on the point, the response to Debbie. In fact, if I understood well, you said that if an intervention can provide at the same time adaptation and mitigation benefits, why should we care about involving so many institutions, funding? Maybe we should have only one. We can get funding from adaptation, for instance, and we deliver adaptation and mitigation. But in fact, if we say this, it means that we have a kind of automatic synergies between adaptation and mitigation, and it's not the case. You have intervention providing mitigation benefits, but at the detriment of adaptation and vice versa. We can imagine, for instance, a mono-specific exotic plantation for carbon storage that will have negative impact on water, on biodiversity, on local livelihoods, and finally on adaptation. We can have an adaptation project contributing to increasing greenhouse gases emissions, and so on. So we should not consider that it's an automatic synergy that doing just adaptation will provide adaptation and mitigation benefits at the same time. No, we have a lot of trade-offs. So the interest of incorporating institutions or funds or incorporating people who know about adaptation and mitigation in a project is very important to avoid these trade-offs. And for instance, a mitigation project like a red project can have a positive impact on livelihoods, but it doesn't mean that it's adaptation. We need something more, and it refers to what Tim Forsythe was saying. Adaptation is not only contributing to livelihoods, it's something more. So we have to be careful that we don't make too much simplification. So we should not consider that we have automatic synergies and we should not consider that having an impact on livelihoods is adaptation. So I think it's part of the reply to this question. Just a quick example for you. I mean, why should one minister in Tanzania spend the whole time making, conducting seminars and defining a strategy for adaptation that ends up with agroforestry and then defining training for agroforestry, having the same people train for agroforestry several times, and then the red people coming and training the same people? It's totally crazy and inefficient. I mean, you spend so much money in these processes that could have been going to actions on the ground, and there is no coordination about where you invest on the adaptation side and where you invest on the mitigation side. So there is, at the minimum, you may not have a rule that says everybody must come together, I'll bring all the money into one pool, but there should be rules about what people do in mitigation and what people do in adaptation that ensures that there is some complementarity, that there is some, you know, synergies and that you don't have. So there is a minimum set of rules that have to be in place to ensure synergy. Otherwise, it's completely inefficient, I think. I mean, the second point, I think, relating to Lalisa's point and to our friend from Potsdam University, my sense is you need both for developing countries to survive. You need growth in commercial agriculture. For example, you can't go tell the Ministry of Agriculture in Cameroon that is signing 2 million hectares at the moment out to plantation agriculture. 2 million hectares over 10 years is six times the deforestation rate of Cameroon per year. That's what the Ministry of Agriculture on the one hand is signing out as concessions for plantations, yeah? But this is the reality, they need that income, they need the labor to come in, they need all of these things. All what you need is what are the rules that make sure that the minimum requirements of environmental sanity and integrity is respected? What is that minimum? And as Lalisa said, the main point would be in the landscape, are you making sure that all of these different functions are taken into account? Are you making sure that there is, we're looking after water, we're looking after food security, we're looking after incomes and employment within the community? I'll give you an example of some work that we've been doing in Jambi for 20 years. In Jambi before, you had a combination of oil, palm and rubber, but the rubber was jungle rubber, it was agroforestry rubber and you had a lot of rice fields. Now people manage to get some income, some food and everything. Now, Jambi is 95% plantations. Yeah, even smallholders are now plantation farmers. They've got more money, but they depend 100% on food imports. They have to buy all food that they need. That's not good because the fluctuations in prices of commodities makes them vulnerable to this price and that's a good form of vulnerability that you see. There's no rice cultivation anymore, they depend on the food, but worse there's no biodiversity because everywhere is 95%. So are you looking after all the other functions within that landscape or not? So in that perspective, I think that whole landscape where you have, you have all the functions being looked after. We have to make rules. We should not convert certain areas into plantations by law to make sure that in the landscape you've got all the functions looked after in a way because you cannot stop the plantations of people need that label, people need the money. So it's a question of balancing and that's why moving from that agricultural scale to a landscape scale where you look after all these functions, it's imperative going forward. Thank you. Well, let me just respond quickly also to what you're all talking about. So, yes, it's about good management at the landscape scale. I don't think that Debbie was trying to say that it's about mitigation and just through mitigation and so adaptation and we're just doing adaptation. I think there's the ground rules. If we set them right, that's when we can make some real progress and it's really about zoning, finding, trading off the different demands to land at the landscape scale, right? But you can do that on the mitigation, you can do that on the adaptation if you have the rules right. And this I think is quite, is a bit different from just general sustainable development, climate smart agriculture, which includes the other elements of land use as well. Because it really is only climate smart when it contributes to all three elements, food security, adaptation and mitigation to some extent, and sustainable development does not have to do that in principle. So there is, I would say, a difference. Okay, let me just open up for another round of questions or comments. If anybody has another question or a comment. Yes, okay, so I have you again. One, maybe a lady at the back? No? No, thank you. I got in late, so I'm catching up. Okay, maybe one more person? Yes, please. Absolutely. So, you first. This is what's second. Just by listening to the conversation I was wondering, are we not partly responsible for this division? I mean, it's science, research centers, development community, project developers and small responsible as well for creating or going along with these big policy frameworks, the divide and main distribution in the first place. And if that's the case, are we not responsible for bringing that together ourselves by pointing out this to the funders and saying to them, yeah, we can do an adaptation project for you, but it will only make sense if it has mitigation elements as well or I can do a mitigation project but let's not forget about adaptation. Is this something that, as a community, we should try to push for in order to bring things back to where they should be? Okay, any questions? Yes. My question was a little bit of an application to your presentation in the beginning where you were saying that it was difficult to find adaptation projects that had anything to do with mitigation. And I was just wondering if it was because an adaptation project very often takes a starting point in agriculture while mitigation projects might be tree planting related and if this divergence between interest is related to forestry and agriculture the whole story and which is also the reason why we need a landscape approach to planning and resource management. Okay, so I'll start with Bruno again. Okay, so about what Carlos said I think it's important to keep the division between adaptation and mitigation in terms of concepts because we are talking about different things so different objectives, different scales and so on. So conceptually it's very important to keep the difference and to explain people that it's not the same. We are not pursuing the same objectives with adaptation and mitigation. But I agree that in terms of implementation or policy or funding we need to provide evidence for the need for disintegration. And regarding your question I didn't hear your name. Okay, Lisa, thank you. So why don't we have more mitigation in adaptation projects? In fact, it's not linked to this dominance of agriculture in adaptation because you have also a lot of adaptation projects considering forests. Like forest in a watershed for regulating water and reducing the impact of floods and drought. Forest in coastal areas for protecting settlements and communities. Forest in trees in agriculture for a more resilient production. So in fact we have a lot of adaptation projects in forest and trees. So this is not the reason for finding less mitigation concerns in adaptation projects. I think the reason is the motivation again. Because many of this project had the potential to show a contribution to mitigation because they were planting trees or improving soil quality and carbon content in soil and so on. So they had the potential to demonstrate a contribution to mitigation. But they didn't do it because they had no interest, no motivation in doing so. It's very different from the other side of the story. I mean for mitigation projects there is an interest in having adaptation incorporated for increasing sustainability and so on. But for an adaptation project there is no real motivation except maybe this carbon funding or more attractiveness for some donors. So I think it's a question of motivation. No, I'm passing my turn again. I think he's taking his comments. We've agreed between us. Well, I think you're right. We do have some responsibility for this. But I think that there were very obvious reasons at the beginning for this sort of dichotomy or bifurcation of the world discourse at international level. Politicians like very simple straightforward language that sets. And that's what motivated the whole separation in the first place. And as Bruno said, maybe there are good reasons for these objectives to be actually accepted. The real responsibility that we have is to provide that evidence and the how-to because, frankly, it's not easy. It's not very easy. You took the red learning cycle. We thought at the beginning in 2005 red was going to be a very simple process. Then we started. In the learning cycle, five years down the line, now seven years down the line we are thinking it's not as easy as we thought at the beginning. Maybe something else can work. We need that sort of process on the synergy side as well to be able to digest it. The challenge is where is the funding coming from because the finance infrastructure at the moment doesn't fully interact in that. We cannot do the research and provide evidence without financing for it. So it's a CACS-22, I must say. Just to add a bit on the point you raised, I think, yeah, we are responsible to some extent but bringing it back and convincing those policy makers and donors is now a big challenge because we really don't have a concrete matrix to analyze the thing and say, okay, this is very convincing and put it to them so that they understand and say, okay, go ahead. Because the biggest issue is the challenge with the metrics for adaptation. For carbon, we are easy. For mitigation, we have the carbon. That's a little bit straightforward. But when it comes to mitigation, when it comes to adaptation, there is a big challenge. How do we really measure and quantify until X, Y, Z? We still are not there. And when you bring these two together, it's another complexity. So until we provide those things, there is a big work ahead of us. Okay. I think there was another question she wanted to survey. Oh, I'm sorry. I haven't seen you. Please, no, go ahead. Please, we have time. So please introduce yourself. My name is Julia. And I just wanted to tell you what you are saying, because I think this is very important. I think that at the global level and at the local level, it is possible to find the synergies between mitigation and adaptation. Where I see more challenges at the national level, at the policy level, because what happens now is exactly what you are speaking about, at the national level, we produce through these discourses to produce the fragmentation of institutions. So, for example, in West Africa, we had a kind of institution who were responsible for environment. Adaptation agenda is under those institutions. Now, the red agenda is coming. That is something very new for example, West Africa. The ministry created totally new institutions which are directly related to the ministry of environment. And that is what institutions are doing adaptation. And the question for this is actually money. Because why should somebody who gets money for a red project share this with adaptation, which is a big problem agenda? And I think there I see really a kind of challenges to how to link those two agendas. And we did a small study in Mali about policy or policy analysis. And we find out, for example, that the people who were pro-mitigation, we looked at their background, where they are coming from, and the people who were pro-adaptation, and the people who are in the middle, who tried to situate a little bit with the police in a government organization. And we found out, for example, that Forester, especially Forester, was the ones who were for mitigation. Because it just like the mitigation agenda I had before, or that is at least the way we understand mitigation. I think that is the point where we should think about how to deal with these agendas. Thank you very much for that comment. Okay, I'm going to take very one last comment. And I'm going to cut my five minutes short because I'd like to finish in about five minutes. Please. No, I just wanted to follow up What I'm feeling like is that I've been hearing an awful lot of people working to prove the case that there's these dual benefits all the time and definitely been simplifying the story. It's been sort of a narrative of climate-storrent agriculture, climate-storrent landscapes, whatever it is that if you do adaptation and get mitigation and look, we get everything together. But that's actually undercutting the issue that you guys have raised that in fact it's not that easy and it doesn't happen automatically. And so I'm worried about how we're projecting these things in the way that we're, you know, arguing the case because if it's not that easy we really do have to bring it together to make it happen both. That's different than simply saying it's all win-win-win-win-win-win-win just what I've been hearing for the whole day and a half. So it's really interesting and I appreciate that that you brought this nuance to that story. Excellent. Yes, please, Natalia. Maybe that I could talk after the covers, but in the case of Bolivia that we are not focusing on the motivation of the carbon market, what about if the market can think about for example, CSF, fur trade labeling that are interested in forest products that can show benefits of mitigation and adaptation and we are not thinking about the negotiations of the carbon market. CCB is not a mandate of the negotiations and now we Bruno told us that the main motivation for the mitigation project to include adaptation was the CCB standard. Okay. Well let me just say very few summarizing final words. We touched upon all the three questions that I mentioned at the beginning, sort of trade-offs and synergies at the landscape level and that it's not that easy to see where these trade-offs and synergies are and that there are we have to be more subtle, we have to be seeing within mitigation benefits, you know, adaptation benefits, but they don't always add up and also about the metrics in addressing mitigation and adaptation, particularly adaptation, which makes it which is a lot more complex because of this overlap between the adaptation and the development agenda. And finally about the institutions fragmentation of institutions that you mentioned and one of this may not be a trade-off, but it's certainly a bottleneck to get these different institutions and different communities together to talk to each other and see where these bottlenecks are where the synergies are and where different communities can come together. So with that I would like to thank you for joining us this afternoon and I would like to thank the panel at least I thank you very much for your presentation let's give them all a round of applause.