 Now, mitigation, even if we succeed, is still not going to solve the entire problem. We have already seen that the Earth has warmed with already observed many impacts that we have seen over the last two days. Therefore, we also need adaptation very strongly in the solution space. So let's devote the final keynote speech to this issue. And we are very privileged to have Professor Salamu Huuk with us to discuss the issue of adaptation. Professor Huuk is a director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development based at the Independent University in Bangladesh. Prior to his professorship there, he headed the Climate Change Program at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London, UK. He is also a co-chair of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Global Program on Vulnerability, Impact and Adaptation and has been a coordinating lead author on adaptation to climate change in the third, fourth and fifth assessment reports of the IPCC. He is an expert on adaptation to climate change. Professor Huuk, the floor is yours. Thank you very much, Diana, and good morning to everybody. Let me start with an apology. For those of you who are addicted to PowerPoint slides, I'm afraid you're going to have to go cold turkey. I don't have a PowerPoint slide, you'll just have to listen to me. So what I'm going to do is to take you through some reflections and these are very much personal reflections of where we are in the adaptation solution space and the adaptation science space. And I'll start by recollecting a discussion or a debate that occurred five years ago at the first adaptation science conference called the Adaptation Futures Conference which was held in the Gold Coast in Australia, where Professor Neil Adger, who is a very eminent adaptation expert at the University of Exeter and a lead author of the IPCC for many years, and I had a little debate in which the question was is adaptation science a separate science? And his argument was that it isn't. It's just usual science of natural sciences, social sciences that needs to be brought to bear and that is sufficient. I argued that it may not be a science yet, but it is a science in the making. And in 10 years from now, it will be a science. And I will assert that five years since then now, it is very much a science. It's still a young science, but it is a science. And the presentations at this conference and the posters at this conference are a very good testimony in my view to the fact that it is now a growing body of work on climate change adaptation taking place across the world and that we are certainly going up in a very rapid knowledge curve on developing our understanding of it. And I'll use the IPCC assessment reports as a sort of marker or indicator of this. The first assessment report which came out 20 years ago in 1990, 25 years ago, was very much in working group two which is on vulnerability impacts and adaptation focused on impacts based on models looking at what the future would be under different climate change scenarios up to 2050, 2080, 2100 and you are all familiar with the maps of the world that's increasingly get redder or browner as we go through time. Those are the impacts of climate change and those alerted the world to the problem of climate change and the need to do something about it. A few years later when we had the second assessment report, we had better modeling on the impact side but we also went into a lot more on the vulnerability side which is on the ground. Now from an impact top-down model you would look at a delta region like the Netherlands and Bangladesh and they look very similar but when you visit Bangladesh and Netherlands they don't look very similar. The Netherlands has a lot of economic power. It has technology. It can build protection for its population whereas Bangladesh cannot and so the underlying vulnerability of the nation, the community, the place, the city has to now be taken into account if we are going to do something about the problem. And so the second generation focused on a bottom up vulnerability assessment combined with the top-down impact assessment. It's only in the third assessment report of the IPCC that we then moved into the issue of adaptation and adaptation was only part of one chapter and that's when I joined the IPCC as a lead author. I was one of the lead authors of that chapter 18 where we started to talk about adaptation. In the fourth assessment report it became central. There were two chapters on adaptation. I was a coordinating lead author of one. And in the fifth assessment there are four chapters on adaptation, chapters in working group two, chapters 14, 15, 16 and 17 and I'll give you a very short description of them. 14 talks about planning, 15 talks about implementing adaptation, 16 talks about the limits and barriers to adaptation because you can't adapt to everything and 17 talks about the economics of adaptation which can be quite costly. But it shows you how both the literature has grown and the interest of the policymaking community has grown on the issue of adaptation. And I will also argue that when you move from impacts and vulnerability assessments which are essentially analysis of the problem and getting better and better at analyzing the problem into adaptation you're actually moving a phase change into solution space which is the topic of this session. Adaptation is about solving the problem, not just studying the problem. And so it takes me to my second argument which is that our knowledge on adaptation is going to evolve by combining practice and learning. So it's a learning by doing process which means we have to do something and then learn from it and then hopefully do something different and better in the next phase. And I think of these in half decade scale five-year increments which ties in also neatly with the INDC five-year review process. Every five years we assess where we are on adaptation, what have we learned by doing things and then we can plan the next five-year process of how we do that. I'll also mention the evolution of the scientific community on adaptation. I mentioned the first international conference on adaptation science or adaptation futures in Australia. Since then we've been doing this conference every two years supported by Provia. You heard about the global program on vulnerability impacts and adaptation. And we had the second conference in the United States in Arizona in 2012 and we had the third conference recently in 2014 in Fortaleza in Brazil and typically we get 600-700 people to these conferences, mainly young researchers working on adaptation. The next conference for those of you who are interested will be in Rotterdam in the Netherlands from the 14th to the 16th of May. And in fact the theme for that is also solutions. So moving from studying a problem to studying doing solutions to the problem and then learning from those solutions to the problem. And we are now moving into that solution space very rapidly. So even though it's a very young science I'm going to share with you a couple of dimensions in which I think we have moved forward. The first dimension is the dimension of scale. We initially used to think of adaptation as being very localized. It's very context specific. Every place has its own vulnerabilities. The population has its own vulnerability. And the solutions will have to be done at the local level. That remains true at local and national level. But there are also larger dimensions. There are ecosystems which have similarities, large deltas like the delta, Ganges delta, the Nile delta, the major other deltas of the world, high mountain ecosystems in different continents, drylands in different continents. These ecosystems have a great deal in common with each other. And therefore we can learn across continents on how to deal with adaptation in those different ecosystems. And finally at the global level we now have another dimension of adaptation which is the potential migration of people from one place where they will not be able to inhabit particularly some low lying at all islands in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. And we will have to deal with the movement of population that's a global problem that we have never faced before. And that in a sense is also an adaptation. People are going to have to move from where they are. And then we also have other dimensions which at a conceptual level and I'll share that with you. We used to think at the initial phase of dealing with maladaptation. So we'd look at vulnerability and we find that a lot of things that we are doing like building on flood plains for example are actually making us more vulnerable rather than less vulnerable. So the first adaptation if you like is stop making ourselves more vulnerable, stop doing maladaptation because we're already going in the wrong direction and doing maladaptation. I think to a very large extent this has now been examined and agreed and assessed. We then moved into the second phase which we are in now and well into it which is incremental adaptation. So looking at future investments, particularly investments in infrastructure like bridges and embankments and roads, how do we climate proof these investments in future based on future models of climate change which are no longer going to be an extension of the previous decades of climatic changes. So this is now being incorporated people like the World Bank for example, major development banks and even commercial infrastructure banks are taking on board the fact that they need to plan according to the potential impacts of climate change and incorporate an additional factor on adaptation. Typically in infrastructure projects it might add a little cost maybe 3%, 5%, no more than 10% to the cost and they can absorb that and put it in so that the infrastructure can be as it were climate proofed. This is now happening. Where we are at the moment is on the threshold of moving into the next phase which in the IPCC 5th assessment is called transformational adaptation which is not just looking at adaptation as a risk that needs to be dealt with which is true but also an opportunity that we come out the other end better off than we were before. And I'll cite the example from my country in Bangladesh of people living in the coastal area, fishers, farmers, where there is already salinity intrusion and in time they may simply be inundated by sea level rise over the next few decades. Now we know that they will not be able to continue that. What we can do though is we can educate the children so that they don't have to be fishers and farmers themselves, they don't have to live there. They can become engineers, doctors, lawyers, move to the city and then take their families with them when they want to. That is an example in my view of a potential, we haven't done it yet, transformational adaptation where we end up, we use the problem to find a solution that ends up leaving us better off than we were before. My final set of comments is to do with the nature of this co-production of knowledge. We, as I said, it's a learning by doing which requires that the research community, the academic community, the theoretical community as it were, need to collaborate effectively with the practitioner community, both the planners, decision makers at the global and national level, sectoral level in agriculture, health and other sectors and practitioners on the ground, farmers, fishermen, people on the ground, ordinary citizens. They all need to be part of this process of adaptation and they need to be part of this process of co-production of knowledge on adaptation. And those of you who attended the parallel session yesterday on co-production will have heard a number of very good examples of scientific community reaching out to decision making community in different countries in trying to co-produce the knowledge on adaptation to climate change. How do we do? We practice, we learn, we practice again, but differently and so on we're going up what I call the adaptation knowledge ladder. I would like to add one more dimension to that notion of co-production, which traditionally we think of scientists working with other communities with another notion of co-production, which is the south and the north, the developing countries and the developed countries. The traditional paradigm that we have, which is true for mitigation and also true for many other arenas of human endeavor and science, is that science research gets done in the north and then gets transferred to the south. The rich countries do the research, they come up with the technologies. This is very true for mitigation technologies and then those need to be transferred to the developing countries. It's a technology transfer not to south. I would argue that when it comes to adaptation that is not the only dimension and indeed in fact the reverse may be the case. As of now, the 48 least developed countries in the world, the poorest countries in the world have done more planning and are doing more implementation and going up the learning curve of how to do adaptation faster than any developed country. And I would say that we need to do co-production of knowledge where the south learns from each other, so south-south technology transfer, knowledge transfer, but also south to north technology and knowledge transfer. And I would say that in the south, there are many developing countries that are moving ahead on this, I will pick out my country Bangladesh as an example and argue that in Bangladesh, the government of Bangladesh, the people of Bangladesh, the researchers in Bangladesh, the NGOs, the media have all taken on this message several, six, seven years ago. And since then, we have been implementing a climate change strategy and action plan at a very fast rate, which the government of Bangladesh has been investing in with its own money at the level of about $100 million equivalent every year. And we have been going up a knowledge curve very, very fast. And I'll end with one example and one invitation. In particular, our focus is on the most vulnerable communities. And this growing body of knowledge and work and practice on community-based adaptation, which I and my colleagues run an annual conference on. We had the last, which is the ninth in the series conference in Kenya in April. We had 400 people from all over the world, from about 90 countries, come for seven days. The first three days, we send all the international participants in groups of about 20 or so to spend two nights living with the vulnerable community and seeing what they're doing to deal with the problems. And then they come back to a conference setting like this and we share with plenary and parallel sessions on our knowledge on this. The theme for the conference that we had in April in Kenya was on measuring and enhancing the effectiveness of adaptation, which is a scientific problem at the moment because adaptation is not an easily measured phenomenon and there's a lot of discussions about how do you monitor and evaluate and measure adaptation going on at the moment. The current paradigm is a very top-down donor-driven paradigm, which is value for money. We've given you $10, what did you do with the $10? You have to show us what you did with it. And right now, that is what is driving the notions. But the communities, the vulnerable communities have very different views. It's not about money, indeed, if it's anything, it's about what you, the polluters, are doing to stop the problem. So we had a very good discussion about that. And the next conference, the 10th in the series, Community-Based Adaptation Conference, will be in Bangladesh in April, from the 21st to the 28th of April. And the theme is going to be on building resilient urban communities. So far, we've tended to focus on rural. This time, we're going to focus on urban communities. And I invite any of you who may be interested to look it up on the website and do come if you're interested. I'm going to use my last minute or so to come back to the issue of Paris in November and December at the conference of parties here. I think at the conference of parties, adaptation is not the major issue. We have agreement on adaptation several years ago at the Cancun conference where we have the Cancun adaptation framework. We know what we're going to do. Countries are doing national adaptation plans. We need more funding support, but we've been promised a fair amount of support that's beginning to flow. These are all good things. The most critical thing, as we've just heard from the previous two speakers, Fateh and Otmar, is to agree on the mitigation target. Because unlike mitigation, where if you do not emit a ton of carbon, you make the impacts of that one ton come down to zero. You avoid them. You cannot avoid impacts with adaptation. Adaptation avoids some, but they're always going to be residual. And the higher the temperature, the less effective adaptation is going to be. So we may be able to adapt to two degrees. Some people in some places may not be able to do even that. But three degrees, four degrees is very doubtful that adaptation will be able to be the solution to that. So we need a solution on the mitigation side. And we're looking to Paris to do that. And I support the previous speakers that this really has to be the major message, the major part of the agreement that comes out on the 11th of December here in Paris this year. Thank you very much.