 Well, maybe let's get started and hope that the rest of our panelists come in the next minute or two. Good morning, good afternoon, and I suppose for some it's it's good evening. My name is Christina Rambaitis Del Rio, I work with the Global Commission on Adaptation and the World Resources Institute. And it's my pleasure to to moderate today's session on putting money where it matters. We could just have the slides up for a second. I have a few housekeeping announcements to make. But we're really delighted to have this this session and have such great attendance for for this session, if you could go to the next slide. In this session, which is part of the climate finance theme, we're going to be talking about putting money where it matters and really this is motivated by a couple of really important pieces of research that have come out recently. One is that we'll be hearing about is from the Zurich flood resilience Alliance and some work done by concern worldwide and Mercy Corps showing that funding for climate change adaptation isn't being targeted to the most climate vulnerable countries. We also know from work done by IID in 2017 that very little money, 10% or less is being targeted for work at the local level. We don't know how much of that money is actually even being delivered and where the decision making lies and whether or not local communities have agency and decision making power over those resources. We, we know this is a situation that needs to change. And in this session we're going to be talking not just about describing the problem, but really looking at solutions looking at what we can do together as a community of practice to to address these issues. We know it won't be immediate and we'll take take some time. So if you can kick us off I'll go through the agenda, but I just want to say if you to all the participants if you want to introduce yourselves on the chat box. Please go ahead tell us who you are tell us where you're joining from. This is a relatively small group. And so it's great to be able to get to know each other. So we're going to start the session with a hard talk. A conversation with some some panelists Sally Tildesley from concern worldwide Sheila Patel from some growers international and Merrick stones from IID. We'll go into breakout groups will get to talk with each other listen to each other share ideas around advocacy messages to address this issue, as well as principles for locally led action that have been developed under the locally led adaptation action track of the Global Commission on adaptation that we want to co create with you and develop further with with your input. So we're going to have cartoonists with us for these conversations throughout today's session. And you might be wondering why on earth would we have cartoonists for a session on climate finance. And there's very good reason for that I'm going to turn it over to my colleague Bettina to tell us to introduce us to the cartoonists and tell us a little bit more about that Bettina over over to you. Thank you Christina. So, if you can see me. Maybe you can stop screen share for a moment. And I can ask. Yes, great. I would like to say, think a little bit about what is important and what we have been talking for about for quite a long time. And we would like to give you a bit of a sense of what we can do differently as we talk in this session so you can see here is a cartoon that we have. And as a result of a cartoonathon that gives us a different perspective, and maybe something not super unfamiliar but important to be said to really say, giving up power to local lead locally lead action is sometimes tricky and sometimes difficult. Sometimes allow us to really put our finger on the pulse say things that maybe we would like to say clearly things that we find challenging things that we find in Congress, things that we find need attention. We would really like to invite you to be as candid as possible in your breakout groups in your discussions to give the cartoon artists a good idea of what you think really matters and what we need to put in these cartoons that we have three cartoon artists here with us. Thank you so much to all of you. They will be listening throughout the session and they will be drawing sketch cartoons throughout the session based on what you're saying, hopefully really giving us a new perspective on some of the aspects that they pick up. They have full freedom artistic freedom to do so. We'll share the drafts at the end of the session today. So, you'll be able to comment on their drafts tell us how you feel is this right is a spot on. Is there something missing and then following the session there will complete two drafts each and of course we'll share the final cartoons with you. You're also welcome to use them of course for promoting your work going forward and I think that is it Christina. Thank you. Christina. Yeah, so a really exciting twist I think I've been part of this just recently and it gives a different perspective and a different flavor to conversations and causes great reflection and sometimes a little bit of pain and discomfort as you grapple with some of the tensions that that come out. If I could ask for the slides to go back up we have just a few housekeeping rules that that I need to go through the session is is being recorded. If you could go to the next slide. So the session is being recorded. We hope everyone is okay with that and aware of that. We also ask that that you turn off things like Skype, which can sometimes be distracting or interfere with the bandwidth so that we have maximum bandwidth for for the session so we can see each other and talk to each other, especially in the breakout groups. So we're we're very worried and have taken precautions about to prevent zoom bombing, which would be unwanted or uninvited participants and inappropriate comments. So if we see anything of that nature happening we will take someone out of the meeting and remove the offending content immediately. So, so that's just so everyone's aware of that and I guess the last thing is, please don't share the link to this meeting we were already at our cap and so we're not able to, to add in additional participants and we don't want any zoom bombing which tends to happen when people share links on social media. So that's it in terms of housekeeping. I think that we're going to go over to you for the hard talk session. And if you could take the screen off the slides off. Thanks. Climate change is a global problem created by the rich and the powerful, but a passionate band of advocates from across the world is now claiming that developing countries and poor communities should we put in the driver's seat for finding finding solutions for its impacts. My name is Aditya Bahadur, and I'm over the next 20 minutes I'm going to lead this hard talk session for the ABC, the adaptation broadcasting corporation and grill these advocates about why they believe what they believe and ask them to defend the ridiculous positions. Moving with Sally, Sally, you work with concern worldwide, you're part of the Zurich flood resilience allowance, and I have seen you in other sessions across this conference claiming that countries that need money for adaptation the most are not getting it just any data to back up this bold claim. Thanks for your question Aditya. So I would say yes. In doing analysis for the report we use the very best available data so we use the adaptation funding data that donor countries and multilaterals are themselves reporting. And what that data is telling us is that the most climate vulnerable countries are not receiving preferential targeting for adaptation funding. So when we when we looked at bilateral donors and 18 out of 26 have never provided more than half of their adaptation funding to the most climate vulnerable countries. And then when it comes to multilaterals, less than 50% of approved and disperse adaptation financing from the main multilateral funds like the GCF and adaptation fund, and that yeah, target the most vulnerable. There's no correlation between money received for climate change adaptation per capita, people living in extreme poverty, and the climate vulnerability of the country. And, but in terms of the data I think there is slightly more complicated in that we do have the right data to be able to make these claims, but there's also a lot of room for improvement in reporting and data. And I think it's important to really strive towards improved data for transparency accountability and understanding, particularly where improved data can encourage them more and also better access to funding for the most climate vulnerable countries and marginalized groups. I think that that's sort of a side issue to that underlying one that the report highlights that there just isn't enough adaptation funding generally, and that it's not being targeted at the most climate vulnerable countries. Isn't the problem that isn't the fact that these countries, they're not getting the money, because they don't have the systems and the capacity to spend this money wisely and really make an impact at the ground level. If tomorrow they were to get all the money that they need, will they be able to spend it wisely. And I think that because something is difficult, it means that it shouldn't be done. And so I acknowledge that adaptation in some of the most climate vulnerable countries is challenging. So many of the countries include fragile and conflict affected context. But I'd argue that that isn't a sufficient an excuse. So we know that adaptation can be done in these countries. And what we need is really a concerted effort to embed to leave no one behind principle in the global climate finance architecture. Otherwise, people will be left behind or, or be kept behind by the current system. Last week, the OECD came out of their latest states of fragility report and that highlighted that this year fragile context were home to 23% of the world's population and 76.5% of those living in extreme poverty. And over the last decade, the gap between the most fragile countries and non fragile countries increase every year. So climate change is only going to exacerbate these existing fragilities and put the SDGs forever out of reach for those countries. Sally, lots of people claim that lower middle income and middle income countries that have vast swads of vulnerable people would be able to spend the money much better rather than LDCs that show up at the higher end of global vulnerability in disease. Isn't it much better for the global community to invest in the countries that can do something useful with the money. I guess like that comes down to the sort of logic that we want to use in terms of where we put our money and where the global climate finance does travel and I think it comes down to what I just said in terms of applying that leave them behind principle which is one of the underlying principles of the Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030. And if we don't really target the LDCs and those most climate vulnerable countries with we're going to leave these people behind. And I think really that's that's something that we need to address in the system. Let's go to the studio and check if our second guest Sheila Patel, it has entered the studio or not. Christina back at the studio are you able to confirm if she's able to join us now. Yes, we have a live video to Sheila Patel might just be audio due to due to transit issues. Sheila G, I'm not sure if you can hear us. I think we're having some temporary problem with satellite link so we're going to go. No, no, I'm here. I'm here. Oh, Sheila G is joining us. Thank you, Sheila G. The question for you is that you have been a passionate advocate for local action on adaptation. But don't we need bold international and national policies to move the needle on resilience isn't this problem far too great. And should we not be looking at higher levels of governance for this. I was listening to the conversation that you had with the previous speaker. And I want to bring up three issues instead of simply saying yes no okay to your question. The first thing is, whether you're talking about LBC or you're talking about middle income countries. There are different reasons why they are unable to reach the poor. There's a person who lives and works with both middle income countries with large swiths of very poor people as well as some LDC countries that reasons for not reaching out to the poor are different. But in all instances across all countries, there is serious non absorption of whatever money is already there. And I think we have to start from that, you know, big bold overarching global discussions, do not address the serious granular political disenfranchisement and exclusive traditions that allow money to remain unutilized, which is there so we accept that the money that is there is little but even if that is unutilized, that's the first thing that you have to address. Sorry to interrupt, but in the spirit of hard talk, can we put back on that since you are agreeing that some of the countries who need money for adaptation most unable to utilize it. That's precisely the point that we're trying to make shouldn't it go to people who can use it better and more quickly. I don't know how many can use it better and quickly, because even today if you take the life AR project. It's taken a lot of negotiations for the countries to agree that 70% of the money that they will get they will do, they will do it with local adaptation with locally it's taken a long negotiation so I think what you negotiate, who you bring into the table to make designs. I think you are, we have to do many things in different places. One thing at a time is not going to do it and COVID has exacerbated all this, and given all our countries very good reasons not to invest in the most vulnerable once more so I also want to put that into your heart. Because many of our countries are saying that the GDPs are going down it is going down, this is going down, but that all of them are Scott free when they don't utilize the money that they have, and they should be a just as we have. We say that the climate climate fund is not utilize the money that it has across the board, if you take most of the bilateral and multilateral institutions and national government allocations, they are not being utilized in the social sectors. Right, so I can't help feel, I can't help feel that you're evading my first question, which is passionate, you've been a passionate advocate for action at the local level, but don't we need big bank global and regional solutions to this problem. Yeah, we do, but it requires a different architecture, which is what I'm trying to tell you that just saying, you know, I, I'm happy to make those bold statements, but I have accountability to a constituency that wants that money and doesn't have mechanisms that help them get it. So, if you don't look at the granular issues along with these bold big things, then we are still back to square one. So in the new normal, we have to be able to link the global with the granular in ways that we have never done. I want to know how many people who talk globally about money are ready to sit in the same room in the same table with leaders of social movements and design the architecture of that change. In the spirit of granularity, give us one tangible example of what do you mean by a mechanism that will help people at the local level spend money for adaptation effectively. Okay, let's take the whole issue of, let's take two or three. One is the whole campaign for sanitation. Okay, it is critical that in this day and age, we don't have water based sanitation, which is often the basis for which for neighborhoods don't get water and sanitation. But the rest of the city is still doing a 200 year old mechanism. So we need new technology. We need everybody to learn new things. We need to do everything and there are so many examples of this, which have not been scaled up. I'm just saying you can take any example you take public transport. Why is it today, when we all know that maximum utilization of public transport should be the first thing that every country that I know spends more money on roads for private cars than it does on public transport. That's a great example. We'll come back to you in a minute. We'll come back to you in a minute, Shilajee. Another one of our guests, Merrick Sones is joining us via satellite link as well. I've seen him talk very boldly about making sure that finance gets to the local level we should put money where it matters where that and by that he specifically means vulnerable communities. Merrick, by that, aren't you simply asking people who've contributed least to the problem to lead the charge in finding solutions for it. Oh, it's a pleasure to be here this morning with Sally and Sheila as well. And to, that's a really good question. It's a pleasure to answer it. Well, I would certainly say that when we're not advocating for the burden just simply to be passed from international and national actors to local people. Because that wouldn't be just, however, what we are advocating for at IID is for local people to have more power, more agency and more resources to firstly participate meaningfully and but also to be able to lead their own adaptation and development, where it makes sense. And this is an imperative, because it's the failure to do this that has put us in this crisis that we face, where only a few selected people and corporations have reaping the benefits. And let's be clear. IID is actually showing for instance in Bangladesh that we vote the burden's already been passed and we need to be rebalancing the tables in fact. So households seem to be spending about up to twice national governments and 12 times international governments already on responding to climate and disaster risk. So the burden's already been passed. It's about rebalancing the tables so the poor are already proportion spending the most to address the crisis, yet have been given the least support to help them. The poor are then prevented from being accessing and accessing and controlling the resources, the services to help them to have control over how their development takes place. And it's not only a question of distribution, no and procedural justice, also this huge amounts of effectiveness that Sheila's already alluded to the fact that they can deliver more context specific interventions in sitting in London or another Western Headquarter we're never going to know exactly how the climate is changing on the ground versus the people who deal with these climate changes in a day to day basis that have more links and associations with the natural resources that they depend upon for their livelihoods. And also we need more agile and diverse solutions if we just focus on one big global or a few big global solutions and that one and that solution fails, we're left in a real dire situation rather than many small distributed solutions that creates more redundancy that if one fails, we've got lots of others to pick up where we left off and obviously I've just mentioned the fact that evidence from Bangladesh shows that households are already spending a lot of effort about supplementing and supporting those local solutions not marginalising them, but maybe just to be clear. I'm not advocating that all action should happen at the local level. We need collaborative responses from across society with the public sector, private sector, civil society across from that international to the local level but it's about rebalancing those tables about giving local people more of a voice in what is so unlocking their potential, the innovation that they have. But if we don't, even if local action isn't always the most effective place for it to happen, if local people aren't strongly involved then interventions are likely to be either less effective or more likely to do harm. So if you take for instance, climate information services, we know that we need international and national organisations to have a really strong role because they need the supercomputers they need the meteorologists, the physicists that really understand how this system works, it's really complex. But if you provide that information and you just provide it to smallholder farmers or local people to use it and you don't develop it in a participatory way and give them a clear role in power in helping it work, it's going to fail. They're not going to be able to use it, it's not going to be able to work for them, it's not going to be able to deal with the complexities or the power dynamics in their local communities. Yeah, I hope that. Mark, you used a lot of big words to confuse us, you've talked about agile systems, you've talked about balancing the tables, you've talked about participatory development. What does this all mean in practice? Tell us, how do you really make sure that communities who are the receiving end of climate change have the right implements and tools to respond? Sure, so thanks for that question. I think that also nicely really builds on a couple of the tricky questions you were posing to Sally and Sheila as well about do they have the mechanisms in place to really do this? Why don't we just invest in national systems because their systems are better or why don't we just invest in international intermediaries because we think they have the capacities to respond. It's really important that we firstly that we really recognize that local people, as I said, have a lot of traditional generational indigenous knowledge that is absolutely crucial to unlock. It's not that other expertise is more important, it's about recognizing that local expertise is just as important as the expertise that we value in the West. But also that we, there are a host of mechanisms that already exist, Sheila alluded to some in the urban context, that that can already be leveraged to get finance effectively to local people behind their priorities. So, we commonly hear these issues from big donors that it's too, it's too financially risky, or it's too hard to deliver at scale, and then there's that common question of maybe local people don't have those capabilities and they will invest in their immediate needs rather than strategic needs but it's about also thinking, well, can we provide the finance on the right terms to local people that they feel they can take some risks, they can feel trusted to shift the way and shift their investment horizons, but also that they're linked to the capabilities of national actors, to sectoral experts, to merge that local and traditional knowledge with that scientific expertise. Finally, the final question to you, Marek, given half a chance, I've always seen the IED team jumps to bang on about some principles of locally led adaptation. What are these principles and why should we take them seriously? You have one minute to answer. So one quick minute then. So yeah, so thanks for mentioning that. So what we've observed is that we really need to try and shift the way that international intermediaries, global climate funds, donors are helping build this new business unusual financial ecosystem that the LBCs are aiming for that support the civil society funding mechanisms, decentralization, social protection, all these approaches that can really get funding to the local level. So we've been setting out several principles and I think we might be discussing today that we think could actually shift this up, and maybe we're not doing enough, but that's what we want to hear from. So it's increasing the devolution of finance that more finances decided as close to the people that experience and the impact that have the local knowledge to respond. That we are investing in institutions so that actually can do the job that donors are currently doing into the future if we're not creating these institutions, how are we actually going to be delivering resilience in the long term. We're doing radical transparency like Sally referred to that we're actually donors and aid agencies and intermediaries are telling us how much funding is actually getting to the local levels we can hold them accountable because at the moment, it's almost impossible. That way, putting a structural inequalities like gender disability rights race at the center of how we deliver deliver resilience so the most excluded have more power. And that way, actually, emerging that traditional knowledge with climate science and helping local people to plan for an incredibly uncertain and an incredibly risky future that we've put upon them. And finally, that the programming we help them do is really flexible. Let's not, let's not pretend that sitting in London or in another donor country that we really know the solutions that they really need. When we set out on a project. We never know what's exactly is going to happen or what is going to be most effective so we need to provide and provide local people local actors institutions with the flexibility to test solutions to learn how to do things to change their direction potentially, if they feel a better solution is more appropriate. Great. Sheila g mark Sally. Thank you for defending your position so valiantly in the face of such skepticism. Back to the studio. You are good. I think you have a long future at the adaptation broadcasting company. Thank you to the American Sally and Aditya for that hard talk session. As Merrick just mentioned, under the, the locally led action track of the Global Commission on adaptation, a number of principles have been developed. If we could have the slides, I'll go through those briefly and I should say this builds on really decades of work now from my ID, why we commission SDI, luck and it had and many other partners that have been looking at these issues. But we've worked to consolidate into eight short principles. We, we don't have time to talk about all of them today so we're just going to go through six of them, and I'll go through them very quickly, but you'll have more time in the breakout groups to go into these more deeply. So the first principle is the issue of devolution of decision making to the lowest possible level. In short, this is about getting the decision making as close as possible to the most affected communities and enabling them to decide what their priorities are and what should be done to to build resilient. The second principle is about investing in local institutions and legacies. And this is really about the fact that we we know we need local institutions, strong local institutions to respond to climate challenges and other challenges that that that arise as we've seen with them. It's the groups that are on the ground that have been there that are trusted that are on the front lines of the COVID response. Well for those organizations to be there when we need them. We need to invest in them, they need to have core support and funding streams can't be tied exclusively to projects. If we're going to have strong institutions at the local level for for the long term. The third principle we want to talk about today is is radical transparency. And this, this is one of my favorites, I have to say. This is really about being able to track money, follow it down to the local level and understand how how it's being used and putting communities in the driver's seat to tell us are is the funding being used as it should be. Is it building resilience is it building it fast enough is it doing it in the right way. So it's really about about having the visibility into the impacts and also into the funding. Next slide. The fourth principle is about addressing structural inequalities and this is, this is really about recognizing that vulnerability is not a purely technical issue, or a biophysical issue it's it's about the inequalities biases legacies of that people face in discrimination against different classes, ethnicities, genders levels of ability, religion, and, and that we need to address these issues head on when we're talking about adaptation and resilience. All too often we we tend to ignore these issues, but we really need to grapple with them and design solutions that address these inequalities and things like access to land and resource rights and tenure rights as well. The fifth principle is about building robust understanding of climate risks and uncertainty. So climate change is is inherently uncertain. That's for sure. But we know we need to build robust robust solutions to a variety of climate futures. And that means thinking long term that means thinking about compounded risks that means also using traditional knowledge and traditional ecological knowledge to help inform the the development of solutions that often that that knowledge and that capacity is already there and will help us build more more robust solutions. And then the last principle that we'll be discussing today is on flexible programming. All too often funds are very carefully tied to different outputs that are meant to be delivered, and there's not a lot of flexibility to to change course if you learn that something isn't working and need to try something else, or conditions change, and you radically need to to change your your programming. There really needs to be greater flexibility to enable learning and enable adaptation to happen in practice. So these are some of the principles that that we want to discuss with you today we want you to tell us, do they make sense. Do they work. Have you seen it work in practice what is what would make it work. And is there anything missing in what we presented here. Next slide. So we're going to be moving into for breakout groups. Break out group one that was a tongue twister for me will focus on on advocacy questions. So really building off of the report that the Zurich flood resilience Alliance has put forward and some of the reports and evidence that we've heard about. What are some of the concrete actions that that we should be advocating for donors to take. Ensure that that's not just rhetoric and that we move from rhetoric to action. What are some of the barriers and opportunities for getting more funding to to vulnerable countries. And then what are the real world impacts of not funding adaptation, what story compelling stories do we have to to really build that sense of urgency in our advocacy messages. And for all the breakout groups will have 30 minutes. We'll need to nominate someone not from the organizing team to report back in the plenary session. And really we want as many people to discuss as possible, and to be as concrete and succinct as possible as you can as as we only have 30 minutes. Next slide. So that's for breakout group one for breakout groups to three and four. We're going to be discussing the principles for locally led action that I that I just briefly presented. And we want you to focus on is this principle important. Do you think it would address some of the roadblocks preventing locally led adaptation that we just heard about in the hard talk session. If not what could be improved about it, how would you how would you put it differently how would you make it stronger. What does this principle mean for you in practice. Do you have any experience operationalizing it what worked what didn't. And what's one concrete thing that you would do to help achieve the spirit of this principle. So those are those are the questions. We're going to have rapporteurs taking notes on a document really verbatim notes on what is said will also be recording the breakout groups. And then the cartoonists are going to be dipping in and out of our conversations spying on us if you will, and reflecting back what what they hear and what they see is some of the, the key points tensions that that emerge in this discussion. So, Margo, I believe you're going to send us into to breakout groups automatically and magically. Yeah, that's right. So the breakout groups are ready. And in a moment you should see a pop up screen that says you're invited to join breakout group number one two three or four. If you can click on that, then you'll zoom in automatically and will bring you back at the end of it. So I'm going to open them right now. Great. Have a good talk everyone. Great, I think we're all back in in plenary. We have a little bit of time for report backs I'm going to I'm sure people had much more to say, and probably we're very frustrated when they were brought back. So what I will do is we'll go through each group have two minute or so report back and then we're going to see what our cartoonist friends have have been up to during this time. So Sally maybe to go to your group first do you have a person identified to report back. We do have a very lucky person Adriana, I think it's going to give a bit of a summary of our discussions. Yeah, hi everyone happy to report back from the advocacy group. There were a lot of really interesting points made and just to recap the discussion focused on concrete actions that donors should be taking opportunities and barriers for getting funding to the most vulnerable and some of the real world impacts of not funding adaptation. So I think the group kind of coalesced around a few key points so first donors need to provide a quick delivery of funding. The Green Climate Fund and adaptation fund were flagged as examples of how this doesn't always go well so the funding decisions tend to take a lot of time. And in that time the context may change which means that funding may be not as effective as it was if there was a more quick release of funding. So what I want to discuss that some of the concrete actions that can be taken is to consider is for donors to consider maybe being less risk averse and being open to learning from projects that might fail so donors are not always keen to take on risky projects but they also want innovation. So if donors are more open to taking on more risk that can present a real learning opportunity to see what works and maybe what doesn't to help shape new initiatives and projects. COVID-19 was shown as an example of how immense amounts of funding can be mobilized under urgent conditions and it would be good to look at whether these channels can be tapped to ensure a quick delivery of climate finance. Another point that was mentioned was the inclusion of youth voices and how youth are often brought into conversations but are not really heard or you know there aren't meaningful attempts to listen to what they have to say so how we can address that. And then finally speeding up processes on the ground to make sure that the most vulnerable can be reached. So once we do, once we are able to channel climate finance, there are longer processes for formalizing groups trying to get multi stakeholder alliances together. And that does take time. So how can we maybe speed up that process so we can get projects in place to really deliver for the most vulnerable. So yeah, I would say those were some of the key points that were mentioned. Thanks Adriana that's that's great. It's definitely some themes in common with what we discussed in break out group two. I got so excited about being a breakout group I forgot to designate a person to report back so Peter has has graciously agreed to do that, especially since he got cut off on his last point so Peter maybe over to you. Oh, I'm not sure if it can report back in the whole session but I couldn't have my last point. Yeah, go for it. I'm sure a lot of what we saw. So the whole discussion on trust and risk and I was just recapping from my own experience. I think that funders they want to have as much information as possible. They want to return on their investment. It just happens to be that at the beginning of a project cycle. That's when you have to make the most important decisions normally because that's what the funder requires from you. But it's also the time when you have the least information. So I think there's really a big need for, you know, to explain to have a comment to have donors understand that you cannot have that full clarity, but they get a better return on higher climate outcomes. If we if we sort of postpone those decisions and that the communities decide so and I think once you have once you and once you have that sort of common understanding it's it's easier to for the donor to accept the risk. Over to you. Yeah, thanks, Peter. Yeah, so our group was discussing this issue of risk and how do we grapple with the risk that donors face the risk that communities face and really build trust in that context and I just want to draw out something that Sheila said in our group that the biggest risk is doing nothing and I think that's a that's a good reminder to all of us that's that's what got us into this situation. And so, while we look to build trust while we look to develop decision making and and build local institutions we need to keep in mind that the bigger risk is is doing nothing. I'll stop there unless anyone else from group two wants to add any key points. If not, I'll go to group three who's who's reporting back for group three. We're going to ask you bigger to lead the charge and then Barry will supplement. Thank you very much. Some of the points that we came up with, we're looking at, of course, the transparency and how accountability can be handled and the trust from the grass root or from the communities until the international level to the donors. And one of the points that we looked at is the structure inequality, whereby you find that there are those kind of gaps within the structures of the community or community based organizations. There are those kind of gaps into the structure and eventually we end up trusting the government, which really at the end of the day fails to work for us so there is building up the capacity of a community based organizations to be in position to be part of the decision making kind of body. Then what the point of gender equity and inequality. It is also a very strong one whereby you might find that some of the resources allocated in certain projects not putting this into into play, not thinking that probably we need to look at other factors around it. Then we also looked at the flexibility of the funds that that are supposed to go if we are to reach the ground, it should be the flexibility such that we can, we can adopt different measures and different principles as we are moving forward. Then we also looked at the cooperation that should be that cooperation between the local organization or community based organization and the international organizations as well. The NGOs and also we say we should put the local solutions on through the frontline local solutions that come up projects that come from the community based organizations. For example, those that are especially those that are looking at climate change and adaptation. The likes of waste management, recycling, briquette making, urban farming, among others, so you should put them on the frontline and also look at grassroots as partners, other than looking at them as beneficiaries. That's when we shall be in position to have them on the round table and make sure that they are part of the decision making. So we do a lot of community contracting community collaboration, so that the community knows how much is coming, how much is going to be putting on which project. So they are part of the decision making body. Those are some of the points that came up with, but of course some from my group can also add on some points over to you. Thank you, Lou Vega. Barry, do you want to take 10 seconds to add any critical points. Yeah, yeah, it's just to see on the point of radical transparency, there is a there's a sort of subtext underneath it where there is going to be some donor nervousness around radical transparency because there is often sort of pure accountability in the urban countries and I think the example that the fragile state has given putting money into the public financial management system can be risky and you know, there is issues of corruption and being siphoned off at certain points. So that needs that does need to be considered. However, having an effective tracking methodology, which would, I guess, assuage some of those concerns, I think. So it was definitely based on our group. Great. Thanks Barry and I just want to highlight that there's a session later today that will be talking more deeply about the issue of transparency and accountability session on Mel for locally led action later later today. For those of you who are interested. We're really short on time so I'm going to go quickly to group for because I want to leave time to see the cartoons and discuss those a bit. So group four over. Hi there. Hi, I'm Olivia and reporting back to group four but please do jump in anyone else from group four if I miss anything. And so we covered to the two areas the climate. Climate reality on the ground and climate data and the flexible funding and from the climate data side of things. And we had some really great examples from from colleagues in Bangladesh Malawi and I had some experience in Cape Town. I'm just going to read a couple of things from the notes. So Sharon from Bangladesh. She has some experience in doing community risk management. And they use like a timeline exercise where they were measuring how cyclones and the intensity of cyclones had changed over the decades with with communities. And we had other. I'm going to ask you to be really great. And then on the flexible funding side of things. We were talking about one important point for the climate data was that we needed governments to give that data legitimacy. Not just governments but NGOs and everyone else as well because if the data is not considered legitimate then it's, you know, it's not. It's not given it the communities the power to produce that data. And on the flexible funding side of things we talked about. Sorry, my blank headline point. I'm sorry it's the point I made but it was about allowing projects to fail or not allow but not demonizing projects for failing and ensuring that if mistakes are made it's not. It doesn't sort of prevent new ideas from future. Yeah. Yeah. Great. Thank you for that and sorry. Next I want to hand over to to Bettina and who's going to take us through the cartoon our artists work and we'll hear from the cartoonist themselves. We've been busy at work this whole time Bettina maybe over to you. Thank you so much. Yes. And without further ado, the cartoonists have been very stressed and have been listening well and have been friendly drawing you maybe have felt the energy in the background. I uploaded them in the Google Doc you can see navigate to the Google Doc that I put in the chat. And if you scroll down past the discussion points you see a red bar that says cartoon gallery. This is the gallery with the drafts that we have so far. We'll be adding to it as you look at them in the next couple of minutes. Have a look at the cartoons and first and foremost enjoy them. And then it would be really super if you can also add a couple of thoughts on doesn't cut to resonate with you what do you think is there something missing is it is it infuriating you do you think it's missing the point. Do you think it's spot on give us some comments and some feedback would really like that. And with the comments and the feedback the cartoon artists were then after the session will go back and finish two of these cartoons and we share it with all of you. So please in the meantime add some comments this is a Google Doc. Please do not delete any comments even if you don't agree with them just write another one to state your point. We'd really appreciate to hear from you. Five minutes we have for this, maybe six. So if you can be sure that you look at all the cartoon drafts and pause at those that speak to you to add your comments. Enjoy this and when we are coming to a close will hear from the cartoon artists a brief reflection on how this experience was for them and. Yeah, enjoy the cartoons for now Betty not tell us again how to get there I missed that there is a there is a link here I put it again in the chat. Yes, you can never get there you should come to Google Doc and if you scroll down past the notes of sessions, you see a red, red cartoon gallery that's where they start. Okay. Super. Super. Thanks Sheila. And while we are reflecting we can see some comments coming in. Thank you so much for those are sharing your thoughts. Make sure you scroll all the way down to all the cartoons that are there. And yes, we'll be sharing the final cartoons and as long as you credit the artists and the cartoon collections. You'll be able to use it for nonprofit work, especially of course if it is linked and only if it is linked to the local action interests. So, of course, we'll share them with you Jesse. The final ones so these are just drafts will share the final versions that have everything on them that need to be there to be able to use them more widely. A couple more minutes to jump down your comments, make sure you look at all the cartoons and hopefully enjoy them. Thank you so much. Please feel free to still comment until the end of the session in six minutes, but I would like to give a minute to arena arena if you are online arena is one of the cartoon artists the first couple of cartoons are from arena arena. Would you like to share with us some thoughts how was this process for you. Yeah, it's always, as I always say, it gives some pressure to jump from a conversation to another to grasp what's important. And I try to listen to what participants say, say just very spontaneously. Can I say, and, and see if something is useful for making a comic which is, yeah, I tried to be not too cynical but sometimes it's what gives more reflections about the topic. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I love to see your comments under the comics. It's really useful. Also for me as a comic strip artist. Thank you. Thank you, and excellent. Betcha your first cartoonathon. How was it for you and any reflections very briefly that you'd like to share with us. And maybe we can pin bet you bet you unmute. You can unmute yourself and come on. Yeah, it was 90 minutes that went by very fast because it's listening and thinking and drawing and still trying to listen. It was a lot, but I had a lot of fun and I learned a lot. So yeah, I thought it was a great experience. I hope you like the comics. Thank you already see some amazing comments under the under the cartoons. I think we have some clear favorites here coming up. And last but not least Clive, we had a couple of technical difficulties your tunes are still coming. What is your reflection. Betcha was quite right. The time did go past very, very quickly. Despite all the hard talk at the beginning, I was amazed just how much consensus and agreement there was much different, especially in the breakout room. There was virtually no conflict. If this could be translated into action, it'd be marvelous. Great. Thank you so much Clive. So let's see if these cartoons also can support your call to action. I'd like to thank the cartoon artists so much for their pressures. Please keep the comments going. We can still maybe leave this Google Doc open for another 10 minutes or so after the session. And I think in order to honor time. I want to say thank you so much. I hope you can use them in the work. We'll share them with you and I'll have it to Christina. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks Bettina. Yes, we will definitely share the cartoons there will be minutes from from this meeting will take all the information that the repertoire is gathered and do do a summary of key points so rest assured you will get that information. Also, I'll pop my email and and Merrick if you could do the same. If you want a copy of the principles for locally led action, please contact us. We'd love to get more feedback on them. We really didn't have time to go in depth and all of them today but we really want this process to involve anyone who wants to be who is interested and want to be engaged in this we want your thoughts we want your feedback to help make these principles much stronger. Our plan is to release a revised version in November and get adoption of these principles and announcements. And then we'll have a time at adaptation action summit which will be held hosted by the government of Netherlands on January 25 2021 with a high level event on locally led action that that will be itself hosted by the government of Bangladesh. And I want to say thank you to to everyone who helped organize this to our volunteer extraordinaire show hail from icad to Sally and and Adriana that the Isha Bettina Merrick Margo to our cartoonist serene clive and betia. It was fantastic and I really appreciate all the hard work that went into this session. And first of all the participants, you guys were fabulous so thank you for for engaging throughout the session and yeah we look forward to continue dialogue whether it's on Hoover or email or wherever we can find each other. I'm sure that the conversation will continue with that I'll say thank you very much. Yeah again thank you very much I popped my email in the chat but yeah as Christina said don't hesitate to get in touch. We have actually also on the Skillshare section I think of the over app. And also there's a chat there's a chat one of the chat boxes that we have done is also on these principles so if you have any other thoughts please don't hesitate to also put them in those functions on the app or just send with Christina and myself an email. We'd love to continue to hear from you. And yeah, great. Thank you everyone for participating and everyone involved. Great session. Thank you. Cheers. Bye. Bye everyone. Bye. Bye.