 I would like to invite panel members to come here for the Q&A section. If you have any questions from Nayla, please just raise because we're going to take it out and we'll forward it to her and she could get back to you. Okay, shall we have the first round of questions? Maybe we collect five or six questions at a time. Testing. Good morning, thank you very much. My name is Mike Jones. I'm based at the Swedish Biodiversity Centre. I'm also chair of the IUCN's Resilience Task Force. So this session has been particularly interesting to me. I actually have many questions but I'll confine myself to one and that's aimed at Magnus. And that's to ask him to what extent has he considered history and the history of responses to climate change, the consequences of climate change to societies in Europe over the last couple of thousand years. My understanding is that climate change of less than one degree actually can have very profound effects. So it's not just about the interaction between Europe and other climate change-sensitive parts of the world. I think it's also about what it's going to do here in Europe. People who think that we can manage, can cope with, adapt to two degrees of change, I think they're dreaming unless they start to take the lessons of history into account. So my question is to what extent are you doing that and feeding it into climate change policy? Thank you. Yes, next. Yes, thank you. Holger Hof is my name or the Stockholm Institute here. My question also goes to Magnus. It's half of it is a comment just to understand you're right. You're not focusing on developed countries only. You're also addressing increased vulnerability and developing countries, I suppose, because they are also more dependent, some of them on imports, for example. And the second is the question whether you address some atmospheric teleconnections as we are exploring with our colleagues at SRC, which either through climate change or land use change in other regions may very strongly affect the situation in distant regions via changes in precipitation and other long-range effects that may be caused in quite different regions. Thank you. My name is Ose Johanesen. I'm at the Stockholm Center. And my question goes to Frank Tumalov. And you have given me the same question. So I'll just give you this question back. The choice of countries that you have in the base is for that and taking consideration to if SEI is going to focus on, how do you say, where the issue is critical. Just coming back from the Philippines yesterday, the women there are very empowered and maybe looking at how do you choose countries based on maybe gender inequality and difficulty in working in sectors like DRR, like for example Pakistan and India, maybe where the issue is much more critical and a women's struggle. So thank you. I'm Bo Chilin, at SEIassociates.com. I also wanted to ask Magnus. I think that it's very interesting with these categories that you mentioned, biophysical, trade, financial, human, et cetera. I was just wondering two things. First, will you make any distinction between climate disasters and more long-term climate change in operating this? The other question is really that human covers so many, or people as you said, covers so many different categories of problems. It can be health. It can be political impacts. And I wonder if you could comment a little more about this. Thank you. Yes, hello. I'm Jör-Anil Somaxper. Also, SEI Associates.com. To Frank Tomala, this work on gender and disaster risk reduction. I'm thinking about timing. Earlier we heard from the work on clean air and how we come into international processes. Just on time, after 15 or maybe 25 years of research at work, you seem to be starting now. And we are talking about post-2015. What are your entry points to policy impacts in this short-time perspective? Thank you. Thank you. I'll jump in first then. Question on history is a very interesting one. And within this set of projects, I'd say we're not specifically aiming to do that, but there are two things that come up. One is the general scenarios work there, SEI does. And we've mentioned there the discussion about learning from historians, developing future scenarios with historians to gain perspectives on past change as something we'd like to do. So we're definitely thinking that way. Another is, I think your question was partly about the limits to adaptation, which is quite a few gaps in the research there. And that's something that, again, SEI would like to focus on more. What are the limits to adaptation? And then again, within that work, then you could look back to look at previous limits and how they are often a lot lower than assessments of adaptive capacity and vulnerability tend to show. So not within this line of work, but very much get the point. And then Holger, yes. So in terms of the index itself, that would be something global. And indirect impacts are important for all countries, not just rich ones. So there's a policy message there that is relevant to richer countries, but indirect impacts should be part of adaptation and planning in all countries. And some emerging economies or low-income countries are extremely trade-dependent, for example, for food security or for other resources. So these issues will no less important there. And one of the case studies we'd like to focus on is actually about food security in Senegal, for example. I'll say something more about that tomorrow, I think. And quickly, though, on extreme versus long-term. So again, within the idea of this index, then it will be quite crude and it won't necessarily distinguish between the difference. It will look more generically at exposure to risks through the pathways, even though those risks are different if they're about extreme events or if they're about long-term changes. So I think in our conceptual work on indirect impacts, then we distinguish between the two, but the index itself might not get that level of subtlety. And then the people pathway, we will concentrate our research, having set out this conceptual framework, maybe more on the overall global context and on the trade pathways, partly because they're the least researched, I'd say. So on the people side, human health has quite a good amount of research on the impacts of climate change on human health. And the migration story is a very complex one. There's a lot of disagreement in the literature on the extent to which climate is a driver of migration under what circumstances, what kinds of migration. So we're choosing not to venture too much into that field within our project in the short term, but to sort of note that there is a discussion there that clearly, especially over the longer term and under higher-end scenarios, the movement of people across borders is going to be an issue of some sort. I'll pass it to you. Thanks also, and Joran, for your questions. I think they're not that easy to answer, but as usual, it's a combination of things. And I don't remember asking you that question. But thank you for getting me back on that one. I think in terms of the choice of countries, it's a combination of selecting countries that have a higher level of poverty and low development and that are highly vulnerable, that have been identified to be highly vulnerable to climate change and that have experienced a high frequency of disasters with high impacts. The selections also, based on some preferences, UNDP have had not just those countries, there have been some other countries we've discussed. We did not discuss the countries that you mentioned. That's probably partially because of our own inexperience in working in some of those countries and the strategic decision to focus on Southeast Asia rather than South Asia. Even though there's been a lot of discussions on our opportunities and our capacities to work in those countries, and I agree with you that clearly some of those countries are even more vulnerable and that gender equality is even greater. And it's partially because of our own capacities and our own opportunities. I've only just recently rejoined SEI 10 months ago, so this is one of the opportunities that I've identified. And we've also created a lot of human capacity in our Asia Center in terms of looking at gender and hazards and gender and climate change. So I hope that goes some way towards answering your question. Yoran, in terms of timing and entry points, again SEI capacity and opportunity plays a great role there. In some aspects we're coming to this quite late. There's been quite a lot of work on this and this is going to be one of the challenges, I think, overall with our new initiative on disaster resilience because it is a very crowded field. There are a lot of players out there and we have quite a lot of experience in vulnerability and resilience research, climate change, adaptation, and some other related areas of work, but this is the first time we're trying to bring it all together and building on, just saw Roger Kasperson in the audience there. Hi, Roger. Building on our work a few years ago of the poverty and vulnerability program and the risk life, the Hudson vulnerability program. So sort of with some of the stuff we're going full circle now, which is nice to see. I think there are a lot of opportunities in the policy arena to influence what's going to happen with the post-2015 HFA even though it is just sort of literally around the corner, but there are a lot of policy platforms, dialogues and things like that happening, at least in Southeast Asia at the moment, that when we can hook into and that we are hoping to have an influence on. And the final thing that I have mentioned in my presentation, which I forgot, is that I think one of the really great opportunities for us right now with the UNDP is that they're just about to launch their new strategic plan for 2014 to 2017, which focuses on regional cooperation, of course, poverty reduction, gender equality and building resilience to disasters. And UNDP and Asia see SEI as a key partner in the region. So I think that's our opportunity. Thank you. So we have the second round of questions. Actually, we don't have much time because we need to answer the questions, so maybe two more questions. Yeah, two more questions. Very short question. Yes, it's Arnold Rosemary at SEI Stockholm. A bit of an appetizer before I launched with respect to intestinal diseases. And I missed that message from... I mean, human beings are extremely vulnerable to a few things and one of them are multi-drug resistant intestinal bugs which are going around the world. Ha, I think maybe you should maybe tell us a little bit about how critical the situation is in Vietnam. There are people in this audience from Caroline's Institute that are actually working in Vietnam on this question. It will be bigger than AIDS. It will be much, much bigger than any of the intestinal disease we've had so far because this is multi-drug resistance in many species. And I think you can connect it to poverty, gender, climate change, what have you, peri-urban, urban questions. But I think that will bring us together in something for SEI. Thank you. Could you kind of make the question short? Can you repeat the question? I'm sorry. Now, just to say, if you know something about the work on multi-drug resistance in Vietnam. One more question? Sure. Sorry, also for Magnus. You mentioned your index. Thanks for sharing it, by the way. The idea is great. You mentioned it sort of as an awareness-raising tool. But this is a process question. We all know once an index is out there, it's open for all kinds of appropriations and misapplications. And I was just curious if you thought about what types of policy applications it might be used for and whether you can mitigate against any of the wrong uses. And the second question is the cocktail glass on one of your slides. Thanks. Sorry, we cannot collect any question now. If you have any burning question, we still have a few days here. So please come to our member and we could discuss directly. Magnus, I do want to... I'm glad you mentioned the cocktail glass. I forgot about that. Do you know what cocktail it was? It was a cosmopolitan. And the point was it's sort of bringing a more cosmopolitanist flavour to adaptation. We're all in this together, that sort of thing. So, well spotted. In terms of the policy use or the way in which to raise awareness, part of this is motivated by interviews we've done at COPS and some early work on the case studies. And the idea of indirect impacts is quite new to some people, which I find quite a surprise. But a lot of people need a way of coming into the topic and people love maps. So it's really quite a simple communication device to start people thinking about why certain rich areas or certain parts of the world that are very trade dependent are coming up as the red areas, not the green, safe, blue areas of the other maps. And in terms of guiding against its misuse, then I guess we just have to be extremely clear about how it was developed and what its limits are. And that's something that you find in the other vulnerability indices that they're very opaque sometimes in how they arrived at their selection of indicators and how they've weighted them or put them together and they don't do that. So I think it's just a big health warning on the front of its limits. Thank you. The question addressed to me, actually I think we could discuss outside this panel because the time is finished and I need also some time to really recollect and we could share more about what's the situation and program in Vietnam. I hope it's okay with you. Thank you very much panelists for sharing.