 Good morning everyone. Thank you so much for this very interesting introduction. I would like to continue talking about this topic of adaptation mitigation synergies. And I would like to, in 8 minutes, to discuss what we have done in FTA regarding this topic and how we could make this topic evolve in the future. So as you know, or as you may know, there are three teams under the flagship four, flagship on climate change in FTA. We have one team on adaptation, one on adaptation, and one on synergies between adaptation and mitigation. So we have worked on this for a few years and also with ICRAF and other colleagues. We have developed some research on the links between adaptation and mitigation in global funding, the climate change funding, national policies, local projects, policy networks at different scales from local to national, and also in science. To understand what the science says about the links between adaptation and mitigation. So I would like to use some narratives that we found in the literature or when talking to stakeholders at the national or international or even local scale about why and how to link adaptation and mitigation. So the first narrative that we found very often is that people say that land use activities can easily provide adaptation and mitigation benefits together. So it's a very common narrative among donors and project developers. So you have this perception that synergies are automatic. And some people say that if I plant a tree, I will have adaptation benefits. For instance, I will protect the watershed for reducing the vulnerability of water users downstream. And at the same time, I will store carbon. So I will have automatically adaptation and mitigation benefits. But in fact, when you look at the literature, you find a lot of trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation. You find examples of red projects increasing the vulnerability of people. You find examples of adaptation projects increasing emissions. So it's a lot about trade. So we have to move away from this narrative of automatic synergies. We have to highlight trade-offs, especially because it's part of our theory of change. We want a decision-maker to recognize and manage the trade-offs. Then another very common narrative is that red plus needs adaptation. And we had some donors saying that mitigation or red won't work without adaptation. They say this because they believe that we need to take into account adaptation to climate change to increase the resilience of red projects to change the climate. And also to increase the legitimacy of carbon projects because mitigation is driven by global interest while adaptation is driven by local interest. So it's a good point. But at the same time, many project developers have a different view. They say that adaptation to climate change is not so important because you have so many current stressors that are more important to deal with like economic changes or social changes that are more important in the current situation than climate change. And also some people say that we need to look at the broader picture and not only adaptation and mitigation. And for instance, rather than talking about adaptation and including adaptation into red we should broaden the discourse to the human pressures on forest poverty issues, red safeguards, and also not only adaptation of climate change. So that's why I think there is a need to making this topic evolve from synergies between mitigation and adaptation to a broader view of resilience of a social ecological system to multiple stressors. Then another narrative is that we need an integrated approach. There are many donors saying that the integration of adaptation and mitigation will increase in the future. And so these donors perceive the benefits of an integrated approach. They also perceive the barriers that prevent them to do it now. So they say also that the climate funds are going back to more integration between adaptation and mitigation instead of a separate stream of finance. So we need to explore at what level we need to mainstream this integration of adaptation and mitigation. It's not about funding only. It can be at the national level, at the local level, in policy, in practice. And we also need to explore the different processes that we could promote to facilitate this integration without forcing a marriage between adaptation and mitigation. So this is also part of this area of change. We need to identify where to act on this integration. And I also think that we are now in a situation where we are changing this course in terms of adaptation versus mitigation. The logical discourse will be that if I am vulnerable to climate change or if my sector, my agriculture is vulnerable, I have to adapt. But more often people think I am vulnerable so I have to adapt and mitigate. So I think there is a change in the way people engage in a voluntary commitment to reduce their emissions in two minutes. So then from the narrative I want to discuss very quickly, so in two minutes. I am here maybe one more minute because she said 8 to 9 and in the program it's 10 so on. Negotiating. So in the framing that we have used so far in FTA we used dichotomy between adaptation and mitigation, which is logical because it's the way it has been framed in negotiations in the IPCC with the two different reports of working group on adaptation and mitigation. And of course it's logical because adaptation and mitigation have different rationales, different temporal and spatial scales and they share the same ultimate objective to respond to climate change. So we think that it's important that all stakeholders understand this dichotomy but in fact they don't. And even after so many years working with this dichotomy you realize that many stakeholders still get confused with the difference between adaptation and mitigation. So the communication on this can become very academic, abstract and also when you talk to people in disaster risk reduction community for them the word they use when they use the word mitigation it means adaptation. So that confusion is a thing. So this framing is kind of restrictive and it also contributes to this separation between adaptation and mitigation that we criticize. So for instance we could use a more continuous view especially when we talk about ecosystem services. Very quickly here we have services that are related to adaptation and mitigation with at the top carbon in purely mitigation and then other services more at the local level being more adaptation clearly. But in between you have some like the regional climate regulation that's not really adaptation near mitigation so maybe it's better to see it as a continuum of services that the landscape can provide for climate change. Finally the last framing I want to discuss is about win-win situations when we say that adaptation mitigation synergy we have a kind of two-dimension approach so it's better for adaptation or it's good for adaptation but bad for mitigation so win-win or win-lose so it's very simplistic because we have so many dimensions in adaptation and mitigation that we need to go beyond this two-dimension. And so to go beyond the main problems that I have identified I think we could start working more on the landscape scale and trying to see how to manage landscape for the three objectives of climate smart landscapes so first having landscapes, providing services that are useful for reducing the vulnerability of society to multiple stressors so it's adaptation services then also managing landscape to provide mitigation services and finally to manage landscape for improving ecological residents. Okay, thank you.