 I would like to call on stage our two co-moderators, Dr. Carl Middleton, Director of the Center for Social Development Studies through the Longkorn University and Dr. Rotmini Ong Sakul, Senior Program Manager, Australian Embassy in Thailand. They are here for the reporting back session, Key Climate Policy Actions for the Region and Pathways to COP28. Thank you so much. Could we also invite the moderators onto the stage as well? Is that okay? Okay, so we're getting towards the second half of the afternoon, which is an important session in the sense that we will try to pull many of these discussions together. Thank you so much to the illustrator for sharing this really good, clear summary so far of the meeting. So in this session, we're aiming to connect together the knowledge shared and it's been deliberated in the parallel sessions. Today so far we've heard how climate resilience in the Mekong region is a complex issue that has physical, ecological, economic, social and technical dimensions. It's also been very much underscored since the beginning of the day that this is like an urgent issue. For example, we heard that there's a need to reduce global emissions by 48% within six years. But we've also heard the possible ways forward to achieve goals like this. It's also been underscored how the connections between science and policy will be crucial as will be communicating science to the public and facilitating broad-based public discussions between the public and also communicating with the public with a wide number of state and non-state organizations and individuals. We've also heard about the co-production of knowledge, which I think is a theme that many of those in the room are interested in. I think also what I found very interesting is how the emotional dimension has been drawn out. We've heard that there's pessimism, optimism, panic, happiness and well-being. And it seems important to me at least to kind of recognize that in addition to the technical part in the science, the emotional dimension is something that really needs to be engaged with. And then very important we've heard of how climate change and climate resilience is a social, environmental and ecological justice issue. So in this session now we hope to pull together across these topics to begin with just to set up the second half of this session. There's a QR code here. So how we hope to host this session is to first hear back from the four moderators. And each moderator has also been asked to kind of draw out a couple of the policy recommendations. And we'd like to ask you then to engage first through this app to have a look at some of the policy recommendations and vote up those that you think are particularly important to discuss further in the remainder of the session. As well as adding any thoughts that you have or any additional policy recommendations. So we'll try and encourage a good discussion partly through this app and then in the room. So I'll hand over to Kumgay to introduce the moderators. Yes. Thank you very much, Dr. Carl. And we are pleased to have the four moderators. If Dr. Puri is already here, please join us on this stage. So we have Dr. Tanapon Piman from the SEIS here from the extreme weather section. Ms. Elizabeth Tipong from the beautiful app from the full security section. Dr. Diane Asher from SEIS here from Urban Future Session. Dr. Puri will join us shortly from the energy security session. So first of all may I ask Dr. Tanapon first probably please summarize what you heard from your session. Particularly focusing on the response of the climate impacts and possible solutions that the session suggests. Thank you. Thank you for my section. I think it's very first key message. I would say about the key message first when we link to the recommendation. So what I can summarize in my section about extreme events or changing flow pattern or sea level risings. I think first of all people aware about this event through the observation, through monitoring station or information. And particularly from Vietnam Delta experience is very strong message that we cannot fight with them anymore. But we need to adapt. Or learn from large experience. How to cope with the extreme event. Secondly, the extreme event it doesn't mean only just weather extreme. Very heavy rainfall or severe flood it have implication with the damage. So that why when defy the extreme event somehow this term need to be linked together. And the third part I think from the MRC itself I think they show very good practical in term of providing warning and notifications information to the member country. And then this information help now disseminate to wider local community. It's like more use of information. So however again this is also a next step after knowing information and what next. Actually we need that why this is a gap how we can collect the feedback back from community. To support effective warning system. So then I go to policy recommendation that I get from the section is I think first one link to maybe a warning system. But I would like to use the word transitioning from the weather warning system. How much rainfall, how much temperature where storm to the impact, impact bad warning system. So we need to go another step from weather to maybe the potential impact where they are going to be impact. To get more focus on decision making to deal with the disaster or maybe minimize the risk from the extreme event. Secondly it's very clear that it's very important to promote community science. Because now they can easily access information to the telephone. And they also can show their knowledge in term of local monitoring that can also strengthen the warning system. And maybe also report back how effective it is and also how they are there. So people think about the real time information of weather change extreme event. But we may think another way allow we need a real time adaptation information too. How people adapt that can help I think better understanding and maybe better planning in the future. That's all. Thank you. Thank you doctor. May I ask Arisa to please recap your session. Thank you. So just as a reminder, our topic was on food security but through a lens of social justice and equity and how that relates to climate change. And within what seems like a very broad or what is a very broad and complex topic. We had a wonderful panel that was able to address this through a lens of grassroots community based mobilization. We had a field based researcher with a depth of experience. We had people coming from a regional policy lens. And then we had people who were looking more at practical applications research based. So within that very broad spectrum we had so many different lenses and approaches. And so to try and synthesize this feels like a massive undertaking. But at the same time what we saw is that so many of these solutions were echoing very similar sentiments. And a lot of that is that we can't reduce the concept of food security to food production. And I think that that's been one of the critical underlying messages that's coming through. We saw this come out of the results of COP 27 is that food security in and of itself is such a complex issue. And that we saw from one of the speakers how this relates to nutrition. So food security has to do a lot with that. If we look at the right space approaches of the people who are responsible for our food but who have such limited access to the very food that they're producing. And then again from the regional perspectives for how are we limiting or creating barriers in trying to actually solve some of these issues. So these are very complex issues that we're trying to address is our intervention causing more problems. So I don't want to reduce it by saying taking a holistic approach or make it sound like it's overly sentimental. Because I think that was also one of the things that came up in a conversation following the panel is that the term holistic can often make it sound like it's a win-win solution or that we're somehow buffering out the hard edges. But it's not. I think it speaks actually very much to the approach of the Mekong region of how work needs to be done here is that it's enabling you to look long term. Is that taking that systems approach if that's how we want to call it taking that holistic approach enables us to work our way through the ebbs in the flows because there will be compromises that are being made. There'll be learning curves. There'll be adjustments. And so this was some of the key messages that we're coming out of that session is that there is no silver bullet. There's not a win-win situation is that we have dug ourselves into a deep pit and that there are people who are struggling. And so in order to get out of this we are going to have to work through very, very systematic ways. We are going to have to look long term. We are going to have to do some very active lobbying in order to ensure that there's robust policy and also that there's accountability behind that policy when we're looking at our food systems. And again we can't just reduce our food systems to a manufacturer producer kind of level because that's what got us into this pit. So I think maybe if that's a fast summary. Thank you Elizabeth. Actually in your session daijai, their panel also show many good practices. Very interesting as a tangible actions showing what you just said. So Diane please provide some possible solutions come out from the session. Thank you. So the urban session we had four speakers who are all very experienced with working with cities and city actors. Including more on the urban planning side implementing solutions like multifunctional public space like sponge cities and wetland parks. Working directly with community organizations and community groups to support them in improving their housing and infrastructure access and consequently their resilience to climate change. Working with communities and cities to implement solid waste management and flood management. And also supporting cities with grants to implement green city programs supported by ASEAN. So we had a range of perspectives and some of the key challenges that emerge from the discussion. Firstly that many of the current responses are very centralized in that firstly the funds funds from grants or like climate finance very rarely flow all the way down to the community level let alone to the local government level. And is more often sort of stuck at the national level who then take a very top down perspective on how funding should be disseminated. There's also the issue of social exclusion. So again a very top down approach to implementing housing projects where informal settlements might be demolished and then apartment blocks built on top. And in general a lack of voice of local community organizations but also local governments in negotiation processes for example with regards to allocation of international funds down to the national level and then down to the local level. And in terms of the current responses that we're seeing a lot of them aren't really addressing some of the root causes or the underlying issues of problems. They're not sufficiently decentralized and not sufficiently scaled up. So we might have lots of pilot projects but how do we go from one community to covering all the communities in a city for example. We did also cover possible solutions that we have seen being implemented already. So processes that are more horizontal where different stakeholders at the city scale are brought together into a sort of network where they decide together how should we allocate funds what projects should we prioritize. Whether this is local governments or community leaders or private sector actors all coming together in a sort of city network to decide how to upgrade or implement resilience building projects or adaptation projects. This also has a benefit of networking so it's not individuals or individual actors making decisions but taking a more citywide approach. And one way of looking at it was to take an area based approach as well so rather than saying OK we're going to look at you know all the drainage infrastructure in the city. The approach is more to look at all the facilities and services and housing and social equity issues within a particular area of the city and involve all the stakeholders in that particular area in decisions around how to rectify and improve and build resilience. And develop that particular area. And finally just to say that when there are interventions from the outside so funding that comes from an external source this can be an opportunity to trigger multi stakeholder process on a citywide scale. And even if the funds are very limited you can still bring in everyone in the decision making and learning through the process in order that the lessons from the process can be applied to other areas as well. Thank you very much Dan. And it is very strengthening the importance of correlations and the area based approach for the city development. And lastly Dr. Purig can you please sum up the session. OK. The session on the energy security and transition to renewables. So we have two key message then that energy security and energy transition can go well together. And some what they can complement with each other instead of substitute to each other. However in the session we have discussed more on the supply size on the energy transition that we are going to supply energy renewable energy in place of the fossil fuel. However in the session we find out that to have just energy transition we have to take more the other stakeholders in the society apart from the supplier that is the electricity or energy user. And also the other stakeholders like the regulator particularly the role of the regulator in the regional power trade so that the whole region going to apply or stand on the same standard. And we can like have a more freely and officially international trade. And further how to respond to this just energy transition apart from the technology and renewable energy. The important thing is how to make the people the general electricity or energy user aware of the benefit or the core benefit of the just energy transition so that they are willing to join and then they can trade off their own benefit for the global or the climate objectives. Thank you. Thank you very much Dr. Puri. And as Dr. Carl said we have asked each session to provide key policy recommendation for climate actions and it has put up already in the V-Box and Dr. Carl will instruct how we're going to do this from now. Thank you very much. So we're going to now try and together guide a discussion or encourage a discussion. So I think at least for my part it's been a really insightful day. It's good to see so many people actively and energetically engaging on the issue of climate resilience in the Mekong. And I think we've got a big ask now like we're hoping to gather from the collective wisdom and insights in this room. There's a lot of experience, many years of experience here. So we will try and use this app. You have two choices. One is to kind of vote up policy options that you think you'd like to discuss. And then also you can add additional thoughts if you'd like to. So how we'd like to proceed now is to maybe invite you first to have a quick look down the list and to vote up the policy choices that you'd like to discuss further. And then we'll invite participants in the room to add your thoughts on those that are nudging towards the top. And also if anybody on the panel would also like to add additional thoughts, then please go ahead. So if you didn't get the QR code, it's just popped up here again now. I just like to add that you could be either be sector specific as each of the panel chair talk about is sectors or you can be like synthesis recommendation across sectors or you can provide recommendation to see the linkage between sectors if you like. Thank you. Okay, so the. At the moment the top couple of policy directions are involving communities in transition processes. And the second is to achieve change at scale that addresses some of the root causes of inequality in cities and beyond. It needs to be people centered processes and systems and area based approaches that can help to ensure all stakeholders within an area are included. Could we invite anybody in the room who would like to comment on these top couple of either policy strategies and directions or specific policies to share your additional thoughts on these. Maybe from your own experience, how these connect to your experience. There's a lot of people in the room that certainly work in these policy arenas so please don't hesitate to share with the wider group now your thoughts. Okay, thank you so much. There's a hand over here. I think we might even have all the microphones on here possibly. There's another microphone here as well. Thank you. Right. I'm a retina from F.L. And I think the D2 involving community in translation process. I think like all of the people here will have involved already at a certain degree at certain level community. All adopted process that are more engaging that are more participative. We are talking about adaptation led community. So over the last, let's say 15 years, 20 years, there have been really like more than a concern or interest to integrate community into the transition into the understanding of that transition. Now, the way we engage them maybe is not sufficient sharing the risk and making them understand climate risk is maybe not enough. Looking now about co-producing solution. This is the transition aspect because what we are trying here and I think that is very important to bring back the community. But we want the voice and we want the hands of the community. And this is really calling to over comments that was in that chat which is calling as well to more action. Thank you so much. There's a response on the stage. I would love to build on that one. So actually if I'm looking at it as like from the just transitions process, I would also just encourage people to expand how are we defining communities. Because a lot of the times when we're looking at communities is very much from a geographical containment perspective, which is critical, especially when we are looking at very specific, like if it's land use planning, if there's resettlement involved, but also communities in the just transition spectrum can also mean sectors. It can mean businesses. And I think that we can very easily position ourselves as the better than or we can vilify certain sectors and then we exclude them from these conversations. And keeping in mind that a lot of these individuals who should be engaged should be part of this process hold a lot of institutional knowledge. They're very much part of this process. So I would give the example Poland has done really good consultation process to transition out of the coal mining there, involving a lot of communities successfully from people who were involved in that and going through a very lengthy and I'm imagining expensive process to engage the communities in that, but asking them what would you want and they had a metric that they used. And so I'm not suggesting this to be a perfect system, but I'm saying that they did actually involve the people who were involved because they knew the risks. They saw what was happening to their environments. They saw what was happening to their health. And so they said, would you want to move into an adjacent role? Would you want to get training to work in renewables? Would you be willing to retire early so you can stay in the actual physical community? They asked people what they wanted. They didn't treat them as outsiders or others. And so I think it's important that we reframe our vision of what community means when we are looking at this consultation process. And so that would be my input on that. Thank you so much. Okay. There's a hand at the back. I can see other micro friends out there. There's also one here. Let's take a picture. Thank you very much. Catherine, I tell you my name. I want to build on that again. It's not only about defining what is communities actually, but also to think about what means inclusive. So we talked about co-production of knowledge yesterday. And the question is also how we do that. I mean co-production of knowledge implies already a jointly co-production. It's a joint endeavor that means that knowledge is co-produced on an equal level. That means that we do not inform them only about their whatever environment or hazards or challenges that occur during climate change, but that we co- jointly co-produce knowledge about it. That means in an integral way, not only inclusive. I wanted to highlight that. Thank you. Thank you so much. There's a comment up here. So I just have one comments or maybe chair opinion that link to also the involving community. Yes, very good. I think if we can have a good mechanism to take community along the process of planning or decision making. But one thing that we need to be careful that you take a decision based on opinion or based on data science or based on information. That is, sometimes it's mixed when you involve a lot of people. So you may get high vote, but that may be from the opinion, but it's not based on the fact that we see. That is something that we need to balance or make sure science is always back up on this process as well. Thank you. Thank you so much. I say a hundred ahead. Yep. Thank you. I actually have two comments I would like to make. First, I think on co-production. I spend six years doing my PhD on co-production and the outcome is just that it's a really, really messy process. It sounds really interesting, very nice and inclusive and so on and so forth. But you have to realize that it's a super messy process. Having to deal a lot with the contextual differences, the actors, the power and all of that thing that they bring into the process. And then at the end of the day, you as the researcher or at least like the way that I write the dissertation, I have to make the decision on what is really the knowledge that is co-produced at the end. So I think what we are discussing, it sounds super nice, but when you get into the process, it's super messy. And then having to understand like what would be the objectivity, subjectivities that you bring into deciding what knowledge is actually at the end is co-produced. The other point is actually on the all stakeholders within an area included or maybe like what one of the facilitator was saying that like what we mean by stakeholder could just actually be those that are beyond a geographic area. I think that point is really important. And another point to that is that I think this is also very idealistic and sounds very nice, but it will be very difficult to do. And so the question that I would like to put forward to everyone in the room is to what extent do you can see that all stakeholders have been consulted. For example, like, I don't know whether you know like the new EU deforestation regulation, it is considered to be one of the most consulted regulation in the European history, but more than a million people actually consulted all over the world when it came out, everybody is still saying that they have not been consulted. So I think all of this, it's sound idealistic and we should try to get there, but it's really messy and at certain points there needs to be some sort of a cutoff to say that okay, we try to a certain extent that is acceptable, but then you get into the question of what is acceptable. Thank you so much. Thank you. I would just like to draw attention to the next places of recommendation, maybe the number that have the 15 words probably quite similar to what we just discussed about the people senders and area-based approach. And the other one, match the passion contained in national commitment with intensity of action by putting in place clear equitable implementation frameworks. Anyone who endorse that would like to provide your explanation. Yes, thank you. I think we also need to distinguish between the process of consultation and implementation. So maybe consultation is appropriate for policies and plans, but when it comes to implementation, we really need to have a really equitable and inclusive process. And one of the ways we can do that is to hand over the process to the affected stakeholders, whether they be a geographical community or like a gender-based group or socio-economic group, and then support them in that implementation process. So provide the technical expertise, the professional expertise, the finance. You can get more buy-in as well from local communities by asking them to contribute, whether it's their time or some of their savings. And this has worked quite successfully in many Asian cities where local communities have really driven the upgrading of their housing and infrastructure. So it works. The challenge is doing this on a scale because investments in things like infrastructure is really expensive. There's a limit to how much community savings will be able to cover the cost of this. And so we need the investment from above to really go all the way down to the implementation at the local level, rather than assuming that it always has to be implemented from the top down. Or like if we're investing in housing, it has to be the government or the private sector that leads the investment. I think there are different ways we can look at it. And I think similarly, my examples are from housing because I work in urban areas. But if we're talking about infrastructure, you can also involve the local affected population groups in the building and implementation of this infrastructure. And I think we could also look at it in terms of, for example, ecosystem services as well, involving them in mangrove reforestation or other habitat reforestation, biodiversity improvement, and so on. So just another angle, like going beyond consultation when it comes to implementation, really trying to get that equitable process happening. Thank you. Others that would like to add? Are you sure? Would any like to add a policy recommendation that's beyond these top couple? I can see some others that have been added towards the bottom. This is an important opportunity to share your recommendation to a large group of engaged people. I'm also curious to maybe ask Dr. Puri about the, one recommendation from the session of energy about defining just energy transition. How important is that? Many people also endorse this. Okay. In our session, we're talking about the energy transition to renewable energy. But apparently, just energy transition is not all about on the supply side, but it's on the demand side as well. So during the just energy transition, what would be the roles of the energy user and the electricity user as well? That attitude, the way they see how important it is to transition away from the fossil fuel. Apart from trying to have a new technology or the clean technology to produce energy, but they themselves have to use the energy more efficiently. So that way we can reduce the usage of the energy. And that will help the transition to the next zero, probably a bit more faster. Others. So any key messages that you would like to deliver to the COP28 from the Mekong region, for example? Okay. Thank you. So just listening to what's been said so far and also looking at what's on the screen. And also thank you to everyone who's spoken already. I suppose I feel like we're talking a lot about, of course, marginalized communities, human centered processes and so forth. But I wonder where is the human rights language in this discussion? And because you mentioned COP28, I think most of us who have been following the COP negotiation processes are quite mindful of the fact that human rights is often or are often not really spoken about at COP. And that there is a tendency as well in this region for us to sidestep questions concerning human rights in favor of discussions around, let's say, social justice and so forth. So I wonder from the perspectives of those up there, but also in the room, do you think we need to be more explicit in talking about human rights? Would that actually be helpful in creating a more solid understanding of what just transition needs to look like? Very good question, including in the context of the recent recognition of the universal right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which is certainly relevant to this discussion on climate resilience in the Mekong region. Would any like to respond to this suggestion? Is there a need for bringing more human rights approaches to this discussion? Okay. There's one person on the stage also nodding their head very much as well. That's okay. So, yeah, I think I got called out on not being solution oriented enough already, but unfortunately, human rights language at COP negotiations has been sidelined a lot. Sometimes, I don't want to say aggressively, but aggressively. So it's been separated. So obviously there's the civil society participants, there's that community, and then there's the state negotiations that happen. And quite deliberately maybe in the way that the cops are organized, these deliberations with state parties are often very kind of global north centered, and then even the representatives who are coming from our region aren't able to fully participate in those negotiations. And human rights language is not a priority. It's a massive priority for a number of the people who are there and for the people whose vested interests are there, but it's not making its way into the negotiations very strictly from my opinion, but I do see nodding. And so I'm not offering a solution. I'm offering a perspective. I've been involved in a few of the cops there from a human rights lens and it's at times quite disheartening or it's challenging. I've seen the progress forward that's been made and I've seen the steps backwards. In terms of the firm stances that we need to be making, I think that we at a national level or at a regional level can be doing a lot more to inform the decision makers that are being sent. So whether this is in the local level lobbying that we're doing in terms of the key messages that go forward, pushing to have the NDCs at a higher level of implementation on the ground. You talked about data representation. I am always arguing for the fact that local knowledge is knowledge, it's data. So how are we again broadening that perspective of what kind of data is being included into these negotiations, what kind of messaging is being brought forward, but then trying to create what is legitimately and not just like a tokenized safe space for civil society participation in these policy platforms because COP has historically not been a very safe space for civil society actors. So if you want to have that human rights language included in there, you need to make sure that the human rights defenders can go there and that they can participate freely and safely. So yes, you. Thank you. The guy who called me idealistic and I've got feelings on that. Actually, thank you for calling me out, but I actually do have something to share on this human rights issue. So in addition to the EU deforestation regulation, there is also the EU directive on sustainable, COP sustainable due diligence directive. It's a really long name, but it goes hand in hand. And the defining picture is that like now all the companies that are now subject to the EU regulation also have to report on human rights and indigenous people in their due diligence process so that they are able to then place the commodities that are subject to the regulation onto the European market or the European market, the European commodity that are being produced in EU also are now subject to these two regulations before they can be exported. So it is possible to get to that level where the language on human rights and indigenous people are actually required in the due diligence statement by corporations. But now actually we have a lot of reaction from producer countries themselves saying that this is like two Eurocentric and very colonialistic in the approach that all of a sudden now we actually subject to having to provide information on not just like legality but also human rights, indigenous people and so on and so forth. The list is getting really long in terms of due diligence statement. So I think it goes back to our early conversation that of course these two regulations have been heavily consulted before it came out but now that it came out it is supposed to be doing good thing but for the people that are supposed to be a benefit thing from that producer country for taking human rights in those countries and so on but these are now the countries that are pushing back against these regulations saying that it's EU just trying to protect its own market. Question on that. Do the producer countries have to acknowledge indigenous status? In the regulation they soften it a little bit by saying that it's actually following existing applicable law in the country of production. So now the debate is like what if the country itself doesn't have any applicable law in the country that speak to human rights or indigenous people. That is being still discussed because the law is supposed to be entered into application by the end of next year for big corporations and then for SME it will be like six months after that so a lot of discussion going on at the moment in terms of like how do we now actually operationalize these two regulations. Thanks so much. I mean this is just very briefly also a way of broadening out the discussion as well beyond kind of just strictly thinking on climate change alone. For example the UN guiding principles on business and human rights is also then connecting the human rights obligations of companies to supply chains. So then it will also connect private sector actors into this discussion as well in a more kind of a broader resilience discussion, not just climate change alone. We have to hand over very shortly to the next session that we'll be talking about communication. So I think we should probably wrap this session up. So thank you very much to the four moderators alongside these moderators who have summarized the four sessions and thank you to all of you for sharing policy recommendations and directions forwards in your experience. So I think a round of applause to everyone in the room. Thank you. Thank you to you all as well for contributing. Thank you.