 gallwch chi'n gwybodaeth yn yw'r awdraeth. Y Cwyrdaldi Oxfordd, ond mae fawr yn ddiweddol yn 2002, yn y ddiweddol i ymryd cymdeithasol ym mwrthfawr, ac ymddiw'r cyfeirydd yw'r amlun, i chi'n fwy gwybodaeth i'r hwyl yn yr awdraeth. Yn ydy, oherwydd yw'r cyfnodd ar y dyfynu mewn yma i ddimen yw'r drwng. Yn ymddiwch, yn ymddiwch ar y pryd, i bwysig, bod ymmyl i gweithio, In 2002 climate change work was focused very much in a linear model, a stepped approach with meteorologists running global climate models, downscaling outputs which fed into impact models, and then we would try and think of various adaptation options. A lot of this still goes on today but we have moved forward, advancing computing power and the development of information technology. The picture is now very different with many scientific disciplines having expanded along with the climate problem. Oxford was early to diverge from this linear model and pushed the agenda on how people, their livelihoods and communities are impacted by climate change, how many other stresses are involved in understanding the effect and how we make decisions on what should be done about it. SCI Oxford is very different now. It's one of seven SCI centres internationally. Our work is broadened to include adaptation decision making and translation of climate knowledge for a wide range of users from a smallholder farmer in Cameroon, for example, up to national governments and global NGOs. Our expertise here is very much on the social and human impact of environmental change. We continue to look at sophisticated methods to tailor climate data for users to support decision making, learning across the disciplines of disaster risk and climate change adaptation, communicating and sharing information, now known as climate knowledge brokering for adaptation and mitigation, capacity building of course and financing actions for adaptation and mitigation, climate negotiations on energy policy and markets. In contrast to the usual summer silisees in this year, the media has been full of heartbreaking stories, the migration of Syrians, Afghans, Eritreans and others within their own regions and very much across Europe. The other ongoing story is the climate of course, the 2015, expects to be the hottest year on record and we're also heading for the most, thought we're heading for the most severe El Nino since 1950. There's ongoing extreme events with the droughts in California leading to wildfires and also flooding in Japan. These stories touch all of us, particularly those working on the environment and development. We're all involved in the climate story now. Vatican produced a well-received and cyclical, insisting we embrace the moral aspects of climate change and the Pope has continued to push his agenda in the US saying that whatever we do to the environment impacts humanity as well. An Islamic declaration on climate change has also been drafted following an Islamic climate change symposium that was held this August. Other international events also make 2015 a game-changing year in terms of the climate, the adoption of the sustainable development goals just last Friday, the Sendai framework on disastrous reduction endorsed by the UN General Assembly and the upcoming new global deal on climate change expected from COP 21 in Paris in November. It could be argued that unstable political and conflict situations in many countries is amplified by uncertainty in the climate. Climate change risks may already be playing a destabilising role in many countries in the Middle East and North Africa by straining water and food resources. While we shouldn't overstate the role of climate change in complex human events, it's also unhelpful to underestimate the complex scale of climate risks. This is the reason why we need as a global community of academics, practitioners and policy and decision makers to address climate change to improve learning and exchange of knowledge on climate issues. We need to interpret the climate data, the current climate, future scenarios and economic scenarios, understand the multiple drivers as I've mentioned and advance learning to make decisions on financing, adaptation and mitigation actions in the face of an increasingly uncertain climate. Through new global initiatives, focusing on climate services led by the World Meteorological Office and the European Commission, the European roadmap for climate services and climate knowledge with the Climate Knowledge Brokers Manifesto launch two weeks ago, we aim to contribute to these aims. Today we have an expert panel of speakers to address the challenges of communicating climate knowledge to make the best decisions, particularly on behalf of those living in poverty, in marginal areas and suffering the worst consequences of climate change. Sam Bikerseth, our keynote speaker, will discuss the role of SGDs and their links to climate and CDK's role in climate knowledge brokering. SCR Oxford researchers, Sir Cana Barwani and Harry Van Asselt will follow the presentation on putting climate knowledge into practice. We'll have a quick copy break after that. And then a panel discussion which will be moderated by Kate Molster. She's an SCI associate and we'll have a wrap-up and closing comments from UN and a board member, Andres Fogre. And we hope to come through the seminar at 12.30. So I'd like to introduce Sam Bikerseth now. Sam is Chief Executive Officer at CDKN, who's responsible for leading strategy and delivery. He brings wealth of knowledge in international development, natural resources and climate change, having worked for DFID in Oxfam over many years. A set of programme policy talks from, he led different programmes in Mozambique, Bolivia and Nepal. He's worked and lived in four continents. Most recently he's led international donor efforts to mainstream agriculture into climate policy negotiations. He also reminded me that he's also visiting research associates at the Environmental Change Institute here in the University of Oxford. So I'd like to give the stage to Sam. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. This is a great honour to be here with the board. So thank you so much for the invitation from all of you. This is very much an expert gathering. So I think you're the expert. So I'm just here to put a few issues on the table to stimulate a conversation. It's very nice to find some friends here from previous incarnations in my work in Oxfam and our ongoing partnerships across CDKN. So thank you very much for the opportunity to share what you thought to of you this morning. The last few days has been a quite exciting few days if you're spending your time in the media following the climate and SDGs. It's been striking how much climate has been referenced in the statements made in New York through the SDG conversations. And I think there is a real sense of 2015, could be an inflection point about pulling climate change from over there into the heart of the development agenda. And I think I want to share my few thoughts on that in the SDGs with you today. CDKN was set up always to be a development network funded by overseas development assistance by the UK and the Dutch government. But a lot of what climate was occasionally wandered off from that. I think it was bringing climate firmly back into the poverty reduction growth and development agenda. I was going to share you a few thoughts on knowledge management. I think we have a panel that will probably do that much better with you. And I bring you back to today or even yesterday, which is the INDC. It's very exciting. Gambia and Peru and about five other countries submitted their intended national film contributions to UNS to receive yesterday. There's a lot happening and some of it's really good. Roots from Miners have enormous challenges we face but there's an exciting thing under way. So I looked at the title of this event and then I read our mission statement and I realised they were basically the same. So I thought maybe I'd come to the right event for that kind of thing. But over five years, CDKN's been going for four and a half, five years, we've been using a kind of market approach funded by the UK government. That's what we'd expect to match the best expertise to the needs of developing countries. That huge hole was so evident at the time of Copenhagen where developing countries simply didn't have the capacity. We moved on a huge amount. Many of you have been part of that process before, during and hopefully after the existence of CDKN. We won't disappear ever. I mean this has been a process but in five years that I've been leading CDKN, the capability of countries. Just to produce their IMDC, Bangladesh produced its IMDC, it said we're going to produce our own emissions by 5% with or without international support. 15% conditional. Gambia 45% is emitted yesterday. Some of that's unconditional. That's their work. They've led it. We've supported it, you've supported it, of these processes and what we've done is bring the best expertise from the south, from the north and around the world to meet the needs of developing countries to fill these huge gaps in knowledge and advice and capability around integrating climate into development challenges. It's worth thinking a little bit about where we've got to on the challenge around climate compatible development. We haven't focused on only on adaptation, we've all focused only on low carbon development in CDKN. We've deliberately avoided those terms which have been silos in which we've sometimes got imprisoned in the UNFCC itself. We've sought to define CCD as development that minimises harm caused by climate impacts and maximising opportunities. Maximising opportunities to the UK government and particular ministers have gone completely crazy on off grid renewables at the moment. That's great. That's one of those opportunities and I'm hoping that the Development Bank has spoken about it yesterday in New York too. So I'm hoping these opportunities will be really seen to be transformative for development reasons for the 80% of Africans. For example, we don't have access to clean and modern energy systems. So CCD has worked as a general generic lens for the work that we've done, we would argue. Articulating it in great detail perhaps has worked less well, but I think it's worked well in general. And whether you're coming from Sendai and DRM or whether you're coming from, if you're an IMBC groupie or whether you're coming from SDGs, it's a really useful framework to look at things. So I was, it was suggested I might remind you the challenge, but you don't need to remind me. I think every one of you knows the challenges around climate change, but I do want to link this back into health and food and water ecosystems very strongly, which the IPCC's fifth assessment did very powerfully last year. We have these opportunities ongoing around the SDGs and we have the Paris COP at the moment, a moment to drive this forward. Not a moment that's going to die when we go home on the 9th of December, but that drives through into a change agenda in the period of the SDG implementation of 2030. But it's pretty gloomy really when you ask climate action track or the UNEP emissions gap report to add up the numbers. It's not looking very good and the INDCs are in fact more or less just articulating the emissions gap that already exists. This was the last year's report, but if you look at the climate action trackers' latest summary, it excludes Brazil that came in yesterday, which is significant. 65%, 70% of global emissions, still a large gap of 14 to 17 gigatons for 2030. Largely, the INDCs have just been bottomed up, have not driven high ambition, they've driven the status quo that the country is very committed to. Maybe locking that in a little bit more strongly, so that's the positive side of these things. The narratives change around decarbonisation. I don't know whether you were alongside the 00 discussions that happened over the last 18 months. That shift, target zero, the NGO advocacy group has advocated it strongly, but to shift the dialogue on net zero in the middle of the end of the century from there to now is extraordinary. It's directly referenced in the Brazilian INDC published yesterday. So decarbonisation by the end of the century is much more than nature of the dialogue. So you can look at the last half, or you can look at the half-empty. The transformation, I would say, is on its way. But there's some really sticky issues because we don't know whether the ratchet mechanism will get us to the top of this graph. We don't know whether compliance is going to be remotely effective. Is it going to be legally binding? Most people think not, but many would like it to be. Will carbon pricing kicking. The big one is climate finance going to be sufficient to drive the sport of the UK government in doing a bit like that. But I think the narrative around this is changing, and we're not, you know, CBK and SCI in the core in Oxford or London or somewhere else. We're actually part of the mainstream development debate now. I think where we wanted to be for a while. You guys know very well about climate impacts, and I don't need to remind you. But I think many countries haven't got it. We work with some of the people here in Nepal to try and bring better evidence and data to national level, rather than angrigate level IPCC analysis, the impacts on fresh water, and marine ecosystems. All that uncertainty in East Africa. We're working with a future climate Africa programme, which is one of those programmes, trying to bring the science and modelling and the knowledge to a more local basis. But it's still quite generic. There are countries that get it. There are countries who are going to have ambitious INDCs, who have ambitious INDCs, like the Gambia we can say today, and Peru, and others who have thought about it, struggle with it, Chile can come up with a disappointing INDC, and others who just aren't engaging at all. So, there's still a long journey ahead. The challenge is absolutely massive. And the IPCC has done a very important job to reach out to some, but that former chair said to me, we need to carpet from the world with the results of the IPCC. We just want to go out to country after country to share the results, to stimulate a national level debate. And that's happened in some places, but not yet everywhere. So, if you're not already familiar with the SDG sort of colour scheme, then I just want to remind you, I just noticed this morning that the Prime Minister in New York was sort of kids holding banner, you know, it's a square reach with Justin Greening. But I just want to emphasise the fact that they don't... The climate is woven through it, and this is a huge, huge triumph that the open working group actually that they delivered the SDGs without climate change just being siled in the climate action SDG, which itself is weak, many of you know, because of basically the decisions to parents. Many of these, the targets within the goals that I highlighted here and you may have spotted others reference climate change, even the no poverty one is reduced exposure to the poor to climate-related extreme events. The zero hunger has strengthened capacity for adaptation. The decent work and growth has decoupled economic growth from environmental degradation. It's woven through a really important point that I want to emphasise. Of course you can look at those that are related, you know, health, and gender equality. We know about the differential impacts of climate change on men and women and the different mitigation options that women have. The opportunity for deliberately targeting microfinance access to resources to women to drive access to renewables and other mitigation opportunities. This is the place where the climate change agenda will be driven from. It won't be driven from SDG 13. It won't be driven from Paris. It will be driven from Parisians realising last Sunday they can enjoy their streets without cars driving around them or the citizens of Beijing forcing the government to shift its energy policy. SDG 3 is really important to SDG 13. This is obvious stuff. You know this stuff. But it's an exciting moment of climate change sitting in the midst of it, not separately from the midst of the debate on the chat challenge. The indivisibility, the universality of the intended goals comes out too. Here's a little aside from PWC, which many of you know is where I'm based. They just done a survey on business views on SDGs. There's quite a lot of business conversation in New York these last few days about SDGs as well. 1,000 businesses were interviewed for this and they identified quite a high awareness of SDGs amongst the executives across their businesses. But they identified decent work net growth as the driver for them, the SDG in particular, which they identified with. Citizens prioritised hunger as you would expect in the sense of human indignity of food insecurity and expect businesses to embed SDGs into their strategies. But the businesses themselves, very few of them are really built in into their strategies. It's quite an interesting bit of initial analysis about business engagement. In light and self-interest, of course, this is, but why businesses would get involved in SDGs and thinking about them. And another survey, this is the CEO Pulse survey. This is a different bit of data collection by the PWC network. Reminds us that it's, Paris is a milestone, but public awareness, better knowledge and information, 75% of CEOs think we drive action and clear a national policy framework. It's so important when we're encouraged to think about private channels for action on climate change and private channels for action on development that we recognise that that actually means the policy environment and the regulatory environment is actually directly working with various private sector actors. So I thought that second column, 75% CEOs think that better information will impact their business. They actually are hungry. They want tools to engage in SDGs. They want tools to think about climate impacts in their business. There's a higher and higher awareness. And I think that's interesting. You know, Paris comes out less and much less significant. It's just a moment. Very briefly, on some research we funded in partnership with HR, one input on the relationship between SDGs and the deal in Paris was a paper on this which we find on our website. It's a modelling effort to look at a climate and social economic indicators done globally and picking up the key countries. Essentially looking at two hypothetical scenarios, a low ambition and a high ambition agreement in Paris. We can see how a low ambition agreement will result in higher poverty levels in Asia and Africa in particular, 80% to 140%. But real numbers in the difference of number of people that come out of poverty. This attempt to summarise what this means. You've got 50 million people under $1.25 being in Uganda at present. And a scenario with a high ambition outcome in Paris results in a drop of 3 million. It doesn't get with poverty in Uganda, which some models suggest in other countries. But a low ambition drives increased number of people in poverty. I think it's fairly obvious, but it's worth reminding that there's no point having the SDGs if you don't have a good outcome on climate action. And this is modelled more widely in the paper and with analysis across all 17 SDGs, I won't dwell on this, but as you can see, there's a strong relationship between the levels of ambition from COP 21 and the ability to deliver the SDGs in 2030. You can see in particular how that stands out in terms of failure to achieve, high risk of failure to achieve the SDGs in gender equality or poverty or inequality according to this analysis. It's preliminary analysis, but it's an interesting model of looking at that relationship and how you have a look at it. And kind of related to that, there's a sort of set of... I'm going to conclude this part of my conversation here. COP 21 isn't just about emissions reduction, so we know that. That's why many countries will have wanted adaptation to be very much part of the process. But high ambition will drive more international cooperation. You can see the shift in the UK aid programme into climate action of the announcement to the Prime Minister over the last couple of days. It will also drive in climate finance as well. Renewables revolution in Africa, that's the ambition of the president of the African Development Bank, will drive other innovations itself. It will come on to the back of a telecom revolution, but it will drive a broader thing. It's broader development processes. A low ambition, obviously, is more likely to see increased inequality, possible new forms of trade restrictions emerging and the kind of thing that we've seen haven't been facilitating international development. So just a few remarks on knowledge management and networks. I was asked to talk a bit about this, and you've all been, I think, nearly all of you part of this process and know a great deal about this. But I think in CDK we've had some success, essentially, because we were given the flexibility right deeply and a mandate to integrate knowledge management into everything that we've done. We've had an adequate budget to do it well. We've integrated this into our projects and programmes. We've been very demand-led to listen to what, as it were, our developing country, clients want and appreciate, and the network is sometimes too intermediaries. There's a climate knowledge focus that we've supported has been. But the broad range of tools is the first thing, I would say, demand-led. Building on what's there, we haven't sought to create new things often. We've tried to build on existing networks, and we've listened and adapted. And just for the next few slides, talk about some of the ways we've used this. We've had a whole series of papers called Inside Stories, and I'm pleased to note that one of those listed here was a collaboration with SEI, SEI Summonet. Eric and I were just talking about this one, but we agreed there was actually a better example in Chiang Mai. But really exciting processes of data analysis with communities, with leadership, leading to action in Hue, and then in Chiang Mai, which really led to a clean central zone in that city. So an amazing process in Cartagena where there was some analysis of the impacts of sea level rise and downing of the volcanoes some years earlier as well, bringing that into a political process through five changes of mayors in the intervening years, and now really leading to one of the first adaptation plans for a major Latin American city. I could go on. The Amelibad heat health thing has been the most striking story of how you can bring data analysis around mortality, a good analysis of public health. Really good communications and strong leadership by the municipality is that city which really has saved lives in that city in India in the heat wave last name. So telling the story, they matter. It's not just about writing a search paper. It's telling the stories and reaching out, communicating them. And yeah, we want to bring people in through a whole variety of means of communications, pull people in a way that they're comfortable with videos or guides or papers and make them all well-organised and accessible. And we want to push stuff out. We want to reach out through other networks. We work with the eldest network and we work with other networks, the low-machines relevant strategies network which we're now co-delivering funded by the US government. The climate knowledge brokers is an example of collaboration as well. And we're working with university networks in particular in Southern Africa to reach out. Of course, meetings like this can't be substituted once in a while. We do need to get together and building those communities of practice require us to see each other once in a while. A couple of people have met this room for four or five years at similar meetings. But once in a while, we do need to engage and that drives the sharing the power of hearing a story across the table directly can never be undermined. In the lead's global partnership with so many practitioners talking to one another and really spreading the possibilities of low-carbon development and their own stories of driving that through their government. The knowledge brokers network is great. We've been very happy to support that process. It's kind of in the background it's there, it's enabling better access. There's some technology behind it. It's what share, enable to tag across related websites and setting out the principles of working together so that we've been part of the launch that was just last week. I thought I'd just close with telling you about the process in Peru which has been an interesting process of co-creation by a number of actors over the last two and a half years which has led directly to the launch that we were submitting to IMDC just yesterday. Plan CC is the national mitigation plan by and large where adaptation comes into the IMDC as a mitigation plan of Peru and rather than going to Copenhagen with a proverbial back of the bank packet calculation on emissions reduction is what they did in 2009 objective robust data basically with national pollution from the data and building consensus at the same time not sort of doing the analysis and then doing consensus but an integrated approach. This was a large exercise. It was expensive, it was funded by improving government ourselves and the Swiss government and the Children's Investment Fund and they were just sick and brought a lot of actors together communication experts very much conducted governance process and political process at high level to guide it and it brought in the private sector an amazing story about the cement industry going to the first industry first meetings basically to kind of block it and then realizing there was an opportunity and then engaging and then looking at clean cement technology as a consequence of that and this is another very clear slide just to set out the complexity there's really a research team scenarios building team and technical consulting groups lots of different groups working together well facilitated by our partner in Peru Nivella who I should mention here and it came up with a number of scenarios the scenarios were still just scenarios on paper 73 mitigation options they came up with and that's great but nothing's changed in Peru really as a consequence of that changing the light bulbs in the city of Lima which was one of them but actually you're still on paper here you've involved a lot of citizens but you engage with the impacts on productivity Ministry of Bulgaria he's had a tough time from energy and industry ministers over the last year during the COP presidency as I'm sure you will know part of it has been this debate about the future opportunities for low carbon growth or future directions of growth in a very fast growing economy the engagement of the Ministry of Economy and Finance was absolutely critical as I think you all know we've spent too much time and talk with our friends in the Ministry of Environment and that's often the wrong place to be but there we are they came up with four scenarios and they're draft IMDC three months ago which ranged I think from 4% to 42% and they've come up with a mid to upper one of the 30% emissions reduction target which is just looking at that this is 10% unconditional no 20% unconditional so they're going to do a 20% reduction themselves with or without international cooperation and a further 10% given international support so this is a critical myth so it's a story from the way it's a story from Chenmai a city level, a story at national level it's a critical mixture of analysis stakeholder engagement political leadership and communications that resonates to it and I'm sure that will resonate in the work that many of you are also doing so I'm going to stop really about here just to recap to share my enthusiasm for the importance of focusing on the depth of it and climate change being integrated you can call it CCD, climate compatible you can call it climate mainstream you can call it something else but it's really critical that we see that integration this opportunity for integration at this stage in terms of knowledge management and networks and partnerships again we might give that a number of names we're calling it knowledge networking that needs to be well resourced and sometimes research programmes don't do it they add it on afterwards encourage your donors to integrate it fully into the cycle of funding and what you do you're going to get a much more applied and direct action get the action that you want we need to build in learning how we're going to do that sometimes we don't have the resources to do that institutions playing we have to find our resources and integrate learning as we go we can find champions at local level to do that with it's part of a capacity building process very often to have an integrated learning cycle into these programmes and projects that we run and careful construction of the stakeholder is not a casual construction but careful construction both of who's involved and the governance of that is so often important the process is the thing that the devil most CDN projects not the technical results and we've learned that and finally let's not forget the finance I mean we have generous donors all of us we rest largely on public funding I think the UK we've been lucky and the Prime Minister announced a further £5.8 billion pounds worth of climate finance over the next six years that's for developing countries we should not forget that but we've enabled we've underpinned that the knowledge aspect of that is central and important to it so we've had generous supporters but the needs are absolutely enormous finance this UK government announcement you would have seen some of the analysis and commentary over whether it's in math or not it may be about $2 billion a year from the 100 billion promised Copenhagen so it's not very much is it but we know it's going to come from public and private resources we know it's going to come from domestic resources the IMC has already demonstrated how much developing countries are putting on the table the partnership between the international and the domestic resources is the partnership between public and private and that's going to require a shift in the way we work I was at the launch of the African Development Bank's new deal for energy in Abidjan last week and I will tell you it was a much less comfortable meeting to be in I don't know where you're going to make that I'm confident in this kind of gathering you know this kind of gathering research policy practitioners is the space where we work together when you're sitting with bankers and technology entrepreneurs they want knowledge packaged in a really different way we've got to communicate differently in different ways to different audiences and we haven't always done that terribly well and we tend to find a music communicating to people that like what we do and our own kind of organisation so I think there's an exciting challenge for us whether it's SCR, CDKM or whoever he's finding new ways of making new partnerships and collaborations of work and adding value knowledge and information CEOs told us matters they wanted but how are we going to get it to them in the right form so with that I'd like to close and thank you again for this opportunity applause Thank you very much for that, Sam for that I think it was something exciting challenging but also it was the last word it was expected and the story would have changed now that it's a positive transformation on the way we are running out of time a little bit but I'm going to allow two questions for Sam Anyone have any questions otherwise we'll leave them to the panel OK, you are So maybe a short question about I mean you are working in many different countries obviously and we have supported a lot of interesting processes together with a lot of partners and in the end here you mentioned we need to package information maybe in different ways in order to attract the key groups that may not see themselves as part of this agenda How do you deal with that in practice can you give an example maybe from a country where you have actually managed to well you mentioned Peru a little bit but you have managed to mobilize key actors for change by repackaging information or putting in place a different kind of process than what you would initially have intended to do I mean the first thing is you can't do it from London so the first thing is you need to be packaging it with local eyes and knowledge and capability so until we build our capability in our focus countries CDPEN as you may know really spread self-bearance things in the first couple of years we went to the market and lots of good ideas came up with Pune and SCI but we ended up with a lack of focus so focusing on 12 countries across the Caribbean was a vision to solve it because it's a very good understanding to somebody else and has worked much better for having that capability and those relations with it and then you'll be able to start understanding what the time is to take a model from a box of oil and dump it in the fuel or down the air and then having skilled facilitators and the value of a facilitator that can work across boundaries and communicate across boundaries is critical and structured from there and those are two ingredients I'm sure there are many more and those two work well in the Peru context soft things I'm sure they're not going to be that soft stuff that really matters Thanks Sam most of the information knowledge data that is available to those who are working with the communities with the farmers that is information is either global or at the best at the national level when we go to the farmers to talk to them on a low climate change we seldom get information that they need at their level one is because still the information is at the level second the climate change is having varying impact on the farmers on the different crops they're struggling to switch from one crop to the other from one technology to the other and they are that's making their livelihood more vulnerable and risky and they are working on adaptation plans and processes having almost always less information than before to adapt to the changing situation so how these knowledge networks can translate the existing information to more like local situations the most of the climate change models produce information that is forecasting at the national level so I talk to different researchers and institutions and we say I'm going to such and such region what information I can give the answer is Shahid I don't think I have a straight forward answer to your question yes of course the plan models best the resolution might be 50 square kilometres and that's not very helpful for a farmer in a particular location Government can set policy that government can provide subsidies or get rid of unhelpful subsidies it can facilitate access to knowledge and build the local institutions I think in climate smart agriculture there's a lot of action in that and we're working with sea casting in Nepal around testing some of these ideas it has to be rooted in local and it may not be called climate change as well to adapt what we're talking about and communicating about but at livelihood level the challenges you're entering through the other SDGs aren't you and then you integrate that background noise that climate change is taking and disaster risk management as you know very well in Asia in Pakistan in particular is the big driver for action there and to shift from one in ten year big flood to one in two year flood you're completely having to adapt that's about those contacts in the ground but national government is about having planning mechanisms and relief mechanisms to back that up so I think the multiple tiers is difficult it's really challenging I hear what you're saying but I think we're seeing the connectivity in knowledge potentially more OK thank you very much I think Sam's going to be around the whole morning so he's still in his talk you can do it in the copyright at this point I'm going to introduce our graphic recorder Chris who is capturing the main points that are coming up in words and in images and Chris says he's very happy that people are going to talk to him I feel like somebody else should be added or some comment it's for metaphors to use images and the idea is that this will provide both a record of today and also something for us to engage with and think about and provide thoughts for the discussion OK so at this point we've got two of our boxford SEIs senior researchers Harrow of Van Assault and Te Can of Bahwani they're going to talk about their putting climate knowledge into practice in their experience Harrow joins SEI in 2012 and the Oxford Office in 2014 and works mostly on the international and on the climate law and policy and Te Cana joins when SEI Oxford started in 2002 and is now co-lead of the transforming governance theme in SEI and she's got a very interesting background in both computing and social anthropology which gives her a particularly unique perspective on how you create usable climate information a decision making Thank you Kate and thank you Ruth for this morning and thanks Sam for a really really interesting and keen presentation just now and thanks also to all of you for coming here this morning both here, person and online This is a bit new for me because this is on the first time and also the first time that I'm doing a present presentation I'm actually quite excited about both but I think I'm sure it will work well So we're trying to address the main theme that brought us together here this morning so how can we put climate knowledge into action and what's Secan and I want to do in this presentation is we want to offer you some perspectives from SEI Oxford collectively on how to move from climate knowledge to climate action So I will go through this part relatively quickly because both Ruth and Sam already addressed it in their presentations this morning but 2015 is a very crucial year and as Sam was saying a very exciting year as well especially if you do research in these areas for looking at global processes in the area of climate change and sustainable development So as both of you mentioned already just this Friday 17 sustainable development goals were adopted in New York and also later this year the expectation is that in Paris you hope is that in Paris a new and ambitious climate change agreement will be adopted at COP 21 So seemingly everyone is getting involved in the sustainability agenda and you saw that in New York as well where we not only have the Pope getting involved but also Shakira seeing right after the Pope But at the same time if you move away a little bit from this in the glimer, from the international agreement and the international processes it sometimes gets a bit difficult to actually see how these processes can make an impact on the ground and it's important to keep in mind the actual social change they were trying to bring about We definitely need to link the global to the local and the quantitative indicators that are being developed internationally to local and real world situations Partly in recognition of these issues in 2014 is that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon established a global expert advisory group on a data revolution for sustainable development This group called for the development of a global consensus on data principles and standards on the sharing of knowledge for the common good on new resources for capacity development and greater data coordination In addition we believe that new research methods and technologies are starting to actually help us explore some of the previously inaccessible and unusable data and information This is important as it will help us to learn transferable lessons on climate change issues from the massive data that is being produced on a daily basis There is a box However as the American biologist EO Wilson once said that we are drowning in information while we are actually starving for wisdom and this is one of the risks that we are very much facing in this community as well More data doesn't necessarily equal better data Instead what we are facing is the risk of an overload of unstructured information which can be confusing for those seeking to bring about change as well as the users There is a risk that we start actually to ask the wrong questions with all the data that is becoming available because we can pretty much ask any question we want This means that the research methods that can help us to ask the right questions become absolutely critical So what we are doing now is based on our collective experiences and our shared history We've identified several broad principles for climate adaptation and mitigation research and these principles we believe can help us to keep in mind the impact that we are trying to achieve when designing our research and our engagement and conveniently and also importantly when it comes to communication we'll start with the C In the next few minutes Cain and I will briefly explain these principles and how they could help us overcome the challenges of climate knowledge into practice Clearly these are not the only principles that matter because I think already Simon's presentation this morning highlighted some important things that we need to keep in mind and I'm quite sure that the actual panel later on will make other points as well Let's start with the first one about the context First of all it's important to understand the context in which we are working and we do not always fully appreciate that understanding the context means that understanding that climate change is only one many stresses in a particular context It's understanding that climate change may be one of the various risks perceived and that climate change in the end is only one of the range of factors that matter for decision making Effective decision making support needs to be sensitive to this context and needs to be sensitive to the different stakeholders needs the diversity of knowledge types and the decision making processes at play For example we know that a deeper understanding is to develop better adaptation strategies and this is one of the things that we did in one of our projects in this case an eco-adapt in Latin America to hear and Monica who is sitting here as well applied a social network analysis and this method has helped them to understand better the networks in Latin American countries in which they worked to understand formal and informal relationships to understand the close of information and the resources between the different actors to look at existing power relations and assess them critically as well as the norms and values shaping the decisions made on climate change's adaptation and this has helped them to identify entry points for designing and implementing effective adaptation strategies for water management for aligning world views of different actors including private sector, public bodies grassroots organisations and so on and in another project something similar and here it is a project called COVA and again Monica and he have been very heavily involved as well as Sukena and this is a project that took place in the Congo Basin and here several integrated vulnerability assessments were carried out to develop a deeper understanding of the social, political and cultural context and this has helped them to understand the multiple stresses that people were responding to when they were trying to change the impact only it also offered insights into the coping mechanisms that could help plan future strategies that provide both benefits for both forests and libraries so moving on now to the second principle which is about connecting one of the things that we need to understand is that we need to better connect both with user needs but also connect information with each other different users in different countries operating at different levels inevitably have different user needs and for online information portals where users from all over the world try to work together this is actually particularly important what you see increasingly is one of the ongoing features of the data revolution which I just referred to is that we are witnessing an emergence of an increasing number of web-based portal containing a lot of information on climate change impacts on climate change adaptation options and policies and so on and some are referred to as the port of proliferation syndrome so if you look at for example the adaptation platforms this is just a rough selection by no means exhaustive we have quite a few portals that focus on impacts and adaptation options and practices similarly what has emerged especially in the last two years is that we have a number of platforms that focus on non-state climate action and try to catch what the actions are by businesses, by NGOs and by sub-national authorities and at the same time we are also seeing an increasing amount of information on mitigation policies and this is particularly important given that the focus is increasingly not what happens at the international level but at the national level as Sam was already referring to given that the contributions at the international level are now nationally determined so knowing what happens at the national level is increasingly important so what we see is that we have an increasing amount of information but how can we move from useful information information that we can access to actually usable information and in that sense I think one of the principles that we're trying to convey here is that it's actually important to connect to the users that you're engaging with to really understand what it is these users are looking for and again a good example here is from our own experience in this case with the re-adapt platform and as I observed re-adapt platform engages with users and sharing the information as shown on the slide here they run training sessions with users and explore how users engage with adaptation and climate-related information on other portals so what you can see is that at least by trying to directly engage with the user community adaptation portals I can already benefit from that but similarly the same could be said for some of the mitigation related portals on platforms on non-state climate action where user engagement is not yet at the same level connections could also be improved among the different platforms themselves and again the impacts and adaptation platforms are quite a good example here so what you see here is on the one hand the climate information portal which presents useful information about basic climate data at the same time we have the re-adapt platform which provides useful information about adaptation practices and options in different locations so what has happened and this is facilitated by the climate knowledge brokers network is that we adapt the climate information portal and actually adapt the third platform and started to collaborate to share climate-related information to offer tailored adaptation guidance and to implement on-the-ground activities all making use of the respective frames of each platform so what you can see now is that the plan has actually taken place also in other areas so what you have now on the UNFCC which was launched last year by Peruvian government together with the climate change secretariat we have the NASCAR platform where they collect information from several sources including the carbon and foot disclosure project and the carbon and registry to basically list and map the commitments and actions taken by a range of non-state actors so again combining information to come up with a more powerful message but also to basically provide more usable data and similarly and I have shown this on the slide but similarly the international energy agency and the international renewable energy agency started to collaborate to bring together information on renewable energy policies so you see the same developments taking place through different areas related to climate change so all these efforts can not only we believe help reduce confusion among users but they can also result in the end in more usable information and with that I would like to hand it over to Sir Cana so clearly in all of these processes face to face engagement is key whether this is through processes undertaken to understand user needs or through training in capacity building so having talked about online portals and knowledge brokering we will now move on to another aspect how we produce knowledge face to face as defined in the climate knowledge broker's manifesto launched two weeks ago knowledge production is also part of the knowledge brokering role generally speaking we are all knowledge brokers and we are all part of a chain of both producing knowledge and using knowledge at the same time in our research co-producing knowledge has been particularly important to allow all concerned to get on the same page align jargon understand different perceptions and world views and make different interests, priorities and skills explicit this is important especially when climate is often only one aspect of the complex issues at hand this balance between co-producing and brokering knowledge what we are increasingly referring to in our work is co-exploration requires a process of iterative social and institutional learning it's key value lies in bringing decision makers and climate scientists together to co-explore needs and co-create new knowledge at the same time and perhaps counterintuitively we also find that sometimes new knowledge has to be needs informed rather than needs driven for example insights from fundamental climate science need to create demand for its application and use however for this new knowledge to become decision relevant iterative co-exploration processes between scientists and decision makers are still key this approach has been piloted to co-explore decision makers needs in the city context of Mozambique and Accra in 2013 and the ability of knowledge providers to meet these needs and working with climate scientists at the University of Cape Town the approach will now be fully tested to work in six cities in southern Africa where spaces for co-exploration will be created in city learning labs with researchers embedded in each city working at the core of municipal governments to try and understand the needs of decision makers and their priorities over the next four years of course better understanding user needs where possible enables communication in a more effective way to our stakeholders this means climate information not only needs to be credible and decision relevant as we have heard but that in this era of information overload it also needs to be tailored into formats that are accessible and actionable by different groups with different needs and different capacities it also means that different modes of delivery need to be explored to translate science into digestible knowledge products as well as training in capacity building for applying this knowledge good examples for sharing information exist in the use of radio and mobile phones in addition to the online portals we've mentioned indeed public participation in data collections such as crowd sourcing and citizen science are becoming increasingly common this means that the issues and data are driven by those affected by the challenge at hand and that outputs are more likely to represent their needs we can discuss some of the key principles we focus on when designing our research for effective adaptation and some examples of how we do this I want to go into a little bit more detail about how this has helped us to ask better questions and whether indeed it has helped us to ask better questions there are innovative approaches that help us to access potential blind spots the unknown unknowns which can actually lead to unintended outcomes such as increased vulnerability or maladaptation how do the global climate and development goals actually translate into local realities and what questions should they be encouraging us to ask all of the methods and approaches mentioned support people to articulate their needs better and help us to ask better different or new questions to achieve these common goals however they are resource intensive and require time to do well this is the challenge these approaches include a combination of qualitative quantitative methods ranging from integrated vulnerability assessments as Harrow mentioned through to interactive games agent based models and big data visualisation they employ a range of disciplines from ethnographic approaches through to more technical artificial intelligence techniques and social simulation methods some insights that these mixed methods have provided are in our research in the Congo Basin for example instead of assuming that the solution to forest degradation low productivity and agricultural expansion is not only due to low productivity therefore the additional and more pertinent questions we need to focus on are those related to land access customary land rights and long term security secondly in terms of the future we need to focus on the future of the future of the future of the future of the future secondly in Cameroon local NGOs are considering whether to pilot the development of local markets for the sale of forest products these are assumed to be strong safety nets for women and poor households traditionally however a combination of ethnographic interviews and interactive games made us realise that not all women in the community rely equally on all forest products in fact those higher value forest products being considered for market expansion are the ones that women from the poorest households do not collect therefore without further research into local knowledge about the wheel drives of decision making the creation of such a market mechanism could in fact make the poorest more vulnerable finally to learn lessons from around the world about climate knowledge and climate action we have applied some data visualisation techniques to explore patterns in the growing weird-out knowledge base SCI's global platform on climate adaptation here sharing lessons learnt in both a bottom-up yet semi-structured way has enabled some analysis about which organisations are working on which topics and in which particular sectors and in which regions this approach may enable us to carry out some systemised comparative analysis and facilitate learning about what works and what doesn't this image for example tells us an interesting story about active members on we adapt who are sharing many lessons learnt the bigger notes and who are working on similar issues those closer together removing SCI and its partners from this network would allow other active members to become visible not only identifying gaps but also commonalities and thus windows of opportunity for collaboration Further analysis in this way could help to avoid replication, redundancy and reinventing the wheel in our projects and as mentioned by Sam the importance of SUMMONET as a network of SCI is something that was clear from these visualisations that we did and you can see that if you want to access some of the publications on the table over there where it's explained in more detail Big data visualisation benefits from the current efforts more open data standards and more systematisation allowing us to understand this data better generate new insights and in the case of re-adapt transferable lessons this also allows us to create highly visual messages from the massive information out there and communicate them in impactful ways we have not been able to go into a lot of detail here but we hope that this presentation has offered a little insight into the long history of innovative research on SCI Oxford the extent to which we explore the real questions in each of the seas we have discussed determines how effective our actions are we cannot start with the assumption that we have the right questions and therefore the right outcomes in mind this is especially significant now at a time when we have access to so much data and this is why innovative and trans disciplinary research methods are increasingly important a deeper understanding of context connecting with user needs and learning together through co-exploration supported by both digital and non-digital research methods links us to the possibility of transformational insights this will allow us to reflect upon and critique our current approaches in truly novel ways by exploring the unknown unknowns this is where transformational learning and the potential for social change really lies it is also the key when we are thinking about the potential disparity between global goals and local realities and making the link from knowledge to action at all scales ultimately this is critical for measuring our impact clearly this is our common objective at all the scales at which we are working and in all the different areas of our research translating global climate and development goals to the local level and co-producing knowledge to identify the right questions to achieve these goals is where we all have a key role to play in the post 2015 agenda finally we hope that this is just the start of a dialogue about how we can accelerate knowledge to action common core principles can create positive ripple effects getting us closer to our common objectives we would really like to use this morning to learn from the experiences the experiences of everyone here moving from climate knowledge to climate action and we are really looking forward to a stimulating conversation so with that I will hand back to Kate thank you very much Harrow and Sukenae for very interesting principles for moving from climate knowledge to climate action and also they touch on a vast amount of projects just some sense of the work that SEI has been doing in this area I am very conscious of the time and also conscious that connecting is a very important thing so I think we will keep the coffee break to 20 minutes and Harrow and Sukenae will be available if you want to ask them about specific projects but also other would the other SEI research research to stand up so that you could also talk to Tahia or Monica and Annalee Richard Richard, yes if you want to ask about specific piece of work and maybe use the coffee break to do that so that we can move on with the programme after the break it's going to get much more interactive we will have an expert panel but as both Sam and Sukenae mentioned there are also many other experts in the room and we want to hear from you so after the break we are going to have a much more interactive discussion which will be useful for everybody thank you welcome back everybody so we've got a panel of four people who are going to each offer introduce themselves and then say something about why this issue is of interest to them and then come up with a question for everybody to sort of provoke a conversation ok so I'm going to start with Tahia device would you like to introduce yourself and say something about why this issue is of interest to you and the provocation for the audience I research a lot of the I research a lot of the programme I'm going to introduce here in Oxford most of my work focuses on social and ecological adaptation in developing countries and an important aspect of the projects I'm involved in is supporting adaptation decisions understanding how climate change will further intensify the stresses and stresses that are already affecting the systems we're working in for these projects in many of them we've produced by my police area this morning a climate knowledge program has played a key role in helping us contextualize climate data and share expert interpretation and information that also involve local experiences to supporting more relevant and useful ways decision making so in this regard I think climate knowledge program has done a tremendous progress in recent years in improving the ways we share information and the way that different communities of practice can access information and data of course without doubt this has helped to overcome some of the histemological barriers that I think that to push the boundaries even further and to strengthen the way that knowledge program can really facilitate or contribute to climate action there could be a more meaningful role that knowledge program can play in facilitating spaces for different stakeholders to come together and openly to deliberate their interests and use and collectively come to decisions and solutions this would be a more inclusive way to produce knowledge in a way it would contest the dominant way of knowledge collection and contest power dynamics and allow for new framing that can in a way be a bit out of the box to look for different ways of addressing climate change and working on effective adaptation so this is my provocation and I think my question for the audience in this regard is how can then knowledge program take this a step further and move from information sharing to really a process of co-production co-exploration co-exploration of knowledge too to find more systemic and collective actions and I think some examples we are giving today like the city laughs the city learning laughs this project we are going to start this is really testing an approach we don't really know how is this really going to happen how are we going to bring different people together that in cities work very much in silence because different sectors are working on their priorities that we have to bring them together to share with scientists and to really like co-produce or co-explore solutions I remember we worked on a project some years ago that was trying to find different ways to community and climate and we used arts for this we used music and the applying and filmmaking to bring different people together politicians policymakers with farmers to discuss and deliver topics from their different work but at some point the challenge was this work very well local how can we upscale this to a more wider level and I think maybe in media in the mass media technology to use it for your own in this and maybe this is something that all these can discuss in addressing these questions some earlier this morning said that the private sector and dance were very interested in accessing better tools better information to increase their impact on climate action how do we package this and how do we improve what this modality how can we interact with them better and I'm going to be a bit even more critical and self-protective I think and say well is providing these spaces for deliberation enough an example this morning about how Peru has developed their kind of CC and he mentioned how complex this process was how difficult you know how much money and time and resources were needed to bring in different actors together to discuss multiple scenarios and multiple strategies and well it seems like they have been successful they have developed a plan but this is still paper and he said there was still no action really been seen so is this deliberation or how do we really move knowledge information and knowledge and information sharing to action thank you to here so just to confirm your question is are these spaces enough are these deliberative spaces enough how do we move to action and what's enough who should be involved and how would you thank you Blaine could you introduce yourself say why you're interested and give you a publication sure so I'm Blaine Harvey I'm a research associate with the overseas development institute where I'm a part of the their artificial intelligence team my interest really lies around learning and knowledge and especially in working with those who are kind of the last mile of the information chain if you will and understanding how they can not only use information but to build in our understanding of the climate impacts and the experience of climate impacts at the same time I've been working with ODI with different IRC and the CG on understanding how large scale initiatives big programs that different members are now investing in can better support the use of evidence in research for development this includes the race program where I'm working with the knowledge management that's been set up at ODI it focuses on learning and on monitoring evaluation my publication comes builds a little bit on something that you just mentioned and also on Sam's stories that he shared of some of the effectiveness and I want to challenge that if we're really serious about supporting decision making as a community of practice we need to get a lot better at understanding and measuring success when it comes to all the appropriate I think it's critical to planning new actions as we go forward to learning from what we're doing right now and to ensuring that these things that have been set up already are to be sustained in the future we have to have compelling cases that actually illustrate how we've gone for knowledge to action and why it's worked so I would put to knowledge brokers out there and those who are working in the research for development sphere and the first is is to ask them really, do you have a clarity to find and evidence informed theory of change that posits how the knowledge you broker will lead to change in action within the communities that you're aiming to support Interestingly, Duncan Green from Oxfam asked the same of ESDGs this morning on the blog What's your theory of change? He has a famous diagram that he likes to show where to know and then the magic happens and really is trying to dig out that question of how do we know that we know that simply making information available is enough even with good information and we also know that there's no one size fits all strategy we've heard that from other presenters today so really what is the theory that we understand as brokers that leads people to adopt and to have a lasting adoption of solutions, of information of actions Secondly, what kind of indicators will show over time as we go forward whether we can progress towards those kinds of changes that we're envisioning Yes, we can collect statistics on who's downloading or accessing our documents who's turning up at the events that we host but it tells us a fraction of the story, really We want to understand and we need to understand what do people do with those evidence are the changes in action sustained over time do they need to change in terms of real development on the ground and do these learning processes these co-exploration processes really help us to get there what contribution are those making as opposed to simply a push model this is some work that John Ensore and I at the SEI office in New York have been doing trying to understand for example social learning and what it brings and I think that here we really need to use a range of indicators that are complemented by longitudinal analysis including ethnographic research I was left here to mention the value of ethnographic research to understand how we can make change lasting and transforming it and the last one that I would raise is whether we're looking non-individuals I think often when we're looking at decision making we look at decision making at scale with individual and I think to do that in isolation we neglect the sort of systemic factors that actually allow people to make decisions within a context that when we're supporting governments or policy world we take into account the terminal where the sort of transformations that happen within institutions and simply building capacities of individuals does not necessarily take us towards the kinds of last endangers that we probably need to be seeing so we need to be thinking about how to track our success at systemic levels and institutional levels much more clearly this is some of the work that the British knowledge management has is trying to ask itself right now there are tricky questions but I guess the provocation that we put to you is are we doing enough to understand our success looks like do we have the right tools to measure it as we go not just at the end of our interventions ok, thank you Elaine so that final question was the provocation so can you just repeat that final are we doing enough to track and measure success do we really have the right tools to make sure we're doing so effectively thank you I'm not going to hand over to Paul Watcus who's going to introduce himself say why this is of interest to him make a provocation to the audience ok, good morning my name is Paul Watcus and I'm an associate of the Scotland University of Oxford I interrupted my remit this morning as I get to rant at you for two minutes then I get to ask you a question and then I see if I find the lunch so it's effectively my perfect morning so I'm going to go with that I think what's really interesting is I think we live in very interesting times of climate change and people have already started talking about some of the shifts and the shots around 2015 and I just want to add two extra ones to that and then I may not ask you a question so the first one is I think 2015 is going to be the year where we really start to experience climate change we all talked about the 2015 and so but also this is the bit when the climate models kick up from and get the acceleration we move from 0.8 degrees of warming initially to 1.5 tons around in the next 30 years and let's be very clear on the projections that Sam has presented we hit 2 degrees before 2015 so that's going to start being very interesting and how we deal in that and act as we experience climate change more practically as opposed to just thinking about it and events and the second shift that I really see is the adaptation of the finances hitting the ground I was in Rwanda a couple of weeks ago and working with their climate fund and the transformation there is really quite interesting we've moved from the situation where there's a couple of million dollars going here and there on a few projects to a systematic and capitalised fund moving not just from tens of millions we've tens of even two in excess of 100 million dollars of programme money going into climate adaptation and mitigation and in that situation the Ministry of Finance come to talk to the environment people because the money on the table looks interesting and there are really big opportunities there and there are really big opportunities there I think the downside and I think I do want to highlight this because it leads on to my point is that while the money is flowing we should be very honest about the fact that it is too low we're not going to get anywhere close to the current aid in colleges in terms of 50 billion in adaptation money and even if we did the latest adaptation Gap Report from UNEP chose that far too little and there's going to be a lot of challenges going in and financing that money particularly when we move to areas and places where that government sparrill is in place so against that background I think that's where Ruth and Harold and the showcase presentations and the information we're talking about comes in and I see really two things which are very much lying to my area the first is about prioritisation we're not going to have enough money so what are we going to do with that money that we've got how do we prioritise that what makes cost-effect of an economic sense but also how do we get the benefits to flow to the most people or even perhaps to the most vulnerable people and those are potentially different the second one is there are a number of challenges here that we have to address I think we know most of these the challenge of future climate change versus upfront costs I think two that I think are really important are around leveraging for adaptation which is going to be a lot more difficult with the climate sector than with mitigation and one which I think is almost this additionality challenge I've been very lucky over the last period and travelled around the world for a certain economic partner looking at how they're spending their climate finance and I have to say and I won't name them slightly to be honest it's a little bit disappointing I'll give you an example I pitched up in a certain Asian country and I said what have you spent your money on so can you tell me exactly what it's doing and I said well it's building earthquake resilient buildings and I said that's really good use of developed money but I don't really think it's an additionality we expect to climate finance and what we're starting to see is people are plugging the budget deficit holes with climate finance and just relating them and I think that's fine up to a point but we're now in a bit where real climate change starts to happen we've got to think about doing this really well and the final thing is and this really goes back to something that Ruth said at the start and I think SEI has been absolutely critical to this shift Tom Downing as well and others in the room we've moved away from that old science-led thinking just after the climate model and going down for a sequential change and whilst we've been saying it for over a decade we're now starting to do it differently and we're doing a number of things we're focusing the problem around adaptation and thinking about problems rather than thinking about science as Sam has mentioned, we're the mainstream and the integrative recognising that we're going to have to do this within the business of development and looking to scale up and everything and do that within that framework and finally we're starting to think much more I suppose, innovatively about using the tools and the knowledge that we have about what you do now versus what you do later and iterative thinking which goes back very much to adaptation being a process and I think SEI's been very instrumental in driving that forward so I will really leave you with a question before my lunch and that's if we're thinking and we've got this reality of more money on the table but we've got a real problem we have to address in these various challenges how, or maybe even should that we prioritise the allocation of adaptation finance and how do you balance economic efficiency and also show that it's not Thank you very much for that Last but not least, by the time we're up please introduce yourself Hi I have a need to learn that here as a convener international I am a policy researcher at BCI University and also director of the European Capacity Building Initiative in the context of which I have been working with particularly LBCs with climate finance and other things I have advised them in the traditional committee now that we've come from work and that's where my interest comes in but at first I have to admit something sometimes communities are defined in terms of a shared language so even that is an incredible idiot and I feel I'm not of this community I have their things here almost for the first time which speaks against me but knowledge broker I have no idea what that is and we'll learn that over lunch I hope but it is important that we have some sort of cross fertilisation in this probably good for knowledge brokers not just to talk amongst each other one of the questions which I would like to put forward so not so much about climate knowledge leading to climate action since I don't know what climate knowledge is I don't like to talk about climate finance leading to climate action because I think I believe it with all that we have a problem I actually don't quite see it in the same dimension my worry is in the GCF in particular we have half of the adaptation we have a video is dedicated to a particular vulnerable country which means that in the next four years there will be a few more billion dollars my big worry is that after four years we will still have two billion in that point due to backward projects famous you know a positive capacity that will be a really bad signal for the donors and for everyone so we need to ensure that good projects are forthcoming from the ground and my question to you guys would be how can you as knowledge brokers or however you define yourselves actually help the particular GCF to achieve this thing be able to spend these two and a half billion dollars on adaptation in particular vulnerable countries See together? Yeah, if you're sure So OK, as Julia writes up the final question the plan now is to get people at their tables to pick one of these questions that they're going to discuss for maybe about ten minutes on the table then I'm going to come around and find out what people are talking about and sort of try and get a bit of an interaction between the tables and back again to the panel I think it's going to be a problem of reading the questions So I don't know what should I I'll just read them out again So to hear the question was how can knowledge broker move from knowledge sharing towards more systemic actions and is providing spaces for deliberation enough so that those two connected then blame if we're serious about achieving change are we doing enough to track and measure success and do we have the right tools for doing that and then Paul how or should we or how should we how should we prioritise allocation of finance how do we balance the need for economic efficiency with equity and demonstrate additionality and Benito how can knowledge brokers spend money designated for climate and how do we ensure this results in climate action so if you're on the table with any couple of people you might think of joining and try not to sit next to people you already know and you've got about 10 minutes and I'll start coming around after that Now I'm going to start Hello I'm going to start interfering a bit in your conversations because I need to find out what people are saying So Jonathan How did you pick and what do you think We introduced ourselves as well We're really at the beginning of that discussion I say that we haven't got great How did you start the conversation and why did you pick that question We picked that question because we felt as a table that it covered it covered quite a few different issues and there were quite a few things wrapped up in it None of us are climate finance people so I think there was also quite an interest to explore that question a little bit more and learn a bit more about it and so really I guess at the moment we were talking about sort of differences between prioritisation at a sub-national level and then prioritisation at the global level and that difference between equity and utility I don't know if anyone else wants to We were talking about the prioritisation of climate finance and it was to do with the fact that we have this traditionality is not applicable to climate finance because developing countries see it as something which is for damages done to them but then there's a plan to double-standard because on the one hand we're not applying principles of example, equity and rights but on the other hand we are applying fiduciary standards and other climate standards and one of the questions came up is whether or not the climate finance which is entering developing countries is not reinforcing existing power structures which are preventing us from increasing the risk Did anyone else talk about Paul's question on the table to do that No? Paul, would you like to respond to what came up? OK Tom, on the table what did you pick? I was taking a few notes here so we picked the first question because we thought that if you mention systems it's like everything and so it was a wide-ranging conversation but I think I've got a sequence of things here and then one provocative question back to the room so first the first question you have to ask is what system actually needs to change clarify what you're talking about and then identify what is the decision point the decision points are the action points if there's going to be any brokerage that's where it needs to occur but as you bring people together people are capable of different levels of change and what you've got to do is bring people along people with different capacities into a high capacity space at some point and the message we want to give there is that co-development done properly costs money we've got to pick very carefully what it is you want to scale and then decide to invest strongly in that the implication there to me was that there was discussion about you've got to start with the knowledge that's appropriate to the problem and that's at a local level so that's going to be generating the ideas of what you want to scale that can't be top down identify what you want to scale and you've got to realise that that's where there's got to be a lot of investment the provocative question back to the room is do brokers in practice become gatekeepers thank you very much could someone on the table to explain what moving from a low capacity space to a high capacity space yeah it's something that's tailored to different organizations because each organization will come to the table with different levels of capacity and it's not that every organization needs to be able to operate at the higher levels of capacity because at the systemic level that capacity can be held by other organizations so to move into a higher capacity space isn't necessarily about every individual has to move up to that high capacity it's about co-creating a systemic capacity that others can benefit right across the system what would be happening in that high capacity space that isn't happening in a low capacity space okay a lot of that would be about getting the right type of information in the right context in the right communications down to the people who need to use that information if I can use the example maybe of small older farmers making a decision about what cropping practices they want to use what seeds they want to buy or so on they're limited in their own capacity by maybe poverty but the system itself is creating the seeds or the cultivation techniques the government extension staff and private sector and NGOs extension staff are trying to get that out there to the farmers so that they can make better choices government regulations legislation, funding and so on at the higher levels creating that space donors working across the whole thing so at the systemic level they are the ones who are developing and understanding the things that help that one decision being made by the farmer to be something that's more climate resilient climate friendly or whatever would anyone else on this table like to add to that? I think if I were to put a plaque on the wall it would be following on from Harold and Sukena's presentation that co-learning is a disruptive framing of knowledge as innovation and learning in vastly different contexts and really breaks down the duality of brokers and barriers and tries to get at the ontology and semantic learning that we're missing still Thank you Tom. Did anyone else have a look to here's question? Spices for knowledge? Of course. We got to in many ways our conversation moved around spaces of hierarchy silos path dependency the nature of these questions that begins by talking about a lower and a middle and an upper that separates people and we are talking about the nature of relationships and what is local what is transference of knowledge how does that come into application who is guiding that action and it sort of moved almost into a post-development space where is that sharing where is that catalyzing point and many of those spaces may be when people are brought together they might have their different hats for I work for the UN I work for an NGO I'm a farmer take off those hats and come together with their various sorts of knowledge build relationships and from those relationships that can be a jumping off point towards an application that shifts our idea of scaling so you can have those relationships that might be connected across a global or regional network but the action is local and the action comes from those immediate relationships where the people are seeing each other as human beings in a local space rather than I'm at the top here with this money and you're here needing this money and you said everyone's bringing something to the table and I think I totally went off on attention so anyone else on the table I think another point we were discussing is about how knowledge flows and the directions it takes and whether that's the most effective way of doing things in the crisis situation that we're now because knowledge is driven from where the funds flow obviously from the top to the bottom but the need for the knowledge is very much at the local level and we're seeing currently so how do we change that we've just about gotten around to that and I think the other point we were discussing is how do you drive change on the basis of knowledge that's generated at the local level how do you then take it up to national and global we also actually mirrored I think some of the things that Eric was talking about which is that it's obviously very important to have a good grasp of what knowledge is co-created at a local level and facilitate that but actually you all soon need to complement it by trying to understand what makes us do what we do what is the action point and there are various techniques that I think could be employed using studies from behavioural science as well that could be used to complement the simple sort of knowledge and information and actually then turn that into something that is applicable and I just want to respond to Eric's interesting question about whether knowledge brokers are actually gatekeepers which is a wonderful image I have a lot of alternative image for you which I was trying to build on something that Cicana talked about about being needs informed or needs driven how about knowledge brokers are lockkeepers thank you very much for that we've got some good images now for the board gatekeepers and lockkeepers did anyone else try and answer 10 years question to hear have you got any responses to what you've been hearing have you got a couple of things now that's fine or you can come back later, it's fine okay so what question did you look at having established our carbon footprint before we got here we then went on to look at sort of question 2 and question 1 so I suppose if we focus on Blaine's question around the theory of change and how do we know when we get there we didn't really come to any conclusions but we I talked about the practical action we have an impact pathway that looks at how people can first access knowledge and then the steps that they go through in effect to then change the way that they behave and how you can capture that through case studies but that's an incredibly difficult and expensive thing to do and I think the conclusion that we came back to was the need to have the outset, the theory of change how we think the changes is going to happen in order that we can then put the monitoring indicators into place oh yeah we also talked about the role of gender in this and the fact that we do again looking at our own work we do knowledge work in both Nepal and in Bangladesh which face to face in Nepal which is 90% with women because the men are often away in cities doing work we've set up a call centre in Bangladesh it's only been running for six months but the first monitoring statistics we've had in again aimed at small holder farmers are showing that 90% of the callers are men and we are still looking at how is that information then getting translated for the women who are probably doing most of the work in reality is this about who controls the mobile phone is this about who controls the knowledge and then how is the knowledge potentially filtered even between the call from the call centre and going back to the people who will be able to act on it so just an interesting example I mean just to add I think what's been really interesting at this table is starting from this very grounded approach so we've all just started from embedded in our context and our research purpose because that's kind of spoken out to two questions really ties as well and where we've ended up is obviously making the obvious point that knowledge is political but then in monitoring frameworks as well how do we capture that knowledge itself is not a single product and it's contested and that contestation can be important and obviously that's important to your theory of change but I was talking about my research in informal urban communities obviously where they are resisting kind of state based risk assessments and what do we make of that process Thank you so did anyone else look at Blaine's question? So I guess where we started from was not only that knowledge is contested but also that what is success is can be very much contested and we tried to contrast it a little bit with ongoing discussions about indicators in the SDGs context where we're basically we're starting to discuss on how these indicators that are being developed at the global level can be very much contested and we try to contrast that a little bit with ongoing discussions about indicators that are being developed at the global level can be brought down to the national and the subnational level and having people with experience in government so some of the obvious first steps would be to break them down into national strategies and national actions but then following up from that it would be to allocate responsibility and to make clear who is responsible for what type of action and relate the indicators to that but in the end to develop the indicators at the national and subnational level together with those who are actually responsible for taking the actions then a few stray remarks which I can probably mention we need to be clear whether we're measuring success or whether we're actually measuring failure another aspect we talked a little bit about and especially again in the SDGs context is going to be interesting to make sure that we're not only moving towards quantified indicators but also make sure that somehow qualitative aspects are integrated in the indicator framework and then finally a point about communication and again this is where the experience from people within government comes in is that it's probably going to be very difficult to communicate how success is being measured for 17 goals and I don't know exactly how many targets underneath the goals plus indicators so it might be useful for governments when implementing the SDGs at the national level to focus on a select few goals a select few targets and a select few indicators Could you just say what you meant by are we measuring success or failure? Well that may be a very political point but it's typical if you are in that situation it's so often happens that in reality you actually measure failure and that's also again and again a repeated depression every time you have to present it and it really doesn't really enhance it doesn't really enhance action so it's you should never hide truth of course if we are really failing it's important to not hiding that but instead also at the same time also finding ways of showing success and that's important to define these ways where you also can show success otherwise you won't achievement So there's still two tables and it's spoken which question did you do? Well thank you first of all it's very impressive to listen to everyone I can't imagine how you could discuss so much in ten minutes we must have done something wrong around this level on the other hand sometimes I know that those taking the microphone already have their agenda set so they saw that report but anyway this is not happening here it was very bottom up process what we did though was to discuss a number of interesting questions issues and then we linked it to the questions afterwards so you know it's a classical way of first answering whatever you want to answer and then you link it to the questions and we started off actually with an interesting discussion a little bit about you know the business sector because we had the expertise here and I think it's a bit going back to the question about knowledge moving for knowledge to action but also how do you measure actually success for instance and what we discussed was the fact that again the sort of private sector is not at all very homogeneous while many corporations today are very much up to climate action and take this issue seriously the finance sector is for instance lagging behind quite a lot and we realized that one of the knowledge brokers could probably be other corporations rather than scientists pushing the finance sector to take action I think that is a very important thing to remember scientists are not necessarily the best to push certain issues we also when we came to how do you then measure success well again it depends very much on the actors in terms of the financial sector a success factor is return of investment so they will find you know whatever they do whatever action they take if they get a good return of investment that is a success for them we may think that what has that do with climate change are you really doing something good here well it doesn't matter if we can combine I think that is the mainstreaming issue that you talked about a lot also if we can combine different incentives then that is fine you know we solve the problem we also I think in the end had a very interesting discussion about do we really have a relevant knowledge or not we think we may have a lot of knowledge someone talked about the facts before Anders we talked about the fact that there is huge amounts of data but how can we use the data it's not lack of data so do we have the right knowledge and what you also said Mrs Ye was that well also if we have knowledge and we turn it into action how do we how we tested that action or are we experimenting out there in the world how do we know that the actions we are proposing really is the right action is well tested how do we know what makes serious or huge mistakes and I think that is an interesting point and quite in a way provocative because we as experts we think we developed the best action and then finally on the finance issue we didn't talk so much about it but a little bit I mean you mentioned that in the finance sector for instance you have different tools and you like the green bonds so I think that you know if we take this a bit further and think about the climate fund for instance what can we do is such a small amount of money looking at the overall flows of financial resources so leveraging for instance it's probably a key thing how can you actually use the climate finance to leverage much bigger financial flows that are out there and developing very quickly I don't think I make justice at all to the group but anyway maybe someone wants to add something Thank you John This is the final table I think Yes Question to Taylor Well we looked at Paul's question mainly about the equity and vulnerability issues so there was some discussion around whether we should be helping the most vulnerable people or the biggest number of people and I don't think Ashley took a vote in the end but I think there was some feeling that the most vulnerable don't have their own coping capacity to react to change to move away or react in other ways and therefore perhaps that is where morally the money should be going but then of course most government schemes that look at economic efficiency tend to look at it quite the other way because they would look at perhaps a number of lives saved and the financial value of that per dollar spent which would actually probably send you in a different direction so we didn't solve that issue in the 10 minutes allocated but I would like to just mention Matt's brilliant idea that perhaps the best thing we could possibly do would be to ban developed countries from investing at all in adaptation and say they could only invest in mitigation until the problem had been solved and then they could perhaps spend some money on adaptation and only developing countries should be allowed to spend money on adaptation so I think that's quite a good solution that first point I think it's an intractable question about whether to spend on the most vulnerable or the most number of people it's a bit like the question of how many people would you save to how many people would you allow to lose their lives to save a species and how many species would you allow to die to save a life it's one of those questions you can't solve but we have a political system that is the best we've got I suppose to solve those problems so it's up to the political system to make those decisions and I get I'm not from this realm that you're in but I have to reflect what Benito was saying is that it suffers a bit of TMA too many acronyms and we're talking about knowledge-broken which I don't fully understand but I am not getting the message from someone that's an outsider now I've been doing modelling and climate change and looking at how to get more impact out of it and I thought I would get more out of this in that regard but a lot of it is going over my head which I think is rather ironic considering something that I can do OK thank you which hopefully that comment will the next round I've got time for one more round working in your groups and it's thinking about climate change so maybe that's part of it like better language or better communicators communicating more effectively so if you could have about five minutes again in your groups building on the conversation and what you've heard from other people what would it take to create change on this issue time's moving on so I'm just going to ask each I'm going to ask each table to say one thing about how they would create change on this issue yes I'm afraid we are still talking a bit here at this table about the financial sector and coming back to talking the language of the stakeholder you are about to engage if you want to knowledge share or even knowledge broke you need to speak the language of your counterpart and in this case the financial sector it's very important to distinguish between the financial sector as the lenders as bangers which is all about risk if you need to define your impact is how to minimise or control the risk when you lend why investors completely other part or different part of the financial industry it's much more about the return and return can be defined as financial return and impact and this impact we need somehow in our community here to define this as a kind of performance management beyond the finance and unless you can make that tangible it's very difficult to activate that part of the financial community however they are very eager there is such an enormous change going on right now they are very eager so I think we have an important role to try to define these measurements and I think that's an important part of the knowledge broker because the word broker meets you need to standardise somehow between two persons or two units otherwise it's not brokerage and it's just standard exchange but if you want to make a brokerage you need to find some standardisation and that's very important to do that mistake holder mistake holder thank you that sort of feeds a bit on what you were saying earlier about how you create that because of communication and don't have obfuscating language like obfuscation yeah my brash Australian way I've brought about a pretty interesting discussion that we had actually Sukana gave us another explanation of some of the work that they were doing with the slides with the different websites and bringing the information together and making it more available and understanding all the people and her explanation was just so much better than what I felt I experienced in that much more scientific approach of given the audience but to me it was there was a real disconnect with the scientific community and if this is about knowledge brokering between the scientific community and people trying to understand how to get the most out of this the knowledge, the climate change knowledge and I don't know how to solve it but it is a real skill to be able to simplify it to me and I think we need to work on that okay one message on how to create change I'll go from my notes golly one message okay I'll show them all together monitor steadily try scaling out many things you're not sure which one is going to work monitor steadily and you've got to be ready to cut the ones that aren't working and that's the scary thing and then we have lots of specific examples they're great, they're wonderful okay one message about how to create change well I cannot give my message and that is that policy making needs to be an iterative process so we'll put them up, top down and feed into the system one message we discussed the financing again and we thought that the quality of the democratic process in the country themselves is very important in influencing how in the end an approach can be more proper, more equitable and we think that if the political system allows for decentralisation of resources and decision making so that local government gets more to say in terms of how adaptation and medication money is going to be spent as well as civil society being able to advocate for the most vulnerable I think a combination of the two is actually a very good approach and now we get the example of the Philippines where that is already happening but in a lot of other developing countries this is still a hope, a dream that may come too building trust and listening well I think after some intensive discussion we could say to make the threat visible on the very local level and therefore hoping to generate a response from the local people to address climate related risk because it doesn't help much to speak about climate models but instead of making visible the threat and hope to say on this specific location this impact will happen in the future Anything more? Thank you Thank you I think our main message is education for all because sometimes governments don't know even what is sustainability or what is climate services so education for all Okay, so we're now going to hear back from the panel to respond to what they've heard and their responses to their questions Good The good news for me is I don't have to report back to the Green Climate Fund because clearly my question was not sufficiently well defined to get the sort of response which I hoped for but let me maybe just twist it a bit throw the question back to you for cogitation over the next few weeks we now have a pilot phase on enhanced direct access that was decided initially only 200 million but it's going to go on to enhance direct access modality of the fund in that pilot phase what we are piloting are actually programs which use domestic financial transfer existing mechanisms of how to transfer money from the center to the local level preferably then used through local intermediation in other words the decisions about which projects individual projects are to be funded to be taken at the local level be that local authorities in the case of SMEs they are banks that they can actually give credit lines to the SMEs the SMEs are not going to the capital with their little projects but these sort of architectures are being tested but in that context there is a huge need for these local actors to actually be able to generate projects and to tools which are somewhat standardized because you have to be able to replicate them and produce them knowledge at scale if there is such a thing so what I would like you to do is in essence think about this of how can you help the GCF in this context to provide tools for the local level to generate the project proposals which will make this a success thank you so from work experience I've seen how bottom-up processes are really important for the GCN and relevance I think we have to be realistic and to achieve what you guys have called a high systemic capacity space we have to also think how to link these bottom-up processes with top-down processes and it's important because otherwise we are hitting our dynamics we're hitting structures that are difficult to change and we were discussing here in the panel about very concrete examples of how some projects at the end get instead of being very inclusive because there are really good ideas at the local level they end up being decided and managed by very few people that are at a higher level of decision making and to really make these preaches is important to have a systemic capacity in place and for that I think knowledge programming can play a key role because we have tools, we're working on tools we're improving ways of communication we're improving how to manage different languages like he was discussing this table as well so I think that's that nexus between the bottom-up processes and the top-down processes because the decisions are taking at that level, maybe the actions will be decentralised as the example in the table that was given Thank you So I suppose just the comment is that I still think there's a need for some type of action planning and prioritisation because if you don't do that explicitly, you do it implicitly by default and I think there is a challenge between trying to get the return on investment in the leveraging of all the certain types of investment versus trying to target those who are perhaps most vulnerable, which are large numbers of diffuse actors with little opportunity for profit generation so I think there's a challenge there but I think in terms of creating change and in terms of knowledge programming there's one thing that comes through very strongly from today is a need to move downstream and get practical and more than anything else I don't want to be critical of what you've heard today but I think there quite often is a need to focus and be practical to achieve beneath those objectives of trying to get these things programmed on the ground that really require us to do what's good enough as opposed to what's the sort of project Sounds like we'll all be singing from the same Himm sheet up here So a couple of take-homes that I've got here and the first one comes back to capacity and the need to build systemic capacity It's all well and good to have the best science in the world to have the best sort of widgets for digesting and combining information if that's not making it down to the ground into ways that actually lead to smart projects projects that are actionable projects that are fundable we've fallen short The other one that I take back is the kind of the challenge to try lots of things and that links I think quite closely to the question of monitoring and monitoring well the question of why are we measuring at all why are we doing this measuring we're measuring to learn and to fail faster and to fail better so that when we're failing we're actually failing up towards a better next iteration of what we're trying to do because we're entering into a problem space that is poorly defined that has loads of uncertainty in fact, in order to take advantage of that we need to experiment we need to be willing to fail but we need to document our success we need to document it effectively so that we can pass on those lessons to others who are going to be chasing facing the same challenges Great, thank you very much I guess it's the nature of a wide-ranging conversation like this and a lot of questions coming up and those solutions particularly but I hope you found the interaction useful and interesting and I'd just like to say thanks very much to our panel that's very interesting OK, so now I'm going to pass over to Joanne to sum up OK, I've got to sum up I think we are all in a mode of high systemic capacity space I really love when I get some kind of new expression that, you know, I can impress people with walk around you see this face on those that you're talking to either what a weird guy or sometimes I'm impressed, sounds really difficult that he must come from a science-based organisation Anyway, I'm not going to summarize I think it's been extraordinary interesting and nice discussions here today and also really well-moderated so we had a chance to really have this interaction it's very difficult quite often when you have a large audience and I think that has been really great a couple of things that I take with me before I would ask Andreas what did Andreas go? to also join me it's very clear what Paul also said in the end here we need to really start to look at what needs to happen on the ground actions, having much more a solution-oriented agenda one thing though in that discussion that I think we still struggle with and I can also hear that here is that there are short-term goals but there are also long-term challenges and how we deal with these both short-term goals the fact that actually we still if you look at the SDGs we are still having two billion people living in poverty we still have huge development challenges in the world and at the same time we have long-term changes in terms of climate change and so on that priority setting for policy makers and I am going to throw this back later to Andreas when you are a politician what do you focus on in that and how can we as researchers try to really address that challenge short-term clear problems people are facing with the long-term perspectives so we don't lose track of that the mainstreaming came up very well I think and Sam I mean you brought it up in your in your presentation and mainstreaming is fine I think and it's absolutely important but it's also there is a bit of a challenge sometimes also when we start to mainstream and when we start to link to all other areas of politics and so on is that it can also become very complex and you may sometimes lose track of what your key perspective is and I think that is we love complexity of course in SCI we love complexity it's our bread and butter as for all researchers you know when you can really this is a very complex issue within a high systemic capacity space that we have to address it's really there but in reality we have to embrace complexity but we have to be able to somehow also demonstrate and this came back also many of the other speakers we have to demonstrate the co-benefits within the complex system I think that is one way out of that complexity saying that yes that we are actually addressing also with the solutions that we are looking at many different perspectives that we need to address in society one also thing that I really believe we have to be honest and bring out now with the SDGs we were dishonest and not daring to focus on it with the MDGs there are gold conflicts also you know at least in short term but also partly long term in the MDGs they became very obvious because you had six sort of development oriented MDGs and then in the end you added by the way we should also maybe save environment somehow over there with the SDGs this becomes much more obvious and much more important because the SDGs finally is not just focusing on poverty they also focus on real development nobody wants to stop at going for two to three dollars ah I'm happy no that's not the way we function it's really about development and the gold conflicts will come there and that's going to be difficult it's going to be very difficult for us is climate more important than water issues is it more important than ecosystems of course we always say no no no they are all connected but there will be gold conflict both short term and long term and the question is how we can manage that I think it comes back to addressing multiple systems at the same time as well and the final thing I would like to bring up also and I think comes out of this discussion and now I really will start to push over to Andreas here is when we talk about mainstreaming how do we really mainstream into the decision making processes that are really making a difference I mean I can say Sweden and Sweden is quite often highlighted as a very progressive country when it comes to environmental issues and so on but when we talk about our national annual state budget very little on environment I mean where the really key decision making structures are Ministry of Finance Ministry of Finance those dealing with trade negotiations industrial development infrastructure investments that's where decisions are made and we are sometimes over here I think or maybe at the center of attention but it's completely different settings and different arenas and so on and I think we still have some challenges of getting in there so Andreas why don't you join me after this sort of expose in high systemic capacity space and it takes me some time to pick this up I like more simple things I really love still that American baseball player who said what do you think about next season well you know the future is not what it used to be that makes sense connects to you but Andreas you have been a minister for many years you were also very active at the negotiations in Copenhagen we've come back to that a little bit of you but as a minister you engage a lot with scientists I know that because you engage a lot with SCI among others but also many other organizations when do you think sort of a scientist is and they need to do in order to be successful to communicate with a politician like yourself even though you were convinced about climate change but what are the key success factors for us to make you I know I understand and I can take this forward I think one important thing is that I don't need complex knowledge because I'm already in such a complex environment and it takes it's important I think to think about it because if you become a minister you are immediately in a very complex situation where you have on one hand your government, your cabinet and you have the opposition of course you have international negotiations you have EU you have public opinion it's enormous many different actors to take into account and of course you will always claim that opposition is your main enemy but the main enemy is actually all the other ministers in government and especially what and you mention it, it's the finance minister so what I need is actually also knowledge that I could use in that constant negotiating process where I am in because being a minister means you're always in constant negotiations in government of course but also with other countries ministers and internationally and in the end also in a sense but in another sense with the public opinion SCI has been very much involved in a national research initiative research policy initiative called New Prime Economy which was initiated actually during the former government and with many collaborators also here in the UK and elsewhere in that we tried to sort of we argue that we financial terms that you know this transition to low carbon society and so on it's not that expensive it's just a couple of billion dollars trillion even trillion dollars but if you look at it in totality it's only a couple of percent is that the kind of information that you need and at what level because we are still talking about global level up to 2035 can that really be translated to daily politics? It's still very important I think because you always need any kind of knowledge to convince both public opinion and other countries ministers and governments as well but you also need knowledge that could really be competitive with the experts at the finance ministry if you are back home again after those great international negotiations you know that environment ministry are very good but they usually all governments they collect the most famous economists in government in finance ministry so you need actually also a lot of knowledge that could compete and be competitive and show that this is a case where we can go I mean also I had many cases where I was negotiating on measures where of course I was asked can you prove in one sense or another that this will really lead to something and we don't give you money for something where you will anyhow just be criticized it's much better to give you money for something where you can show a success and where you in the end also can create a political success which is always in the end an important currency I have two more short and very simple questions you were part of the Copenhagen negotiations Sweden was then what do you call well the chair the chair EU presidency thank you very much so we had a very strong role there disproportionately compared to our population which meant that you also had a very strong role there I mean from my perspective looking at the rare mirror I think Copenhagen was actually very successful to be honest I think it was successful because it really demonstrated that the system we had for negotiations didn't work along with the world looked completely different we didn't handle ourselves I mean there were many things that needed a shake I think and so I think this the sort of political community they are understanding this now and they are trying to find a way forward in a new set of thinking maybe in Paris would you argue that the scientific community or the expert community whatever you want to call us I also understood this shift in political realities and sort of understood that we have to maybe work in a different way with policymakers in order to shape Paris in a way to be a positive conference in there I think actually yes because mainly what was happening and to me in those days I did like at all experiences as a success and I never tried to claim it was a success I said it was a catastrophe and that was also a very bad communication I experienced that when I met the Danish presidency later on but still I think it shaped the whole system both scientists politicians and the whole system as such which was important there were many lessons to learn one was actually and I think with Sam's example he showed us that we have moved coming together between developed and developing countries but you must understand also a small country like Sweden we came with huge delegations a lot of expertise behind as I met an African minister for example had of course much much less and he made usually also African ministers avoiding negotiating with European ministers or other developed countries ministers it would be absolutely subordinated also regarding knowledge and if I pay for the knowledge that the African country should have should he or she really certainly trust that or not in Sweden's case maybe but it's important also to create that kind of trust for the knowledge that is produced by the scientists and I think that's another aspect that should be added here the capacity building is extremely important or will always be also to a big extent paid by developed countries must be useful for the developing countries and to bridge this is one of the most important aspects and also to keep the vision I think we will get an agreement in Paris it will be very differently framed from what we experienced in Copenhagen but I still think it won't match the needs so we must really find these ways of continuing and upgrading the scale of ambition step by step Thanks, maybe we can agree that Copenhagen was a catastrophic success so if that is okay in English to say that I think but it's very interesting what you're saying about trust also in a way who has funded the research, who has funded the data and so on, I think many of our colleagues here today when they have stated how important it is to build stakeholders from the beginning really from the beginning that is one way of building that trust and finally then talking about the future and one of my other favorite quotes that many of our colleagues know from Nils Bohr that predictions are difficult especially about the future one thing that he was a dain that's why, very clever anyway so in your case you were a minister even though you were a minister for environment you still had some power and being a politician now you left politics and you are actually back to academia with the human institute and really back to science what do you take with you from politics back into science that you think what can you contribute with your experience into the scientific process of the human institute and are there some frustrations about leaving the power of politics and going back to the scientific realities where we always fight that we never really get anyone to listen to us first of all it's a relief now I'm in the position where I can claim I have some knowledge to say that politicians don't do enough at all so that's a very nice position basically I'm educating young people and I think that is maybe the most inspiring part as well because as a minister you're always a part of a short lived species I mean ministers they come and go and in the end you're just one short lived part of a long long chain and after again you will come others and to educate hopefully also in transformational education educate young people to make sure there's a stronger links coming after you in the chain that's a great inspiration but of course for me it's also frustrating because I've always been a doer so that's sometimes less but I'm happier now than I was as a politician I would say because it's much more inspiring to work with young people thank you applause so that takes our chat to an end I would like to ask Ruth to come back and also sort of close the seminar but before Ruth I know you are going to do a lot of thanking and so on but I also would like to on behalf of SEI sort of globally then not least thank the Oxford Centre for organizing this I know there has been a lot of hard work behind it it's a small centre with extremely dedicated staff you know working hard hours just to do their research and then suddenly we come dropping in from above and say please organize a seminar and organize this and that and so forth and you've done so in an extraordinary good way it's been excellent to have this broad audience here Sam I must say I also appreciate very much that you have taken the time to come and participate in the seminar and really contributing very much to the discussions and the collaborations that you can have been extraordinary interesting and good and I think it demonstrates how important it is also from the perspective of funding for instance to have new mechanism that can actually get out of maybe old thinking how things should be funded research sometimes very strict to certain areas how we can actually work much more interconnected it's really really key here and bring bridge not least between science policy and practitioners so I think that has been important for you Thank you Andreas for giving us the sort of the high level picture and putting it all into context all our thoughts yes a few thank yous really for me several people have said to me this is further a little bit like a reunion lots of people meeting with our friends and you know we want to thank their thanking us but also we want to thank the board of course and management and SEI for giving us the opportunity for it's an honour for the board to come and hold their ball meeting here and it gives us this great opportunity to convene this seminar maybe a little bit the first rule of communication is to know your audience and maybe we we didn't really realise but underneath maybe we slightly had two audiences we wanted to impress the community, the climate community but we wanted to show everyone what our our body of work really I suppose over many years here in Oxford we also wanted to impress the board of course so maybe there's a bit of a tension between yeah some of the language that's being used so yeah thank you for this opportunity for giving us the support in many ways we came over on Friday she's been central to organising the board events and helping us along with the practicalities the comms team led by Rob's given us a lot of support preparing preparing us for our presentations and so on giving us ideas talking through how their whole morning would work and then coming back to Oxford thank you for all particularly within Oxford to Grace Gordon for logistics, finding the venues she did an incredible job and she's nothing has gone wrong because of her fantastic planning Annalee very much on the communications bringing the web team, the photographer the scriber together and Maria Frindle again for helping with the management is she here and helping out today as well on-going support for Oxford and then finally thank you to our panellists to here Benito and Paul and Blaine obviously to our keynote speaker Sam, thank you so much and to Zucayna and Harrow and anyone else Kate, sorry thank you so much for Kate for moderating and it's been fantastic we saw hats come together quite quickly towards the end and also thank you to St. Huw for this beautiful venue I mean it's worked out so well for us for the sake of trust there's been a lot of weather and transparency Paul let the lunch cat out of the bag so just for everyone to say we're basically hosting a lunch for our board members and our panellists and so on so I do apologise for those of you that's come along and not getting any lunch I'm sure you have a lot of work to get back to but I just wanted to explain that if we could we would have loved to have you all for lunch but it's been a little bit of an expensive few days you all know that ok, thank you thank you everyone and to the boys as well and lunch is at 1 thanks Paul