 So, time has come. Before I now go on with my concluding remarks, let me just say that we had a pre-conference event with Anne Pritchett. After my comments here, we're also going to have a post-conference event. So Tony, now I have remembered it. There will be a book launch, an IMF study, that will be launched at Nordia just across the hall. So if you're interested in that, if you're interested in the topic of commodity price volatility and inclusive growth in low-income countries, Robert is going to launch that. Okay, we've seen a number of years in the global economy that have been sort of quite impressive. The globe has been in turmoil. I mean, we developed here at wider, we developed what we referred to as our triple crisis work program in 2009, and we were thinking at that point in time about three large-scale global phenomena. Issues of finance, issues of food, and issues of climate change. And we went at quite some lengths to think through about how these issues are interlinked. We did that because we had a deep sense that somehow we as a research institution need to try to respond. And then of course, at the same time, we were very concerned about maintaining a focus on our traditional, often referred to as foundational issues of poverty, inequality, human development, and so on. So this sort of, at least where we kind of began three years ago. And where are we now, three years later? Well, certainly the financial crisis lingers on, and the future of development finance remains extremely unclear. The global food system is still clearly under pressure, and climate scientists have become even more pessimistic about the future of global warming. We could sort of pretend three, four years ago that we were talking about maybe two percent, but now we're talking about four degrees increases. What has also become very clear is the importance of extreme events. It's become clearer and clearer that we need to recognize those. And one can certainly say that recent experiences have heightened uncertainty surrounding development policy formulation. So that does suggest to me that we were not completely off in sort of identifying some of these topics as the core of a work program. And certainly what it does mean is that it means that the twin climate challenges do remain. The area of mitigation policy, how do we arrive at lower greenhouse gas emissions, and how do we curb climate warming? How do we reduce the climate uncertainty that complicates development policy? That on the one hand, the mitigation area. And then turning to adaptation strategy, well, it's obvious that we do need to try to find trajectories that reduce vulnerability to climate shocks and do not inhibit the achievement of development goals. So how do we sort of move from the area of climate policy to development policy? Well, climate research is advancing. It's certainly clear, and there is now a strong consensus that climate change is a reality. We've heard from people from very many different nationalities, I happen to be Danish, and certainly one fellow Dane for a long time played what I call the Strauss game of saying, oh no, there's no problem. I think it's fair to say that that has fortunately changed. We do recognize that climate change is going on, it's a reality, and we need to deal with it. And researchers need to address the challenge of trying to identify relevant policy responses. Participate in that process. But there is one important observation, which is that whichever policies in terms of mitigation or adaptation that we might identify, propose, come up with, they do need to be designed and implemented at country level. The action will have to be taken there. We can then talk about the national level or we can go further down, which has been characteristic in quite a number of the presentation discussions at this conference. We're sort of both the national and the local level have kind of been referred to. And we should probably be careful in not always sort of assuming that the national and the local are saying the same things. There are different pieces of information, there are different concerns at national and at local level. There's different knowledge residing at these different levels. But what's pretty evident is that it is time, as it was said very precisely in the opening plenary, it is time to focus on embedding climate change within development policy. Now, this is a challenge for us as researchers. I mean, when we want to try to think about generating new policy relevant evidence, well, with this kind of frame, with this kind of situation, I mean, it's sort of uncomfortable. Because we need to step out of our traditional silos or if you wish comfort zones. I'm a relatively traditional development economist. I mean, I've sort of been for years doing certain things and I kind of thought that I was reasonably okay with it. But then when I sort of start thinking about traditional economic issues that I've sort of been working on, and then I start thinking about, gee, the climate. I mean, what happens is that I'm forced to confront the fact that there are lots of things that I don't know. That there are issues related to science that I have to start grappling with. Not that I need to understand everything, but I need to try to master a curiosity that's actually quite challenging. And I can't get to the insights by being sort of business as usual or semi-lazy or it's going to come to me or I can just rely on my old stuff. It actually forces me to get concentrated and that's challenging, of course. It does mean that we cannot avoid trying to address multidisciplinary, multi-sectoral approaches. Because if we don't do it, as was very precisely and elegantly explained in this closing plenary, we just won't get it right. And that will in many cases mean that we have to sort of go back to school, so to speak. And we do need to try to evaluate climate change implications for our regular policy prescriptions. We've been used to draw policy prescriptions that may well show up to be wrong or at least not optimal. Now, one thing that has also been referred to repeatedly in this conference is the need for communication. We as researchers, we do have an obligation to really take the challenge serious of trying to seriously document what it is that we are doing. But we need to take one more step. We need really also to try not just to document it in thick technical documentations that can really only be read by the specialist. We actually need, even if it's uncomfortable, we do need sometimes to go out on the limb. And it's tricky and it's uncomfortable because you're forced to kind of get into a world where, well, are you then getting it right? Are you getting all the dimensions and so on? But I would suggest that we won't manage to actually bridge that gap between our research and the value of evidence that we do generate. If we don't take that step, if we don't try to bridge that gap, however uncomfortable it may be. So yes, the challenge of learning to communicate is critical in this process. And I think in hearing what I said just a minute ago, we need to learn to communicate both among a broad group of researchers, but also to communicate with policymakers, but then also do remember that there are different levels when we are at the country level. There is the national level, there are informed people as people we've seen on plenaries here. But as we start discussing with people who are facing different daily challenges, but also who have different knowledge, different information, we somehow need to bring that together and be able to communicate with each other. So what was sort of the response, if you wish, from the UNU wider side over these past sort of two, three years? Well, we've been concerned about trying to provide new policy relevant research. We've tried to take the challenge that I mentioned or referred to in the Development Our Work program series. We started a quite ambitious program which we referred to as Development Under Climate Change, DUCC. And I can assure you that the decisions were not that easy. Because, you know, we were engaging, trying to get economists and climate scientists to speak with each other. And I can always assure you that while it was fun, it was not always easy. We've also tried to work within social sciences with different dimensions of this. But we tried to do it in the Southern Africa, many regions, as well as in Ghana and as well as in Vietnam. And I do believe that there is now a set of outputs that sort of documents what we have come up with. And some of these general results that were referred to in the closing plenary, you can certainly find those kinds of results in these reports and studies. Let's take the case of Vietnam which I personally have been quite deeply involved in. I learned that one needs to be really careful in a variety of ways. One needs to be really careful in making a distinction between the fact that peasants, they are living with the environment and they've done that for a long time. And there are Vietnamese peasants whose feet are often in water. But that observation is different from thinking about what climate change will do in the coming years. I also learned things like that there are windows of opportunity that should actually be actively used. Because the growth impacts are not necessarily as dramatic as sometimes said. And I learned that policy can actually make quite a substantial difference. If we do approach the challenge, if we actually do try to get going, then policy can make a difference. Now I mentioned that I was sort of am I guess still a slightly traditional development economist. There's one thing that sort of I learned when I went to school. And that was something about that you need to make a distinguish between uncertainty and risk. I mean that's sort of part of my bringing up. Where uncertainty is this kind of generic uncertainty, you just have absolutely no idea about what's going to happen. But on the other side risk, which is that life can change. Things can change, but that you are in a situation where you can assign probabilities to the different outcomes. That's pretty fundamental. And I think it's fair to say that the challenge that I have been pushing, at least that challenge has been taken up by the DUCC team, is to try to translate uncertainty into risk. Because when we have pushed the translation of the uncertainty into risk, you know what? Then I as an economist, I can start getting my battery into operation of thinking about things. When it's just generic uncertainty, I mean I'm much more lost. And I think that that's one element of the challenge that we will continue to have. We've come part of the way. We've certainly taken a step. But that's exactly why continued research evidence need to be brought on the table. We need to make sure that as much as possible that generic uncertainty is translated into risk so that we can make assessment of policy alternatives. I believe that that's sort of at the core of it. And that's why I'm pleased that there were calls for continued insistence on generating that research-based evidence, which I do believe can play a key role in policymaking without being naive about it, without overlooking that there are also political economy dimensions of the decision-making around these issues. And why do we also, in the midst of implementing a so-called research and communication initiative, the NIDA and CIDA were so kind that they thought we could implement a major program on foreign aid, what works, what could work, what's scalable and so on. And obviously there are clear links between the climate change area, which is one of the recon areas as well. And we do know, of course, that adaptation can complement development. But what interventions will work? When and where? And what can be scaled up? Well, we heard here in this conference, at least a suggestion, that maybe one initiative that could be taken are related to issues of how much wood do you actually need to use to produce a meal. Now that's not a completely new suggestion. It was made by myself more than 25 years ago, and I still wonder about why it is that it's not implemented. But there are potential low-hanging fruits in this area, and we should try to go for them, and we should try to scale them up. And how can one sort of try to encourage climate action, but at the same time avoid straight-jacketing national development policy? I tend to be a little bit worried sometimes in this area, because I genuinely believe that it's very important that we embed climate change in our discussions about development policy. I don't think we're going to get it right if we don't do it. But at the same time, when I'm looking at how the development aid process is moving forward and being discussed and so on and so forth, I am speculating a little bit about whether there is a risk that because of the climate change concern, that we are then sort of imposing or risking imposing new conditionality. We need to make absolutely sure that we don't end up in that trap and that we're not misunderstood. We need to make absolutely sure that the actions that we are promoting actually make sense at local level, that they are meaningful, and they actually make people's lives better, not just because they help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because the poor at the end of the day were not the ones responsible for the problem. So there is a fairness discussion there that we do need to be serious about. That does not mean that we should not at the same time try to be very clear about when it is that poorer nations, poorer people would benefit from mitigation initiatives even in their own economies, because they are also there. It's very clear that it would not be in the interest of a number of developing countries just close their eyes and just go on with business without paying attention. But we do have a relation issue here. And if we, rich and poorer countries, if we don't get that communication right, we will continue to misunderstand each other. So, I mean, there's really something here where I think communication can be pretty critical. We've also collaborated from the side of UNU wider on trying to build capacity for multidisciplinary climate research in developing countries, in particular with ARC, but certainly also with a number of universities and national governments and policy think tanks. We're proud of that initiative and we are hoping, quite frankly, that that can gradually now be taken over such that it can have a much broader impact than this sort of first stimulus that we have tried to give. And we've tried, as was laid out in excruciating detail is in our logical framework for what we were going to do for five years to engage with the IPCC process, and we are now trying to engage with the process of developing sustainable development goals and what's going to happen with the 2015 development agenda, because it's probably going to be a focus of attention where some of these discussions that we've had these past couple of days somehow are going to be materializing. And then we have an AR trying to learn and communicate through conferences such as this one. We do see it as a task of ours to try to bring together researchers and policymakers from across the world. It's important, and it relates back to the point I mentioned before, it is important that we bring researchers and policymakers together from rich, from poor, from the north, from the south, from the east, from the west, trying to discuss issues together such that hopefully that can help to that process of mutual understanding without which we will not be able to address both the development and the climate change challenge. I hope that you have enjoyed these two days. I hope that you have learned as much as I have, because then it can't be completely wrong what we have been trying to do. I would also suggest I would be very happy and I hope we can keep in touch. There is a website. All the videos of all conference sessions will be available. Urs will all of the PowerPoint slide. So if there were some of the equations you didn't quite get, you will actually have a possibility of sitting and studying them. And I'm absolutely sure that even if you, when you have studied them, then you can't understand them. I'm sure that James and others will be ready to explain what they actually mean. So use this Urs communication tool among us, but also vis-à-vis your colleagues in your offices, in your institutions, when you do get back home. And then there's also a website here for downloadable research and information on our activities. And also please do take a look at the newsletter. We've actually made a major effort to make that an exciting newsletter every month, where you can actually see not only how the weather changes here in Helsinki, it will soon be completely white outside and the ferries will only move very slowly. But you would also get insights and articles from a really broad range of people in our global network. So, final concluding words. And then I need, and I'm pleased to first of all acknowledge the participation of all of you. Some of you have travelled very far to come here, and we do appreciate it highly. I think this has been absolutely great. I mean, I'm encouraged by the level of participation we've seen. This suggests to me that we are moving forward on learning how to communicate. Let me also express my appreciation for all of the speakers. You have been surprisingly disciplined in terms of sticking to time. And the only point in the whole conference where I was worried was when we were sort of, when the next was sort of being pulled, you've been concise. You've actually tried to bring out your points in a way which was understandable. And moderators have kept orders for that. I would like to express my appreciation. Conferences such as this one, they can only be done if you have an organizing team. And I would like to say thank you very much to the organizing team. Emed, where are you? James, where are you? Yongfu, where are you? Channing, where are you? Thank you guys. Well done. Now, may I also say that very often with these sort of types of events like this one, maybe some of us sort of floating up there, not always having our feet on the ground, sometimes we tend to forget that there is a lot of hard work behind organizing it. Getting you here, making sure you get your tickets, making sure that when you change your plans for whatever reason, et cetera, et cetera. All of those organizing project assistant type work, I would like to express my appreciation on this occasion to Anne and Anna in particular. You really did it. And then I'm sure that it's okay that I now simply just say, and then of course there is a wider crew in general that has worked on and behind the scenes. And I would like to say thank you. You did it once again. And for that I'm really grateful. And may I also just say thank you very much to our Finnish hosts. Can you imagine a better environment? I mean, I love the Finns. And thank you also to DFID, to Danide, to Sida for continuing to provide financial support without which neither the research that I have been referring to on the UNU wider side nor events such as this one would have been possible. Thank you. And travel safety back home.