 Hello, good morning everyone. Thank you so much for joining us today. I see people are starting to trickle in, just wanted to say welcome and we're really excited to have you all with us this morning for this natural capital conversation about climate resilience and nature based solutions. And we will be beginning momentarily, but before we start the conversation, I wanted to just go through a few logistical issues with the, with the zoom platform and the agenda for today. So the first thing I want to mention is that this webinar will be presented in English with Spanish interpretation available. Our Spanish interpreter is Taís Pardo. Yes, the seminary or web see present in English con interpretation of the Espanol disponible in nuestro tractor is Taís Pardo. The speakers presentations will be in English. Activate the interpretation option by clicking on the globe at the bottom of your zoom screen. Para activar la opción de la interpretación de idiomas, haga click en el botón en el interior de su pantalla que tiene un globo y dice interpretación. Click on this button and then select the language you would like to hear either Spanish or English. Aga click aquí en interpretación y luego seleccione el idioma que le gustaría escuchar y hace español o inglés. It is necessary to select a channel in order to hear the webinar. Debe seleccionar un canal para escuchar a seminario web and please mute the original audio so you will not hear two languages at the same time. Debe silenciar el audio original para evitar escucharlos dos idiomas a la vez. So now I'd like to give you all a brief introduction to who we are before we move into today's programming. The Natural Capital Project or NATCAP as we call ourselves is a collaborative initiative working to pioneer science technology and partnerships to highlight the values of natural capital and environmental services in a broad range of planning and development decisions. And our goal is to enable people in nature to thrive together. We're centered at Stanford University and we have five additional core partners that you can see on the bottom of the screen. What about this event today. This is part of our natural capital conversation series which is the newest addition to our virtual programming. And you can join us and thank you for joining us today you can also join us again in coming weeks for live conversations with scientists practitioners and leaders and government and business. And our conversations are designed to spark engaging discussion to exchange knowledge and and learning from others in the field. And we're featuring everything from coastal smart client climate smart coastal planning to cultural ecosystem services and more. We have a fabulous lineup of panelists shown here, and these are leaders with many years experience working on different aspects of nature based solutions in science policy and finance. Just to give you a quick overview of our schedule for today. My name is Adrian Vogel. I'm a lead scientist with the natural capital project and I'm based at Stanford University. After once I, once I finished the little introduction we're going to hand it over to Dr Gretchen daily for opening remarks, and then we will move on to our moderated session. And then we'll have Carter Brandon will give us some some initial thoughts on making the case, the global case for climate adaptation. And then we'll have our panel presentations with by Kate Brahman talking about the promise and potential of nature based solutions, I will give a short presentation on nature based solutions in practice. And then John Matthews will wrap us up with the nature of funding aligning and BS with finance. We'll have a five minute break following the panel presentations. And then after that five minutes will reconvene for a panel discussion and Q amp a moderated by Carter Brandon. And so, one last thing I want to mention about logistics is that we will have there are two ways to communicate with the Nat Cap team and the panelists. If you have questions, please use the question and answer box. There's a Q amp a button at the bottom of your screen. If you don't see the question answer box you can click that button, and it will pop up a box that you can submit your questions for the speakers for the panelists. And we will also be answering those questions as we can during the presentations and during the discussion. We'll also our moderator will be selecting some questions as we have time to ask the panelists live during Q amp a session. Now if you have any logistical questions about how to use what how to use zoom, or you need technical assistance then please use the chat box. So with that, I would like to invite Dr Gretchen daily to kick us off with some opening remarks Gretchen is co founder of the natural capital project and the faculty director of Nat Cap here at Stanford University. Dr daily's work is focused on understanding human dependence and impacts on nature, and the deep societal transformations that we need to secure people in nature. She's the author of numerous scientific and popular publications and books, as well as a recipient of several prestigious awards, including the 2020 Tyler prize for the environment for environmental achievement and the 2017 blue planet prize, and it's a pleasure to welcome you Gretchen. Hi everyone. Can you hear my alright. Yes. So thank you so much for joining warmest welcome to all of you. Today is a tremendous day I'm most grateful to Adrian and this team for coming together and presenting what is really the most central topic of our times, most central to the future of humanity. It's not only the central topic of our times but an arena in which humanity has maybe a decade to transform dramatically across sectors, energy food, cities, health, water flowing through all of it. And finance and governance and other dimensions of how we run the human enterprise are at the core and at stake in this decade ahead. Basically without dramatic action will be locked into multiple crises unfolding and intensifying as we're beginning to experience more visibly and palpably today. At the same time, I'd have to say there is a lot of hope. It's an exhilarating moment in viewing all of the change that we're seeing on the horizon. So the natural capital project engaging with partners all around the world in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe, across all continents we're seeing tremendous awakening and action. And I'll just highlight a few things that make me most inspired, and that you'll hear about in the conversation among these terrific experts who've joined us today. So first maybe in the realm of CEOs, working together with our partners in Stockholm, we've been convening with CEOs to basically drive a conversation on how to shift the private sector and drive much more investment in basically regenerating the planet after a century of a great degradation in Earth's life support systems and climate stability and all the other aspects of the life support that the biosphere provides and sustaining us physically and in all the other more intangible dimensions in which we depend on the planet for well being. CEOs are waking up to this and saying, you know, we get climate change now. We get the climate commitments we must make in our making. And now we really want to get biodiversity and nature. Relating to that looking at country governments, we see just recently last month the dusk up to review commissioned by the UK Treasury, building on following the stern review on economics of climate change, the dusk up to review and focusing on the economics of biodiversity and the risks and devastating costs that come from the loss of biodiversity in the planet's natural systems. If we look across that major public sector financial institutions, the major development banks, it's extremely heartening to see dramatic action in the form of all sorts of shifts in practice and mindset, and in the tools and approaches really needed to drive this investment in regeneration. So with the World Bank, for example, the natural capital project is co leading development of the natural capital index, a new set of tools and metrics for charting pathways to human development that are in harmony between sort of economic development and securing and regenerating life support systems nature in all of the different sectors. Second, with the World Bank we're working across cities across their global platforms for sustainable cities to highlight both the risks of climate health and other impacts coming from degradation of the biosphere and highlighting especially the pathway to investing in securing coastlines for climate resilience, securing water supplies, securing nature within cities and adding to that to maintain and support human health and well being. Across Europe, we've seen 775 cities just in the last couple of months adopt natural capital project tools to scope out the opportunity for investing in nature to achieve security and all these climate and other dimensions of human well being. And then looking at other major development banks, IDB, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the Asian Development Bank have both launched natural capital labs. ADBs launches in progress right now, and both are advancing basically the finance and the governance that we need to make these sort of lofty commitments that leaders are now putting out there, making them real across landscapes, across coastlines and within cities. All over the world. Then finally I want to mention with ADB just a week ago, the Asian Development Bank was key in developing a new metric called gross ecosystem product that is a way of tracking the value of ecosystems to society. It's been designed together with Carter and many people both on the panel today and engaged in this conversation today. It's been designed alongside GDP to report basically the value to society of all the goods and services delivered by ecosystems. And to allow governments, whether at the city scale or national scale, to track progress in securing benefits of nature to people. And that just last week, Thursday last week was certified officially by the United Nations Statistical Commission as a key metric for potential deployment globally. So in all of these realms, we're seeing a lot of action, but the challenge really is ahead and that's what Carter Brandon and others here are going to open up for us. I just want to introduce Carter briefly to you it's been a tremendous privileged and pleasure working with him over the years. His background is in economics and finance of especially today climate change and adaptation where he's leading a major effort at World Resources Institute, focused on green and resilient recovery from the pandemic, and the times were in. And on pricing the risk of all that we're facing in private sector and financial markets. Carter's been at World Resources Institute since 2019 before that he was at the World Bank for over 20 years based in DC and also for lengthy years long stretches in both Argentina and in China. There's a lot of students and younger people on board here. Here's how he got started within economics first at Harvard and then as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, getting his PhD. But I think maybe the most wonderful aspect of Carter is his playing music. So he's playing in the Paris Symphony, and has made music in all sorts of ways over the many years and I'm going to turn over to him now to conduct this conversation among us and make some music today with with the group here and and then wishing him all the best at WRI and all of us all the best going forward. So thank you so much again for joining and here's handing over to our conductor, Dr. Carter Brandon. Thank you Gretchen. What a wonderful introduction. So I have to make a little side comment for those interested in music. I was listening to Brahms first symphony second movement the other day, and it struck me as the perfect short piece of music to capture the year of this pandemic. And also to capture the tone of Gretchen's comments about we have a, you know, an unprecedented global crisis in front of us. But there are rays of hope it's just a beautiful piece of music that starts dark it has some illuminating melodies, it goes dark, and then it finishes with some inspiration so anyway if you like classical music I certainly suggest that. Thanks again for being here. I think my job is to frame a little bit what we're talking about so let me share my screen, and then we'll get on with the presentations. Here we are. So we are. We are grappling with sort of overlapping priorities overlapping areas. Today we certainly make. We all know there's a environmental crisis I don't have to go into even what Gretchen talked about the collapse of ecosystems, pending of a quarter of the world species land degradation of a quarter of the world's agricultural land, and even more and you know fisheries collapse coral reefs collapse Arctic ice collapse etc. But even more the tipping points that are coming up that we can't predict can't control, but are somewhat irreversible. So the case for nature, we're all on board. Then we have the case for adaptation, where within building restoring investing or natural capital. We also help achieve resilience we achieve many other things to we have, you know, productive assets we have carbon sequestration for emissions etc, but we have a few things that benefit adaptation. And then finally, today we're going to talk about the case for water. There's a saying, hopefully you've heard it, but I'll repeat it, water is to adaptation, what energy is to mitigation. When we talk about carbon emissions. You know there's nothing but removing fossil fuels, removing fossil fuel technology and replacing it with other technologies for adaptation. There's nothing like managing water, water supply, sea level rise, storms, droughts etc. So this is this is the area of our discussion today. I spent a lot of time the last two years working with something called the global commission on adaptation, and in making our case for nature as fundamental to adapting to climate change. We came up with this chart that the natural environment and what we invest in supports resilience, basically across every sector that we cannot survive without investing in nature. Water of course is first and foremost water flows supply flood soil erosion etc, but it underpins food cities infrastructure supply chains, disaster risk management, the the focus today is on water, but I just want to plant that the benefits of nature as we invest in water, go beyond into these other sectors. And so part of our pitch can be, we're doing what we can for water, going deep, but we're also benefiting in other ways and that's the sort of the broad story of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services have immediate benefits, direct benefits, but they also have indirect benefits and we don't want to lose sight of that as we get from the world of science to the world of policy to the world of finance. I'm going to go back to my little chart. In the three areas of overlap, nature, adaptation and water. What is the link between and I just that chart I just showed you was connecting these two top circles what's, what's the case for nature in the case for adaptation well it maps across all those different sectors. Well now let's look at the link between the case for nature in the case for water. Well, as I said ecosystem services provision flood control settlement control filtration. Everything we need to invest in to improve our resilience for the water that we need, and also of course for the ecological biodiversity functions that rely on water. Now what's the link between the other side adaptation and water. Well, water helps us in other things that maybe isn't water supply, but certainly coastal protection climate regulation health. So nature is everywhere adaptations everywhere waters everywhere. And the global Commission on adaptation that talks about these links went a little bit further. And this was sort of the map that we gave to our work that I personally have found quite useful in the year and a half since we came up with this map that to, to better understand to build the knowledge the technology the incentives the critical mass the scale and then the impact. We need these three steps and it's like a virtuous circle. We need better understanding. We don't really always know what climate impacts are what risks are how to evaluate risks, how to distinguish from short and long term risks, and how to invest now to reduce those long term risk. It's a huge challenge and understanding, and it's not in one place, it's everywhere. It's in school rooms it's communities it's in governments and banks it's in private sector public sector. And understanding is not one thing it's everywhere. And as the right hand side of the chart shows, it's different in every sector. But once you understand a bit more about risk, what the challenges are, then you have to get real, what are we actually planning to do out of a million things you could do what are the priorities what's the critical path. Where is their consensus where's their, you know, the technology and the feasibility, and of course, the money required. You don't get the money in this world unless you have a good plan no one's handing out money for free it's too scarce, and you don't have a good plan unless you have good understanding, and you don't improve and all three of these unless you have a virtuous circle. So today we're looking at understanding planning finance, particularly in the water sector. I'm actually delighted to say that the, the, let me get rid of my screen now, delighted to say that we, the three presentations we have, not coincidentally because it's sort of the way to go forward, really map very well to those three stages of better understanding, better planning, better finance. So our first speaker is Kate is on sort of building the case the demand the understanding our second speaker Adrian is on okay how do we plan bringing science and you know to the to the community and to the project level and john. The third speaker is okay, we have some good ideas. How do we finance it how do we work with the financing institution so I think this model works. And I hope you agree and I hope it generates questions afterwards so with no further ado. Let's go to our first speaker Kate Brahman. I see her on my top left of the screen but gave you can say hi she's a. She her main home is at the University of Minnesota at the Institute on the environment, but she's also currently a triple S triple as science technology policy fellow at the US Department of Defense. And it's actually a bit surprising but also super welcome to see the Department of Defense involved in climate change and risk and resilience, because you know I think the Pentagon I'm saying you know the Pentagon but if you do it be great to know as well as anyone that this is a global social human and security risk that we have in addition to everything else so Kate over to you. Thank you Carter it is a delight to be here. The Pentagon is extremely concerned about climate change in addition to the executive orders that have just come out the Secretary of Defense has actually put out a memo about how important addressing climate changes. All of that said I want to be super clear that I am speaking as an individual and absolutely not on behalf of the Pentagon. Or anything else related to the Department of Defense I am Kate Brahman, and I work at the University of Minnesota. I'm hoping that you see my slides and not my slide chair and I will jump in about what some of the promise and potential of these nature based solutions are. So, now they're not moving forward. We hear a lot about nature based solutions we just heard a lot about how great nature based solutions are the natural capital project and a lot of our partners are working on them. The 2018 UN water world water development report was entirely focused on nature based solutions for water. This is really exciting, and people are interested for a number of reasons. So one of them is that nature based solutions have the potential to be less expensive than built infrastructure built infrastructure is really expensive. In places where infrastructure is failing and needs to be replaced in places where we're building infrastructure for the first time, and in places where infrastructure is not working nature based solutions have the potential to really address some of these issues at lower cost. As Carter and Gretchen both talked about there's some really exciting co benefits that can come with nature based solutions. So culverts are extremely effective at moving water underneath roadways, but they're not good for very much else. Nature based solutions have the potential to provide a variety of benefits in addition to the water benefits that we're interested in. And finally we're starting to see that what we have now isn't working, especially as climate changes we're putting different kinds of pressure on our need for water infrastructure and green infrastructure has the potential to be more resilient. And that's really exciting. So, great. I mean this has sold me we should do this right. So what are we doing. So what, what are nature based solutions. And the answer is actually extremely broad. There's a big bucket of things that fall into the category of nature based solutions for water. So one of these like you're seeing in the top row of this graphic from you and water really look like that nature and nature management reforestation and not just reforestation but conservation of existing landscapes that are already providing natural and constructed wetlands for filtration. We can see slightly more managed systems where, for example, buffer strips are put between urban development or agricultural development that's creating dispersed pollutants to try to keep those from getting into water. And then we also see really more hands on built solutions that take advantage of what we've learned from nature so in urban settings we're seeing green roofs for absorbing water and bioswales along the sides of roads again for absorbing water. We could even think about a dry toilet I actually love that they have this on here. Nature does a great job at recycling the nutrients and waste. Why can't we take advantage of that. So thinking about nature based solutions in general is great thinking about nature based solutions in specific is really important because when we think about whether we're conserving landscapes or really building new things. We're going to have different effects and we're going to have different co benefits. I feel confident saying there are different co benefits from reforestation than there are from dry toilets. So think about what it is that you really want to get out of this. But what all of this comes down to really is the big idea that nature affects our quality of life, and that we can and do manage nature, whether that's conservation or enhancement or restoration or degradation, and that affects our quality of life. And so being able to to describe and quantify these impacts nature's contributions to people or ecosystem services really allows us then to think about feedback loops where we can manage differently or better in order to improve our quality of life. And I don't know this seems like a pretty good idea to me, and it apparently seems like a good idea to lots of folks because we are seeing this being deployed all around the world investments and watershed services, where downstream communities are investing in upstream communities so that changes in land management can improve water resources downhill or something that's happening all over the world. And it's happening because there's a real demand for it. We are seeing bad things happen. We're seeing bad things happen when we mess with nature, and we want to look to nature to try to solve some of these problems. So I'm going to talk about flooding for the next couple of minutes of this talk. I will freely admit that I have chosen flooding as example because the pictures are very much more spectacular, but we could be talking about this for water supply for water filtration for all kinds of other water services. So, when we talk about nature and flooding, we know that nature based solutions work when you change natural ground cover to impervious services you see much more runoff and much less water moving into the ground. We know this works. We also know though that this is not a panacea. So there's three things that I want to emphasize that we think about when we try to understand what the effects of nature based solutions for water are going to be. So that's scale sites and science. So when we talk about scale, we really need to talk about the scale of the nature based solutions that we're putting into place and the scale of the problems that we're trying to address. And that's both in terms of sort of, well, what's the size of the city and how many rainwater collection planter boxes are we putting in. And are we putting in enough to make a difference. But we also need to think about the scale of the problem. So that flooding picture that I showed you was from Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Harvey dumped over a meter of rain in five days. It doesn't matter very much what your land cover is, you're going to have a flood if you get a meter of rain in five days. It's actually substantially less than that too. So we need to think about this match between the solutions and the problems when we talk about green infrastructure the same way we do when we talk about built infrastructure. We need to think about where nature based solutions are being put in place or more importantly, being conserved. One of the things you can see in this map of the greater Houston area is that Houston was pretty much built in a swamp. And it turns out that swamps flood, or more precisely swamps don't flood they're just wet, and it's okay when they're wet because that's the way they're supposed to be that's how they function. It's really bad when houses are wet. And so putting in wetlands might not fix a flooding problem in other places, but it does provide a place for that water to go when the water is going to go there anyway. And finally, there's a lot of science that we still need to do to really understand why and how nature based solutions are effective and understanding that's really going to help some design and deployment. So you know we have here some pictures that are really inspiring and we talk about mangroves for coastal flooding and reforestation for upland flooding. But what happens when we reforest what does a forest look like what are the biophysical flows that are happening there. And I really like this picture because this is definitely a forest. And this is a path through through a forest and part of the reason we like forests is for these co benefits we want to be able to go hiking there. And that's not enough. When you walk on a path that gets compacted we get water build up there and it gets muddy and it might even have flow coming off it that would be offsetting some of those impacts of having forest instead of other kinds of land cover upstream of where we want to stop flooding. And so really thinking about what are the mechanisms what do we want to conserve or design when we put nature based solutions in place are really important. And beyond that it's really important to think about what our metrics of success are so this muddy path is a problem if you're not wearing shoes, but if you've got your boots on, it might not be that big a deal. So, as we go back to this idea of nature's contributions to people, if what we're really interested in is dry feet. There's a couple ways we could get that and one of those is, you know, with boots. But we might also really think about what the environmental conditions are is there water on the ground. And so between the water on the ground and the boots that's where we're getting to our dry feet. And nature very well, maybe and probably is reducing the amount of water on the ground, but there also may still be water on the ground and so our nature based solutions might have to happen in conjunction with boots, or other kinds of solutions really thinking about a matrix of ways that we're getting to the real issues that are important to us. We also really want to think about when we're building these nature based solutions. What could they be doing, and what are they actually doing. And so often we talk about, gee, there's all this potential, but we need to do a lot more measuring and monitoring to really understand what works and how can we make that happen more effectively. So I'll close by saying nature based solutions have a ton of potential it's really exciting, and they definitely can reduce the size and durations of hazards or help affect our water supply our water clarity with their things we can do to really grow and built with nature based solutions. They can also help us avoid some of the problems that we're having, we can get people and stuff out of harm's way by embracing nature and the idea that nature is actually designed to live in some of these say mushy spots. And finally, we need to think about recovery. Do we have the physical and the institutional support to reattain well being, you know, it's the, are those boots available and are they available to everyone, while we also think about some of these nature based solutions. And I will end there, I am very happy to answer questions in the chat and I'm really looking forward to the panel. Thank you so very much. Thank you Kate. Great justice promise to show the show the promise itself of the NBS. So we're turning now to our second presentation. Dr Adrian Bogle she introduced herself briefly at the beginning. She's a lead scientist with the net cap project at Stanford and she actually runs the securing freshwater initiative. And has worked for years on how land and forest management impact water resources, particularly in the face of changing climate conditions and she's super interested in working not just with scientists but across the spectrum of research policy makers and civil society. Also in quite a number of parts of the world Latin America Himalayas, US and Africa. So thanks Adrian over to you. Adrian. Yes, sorry about that I lost my mouse for a moment. Thank you so much for the wonderful introduction Carter and as mentioned, I'm going to be talking a bit about you know how does some of these nature based solutions work in practice and unfortunately we don't have time to go into all of the science and the details about all of the things that Kate teed up really well. But I just want to give a little bit of an overview of the kind of things that I think about when it comes to project level. Planning and implementation of these kind of nature based solutions and particularly how do we move from from the fact that we have still a bunch of uncertainty and the science towards some informed action. So, first of all, I want to give two examples of analyses that I've worked on that demonstrate the potential for large benefits to accrue from investments in NBS. One is the establishment of a water fund which is a payments for watershed services scheme in the source watersheds for Nairobi Kenya. The second is for investments in soil and water conservation practices and slope stabilization in Nepal that benefit farmers communities and critical infrastructure for hydropower. Here on the map you can see the source watersheds for Nairobi located just north of the city. And in recent decades poor land management in these in this area has resulted in high levels of land degradation. In turn, causing some serious threats both to the resilience of small holder farmers and to the water supplies for the four and a half million people living in Nairobi. So the water fund was designed to implement nature based solutions in the agricultural lands in the source watersheds and was designed to address the these issues we had problems with erosion and loss of fertile soil sediment and pathogens polluting the water for communities throughout the watershed as well as the water supply for Nairobi increases in operations and management costs for the hydropower operators. And on top of that there's this expectation that climate change is going to further increase these risks and the degradation. So a quick idea of some of the results that we got out of the study we did a watershed modeling analysis where we implemented these in BS practices and here are two of the benefits we looked at one is the sediment on the left and the water flow on the right. And these graphs are comparing in an average year how much sediment and flow you would get both with and without the water fund activities in place. I know from this that there is a pretty significant benefit in terms of sediment and erosion reduction, particularly in the in the rainy seasons, and a small but potentially important increase in water flows particularly during the dry seasons which is important for a lot of these farmers that do depend on rainfall and sort of hand irrigation from small streams. We also did an economic analysis of these benefits, and we assumed that the investments would occur over a 10 year time period and considered a 30 year time horizon for valuation. So the first thing that I want to draw your attention to is that benefits take time to manifest. So you do see a initial investment that is needed before you start to see a return on that investment. But over the 30 year time period, we found that there is a potential for $2, $2 worth of total value of benefits for every $1 invested in the water fund and the activities in this watershed. One positive example. And then the second one I want to talk about is the slope stabilization and best practices in Nepal. And in this project we focused on soil and water conservation activities undertaken by the Nepal Department of Forests in the catchment area for the Kali Gendaki hydropower facility, which you can see in the small inset map on the left. And many of the issues faced in this area are the same as what we saw in Kenya, we were worried about erosion and loss of fertile soil for small holder farmers. There's concern about land degradation, which is increasing the risk of landslides. And then impacts on the operations and management for the downstream hydropower. And the concern that the, the erosivity of the rainfall and the storms was just going to get worse as we have climate change impacts manifesting. In this case, we also looked at some of the many co-benefits of investing in NBS and again did an economic valuation of these. So the benefits that we, well, first of all, we did a modeling analysis, again using invest along with some newly developed providers for assessing landslide risk, sediment transport, and we were able to evaluate a broad set of economic co-benefits for investing in these nature based solutions to address the sediment problem. So besides reducing the ONM costs for hydropower downstream, we also looked at avoiding lives lost in landslides, the additional carbon storage that could be gotten from this, as well as on farm benefits to landholders in terms of maintaining the productivity of their lands, and also avoiding landslide damages to infrastructure and roads. So the bottom line here, this graph shows the aggregate economic results of an economic benefit of implementing these practices at the scale that we modeled. And the X-axis here is a budget ranging from half a million up to 50 million US dollars. And the average benefit to cost ratio for each budget level is shown in the blue dots. We also looked at, we considered a range of estimates in terms of costs and economic model parameters, and the impacts of those assumptions on the cost benefit or the benefit cost ratio are the black lines with arrows. Even with conservative assumptions, which would be represented by the bottom of these black arrows, you can see that the benefit cost ratio for the investing in these NBS solutions remains above one. It is cost effective. Up to, I'm sorry, it looks like my dashed line got moved a little bit. It's supposed to actually be at one. So if you consider the arrows above one, up to about five million US dollars, you still see a positive benefit. So there's a good chance that these kinds of programs are going to be cost effective and are going to return positive benefits to society. So those results have been published in a recent World Bank report, which is available online. So we know that this potential exists and modeling the scaling up of these practices is one thing it is really important to build political and financial support. But what do the data say about what benefits have we seen in practice. And so this question led me and my fellow colleagues, including some of the panelists here today, took an effort to provide some clarity on what the data show us about the impacts of different NBS investments on the metrics that matter for water security, things like annual water yield short term runoff peak flow groundwater recharge, etc. And this work was supported by the science for nature and people partnership. The idea was that if we could improve understanding and share the state of science about what the impacts of these practices actually are and have been measured on the ground, that this could drive even more investment in new programs and help scale up and help unlock more financing. What we actually found in the literature is not so straightforward. So first of all, as Kate mentioned earlier, the term NBS can refer to a lot of different practices, including protecting existing forests and wetlands to reforesting degraded areas. Also to implementing more sustainable practices and crop lens and range lens and among many many others. I hadn't heard of the dry toilets as an NBS option but yes so you get a sense of how broad a range of things we're talking about. So because there's so many different practices under that umbrella, the impacts we found also very widely. So first of all just looking at reforestation I'm actually going to show some data from a review done a few years ago, looking at reforestation impacts on annual water yield or runoff on the left, and on base flow on the right. So base flow is dry season flow or flow during the dry season. And these results indicate that replanting trees often results in less water downstream. You know, more than almost or more than three quarters of the time you end up with less water, although sometimes you do see an increase, which is more common in base flow than for the annual water yield or runoff. So the results are mixed. And so we also realized we saw this study for reforestation but we realized that there's currently no sense synthesis of the empirical evidence for NBS practices in working lands in agricultural crop lands and range lands. So we embarked on a systematic literature review to determine the state of science for how these practices affect different parts of the hydrologic cycle. And what we found first off is that research in this area does not match the scale of our ambition. So we found by far that most published studies are done at a plot scale. This graph is just showing you the number of studies that we found in our review, looking at agriculture and range lands and the water benefits or the hydrologic impacts of NBS practices. So far, people are looking at and measuring impacts on a plot scale, far fewer studies are actually looking at the integrated impacts of these practices at a landscape scale. And my second graph here just reiterates that point. This one shows the number of measurements reported across all studies in our review and which hydrologic measurements they actually report. So we have a much stronger base of data to show the impact of NBS practices on the local and the short scale hydrologic effects. So runoff over a short time frame is by far the most steady parameter, followed by infiltration. Annual flows are investigated in a fair number of studies but the impacts that really speak to flood risk and drought resilience, like peak flow low flow and ground groundwater recharge are given much less attention. And again, we know that a lot of NBS programs are implemented with the expectation that we're going to have adaptation benefits in exactly those issues. One last bit of data I want to show you before I wrap up is that just to get a little bit more detail on one of these practices just looking at vegetated buffers in both rangelands and croplands. And just understanding whether you're going to see an increase or decrease in flow depends very much on the context. So this graph is showing you the number of measurements because there could be more than one measurement per study. So this is actually the number of measurements that are reported either a positive impact on flows or negative impact on flows for each of the metrics, the flow metrics that we looked at. Again you can see that most studies by far looking at runoff followed by infiltration and annual flow, and that many studies actually show a reduction in inflow after implementation of these practices, although in some cases you do see an increase in runoff and infiltration and a few cases of increases in the others. So this really just speaks again to the importance of context and understanding your local context in order to in order to efficiently effectively design NBS programs to meet the objectives you want to meet. I did want to just caveat when I talked a lot about water flows but we do know from case presentation that the links between land degradation and declining water quality are well documented and are more are more clear. They're also very clear benefits of for water quality from restoring natural vegetation and planting riparian buffers, but we also know that it matters a lot where practices are implemented. The landscape configuration plays a huge role in how effective vegetation is at reducing pollutants to water sources. So given all of this, where do we go from here. And so here are some ideas for a path forward. First of all, I think it's important to reiterate just as Kate mentioned earlier that you need to design projects very carefully just as you would with gray infrastructure. You need to understand the local context using both against your conceptual understanding of hydrology as well as drawing on local expertise to avoid unintended consequences. And the last thing you want to do is say we're going to go plant a million trees. And then, because we have an issue of water security, and then you go plant a million trees and actually you end up with less water than you had before. So the unintended consequences I think is an important thing to keep in mind. And secondly, start locally so local benefits we know from the science can accrue more rapidly, and can be used to justify the immediate investment and build buy in with landholders to maintain the practices and to, and to increase them to the scale that's needed to be able to see these large scale landscape impacts on water security. To protect wherever possible the science is not is not equivocal on the benefits of protection, there are very clear benefits to maintaining the invisible infrastructure where it exists for continuing to receive the water benefits that communities have depended on for centuries. Again back to sort of the design principles it is really important to identify exactly what your objectives are your primary objective and then what you would be okay with as co benefits or what kind of trade offs you would be okay with and to think about these things in the design phase. And then also a landscape level or base level perspective and looking at water balance. It's really important again to avoid those unintended consequences. And then finally, we cannot forget about climate change is really important to consider not only current conditions but how these conditions might change in the future. So with that I am. Oh, I forgot one of the most important points which is of course to monitor and adapt and to be flexible and to be actually measuring what impacts you are having. Yes, so with that I am going to turn it back over to Carter and I really look forward to interacting with you all in the chat and in the question and answer session. Thank you. Thank you, Adrian. That's great. I have questions others do too but we'll get back to that after the break and so we'll move straight into the, to the final presentation as I said, we've gone from sort of science and demand and understanding to actual planning and some of the costs and benefits of such a very, very, very interesting and concrete. Next to finance john's john Matthews presentation is called advances in financing for climate resilient investment. And john is the is the co founder, and the coordinator of the Alliance for global water adaptation, also known as Agua, which is hosted by the World Bank and the Stockholm International Water Institute. And just like a lot of us he's a practitioner who tries to blend good science and technical knowledge with policy, and concrete practical applications of water adaptation management. So john over to you. Thanks very much. I won't let me start my video. I think I need a permission to do that. Okay, super. Thank you. All right, and sharing my screen. Can you see the first slide. Yes, perfect super. Thanks Carter. And thanks for the nice introduction I'm really grateful to Adrian for the invitation to come here and really enjoyed the talks and interventions so far. It's already a lively conversation in the chat. As Carter mentioned, I'm, I have a background as an aquatic ecologist, but I really think of myself as practitioner and and for the last 14 years or so I've been working in this water and climate space. And in Agua for a little over a decade now. Today I'm going to talk about a segment of August work which is how to try to align some of the emerging ideas that we have around in BS around resilience in water with funding in finance. There's a report that was prepared with the UK government in Agua that came out last summer, Northern summer is focused on specifically water finance and nature based solutions. If we look globally. I'll say at least it looks like in BS only get about one to 5% in water security globally. There's a report that came out I believe just this week from WRI that looks that in BS and climate finance so a subset and their actually even smaller, maybe 0.6 to 1.5% of climate finance globally of course that is not specific to water water would be an even smaller component there. So basically goals. I'm going to first talk about some of the mythologies, I think that we have around climate finance and in BS and funding finance more generally. But I'd like to start off with a with a quote. I like to think that part of my work is trying to remove the BS from in BS. And I think there's been a tension. Do we talk about nature based solutions from an advocacy perspective or do we try to talk about them from a kind of hard nosed investment perspective that's much more difficult. It's really challenging. This is a quote from a session that I was in last August. And Lord Goldsmith is the UK environment minister. Interestingly, he's the minister for the cop. I forgot to update that he is now with FCDO. DFID is a no more FCDO is the current acronym. As I said in this quote, I think with a lot of insight, our recent research suggests that the odds are currently stacked against infrastructure investment in nature, due to our procedures keyword procedures. And while now is the time to accelerate the use of nature based solutions for water, we know it is no panacea to the water crisis. And we need to rebalance the scales to the natural options are considered equally alongside traditional infrastructure. I would argue that that really in many of our water decisions we have artificially pushed aside in BS as as the set of options that also means that that we need to also not isolate in BS as a separate track, I think is one of the implications that he's making here. One of the myths that I, I have observed over time. I, we lack evidence of efficacy around in BS. This is often described as let's wait for the scientists to tell us what we need to do. I'm a scientist. I think we are really terrible about telling people what to do this just not in our job description. We're not going to do it. I wouldn't wait on that don't hold your breath. Investors and lenders are not confident or familiar enough with in BS this is the low demand hypothesis. I actually don't think this is a right either. I've worked with many of the development banks with commercial private finance. They actually are quite familiar. They're often other obstacles that they face than than lack of demand. Engineers are really the group that are at fault, and they're just not developing enough in BS projects I think this might be the kind of purest advocacy argument it's a low supply issue. Engineers just don't care about in BS. Most of the engineers I meet, especially the ones that are say, maybe under 40. Over 40 of them globally I meet our women actually and they are angry at me as an ecologist for not helping them develop more in BS projects. We can't easily assign economic value to economic services, and we just need to wait for the latest tool to help us come up with a dollar or Rand or R&B to associate with a particular ecosystem services. I believe that either we've had these tools this discussion about ecosystem services for 30 years hasn't actually gotten us very far in many cases. And then, lastly, in BS projects are too small, they're too niche investors don't care. And the counter evidence I have there is from May of 2019. This was a 5 billion euro room for the river, almost as pure of an in BS approach. It was focused on climate change is a sovereign green bond from from the finance minister. It, it sold out. It's less than an hour. It was actually oversubscribed by a factor of seven over the course of the day that they had it on the market. And investors care, investors are highly interested and motivated. I think actually we, those of us who really care about in BS are not doing our job. Some alternative hypothesis that I'd like to suggest. We've not really treated in BS as an administrative and a process issue. So I think of this as embedding, try to actually understand how people make decisions at a fairly granular level, procurement, economic evaluation comparison methods so they're thinking about a range of great infrastructure options. Why aren't they thinking about a range of hybrid and green options in there as well. And then how do we make make those judgments. And then an analysis that immediately rebalances the process and multipurpose investments that also plays to the strengths of in BS, especially for talking about climate change in BS are not a separate agenda. That's my most important point, and I would say it's the, the fatal flaw from kind of a Greek theater perspective that we made very early on in the, in the environmental community that we've treated in BS is separate. What we need to do is we actually need to get into other agendas. We're the weak ones, and we need to learn their language and approaches. This is a publication that we did with TNC and the global resilience partnership that looked at source water resilience and climate adaptation, a really critical issue with a lot of global examples there. And this is a global commission adaptation paper that came out a little over a year ago, adaptations thirst. It also is trying to embed in BS and their particular niche and strings of weaknesses within the larger climate adaptation discussion. Ultimately, I think we have to make trade offs are more clear and more transparent. And here this is as an ecologist become kind of a strange ecologist, probably a lot of people would say I was strange to begin with, but I, I think, actually, as an ecologist that one of the most powerful tools that we have is actually to take ecological insights and knowledge and put the climate down, but actually embedded inside of other tools and finance may be the most important one. We worked with a consortium we crowd sourced with several hundred people in a series of phases over a six year period it's actually still ongoing to develop quite water resilience criteria for different types of investment projects for the bonds market, especially green climate bonds on the left you see here. One of them was a very famous bond city of Cape Town is around 80 million us. It included both nature based solutions and gray solutions, but it had the strength of this approach is it's very clear communicates to issuers what the expectations are in investors, the transparency about what the trade offs were, and what was done how much people really suffered for their art and putting together that this this work. And we use, I think, a very complex and sophisticated approach to thinking about what water resilience means, especially for nbs that was then applied in a kind of checklist embedded checklist and decision tree approach over 12 billion us since 2017. And across six continents have been certified using this and I actually think the footprint is much larger probably closer to 20 billion at this stage for a wide variety of investment types. And, most importantly, it avoids many of the really negative traps of climate finance that are especially difficult when we talk about water. And then, this is an example of granularity. We starting about two years ago we embedded very deeply with the Asian Development Bank, talking to many of their regional and thematic sectoral programs to develop a kind of looking at how they make many of their sectoral decisions and thinking where in BS and climate are actually able to consider it's two things that we're doing at the same time, which is quite complicated. This case we were looking at a water cities and transport. A waters and easy one to align with climate. But cities and transport not always the most obvious and certainly not always the most obvious from a NBS perspective. This is this launched, I think last December, and it's about to be reissued and kind of a more classy and colorful version, but we're really looking at about how to scale this this up more generally. And we're doing something very similar with the water sector at the DB and a larger scale now. I just went in with a quote. What if we could design a sea wall that could heal itself. And it's called a sand dune. This is a quote from a friend of mine. A couple of years ago, I think it captures that sometimes, you know what we need to do is communicate about these issues in a different way in a more fundamental way have to help us revision in BS from the way that maybe we think about it. And to the way that the people that we're trying to engage with that they think about these topics. Thank you very much. Look forward to the panel. So we're just a few minutes over time but we're going to take a five minute break to allow our translator to rest your voice. This is one of the most active Q&A sessions I've ever seen it's fantastic. So I will do my best during these five minutes to sort of catch up and summarize where we'll try to focus in the last 20 minutes of the of the program so we'll see you again here at 110. For those of you who can hear me, we'll start in about a minute. Okay, we're back. I'm going to invite all the panelists to turn on their cameras. Everyone is with us and maybe had a chance to scan this incredible number of questions and thanks to the panelists who've been far more productive than I have been responding. I'm going to we don't have that much time we I think we have sort of two buckets. We have 10 minutes each for the each of the panelists to talk a little bit. And I'm thinking that one bucket, we heard a lot about scale, and we heard a lot about the need for local engagement, the fact that there's local research that Adrian and I invite you to explain a little bit why the small projects seem to have higher rates of return for small scale but as they got bigger, because we all went scale but your data seemed to point in the opposite direction. So I'd like to hear a little bit about how we think systemically going broad getting governments and donors to embrace MBS to go to the climate cop to get governments to put climate water resilience into their NDCs. How do we balance thinking big and top down versus well actually all the knowledge is local, all the economics is local all the sciences local. So how do we balance this top down. Now this gets to me another way to phrase this is theory of change. What, what really makes a difference. And if you know if we can talk about a little bit on that. The second bucket will be more on methodology there's a lot of questions about economics finance science etc so we'll get to that later but let's talk about first the dynamics of change. How do we get there. What are the next steps for this, this brilliant group of practitioners. Why don't we go in the same order Kate Adrian and john, and let's tackle the big questions. I'm going to punt because I couldn't hear the first part of your question so I'm going to I'm going to punt to Adrian and we can come back around to me. I'm sure I'll have something to say by then. Okay, it's about the big picture top down looking. And one more comment john quoted Zach goldsmith the British Minister, saying, don't isolate MBS, make sure we have the big view. I talked about the global Commission on adaptation. Let's have the big view. I'm not convinced it works frankly it's important conceptually, but I'm not sure it drives change what drives change are people who care about water. Anyway, Adrian over to you. Great. Yeah, thank you for that question and thanks to everyone who's put their questions in the, in the Q&A box so. Yeah, I think that there, there's obviously different angles that we need to tackle this and I think that that having MBS, not perceived as a separate thing it's not an environmental issue or a water security issue it is a fundamental pillar of development and where needs to be included in all development decisions as a fundamental pillar how do we use nature as one of the tools in our toolbox. And so I can't speak to all of the issues of scaling up I'm going to leave some of that to john and Kate but just from the science side and to respond to some of the questions in the chat about. You know, how is it that we have, you know, we have to think about local context and a lot of our science has done locally and a lot of our knowledge is local. But I do think that we have some tools for understanding how those local impacts can scale up. And so, yes, monitoring and measurement of impacts needs to be done locally, but it also needs to be done in a nested approach you need to have design monitoring schemes that measure local impacts, but also watershed scale impacts and basin scale impacts. And if you're only looking at one of those scales you're never going to get the full picture. And so it's really important I think to integrate the science at at those different scales. If you have really good local measurements and you have really good models you can use the models to say what happens if we scale up. That's what we've done and some of our projects that I mentioned in my talk, and that is, but it is dependent on the, the quality of the data that we have to feed the models that comes from that more local scale and then it is dependent on data available at larger scales to validate those models and to enable us to look at counterfactuals. I think that's just from the science side and I not to say that that's all that is needed but I am going to hand it over to others to speak to some of the other elements. Thanks. John, I did reference you that the challenge is do we really want to promote this with water utility companies and communities who need water who get flooded. Do we really emphasize the full benefits of nature. I mean, we love both but over to you. I mean I work quite globally. My general experience it doesn't matter I happen to be based in Oregon. It doesn't matter if I'm in the US or I am in a middle income country, or an LDC. I think that you always need to talk with people about what they want to talk about and and what they value how they define success and failure and almost invariably in BS will be a part of those set of solutions. I think the framing of this session I think is very careful we are talking about two things we're talking about a climate resilience and we're talking about in BS. They overlap to some degree but they are not a perfect fit. And I actually think that the greater room for opening up the conversation is on the climate side, because the adaptation and resilience are essentially a revolutionary paradigm. They tell us that many of the things that we've been doing that we've been measuring are not just not functioning, they actually are wrong. A very quick example there is that we focus very much in water on efficiency is a kind of a scorecard of virtue. Efficiency is almost the opposite of resilience. It is probably a better measure in many cases actually of risk and vulnerability. And when we try to think, when we try to, I think as Adrian showed very well, we try to redefine the problem, make sure, and Kate as well, make sure that the scale of the problem, as we've defined it actually matches the problem as it exists on the landscape, that suddenly nature based solutions make a huge amount of part of our portfolio of solutions in how we try to meet those stakeholder needs and concerns. Thanks. And I'm back on tap now. You know, to answer a big question, I'm going to propose two sort of big ideas and one of them I think is that we do really have to think about systems management. So that means integrating nature based solutions into all of these other things we want to do but it's also thinking about everything from, you know, development to road building in a more integrated way. And to me that's really about getting to the heart of what are we actually trying to achieve. And so usually, we're not trying to achieve water in a well we're trying to achieve the things that we're using that water for. And so thinking holistically about all the ways that nature and built systems can support that end product gives us a lot more options and those options are more resilient, and there's just a lot more ways to attack the problem and nature is part of that. And that also I think really opens up some doors for us. I sometimes hear complaints from investors that we don't have the kind of easy engineering tables for green infrastructure for water that we have for gray infrastructure. And that's because we haven't spent nearly as much money and time investigating green infrastructure as we have measuring the effectiveness of culverts of different sizes. And I think it's out that we may not need that information or at least we may not need that information right away in order to be clear on these, some of these interventions making a lot of sense and so part of understanding what our, what our end goal is is what do we need to know to get there and if we know that the magnitude and direction is right, is that sufficient. And many times it is, and that's something that's important to remember with this connected to that is kind of another big idea which is that there is no point when people are connected in and with nature and connected to that there's no point when humans haven't managed nature in certain ways so if we think about a continuum of total wilderness to city with nothing green in it. There's a lot in between there it's not an either or and when we talk about nature based solutions. We're really talking about, let's work with nature. Let's enhance the things that are working for us and let's try to avoid, or move around the things that are not working because there's lots of things that don't work for us like it really is kind of sad to not have something over your head when it rains. Let's work with nature to make that happen better. I'm thinking about that continuum and where on that continuum we can we can intervene and manage to get the best solution is a big part of this I think. I mean, I do think part of the complexity of this issue is simply it's complexity Katie even in your one of your final slides you talk about your nature isn't just, we're not just restoring it. We're also using it to avoid problems we're using it to solve problems we're using it to, to enjoy anyway, we get the complexity now let's now let's turn to the methodology. Chris, I think Chris's last name, short and sweet said, we're on the wrong track. These are all economics issues. Now I'm an economist. I like economics. I think I have a balanced view of how far economics gets us and we should some goddess further sometimes just like I'm sure scientists, particularly in the Trump era felt that we wish science got us really than it does so I don't have illusions about how far economics can get us. But we've had a lot of questions in the chat about methodology, how do we value water do we how do we value the steady services like waters a lot of interesting water quality, is that undervalued and how do we do that What about the probabilistic events, how do we value flood control when it may or may not happen and maybe severe maybe light that may something people in Houston remember maybe something that people in Miami haven't had for a while you know who knows. And then I think to frame this question somebody asked, what are some good research agenda items to go forward is economics the cutting edge, or is that too simplistic that we need more understanding on every front why don't we tackle methodology if there's any questions that were put to you. Take this also a moment to answer some of those, maybe the same order. Adrian first. Yeah, and I do think that there are, there are no easy answers in terms of methodology. I think that the, I do think that that measuring probabilistic events requires a bit more careful thinking and analysis. And, but in reality, all, all events are probabilistic. I'm just to give a brief example the way that we, the way that we address the risk of landslides and then a Paul study I showed earlier was looking at, you know, we don't we can't predict exactly when and where a landslide is going to occur but what we can do is look at the, you know, based on the physical characteristics, and the vegetation cover what is the probability that a landslide might occur in a given region and what is the probability that it is going to affect a road or a home or some people nearby, and then being able to model, you know, if the vegetation is improved and the slope is stabilized how does that change the probability of the slide, and then the probability that it's going to have an impact and so there are ways to do these kind of probabilistic analyses. And then express those, those benefits. But I do think it's also important at this point to know when we're talking about major floods and we're talking about landslides and things like this that there is a physical limit to what vegetation can do and it is has been shown very clearly that, you know, more trees more vegetation is is useful up to a point when it comes to risks of flood and landslides but above a certain point. We are subject to these large geologic processes like extreme floods and very large landslides and earthquake induced landslides that vegetation is just an MBS is not going to help but I think that it is important then to note one of the biggest benefits that I think is often not appreciated from MBS is the is is planning like Kate said with keep just taking advantage of the nature that we already have so for example the room for the river the benefit in the room for the river is not that you have more vegetation in the river and it's going to reduce flooding. The benefit is that you've moved people out of the floodplain is you take people at risk and move them away from that light that area of risk and you're therefore you're using the vegetation you're using the natural floodplain as a way to as a way to mitigate that risk but the benefit doesn't come from planting trees there. Any quick thoughts and then we'll move on on research priorities. Research priorities. I, well I think I put some things in the Q&A about just the need for monitoring at multiple scales, but I do think that there is just to add on to that. Beyond the water perspective I think there's a huge amount, a huge need for how these practices in these programs in impact people in terms of health in terms of mental well being in terms of poverty alleviation. And how these programs and practices are either perpetuating existing structural inequalities, or they are helping to alleviate those. I think there's a lot of work to be done in that area. Okay, great. So Adrian you're talking about a lot of benefits that aren't necessarily easily valued in terms of economics. John over to you. I'm going to have a small disagreement with Adrian. I'm not sure that everything's probabilistic. We can often come up with probabilities, but I have little faith in many of those probabilities. I think it's very easy to say that the largest risks that we face from climate change are floods and droughts. And I think that we do a great job of preparing for floods and droughts, but only when we can come up with a good estimate of what they're going to look like. And I'd actually argue that the larger issue is that we don't know what they're going to look like in the future on top of a whole range of other attributes and many of the kind of facile tools that we have, you know, these quite sophisticated delicate climate models. And one of the scientific phrases that they suck on water. The, that's that that I, I, yeah, I'm pretty sure I had to get a PhD to say that they, they are awful, and they're admittedly awful from the climate scientist and they're not going to improve this is part of the kind of can't do are we waiting on something that's going to appear there's a study that just came out last week on just exactly how bad, even the latest generations of GCNs are on water. So that what that means is that we, we actually need to place uncertainty at the center of our work that that means that I was picking on efficiency earlier, efficiency is about envisioning a single future. We're not optimizing systems in our design and planning processes, certainly our economic analyses that they are built on an assumption of, of that that we can optimize that we can move towards a single future. I think we, for the threats that we're pretty sure are going to happen we can be robust to them, but there's a huge amount of residual uncertainty, especially if we try to think about resilience and sustainability or over time scales that actually matter for a NBS and for the, the lifetime of the infrastructure that we're building in utilities or for energy for agriculture. That's something in many decades, sometimes in many centuries. And once we shift that that framework, it actually shows that I think we kind of have to update a different type of software. We have to update the software that we use that allows to choose between alternatives. And, and right now, in the best institutions and I would say, you know, the World Bank the EDB or good examples there, we're kind of hot wiring in existing system that is is kind of designed to fail from a resilience perspective. What we actually really need to do is work really closely as a research priority about both a micro and a macroeconomic level about how to think about a non-optimized approach to valuation. Okay, good. I can have to catch up for a run out of time. In my mind, Mark Murphy said we do a great job protecting humans and infrastructure from floods and droughts, not so good at protecting natural systems. I know he lives in Arizona he's probably thinking the Grand Canyon by regulating water we really messed up the Grand Canyon for a long time. Okay, Kate last word only one minute I'm sorry. I want to really just build on what Adrian and John have said, and you know thinking about the economics to come back to sort of the core of your original question, a couple of thoughts of that. You know, whether it's probabilistic or not, we, we frequently don't actually know the biophysical side, whether it's the climate models that john was talking about, or that great graph that Adrian showed where it's like well if you change the land cover, your water cover, or it might go down. So, if we picked a biophysical point anywhere in there we could put a price on it but if we don't know what the biophysics are doing, that's going to make the price pretty not not very useful. I certainly don't think that the economics is the be all and end all, but I do think it does two things that are super useful for us one of them is allow us to compare, not just apples and oranges but like apples and donkeys. And the other thing is that it really forces us to talk about the specific things that we value. So, I hang out with biogeochemists and they talk a lot about nitrogen cycling as an ecosystem service and I actually believe that they do value nitrogen cycling but most of the world does not value nitrogen cycling they value what their water quality looks like at the end of the day and whether it's going to make them sick. So, you know, talking about economic valuation makes us articulate well what, what is it that we care about. And this comes back to this kind of systems thinking what's the end what are the multiple pathways for getting there. I will also note somebody asked why don't we just put a price on water. Some evidence that higher prices of water cause people to use less there's other evidence that higher prices of water allow those who feel that they have thus rightfully purchased water to use as much of it as they want. This is obviously a problem and does not solve our problem. And we do lots of things that we don't sort of make economically rational. Health I think is a big one. We don't put health limits on toxics based on how much it's going to cost to control those toxics we put those health limits on there because of how it's going to affect people and sometimes animals. So, you know, this I think fits into that same complex network of sometimes you want to price and sometimes the price is not what's important at all. And so thinking about the value. What do we care about what what is our end goal what are we trying to get is where this really where the rubber hits the road or the grass hits the road, and we can, you know, make nature based solutions work. I'm going to have to cut this off. I think one of Kate's last points is sort of communicating this and, you know, our people at the center well I think for communication purposes through governments through communities through, you know, even international finance for example a lot of it people should be at the center. And there's a program maybe you're familiar with it called cities for forest, which actually I think has a pretty good communication approach to convince dwellers that for us and my implication water as well matter. They talk about the nearby benefits. Green spaces, lower temperature, you know, cleaner air, they talk about the medium benefits watersheds recreational value aesthetic value. And then they talk about the longer values which are the longer distance which are the biodiversity and the carbon sequestration so we need all three dimensions. And this is one way I like Adrian's reference to the nested approach. No simple answer it's all nested it's all related. Thanks to the panelists. Thanks to Adrian for organizing Gretchen for introducing. Thanks to john and Kate for presentations and discussion, and to send you out a bottle for the translating. Thanks, everyone and have a good day. Thank you before you go everyone just wanted to mention briefly that we are going to have a recording of this webinar available on our YouTube channel which will send out a link after the event. And we hope that you do join us for the next in our series of conversations on climate smart coastal planning and sustainable development and Latin America and the Caribbean and land use planning in the Amazon. And thanks to Carter for the great moderation and everyone have a have a wonderful day.