 So, the first session we're going to have is, we're going to have a presentation of the key findings of a scoping study because as Konchenit mentioned this morning, there are several components in the MTT program and there were a few studies being done already and will be presented and there will be discussions. Now, to help facilitate that session, may I ask my colleague, Ms. Riddhi Saloja, summernet multi-stakeholder coordinator to facilitate. Riddhi? Good morning everyone, as you just heard from Albert, this was last minute action plan for me, so a very good morning to all of you and it's a pleasure to have you here and to be your moderator for this first session on today's forum. So, as Albert said that in this session we would be inviting, our component leads to present what has been the finding of the scoping study. So, let me now invite Dr. Lewis Lebel who is joining us online, who's leading the scoping study. So, he's going to share the key findings from the scoping study on KBB IPOs in the Macong. So, over to you, Dr. Lewis. Thank you. Albert, could I have the next slide please? Okay, we're ready to roll. Everyone can see there. Okay, connecting, engaging, learning. These are recurrent themes in efforts to enhance the resilience of socially ecological systems, not only in the Macong but around the world, but especially where users, resource managers and policy actors draw on different knowledge systems for guidance. In today's talk I highlight the importance of organizations seeking to provide policy advice on water, energy and climate issues in the Macong region. Next slide please. Next slide. Thank you. Conventionally governments turn to think tanks to generate new policy ideas. Public attention on think tanks is usually being fixated on their rankings rather than on their content. And most research about think tanks has been done in western developed countries. Critical research studies conclude that think tanks are elitist, dated from the Cold War, international relations period, and gender blind. With their roles and knowledge systems, whether they're producers or users or disseminators of knowledge, not at all clear because of the way they'd be defined. In 2022, Wellstead and Howlett, some Australian workers on governance and public administration, introduced a notion of knowledge based policy influence organizations. It's a horrible long string but it's really quite an interesting and useful concept I think for the current program. And it's inspired quite a few of the ideas in the design stage already. Many types of organizations aside from think tanks, potentially influence policy process and content. They do so in different roles, sometimes related to generating new knowledge but also to apply it. Their contributions come from understanding different knowledge systems, local knowledge systems, the knowledge systems of policy practitioners of academics, etc. And all of these as a basis for policy advice which might be supportive or criticize or try to be neutral. Or it may be commissioned or the government might get it unsolicited they didn't really want it but they're going to get it. Policy influence depends on quite a lot of things and this has been a working model in the group from when we started the idea of the work and that's where we got to so far but it seems quite important that collaboration and networks is important to policy influence. The way you engage the type of meetings you facilitate or you go into speeches or you get brochures and infographics matters. Whether the organization actually knows anything about nexus about interactions between water energy and climate is important. And the knowledge systems are important, among other factors so never the next slide please. The scoping objectives of the scoping survey. So what I'll be talking about were to identify these PIO essence from PIOs is short for a drop the can be just for convenience here really to document their strategies and assess their influence. Okay, it's quite even that is quite ambitious for a scoping study to the same we developed a questionnaire instrument and with a great effort of our partners, we collected information from 117 eligible organizations. So it's a middle sized numbers not the biggest possible but it's quite a reasonable size. Next slide please surveyed organizations in the four countries were diverse in form, age and size. For example, 61% have been established for more than 20 years. That's a that's a long time. That was a vintage organizations. And it worked in more than one back on country. And even if you took a particular country and looked at who worked in those that is quite a different mix between countries. For example, research and policies institutes were quite prominent in Cambodia and Vietnam, whereas agencies will somehow connected to government were actually more more frequent in Thailand and last for example. The light blue in the pie charts. Next slide please. One thing. So in these in these types of graphs I'm going to show you a few of these. The length of the bar is how many percent of the organizations we surveyed said yes to that characteristic. Most of the questions in the survey were yes no questions very simple, but they were about the organization they weren't about the individual responding. So you can see that formally registered there's about a third of them that weren't formally registered around third of them that were not legal entities. So there's quite a few informal organizations active in the regional water climate and energy issues. There's also almost half of them thought themselves were think tanks, either use the label of had the label applied to them. Next slide please. When it comes to the water climate and energy system. Almost two thirds of surveyed organizations had worked on all three issue domains. This doesn't mean they studied the redirection necessarily they just didn't work. They might be in different projects we didn't ask the question, cleverly enough to say they were working on the nexus they probably weren't. Next slide please. And the graph shows the water related issues and the right one shows energy issues. And overall you can see water bars are longer than energy bars, and there's a bit more topics in the water than the energy that in the particular sample survey that we collected. There are many main issues for water, for example, things like conservation and shortages, but also floods and water quality issues so these are things familiar to some of it and then many of the researchers around the table. In terms of energy conservation and energy security issues with the highest ranking ones, but a lot of other exciting things like energy pricing or water pricing will just no interest at all. Very low interest by think tank like organizations. Kind of the next slide please. Now I'm going to get to some of the more nuanced findings from the survey, rather than just a descriptive documentation of percentages of this and that. One of the questions we're interested in, because of our interest in knowledge base on use of knowledge and evidence etc is that learning should be an important part of this. If you're going to adapt your organization help the country you work in adapt. Learning is an important too. So we mentioned organization learning, but looking at whether they got more effective or proficient at certain things. And these are some of the things that we check and we also check that they're flexible enough on a policy issue that they would shift position as a result of interacting with stakeholders. Next slide please. The results of a statistical analysis of trying to understand what factors influence organizational learning. And you see that pure IO practice and strategies related to learning, connecting and engaging are all associated with organizational learning. Organizations can actively create learning opportunities through having reviews through MEL processes, etc. And reflecting on campaign success and failures and so on. Openness to collaboration was also associated with organizational learning. So organization learning has got a rich number of things that are associated with it is not demonstrating cause and effect. But it's really quite interesting the importance of organizational learning to the use of knowledge. Next slide please. So engagement, looking at our questionnaire was designed to measure how all these organizations engaged with the public policy process. And you'll see this table shows three different strategies one is to meet lots of officials go to their events. Invite them to your events, etc. But basically face to face meeting with officials or zoom to zoom meeting maybe these days. The approach is to go public and change shape public opinion on topics, rather than going to government straight away going to official straight away. And another is to try to over time not in one of a single event or crisis but over time develop relationships between policy and practice, and think tanks and PIOs, and manage those boundaries so that they each understand each other well. So if you look at these results, you can see that the predictors for different engagement strategies are rather different. And specific to each for example network connectedness is closely associated with adopting and meet official strategies meet officials you need to have networks to get to them. That point for six lots of stars. But not the other two strategies. So there's a rich and slightly complex things it depends on the strategy that organization adopts next slide please. PIOs received multiple benefits from being a member they're already members of some networks in life since the vast majority. For example networking or connecting with others and access to funding, and also an increased likelihood of policy influence from working with others from having a network. So this is quite an important thing for us going forward and that they already have quite the light networks and alliances. Get stuff from being with them next slide please. So we measured what kinds of policy advice organizations gave. And we found that having your policy advice adopted in full or partly this is we counted a success and example of policy influence was more likely for PIOs that were better connected, which is consistent with the organization that we've been learning one before, right for funding and had gender quality and social inclusion. Policies in their workplace. So this is big to the justi justi work. Next slide please. In terms of capacity building needs. There's a whole list of things related to project management shown here but there's also another set on policy research and other set on how to engage stakeholder themes so there's quite a few topics that they would like to strengthen. Can I have the next slide please. So we nearly nearly and complete can have the next slide please thank you. So this, the scorpion survey had many limitations, leaving plenty of room for future work. We especially encourage more work on the knowledge roles of PIOs, drawing on hints from the survey and the importance of learning and gating and connecting. Next slide please. Despite these limitations several conclusions and illustrative recommendations can be drawn. Examples I put up on the slide here illustrate sort of matching conclusion and recommendations in relationship to the program that we have come to talk about itself. I perhaps won't read them all out but starting at just at the top one and for example, PIOs are aware of the benefits of belonging to network alliance. So program one program C1 really needs to recognize this expectation is already out there from from their experiences. And so when you have the design you bet you've got to think about having grants and capacity building things etc. They already have a level of appreciation about what they want. And it's probably going to expect it again. So kind of the next slide I think should be the last slide. End with a thanks to many people, but in particular the co-authors and partner leaders of the work on the surveys in the four countries. And some really hardworking advisors that put a lot into the design of the survey instrument. And all of us will assume one day we will be writing this as a research article to that will boost the credibility of the scorpion survey. So thank you. I hope that wasn't too much over time or under time. Thank you so much Dr Lewis and it was great to hear what the scoping study results were so thank you so much for sharing the findings with all of us. So now I'll open the floor if anyone has any questions that you want to ask Dr Lewis or his team who have conducted the scoping study or I see a hand raised. Can I ask the mic to add in please. Over to you at it. Thanks. Thank you Dr Louis this was very interesting and I think even though you presented slowly and methodically it was a little too fast still for me to process everything. I was interested in one of the slides especially it was very interesting you found that a predictor of policy impact was a gender focused foreign funding networks and an energy was also a predictor as a topic. I'm curious if you, what would be interesting to hear what was not a predictor of policy impact was there anything that surprised you that maybe we often talk about that this is important to have a policy impact but it wasn't a strong predictor. And I also had a question I think one of the things that some are not then may come think tanks really tries to do is to get to support researchers to work closely with boundary partners stakeholders to co design research to think about, you know, even before the research starts, what, what are the stakeholders interested in to achieve a greater impact of the research and, and I wondered if you had any questions that could have picked up on that to see if that was a strong predictor of policy impact. Thanks. We take this question. Now it'd be useful to have slide. Number nine up I think it is. We are putting that up Dr Lewis. I may not be able to give all the detailed answers Aaron without looking in the notes more closely. But this is an initial scoping survey so we didn't answer everything. But it's these predictors are ones that are correlated after you take into account all the other variables that might have been factors so other things were not significant. So the gender. So what do they mean and how interpret it will qualitative research is clearly an important follow up, for example, that if you had a high score on workplace policies in your organization. It meant you're more likely to have your policy advice it up that's clearly not a direct relationship. But it may be an indicator of how progressive organizations, how inclusive it is. When if you can figure out ways of doing it is something that the people these were trying to influence want. So the policy advice adopted scale we had was everything from no impact at all acknowledged but not used partly used and fully used. So there's some other things that were not significant that you might have expected were significant with some of the things related to boundary management, for example. We're about boundary partners artist can I have the next slide please. I think it'll be slide 10 this one. So, again, we can go through them bit by bit, but it's not the boundary one sorry if you organizations that learn well. And the ones where they often took the boundary management strategy, which makes sense they stay because these boundary management means these organizations put themselves somewhere between policy and research or between policy and practice or between research and practice, and they try to translate the language the statistics to make it understandable to the to the other to each other but also the interests of each other. Experience based knowledge, which is primarily in this region often means local knowledge or grassroots knowledge did not. So this is one of these ones that will then come out as expected given the importance people have written on these topics quite often. The experience based knowledge was negatively associated with organizational learning so not only was it not making it better it was actually seem to be detrimental. Again, the meaning of this doesn't mean local experience based knowledge is rubbish is not useful. It just might mean that it's not recognized as learning. It's a tacit. People don't realize that they're learning by doing so more things to probe in here. Other things were mostly along the lines that theory and work other parts of the world would predict me network connected. It makes you to more sources of knowledge more source of expertise and peers means you can your organization can learn. So partial answer Aaron to a deep question, we have more in here than we can show but it's also, we don't have everything. Thank you. Thank you so much, Dr. Lewis for responding to Aaron's question so any other questions from the floor. Dr. fuck this. Mike. I'm sorry I'm not there in person but I'm grateful for the organizers to allow me to still contribute remotely. Thank you. I'm back day from the summer next thing committee I actually have follow up question similar line with Aaron was asking on the predictors. The question is around two points. First is the entry point for the research in order to actually make policy impact. I question, where is the entry point are we coming from just a little review saying that okay based on the little review these are policy related questions. Or it actually should be more emphasized in terms of how do we come into what is actually the topic that is policy relevant by working it out with the policymakers that we're trying to work with. In the end, the products that is produced in the research process is actually being used because it is actually speaking to what is actually the demand from the policy maker themselves and not from what the literature review is saying should be the knowledge gaps. And related question to related point to that is actually what I didn't see in the predictor maybe it's not in the presentation but in the study itself is the trust that has to be built with the policymakers in order for them to even actually listen and read the papers that we want them to read because I imagine that just based on the work that we have been doing with the summon that if the policymakers are not really having the trust and relationship that has been built over years of interactions. It's unlikely that they will even consider reading whatever that we think that they should be reading. Thank you. A lot of interesting things in your comment. Trust is important for example to legitimacy. Whether you have to keep explaining everything on every step or in fact people like to get on with the task. Trust is important and we asked those questions and have some information about that but not not details just one or two questions. Accountability is really important. And one of the features of this. We know from work elsewhere is that the boundary organizations are duly accountable they can be accountable to the policymakers but they can also be accountable to the academics and the scientists. And they try to manage that boundary between so there's quite a bit of support in our scoping survey that sort of consistent with what you're saying is that that working at the boundaries rather important. That's far your stuff often expected but some of the strategy to go some of the work being done by our organizations is through public opinion rather than directly with officials. So they don't all use the same strategy and more detail look at whether how it's related to which issues they're working on the energy sectors different than the water sector that pops up for quite a few times. Non significant predictors there, there are others that weren't shown in the table so it's not a full representation results you're not seeing all the lack of finding lack of association information in the PowerPoint. Thank you, thank you. All your points but happy to follow up. If you're interested. Okay, thank you Dr Lewis for responding to that question I would now like to jump to our online participants if there's any question online if my colleagues can let me know if there's any question that has been raised by our online participants. You don't have any questions yet, but please keep them coming in as we get along with the day. So I'll just look at our audience if there's any more burning questions on this topic right now. Alright, if not, I would like to thank Dr Lewis for sharing the findings of the scoping study. Thank you very much for joining and presenting the results and now we can move forward to the second study which was conducted by the entity. The program team, which focuses on key findings of the review of existing networks and why a Macong regional water energy and climate alliance which is called we can is needed. I would like to invite the presenters Dr about the sink component one colleague, Miss you three component one fellow and also would like to acknowledge the co-authors Dr Chinese the program director and component one lead Dr Andrew Noble component one advisor, and Dr Nick Chandrath component one advisor. Thank you so much and I see Dr thing is already on the podium so over to you Dr thing. Good morning to everybody. I'm very pleased to present some of the result and the finding of our theme, which is lead by Dr Chinese and because surprise for my two colleagues from. Dr Andrew and Dr. Only from CDRI. And also, we support from by the pot from you, you sir, you will see in the fellow from Vietnam. So next please. Okay. So, before coming this you may ask the question, what is the role of the component one. And, as you see that the component is to facilitate the development of the home growth, regional network alliance of knowledge based policy influencing your organization is is called KGB IO. So, what are the actually activity we have conducted so far. Firstly, we review the existing network alliance and the best practice in the region. Secondly, we designed a plan to establish the strategy for the alliance. And upon this we developed to recruit the, the, and recruit the member and lastly is also we support the design for the alliance. Next please. This has been achieved from the component. Firstly, it's quite important to review the existing program in the region and all this includes firstly to be used the limited 15 organization network to to interview. So, we organize and assess the lesson learn the best practice and we also based on this draft the report. And lastly we also commit to complete the quality survey based on the is complemented to the, the research done by the team. And secondly, the second output of this team is that to develop a small a note on the design and alliance, which is provide some kind of the option to the alliance that we can look forward. Next please. So, along this we see a lot of different activity carry out in this this program. First, we focus on the different. Responding from the institution and region and most of the study conducted in on water and very few dealing with the sector in energy sector. Secondly, most of the research focus on the what you call knowledge support for the decision making. There's also other type of organization considered the same as lobby and last but not least is also some defines himself as a team thanks. Nevertheless, we also have not really cover other organization which already mentioned before this is something that coming from the other part of the organization such as social, local NGO and community organization. And also other thing that we feel that there's supposed to be some thing that we have to focus on the other group of what we call the advocacy group that we also think that it quite important for the policy engagement next please. As you can see, there's a different governance structure we can reflect in the different kind of structure. The first one is very much highly structured and is usually covered by the council board and executive committee. And also we see also other type of structure such as that with the simply setting committee and the sector there's also another type of structure that we can find the mostly working on the program. And that's something that we can see there's a diversity of the structure that we are looking for. There's also many different strategy how we can inform the policy. For example, we use a lot of different approach and strategy to contact and to formulate the policy. Secondly, we think that this is also quite important to have not only the virtual connection but also person in person connection is quite important in this process and this is quite important why we gather through this kind of dialogue because we think that the person in person meeting is quite a change for our engagement. And this we think is also the issue of co-design of the issue contribute in the beginning by the end user is quite important. That's why we think this is quite important to identify and this co-design this need right in the beginning before we start doing some research we should make sure that those needs as we explain and elaborated in cooperation with the end user and this is quite important for engagement that we have to change the way how we make use of our research is moving away from more linear approach from research to policy to work more kind of engaging the end user in the issue of when they formulate the need and how can they be articulated in our design is quite important. And we think that this is why we think that this is the joint teamwork is quite quite important and as you already learned from the survey that trust is considered very important issue or the capital that we have to build before we conduct any research and implemented and then this is quite important key message that we learned that's the trust to be built is very essential in the first place next please. So now come to the issue what is what is the challenge that we are facing when we try to set up this kind of alliance. Firstly, maintaining the membership. And the active participation is very expensive and costly. This is also quite required certain management issue. And as we see as a trust building is quite important to be considered. And the last one is how can we ensure that those concern can be expressed in the more democratic and transparency manner. Next please. Next please. Yes, to ensure the long term sustainability we have to consider the following aspect. First we have to identify what are the strategic issue that our alliance have to concern and this is quite important to begin with. The next one is how to ensure the communication and how to make sure that our branding has been recognized and further developed during the course of the development of our alliance. And that's other thing that is quite important is financing issue how can we ensure that we receive the financial support throughout the development and to ensure that we are more diversified in finding the different funding sources from different donors. Next please. So the question that why are we come here to discuss about the alliance. First, we should learn from the survey that there's a long, there's a strong interest from the respondent, all saying that there's a need to address the issue or the nexus between water energy and climate is quite obvious. And this is something that we also learned that the most of the idea coming from the outside of the region. That's why we still think that this is quite important to create our own capacity to come up with our old agenda and we can come up with our own way to address and to discuss the issue that we learned from the need of the community or the need of the end user. And that's something that we think that for the future of our alliance, it is quite important to coming here in to discuss and try to find the way how we build our alliance for the future because this aligned. We ensure that how the coming the current the program project or activity implement when the contribute to the build the alliance and these two coming year will be considered is kind of piloting time where the each member or consortium can share their experience and contribute to set up our common strategy how we build up our alliance and how we can sustain this kind of aligned in the coming years. So, the very important question that's when occur when everyone come to this conference, what are the benefits that you joined the alliance. There's following benefit that you can join when you when you become the member of our alliance. Firstly, you can join the annual meeting of the alliance to exchange your experience and your research and activity. The second one is to attend on the building capacity event. Firstly, we can get some kind of financial support through the alliance. Next one is to come to engage in different kind of policy dialogue and forum last but not least is also to exchange the sharing our experience across the country in the region. So that's why we are quite exciting to look forward to welcome everyone of the network and align to come to the to the meeting today and to share all the your experience how can we contribute collectively to build our alliance in the coming years next please. So with this I would like to And my presentation and thank you for your listening and we are ready to respond to any question and clarification. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Dr. Singh. I see Dr. Chinas wants to respond to the presentation so I'll pass it on to her first. Up to you if you want to speak from here or you want to get up on the dice. Hello. Okay. Thank you so much, Dr. Singh or I call him Einstein. So he's really really long term supporters of Indonesia and so much since the first one of someone at 18 years already that we have been working on this. I just want to highlight again what Dr. Singh presented here is the work in progress. What we really discussed internally is among the program consulting members and also the fact and other members that the idea of having Alliance is really how we can really build on the existing initiatives, networks and whatever the programs that everyone here working. We thought that okay, if we have the network, we already have sort of networks or but if we say Alliance or if we say there are like certain Aspects of the things that we can come to work together. Even we are from water sectors or energy sectors or climate or other sectors. We come to work together, but this is still work in progress. That's why sometimes you will see we call this as a really initiative. And also now we invite for corporations into the common work that really we have the passions. But please looking forward to our future kind of directions for what we say here as Alliance or network. But the idea behind this is really how we can create a platform. How can we create the opportunities for us to work across the sectors to really serve the need for the region. And I would like to give the big credit to all kind of members in a component, component one. And here we have Dr. Singh. We have put Edward on the back side. We have Dr. Chandrith sitting there. We have Tui. We have so many people. And I would really much convey my sincere thanks to 15 organizations who managing the networks. Because we have many sensitive questions really about how they manage network, what are the challenges you think. They really give truly valuables and so inspiring information to our team to learn form. How can we work together? So yeah, so now the floor is open. So if anyone would like to give any suggestions or questions to the talk that Dr. Singh has already conveyed on behalf of us. So please share with us. I'm here also to help response. Thank you. Thank you, Chinese. I think we should use this kind of opportunity to get input from you. How we can develop jointly our alliance in the coming years. What kind of challenge we are going to face in order to make our alliance to be sustained in the near future is quite essential. In terms of how can we make use of our alliance also in relation to the ongoing summit and how can we build up on summit. Where summit is considered a kind of long term commitment of students to build up the research capacity in the region regarding the sustainable development. How can we build on this network to make our research more policy relevant to make our policy more addressing the local need and how to ensure the knowledge that we co-produce have to be start very much in the beginning of our journey, not wait until the end. So this is something we very much want to listen to your all experience and your experience can help to design the different option that we can present later on to the program setting committee to get a decent which option we are going to move forward. So this is quite in the kind of learning period that we would like to use it. Dr Singh we have Dr. Fakhti if you can just wait for a moment because Dr. Lewis had had his hand raised for quite some time. So over to you Dr. Lewis and then we'll come to Dr. Fakhti to share his question or response. So over to you Dr. Lewis. Just very short, but I think that alliance is a strong word compared to a network. It implies some shared values. So we need a common concern a common opportunity or some common imperative some compound joint value that we're worried about. I don't see that we have that yet. I think that is going to be the big challenge. Alliance is not just an assembly for no reason. They've got to have a real purpose. We haven't identified that purpose yet. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Lewis. Dr. Singh if you want to know I wait. So we pass the floor to Dr. Fakhti to share his question or response. Thank you. I thought I just raise hand because I didn't see anyone raising it. I also made some clarification question and also some suggestion just based on your presentation. In addition to what the police mentioned I also wanted to ask a clarification question. So am I understanding it correctly that under the MTT. This word alliance is now going to be used in a similar way like what we have been using with some of that. That's the clarification question. In the suggestions to the questions that you propose maybe two points from my side, based on the presentation that you presented so you were emphasizing the co design your research activities with the end user. Based on the experience that we have with some of that. This thing actually takes a lot of effort and time and resources so how does that actually built into MTT. And that in the way that grant is being made is this actually recognize that efforts and time and resources has to be put into actually working with the end users and not just having it as an add on at the end. That's the suggestions and also a bit of a question how the MTT will be designing. One point I would like to make is that we know that policy making is actually an iterative process that takes many many iterations but then research has very finite timeline and usually it's one off. How do the MTT programs during committee think of iteration when it comes to actually trying to make policy impacts because I think it's a bit unrealistic to have one program for five years and then expect to have a lot of policy impacts because we know that like maybe one law take like 510 years to actually go through the process. So maybe just a question of like what is the long term vision of the alliance is it just a line for five years and then that's it or they will be like iterative process also. So that's really. Fantastic questions. And I don't know is also so thank you so much for your questions race. I think you're really right when you come to alliance we actually not really come to join the events and something like that we have really common value and these are some things in the making process so I would say very much appreciate that the understanding and also so much passions among the programs in communities other and make contact leadership and think tank network and also programs in committees of the summoners to and yesterday we actually have tried lunch together. Ready to see how we can build on what some minutes already have with knowledge co productions really majorities of the network members are. Academic research and those who really care about knowledge productions, but I would still want to say that having this medical thought leadership and think tank network could actually enhance things what some minutes already good at in the way that solo aspects that we are now actually considering one is of course, we need to really focus on the trust long term partnership and the connections and really the issue issue of inclusiveness. The summit already give so much good ground, but what are the things that we could really enhance immediately as a program and the program director of both I really see the benefit of having this medical thought is a shooting tank network is really to make sure that the program as a network or alliance actually trying to look at those group who used to be our bodily. As I was mentioned about bodily management and how can we actually engage those who being identified as bodily earlier to be in the alliance. Those who really passions, those who have responsibilities in formulating the policy or do the practice, we are not really looking forward to, again, do the research and inform policy, but we are looking forward to really co production not only knowledge. Co production of solutions, who can tell us what is the practical solutions. There's only those who really working in policy a leaner who tell us whether that's options solution is practical. Do we have enough money. Are they affecting people. So that are the area where we see how we can enhance together using this opportunity of having medical thought leadership and think tank network with the summit which already have a strong ground. To say, we will really much rely on advice and really long term long size the visions of the steering committees of both program to advise us as here we are implementer secret area to move onward with also strong support from Swedish and also Australian government. I see so much really hope, and I see so much positive values for us to move forward. And I think that Dr. Park day, couldn't park day, and park day so you are the chair co chair or programs in committee of the summit. It's also our work to work together to really make this happen. And I don't lose also so really must identify what any common value for us to really continue working together. Either we call them as a lion call us ourselves as alliance or the network. So, but the idea is that we want to be more inclusive. We want to have more partners and friends joining this support. We want to stop here so I don't know whether. And when you say the short term 205 years we are not really looking that time frame, the medical thought leadership and think tank network program ending October 2025. We are here. We are living here. I'm here working in America more than 20 years, and we also have a time to try here 50 years and 30 years. We are here, who are hosting all guests coming to help Michael, we are here to drive agenda. What we need, and I don't see any issues at all. If you have this program, and we will have other programs as long we have really common vision, what you would like to see in the future for us and future generation. One thing I would like to echo this, this kind of effort is that trust is something quite important and as you know, to almost fall face of some minute, we already consider as trust partner, not only among the institution joined but also to the donor. This is something that we already gained some values that we can make use of this way. The second, how can they make use of our research impact in influencing. That's why we broaden the concept of what is the knowledge by the influence and organization, which included those who are mostly forgotten and most marginalized group of people who are not forgotten in this kind of forum, that we make sure that they are heard, they make sure that those want to recruit like women can be heard more. And that's why we think the MTT can help us to strengthen this kind of direction, and to make sure that our, we make sure that those who are not heard is now is a chance that you join us to share with us your experience, your problem, your issue that we can jointly collectively define the way how we address the issue and the way how we co-produce the solution. And the whole issue that's another aspect that is the learnings is quite important for every of us so that we can ensure that what do we achieve through this network and alliance can be shared. Of course, not only learning in organization learning but also policy learning is so important for the donor because this is a very good opportunity for the donor to come to sit together and to see to help us how can we deal with the kind of grand challenge that we're facing now in the region, this kind of trans-boundary issue cannot be solved in the middle of a country that we need this kind of trans-boundary issue to be dealing with in our alliance. That's one thing I like to address is something value that we think that our alliance can make this more bold and more clear. Thank you. Thank you so much, Dr. Singh and Dr. China. So I think we are all in the same place and we have that feeling transpiring to each and every one of us that yes, we can because we have that ability and we are all here today because we have common vision for the region. So thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and big round of applause for both of them. Thank you so much.