 Very much, Anikap, also for highlighting these three very exciting areas and for really pointing out importance, not least for an organization like SCI, to also carefully listen to and interface with the policy side, people who are actually working on the policy issues on a daily basis. You can give us your experience, what works, what doesn't work, and what is key for you to really push things forward. I'm going to ask those two colleagues that we're already mentioned now, Mons Nilsson, the research director of SCI, and Johan Kylensjärna, the famous part of the Kylensjärna twins. We've heard now these two presentations about the science policy and what is key, why science is so important, but also a little bit of some of the challenges that we have moving forward. Mons, your perspectives, you are linked to some of these projects that, not least Anikap mentioned as well. What is your experience and what do you think we could actually maybe do better as an organization moving forward? Well, I think the first thing is that, as you said in your introduction, we have 25 years of experience bridging science and policy, and we're getting better at understanding what it means, and what is real policy impact. So that's the first step, and it's actually what might be considered the usual way of thinking about policy impact, where there's a study and it has a direct hit in terms of changing a decision, it's actually very rarely the case. Much more often it's more a long-term conceptual change in the way that the interpretation of the framework where people think, which you might call some sort of atmospheric impact perhaps, that I think, but the problem for us is that we can rarely claim credit for it, because we are a part of a bigger constituency that is pursuing that question. And there's also a third type of impact, which is actually maybe underestimated, and that is the way that we provide strategic ammunition for the Ministry for the Environment, for instance, in its deliberations with other ministries, or with the EU, or within the UN, that through the evidence, arguments, and models that we can sort of provide the basis for more sustainable decision-making. I think what we've done maybe a little bit too much is to support the ministries for the environment and the environmental interests in society. And as Fraalot points out, the main decision-making sometimes occur in other fora, and to reach the finance ministries and to reach the investment managers amongst institutional investors, we need to speak their language and ask the questions they are asking in our research. And that's what the new climate economy is actually about to try. That's a high risk. We're not sure if they're going to listen, but maybe the stars are aligned this time for this argument to take place. But if you take that as a starting point, because this is, of course, something that is important for us when we move forward, because exactly as you say, the impacts are coming from other parts of society, and we have to really engage with them, and SCI is engaging more and more with the private sector as well. But moving forward, what will be important? Is it just a matter of changing the language when we communicate and discuss with other key actors? Or do we have change, you could say, our set of arguments more fundamentally in order to influence the policy and development drivers of society? Yeah, I think it's partly staying true to your vision and believing in sustainable development on a fundamental level, but also to recognize this complexity of interests and values in society. And that if you're talking to people concerned with budgets or security or public health, they have to get the knowledge about how, for instance, a climate mitigation strategy will affect their interests. And the common way that they have been used to addressing that question is to go to their analysts in the macroeconomic research institutions, and they get certain types of answers there, which are incomplete. We're not saying our answers is totally comprehensive either, but it provides an angle on these factors that I think will add a lot of value. And we've only started, I think, to probe that question in the new climate economy by providing the synthesis of what we know about the impacts of climate mitigation on jobs, on growth, on innovation, on security, etc. So this is, I think, a research program that we have to invest further into the future. Thank you very much, Mons. Johan, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition was one of the initiatives mentioned in the short-lived climate pollutants. This is an area, among many others, that you have been focusing on for quite some time, and suddenly we have this trigger. Suddenly we could move from what has been a quite long scientific debate and discussion, trying to push for change, and suddenly we have that shift. How do you see the role of science there? And also then the shifting role being really at the upstream and now suddenly being in the center of the policymaking processes as well. Well, it was interesting to see where we are now and to see how our engagement started with this. So initially, I mean, SEI has been working on atmospheric issues, both climate change and air quality, ever since SEI started. So there's been a long-term engagement. And the sort of impetus or our entry point to this issue started with something called the Global Atmospheric Pollution Forum, which we developed to try and get some global dialogue. One of the things we did, we got some money from CEDA to hold a meeting in 2008 in Stockholm on the co-benefits of dealing with air quality and climate change at the same time. And one of the messages which was coming through consistently was this short-lived climate-forcer focus that there were a number of pollutants which both acted as air pollutants and where you could get a climate benefit in the near term. So then we also had been involved in the UNEP geo process in the atmospheric chapter. And we had one of our colleagues from UNEP there at the meeting and he went back and talked to some other people and then rang up and said, well, do you think it's time to do an assessment of these short-lived substances, well, that's a good idea, seems to be a lot of information and interest. So we started down this process of developing this assessment with UNEP and then also with WFO. At the time, we didn't actually know what impact it would have. And it was a journey and the journey partly, I think there are some issues which we can pull out from that. And one is that we were able to galvanize a really good team around the assessment because of our networks. We had existing networks built up over a long period of time. We could get the sort of really good people involved. There was also a question of the way that we developed the process focusing on solutions. So as Annika mentioned, the issue of we identified measures, it could have gone various different ways. I think that the scientific literature on these short-lived pollutants had been very much in terms of what are these substances doing in the atmosphere and so forth. There was some interest in, for example, the ABC programme. It was in the press and so forth. But it didn't have the focus that the assessment gave, I think, which because we focused on the solutions, we said, look, if you do these things, 16 measures, implement them everywhere, you will get benefits. And also there's focus on the benefits. It was very much the air quality as well as the climate change. And if you look at the countries that have joined the CCAC, some of them are joining from a climate change perspective. But many of the developing countries are joining because they have, in Asia particularly, but also increasingly in Africa, really bad air quality problems. And that's sort of killing people. It's destroying their livelihoods. And so there are various entry points for the decision makers. So I think that we managed to take a complex problem but simplify it to the point where the decision makers could say, OK, so we trust the science. So trust is a really important part. We have to make sure that as a general point in SEI, we have to be credible so that the decision makers can trust what we say. And we also, I think with all of these things, it's like we didn't know that it was going to have the effect it had. But there were some people involved. So in Sweden, we had Andreas Carlgren and Lina Eak really took this, Annika, really took this issue forward. At the same time, UNEP took it up to the highest level and pushed it. But we couldn't have known that when we started on this thing. But there was sort of like the right people were in the right place at the right time. And then it had a big impact. So these are some of the things I pulled out of that process. I don't know if Annika, if that resonates with your view, because you were on the policy side of this. It does, definitely. And I think it came at the right time as well, because we were then in the aftermath of Copenhagen and the climate negotiations. And I think that countries were also very much looking for complementary efforts and action-oriented efforts, things that could be done now. While we are still continuing to focus on the negotiations, we want to do things now. And so that came very timely. So it's not just the content and how it's packaged, that it was a list of actions that you could implement and you knew that that would be solutions to many of the problems you were trying to resolve. But it was also that it came at the time when people were looking for these kind of concrete actions and solutions. So it's the timing as well. But maybe a question, Johan, slightly back to you. And maybe you asked a huge lot working on sort of development cooperation. What tends to happen sometimes, I mean, now in SDI, we have a lot of research which is linked to this very complex problematic of shortly climate pollutants, everything from household energy systems really up to the global policy level and global discussion. When it becomes an international issue such as this one, isn't there a risk that you sort of lose the connections to the reality on the ground? You said very much, Charlotte, we have to really always focus on the development which benefits the poor people and actually beyond poverty because nobody will be satisfied with just being brought out of poverty. How can we ensure that there is a very clear connect between these global policy processes and development on the ground, that whole interface? How do you manage to keep that within the work of CEDA, for instance, that connection? Million dollar question. First of all, we have three overarching priorities where climate and environment is one and obviously the other ones are equality and human rights democracy. But we are fighting poverty with these values, if you will, mainstreamed in everything we do. So what we're trying to do is when we try to get women empowered through agriculture, for instance, we also try to use clean energy, new solutions that are not old ways of doing this, but we really try to get in the innovation and practices that are kind of doing the right things to start with. And I think we should be able to communicate those on the ground examples much more than we do. But may I also give an example of maybe kind of between very much on the ground and more globally? We think that it is important to be solutions driven in the way you communicate this and know your target group. Because the more you know their driving forces, the more you know how to communicate and the more you will get an interest around that. So you have opportunities which you can kind of surround by knowledge. We are investing in something called the African risk capacity, which is an insurance against weather-based disasters. We are focusing on drought. Thank you, drought. That's beer, isn't it? Yeah. So no, that's not what we're doing. But the interesting thing is that we combine the new ways of working with new financial tools around an issue where we really see a problem. But it's an African bank. It's not us trying to find the solution. And around that initiative, there is so many opportunities to communicate more knowledge around the issue as such. And people will start to think, well, it's good that we have an insurance against the problem. But it's very short-term. So what do we need to do to think more long-term? That's the opportunity to really grasp projects that are interesting, new innovative projects. We need you to kind of be there and build on those solutions and inform the decision-makers even broader than the project, as such, because they will then influence others. So I think we should be concrete and use the opportunities that we have on the ground a bit more together. Excellent. Thank you very much. We are actually now hitting coffee break, coffee. Not dropped. No. But later tonight, it's exact, dropped coffee. But I must say, I mean, there are many things that really could be discussed, but this was a very, very short session. Although it's really key for us to continue this dialogue. But what I pull out really, it's not a major change from the past. But maybe it's articulated more clearly. It's the fact that we must really engage with a lot of actors that we may have not reached very well before. I mean, we understand more and more that the change-makers out there, from the private sector, from other ministries, and unfortunately the environment ministry, those are the actors we must reach. And that requires a bit of a shifting thinking, both in terms of language and arguments and so on. But I know this sounds a bit sort of naive, but having this solution-oriented approach all the time, I think, changes the way you are approaching issues and problems. And from the start, you are actually addressing them from the perspective of trying to find viable solutions for different key actors. And I think this was not clearly the success, as you described, Johan, from the Climate and Cleaner, or the development of the Climate and Cleaner coalition. We must find solutions. We don't have a choice. We can continue to focus on the problems, and they are really nice and so on, and complex and require a lot of data and so on. We, as scientists, love them really. But we must find solutions. We don't have that much time to sort of hang around. So thank you very much to the panel. Thank you very much, Annika and Charlotte, for joining us here this morning. And actually, for helping us shaping our focus discussion for the next two days, it was really, really very nice. And also, of course, to listen to Johan and Mons makes me feel so secure that we are moving in the right direction. So that's really great. So thank you very much to the panel. We are going to have a coffee break very soon. Erik, you want to say something? What I can do just before you, if you wait for one second. First of all, Andreas, I've seen you one moment, please. You won't get coffee if you leave now. Andreas, I was actually introducing our board before. And for some reason, I didn't see you then. Now we have two board members here. We have Shashlin Iblius, who is chairing SEI's board. Whatever success you would like to attribute to SEI, it's, of course, Shashlin and the other board members. Andreas, our one also, our distinguished board members is almost two years back now. So do we have other board members here? No, okay. Thank you. Then I also just want to highlight our center directors, because if you want to talk to people from different centers, you should do so. But it would be nice if the center directors can stand up so people can see you. If they are not here, they know that they are in trouble. We have Thea. We have Lisa. We have Stacy. We have Charlie. Yes, we have Ruth. Where is Jacob? I'm here. There is Jacob. Good. Asia, Eric, did I miss someone? Good. So we are going to have coffee, but first, Eric. But it's not just coffee. It's also a poster session. So in addition to the spoken presentations, people are also showing their posters. Posters are set up out there. So at first, the presenters, the poster presenters will have a chance to get a little coffee themselves and some tea. But then I would ask the presenters to go over to their posters and I would ask all the rest of you to go and walk around and talk to them and ask them questions. Thank you. And 10.30, please return here. Thank you very much.