 So welcome everyone to the second session to dive deeper into the principles for local ed adaptation. This session is around really trying to deepen understanding with the CBA community and get your insight to how we see them delivering real impact and how we will help them deliver real impact. Before we get going and while we wait for Ayesha to rejoin just to take a few of the more boring side of the event. So obviously I know you're all super probably familiar with the Zoom etiquette but have to just take you quickly through this for some who may not be as familiar. So just to say we're recording the meeting and we may make some parts of this call available on our website at later dates. Please do let us know if that's going to be an issue. We've obviously taken security precautions to prevent uninvited participants from joining and Zoom bombing but if you do notice any such content and please do let us know in the chat function. We have myself and Ayesha Ayesha is back who are co-hosting sessions to let one of us know and we have my colleague Larisa in doing the tech wizardry in the background. So you can also let her know if there's any issues but also any challenges you're having in engaging in the session. And please don't share the Zoom link on social media especially to prevent any uninvited participants. And we do recommend that you do shut down any other platforms that you're using such as Skype and Teams to maximize your ability to engage in the session. And just a few of the, just the ways to engage in the session you will be muted. And when we go into the breakout sessions which there are two today you will be able to unmute. Please do put your video on if you have the bandwidth it's always great to see people's faces and try mimic an in-person event as much as we can. And you will be able to see all the participants who are on this call. I think Ayesha said at the beginning do try and rename yourself so you can see we can see which organization you're from. You can just go in three dots next to you if you right click on your face that is coming up on the screen and you can add your organizational title. And there you can also raise hand and do some issues to kind of draw attention to others as facilitators. That's just the information how to update your names. I'll skip over that Ayesha's already introduced that. And also there's a chat function we do really promote you to get engaged on the chat whether it's responding to some of the panelists starting some conversations. On some of the issues we talk about in this session and also just getting to know each other do introduce yourself on the chat where you're from where you're based, that's great to see. Also you can react to things that are said you can use the reaction buttons to I guess give a thumbs up if you agree give a clock if you really liked an intervention. So just get into started on the session. I just wanna check if our other co-host Ayesha has been able to rejoin her if I should keep cracking on. Yeah, Mark, I'm so sorry. Great, no problem. It's like the internet side. No problem at all. I will hand back over to Ayesha then to take you through what the session's all about and then to hand over to Saranjah after that, over to you Ayesha. Thanks, thanks Mark. Actually Lois I do need you to please allow me to share my screen. Lois, I have one possible if you can let me share my screen. Well, Mark I wonder if you have a slide. I'll do it. No problem. Thank you so much. Okay, so so sorry for that technical difficulty. Let's dive into the session. So the principle for locally led adaptation were developed for many years of work by several institutions and they were launched under the global commission for adaptation on adaptation in January 2021. And the global commission on adaptation housed a locally led adaptation work stream which was shared by two commissioners who are with us today to let the tell from FDI and Dr. Mohamed Moussa from BRAC International. And several organizations have played really integral roles in developing and moving ahead with the principles including of course IAD, ICAD, Bible Commission and others. So to say this essentially the principles were developed in a very collaborative and consultative manner. And now we have 50 organizations that have endorsed the principle. Can I see if you can go to the next slide please? And many of these organizations that have endorsed have been joining the CDA sessions yesterday and today and we'll hear from some of them in just a minute. But before we go into the session where we're going to have Saranshna interview some of these endorsing organizations I wanted to take a minute to just give an overview of what the principles are to refresh those who are familiar with them or help those unfamiliar to understand what we're talking about. So I'm going to go to the next slide. So there are eight principles for locally-led adaptation and the first one is developing decision-making to the lowest appropriate level. So what we're talking about here is really giving local institutions and communities more direct access to finance and decision-making power on how adaptation actions are defined, what's prioritized, how they're designed, implemented and monitored. The second principle is addressing structural inequalities based by women, new children, disabled slaves and indigenous people as well as marginalized ethnic groups. So the idea behind this principle is to really integrate the different forms of inequality that are in fact the root cause of vulnerability into adaptation actions and really encouraging vulnerable and otherwise marginalized communities or individuals to really meaningfully participate in and lead communication decisions. The third principle is providing patient and predictable funding that can be accessed more easily. So supporting long-term development of local governance processes, capacity and institutions to really be able to access finance as well as providing longer term and more predictable finance to ensure that communities can effectively implement adaptation. Number four is investing in local capabilities to leave an institutional legacy. So what we're talking about here is really improving the capabilities of local institutions to ensure that they understand what kind of risks are, they understand the uncertainty within them and they have what they need in order to generate solutions and manage adaptation interventions. Without really being overly dependent on project-based donor funding. Principle five is building a robust understanding of kind of risks and uncertainty. So that's informing adaptation decisions through a combination of both local traditional indigenous knowledge as well as scientific knowledge. Principle six on flexible programming and learning is really about enabling adaptive management to address sort of the inherent uncertainty that the medication and that can happen through kind of robust monitoring systems, learning systems, flexible finance and programming. So you can see here how some of the principles are linked together. Principle seven is ensuring transparency and accountability and we really do kind of encourage downward accountability to local stakeholders. And finally, principle eight in collaborative action and investment. So we have different sectors, different initiatives, different levels of government all involved here. And we have the humanitarian assistance, disaster risk reduction, clean recovery of funds. So really ensuring those alignment and support and complementarity between all of the action on local land. So that's kind of a snapshot of what the principles are. So all the organizations that have actually endorsed the principles have agreed to be part of a 10 year learning journey, which includes specific events throughout the year. So we have Gobiashna at the start of the year, CBA where we're at now at the middle of the year and then COP at the end of the year. And we're of course early on in this learning journey but we've been seeing some really fantastic momentum both by the endorsing organization as well as kind of political support for the principles. So very quickly, what we're going to do today is the goals of the session are really to increase CBAs, the community's engagement around these principles to deepen understanding of what good practice could look like and unpack what implementation might look like on the ground and what the challenges are. So trying to be quite concrete not about kind of what we hope to do or want to do but more where the bubble hits the road. And the way we're going to do this is we're going to have Sorenshina Gukka from the pilot commission do interviews with endorsing organizations. So she'll do interviews for principles five and six and then we'll have breakouts for groups for principles five and six. And then we'll come back to Plenary and she'll do interviews for principles seven and eight and then we'll have breakouts for groups seven and eight and then close the session. So next slide. We have a great set of endorsers here to join in. For principles five, we're going to have Melody Braun from the International Research Institute for Climate and Society. For principles six, we have Heather McGray from the Climate Justice Resilient Fund. For principles seven, we have Neve Fallon from Irish Aid. And for principles eight, and you should let the girl from at the same time. So I'm going to ask Sorenshina to please dig over at the end of my interview. And then after that, we'll move back into the breakout groups. But before, yeah, I think that's it. Yeah, okay, so Sorenshina over to you. Thank you, Aisha. Hello, good afternoon, everyone. I hope you all are enjoying the community-based adaptation conference. And I hope that yesterday's session on the locally led principles for adaptation gave you some serious food for thought. Today, I have the privilege of interviewing for very interesting and different people who come from very different kinds of institutions, scientific, government, civil society, institutions to find out from them how they interpret principles five, six, seven, and eight that focus on understanding climate risk, flexible programming, transparency and accountability, and collaborative action. How do they interpret these principles? What do they need to do to get these principles to really work for them, to work for local people, local communities, local government in some cases on the ground? And what challenges do they foresee in actually getting the principles to deliver impact on climate adaptation? So with that, let me call my first guest, Melody Braun. Hi, Melody. Hi, Sonjana. Hi. So you're from the International Research Institute of Climate and Society that sits in the Earth Institute of Columbia. And you are going to help us understand how your institution that endorsed these principles is planning to help local people build a more robust understanding of climate risk and uncertainty. So tell me how you're from sitting where you are, how are you interpreting this principle and how local is local when it comes to getting information on climate risk? Thanks. Thanks, Sonjana. I think that question is the key, right? How local is local? So first, I think for the context of this principle, there's a gap between the people that are generating climate information and the people who need it to adapt. And the result of that is that we have a lot of scientific information available that could potentially help prevent crop losses, infrastructure damage, loss of lives. But that often isn't used by communities or by practitioners because it's too technical. And that's because it's often developed in a silo without interaction with users. So the whole point of, to me, to us at IRI, the whole point of building a robust understanding of climate risk and climate uncertainty is to try to address that gap and to do that. The first thing to do, the very first thing to do is to establish platforms, communication channels or any type of space really that allows communities, community practitioners, researchers and scientists to exchange and share information. And so what kind of information would that be on the community side? Basically, communities have been facing climate impacts as we know for many years. And so they have a whole range of information, a whole range of knowledge, local knowledge, traditional knowledge on climate impacts and how they respond to it. And so we need to understand that. So for example, what are the local impacts that they're facing? How do they respond to it? And why? What are their current practices? What are their current channels of information and communication? What are their current barriers to access additional information? And mostly what are decisions or activities or strategies that they could do differently if they had access to different information or additional information? And so once we have a good understanding of that, then the scientists and the researchers can provide knowledge on the scientific data, climate data that is available that can further inform decisions. And so at IRI we have a team of climate scientists, a team of sexual scientists and we work with partners on generating and translating climate information. And so some of the things that in our experience is usually useful for people to understand are things like understanding the difference between long-term climate change trends that look at a very distant future but that we talk a lot about and increase climate variability which is more about what's going to happen today, tomorrow in the coming season. And this is important because we talk about climate change and it's obviously critical to talk about climate change but most decisions that people make are more in the short term. And so there is information about the short term that people need to understand and access. And for example, if a region becomes drier because of climate change, it could still have a very wet season and people will still need to adapt to the fact that that particular season will be very wet. So there is information about that. Another thing is understanding the type of decisions that the type of information that can be helpful. For example, everyone always thinks about forecasts and information about the future but forecasts are not always available. And in many cases, just having good data, good information about the past and the present and knowing how to use it can really actually help make decisions and understand what is likely to happen. Also understanding uncertainty and how much can we trust climate information? Where should it get it from? Those are things that are generally useful that scientists can help bring in the conversation with communities. And then also just, I think it's important to state that we can turn everyone into a climate expert or a climate scientist. And so it's also just important to know who to ask and who are the resource people in your country and in your community. So to me, that's the step one, but there's a step two that I think is not necessarily included in the principle or I guess not phrased which is once people have a robust understanding of climate risk and climate uncertainty. And when the scientists understand the context, the local context and the communities understand the scientific information, there's an additional step that is co-production of climate products that are then tailored to the local context, tailored to the needs of the community. And that requires equitable interdisciplinary partnerships where communities are brought in and fully part of the discussion from the very beginning. All the way up to until the evaluation of the products. Wow, so I got two or three points from that. One is this idea that there are decisions to be made in the short term, but even though climate change is basically a long-term trend and then you're talking about different kinds of information past and present that can help us, but the climate products is really the information services which are tailored to people's needs and are applicable, right? So we're kind of a long way from there at present is what you're saying. So where, go ahead, go ahead. So I was going to ask you where do you foresee the biggest challenge in moving forward in trying to accomplish all this and support local communities to arrive at the right place where they have the right service that helps them apply the data in the way that they need to. Yeah, I think whether it's a long way or not, I think really depends on the country. Some countries have already done a lot in that sense, but really, yeah, you have the information which is, for example, communities accessing a forecast and being able to understand it or that would be just having a good understanding of a type of climate information, but there could also be a specific advisory that's given to farmers that says, well, in agriculture, this is what you should do because this is what's gonna happen with the climate. So it's like one step of translation further. So in terms of challenges, I think the main one is that it takes a village. The meteorological services are like the part of the government that is mandated to produce climate information and they have to be part of the conversation. And I think that's the first thing where often now that we have access to so much information online and we're trying to involve the private sector, like there's so much information that's out there that people don't necessarily know who to ask and where to go. And I would say the national meteorological services should always be part of the conversation because they always have the most local information. So even if there's private sector saying that they have the best information, it's great to talk to them but it should also include the national meteorological agencies. I think another thing is- Sorry, I don't, sorry, I have to cut you off because we don't have any more time but thank you for your very insightful remarks on an area that I think many of us are grappling to figure out what to do around. So thank you for that. And let me move to the next guest who is Heather McCray of the Climate Justice Resilience Fund. Hi, Heather, good morning. Good morning. Hi, Sarojna. Good evening, I should say. So Heather, the Climate Justice Resilience Fund has been supporting and thinking about new ways to do more around flexible programming and learning. And who's that learning focused on? And give us a sense, a little bit of a sense of your flexible programming as well. Sure. Thanks so much. And good morning, everyone. The Climate Justice Resilience Fund is a philanthropic initiative that makes grants to support women and youth and indigenous peoples in building and sharing their own solutions for climate resilience. We work pretty bottom up, or at least we try to, supporting work that's really grounded in locally led action. And we're a little bit of a different funder. We pool funding from three different foundations at the moment and make grants that average out to about $5 million every year. There's really two things when it comes to learning and flexibility, I thought I'd share. I mean, really mostly I'll talk about our own learning and flexibility that we've tried to bake into our own programming, but then also a support for learning that we provide as a funder and how we approach that I thought might also be worth sharing a little bit about. And in terms of flexible programming, we've had a real education in this over the last year because of COVID. And there's a few things that we've instituted in order to be able to better support our partners. For example, many of them have had delays in their work and they've needed to adjust their grant agreements with us. They've needed to adjust strategies and activities and timelines in particular. And we've done everything we can to make adjustments in grants and extensions of timelines as speedy and as flexible as possible. And we found that really most of our grantee partners have needed some extra time on their work. And that is fortunately the way that we're set up that's been pretty easy for us to do. Many grants have gone from two years to three years or two years to two and a half years in terms of their expected timeframe. We've also been able to make budgets and reporting more flexible for people. And this has been a little bit of an experiment. We're still not sure, it's still pretty early in terms of our reporting cycles in terms of whether that flexibility is working for our partners or not. But some of them in particular when COVID really upended strategies really needed to be able to pivot. And we've tried as much as we can to flex with them on that. One of the challenges for us is of course I run the program for the Climate Justice Resilience Fund but there are some limits in terms of the administrative side and budget and reporting requirement flexibility. And I have done what I can to adjust those but there are lawyers and accountants and people for whom there's really some limits to flexibility. So one of the things we've discovered, for example is that for locally led organizations our budget template actually can be really quite confusing. And so we have initiated a different approach to development of budgets under our grant making where I work with our partners to develop a budget that they understand that's very simple that's usually just four or five lines. But our accounting team really does want to see that in a particular format that's a little bit more elaborate and it's pretty challenging for some organizations. So we actually have done that translation to the accounting team's budget internally rather than requiring our partners to do that. And that seems to be working. On the learning side. One minute. Yeah, there's kind of structural and cultural elements to learning I find. And we have set up some structures in terms of a council of advisors that's specifically intended to help us with learning. On the cultural side, it's really a practice that has to be developed as a funder and as a supporter of grants. We actually have set up a small grants program and this has helped with COVID flexibility as well that's really designed to respond to opportunities and to specifically support partners in their learning. We also do things like sponsor this conference, the community-based adaptation conference. And I recommend to all of you the catalytic grant program that ECAD is running. CDRF and GRP have teamed up to support that as a learning investment and a learning investment that's intended to be quite dynamic and to be one of the threads along that 10-year learning journey that Aisha described earlier. So I'll stop there. There's plenty more I could say. But thank you, Sarantana. Thank you. I hope you get a chance to say more in the groups. But I think in addition to the flexibility around simplifying budgeting and the hand-holding, the idea of creating an institutional culture around reflecting and learning and analyzing really stood out to me. So let me stop there and hand back to Aisha who's going to send you off into your breakout groups to discuss further. Thanks so much. Thank you. Thanks so much, Sarantana and Melody and Heather. Those were all really, really insightful and thoughtful remarks that should set us up really well for the breakout groups. So for the breakout discussions, what we're going to do is really talk through two questions. One is focusing on implementation. So what is implementation of the principle need and practice for an endorsing organization? And the second question is, what are the challenges to actually implementing this principle in practice? And so we'll have hopefully about 20 or 22 minutes for breakout. And what we want to do in the breakout is use something called downward. So this is essentially a virtual whiteboard a wall where you can kind of put 50 notes. And if you look on the left of the screen, there's a bar with this little image which is supposed to be the 50 note. And you can write whatever your intervention is anonymously or add your name at the bottom. And on top you'll see these little arrows that toggle through the different boards as it were, one per question. But just to say, if you're having trouble with the Jamboard, please don't worry. Just leave it be, we can just use the Zoom verbal and chat functions. For your facilitators, we'll put the Jamboard link into the chat and if it works great, then if it doesn't, don't worry about it. We're going to have two breakout groups for principle. So for principle five, group A will be with Mara and B will be with Isiah. And for principle six, group A will be with Tamara and B will be with Saki. And we want you to of course choose which principle you want to discuss. So in just a minute, the rest of us will change the screen and you'll be able to see these options. And so please choose whichever principle but the point of the two groups is that we have as much of an even split as possible. So please choose the group that has fewer participants so that we end up with kind of even groups. And then just very quickly, sorry, if you are having a problem with the breakout groups, just don't ask for help button and that'll invite you to give us option to invite host or you can just message Larissa and we can help you get into the breakout group. And then the breakout group, you have a little warning when we're ending the time. So Larissa, I think that's it. And if you can help us move into those groups, that would be great. Thank you. Okay, I think we have almost everyone. So welcome back. I hope you had really great conversations in the breakout groups. I split it between them and the conversation did sound really rich. So what we're gonna do instead of reporting back is something called a chat shower. So I'm gonna give you about half a minute and ask you to think about what the top takeaway was from your discussion and take it into the chat box. But don't hit send until I do that countdown and say go. And then at that moment, we'll be able to see everyone's top takeaway is at the same time. So go ahead and start thinking about, you know, what it was that struck you the most or a take home message that you're taking away from that conversation and type it into the chat. And I'll do the countdown in just about 20 seconds. Well, hopefully some folks have put some thoughts in there. So I'm gonna do a countdown and then you can hit send. All right, three, two, one. Oh, wow, it's coming in so fast. Very keep up. All right, I'm just gonna call some out focusing on monitoring the process rather than just the output and can really help with supporting flexibility and learning, the question about who are the intermediaries in fact, our willingness to be more flexible and adjust planning from both the donor all the way to the community. It really comes down to trust and willingness and humility to make mistakes and all sides. And equitably funded partnership over time to develop collaboration between different stakeholders. So there's some really great things that are in the chat. So I encourage everyone to take a look but we'll also be circulating this after. So thank you, everybody. I'm gonna turn back now to Subhanshna who's gonna do the second two interviews with the endorsing organization. So, please, Subhanshna, thank you. Thanks, Aishwarya. So I hope all of you had a very interesting chat. I know our discussion in one of the groups that talked about climate information was pretty interesting and even got mildly heated. So who would imagine a discussion of climate information could get slightly heated? That was quite exciting. Okay, I'm very pleased to invite a representative of Irish aid, Neve Fallon, to join me as my next guest. Hello, Neve. Can we hear you? Hi there, hi, Saraja. Hi. All right. So, now that we have you online, tell me how you as Irish aid, you're a bilateral donor, you collect taxpayer money, how are you interpreting the principle on locally led adaptations? Well, I suppose the challenge- I'm sorry, on transparency and accountability, sorry. Sure, I suppose the challenge for us is viewing transparency and accountability through this business on usual lens. And obviously the crux of that is that downward accountability and transparency concept. So in terms of interpreting the principle and reflecting on it for ourselves, there are kind of two layers. I think the first is that question of communication and accessibility crucially. And principle seven definitely obviously draws attention to the fact that there's not enough attention page maybe to building local understandings of what programs are seeking to achieve. And I think Melody kind of touched on this point from a different perspective maybe. And we know there are a number of practical barriers to that including language, but it's a reminder to us, I suppose, that availability of information and accessibility of information aren't always the same thing. But we fully appreciate that communicating these things more effectively. It creates an enabling environment then for the second layer of local decision making. And the overarching principle of our own international development strategy is reaching the furthest behind first. And as part of that, we've recognized that that demands that we engage with the local contexts and the institutions that determine how development happens. And that we engage with the local political contexts in which development takes place so that we can design programs that are appropriate and flexible as best we can. So our outlook is to engage across all levels of response from local and sub-national to national and global, obviously. And our ambition is to kind of reinforce good practice and accountability in terms of the allocation of resources through different challenges of delivery, I think is our, is the crucial point. So- Let me interrupt you there for a minute and ask, when you say we engage with the local contexts, what did you mean and what did you mean in relation to local action? So- I mean, we have obviously our vision network, which is crucial in this. And I know many of our climate focal points are participating in the conference, but also just in general, as a small donor, our niche has traditionally been community-based development responses, a lot through our NGO partners, or sorry, CSOs and our bilateral support. And that's been our niche in that kind of long-term partnership in rural communities specifically. So our programs are focused on kind of conservation, agriculture, community-based management, acute nutrition, holistic responses to gender-based violence. But we have then accountability mechanisms with the CSO implementing partners. We do have a degree of it. I think we further to go with it, but we do have requirements around demonstrating that community input has fed into program design. And we require that this is illustrated at various points of the process proposal, reporting and evaluation as well. But it is a work in progress, particularly principle seven. So 99% of our climate finance currently supports adaptation efforts. And that's essentially 100% grants-based, but we're committed to investing heavily in the transparency around that. And one of our explicit priorities, obviously is that it reaches the local level, but we could certainly embed that more strongly and ongoing process. So give us an example of how you're investing in more transparency and accountability to the local level. I would say in that sort of broad sense of the climate financing, we're at quite an early stage in that we've an opportunity to reflect these principles in that we're scaling up our climate finance this year or at least developing the methodologies to do so over the coming decade. And we're looking to climate-proof our ODA as a related process. So we'd welcome, I suppose, stronger international coordination on the one hand. I think that would benefit transparency at that broad global level, but then in terms of relevance for locally led adaptation, it would show us where the money is going and how that's being tracked a little more clearly. So we would welcome coordination on that. But in terms of our own reporting structures, we can look to see, we've obviously screened for adaptation versus mitigation in our 2019 report, but it would be interesting to look to see what steps we can take to dig a little deeper into that in terms of what's going locally. I should also mention as well, just that we participate in the LIFE or initiative, which is a really valuable learning experience for us. And as most will know, the initiative was established last year to enable locally driven climate action in LDCs. So yeah, it's a steep learning curve for us, but it's a valuable one as well. Thank you so much, Nif. And what I got out of that is the steep learning curve as it is, I think that's something that probably resonates with a lot of organizations, but I hope you're going to pick up some of these points that you made later in the breakout groups where you talked about increasing community input to design and also exploring new ways of reporting out and being transparent about what kind of money is going out and reaching local communities and how international coordination might assist you to do some of that work. Thank you so much. And let's go to our next guest, who is Sheila Patel, surprised, Sheila of SDI. Hi, Sheila, your principle that you are going to talk about is collaborative action and investment. But what I think is really important also about your presence in this whole discussion and SDI's involvement is that I think somewhere we're all saying that even though we are the organizations that are calling for national, global, regional entities to invest more in locally driven processes, we're also saying that we have lots of work to do and a lot to learn to take forward locally led adaptation. So I'll hand over to you and give us a sense of how you are interpreting this and where you see the need for SDI to learn more about dealing with the challenges of deepening and advancing locally led efforts on climate action and resilience building. So when you talk about steep learning curves, I think everybody who's deeply committed to these principles have a steep learning curve, whichever stakeholder they are because we have all been trapped in a top down hierarchy which is also how the sequence of power operates. And a lot of the work that we do on the ground is to shake that and to transform it into a collaborative action. And I think in many ways, even prior to the fact that before we all became very committed to linking climate to the work that we do, we have always been of the opinion that communities must not, should not and cannot operate in isolation and that you have to move on a continuum from being ignored, invisible, marginalized in cities to being developing an identity, developing a voice, developing an agency. And more importantly, becoming participants in designing an execution of solutions that you want for yourself. Into this mix is a very important factor that we are not interested in just getting international financial assistance to replace what our state should be doing on issues of poverty. So we do want our cities to be our partners. We want the educational institutions and knowledge creators and technology people to be our partners. We want national governments. We want all these people to reformulate their roles and obligations in relationship to us but where the communities of the urban poor are not victims or beneficiaries or consumers of development. And so this principle of collaboration requires us to stop perceiving ourselves as consumers of somebody else. Please give me money. Please do this for me. Please do that for me to say. We acknowledge ourselves as people who survive intergenerational poverty and survive despite the state. What can we present as solutions that we can negotiate with our municipalities, our governments, the people who have money to produce solutions that then get embedded in the system so that we don't get this invisible non-investment treatment and have to just be surviving? So there are a lot of things that citizens must get from their cities. There are lots of things as citizens of provincial and national governments that we should get. And we believe that international assistance both bilateral, multilateral and from philanthropic institutions have different roles to play in this journey with us. So how do we design that? How do we present that? How do we produce solutions? How do we scale them up? We develop those concentric circles. And so what we feel is that this particular principle we believe we have the seeds of that in place already. We now have to sharpen our own articulation and our demands and aspirations and start these external negotiations because without negotiations, without solutions, without strategies, without demonstrating our capacities and our perspectives, we cannot just demand partnerships because we are organizations of the poor. And I think social movements are best placed to build knowledge within themselves, to negotiate it, to scale it within their networks and then demand that they get mainstreamed into the systemic issues, be they development, be they climate, because those are now two facets of the same thing. They're not different anymore. So how do we do that? And how do we embed what works for poor people into the knowledge system? So I stopped there. Fantastic, lots of food for thought which you can hopefully pick up in the breakout groups. And I'll say goodbye here. Thank you. And it's been a very thought provoking discussion so far and lots more to happen in the breakout group. So I'll hand you back to Aisha with that. Thank you. Thank you so much, Srinjana and me, I'm Shila. That's really thought provoking like Srinjana said. Okay, we're gonna move back to breakout groups now. And just like you did last time, go to the bottom of the screen and hit the breakout rooms button and choose the one, the principle that you would like to speak to and the breakout group which has the fewest folks in it. And again, we're gonna have two breakout groups per principle. So just choose the one that you like and we'll be back in about 25 minutes. Thank you. I guess some of them are having really interesting discussions and don't want to leave their breakout groups. We have less than half of the people at the funnery, so just keep waiting for them. That's a very good discussion. Yeah, which is great. Feels like no matter how much time we have for breakouts, after not long enough. Okay, we're getting close to having enough folks. So. Everyone is back now, Aisha. Great. So we're gonna do the same thing as before. We're just gonna do a really quick chat shower. So if you can pull up your chat box and write down what you thought the most thought-provoking video hardwares or something that stood out from the conversation. And in about 20 seconds, we'll do a quick round and we can do a quick shower again. We're gonna do the countdown now. Three, two, one. All right. So we have collaboration really needs long-term relationships and trust. Collaboration requires trust, risk must be shared. We need to change ourselves first in order to be able to embrace these principles and then apply them. A lot about trust. So that's a really key point coming out. There's an obsession with outcomes, outputs, indicators rather than the root of the problem that we're dealing with. So this is too driven by donors and many processes. All right, so some really great points coming out in the chat. Thank you, everyone. Before we close out, I would like to invite Dr. Musa from Brack International to give us some, just some thoughts to wrap up. Dr. Musa, if you could reflect on what you've heard today, what your main takeaways were or sort of the critical issues that you were hearing come up. And really where we are as a community practice at the moment and sort of what we need to move forward. Thank you very much, Aisha. I'm really pleased to be able to be here. It's been very rich and rewarding experience to be in this conversation today. So we always talk about principles, but today we have practitioners who have been applying it and applying different parts of it. And first, the experience being by trying to apply those are very helpful to learn as we can kind of triangulate with the learning we have been having in Brack, for example, in our own field. So I see a lot of commonalities, but also new learning coming out of it. So it was a rewarding experience. And I thank everybody for giving this opportunity to learn and share and connecting each other, proof one more time that there's no alternative than to kind of coming together, share with each other and create our higher value through bringing our own lessons from the ground. Now a few things that came out of the four principles. You know, we are always talking from the very beginning that these principles should not be seen in isolation. They're all interlinked. They collectively form a coherent group of actions that should allow us to advance, help advance locally-led adaptation. But think that strike out of me and that there are common threads between the four we discussed today. But one top level point that came out and Selina, I was mentioning that, look, these principles are delicate, very delicate. And we need to really start working on ourselves fast. And that's what I mentioned at the end of that. We need to change ourselves fast. Our own minds at first, our own institution first, in order to be able to really embrace these principles and add up these principles. The four principles we discussed today are kind of not different from what we discussed yesterday with the interlink. But these courts also have kind of elements that are in one hand saying, we want to promote our flexible programming by building coalition of knowledge from both the scientific arena, but also from the communities. But on another hand, we're also saying that, well, we want to make sure that the transparency and accountability is there. So question is the transparency and accountability to whom? Some of these need to be resolved. But this brings back to the second point I kind of came across to me that are we facing some inherent tension, inherent contradiction while trying to push these principles? And some of the tensions maybe between principles, and some of them maybe tensions within principles. A few things that came out today from the discussion, for example, between principles that the whole issue of flexible programming and learning, our ability to do that, promote that, advance that, is it in contradiction with our ability to be accountable and transparent, especially if we say our accountability and transparency in reality at the end of the day to eventually donors and funders. Unless we say actually our real accountability to the people for whom we exist. And that's the question. And without pointing finger, we have to also understand what our donor partners, funding partners, donors, they face. They have their own accountability too, especially in the arena like institutional donors, they have accountability to their parliament. And unless we really deal with this whole systems of accountability in a way that transform itself, then possibly our ability to make it in the way that we are aspiring for through our principles would be difficult. So that's one type of contradiction we're talking about. Therefore we need to work together. Here at this point came out that maybe some of our small funding partners, donors are in better position to really demonstrate how flexible programming can be supported and still you can be holding each other accountable. And then taken as advocacy message to the larger donors place, which could then go to the parliamentary level discussion. Some of us even participate in parliamentary inquiry. We have the ability to influence some of those things too nowadays, okay? So that's one tension. And our tension is the solution of scientific knowledge versus local knowledge. I think we are all agreeing that we can bring those together if we have the mechanisms to do that. Another interesting dilemma came out in a small group I was in earlier in the flexible programming. That desire of programmer team within an organization, programmers who want to be flexible versus accountants and lawyers who want to make sure that you're following rules regulation of the organization. And therefore there's a tension there. So question is how do we really identify some of the tension points and resolve those constructively systematically as opposed to kind of pointing finger to each other would not help unless we really do this further. Here three things came to my mind and as I was learning through the sessions today. One is we are all in a steep learning curve that we should keep that learning process open. And learning is a journey where we basically not only take information but also assimilate and begin to bring changes at the institutional level, individual level, leadership level. Second point came out, there's no alternative to engagement. Engage with issues that are challenging. Engage with issues that are creating tension. Engage constructively and to resolve it positively. Engage collectively. And here we come to the last point that Sheila did about in this whole issue of collaboration. That collaboration of all stakeholders that needed in this process because each stakeholder has unique value to add. And by tapping to that, collaborating together we can engage in addressing some of the difficult issues, challenging issues that obstructs us to really pursue these principles and therefore can really get over it together. And in that process, by collaborating can build a trust or longer-term relationship and that's what we should be looking for. So I learned here that eventually that it's our collective willingness to really engage with honesty as honest broker. Broker are in favor of local communities that would allow us to really help advance this local development. Thank you very much. It's been an honor to be able to come here and learn from all of you. Thank you very much. I'm looking forward to working with you in the coming this too. Thank you so much, Dr. Moussa. That was a truly wonderful wrap up with a lot of questions I think for us to all keep thinking about as we move ahead on this learning journey. I also just want to say a very big thank you to my co-facilitate America, especially for stepping in when my internet failed right at the beginning, to Saranjana for doing such wonderful panel interviews to all of our panelists and all of the facilitators and rapporteurs and especially to all of you for joining the session and just very actively and honestly engaging in the conversation. I'm going to hand over to Mark to just talk about a couple of next steps to keep engaged in the process very briefly and then we'll close. Thanks again. Thank you, Ayeshaid. Thank you, Dr. Moussa, for such a wonderful wrap up. Just two quick points before we close the meeting. We have a Slack channel. We have a Slack channel. Currently is still dominated by several IID staff. So we have a Slack channel. The link is there. I posted it in the chat. Please do join it. We start a conversation on the principles. We've even put IIDs endorsement in there. Other endorsers would like to put theirs. We can start a conversation, get feedback, start to progress them, start this learning and self-reflection that Dr. Moussa so clearly gave that message to us all. So do join that and we can keep the conversation. It's just for kind of keeping it, trying out if this platform is useful for keeping these conversations. And just to say, there's obviously a paper there that has some deeper information on the principles. And just to say one final thing is we do have a part of a community practice call with organizations interested in these principles. If you'd like to find out more about that, do email Ayeshaid or myself. And we are about to start a series of conversations on how to govern and continue this learning in the most effective way possible to shift to business unusual practice. So if you'd like to engage in that, do let us know. But with all of that, just a huge thank you Ayeshaid. Thanks everyone. Similarly, thank all of those who have been involved. And yeah, I think we can close the session.