 Good afternoon and welcome to this proceedings release webinar. I am April Melvin and I'm one of the study directors for the workshop that we'll be discussing today. Last September, the National Academy has held a three day workshop that examined approaches to integrating public and ecosystem health systems to foster resilience and to identify research that can help bridge the gap between knowledge and action. This workshop brought together research practitioner and policy communities, along with other stakeholders and explored the opportunities and challenges around this topic. This activity was supported by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation. I'd like to acknowledge that the National Academy's Washington DC office is physically housed on the traditional lands of the New Conch tank and Piscataway peoples past and present. We honored with gratitude the land itself and the people who have stewarded it throughout the generations and the enduring relationship that exists between these people's nations and this land. I'd like to acknowledge that our understanding of global change is closely related to and informed by Indigenous knowledge and experience, and that many native communities are on the frontline of impacts from these changes. Workshop participants reflected on the connections between land and people, and on the inequities and challenges that different communities face in sustaining this connection, and in their pursuit of health. In the months following the workshop, a proceedings was developed. This document summarizes the presentations and discussions at the event, and does not include any formal recommendations or conclusions on this topic. The proceedings was released a few weeks ago. You can find the link to view and download it free of charge in the chat, or using the QR code on your screen. We'll put this up again at the end of the workshop. For today's discussion, we are joined by a few members of the workshop planning committee. They include Kathleen rest from the Boston University Institute for global sustainability, who was the chair of the workshop planning committee. Jonathan Sleiman with the US Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center, and Albert co with the Yale School of Public Health and Brazilian Ministry of Health. Kathleen will lead us in an overview of the workshop and share some of the highlights that are included in the proceedings. Jonathan and Albert will then join Kathleen and share their personal reflections on the workshop and the topic more generally. We will then have a little time for questions and we encourage you to submit questions during the presentation using the Q&A function on this Zoom webinar. I now like to turn it over to Kathleen rest, the chair of the planning committee to get us started. Thank you, April, and thank you all for joining us today to further the discussion that we've been having around integrating public and ecosystem health to foster resilience, and to move from knowledge to action. In terms of social systems or nature. Really, they are our life support systems. They give us the food, the water, the air, the materials, the pleasures, and the recreation we need to both survive and to thrive. The connections between people in their environments are under stress from human driven climate change, pollution, resource, resource exploitation, and other actions that can directly affect our health. Because these drivers and these interconnections are so broad, the implications for public health are not really fully understood, characterized or even appreciated. So understanding the interconnections between public health and ecosystem health, hampers our ability to move us from knowledge to action. Next slide. So to wrap up around this broad and complex topic. The national academies established a committee of experts with an equally broad range of experience and foci in their work. They included members from the public health, the human and veterinary and medicine communities, wildlife health, social science biodiversity ecology and ecosystem services. And in addition, their knowledge brought experience insight knowledge. The committee also brought a lot of energy and passion, open mindedness and humility and commitment to the effort that has gone on for many months. The committee came together and bonded as a team, willing to listen to learn to respectfully grapple with questions from each other and challenges. The committee started as a group of people who really didn't know each other and evolved into a tight and mutually supportive team that became friends, as well as colleagues. April so next slide. The workshop was held in September of 2022. Together an interdisciplinary group of speakers and participants, researchers, educators, policymakers and practitioners in public health, natural resource management and environmental protection. The workshop provided a forum for knowledge exchange, including discussion and integration of traditional knowledge and Western science discussions about barriers and critical gaps and successes. Things that we need to know in understanding and practice, and then ideas for research that can help support development of policy and decision making the action. Next slide. Workshop attendees and speakers explored these issues over three sessions, session one focused on what has been learned, drawing on existing intellectual frameworks that have been developed to address connections between public health and nature. The workshop brought together people familiar with these different frameworks to build on them in order to move toward developing a research agenda that generates actionable outcomes for implementers, implementers meaning policymakers decision makers, public health and medical professionals, community practitioners, and other stakeholders. The workshop also focused on where progress can be made with emphasis on advancing transdisciplinary community engaged scholarship to integrate public health and nature, and to inform policy and practice. Discussions covered different elements and relationships between nature and health, really very exciting conversations from mental health and emotional health, children's health, infectious disease chronic disease, and access to life sustaining discussions also reinforced the urgency of taking this integrated approach to manage the health of nature and health of people together. We also discussed the importance of moving beyond the linear reductionist and reactionary scientific paradigm that undermines a lot of Western science in order to tackle the complexities of these interconnected systems and advance an integrated approach to policy and practice. Session three explored how we could go about crafting a research agenda to translate knowledge into policy and practice participants discussed barriers to making progress and ideas for overcoming them. Next slide. The proceedings provides detailed accounts of the speaker's remarks as April said, and associated discussions, but we wanted to share some of the highlights with you today. Next slide and again, these kind of a big overview here. The proceedings highlighted the existing knowledge of the connections between nature and public health. We know, for example, that we rely on ecosystems for our health and our livelihoods and our well being. We know that our activities influence ecosystems, and they circle back to affect us and our well being investments in nature can double as investments in public health and conserving nature and natural spaces has broad public appeal. We also talked a lot about the fact that the environmental burden of disease is unequally distributed. There are great disparities. The connection between environmental degradation and detrimental effects on health are most pronounced in less developed and less wealthy nations. Next slide. Next shop also discussed how we value interconnections between public health and nature. We talked a lot about the global nature of the relationship and the value that healthy ecosystems bring to different stakeholders. We all understand the value of keeping our air, water, and our agricultural practices clean and safe, and they understand that these things are related to our health. We also noted how Indigenous traditional ecological knowledges, or ITEC, those frameworks can, they do consider and value the health of animals, plants, air, water, land, and fire together. They are all considered sacred and are all valued as equal to human health. We also expressed concern about silos, silos in meetings, in policies and actions that occur in our agencies, our health agencies, ministries, and organizations, health being separate, those discussions and meetings and forums often being separate from what's happening in the other. Health and environment, not talking much together. Next slide. The workshop participants shared how a research agenda to address knowledge gaps to inform action, what it could or should look like, noting that it's important to consider both the what of the research questions that are being asked, and the how of how the research is being done. Embracing knowledge production practices that generate actionable and decision ready information that involves the right people and is delivered to the right audiences at the right time. And participants also cautioned that there's a danger in prioritizing economic growth above all else. And that the reductionist scientific approach hampers our ability to integrate concerns about health and nature, human health and nature. Natural systems have emergent properties that make it challenging. They help organize they adapt and interact dynamically with human systems. The reductionist approach can misconstrue miss or obscure important interconnections. And we also talked about the need to address the historic inequality in research that is being done and being supported across other countries. Next slide. In discussing the challenges in moving from knowledge to action. The workshop participants acknowledged that recognition and understanding of the connection between human and ecosystem health has done little to overcome environmental and structural barriers that reinforce inertia and the status quo, and the prevailing incentives that keep environmental health interventions, largely siloed. This inertia is not necessarily for a lack of understanding of the problem, but because there is a lack of incentives, capacity, and decision making tools to operationalize the necessary solutions. We also noted that prioritizing environment related issues are challenging in daily practices for public health and healthcare professionals, given the other urgent issues that they have to face and the limited amount of time that they may have. Next, we identified some opportunities for moving from knowledge to action. These included creating and promoting an inspirational agenda and vision, aligning health and environmental policies, and considering the environmental determinants of health, as well as the social determinants of health that people talk about. In developing a portfolio of indicators that link data streams on public health and environmental change. Doing this would enable policymakers to connect action plans for public health with action plans for sustainable resource management and conservation, and then measure progress towards meeting those policy goals. Next. And I would say also that we talked about the fact that some solutions are already at hand. It's often a matter of adapting and implementing them and investing in them, investing with the necessary capacity at the global national and local level. And finally, our work workshop touched on approaches to overcome barriers to generate knowledge and to integrate public health and nature, and to inform policy and practice. And forming these barriers includes integrating social and cultural context into research, investing time to build relationships and credibility with government officials, in order to better translate science into interventions. And this takes time, as well as commitment, and then building key partnerships with local communities. And we support all of this, providing incentives to academia to train encourage and support and real and reward boundary crossing students and faculty, those that do cross disciplines. A number of speakers also noted the very. The importance of training the next generation of students to do research that is impactful and not just publishable. Next slide. So, as evening with these few minutes you can see that this workshop covered a lot of ground, and it touched on many issues that we've only just begun to unpack and reflect on. I'd like to now welcome my fellow committee members, Jonathan Slayman and Albert co. To add to the discussion and to share some of their reflections on the workshop and this topic, more generally, and note that these are personal reflections. They don't represent the position of the full planning committee. They may not have, you may not see them in the proceedings these are their personal reflections we wanted to bring them together to share them with you. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Jonathan. Thank you very much Kathy. Good afternoon everybody so my name is Jonathan Slayman. I'm the center director with the US Geological Surveys National Wildlife Health Center and I was very fortunate to be a member of this organizing committee for this workshop. So I'm going to reflect on a few things that I took away from from the work that we did together. I'm going to probably echo a lot of things that Kathy said but the kind of kind of one of the key points that came out immediately at the start of this workshop was the fact that human societies are facing several and overlapping crises, including climate change, loss of biodiversity, social injustice, and the speak many of the speakers conveyed that whilst the time to dressies has not passed these are very much urgent issues and the time is now for us to really look look for solutions. And translate knowledge into action. As Cassie mentioned I think it was, it was, it was obvious to me that there's a fair amount of body of evidence regarding integration of public health and an environmental or ecosystem health, the benefits of doing so that some of the potential solutions. But there were a number of barriers that were mentioned during the workshop. There was a lot of clarity and a common language on how we talk about these issues. As Kathy mentioned that disciplinary silos that exist. Lack of funding opportunities to do trans disciplinary work in this field, as well as incentives to do so. I mentioned the reductionist approach. And the case you know obviously occasional lack of political will but one thing I would write I think I want to emphasize is kind of the. It was consistently raised across all three sessions was the structural barriers that exist to integrating public and ecosystem health, the political economic economic systems that we have hind other integrate integration. And also the impact for the value or the contributions the ecosystem services provide and consequently consequently create these perverse incentives, vested interests that was the results in resistance to any change, and also result in unintended consequences for environments obviously we don't not accounting for impacts on the ecosystem and the environment and nature in the decisions. Nature is bound to lose out. I think though for me the power of the workshop was really the focus on solutions. And there was a lot of discussion out there about these problems but what we really tried to hold down as and focus on the solution I just want to give you some kind of examples that I heard during the workshop. We had a lot of discussion about engaging local and indigenous communities, as well as decision makers on the outset of projects to ensure that all the voices are heard in crafting the solutions. We had presentations from a project called health and harmony that's using what they call radical listening to ensure local community participation in any sort of outcomes from from policy decisions. We had presentations about best practices for how to engage local indigenous communities in projects and ensure that everything is work is done is culturally sensitive. Others talked about systems using systems thinking or systems approaches to get past the reductionist approach and kind of look at the big picture of what's happening within a system to understand the root causes of these problems, hopefully reveal a lot of thinking about these problems and new solutions. Kathy mentioned about the need to invest in both public health and environmental health systems we had a presented talk about, you know, current public health offices and agencies they got you know HIV tuberculosis obviously covered 19 mental health issues, drug addiction and how do they find the time to integrate a corporate sort of environmental health issues. So the need to align the sort of the national international health and environmental policies and line them together and create sort of inclusive governance structures again allow all participants to participate, and thus ensuring that outcomes really do maximize or balance the benefits for all. And the key thing theme I'd like to emphasize is that the really was discussion about the need for a new narrative and how we address these issues and moving from an ecosystem ego centric approach to an eco centric approach. The ego centric approach was discussed is where we human societies are regarded as a separate from nature, and nature is there for something for us to exploit for for our benefit. And as, as I mentioned earlier that will often ignore the ecosystem services that contribute to benefits to societies and health, and how we can actually end up fouling our own nest as a consequence of these decisions and so ego centric approach is very much a way of looking at human societies as being part of nature, such that we consider the well being and health of all living creatures and health of the ecosystems pretty all depend. And hopefully allow for better decision making that balances the needs of human human societies, the environment and the animals in which we will coexist. And then there was also some discussions then about how creating some additional measures of success so the normal way that we measure standard living is GDP but can we start to create some other metrics that include the health and well being of biodiversity ecosystems and services and actually, we heard from someone from from the Office of Science and Technology policy about the natural capital project as one example where they are attempting to put economic value or economic measure on nature and nature contributions to health. I think I'd like to say about this work is is it was a very rewarding experience. And I think our committee was an example of a successful into interdisciplinary approach. We're a very diverse group from different disciplines different backgrounds. And as it took time and effort, I think through respectful dialogue, robust discussions, active listening, we built a common understanding of the problem. And we went from having sort of separate perspectives to common perspective and built that trust necessary to really make sure the workshop was as impactful as possible. And that really demonstrated the power team so I just like to end by thanking my fellow committee members and Kathy for our leadership as well as National Academy of Sciences for for the support for this, this workshop. I think I'll pass it over to Albert. Thank you. And thank you, Jonathan. I'm just going to pick up on a couple points that Jonathan made and emphasize them so I think there are a couple take home messages for myself and, and really valuable learning experiences myself as a, as a physician and as a health practitioner. I think one of the central messages that really came out of this, this workshop was the message of equity and equity, not only in the outcomes that we were looking to achieve but equity in terms of the process. And in really the importance of grassroots initiative, not just the top down academic or institution, you know, a gender driven type of initiatives, and not only for the purpose of achieving the broad societal impacts that we that the workshop, you know highlighted actually went, you know, did a very nice job in elaborating but also as a source of knowledge and evidence of solution, the importance of these communities, especially those most vulnerable, at least resilient as a source of evidence and solutions and knowledge. And then mentioned the example of canary wet with health and harmony, the radical listening is one good example, our own Shenandoah billiard, you know, committee member with her work of the indigenous peoples on the Gulf Coast, along with that really fantastic session that highlighted the cold red verse, and in new paradigms to thinking about echoes ecosystem and in public health. We have our own Jeff, just like Claire, a committee member, you know who has been working with the whole chunk, you know nation, and in unheard voices, many times from nurses and other public health practitioners and finally on some ends on grassroots urban initiatives important in Oregon, you know to address issues, you know, climate change but broader in terms of ecosystem and nature and health. And so, you know the theme of innovative solutions being launched from bottom up and not just top down. I think was was really one of the highlights of the outcomes that came out so what do we have to do to get to the next point. And one of those and how do we go on from what this, you know, the really the important outcomes of the workshop, one is really, I think one that we recognize the importance of engaging policymakers private sector, you know the private sector, whose voices we didn't hear as much, we should have wanted to hear as much in this workshop, and also in other stakeholders in concretizing, you know how evidence that incorporates the voices of communities can be used in service to those broader societal impacts that we aspire to. You know, Eli Fenichel, who was at that time, you know, part of the, the Biden administration White House, you know said, you know, laid out very nicely about the 15 year plan that was going to take the current agency based disorganized in the federal government, and transform that into an integrated all government or effort, you know to develop course to school product products all in service of this of integrating ecosystem and public health. And I think one of the key outcome, another key outcome of that initiative will be the call, you know, and which was the call of the action call to action for the workshop was to create those structures that go beyond above and beyond the interdisciplinary interagency connections but also integrate community knowledge and voices in that process. So let me stop there, and then go back to, to Kathy for her closing highlights, or thoughts on her highlights. So I'm happy to do that but I would before doing that I'd like to invite another committee member who was able to join us today, Redolfo Durzo to share your reflections, and then I'm happy to follow up with a few of my own Redolfo can I turn it over to you. Yes, thank you so much Kathy. And it's, first of all Kathy thank you so very much for such a wonderful summary of the workshops and the many topics that we addressed and your summary was fantastic thank you so much. And I also want to thank Jonathan Jonathan and Albert for presenting those beautiful reflections, and I have very little to add, because they also did a fantastic job in that. And that's a couple of things, perhaps one of them from more technical point of view and leaving an ecologist. I wanted to emphasize that we in the workshops began to address also the question that you know we tend to think of environmental challenges as one particular element or one particular factor in isolation of climate change. For example, we tend to think about or to overemphasize sometimes climate change, but we began to explore in the works of that climate change is important but it's not the only one driver of change affecting our life supporting systems by diversity because it's a critical one that we address very much so cultural diversities and other one that we began to explore actually we spend some time addressing that topic as well. So I wanted to emphasize that we tend to think in isolation in terms of each of the drivers, and then therefore in disciplines which are also isolated. But we need to phrase the challenge of bringing together those interactions and synergies that make the situation even more complicated than what when Kathy described for us in her summary. We remiss not to bring back the point of of of inequity that was referred to by my colleagues and by Kathy. Really, as everybody knows, the contributions to the major global environmental changes that we see today are the lowest by the people who are very much under very difficult conditions. People's rural communities they contribute the least for example to emissions of carbon and therefore to the global environment to change in terms of climate, but at the same time they're the most impacted by those kinds of threats. So that recognition is central to our dreams about sustainability, and I am so glad that we began to explore that and we emphasize the recognition of that significant aspect of inequity. That is affecting us very much and that is preventing our dreams or aspirations for sustainability of life and with human and planetary health. I also wanted to talk about the fact of the perspectives of practitioners and traditional communities that we had in the workshop. It is absolutely essential that we begin to learn from the practitioners and from the people who live in the systems and provide many benefits for us based on the traditional ecological knowledge or traditional indigenous traditional ecological knowledge. We are facing now a situation in which we're actually having in front of us to deal with a process of double extension, the extension of biological richness of the planet, the extension of elements of nature, and the extension of culture. And we really need to pay attention to the traditional communities that have provided and provide continue providing so much of those critical elements of life for us. And then I want to close by saying the question of structural barriers, and we need to respond to those structural barriers, not only from the point of view of governmental institutions but also from the point of academic institutions. I am very happy to report that Stanford University has created a new school for sustainability, Stanford School for Sustainability, in which the dream, the aspiration is to bring together these different perspectives and we break the silos and we try and develop sustainability science, which is much more horizontal and not so much in isolation. And finally, I want to say that it will be wonderful, Kathy, we begin to think about creating a report that also would be engaging, transparent and compelling to the youth, because I think the youth are going to be our best ambassadors going forward, and I very much hope that our experiences and our commitment to this effort might actually reach also those communities that are critical for society as well. So thank you very much and congratulations to all the organizers, to you, Kathy, and to my fellow co-organizers of the participants of the workshop. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you Rodolfo and Jonathan and Albert for those reflections. Before I give mine I also just so I don't forget. I also wanted to acknowledge the incredible staff team that we had at the Academy for this project. They're so well organized, keeping us together, keeping us going, April, Audrey, Julie, Kyle, others. Anyway, you deserve a big round of applause and thanks from everybody on the committee. But so, you know, during the workshop coming from myself coming from the public health community. And looking back over so many years at so many preventable incidents and problems. I couldn't help but think about prevention. I taught in medical schools and departments of preventive medicine. I couldn't help but think about prevention and the precautionary principle, which is a concept that's fairly well recognized in the public health occupational health environmental health community. I kept thinking about precaution and a precautionary approach. So, you know, it, it's clear that unfettered economic growth and industrial activity and some human activity are adversely affecting nature and people. But too often our policy makers and our decision makers come too late to the party. They're created for harms, problems, crises or disasters to occur before attempting to take action. And they react often too slowly and not always optimally. A precautionary approach to policy and decision making can mitigate and perhaps even avoid some of these future harms. A precautionary approach encourages policies that protect human health and the environment in the face of uncertainty. It means taking prevent preventive action, even if there is scientific uncertainty, even if there are some deficiencies in our knowledge, or there's some contradictory evidence out there about risk. It means shifting the burden of proof from the proponents of the activity, rather than just saying to the affected community will show us proof to us that it's harmful, and then maybe we can do something. It also means weighing the impacts of taking versus not taking action, regulating versus not regulating. And ignoring a range of action alternatives and their distributional impacts. And it requires increasing levels of public participation and decision making, especially for those who are or will be most affected and those who have been marginalized from having this access in the past. So, again, my personal thoughts here what stands in the way. Well, we have a slow painfully slow regulatory process. We need regulatory reform. Coming from the occupational health field. You know, an example is that although ancient Romans knew that silica caused disease. It is, it took the OSHA administration decades, decades to put out a silica standard. Another challenge. These agencies are underfunded under staffed under resourced. Unequal power distribution unequal access unequal influence, and there is entrenched interest in this in maintaining the status quo. We've also seen the manufacturing of uncertainty and doubt, and how misinformation and money and politics can affect things. But the problems and processes used to make decisions and take actions. We just need to look at them carefully I'm not speaking against them. Risk assessment. It's a good thing. But do you really have to have significant risk in order to do anything cost benefit analysis could be a good thing. Does it always have to be that you have to show in monetary terms that the benefits outweigh the costs other other ways of thinking about it so what to do. I've been in this for the long term so I don't throw up my hands and no one on the committee threw up their hands and no one none of the participants did either people were pretty hopeful about all kinds of things. But what we heard was, you know, it's really important to give voice to people who haven't been heard. It's really important for people to weigh in with their policymakers with their decision makers on what they're doing and what they're not doing, and what needs their attention. It's really important I think to support regulatory reform and I would just say, get out and vote. That's what people need to do. So with those were those were my personal reflections. I will now turn it over to you I think April. Thank you all for providing the highlights and your reflections I think this really added to the rich set of materials that the proceedings contains. I now want to open it up for some questions from from our attendees. If you have a question and haven't already done so, please submit it through the Q&A function in the zoom webinar, and we'll be taking the questions that way to get us started. The first that we saw come in was, what has changed in scientific institutions such that they're now recently recognizing the limits of reductionism. Someone like to take that one. Jonathan, you're muted muted. You think I figured it out by now. Yeah, so I can, I can reflect from least my own scientific institution and you know it came from a lot of sort of environmental scanning that we did horizon scanning is treated planning and recognizing that many of the disease issues that emerge from wildlife populations have these large scale environmental driving drivers. As we talked about climate change changes in land use pollutants and contaminants and we so we recognize that we could address these issues at the root cause, rather than just describing the consequences. We needed to form multidisciplinary teams, we need to do experimental microbiology we needed to have folks with with modeling expertise the field component. So it really was a through those types of efforts we that we recognize that we need really to shift the type of science we did from, you know, single siloed approach these multidisciplinary, disability teams. And anything I'd add to that is it's actually, I think it's interesting enough it's it's an increased emphasis on the need for softer skills among scientists to have that sort of ability to work in teams, negotiate resolve conflicts but that's my perspective. Thank you. Rodolfo would you like to build on that. Yes, and thank you Jonathan I think that's fantastic. It seems to me that this is, this is a critical time for academic institutions such as universities to take the these these message that we hear so clearly now that we cannot continue being in isolation and academic institutions can play significant role there in terms of the training of the next generation so people can be addressing these issues. And as I mentioned, and I'm ready is united the fact that Stanford has created a new school for sustainability, in which we believe that bringing the emphasis for the scientific community, the emphasis that and contributions that are so critical from the human and social dimensions into the training. And this is absolutely essential that school is actually bringing those elements to it. And there's also some educational programs at the PhD level. At this moment, this is a program that we have in Stanford that is dedicated to bring the training at the, at the graduate level, considering not only the stem perspective but also the human and social dimensions I don't think we can address these problems critical for the functioning of our planet and for the life supporting systems that we depend on if we do not bring the social and human dimensions and I am hopeful that academic institutions, governmental institutions and many other entities are going to be embracing this critical need. Thank you. Another question that came in asks why are natural ecosystems not declared as nature based assets of local city administrations, could you comment on what benefits you think this could bring or important considerations and challenges that may preclude us from doing this right now. Kathy would you like to take this one. Yep. I was thinking about how to respond to this. Well, first of all, the questioner is right they should be. We should be thinking about the assets that nature brings to all of us to local communities so you know what is stopping it. You know I think you know concern about cost capacity. Resources to do it. And we did during the workshop talk about the fact that we need to be. We need to be thinking about the in even in economic terms sort of the monetary benefits that we get from keeping people healthy because we have because we've invested money, spent money to keep our water safe to keep our air clean. You know, I think we heard from some of the workshop participants who talked, you know, very eloquently about local initiatives that have made a difference in children's health and children's emotional health we heard about the value of green spaces. And so, thinking in that way, I think could help anyway I see Jonathan has his hand up who's probably going to answer this question much better than I did. No, not all Kathy I think you hit just some key points I was just going to expand on one thing you said and I think it relates back to the structural barriers that we talked about and the fact that the nature based assets as that the question implies that they're not measured there's no value in the area where it's just a city administrator can can take us okay well, this is the value of me placing a natural area in the in our city here and you know them as Kathy mentioned the mental health benefits from having access to nature that you know the other contributions that area could take so when they're coming to city planning or any other sort of planning activities, it's hard for them to actually consider them in the overall decision making because they can't really account for it as compared to other components and so that's why I think this these efforts to but as Kathy mentioned some sort of value to them some sort of metric to them so it can be integrated into the into decision making I think it's going to be a critical effort moving forward. Thanks. What did you have a comment you wanted to make on that compliment what Kathy and Jonathan have said. Kathy mentioned the case of the significance from the point of view of the economic element of keeping those those systems. There's a big area in conservation science and actually in general now is percolating increasingly in the thinking of society which is the ecosystem services so the benefits of nature to people. That includes, you know, the quality of water the quality of air we eat biodiversity we depend on biodiversity and so on, but I want to emphasize also the cultural inspiration and health value of keeping those elements of accessible to people from all works of society including the under self communities. It is absolutely essential. Now we are beginning to see things such as what is called eco grief environmental grief those kinds of issues that are so relevant now for our stress priorities. And so I think that investing intellectually, and also politically, looking for policy makers and looking for government official that are willing and committed to keep those elements of nature available to society. I think that's a critical element that we need to be paying attention to going forward. Thank you. The question is asking about cultural differences between disciplinary areas. And I was hoping someone could comment on this environmental experts come from many different disciplines and also don't always share the same assumptions. Someone like to comment on that. I mean, aside from saying true true. I think, you know, we talked about the fact that sometimes we don't even use the same language. We describe or look at things in different ways. Jonathan and now we're, we're, we're also, please add. I think Albert is ready to go and then maybe if necessary can follow up from him or Jonathan. Yeah, I think, again, I'm not going to add much to the objective response of Kathy's saying it's true true. And it was actually interesting as a process for this committee. And many months in sessions, really trying to get, you know, understand a common this semantics, getting a general definition which is so critical in terms of communicating ideas but also synthesizing ideas. So there are issues of equity, you know, resilience, I'm just going back to some of our Jamboard items but equity leveraging means very different things across different disciplines. And I think that gets back to some of the early the earlier question about, you know, why is it so difficult for us to implement this at the local city level. And it also certainly highlights many of the challenges we had during the pandemic, about how we can take these different definitions which mean different, different things to different people, and put them into a common language so that the, you know, the sanitation, you know, officer at a local municipality, you know, or the forest ranger, you know, can put this not only, you know, put this in action but also contribute to the process of generating knowledge and solutions. So, an important question, this is an ongoing process. I would just say there are a couple key steps in this and one of them is, is really, you know, again, I think we had a talk during the the proceedings I think we're just wonderful redaction of these debates on general definitions semantics, you know, the challenges of between different silos and cross different disciplines but I think one of the, you know, there is a solution and several solutions at different levels. Obviously, one which was, you know, raised was from the white Biden White House about getting common statistical products, ones that will take whatever what evidence is available about the impacts of, of nature based or ecosystem based and translating it to what's, you know, its impacts, you know, on human human health. So there's a framework now our job or the job certainly of the next generation I go back to rojo doffa. In his comments that we have to train this whole process is not just preparing ourselves to do what we need to do need to do now but how do we train the next generation of people and in really filling in the blanks or filling in the gaps in the gaps. So there is a framework, but I think there's several, not just one framework but there's many several different frameworks that, you know, for solutions and and, and the question now is how do we get build those those links that, you know, link not only disciplines but agencies and so forth. Let me stop there. I think we have time for one more question here. First to comment to thanking the organizers and committee members for this fantastic workshop opportunity. And then they asked, what is next. How will the workshop catalyze future actions and investments. So do you want to start us off. Can I can I start April. Thank you. Maybe start by by saying that what we need to do is to contribute to this critical element of the problem which is spread the word communication in effective ways. I think that these workshops were fantastic and we had a multiplicity of perspectives and angles and lenses that came into enriching the proceedings, but I think we need to make sure that society at large becomes aware what is at stake. And what can be done and what needs to be modified to a very significant level in the many different aspects that we discuss. So I want to emphasize the point of communication communication communication and sharing, making sure that this is transparent and attractive and engaging that people understand in general. I think we need to go out of the academic sphere and share across different spheres, including the general public and I want to insist that then communicating also with the youth with the younger generations I think they're going to be fantastic ambassadors for us to address these problems and of course they're going to be facing these problems themselves directly so communication communication and sharing sharing sharing. Thank you. And actually out with very much echo what we've also said and just give you so it's something that the committee, we've talked about several lengths about how to ensure the momentum keeps going. And so, just to give some concrete examples what would offer says we're organizing panel sessions at conferences to continue to sort of convey the findings and can key outcomes of the workshop we're going to present some posters at conferences in the process of putting together a sort of more kind of lay or plain plain written article for newsletters again to increase the audience but this is where she could all help us to is, you know, please feel free to distribute the proceedings that the free send them out to colleagues. If success will happen if someone sends me the proceedings and says hey look at these proceedings aren't they really good. And I know that hopefully then it's been a good, good, good round of communication so. So, anyway, that's all thank you. Yeah, and I would just echo what you all said communication communication dissemination and as you said Jonathan, those of you who joined us today are. You're in this work with us. You care about these things. You can be ambassadors for getting people to think about it to talk about it. Yes, share the proceedings it's spread there for free. But yeah we're, we're committed to workshop maybe over but I'll tell you this little group of people. We're not done. Thank you all for approaching the end of the hour here so I think we can go ahead and and wrap this up. I'm going to put up the proceedings link here again, you can use the QR code to link directly to it this is available, free of charge for you to If you have any questions about this activity please feel free to reach out to Julie Lau and myself and we can provide you more information. And I just want to thank our committee members again for joining us today for this discussion, and for all of you that attended as participants we really appreciate your interest in this work, and look forward to seeing how this plays out as we move forward. Thank you.