 First and foremost as a scientist from the climate perspective, we continually try to find ways to make our predictions useful, timely, relevant to people in the position to make decisions or in the need of making decisions. And one of the key challenges with climate prediction or climate projections at least out into the time scales of climate change is we cannot really rely on one prediction or one trajectory, and we need to build a probabilistic framework for that. And we've done that, but we haven't until the DUCC project, we hadn't really had the opportunity to test that framework, to implement it into a framework that gives us risks in the form of impacts and whether or not mitigation will reduce those risks or how effective are they at reducing risks and then where does that point to demands for making adaptation measures or adaptive measures. I must say it was a tremendous honor to be part of a really gifted team. I played a very small role in a very larger picture, which effectively showed how climate change and the efforts to mitigate climate change can help or hinder developing countries that are reliant on the Zambezi River Basin and the resources that it provides. And I think one of the key findings of the study with relation to the Zambezi River Project is to looking at countries like Mozambique, Malawi, and showing that even in a probabilistic sense, if you look at the distribution of outcomes, you find very clear signals, very clear signatures that mitigation works. Mitigation can actually not only help the issue of climate change, but help developing countries. Well, the National Treasury gave us a unique opportunity to test that framework and to see if it really would apply. And the methods that we employed under the DUCC project were very much related and deliberately transferred to the LTAS project, which focused on one country, South Africa. In terms of the methods, the climate projections, the climate scenarios that we provided were very much of the same formula, same recipe. But the challenge then is to see whether or not those climate projections really get down to the granularity of basins within a country, within South Africa. And I think to everyone's encouragement, it did provide guidance. And that's really, I think that is the first order. That is really what a climate scientist like myself or people in the research of making climate science and climate change predictions relevant is to at least provide guidance. For the DUCC project, MIT was primarily responsible for most of the, well, all of the climate change scenarios and projections that we used. It also provided global information of socioeconomics. Any developing nation or even a growing nation like South Africa is responding to global economic forces. And that information has to be provided to a model of South Africa, for example, not only the socioeconomics, but the consistent climate trajectories that go with those socioeconomic pathways. The national treasury provided an incredible amount of support to all the scientists and all the researchers involved. We held a very critical, very important meeting at the national treasury where we presented all of our findings to the administrative personnel at national treasury. It provided a really unique opportunity to get feedback as to what was really salient, what was really relevant, and point it to what they had to face and what they had to make in terms of decisions or set strategies. It was a tremendous opportunity. For UNU wider, they provided the necessary modeling tools at the granularity that was needed for South Africa. And again, it's very easy to say, we're just going to put models together, put data together. It's a lot more difficult and a lot more complex a challenge to actually make it happen and enable it. It involves people getting together and working together. Most cases from far away places and having to bridge those collaborations and ways that have never really been tested before. So it was an exciting opportunity.