 Hallå igen, let's continue the nice debates and discussions from the morning. Finn and Channing aren't will very soon present their position paper, their draft of the position paper. We will have some interesting ideas how to continue in the future. We will have some interesting ideas for the policy makers and we will hear you, them reply and have their say. And let's start, please welcome Mr Channing aren't from UNU wider and FinTARP and here you are, welcome. Now I'm a dane as you know and for a number of years there were messages coming out of Copenhagen that said something about the climate change is not happening and that human activity has nothing to do with it. Well if you sort of look at this graph here which shows the difference compared to the 19th sort of around 1930 to around 1976 and then you look of it over time, at least I am reasonably convinced that some warming is going on because the year where this graph starts is 1880 and the last year is 2008. That's pretty impressive. This is very impressive. It's also very scaring and it is a potential total game changer for the world. We should keep that in mind throughout. So yes, global warming has been added. There are of course as we've seen this morning a number of other dimensions of the environment related challenges that we are facing in the 21st century. I will not go through them here but they do include fish stock declines, biodiversity, deforestation, land degradation and so on. They are complex, there are many. But we should not for one second lose sight of the fact that the standard, the regular tradition, whatever you may call it development challenges are also there. We still have 1.3 billion absolutely poor people in the globe. We still have 36 low income countries and we still have 47 fragile states. So we have both the climate environment side of things. We have the development side of things. We know that climate change is potential, game changer. We need somehow to start thinking about this in an integrated way which is also the message that is coming out from the report that was being discussed in the other room and which will now get into a whole range of discussions in international fora. But let's stop for one second and just ask ourselves is this the first time that we've been sort of facing massive development challenges and the fact is that it's not. It's potentially different in a number of dimensions but it's not the first time. If you go back to the 1960s, I won't run through all of these points, but the per capita income in Asia in the 1960s was about 150 US dollars. A majority of the world's people were absolutely poor. One other example is expected lifetime 45 years in Africa and Asia. We should not sort of think that addressing big challenges is something new and has then something happened. Well, I tend to actually be quite impressed by the fact when I look to some of the indicators that we refer to with the exception of sort of what happened in the African continent in 1980s and 1990s. If you look at this growth performance over time across regions, it's actually quite remarkable. And do note that this is across the board. We have always known that poverty was going to be a thorny challenge on the African continent. We've always known that that was a harder nut to crack. Why? Because Africa is large, it's thinly populated. The structure of the African continent is such that there are not quite as many cheap wins as you've had in Asia. So we've always known that. And in spite of that, do note poverty has been falling. After this sort of 1980, 1990, poverty has been falling even on the African continent and then you can take in the others where the falls have, as we would have predicted based on economic theory and empirics have actually fallen more rapidly. Infant mortality rate has something happened? This suggests it has. There's a series of other observations that you could refer to and I think that I want to make one point here which is that Recom has by now produced a series of papers demonstrated in a number of specific areas what aid has been contributing in the process. I would suggest you go have a look but let me add here that obviously the discussion we're having today about environment and climate change is a little bit different. And we should just keep that in mind throughout. It's a slightly different discussion to discuss environment and climate change than, for example, what we've been doing with aid in the social sectors. So it's to me. Thank you very much for having me today. So now we look back and like Tom we started off looking backwards and now we're going to take a look forward and I think one of the things climate change makes us do is think in long time frames and we also have a synthesis of a lot of information so we're going to think in long time frames throughout this so we're going to take the development challenge in two pieces which is first, Finn was mentioning that we do have a substantial development challenge more than one billion people, absolutely poor. And we have a development system that if it was designed at all was designed to alleviate poverty, poor people in poor countries. What the situation that we have today is most poor people are no longer in poor countries. They're in middle income countries. So this is a major shift in the environment that would be something we should be thinking about even if there weren't climate change. But there is. So we have on top of this this environmental challenge and this is a probabilistic look at how the world will look like at the end of the century and it depends on our policies. And this is sort of the distribution, the likelihood of possible temperature gain outcomes by the end of the century relative to the beginning of the century if there's sort of no policy. And this distribution is really very unacceptable. It's all above two, it's a median around four or five and it sticks out to six, seven, eight. There are possible futures that are very, very extreme. And this is a distribution of outcomes that we really don't want. So we have also a mitigation objective to take care of. The good news is policy is powerful. These are levels of policy to reduce back to say 450 level one, 450 parts per billion CO2. And this is perhaps not the best distribution but it is one certainly better than the one in black. So we have this challenge and that challenge facing developing countries as well. The other thing that we have, so we brought mitigation into the debate. This is emissions total of greenhouse gases over time. And what we're looking at, this blue part is the OECD countries in 1990. So the classic OECD countries Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan. And what we note is, they're accounting for around 28% of total emissions and almost none of the growth since 1970. So since 1970, most of the growth in emissions, the large majority is being generated by developing countries or developing countries that have now become developed. So this is also a significant part of the challenge. So we have these interlocking issues. We have obviously poor people in developing countries, most of them in middle income countries. We have in developing countries accounting for most of the emissions, again mostly middle income countries. And we have developing countries most vulnerable to warming. And in that environment it's very natural that developing institutions become involved to try to deal with this issue. So what have they done? And we put it together into sort of three responses and one modality. One is shifting the composition of aid. The other is institutional initiatives and a third are reforms. And we're going to briefly look at those. Kind of the morning compressed into a few slides. And at the same time we're going to look at modalities. So let's look at these. Here is the ratio of dirty to clean or environmental aid, dirty aid to environmental aid. And what we're noticing is a fairly strong shift in the pattern of dirty to clean. This comes from the aid data database, both multilateral and bilateral. We heard this morning that a lot of this shift, or a good part especially recently, is going towards adaptation to climate change and worrying about the implications of climate change. And we wanted to bring, we've been working on that to a strong degree, and we wanted to bring some of these particular lessons that UNU-Wider has come up with. We don't think that climate change is going to end development tomorrow. When climate change exactly comes in and seriously precludes derails development is a matter of some debate. We don't see it before 2040. If Tom is right and our agriculture estimates are too low for impact, then it would be earlier. But nevertheless it's not this decade and probably not the next one. We have a little bit of time. The second is we have a lot of uncertainty in what we do on adaptation, particularly with precipitation. We don't know how much we're going to get and we don't know when. This is a problem. We really need to think about this. One of the things that we've come up with is, well, if you don't know what exactly is going to happen, then enhancing your ability to react is a good idea. Fundamentally this means educated people, skilled people able to sense what's going on and react accordingly and institutions that permit this. A big part of the development agenda has been and it's a big part of the adaptation agenda. We've heard a lot this morning and I agree completely about special emphasis in certain areas. Agriculture is one, it's clear. Regional river basin management is another, that's clear. Infrastructure and vulnerability of infrastructure is another. These are areas where there deserves to be special emphasis. But we can't forget brilliant adaptive societies and a lot of that is consistent with the development agenda. We don't want the adaptation agenda to overrun the development agenda. The development agenda is important. What's the other response? And these are four institutional initiatives. These are big institutional initiatives. These are major ones. We've heard about RED, CDM, not so much, but Jeff and the Green Climate Fund. We're a pretty substantial share of the total international response to date with respect to mitigation. I think I'm going to skip forward two slides because I think it's important to go back to the slide I showed you earlier and point out that it's not working. We're not bending the emissions curve down. It hasn't happened. And this we just have to be aware of. We're basically on the unconstrained emissions path. Okay, so what does that mean? Basically we're lacking a public policy basis global for emissions reductions and this has implications for these programs. It would be a lot more credible for RED to be able to trade deforestation for emissions credit if there were an actual emissions market with a value. That would be more credible. It would be easier for Yannick to institute a market-based transformation if there were a price on emissions. It would be probably a lot easier to fund the Green Climate Fund if there were some revenues coming from a CO2 tax. So these things are in a way running or not running at probably below potential. And it's difficult to evaluate what problems they'll face when they scale up. But I think as we heard this morning there doesn't appear to be anything fundamentally wrong with these ideas. These are actually pretty good ideas and we support them. What we need is the public policy basis to carry this forward. That one I've showed you. The third system, the third response has been reform of existing institutions and here we're going to focus on agriculture. For the reasons that everybody was mentioning agriculture is at the nexus. Tom was mentioning it, Ephraim was mentioning it. It's impacted by climate change. It's critical for growth and poverty reduction. It's a source of low emissions energy through biofuels. It's an emission sink. It's an emission source. This is a place where everything is coming together. And these institutions are really important. Another point which came up a number of times this morning is developing country agriculture is really important for all of us. Because as we look forward into the future it's possible that the yield gains that we've gotten in the developed world might be reaching their biological limits. The yield gains in sub-Saharan Africa are nowhere near their biological limits. And so this is a place where we can meet the food and fuel challenges and other parts of Asia. And another logical part is almost all of the increased demand for food will take place in developing countries and it makes a lot of sense to produce the food where you're going to eat it. So two reasons why these things are important and we have a long way to go in getting these agricultural research institutions to meet these new challenges. This is our assessment. We have seen very important contributions. We've seen green revolution. We have going on at Ephraim's institution, CGIR a really important and bold reform process. But we need to continue. So Tom this morning was giving the example of what is the irrigated area of India a fairly important number. Well it could be 116 million hectares or it could be 62. According to the statistics this is an institutional failure somewhere in the system and it needs to be corrected. This is something we have to fix just one example. Last is aid modalities and we have to bear in mind we built a system to help poor people in poor countries. When we came into poor countries we came in with a lot of money relative. Now we're often going into middle income countries and we come in with not as much money relative and our principal task in middle income countries and this has been emphasized again and again is to make the private and public investments that are going on more efficient and more green. And this is the good news is this can be very very cost effective. So if Yannick shows up and derives a program that gets people on a really efficient green energy path for a few million dollars and he manages to crowd in a couple of billion dollars in private investment that is an enormous increment to aid. That's the good news. The bad news is this is aid to middle income countries and this is going to be a little bit of a tougher sell than what we have. So with those thoughts I'm going to push on to Finn. So I'm going to try to sort of add to these lessons. The first one is that it would appear based on the work we've been doing that there is a very strong case for continued assistance to poor countries. There are lots of things that are not going to happen unless the aid process goes on. That's not to say that has to be in the same way. There are reforms needed as Yannick was referring to but there is one additional aspect here which is that it's very important to recognize that those countries that are left are probably more difficult ones. So to shout failure right away just because one of these countries doesn't sort of work out the way we would like to see it does not necessarily is not constitute necessarily the right response. They are in many cases some of the very difficult challenges. It's our assessment that the aid system will have to try to figure out how to balance between the low income and the middle income countries that have been these changes exactly how to do it is going to be interesting to find a way. But there are these two dimensions that there are very large numbers of very poor people in middle income countries and the middle income countries are contributing to the global environmental issues we cannot ignore that in this sort of interface wider health and will continue to influence on the poorest people in the poorest countries but when you're talking about these bigger global system issues there's probably something to be thought about very very carefully. We learned this morning that this assistance should very much be demand driven and that it's absolutely fundamental that you keep an eye on are we making sure that all of the soft assistance dimension that Heller was correctly referring to actually are taking to account of and the local capacities to regulate and to enforce regulations are actually taking account of The role of aid and aid institutions in the provision of global and regional public goods should clearly be maintained there are lots of things that the market system will not provide that be in information that be in agriculture or that be in technology or research Aid still has a role as a public resource to do things that the market will not do on its own the challenge is exactly as Channing was referring to how to mobilize and make sure that that interaction becomes as fertile as absolutely possible we've been discussing a lot we've been reviewing lots of papers it seems to us that the fundamental ideas behind the red the CDM the GEF and the GCM are valid we did not find a generalized systemic failure in the way these institutions had been set up and were constructed and so on but they are dependent on a carbon market they are dependent on supplementary actions which right now mean that they are sort of idling they are sort of there in the report we're coming out with a suggestion for the time being to be doing quite a bit of modeling through rather than trying to now go on with a massive reform initiative and say we should change all these things it's probably better to think about how to start getting the additional resources and public and private actions going now we do know that the global greenhouse gas emissions they should peak at around or before 30 and then decline thereafter but there's one thing which is very very important in all of this which is that we can talk forever about emissions and we can talk forever about markets for it but if we don't monitor it anybody can get away with anything so there is a need for an institution for an auditing function that is independent that should be technically competent and we are sort of speculating that that might actually be a role where aid related institutions could play a role and now the final few words and I am hoping very much that this session will sort of be tuning in under these parts of this and this is certainly related to the kinds of ambitions and the kind of aspirations that has helped to improve the living conditions of billions of poor people and continue to do so but I have sort of been confronted with this question can then aid save the planet can aid then solve all these climate related issues and so on and I just somehow want to try to say emphatically absolutely no one of the fundamental problems in the aid process we have seen so far is that expectations were simply too high so expectations were high then when your reality then doesn't quite mean that expectation then you become disappointed but aid can actually do a lot so we are actually a bit concerned that we don't get into this situation that this sort of having too high ambitions and then reality is somewhat over there and then you sort of drown out and you become too disappointed we think that there are lots of things that the aid can do related to reconfiguration following the suggestions that Channing did on reforming the modalities in relation to appropriate public policies but also in relation to supporting the national level policies that are at the core of this as well because national level action will be at the core of addressing both the development and the climate change problems both when we are talking about mitigation at the global level and when we are talking about mitigation at national level and only in that way will we make development and sustainable development go together as is the objective in the post 2015 development agenda Thank you