 I would like first to thank the three different presenters that have made the tower of questions or different issues regarding energy, climate and water that are three-sector that are interrelated. I would like, I have some comments that can in certain ways sound like questions to the different presenters. My first one is Doug mentioned that renewable energy, the effort of different countries to develop renewable energy is more and more important. Take example of, took example of South Arabia that is sure is willingness to, it's willingness to develop its renewable energy sector. The word energy outlook that I have of 2040 that I just launched state that the amount of subsidies of South Arabia keep them to prevent them to develop very renewable energy sector and pull them back by about 30 years. So my question is do you really think that the different commitment that have been made until now and the different commitment that will be make in Paris in November will really help to change things regarding the importance of cold, old and gas industry. Cold and gas, as cold gas and all has been estimated to be in quarter, quarter, quarter with renewable energy by 2040, still 2040. My second remark is on energy subsidies of United States. Energy subsidies and particular fossil fuel subsidies are still important and the United States are one of the biggest subsidies in the fossil fuel area. That sort of political incentive can be implemented to help to reduce those subsidies in the international organization such as IMF or World Bank stress developing countries to reduce their fossil fuel subsidies. Why in developed countries like United States or in China fossil fuel subsidies keep growing? Thank you. Sure. I have two questions. Let me start with Doug. I think it's great to hear that the cost of solar and other renewable options are coming down quite rapidly. When I think about some of the concerns that we might have in places like remote rural Africa and you mentioned rural villages a few times, it is of course the cost of installation but we're also worried about things like the cost of maintenance and ongoing costs. I don't know if there's any remote USA is not remote Africa but do we have any evidence on how the maintenance cost might be higher in rural parts of the U.S. and then can we extrapolate from that just what the maintenance cost component will be for sort of transforming rural Africa and getting solar and mini grids into some of the most difficult places to reach. And then for Jake, I was thinking about you talked a lot about finance and I think certainly in my mind, in my view, a lot of the emphasis from developing countries has been on adaptation funds, getting access to these adaptation funds. And one of the things we were discussing while I was at wider was this possibility that actually if by some miracle there was some global price on carbon and if developing countries say sub-Saharan Africa excluding South Africa were able to get their money back because they are under-emitting relative to the global average, I mean simply put if there's a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa excluding South Africa and if their gap between them and the average is about three or four tons per person then even if the price of carbon was at about $10 per ton, you're talking about 30 to 40 or 20 to 30 billion U.S. dollars per year and so that might go a long way towards closing some of the gaps, the investment costs that might be needed to transform Africa's energy future. And so maybe my math and my thinking are totally naive but does this suggest that we should be trying to really push developing countries in which we work to be far more aggressive on the mitigation side and to maybe even volunteer themselves to participate in a carbon pricing system. I'll leave it at that. Let's take two questions from the crowd and then answer the set of four. Do we have a question? Let's go on the back. First of all, thank you very much for the great presentation which is here. All three presentation was really great. All three issues is linked to the central Asia. I'm from Uzbekistan. My name is Malika, Dr. Malika Seydhachaeva and I am from EIE, International Association for Energy Economist from Uzbekistan. And we face the same issues as we built the roads, interconnection roads, increase the trade for development region. We try to develop the renewable energy for producing there, but they also face the issue, the water issue, water energy nexus issue. And I'm happy to hear that its solar price, the solar energy price go down. And this can be the key to reduce the construction of the hydro energy facilities from the Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. I'm from Kyrgyzstan countries which is blocked the water supply for downstream countries like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. But I'm sure that it's the development of roads. Could you get to the question? The question is, is the technologies, the technologies that construction the roads and construction the energy, like the new solar energy technologies, could be solution to not increase the construction, the standard generation capacity, like the coal or the gas or some other, but use some other renewable energy like solar or biomass or some other technologies which can be applied without increasing the influence to the nature. Something which is not bring to big influence to the nature. But not stop the development. And we have another question here. Thanks. True Shadwim from SIDA, the Swedish Development Corporation Agency. Thanks for excellent presentations. I'll try to be brief. There seems to be a general kind of view that the decline in the oil prices are not temporary, but are therefore a bit of a longer term. And that this could be kind of the chance to change the whole structure of the energy subsidies. How do you view that? Nadja's question basically, that what potential do you see in this and what could support a process towards reducing the margin that is now created by the reduced oil price to actually reform the fossil fuel subsidies? Thanks. Let's start with Doug. Thanks. So I got a couple of those. Let me be brief about that responding. So in the INDCs in Paris to the first part of the question, there are actually a number of renewable energy targets contributed by those countries which have contributed their INDCs. So we will see that. Actually, the IA's come out with a pretty decent report most recently on their analysis of what those look like and whether or not it's a bit like what Jake showed, is that it's a good step, necessary, but not sufficient in terms of really achieving the total carbon and peaking and or carbon goals that you have to go forward with. But there will be promotion. I put it that in quotes there of additional renewables there to the subsidy question. I'll add mine and other people can certainly come back onto that front. You know, the G20 made a commitment to quote unquote, eliminate or levelize subsidies, particularly around fossil fuels and around all energy a couple of years ago. We've seen very, very little action on that front. And so I don't hold a lot of hope that there will be some kind of international accord to really move that forward. But what I do see, and I think that your question actually around is this the right opportunity given a drop in fossil fuel prices, opportune time. And in fact, Indonesia actually recently announced the elimination of or the plan to eliminate their internal fossil fuel subsidies in the last few months. So I think you're gonna see an indication of that. There's also discussion in China right now or power sector reform at this point in time when power demand is lower, et cetera. And so you're gonna see that move forward as well. That's got less to do with oil, but it's got more to do with demand softening as well. So I think on that front, it's actually quite interesting and whether or not there's a collective mechanism or there gonna be independent mechanisms I think is gonna be yet to be seen. Let me just very quickly do on the remote maintenance side particularly for I'll call it rural power systems in Africa. And I think that the general trend that at least that I'm seeing is that innovative small companies are including cell phone enabled transmission systems so that they actually understand the health of those systems at headquarters, if I can use that term via cell phone communications and they know when a system is either being abused or misused or is out of service. And most of the time what they're doing is they're actually taking what I call a services model. So rather than selling product to you, they're actually selling services. That you're buying X number of hours of light or hours of charging your phone. And it's really to their advantage to know the health of the system and then to include this maintenance piece in the overall packaging and the pricing so that frankly it's an employment, it's a capacity building opportunity and it's part of the affordability of the whole system when you include the innovation on the finance side as well. So I think that the paradigm that was 15 or 20 years ago where you sold a system to a rural villager and you had to train them on it and then you had to provide maintenance maybe if you were interested in it. It's really now actually out of date and you're seeing a lot of innovation come forward in terms of providing services to people at affordable rates. Just a couple of thoughts. I think on Nadia's question, do I think that out of Paris we're actually gonna get anything to happen? And I think the answer is yes. Yes, my point is we're going to get a lot. We don't get as much as we need but we shouldn't be depressed about the fact that we're not getting all we need. We need to focus on getting more. One of the, so I think the fact that the, the fact that for various foreign policy reasons, not necessarily related to climate, the US and China found it in their interest to get together and make some kind of a joint statement. I think that was politically very important for both countries. Europe has been out in front for a long time on this issue. So this has created some momentum that I think is quite important. It's important to follow through with systems that can support those commitments but I think it's, yes, we're gonna see a lot. And the thing that I always wanna remember when I make speeches where I say we're not getting enough is to point out that almost everything we can do, anything we can do has its biggest effect on the upper tail of the risk because the nature of the climate risk is a big upper tail and the biggest effects on the upper tail. So I think we are, we shouldn't be too depressed. We have to push for more but I think we should not be too depressed about that. So I think that what's happening is quite good and I think more realistic than the Kyoto approach. On the question of finance, a great question. I forgot a comment I was gonna make when I gave my three points at the end. This is a group of people who do economics and of course economists keep pushing, pushing, pushing for markets, for the use of markets. And indeed, in the commitment to mobilize the $100 billion, a lot of the developing countries have said we want that to be government direct aid. We want, and some of the developing countries, particularly the United States says no, no, no, that's not what we have in mind. What we have in mind in a trading system, in a trading system there would be flows of funds that could be tapped exactly in the way it was being suggested to provide finance in a trading system. And so I think that I think we will ultimately come to those trading systems in an attempt to lower the cost of achieving these reductions. But it's not gonna, I don't think we're gonna see that in the near term except in particular circumstances, see a few of them, but not globally. And I think the most likely outcome in the development of these systems is not gonna come with a lot of the developing countries in some global trading system. That's just too complicated and requires too much institutional development. What may happen is what is now popular in the economics literature, the notion of the development of a club. A club of probably countries, developed countries that already have developed market institutions, the US, the Europe, perhaps some developing countries like China and others. Maybe four or five countries would develop a club and develop this institution, which would then spread to other countries when they had the capability to do it. So as an economist, you have to say yes, that's where we wanna go. And I think we're ultimately likely to get there out of the attempt to control costs. But on the horizon that I was talking about, like 15 or 20, 25 years, I think it's very hard to, it's gonna be very hard to develop the institutions to do that. But certainly from the standpoint of what I would perceive to be in the interest of a lot of developing countries is to push for that. Because that's the financial flow that a lot of people have in mind that might be tapped for the 100 billion, exactly in the way that was discussed. Let's do one more question and then I'll head for lunch. Go ahead Anand. Hi, I think it's a small enough room. Thank you very much. I think there were very interesting presentations covering a wide range of issues. We telling the organizers that a couple of words were missing in the title, that is climate change and energy and development, I think. Because definitely there were issues related to that. Just two questions or two comments which I would invite the panelists to comment about. One is the $100 billion question. It looks like a big number, but I've done estimates on the resource rents. Approximately it could be about 1.26 trillion per annum, natural resource rents globally. About 70, 75% of that coming mainly from oil and gas. So I think the way we frame this 100 billion thing and connect the whole debate about renewable energy with the kind of, if you like, the nature of markets are existing incentives for certain kinds of forms of energy. I think that connect is a major challenge. I think the resources are there if we can find it. Only way is how we can connect those. That is one. And second, I think the trans-boundary issues related to, again, a great presentation from Korea. I think building trust between nations becomes a very important issue in trans-boundary river management as Aaron Wolf and colleagues show in case of Senegal River Basin and various others. So I was just wondering, in case of Nail Basin initiative, you mentioned about it in your last slide, but if you can say a little bit more about how you can build more trust in terms of sharing information and knowledge. Thank you. Responses quickly and we'll get people to lunch. Trust? Yes. Basically, hello. Yeah, basically you gave the answer. You build trust in the first place through transparent information. In the Nail Basin initiative, we have tried to have information sharing agreement between the countries. And we try to demonstrate through these kinds of exercises through independent modeling and getting the information from anywhere we can get. Sharing it to everybody and showing that there is no secret behind it is the first step towards that. And it is, I mean, things have changed in the last four decades. 40 years ago, Ethiopians and Egyptians would not sit in the same room and talk about the Nail. But now that information is available at least at the technical level, at the director level and partly also at the politicians level. They're sitting in the same room, at the same table and discussing on the basis of the same facts. Because even a decade ago, I know that there were meetings where there was a debate, is it 49.1 billion meter cubes or is it 47? And then the meeting was dismissed. So these times have changed and it may take another decade to then transform this transparent information into trust. Basically, that's what I can say. Jake, do you wanna, or? Well, one person's resource rent is somebody else's income, is the problem. So, there is this flow, but I don't see a way to tap that flow. I think that we will try to get what we can get out of government commitments of direct aid. The total that's around now is around 10 billion. Out of Europe and a little bit out of the US and such. And I think that's gonna be hard to get that very, very, very much greater. Then the question is, when they talk about immobilize, they're talking about a total movement of resources. So the question is, how can we create conditions that lead to private investment? It's gonna have to come out of the private sector. So we're back to the larger discussions here about markets and the investment conditions. I'll just raise two puzzles, which I don't know the answer to. But when they talk about the 100 billion, as someone has already mentioned, the basic idea that about half of that was for mitigation and half for adaptation. And how to think clearly about what it means to be giving aid for adaptation and how would you know what to do, or how would you know what the needs were for adaptation? That's something that's going on in negotiations. It's a very complicated matter. And how much, how would you direct resources to that when there were investment resources? It's not, you know, private investment resources. It's not clear to me. So, and the other puzzle that I will give is that we have the system, we have the path of development of resources for sustainable development. And sustainable development includes climate somehow. It's in the package. But then climate is a separate track. And how that is resolved in the kind of international financial and investment system in a way that's most constructive. I just leave it as a puzzle. I leave this meeting with that puzzle in my head, how to think more clearly about what might be done within the international system to avoid a lot of waste and confusion. Because I think there's going to be, at least I observe in a lot of the developed countries, certainly in my country, there's a lot of pressure against financing dams, financing fossil fuels, financing pipelines, things that are going to be needed for economic development. And how that's going to play in this system I think is, I'm much more aware of some of the tensions that we're all going to have to deal with. Doug, did you have a final word? Oh, good. Thank you very much to our panelists. That was excellent.