 So thank you for coming in, Wally, and welcome. Welcome to those who have braved train strikes, school strike, university strike, fever there. Thank you also to all of those joining us online. I hope that you can hear me okay and that you can't, I will soon get a message. But we're going to try and make the most of the technology we have available so that those of you who are speaking, learning online and asking questions online feel like you're in the room with us. And just as a reminder, there will be opportunities to speak throughout the day. If you're in the room, please raise your hand. If you're online, please raise your virtual hand. And my colleague Morgan will be monitoring that to make sure that you get to speak when you want to. And I'm particularly pleased to be joined by our keynote speaker for the first session, who is bottom band, who I will hand over to you in just a moment. And before that, I want to say a few words about who we are and why we're here. And I should probably say who I am too. Will I say I've done that yet? So yes, that's me on the screen, so I'm Lucy Irma, interim director of the Kim and Sussman's group at IID. And over the past 12 months, IID's urban researchers have been having a better cities year. And for those of you in the room, there's a paper on the tables, which I would like to have my personal one. Thank you so much. This paper, which we brought out in time for the World Urban Forum last year, is also available online, full-time, the better cities are possible, responding to the twin crises of climate change and inequality. And in this, we set out a series of propositions for better cities, on the four themes that we'll be talking about today. So resilience, climate justice, housing justice, and forced migration. And we're looking at these in the context of the climate emergency and growing inequalities. So today, we've invited a range of partners and collaborators to interrogate those themes with us, with you helping us identify new avenues for research, collaboration, and joint policy impact. And it's an exciting moment to do as an IID. We have a new excited director, Tom Mitchell, who's here with me. And he's also battled trade issues to be here. And he'll be saying a few words in a moment after that. And you will all be seeing some very new and innovative work coming out of IID in the near future. But one of the reasons that we're having this event is that actually many of the urban researchers in IID are relatively new and bringing new ideas, collaborations, and partnerships with them into the Institute. And that's what we want to share with you today. But while there's change of foot, there is also continuity. IID has been doing urban research since the 1970s. And we have a large network of partners in the city's community world, including federations of urban grassroots groups, social movements, and civil society organizations. And we'll be hearing today from several of those, and some of them will even run with us, which is fantastic. And because of the way IID is run and funded, we can maintain those relationships outside of the project cycle. And these long-term collaborations can often be the starting point for new research. And that research, what funds through it is this age of about changing the city level, but also to engage with policymakers at national or even international levels using the evidence that we've jointly generated. So IID has been home over the years, a very diverse group of urban researchers with different experience, different focus. But there are some things that unite us and unite that work over the decades. And one of those is our commitment to partnering with grassroots groups in opening up spaces for marginalized communities to influence 20% of an academic base. And to join into, increase our understanding of urban systems. So in particular, what I think marks us out is the way that we work with our partners to understand how in low income groups navigating the formality of the city. So within housing, basic services provision and labour. And our research and advocacy work is in my recognition of the fact that we need to work with informality, rather than be part of rain attempts to step out. And another constant, and our work is the journal, environment and urbanization, which was published by SAGE, is hosted by IID. And the current editor, Diana Mitlin, who I'm afraid couldn't raise a train, she could have got stuck on the way from Manchester, so she didn't try and join the person, but she will be with us around the day, so she's also going to close the day for us. Diana is an IID associate and also a former member of staff. So E-NU was founded in 1989, and it's an incredible story. And there is someone who is also a constant IID, Data Satellite, who routinely described it as the world's best journal. And he may be a little bit biased, having been one of its founding editors, but his stats really are very remarkable. And from the start, the journals had a commitment to ensuring that most papers will be written by authors from the Global South. And as a way of encouraging submissions from people working in practitioners and academics in those parts of the world, submissions have always been accepted in Spanish, Portuguese and French as well as English. It's been a commitment to gender balance among authors and to giving detailed coverage of the work of grassroots organizations. And there are some stats we have for 2021, I'm not sure we've got the set in 2022, and they're really quite remarkable. E-NU was about 30, about 75, up in studies journals, and 49, about 169 environmental studies journals. The impact factor for those of you in the room that care about this thing is 4.066, and it's steadily increased in the past five years. Now, but most significantly, I think there were more than 650,000 context downloads in 2021, and the journals cited in 3,000 times. And I think both of you in the room who are virtual and they'll know who was have studied development and quality in over the past, you know, in your lives, you would have used it, I'm sure you will recognize it as a place you go to find evidence, case studies, understand what's happening in cities around the world. And we're really proud of this history. And so while I'm stressing the newness and vitality of our group of urban researchers, as we become clear in the course of the presentation today, a lot of our work is building on things that have been explored in previous issues. And we are going to be looking today to a future of uni as well, the two issues that will come out in 2024 will be informed by two large projects that we're working on at IMU. And one further thing to think about today is how the future of uni could help everyone within urban studies and policymaking, and perhaps how some of you would like to contribute to that. So I'm now going to finish and hand over to our keynote speaker, who I hope will appear on the screen behind me. So I've got him is an urbanist whose work focuses on poverty, inequality, social protection and housing. And he's currently associate dean school of human development at the Indian Institute for human settlements in Bangalore, India. He's also a senior lead of academics and research there. Sorry. And his previous research has focused on evictions, citizenship and inequality in Delhi. And the IHSQ has continued to work on questions of access to all four. His new work engages with refugees of urban welfare and social security, including work of urban health. And Gotham is also working with IID. And he is, of course, an author in EMU and I did a quick search on him, and he has articles in 2009, 2013, 2014 on evictions, urban citizenship and urban fantasy. And he's the most recent article in 2019 on urban practice. So I've got time. And I'm the first year we have around 15 minutes. Yeah, perfect. Can you guys hear me all right in the room. Yeah, so it's a pleasure to be here. I think it's, you'll all see we're having a little love fest for you and you in the chat, which I think is always welcome and never enough. Just to say that I will go straight into some comments and keep to my 15 minutes but I'm very sorry not to be able to join you in person, but it sounds like a really fantastic day. So I was thinking about what would be useful for me to do in these opening remarks for a day like today, where we are opening into interactive discussions. And I thought what I'd do is lay out some new thinking that I'm being able to do with a set of colleagues, Edgar Peter serve from the African Center for cities, Supernel from both you CT, as well as the University of Bristol, and Michael Keith who's at Oxford. And I think we may just need to ask a couple of folks on zoom to mute. Yeah, so. So the four of us have been talking for some time on thinking about what happens between why some of the things we all seem to know, don't find their feet on the ground. What happens when we have been saying in this community, some of our arguments for a number of years. Right. And what happens in the ways in which we could take this moment or any moment to rethink the relationship between knowledge and different forms of practice. And that's really what I'm going to talk about a little bit in the remarks today hoping it will give us some language for the rest of the day, which is to reopen that old Pandora's box. What's the hyphen in theory hyphen practice. What's the way in which different forms of knowledge come from practice relate to practice. How do we because I think that's the spirit of ideas relationship to knowledge in the world which is not just to produce it for its own sake, but to wield knowledge to impact certain forms of practice to wield knowledge in the world to think about what it means to be researchers in the world, not just researchers off the world. So this relationship between knowledge and different forms of practice is what I'm broadly talking about. And I want to do it through a particular offering to the gathering today, which is to think of what the four of us are calling the need for a new urban disposition. And I'll sit with this word for a second right a disposition. I'm not talking today about a concept or a framework or a theory or a new understanding of either Southern urban theory or planetary organization or something in the middle. But my comments are not about new frameworks of theoretical arguments. It is about something called a disposition, and I'm very drawn to this idea of disposition because it seems to hold a number of moving parts together very well. It's in some way an instinct. It's a sensibility are thinking about why we produce knowledge and why that knowledge has certain lives in the world. It is very much so a sensibility or orientation so it begins to sort of sneak into the territory of a belief system or an ideological position. It's also implies that all of us as researchers and institutions but also individuals, we do what we do for the reason we value it for different reasons we want certain things to happen because we do the work we do. So we are disposed towards certain forms of knowledge we are disposed towards certain forms of wanting to see a certain kinds of impact we may not like impact factors. But we would be lying to ourselves if we didn't all have some version of impact in our minds we want our knowledge to have some evidence and please some traces leave footprints in the sand in some ways. So I want to think of this idea of an urban disposition and try and describe it or try and say that a different political and historical conjunctures. It's always useful to come back and say, what's a good urban disposition for our favorite phrase for these times in these historical political conjuncture in our locations in these relative geographies of north and south. What are the ways in which we should be approaching the city or the urban question to be what kind of question should we be asking what should be our value orientation between empathy and rigor, our takes between objectivity and subjectivity, our notions of evidence versus our instincts, questions of ethics and politics, questions of complexity and intended and unintended consequences. I mean, you know, like Malik Simone often says the city is precisely that that slips outside the edge of your last definition of it to think about this constant endeavor at holding something that by definition we shouldn't be able to hold but we must attempt to hold in some ways. So, thinking about this urban disposition and I'm looking at the four thematics for today, right, disruptive resilience, housing justice, urban climate justice and forced displacement. To me the four of these already suggest a disposition and I think that's a very good thing. It suggests certain parts of a disposition. So I want to offer us three parts of any disposition that slightly separate the work and type of knowledge that you produce when you levy or deploy a disposition into the production of knowledge. And I'm going to call these by three names. The first is that every disposition has to have a normative location. And I'll talk a little bit about what I mean by that. The second is that an urban disposition or any disposition must have an analytical dimension, which I think is distinct from a normative dimension but very closely related to it. The third is to think about a type of knowledge at disposition produces that we are calling operational. And it's this triad that I think make a disposition hold across the sum of its parts, and is able to get out of some of the more familiar binaries of theory and practice and the relationship between the two. So the normative, the analytical and the operational. And what I wanted to suggest in these opening remarks is that this is a useful framework to ask within each of our thematics. So for example, if you think of housing justice in a way it's normative locations are apparent. It is a normative claim. The analytical part of housing justice answer different set of questions, not just what our values about justice are, but the ways in which we diagnose the problems currently what injustice is the forms of justice the way in which justice is denied or delayed or deferred. The more sort of propositive more utopic imaginations of what justice could look like. And the third part, which is the operational part of the disposition changes the questions and say, say we have normative agreement, say we have analytical clarity. There is still the question of what do we need to know to order to actually deliver these questions and understandings of housing justice to actual people. So if you take the idea of rights, for example, there is a normative dimension to what rights are, why we care about them what they hold what they give to us as persons and citizens. There is an analytical question about the different types of rights, the distinction between, for example, first and second and third generation rights, the distinction between negative rights that protects civil liberties versus positive rights that have to deliver social economic entitlements like housing education. But even if, for example, you have normative agreement on the right to housing, you have an analytic clarity on what that right to housing could look like and what that right entails and what that entitlement at the end of the right that actual housing looks like there is still the question of how do you deliver it. And the operational questions pulls us in a to require very different knowledge. For example, if housing can be given universally as a right, we all know that all of it cannot be delivered to all people simultaneously. So the operational question is, what is phasing. What is the incremental delivery of housing look like under a right to housing what does that do to its analytical clarity as a right. What forms of housing can be delivered. And are they, for example, trade offs between delivering certain rights in expense of others. A big debate in water systems is the choice to have better water 24 seven to 50% of your population of fragmented water supply for 45 minutes a day but to 80% of your population. Now there are normative questions here, there are analytical questions here, and there are operational questions here. I think too often what happens is that the, that in our debates. We often confuse these debates with each other, where actually we are in normative agreement, but we analytically do not agree, which means we diagnose the root of the problem differently at a different scale. Some of us call it structural some of us call it more localized, we may not agree, we may agree normatively and analytically, but not agree on the best way to deliver it so we may have differences between the right to housing delivered through a direct benefit cash transfer system in an open rental housing market versus the direct ownership and construction of public rental housing units, whereas while motivated similarly with normative and analytical origins are operational knowledge differs from each other. I think that it is worth our time to be able to both approach this then in two ways. One of them is to say, we need to produce slightly different forms of knowledge as researchers as scholars as practitioners as activists to clarify the normative element of our position from the analytical and the operation. We also need to take seriously that these different parts of our disposition tell us different things about the problems we're trying to solve. And very often we are not specific enough about whether we lack analytical clarity or operational detailing, whether we lack normative agreement, or we lack analytical coherence. And I think that this muddling often creates a certain kind of complexity which is distinct from the actual complexity of the problem it's anyways complex. But our modes of knowledge production created a second layer of complexity that I feel, or we argue or that we hope a slightly different disposition towards knowledge could help us clarify. So I'll say a little bit about each of these types of things and I'll just stop there because I think that's kind of the language I want to leave. When I think about the normative what do I mean. I want to distinguish the normative from the ideological, and this is an important rhetorical and epistemological move for me. This is not a diss against ideological positions at all. I don't think that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that my interest is not in at my personal interest is in a disposition that makes its normative starting points a parent. It makes them transparent, it owns them my interest in the normative is not to argue about what the right normative location is I don't I believe that is an impossible epistemological exercise. But what I think we don't have enough in our in the world of knowledge that we are in. We don't have enough clarity on why different institutions that argue for different positions different researchers that argue for different practices. What are the normative locations that began their knowledge production exercise. I feel like a lot of why we argue certain things is because of those normative locations right you may begin in thinking about housing justice, where for you, the notion of housing as a public good and a basic need and a human right is an unquestioned normative location. And that is important because when you start with certain normative locations, you are willing to live with certain trade offs in other aspects that necessarily may come. What I mean by that is a long debate for example in India between questions of class and caste. The idea that one would live with certain forms of identity based inequality to further economic inequality because one believe that economic inequality would also have social and material effects. The counter argument is that one believes that social transformation must precede economic transformation, because that that one is not willing to tolerate social inequality in the name of economic equity. One can think of these as priorities, one can think of these as entry points, I'm calling them part of the normative aspect of our definition. I think normative locations are really important precisely in order, and I leave it at this to make the trade offs we are willing to make in our arguments apparent. I think when for example questions of disruptive resilience and housing justice fall upon the same settlement on the banks of a river in the city of Delhi, and claims to the environment and claims to survival and claims to housing all simultaneously landed the same time. And the trade between environment and development we don't want, one can hope, analytically to refuse those trade offs but there are calls here about the fact that people and researchers are willing to make certain trade offs, except certain inequalities in order to have equality in the variable they care the most about. Amartya Sen described this as a sense of basal equality. And his argument was that all of us have a primary ethical and normative location, and we will tolerate inequalities and other aspects of our systems, as long as there is more equity and progress in the variable we care the most about. And some of the debates between, like I was saying in India between social and economic or the material in the social have been on these lines. In the analytical, I think the challenge is different. In the analytical, we are arguing that some of the core work that needs to be done needs to be to find ways of seeing and understanding and describing cities that more consciously fights against the limits of our methods are disciplinary canons and our current canonical vocabulary. There's two kinds of place here one is the more familiar challenge of theory from the south that says that certain universal conceptual paradigms have traveled placelessly and have come to be the language against we either compete or position ourselves we are not yet modern enough, we are not yet, you know, industrialized enough we are not yet developed enough these unspoken paradigms against which we measure ourselves, or that it's vocabulary that does not emerge from our location this is one kind of disconnect. Another kind of disconnect is precisely the fact that if you argue between urban climate justice housing justice and and disruptive resilience, and we take a single analytical concept the idea of value, and the idea of valuation. The value and valuation are so radically differently understood between economists environmental economists ecologists housing rights activists sociologists and governors and mayors is an area of analytical contestation that a disposition must take on. I think that what a lot of the division between disciplines sector profession and vocabulary and methods have done to us is that they have made sure that our ways of analyzing complex urban problems despite all our efforts has remained fragmented in splintered in very particular ways. It's not just a question of multiplicity and plurality it's not just many disciplines with different methods that's certainly part of it, but the added layer of the fact which say the new journal has tried so hard to push against is that those different methods and disciplines have very different access to being declared authoritative or powerful knowledge, certain concepts certain paradigm certain disciplines have an absolute political economic advantage in the way they travel and in the way they shape our understandings. So both in terms of the north south divide or in terms of the discipline divide or in terms of the theory practice divide. The analytical part of the disposition the work I feel we need to do here is we need to do much more to fight against the fragmented ways in which knowledge about the urban is still being produced though we've become such a long way in the last 15 years. But we have to ask two clear questions about this. One is about the methodological limits of interdisciplinary work and what it takes institutionally in terms of teams in terms of production in working and seeing differently because we may want to be interdisciplinary but we have real limits as researchers, and the other is about taking seriously the political economy of knowledge production, and why that creates silos that could be intellectually broken, but institutionally protected, and I think those are two different senses of the word, but to me the analytical part of our dispossession still says, how are we when we describe say housing justice, what is the problem we think we need an answer to. How are we framing the problem itself, where does our analytical understanding of housing injustice come from to which housing justice is the answer right so ways of framing the problem ways of framing the question ways of orienting ourselves and obviously this location requires us to be a parent about our primitive intentions, not just our epitomistical and methodological rigor. And the last part then is a question of the operational. Here I think there are many ways in which there is in my, in my sense, of the, of a lot of urban knowledge today. I still feel as a reader, a certain hunger for they're not being enough knowledge. I remember reading an article by Philip Harrison the South African academic who left the university to become Johannesburg's head planner and wrote a paper on what he read as a planner saying that he found that a lot of knowledge that he did not give him enough to inform him for his everyday practices planner. It did not help him think through what he had to do at work every Monday to Friday, navigate trade offs think of operational design questions think of delivery mechanisms. I have felt this very intimately in the last two years during COVID and a lot of our recent work has been on this, because in COVID I found myself part of a government of Delhi effort at large scale food relief faced with very clear challenges of a government that was normatively aligned that wanted to give large scale relief and welfare that was analytically clear that the gaps were particular and we weren't reaching particular types of settlements particular types of workers and particular types of people. And yet operationally could not find paradigms to move quickly enough, because we did not know how to find workers that were not on databases because they were working without contract and outside the states reach. We could not find ways to think about how to mobilize gaps in our information. We could not find what databases to use as a proxy for the missing databases of informal workers informal settlements we did not have. We did not know whether or not a digital app based QR code would be deeply exclusionary or inclusionary because we were stuck with physical lockdown restrictions that prevented any other way of reaching scale. And yet these questions are deeply operational. They are about the delivery mechanisms of social protection distinct from the normative questions of what social protection should be distinct from the analytical question of how informal urbanization changes the logics of social protection itself distinctly a focus on questions of delivery of trade offs of institutional design of accounting of audit and of finance. So my suggestion in closing then is to illustrate how the way the questions we ask of something like social protection or housing justice change when we ask the normative, the analytical and the operational. And I think it's imperative for us that not individually, but collectively in the knowledge we produce together as scholars academics researchers and institutions. We find someone picking up one of these three elements, or we talk to the other two elements, even if we focus on one. My suggestion is not a kind of complete knowledge enterprise where everyone has to go through all three I don't think that be humanly possible. But I think we need to know that all three elements are in play, and they require different forms of knowledge. They require that knowledge to be differently wielded in different institutions, context histories and political economies. But if we are able to hold them all together. Then I hope is that this disposition will be able to find a collective set of people who can both offer us new knowledge, but also immediately be part of wielding that knowledge into the world into practices and then come back and close the loop again. And I hope that these three terms and this idea of this disposition could be useful in the discussion that are to follow in the day. And that's my time. And so I'll stop. Thank you. Well, you probably couldn't hear us giving you a round of applause, but hopefully you see us. I think you've got a lot to think about for this day, but also actually a lot to think about. Because we're going through a process of change right now. And I think Tom will probably speak a bit about that now. And sadly, I think we're thinking about being clear of our normative intentions. We think we don't surround those three dimensions in the past, and I think being clear about what it is we want to achieve and how we're going to get there is this key to the future of our idea. So I'm going to end up with Tom now. Tom has an idea, I think six months ago. I guess he passed the probation. But it's entirely from time to time. When he spent several years as Chief Stress Doctor officer, saving an agenda on transport. And right that he led the climate and environmental program at ODI, which he's a substitute. I think he's going to be a policy on disaster destruction. And so this morning he ordered the idea of the special report. And Tom has published my idea of China was in it, but not in BNU as yet. I didn't do an exhaustive search. So maybe you have at some point. So. I'm thinking about that now that's a good point. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you. And I think the comments that I will make flow beautifully actually and rather serendipitously from the ones that bottom was making so. And I'll come at this as well and say that I'm not enough. To be kind to me. And what I, what I am keen to do is to maximize the impact of IED and ideally the impact by its partnerships at a time where I think we're under real threat, you know, the crisis, the multiple crisis that they're facing as humanity as people and planet are so severe that we need to act and IED has, as we've heard 50 years of work on on urban issues. And I genuinely believe it's now time to place the chips on the table. It's to say, what are we going to do with that 50 years of knowledge, development, connections, partnerships, rich understanding in a way where we really can hopefully make an operational difference. And I think that's where this framing of the three, three dimensions, the three dispositions that got highlighted is valuable for us. But for me, I genuinely think that the kind of fight against climate change and biodiversity loss and inequality will be one or lost in our cities. And I think that raises the stakes. And I think we've all heard this, you know, I'm not going to to talk through all of the different arguments around that we've heard it many, many times but it was striking to me I was in them. I was in Delhi with Aditya last week or the week before I'm losing track of time now, but the sense that really in terms of the growth of urban settlements and the physical location of urban settlements we're going to be adding scores more to the world over the next 20 or 30 years. And it's kind of frightening to think that that level of building an infrastructure of kind of inhabiting the planet and so on is going on. But of course it's not just about mega cities whatsoever, it's about an urban landscape where we've heard, you know, most recently one of my ideas blogs highlighting the fact that the fastest growth is coming, often from cities that few people have ever heard of. And what does it mean then to be working with a landscape of urban planners and leaders where that sense is radically changing and equally people are coming new into the really difficult systemic challenges that city face city space when they're dealing with the climate crisis and inequality challenges. I think, for me also there is a sense that cities are being dealt a really tough hand. They're being challenged to think about a net zero future, one where emissions are very least canceled out by other forms of sequestration. They're needing to be resilient in the face of extremely challenging impacts of climate change. They're needing to tackle really profound inequalities, looking at issues of justice and often they're needing to deal with very fast inflows of people. I was in Bangladesh as well and in the trip that I had and learned that in Dakar, there are 2000 people arriving every day into the city. And to think that leaders within the urban space have to juggle these, this landscape on a daily basis and think to the future is a really significant challenge and so therefore my question is what types of knowledge and ideas and support. Are those people in charge of changing those cities and leading those cities needs now. And what is it that I add in this rich network of partners and 50 years of knowledge can can do now to support them and I think we've got to have talking about of that operational practical knowledge is something that I add is turning to itself for my question would be have we gone far enough to talk about and to deal with some of those really hardcore operational challenges and particularly also in the context of of new and intersecting and systemic and cascading crisis risk. I think the other dimension for me and I come into ID, as Lucy said from planet, climate kick for those of you who don't know as an agency that has worked predominantly in Europe about bringing innovations and climate challenge. And equally, while we have focused in ID on many cities in Africa and Asia, I don't think we should forget the fact that there are cities all around the planet that are being challenged. So maybe the balance of issues is different, but actually the underlying and some of the, the dark matter that sit underneath the way a city works is very similar and so I'm happy to see the work that I started to do to think about retrofit, for example, in in places like London or across Europe, where we know that meeting the climate targets of Europe retrofit rates need to be at least six times faster than they are now. The situation where actually many of the materials that we use in our construction industry are hugely climate damaging, and yet we're not changing them anyway they're fast enough. I saw a statistic the other day that 90% of our construction methods and our construction materials haven't changed since the Victorian times. The situation of bad concrete we've got materials that are causing as huge challenges we've got construction zones and the creating emissions and we've got people being forcibly displaced because of retrofit that in somehow supports the richer parts of the community. So there's a lot that can be done I think in starting to join paths across places and try to understand what it is that we can share from south to north from east to west from north to south and so on. This is now about a partnership for me as a practical insightful knowledge about what can we do now to tackle some of those personal challenges. And all of other points, I think for me iid was set up back in the early 70s to understand that environment and development or fundamental needs. And also based on a concern that our development pathway was placing environmental aspects of risk. That I think is this organization mission and using knowledge and insight and evidence and engagement in policy influence and so on to make sure that the environmental dimension isn't being at risk. Now can we hand on hearts say we've succeeded in that. I'm not sure we have we're on a pathway where there's so many externalities of environment as far as economic system. But actually I think iid has a responsibility and duty now to take its assets and say right what are we going to do put ourselves in a position of vulnerability and humility but say actually it's now time to work differently to acknowledge that we've not cut through in the way they've been rented. And I think some of that is about stepping into a space of operational knowledge of moving from being urban researchers to being urban policy entrepreneurs, urban housing activists, campaigners, politically engaged at times make you know step into a space that may be uncomfortable for those who've worked in urban research, but to do so now in a way where that is our responsibility, but actually take the knowledge and the insight over that period and say, we're going to do our best here in building on what we know understanding context and the normative components and the analytical components that were highlighted and say, but we are going to be here now to support that operational dimension. And so for me, iid over the next period as we define our new strategy and do so hopefully with with many of you and in partnership, many of you is to say well what are those big ideas that we can ally around that may have a chance of making a significant difference, where they are clear, they're simple, they're bold, they're ways where we can reach 10s of millions of people, and that we can start to really lace in that operational knowledge in such a way that we can adjust and learn here. And I think if we're not ally behind those big bold ideas propositions those scalable propositions that we're now not doing our job and so I suppose my question to you and to myself is what are those brave ideas. Now we've heard just as picking up the three theme of housing justice. For me it's not just about housing justice now it's about a right to a net zero resilient, working engaged, working and supportive home environment that's more than just a right to roof over the head. Could it be about adaptive social protection we've heard about the importance of social protection and getting cash and resources to, to where it's needed but can we make that anticipation much more stable. It could be about the fact that we now need to build with nature. Let's get away from man made materials and go back to building with nature in such a way where we have forgotten some of the lessons that we've had in the past where many of our indigenous people in local communities know what it needs to work more closely with nature. Again I was in Delhi and I was looking across the city and looking at a number of dark roofs that there are in a city that suffers 50 plus degree heat. They're very simple measures we can get some white paint out. And my point being is that there are practical clear bold solutions ideas propositions that we now need to work with that can cut through but only if we're supporting that with the depth of knowledge and understanding. Last point I want to make it in our clothes is that we know that there is urban systems we know that systems are complex. We know that pulling at any one thread like a bowl of spaghetti you can't fully understand what's going to happen when you work on one particular thread. I've now think we need to work with a much more systemic joined up portfolio approach. But here I mean where we may want to put a bond proposition on the table, who else is putting both propositions on the table. How do we think about that as a system of ideas and the leaders have changed that we can work together across usual and unusual partnerships including potentially some of those that we previously held our hands up and said they're not our friends. To understand that actually that landscape of partnerships is one where we need to engage because urban systems reporter and equally to understand and connect and learn together about what it takes to shift things with that kind of sense and learn and test approach. And so then this is not really about the human settles group it's not really about urban researchers it's about layering in and knitting in the set of ideas across ID across networks and systems of partnerships and to begin to work together on those big ideas of which the urban environment is a place where probably there is that richest and most pressing and most dramatic landscape action.