 I'm taking deep breaths because there is nothing more disempowering than the whole monitoring and evaluation hypocrisy that we see today in development. The idea is to go on this 10-year journey of learning and sharing learning and adding value to each other as a collective enterprise of individuals working together. There are massive gaps in the amount of finance that are being allocated and delivered to local actors. I think that Colin has painted a fantastic fantasy. Hello, welcome to the A Factor, the game show where the fun never stops and insights from our expert consultants and judges fly thick and fast. I'm your host Aditya Bahadur and I work at the International Institute for Environment and Development. At the Climate Adaptation Summit in January this year, more than 40 major international and local organizations publicly signed up to eight principles for locally led adaptation. This moment was the culmination of one process where the World Resources Institute and the International Institute for Environment and Development consulted with a large number of organizations from around the world to arrive at these tenets for localizing processes of adapting to climate change. But it was also the beginning of another process. By signing these principles, organizations have committed to work towards ensuring devolved decision-making, addressing structural inequalities, providing patient and predictable funding to local actors, investing in local institutions and capabilities, building a robust understanding of climate risk that draws on local knowledge, enabling flexible programming and learning, ensuring transparency and collaborative action. Today's discussion is sharply focused on exploring the A Factor. Yes, you guessed it, A stands for Accountability. Over the next 40 minutes, four expert contestants from around the world will propose mechanisms and approaches through which the community of practice that has signed up to these principles can learn from each other, monitor progress and hold each other accountable for bringing them to life. Two expert judges will channel their inner Simon Cowell and comment on these approaches to outline whether they feel these are going to deliver an impact on the ground for local communities battling climate impacts. I'm delighted to have with us today, Salim Ul Haq, Director of the International Center for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh. Simon Addison, Principal Researcher for Climate Governance and Finance at the IED, Tamara Koga, Senior Associate at the World Resources Institute, Colin McQuiston, Head of Climate and Resilience at Practical Action, are two expert judges who will respond to pitches from these contestants are Lisa Shipper, Research Fellow at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford in the UK, Sheila Patel, a renowned social activist, Director of the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Spare Centers of Spark and the former chair of Slum Wellers International. A very warm welcome to you. Without further ado, I'm going to invite our first contestant, Salim Ul Haq. Salim, by the floor is yours. Thank you very much, Aditya, for inviting me to join this very interesting format. It's new for me, so I hope I am able to do it justice. What I'm going to talk about is work that I have been involved in from my centre in Dhaka, Bangladesh for many years. Earlier called community-based adaptation, now being called locally-led adaptation. And you mentioned the Climate Adaptation Summit, which took place in January. Just prior to the summit, we organised from my centre a major global online conference on locally-led adaptation, which ran for seven days. And we had 90 sessions from all over the world. We ran it 24 hours for seven days and had a lot of input from all over the world, many, many different organisations and people. Coming out of that, what we have now decided to do is to... The conference is called Ganeshna. Ganeshna is a Bangla word for research, and it's a platform of researchers in Bangladesh. We have now come out of that with what we are calling a 10-year journey on locally-led adaptation, which we are going to take forward through the Ganeshna network on locally-led adaptation and resilience. This network consists of individuals who have been involved in this work, who are interested in remaining involved in it, and to build our collective knowledge, energy, support, work together going forward, not representing organisations, because many of the LLA principles were adopted at the Summit by organisations, but we are individuals, many of us working in some of the organisations, but representing ourselves as individuals, and collectively wanting to take forward the agenda and also be involved in the monitoring, the measuring, the accountability, the bringing together of knowledge on this, sharing it with each other and building what we call social capital. And what we are trying to do is to enhance membership on the basis of recommendations. It's not an open network. It's by invitation network or by nomination network. And the focus is on young people, early career people working on this issue that are interested either as practitioners or advocates or researchers or working in organisations, but with an interest in enhancing their knowledge and working on this issue. To join this network, we have about, I think, in the order of 50 or 60 participants now. We welcome any further nominations to join us. The format in which we take this forward is once a month a Zoom call where we all join and we share knowledge and what we are doing. And then periodically, we come together or we plan to come together thrice a year at the beginning of the year at the Ganeshna conference. The next one going to be in January 2022 from the 22nd to the 28th of January. Then in the middle of the year, there's the community-based adaptation conference that IID organises this year. It's in June. It's also being co-organised this year by ICAD and BRAC. And then at the end of the year, there is the annual conference of parties of the UN Framework Convention where IID organises a two-day major site event called Development and Climate Days where we can also either be there physically in person or reconvene online as a group to join forces, share what we are doing and engage and network with other people outside the network. The idea is to go on this 10-year journey of learning and sharing learning and adding value to each other as a collective enterprise of individuals working together. The annual meeting in January, Ganeshna, which we organise, we will focus on the learning aspect. And we want to bring together our collective learning each year as we go on this journey for the next nine years to 2030 and hopefully achieve a much, much bigger expansion of the locally-led adaptation activities with genuine local leadership, which is the outcome that we are trying to seek. And we are looking to have local leaders become part of this network. And so it's a bottom-up enterprise with individuals as the key elements. And to finalise my pitch, I'll say that the 10-year journey is going to be measured in the number of friends we make, not by the number of miles we travel. Thank you. Thank you, Salim Bhai. Lisa, does the 10-year journey have the A factor? Well, Salim, I know that you have a very good reputation in building friendships and that you are able to bring people together. You do have a good track record. I will admit that. But what I'm thinking about here is how do we move from this collection of enthusiastic individuals at the local level to actually bridging to the levels above, to the funding architecture, which essentially also needs to learn. And so I would say in this case, it's probably not sufficient to have just these local leaders and maybe more thought me as you put into how to bridge between the different levels that have power, including, of course, those who have all of the money and are sitting on it. Thank you, Lisa. Shilaji? As soon as I start, I have to claim that I am part of this journey. So I am biased, but I am a critically biased person. So let me start by saying that this locally led adaptation process has drawn in social movements like STI, like the Viral Commission, like the Waste Pickers Network, and many others who considered that their journey was not related directly to climate change. And what the locally led adaptation process has done has demonstrated to us that climate is at the foundation of everything that we need for poor communities. And therefore, looking at ways by which the aggregation of individuals that social movements are, we see a way by which we can become critical people that bring in large volumes of people with different voices and are stake in this process. I believe that change requires as much energy and impact from people from below as it needs people from above. And I think that the locally led adaptation process and the work that Salim is institutionalizing without saying so is bringing these large varied aggregations to hold institutional arrangements that have sat in the sanctity of their offices about this process. So I champion this very much, and I think it's a marathon we have to be part of. Thank you both very much. Time for our second contestant. Simon, the floor is yours. Thank you, Aditya. And it's wonderful to have the opportunity to pitch our good climate finance observatory. Now, those of you that have looked at the locally led adaptation principles will see that finance is really at the heart of what it takes to get locally led adaptation moving quickly and at the scale that is needed to meet our ambitions over the next 10 to 20 years. However, we also know that the quantity and the quality of finance that is getting to the local level is really still wanting. There are massive gaps in the amount of finance that are being allocated and delivered to local actors and particularly to the communities that need finance in order to implement their locally led adaptation solutions. And there are huge problems with the quality of finance in terms of whether it's accessible or suitable to those at the local level who need the money the most. What we're proposing is an observatory, a kind of online portal that would track and assess financial allocations and related policies to see how they support equitable locally led adaptation to climate change, particularly in least developed countries and in small island developing states. And this observatory would aim to increase transparency in financial flows and the adequacy of policies. It would support accountability. It would allow people on the ground, communities, local NGOs and national governments to hold donors accountable for keeping their end of the bargain and also for doing assessment of the quality of their policies. It would also give us an opportunity to showcase exemplary policy solutions whilst directing governments to more impactful allocation of resources. Now we're proposing that we would track and assess data along two main channels. The first is quantity of finance. So what's the scale of finance flowing from international donors to national and local entities to support locally led adaptation action? And is that finance reaching where it should do? Secondly, we'd be looking at quality. So to what extent does climate finance and its related policies how far is that aligned with the principles of good climate finance as we've outlined in IED's good climate finance principles and also the principles of locally led adaptation? We would then provide access to a range of different types of information looking at those questions of quality and quantity. And this would be things such as data on climate finance allocations that would track those flows from donors to LDCs, SIDS and local actors. We'd also have a portal in which you would be able to access and to review global and national policies on climate finance and adaptation and these would be supplemented with assessment reports of those policies looking at how well they align with the principles of locally led adaptation. And we'd also provide country and donor profiles so that you would be able to effectively click on a country or on a donor look at the finance that they provided, look at the quality assessment and see for yourself how well they're performing. This database we would expect to be updated weekly and we're exploring things like the use of artificial intelligence to scrape data from available databases and that would then be triangulated with regular key informant interviews with key decision makers and holders of information in key institutions. Now we look at this not as a platform to be led by IID but something that would be a collaborative exercise in which we would bring together a variety of partners to both host and to manage this platform, this observatory but also to engage in decision making and to feed data into it. A number of different communications channels would utilise the data that came out of this firstly you would have the online observatory itself which would be a portal for climate finance and donor and country profiles and policies we'd also be publishing regular blogs and analyses as the climate finance landscape changes with quarterly updates and an annual report giving us data of the climate finance landscape. This would then be supplemented with an annual deliberative dialogue in which we'd bring together stakeholders from local communities to national NGOs, local NGOs and donors to take stock holding donors and governments accountable and maintaining pressure for positive change. That's a good climate finance observatory Aditya, over to you. Fantastic Simon. Shilaji, does the climate finance observatory have the A factor? It has tremendous potential for that I can tell you but the reality is that many things are needed to make that happen because the thing about making finance accessible to everybody is something we've listened for the last three decades. We don't even see a trickle. So first of all you have to make all of us into believers and I think the most important thing is that there are a lot of things that are not discussed in public which is risk. Everybody is so fearful of risk that most of the money that is there doesn't go down because people are fearful of it and nobody talks about it. Nobody has more risks that they face than the poor and the vulnerable. So one of the things that I think this observatory's challenges is to understand how the money not only flows there but what it does below and what are the bottlenecks, the challenges both political, social, project based because there are a lot of things at the base where policies make it impossible for things to happen. So I think you need lots of people like us sitting and poking holes in what seems to be a beautiful solution. Thanks, Sheila. Lisa, is the good climate observatory likely to deliver impact? Well, Simon certainly is very focused on financing. I'm trying to imagine exactly how that would play out. I think vulnerability reduction isn't the focus of most adaptation projects and this is what concerns me because when I think about the impact that something like this could have on a local level I wonder is it just going to get stuck in addressing adaptation projects or financing adaptation projects that focus only on the impact of climate change. As recent research has shown that adaptation projects are often increasing vulnerability, redistributing vulnerability or introducing new vulnerability. So my question really is how do we or my concern is that if the focus of the finance is just about making sure that it's more accessible, people understand how to use it. We know where it's coming from. Does that may not actually make any difference if the adaptation projects themselves are not actually refocused so that they actually address the drivers of vulnerability. So I'm worried that this is going to lead to be another factor that contributes to maladaptation if not administered properly. Wonderful. Turn quickly over to contestant number three, Tamara, the floor is yours. Thanks, Aditya. Okay, I'm going to present a set of recommendations for how to leverage a monitoring evaluation and learning or MEL system to put the principles for locally led adaptation into practice. And this is all about how to decide what is important to measure, how to measure it, how to learn about what's working and not working in a way that itself is locally led. So we know MEL is an important process for navigating all of the complexity and uncertainty of adapting to climate change. But MEL also involves power and decision making and so it can either perpetuate structural inequity or it can actively address inequities. So what would it look like for MEL to both support resilience measurement and support more balanced power and decision making? I have some key ingredients to shift MEL for adaptation away from a conventional top-down approach that may support donor reporting but doesn't necessarily contribute to the local communities who are trying to adapt to climate change. And these recommendations are based on some recent research that WRI did where we looked into adaptation measurement and participatory monitoring evaluation and decolonizing of MEL and synthesize some of these key ingredients. So it's not a single tool or any sort of silver bullet. It's more of a recipe for better MEL that supports locally led adaptation. So number one is to understand and respond to structural inequalities that may manifest through the MEL process such as how power dynamics affect those whose objectives are put first or whether different worldviews and definitions of resilience are equally valued. We want to make sure that the metrics, the evidence, the learning all these outputs of the MEL process that those aren't biased towards those who have the most power. Number two is to embrace downward accountability. Conventional monitoring evaluation learning supports accountability upwards towards donors but donors and implementers should also be accountable to local partners. So one way to do this, for example, is by choosing indicators that reflect local priorities and definitions of resilience as well as using indicators of agency and social inclusion in the adaptation process. The next is ask how MEL processes and outputs create value for local actors. And this is key to avoid extractive MEL. Unfortunately, even what we often think of as participatory processes can be extractive if they don't generate value for local partners. And the good thing is that this can be balanced with donor reporting requirements. But it means thinking about reporting on what matters to local partners, asking evaluation questions, for example, that will be useful at the local level. The next is to take a demand-driven approach to building capacity. We talk a lot about capacity building at the local level but if monitoring, evaluation, and learning is going to support locally led adaptation, the local actors themselves should be determining what capacity, external expertise, or information that they need. And speaking of information, the next is to enlist both local and scientific knowledge to understand and navigate the complexity and uncertainty involved in locally led adaptation. And to make sure that indicators and metrics reflect what local partners view is important to measure and what reflects their definitions of vulnerability, of adaptive capacity, of strength and resilience. The next one, towards the bottom of the list but still super important is to prioritize learning. Learning is an adaptation strategy in its own right and it's especially relevant for locally led adaptation because of its role potential for building adaptive capacity at the local level. Learning, when we talk about learning, we're talking about supporting adaptive management, experimentation, and also learning from failure. And last on my list that I'll present is to collaborate with knowledge brokers. This is a more practical point to work with people who can translate terminology and concepts between both external and local actors to help enable that ownership, that contribution of local partners. So this is important so that we don't let the differences in cultural norms and terminology inhibit a locally led malprocess. There are, of course, challenges to this. The main one being that this is a big shift from common malpractice, business as usual monitoring, evaluation, and learning, but that's kind of the point. So in summary, funders, intermediaries, other organizations that have endorsed the principles for locally led adaptation can take up these recommendations to help them put the principles into practice. And we need to try to be more open-minded and critical about monitoring, evaluation, and learning and ensuring that the time and resources that we're putting into collecting data and evaluating programs, that that's all used to create value for the people, for the communities who are facing the risks that locally led adaptation seeks to address. Thank you very much, Tamara. Lisa, do these principles for mel for locally led adaptation have the A factor? Yes. In fact, I'm almost ready to sign a contract with Tamara here. I feel like this was very well argued. I think it's absolutely correct that there needs to be sort of more thinking down about how to do monitoring, evaluation, and certainly how to engage in the learning. I think the question about is locally led learning actually happening is critical. That's very important. And certainly, of course, the accountability dimension. But the problem that I struggle with all of these monitoring and evaluation, although maybe not learning so much, is that there's always a question about these indicators. What are these indicators? And the indicators tend to be an exercise in reductionism where we end up choosing the things that we know we can measure because they're somehow cleanly and neatly defined. So what I would propose that would be needed here as well is additional creative approaches to avoid this reductionist approach. So that we don't result in the indicators or limiting what we can actually track and consequently what we actually care about. So maybe just expanding this a little bit. Thanks, Lisa. Sheila. I am taking deep breaths because there is nothing more disempowering than the whole monitoring and evaluation hypocrisy that we see today in development. And let me be very honest about that. It is absolute mockery in relationship to the lives of the poor that are vulnerable, that have to end up doing things that work in the monitoring and evaluation industry, which is extractive, which is very hierarchical and which is in a way without meaning to be like this, is almost abusive of the real lived experiences of poor people. And I think that while Tamara's process just warms every bit of my heart, the combination of global requirements, the imagery of wanting perfect, beautiful things below where everybody has to be a caricature of success and pretend that nothing goes wrong is really the biggest challenge to learning and development. And so while these kind of principles keep coming up, I've been doing this for the last 35, 40 years. Even Robert Chambers will tell you of how participatory processes have been extrapolated in order to make them functional for LME that works for those who give the money. So I think we have to do a lot more work on this Tamara because this is fantastic. But I've seen many iterations of this which have failed miserably because the asymmetry of power is very strong and social movements have a lot of problems in dealing with this as do the whole concept of projectisation of development investment. Thank you, Sheila ji. On to our final contestant, Colin McQuiston. The floor is yours. Thank you very much for this invitation and I'm really looking forward to trying to explain what practical action the organisation that I work for has committed to in regards to the local-led adaptation initiative. Just in the background, practical action, we're a development organisation. We've been active for over 50 years. We are working in communities on the front line of climate change and we're involved in developing ingenious solutions to the wicked problems that those people face. However, since the 1990s, we've realised that more and more of these ingenious solutions are focused on adaptation and this is adaptation in response to the climate impacts that these people and these communities are facing. So we see the commitments to the locally led initiative as principles that we as a development partner need to aspire to and I will be honest with everybody that we're only just starting on this journey. We're still struggling to articulate what these will really look like in practice but we're committed to that process. As we see it, locally led adaptation is about meeting the needs of local communities to respond to the challenges they face, impacts on their lives and livelihoods, impacts that these people and these communities are least responsible for creating in the first place. So what are we doing to try and operationalise locally led adaptation? Well, the first is we're trying to learn from our recent past. From those recent projects and programmes what has worked, what hasn't worked and really trying to understand better why these outcomes have occurred. We realise that there is a necessity as a development partner to overcome the project mentality versus the communities day to day aims and objectives. And one of the ways that we find this to overcome is by having standardised framings, engaging the community in a discussion about something but avoiding the technical language. We recently had some success in Nepal getting communities to look at natural capital but by removing the need to talk about ecosystems, to talk about the technical terms and just talk to the communities about the wetlands where they collect fish, the forests where they collect medicinal plants. We also know that we need to overcome known and undone barriers around participation, power and decision making and ultimately it's down to the local facilitators, both working in local civil society organisations in local partners. We need to find incentives to get those people to work better as these interlocars between the community, the project aims, local government, national policy processes. So we're trying to shift and adapt our existing monitoring, evaluation and learning processes. We try to develop community generated indicators for more of our projects, indicators that measure and respond to what the community think is the best way of measuring progress. What do the communities want to understand better and how can we incorporate that into our monitoring evaluation process? It's important not only to be thinking about staff and thinking about ingenious solutions but it's also important to think about process indicators. We're not going to get to adaptation immediately, we're going to be on a journey towards a more adaptive outcome and it's important to be able to understand that process. We're committed to co-generating indicators based above these ideas and integrating them into a coherent approach that our monitoring and evaluation staff in the country offices can use more effectively. We also recognise that we need to think about integrating indicators into what communities already recognise, measure and understand. For example, the number of hours spent weeding plots or the days spent harvesting. The internal changes that are necessary. The first thing is we need senior leadership and political leadership for this change. They need to get those messages out to our project staff, to our project leaders, to our country directors to get this commitment to local adaptation mainstreamed across the organisation. We need clarity and simplicity in the way that we communicate that and we need to recognise that the ownership of information, reports, blogs, we need to turn it on its head. It belongs to those communities, to those people on the frontline of climate change and we need to be better at articulating that we are an advocate on their behalf. Finally, we're exploring learning journeys, ways to understand process and not just outcome, getting community members to talk about their experiences, mixing subjective and objective indicators, increasing and improving our ability to think using systems thinking approaches and exploring accompanied learning journeys. And finally, we've still got a long way to go but key, we need to get donors on board and convince them of the benefits of locally led adaptation and the role that local interlocars can provide in enhancing the delivery and we need to get learning out there. We need more sharing of the benefits, how to overcome the scientific paper process towards knowledge which overlooks too many people's lived experience. So thank you, that's my pitch from Practical Action. Thank you, Colin. Shilaji, do you think the vision for internal accountability for locally led adaptation that Colin has laid out is likely to have the A factor? For me, these are very important list of issues and the reality is that as intermediary institutions, even people like Practical Action, which a lot of grassroots organizations really respect for their philosophy and action, the reality is that today the person who gives the money, the institution that gives the money, calls the shots. And one of the things which I see as a theme through today's discussion is that there is no shortage of rhetoric but there's a lot of shortage of creating architecture that will change power structures, which will change accountability systems and will transform the way in which we do these things. My organization, my network sits at the bottom of this pile. We have three to four intermediaries between those government institutions that give the money and when it reaches us. And we have a web of demands and expectations which we can barely cope with. So it's very, very important to acknowledge the value and contribution that all these speakers have made. The question is, how are we going to align in order to do the pushback? Because right now none of us can do these pushbacks on our own. And so all this discussion will come to naught. If at the end of it, we become the project manager of a contract that we can't even change. That's the reality today. Thanks, Shilaji. Lisa, do you think practical actions, plans for holding themselves accountable for operationalizing locally led adaptation are robust enough? I think that Colin has painted a fantastic fantasy. But I agree with everything. And I think it's wonderful and I'm cheering for you. But I worry a little bit, like Sheila said here also, how she's asking, how do we align to organize these pushback that she says? And I'm thinking the machinery of development aid is enormous and practical action sits in some ways at one end of the spectrum. And I worry that we are allowing adaptation projects to fall into the same traps as development aid has for decades. And what I wonder is, you know, at the end of the day, where do questions about justice fit and how would even people who work in these big development organizations cope with a potentially lost job because they no longer need to be there because their expertise is no longer required. So while I totally support the idea that there must be more sort of locally driven everything in adaptation projects and planning, I am also concerned that we need to, how do we get the troops together? Maybe it's Salim's 50,000 friends who will join together to push back against this big development aid machinery. But I'm just wondering about that as well. Thank you, Lisa. Four strong contestants, four strong models and approaches for accountability for LLA. Before we end, I'm going to go back to our participants, give them a minute each to respond to what they heard from the judges about their approaches and maybe ask one of their fellow contestants a question or make a comment on their pitches. Salim Bhai. Thank you very much. Very, very interesting pitches and excellent comments back. Let me just very quickly respond to Lisa's comment on my pitch about whether we would be effective at the scaling up. I don't know. But without our bottom up voices, the top down will not be effective in my view at all. So we are offering ourselves as part of an ecosystem of many actors, most of the other actors being very, very powerful actors and we being very less powerful actors, but we want to raise our voice and we want to make it heard. And we hope that by harnessing the social capital and building the capacity of local leaders to actually have their voices felt, not by big top down programs, but a bottom up approach will be the way to go and we see ourselves linking up with every single one of the other proposals that have been made. We should be part of that. We don't see ourselves as a separate entity. We see ourselves as integrated into everything else that other people are doing. Thank you. Simon, any response to what you heard from the judges about your pitch? Two things. Sheila raised a very personal question about risk and the challenges of getting donors to accept risk. And Lisa's question was around how do we avoid maladaptation in the delivery of finance. And these are both really, really critical questions and I appreciate them both. I think the way that we would approach that in terms of the observatory is to really drill down in the assessment of finance and policy by using the principles for locally led adaptation and the principles for good climate finance, which integrate a consideration of both the risk appetite of donors, and also those risks around maladaptation and the failure to deliver change for those who are most vulnerable. So taking into account structural inequalities in climate risk in the way that finance is structured. So I think those principles can guide us in doing our analysis of finance in the observatory to really make a robust analysis. Great. Thanks, Simon. Tamara, over to you for any quick responses to the judges or comments on your fellow contestants. Sure. Well, thanks. Thank you to the judges for your feedback and your comments. I wanted to particularly pick up on Sheila's points and thank you, Sheila, for reminding us about the importance of monitoring evaluation learning and that it's not just about using the male process to support locally led adaptation, but it's also about the risks and the potential harm by doing this wrong, by not taking up these principles and that there's a flip side to that. And also reminding us that right now, this is a lot of good and helpful words and rhetoric, but that we really need to be putting this into practice and move beyond the rhetoric. So thank you, Sheila, for that push and for that reminder. And I also wanted to just commend Cullen and Practical Action for integrating, monitoring, evaluation, learning so prominently into their proposals for putting the principles into practice. It's great to see that being integrated and taken up as a strategy approach to implementing locally led adaptation. Great. Cullen, any final thoughts from you? Responses to the judges. Thank you very much. Yeah, I mean, I totally agree with what Sheila highlighted. The development system and the fact that there are many organizations at various points and a lot of intermediaries between investments and action on the ground. And I think we need to look at ways to streamline that. We need to look at ways to empower the voices of those at the bottom of the pyramid and not where it currently lies, which is at the top of the pyramid. I think the other important thing is there is loads of great work already going on and it's not that development itself as a sector is bad, but we're not good enough at learning from failure. We're not good enough at accepting that not all things are working and that we need to change them and think of different ways of doing things. And I think what's really critical as a development partner is we need to look at those incentives for change and improvement. And then finally, I totally agree with what Lisa said. I think we do also have to need to put ourselves into the equation and the question of whether we are a long-term component or whether we are just there for a period and then need to step away and leave things to those actors on the ground. We need to embrace that more and not take this ownership and not take this, this is our community, this is our adaptation project and we're going to make it succeed whatever way is needed. So, no, thank you. It's been a great opportunity to share ideas. Thank you, Colin. Lisa, any quick final thoughts from you? I think it's inevitable that these four proposals have essentially all highlighted very similar issues and that is that there's a desperate need for locally led adaptation processes and locally led learning and these things. But that if we don't also get the other layers on board then the likelihood of failure is quite high. And I think what I'm asking for and what I'm looking for here is a little bit more reflection on, for example, Salim, like how will he connect with those higher levels? And I agree that we'll have to keep pushing and trying but I also think there needs to be formalized. More sort of these dialogues need to be more formalized so that this cross-layer learning can happen. Thank you, Lisa. Shilaji, the last 30 seconds are yours. Well, I think that the most powerful transformation is to have more and more real grassroots leaders sitting with people who make decisions about money. You know, the whole conversation changes. We've had many instances where this has happened and the whole quality of the discussion, the whole tenor of who needs to do what is transformed and changed. So I think we need to explore innovative ways because we keep talking about changing the architecture but let's do it in a way that transforms the discourse and holds everybody accountable to the same principles. I want to see that happen tomorrow. A big thank you to our judges, Lisa Shipper and Sheila Patel and to our contestants, Salim ul Haq, Simon Addison, Tamara Koga and Colin McQuiston. We let the listeners decide which of you has the A factor.