 Okay. Okay. Hello, everybody. I think we have gone live now. This is a recorded meeting. So just bear that in mind for your participation, whether you are a panelist or whether you are part of the audience, but welcome, everyone. This is our sort of this is our panel on climate changing global voices. My name is Andy Mewsham, and I have the privilege today of presiding over this event. And I'm really, it's really great to be here with these particular scholars with that is with Philippe Kuley, with Faye Lesniewska and with Tom Tanner, because they are people whose work and whose trajectories I really hugely respect and admire. It's a huge honor to be to be chairing them in this event. And they're a really big part of demonstrating this sort of strength and depth of research that we have on climate change here at SELAS. So let me just explain a little bit about how this is this is all going to work today. We'll be having a sort of set of presentations of about sort of 10 minutes each. And this will be in alphabetical order of surname. So we'll start with Philippe Kuley, we'll move on to Faye, and then we'll we'll finish off with Tom. And what we'll do is we'll have all of their presentations. And in the meantime, if you have questions, you can put them in the Q&A box at the bottom. So there's in the middle, there's a little Q&A icon, and you can put your your questions in there. So then we will go and we'll go through those at the end basically. Before the presenters start, I just want to introduce them all and tell you a little bit about their work so that you get a sense of what they're doing. Then I'll hand over to them, and then we'll, as I say, come back at the end for questions. So to start off then with Philippe Kuley. Philippe, someone that I met not long after I joined SELAS, and I quickly learned not only that he works on environmental law, natural resources, water, sanitation and socioeconomic rights, but also that he's pretty widely internationally recognized scholar on environmental law, such as as is, you know, sort of kind of demonstrated by his his book with Oxford University Press recently on the right to sanitation in India, and also being one of the editors to the Edward Elgar Research Handbook on Law Environments in the Global South. So if this is your bag, if you're interested in environmental law in the Global South, we're really lucky here at SELAS to have, you know, a sort of world-beating expert in this field, and you really might want to get to know Philippe a little a little better. So today he's going to be talking to us about sort of climate water and socio-environmental crisis, and I'll hand over to him shortly, but before I do, I also want to say something about about fair, who is a senior teaching fellow for CISD here at SELAS, and she's also part of the School of Interdisciplinary Studies, and she works at University College London as a research fellow at the Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy Departments. So a lot of fair research has been around forests and law, and her PhD research was in China and was followed by post-doctoral research in West Africa, East Asia, and Russia on forest-related issues, including illegal timber trade, community tenure rights, and climate change, including Red Plus, which is the reducing emissions through avoided deforestation and forest degradation scheme, which has been going since about the mid sort of late 2000s. And she'll be talking to us today about getting forest people's voices heard within climate change law and policy processes that ultimately impact on their everyday lives and cultures in the context of Red Plus. And then last but by no means least, we have Tom Tanner, who is the director for the Center for Environment Development Policy right now, and has worked extensively on climate change adaptation and resilience and development for over two decades now in policy-focused research. I first met Tom at the Institute of Development Studies. He was one of the key people who gave IDS a really strong profiling climate change and development before it really took off as a sort of central development issue. He subsequently led work on adaptation and resilience at ODI, the Overseas Development Institute, another research policy-focused sort of thing tank. And between these two gigs alone, basically you'll probably come across his work if you do any reading on climate change adaptation resilience and development, either through his many research publications or through his co-authored textbook on climate change and development. So I think there are really stellar panel here. I'm really interested to hear the presentations and without further ado, I shall hand over to Philippe Coulet to tell us all about climate, water and socio-environmental crisis. Okay, thank you very much. I see I can't start my video myself, so which means I probably also can't share my screen. Okay, thank you very much for inviting me to this panel. It's a very difficult task of trying to summarize a set of IDS in 10 minutes. I'll try to do as well as I can, essentially trying to look at climate change in the context of water and the reason why I'm doing that is in terms of looking at some of the missing challenges from a global South perspective, which is the general framework for what we are doing here. Sorry. Okay, so my entry point into the debate and because I knew I was going to be the first one is very briefly on climate change before I move to the link with water. For all of us climate change is an environmental issue, is a global environmental issue. Specifically, this global environmental issue that's informed by a scientific consensus, so the science consensus at the international level is very important in terms of the policy responses given. That's nothing very surprising in environmental law, but it still needs to be highlighted because it's not the social or cultural dimension, but it's really the science that influence what happens. In practice, the crux of what happens in climate change is actually more centered around development policy concerns and that's reflected typically in the focus on greenhouse gas emissions, which is only a limited entry point into the way we can look at climate change. The debates on climate change also are very much focused on carbon, no carbon options. Okay, obviously there is much more than that, but that's an essential point and that gives us a limited entry point into the broader issues that we may want to look at in terms of climate change. Now, interestingly, maybe the pandemic we are in has given us a chance to relook at the way we're looking at things and maybe the kind of panels we are having today is one way in which we can all contribute to making sure things are not the same by next year when we find ourselves on the other side of this problem. Okay, now there is a lot which is missing in terms of what we have in existing climate policy. For instance, maybe I'll simplify here in terms of the livelihood human rights dimension of climate change. It's something which is now part of the debates, but it's been very difficult and it remains very much subsidiary. In this context, one thing which stands out is the fact that the concerns which climate change brings to people may be different or are different for different people in the north and the south. It may also be within countries, but here I'm just using the north-south lens to look at this. One practical example of this may be, for instance, the way in which the threat of sea level rise in two countries which are significantly potentially affected like Bangladesh and the Netherlands will be different just maybe because of the kind of resources this country has at its disposal in terms of managing the issue itself and the displacement that may arise out of it. We've obviously come a long way from looking at it only through science and technological issues, but there is a lot which still needs to be taken forward in terms of looking at the more soft dimension of climate change. Now in the context of climate change, water is very much something which we can easily link with climate change because in fact it's also something which has local to global aspects. There is something called the global water cycle which is in a way equivalent to global environmental change which we look at when we look at climate change. Now in terms of how are these the different regimes concerning climate change and water look at issues it's interesting that water is very comprehensive because it's been addressed for many decades if not centuries at the national level from the local to the national level depending on where and what. At the trans-boundary level there is a little bit at the global level there is virtually nothing as of now. On the country climate change is addressed mostly through a trans-boundary lens and while obviously by now it's also addressed at the national level at the local level and so on in terms of when we speak climate change language very often it's the global dimension that the international dimension that comes first. Water is affected by climate change is affected for instance by the changing weather patterns and the reason why we're concerned is because most of the water which is the subject of water regulation of fresh water is rainfall and or is linked to rainfall and hence rainfall is linked to changing water is affected by changing water patterns. Now on the whole very as a very quick summary water has been part of climate change debate obviously somewhere but it really has been remained subsidiary compared to the importance it actually has and to the links that we could make between climate change and water. So there is something of a missing link. Now it may be in part because water is something which is much more important in social terms in countries of the global south and in the global north where things are more sorted in terms of for instance access to water and where water is less significant than input in terms of livelihoods particularly if we think about irrigation as the primary agriculture as the primary livelihood in many countries for with irrigation in countries of the global south will be a very important dimension. So now moving through water in terms of water regulation water is very much focused in one way and that's not the only dimension but is very much focused in one way on its social dimensions which we can identify for instance in terms of the focus on the human right to water increasingly strong but if not at least in terms of the focus on drinking water as a primary policy priority and beyond that there is also the link between water and water as the source as a necessary input in the realization of many other human rights including food health sanitation and probably others as well. Now at the international level it's clear that there is a distinction because in countries of the global south water again is a primary policy concern and as well as a political concern governments fall for having messed up on particular issues of drinking water supply. They don't fall on climate change policy issues because of the way they do but in fact they don't know or we don't know because climate change is framed in much more technical terms including at the national level in various countries than in terms of the social policies that are affected or reflected. So for instance one of the aspects here for instance is displacement caused by climate change. Now there are many issues which are common to both climate change and water. Both start from an environmental understanding so that's one reason why water can come in this panel for instance very easily. Water policy is structured around the idea of scarcity which itself is about the limited availability of water climate change we know as a global environmental threat. Interestingly both focus more in practice and in terms of policy on the development dimension that they reflect than on the social aspect. So now I know I said that water was had a very strong social focus more than climate change but in practice there is very much also a strong focus on the use and management of water. It's reflected for instance in that concept of efficiency of use of water which is at the root of a lot of water policy at present. Certainly both issues are framed around in terms of international consideration around individual sovereign interests of independent sovereign states. That's nothing unusual because that's the way international relations have been structured for centuries but it's very strange in this context because we're talking about issues of global concern where we would expect that something else can happen. Now there is an alternative principle that exists which remains very controversial in certain circles that principle of common heritage of human kind which seeks to transcend the idea of sovereignty. One of the reasons why it's controversial is because it is still seen as being something that is more favorable to the south and also something that's more promoted by the south than by the north. So there is a lack of consensus here and in the first place at the end of the day the climate change in the international climate change regime is something that was brought to the world by the global north to which the global south consented and became part but there is a starting point of a different understanding of what the issue may be. Now just to finish and hopefully I'll be just within my time more or less what is it that we can use water to help us rethink climate change debate so that they reflect better the different types of interest that's there. One is to recognize that both water and climate change are now really construed in terms of the much broader set of interests that they reflect in terms of the international legal regime I'm not saying that otherwise they are not construed broadly. At the national level it's clear that water because it's much older and it has developed over time and because it is understood that this is being much more directly related to life livelihood much more basic and chosen climate change at present can be can be of help in terms of broadening the limits of climate change in the way it's conceived particularly here at the national level. Thirdly water being much more complex and a much more difficult issue to address in the global south because it reflects immediately on access to drinking water which is life and best livelihoods, irrigation and more than that. Countries of the global south have a much broader experience in terms of understanding the complexity of the issue and of addressing it in different terms and water is one issue but in fact it's also many different split issues within that so like climate change it has many different dimensions to itself that can be better reflected. In that sense one of the things we need to do is reflect on the fact that the needs of the global south sticking to that broad north south dimension are not the same and needs to be differentiated in terms of the way we look at the issue in terms of policy development. Thank you very much. Thank you Philippe, sorry I was having a bit of trouble there unmuting myself there but thank you very much for that I think that really resonates for some of the key sort of concerns with the festival ideas about whose interests are differentiated within the sorts of discourses and policy debates we have around particular issues such as climate change and water and who's are not, whose voices are heard within that, who's are not and how can we leverage different concepts such as the principle of common heritage in opposition to hopefully transcending as you say Philippe, nation-state sovereignty sort of concerns around water which of course we hear about much more you know the potential for water and conflict and these all seem to me to be hugely germane too to the bigger sort of themes that are driving the whole festival ideas so thank you very much for that. As I say we'll go next to Fayette before we get on to questions but if you've got thoughts in your head now about Philippe's presentation just maybe stick them in the Q&A box and we can come back to them sort of at the end and use that as a way to to structure our discussion together but now I will switch over to to Fayette who's going to talk about you know how to get different voices into forest related issues particularly looking at the in the context of red plus so I'll mute and disappear and over to you Fayette. Okay I can't open my video apparently the presenter's going to do that so I think we should be able to get some technical help with that. Got my video okay here we go. Hey well welcome to everybody thanks to Andy and also thanks to Philippe for you know laying out some of the very important background but also conceptual framework which within the context of water some of those can equally be applied to the area of forest and land use so as as Andy said I'm going to speak to how forests have been framed and response measures to try and deal with climate change in terms of both mitigation and adaptation the policies that have been developed and the emphasis particularly on the inclusion of forest peoples and people in the global south in those processes whether it's been an afterthought and if it's been effective the participatory procedural process measures that have been put in place. What I'd like to begin with firstly of course is that you know the the role of forests in climate change first and initially we understand forests as a contributor to the problem of climate change through deforestation and degradation we have now we're at the point where we've the world is 50% less forest than it had 10 000 years ago a large percentage of that loss has happened in the past 70 years every year we lose around 15 billion trees and this is largely to clear land for agro industrial commodities many of which feed people in the global north rather than the global south and the emphasis on deforestation in some parts is overplayed in regard to the responsibility of forest peoples and forest communities so you hear a lot about so slash and burn by forest communities and that that impact on forests whereas the greatest environmental footprint on forest comes from consumption and primarily from the global north so when it comes to reversing the emissions from forest the plan is to firstly prevent further deforestation and to increase the area of forests so that would be by a forestation and deforestation processes the initial plans to do this is to somehow fund these processes through market-based mechanisms to value forests in ways that they through cost benefit analysis the value of a forest is greater than the value of a cleared area of land now so the price has to be placed on the carbon in the forest how you do that is really quite problematic you need a buyer but you also need the people who use forests to agree to change the way in which they use forests and this has been one of the issues with red plus so if I just briefly introduce red plus so red plus was a mechanism incorporated into the UN framework convention on climate change negotiations in 2007 the idea with red plus was to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation by doing the proposal was to as I say to put a price on emissions from deforestation and degradation so if you reduced your emissions you would you would be rewarded it is what's known as a an offset mechanism so those that want to offset their their emissions in one country can buy emission reductions through good forest activity that's reducing emissions and sequestering more carbon in another part of the world and this has equity issues as the majority of those that were looking to invest were in the global north and those that would have to change the way that they use forests would be in the global south now my focus in this presentation is not on the states so not like brazil and indonesia and countries in sub-saharan africa not on the states but on the people in forests and how they would be impacted by this proposed mechanism which of course they didn't propose right so it's a it's a proposed policy measure that affects them but they had no essay in how it was developed so a key part of an inclusive approach was to place an emphasis on participation in the implementation of red plus so like that's what I say it's like an afterthought to include communities so that the communities would agree to do what was needed so that the red plus mechanism and measures and projects would be effective now as I said the red plus was incorporated in 2007 it was proposed it was incorporated in 2008 in a in the barley action plan it sits firmly within the paris agreement in article five as a clear measure for reducing emissions through nature-based solutions so it it's very much part of climate change uh sort of toolkit um on the land use and land use change dimensions what's happened since 2008 is very interesting there's been various types of red plus projects there's been what's known as national level projects private projects that are just independent you know it can include businesses but also conservation organizations often investing encouraging portfolio investment in projects in countries in the global south many of these projects have been monitored and studied and researched there's overwhelming evidence that the processes to include forest peoples have been um poor at best and actually extremely damaging at worst the there has been a reinforcement of patterns of relations between authorities who govern forest lands in these countries that were established in the colonial period where forest peoples were marginalized discriminated against and that discrimination comes through in the very superficial way in which many forest communities are um invited into participatory processes but they do not uh they they are not uh genuinely involved in the processes and the procedures often do not run through the time of the project it's only at the beginning of the project they may be invited to a meeting uh and of course when I use the word communities it'll be a particular individual and there are really serious issues about sort of marginalization of women and children but also there's different communities are played off against each other and and this this can cause conflict within communities of uh in forest lands one of the points that I want to emphasize as well that's that's been increasingly apparent in the past of 10 10 years or so as there's been an emphasis on giving more participatory rights to forest peoples and and and this was really reinforced for indigenous peoples with the UN declaration on rights of indigenous peoples and the notion the principle of free prior and informed consent as there has been more scope for this and and articulation of this this this right for participation in processes there's been a pushback by more authoritarian governments now one country I sort of flag up and and it's particularly in Latin America we're seeing this is where environmental human rights defenders who are defending land and trying to support forest communities have uh have seen high levels of intimidation violence and even even even death the since uh about 2012 I think it is global witness has been working with various organizations to report and document the deaths and intimidation against environmental human rights defenders what we're seeing is that the space for participation and engagement is being increasingly curtailed and peoples forest communities uh options to engage um are becoming more um more fragile that to engage you put your life on the line now this has come to the attention through the reports but also through the work of the UN special reporter on environment and human rights this has come to world's attention that human rights defenders environmental human rights defenders rights need to be secured a regional agreement on participation uh access to information and and environmental justice was agreed in 2018 in the latin america and caribbean region called the escasal agreement it's uh it includes it's the first agreement to include environmental human rights defenders rights and the obligation of parties to that agreement to uphold and advance those rights and that does include obviously participation and engagement in any forest related uh policy making the what's quite odd as what's starting to happen um is that the countries that sponsored the agreement Costa Rica and Chile uh Chile has now refused to sign the agreement um and Costa Rica is questioning whether to sign it it is nearly uh it's one party before it enters into force but the what's concerning is that latin america many of the latin american countries including brazil have yet to sign the agreement and are showing are indicating that they're concerned that by signing the escasal agreement that it may impact foreign direct investment um particularly in the agricultural sector uh where we're seeing sort of deforestation for for agricultural land conversion what's promising in some ways uh given this sort of negative development is uh we have seen just recently the european commission uh is supporting the mandatory requirement of uh investors and businesses who um work to to ensure through their supply chains due to due diligence that there is no environmental or human rights violations so that would include things like uh importation of soy from brazil for example and palm oil from indonesia so this could be a new avenue to support uh the voices and the peoples in forest dependent communities in the global south but there is no doubt that uh forest peoples forest dependent peoples in the global south uh are facing an extraordinarily hard time uh in in engaging uh in um climate change related forest law and policy processes where we're uh at a time when we need uh their voices more than ever and uh the people working in the global north academics NGOs legal organizations and governments need to support um the legal initiatives to prevent environmental degradation through supply chains but also support the rights of um environmental human rights defenders and encourage the governments that are um are undermining those rights so that's i would hand over i think i probably went over my 10 minutes but sorry you did but only not not by too much thank you very much feya um that's uh hugely uh interesting sort of update on um the extent to which people um you know are able to access the the rights that notionally they actually have um sorry i need to start my video now and um that was uh so it was you know really great to get that that update on on where we are up to uh with that it's another sort of case of thinking through the political economy if you like of who gets to speak and who doesn't so uh thank you very much for that feya we are as i say um i can see we've got a couple of questions coming in i will leave them to the end first um just want to hear from tom tanner who is going to be talking to us about some of his work on uh children in a changing climate um so tom i'll hand it over to you thank you hi and hello to all around the world wherever you are um i start this really from the position of thinking about covid-19 um and how it's been for you but for me it's been emotional it's emotions been at the forefront for me uh personally and i find it really fascinating that emotion isn't really dealt with enough when we're thinking about global voice um how we construct narratives how we build solutions uh and problems based on those narratives and how emotion really gets involved and so i guess that's a starting point really for talking about children and climate change um is that there's a great deal of emotion involved and the um standard mode of engagement that you've probably experienced from the media around children and climate particularly with regard to the global south let's just leave the greater effects to one side for a moment is is around the kind of shock and awe um i can share you know a couple of couple of classic headlines here you have um the director policy director of say the children the international i n g o um saying that climate change is an existential threat basically because it means you can't meet the targets to have every child in school um food food secure and so on um it's very much like an impact of climate on children something that's done to them equally the lancet study uh this year that looked at children effects on child health through the life course it it's effects on children of climate change and there's this kind of shock and awe um kind of tactic that that really that's the way it's uh it's presented largely in the media and that's you know that has an emotional bend right it makes us think that children are vulnerable um it presents the level of passivity that children are passive um and it presents them as victims and that's not just the media because of the research then follows those kind of narratives so that we look at research that projects the number of children who will be affected by disasters each year because of climate change is going to go up from 66 million a year in the 90s to to 175 you know 10 years later and these things are used um as campaigning tools but they also shape the response so they provide a paternalistic protectionist approach to the response that means we think about okay so what do we need to do to protect children from these events and particularly event by event so we look at child protection during disaster events we look at the psychological and physical health effects and we look at protection from abuse we look at the the damage to how to limit the damage to education and educational attainment now as I say this is this leads this emotive response leads us into seeing passive victims who are vulnerable and need protection and paternalistic name doesn't allow us to see children as actually having agency in their own right um and think about how their voices around the world can be heard now I assume everybody has heard of Greta Thunberg and the Greta effect in stimulating child-led approaches to tackling climate change and that is starting to change things but with some caveats I would say first of all there is a global north dominance to that narrative and the action um but throughout the world it tends to be you know the the richer classes the more educated classes that tend to be those who are speaking on behalf of other groups um there is a significant amount of tokenism still as a response so we see that uh in the extreme where we have outright rejection of what they think but actually those politicians who are sensible enough to to realize they shouldn't just shout the children down um provide a level of tokenism but there's you know the evidence that there's actually feed feed into uh changing policies as a result um is still limited um and crucially for me coming from um a climate change adaptation so we're looking adapting to the impacts how to be more resilient to disasters to the changes in the future climate um and rather than the mitigation side the the predominant approach of that campaign has been to say there is a global injustice and we need to mitigate the problem we need to reduce emissions around the world and that's kind of only one half of the climate change and development coin right the other side is adapting to the impacts and we know they're happening now um but how to reduce the the impacts from those changes and how to adapt to those changes is much less worked on despite it being a more immediate concern for many of the children around the world and that's uh you know from a global north global south perspective as well that's always been the consistent um voice of countries from the global south and particularly from the small island states and from the least developed countries groups and the africa group this is we need action on the adapting on adaptation to climate change as much as we need attention to the mitigation of emissions so you know things are changing but I think not necessarily or all in the right direction um that said I'm getting more positive because there is um in the international level now there is an acceptance that there needs to be a balance between an adaptation response and a mitigation response so crucially we're seeing that in international negotiations but also that that's um at least an aspiration for the balance of funding so greater equal levels of funding going to adapting to climate change and mitigating emissions um I'm also optimistic I'm an optimistic guy that there are greater links into formal decision-making channels and the greater effect and the work of thousands of other groups of young people around the world are starting to have um a greater impact in policy and to to make those links both you know at the local level within communities up to national national government but also internationally so we this next year's big climate change meeting which the UK is hosting alongside Italy they have a pre-cop meeting that's a big summit youth summit happening in Italy and for the first time we see the linkages between the agenda items in the youth summit actually linking to agenda items in the the cop itself when the countries come together to negotiate and it remains to be seen if that does go beyond tokenism but we have kind of a more structural basis for some of those links to be made for the first time I think so my research work is on linked into this change of narrative to look at how children's groups in the global south can recognize and realize the potential of children as agents of change and there's a growing global movement who are engaged on this what we've uh really come up with through through uh engaging with groups in Latin America in Africa in East Asia has been around that there are multiple ways that children can actually make a difference and engage um probably useful to put it up as a mini slide let me show my screen again so a very dry slide sorry I don't like that but it's nice to have something to talk to sometimes um so there are multiple ways that that these children's groups are engaging and so you'll see and I'm going to show a video clip um in a little while that just shows you some of the the filmmaking that we've been working on with these groups of children and young people that try and provide that analysis of what the problem is from the from the child's end of perspective um and it's been really instructive seeing the ability to do analysis to contextualize that that knowledge locally um and using you know the analytical tools and to enable them to be able to have conversations and to prioritize action accordingly um and you'll see a bit of that from from the film in the Philippines um but we also see them these child groups as actual implementers as well and that's that was really fantastic the work I was engaged with in Latin America where though we had funding to give small grants to we I say this is planet international um had funding to give grants to to groups there and even with small amounts of money the children were able to um to prioritize uh use their own perceptions of risk have discussions with the local community and to prioritize action and what was fascinating of course is that coming not only as a as an outsider from outside that country and community and even the the planned staff coming from outside the community and even the um parents within the community seeing this risk perception as being really differentiated amongst the child centered groups uh compared to elsewhere and having that using that as a way of debating what action should be you take you take place so you know you might go into a very steep hillside uh village in El Salvador and say we know that uh landslides have been a problem here they block the river they cause floods um and the children do all the risk assessment risk analysis using the the tools that are trained them in and they basically come up with look the big problem here is that every year kids are dying on this road we have to cross this road it's really busy no one has any uh ever stops let's cross this road to get to school to major thoroughfare it's really hard to cross it um and see cars in time and so speed bumps is how we want to spend the money and so actually putting realizing that these perceptions of risk and what has prioritized is is really something that can come from from below and that you would never prioritize if you are coming in from outside and indeed with a with an adult centric view um we were also fascinated by the the kind of modality of children as advocates so another area in the Philippines we worked in uh was had a lot of chromite mining around the villages in eastern Samar and um they did extensive lobbying uh having investigated the problem um the children did extensive lobbying both at the community level and uh the um at the district level to the district governors to try and ban or to ban the uh chromite mining the immediate vicinity of of the uh of the villages and of course there's a kind of proximate cause just like Feo was alluding to here you know the reason why these chromite mines are there is because there's an international demand from China from the global north and that is you know it's very hard to to to to to to take action against that but at least to advocate to stop the mining in the immediate vicinity of villages so you don't pollute the local water courses so you limit the local levels of um of flooding the result from the mining pits um that was fascinating to see that advocacy in motion and using the videos like the one I'm going to show to be able to to do that um and then finally just the communication tool and the use uh that the use of knowledge and risk perceptions around climate impacts and actions to take um to build that kind of credibility and trust um and some work we did in in Indonesia with filmmaking we actually um did a series of a more quantitative study of people's perceptions before and after seeing film showings in communities in indonesia to try and see actually the perceptions of the credibility of children as um actually of those who could actually take action could understand the problem could analyze it could prioritize could communicate could mobilize um independent of the actions taken and how those changed through this filmmaking and film screening process and seeing the acceptance that uh the dawning realization that actually there's a this is a great body of um potential that the community has and that these young people actually can be brought to bear on making the community a better place was absolutely fascinating um and you know charting that academically but as well as seeing what the actions were themselves was uh was fascinating so I promise you a video isn't it it's an extract from one of the videos made by um one of the group's young hearts media correspondents who are from uh a barangay village called kadi an in oras in eastern samar in the philippines and uh hopefully with a bit of tech support we can just get it to run for two and a half minutes with sound I hope but if the sound's not working then uh it does have subtitles so um tom I have a sound but not the video right now sorry it's come back sorry and We have a lot of ideas, we have a lot of students, we have a lot of teachers, but we have a lot of problems and we have a lot of problems. We have a decision, we can go back to the school, one meter by five. Thank you very much. Thanks very much. I think just to square the circle at the end of this talk, bringing it back to COVID one of the things that I think I've been saying from an emotional point of view during certainly the lockdown or the first lockdown as it might potentially be now in the UK as we move into another one was the community spirit and coming together that many of the COVID experiences have brought and it's something that we're looking into now in the context of these young people's groups working on climate change, the extent we're trying to track the extent to which there is to make a social benefit of taking action independent of the action actually being effective or or what it is that actually the feeling of agency and not being a passive victim and be able to, you know, pull together is actually a really strong benefit and trying to quantify that and bring that into decision making that actually this thing that these activities don't need to be just judged on whether they're having a certain impact or not but actually that there is benefit in engagement and advocacy and collectiveness in itself. So I shall leave it there. Thanks a lot. Thank you very much Tom. That was really fascinating to see sort of, you know, especially with the video kind of bringing it all together and again, really resonating with this theme of of who's, whose voices do we hear. Who's do we not hear but also what's going on in terms of trying to amplify some voices and where does that really get us I suppose and you know sort of in terms of what kind of implementations we might actually want to do depending on who we're listening to. And you know some of these other benefits that Tom's talking around talking about around, you know, the feeling of, you know, coming together as a good thing and another self. So, again, I think that resonates really well with the overall sort of theme for the for the conference that we're at here the festival ideas. And so what we will do now then we've got about 55 minutes left for discussion. We already have some questions. And we, this is certainly the time for for more to appear as well. I've, I've got a couple here in the queue and a we've got five questions here, and we'll go through them sort of one by one at the moment we have. Questions for for Philippine and for Tom so let's start with the questions for Philip I don't know if you can see these for leap. But the first question to you is that you mentioned water scarcity at the moment. At the moment our neighbor Cambodia has much flooding rice dies if covered too long and Cambodia may have lost a rice crop. So something here on the importance of of water scarcity and relative water abundance I suppose I think you want to comment on that. Sure, in the few minutes I had I didn't get a chance to go into those complexities. That's actually one of the things I do when I when I have to do a full talk on water is to first highlight that the policy consensus is that everything has to be looked at in terms of scarcity. In fact, there are areas around and that it's true that the last part of the world that are increasingly reading under increasing scarcity, but that at the same time they're part of the world that are much more concerned with flooding on a yearly basis on a regular basis than with scarcity. The issue with scarcity or the underlying point with scarcity that it's been used to push the commodification of water in terms of turning it into an economic good, and in terms of adding pricing to water so that comes in. That's where the development of management dimension comes in. And that's also why it's important. In fact, even in countries or in region that suffer from overabundance of water at certain times of the year, because even in those parts of the world or even sometimes even much more because of that. There will be an issue of scarcity, typically because the floods will have affected drinking water supply. And there there will be a scarcity of drink of safe drinking water. So in those circumstances, the age of scarcity comes back in because we are talking about safe water having become scarce, maybe because of the flooding. So in fact, it's a twin, twin loop. So yes, very mature rights with that comment. I can see the comments. If I may just read it out for people's benefit, that's okay with you, Philippe, and ask you to answer it. Is that okay? I mean, probably people can see it, but just in case. Another comment from Inger Ralph here that's coming is about the, you know, thank you for highlighting the lack of global context and the common heritage principle, which I was also interested in. The first question was going to be about, but I lied to that is the global commons and is there a pathway you would suggest as a sort of fast track for getting these principles used as a baseline for legal frameworks to protect the interdependent mega systems that maintain our climate and therefore human security such as the poles, the oceans, the forest, the point here being, we also lack enforcement mechanisms and there is no time for lengthy negotiations. So how do we solve that then, Philippe? Okay, that's not the, that's not the two minute answer. That's a few hours answered. But, okay, indeed, there is no time for lengthy negotiations, which is maybe what the Paris agreement showed us in the sense it took eight years to come to something which is far from satisfactory. By now the situation is even worse, which means that whatever was agreed on in 2015 is not enough that much we know. One of the reasons why it's not enough is because of very basis for the agreement, which is that negotiating on the basis of sovereign interest is ensuring that each state does what suits its own purposes, which as far as I'm concerned is very well reflected in that idea of nationally determined contributions where we've moved from a system of negotiated commitments, which was what we had in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 to a system where essentially everybody says, okay, whatever I am willing to do is what I will do. And that's the end of it. So it's exactly the country of what you're identifying. And indeed, we have things which concern the global comments, which need to be understood, which needs to be addressed from. Okay, I'll try to use another word from the perspective of solidarity. And it is that solidarity which not only has been missing, but the problem is at this point where we are moving backwards, if at all so now we've come to a point at least with some large countries, particularly some large countries not just them but since they're predominant in the international system that makes it more difficult being not only unwilling to contribute but also unwilling to even participate that not only we need to move to a new basis ahead of sovereignty but we also need to bring back those countries that are not even willing participants in the system we've had for the past 50 years in terms of environmental law or whatever a few hundred years otherwise to that stable because that interdependence has never been stronger. Okay, COVID shows it what everything shows it. And at the same time the direction of policymaking easier in the other direction so that two things we need to do one is to bring back states to where we were before maybe. And then take us ahead so indeed the challenge is huge I don't, neither in two minutes now in two hours do I have the answer all by myself but we have to think about that answer. Yeah, absolutely I think it is quite I find it quite difficult to I like the idea of a common heritage principle but the sort of, I don't know, stranglehold of, you know, sort of international regimes in international negotiations and the sort of, as you say the ascendancy of the sort of nation state interaction based on everyone looking after their own interests and you know that sort of the advancement of that as a political as a specific explicit foreign policy objective by by the United States right now by Donald Trump is is, it makes me, you know, quite it's really hard to figure out how to get further towards a sort of common heritage principle but if I guess if you give up on the idea then then, you know, then that's arguably, you know, sort of the, you know, that's not going to help and it's arguably, you know, that's the, it's a self fulfilling but it's also that, you know, if you just accept that the status quo can only be the way that it is then, you know, that's part of the purpose of any status quo that wants to persist. So, you know, we have to challenge it even if we can't figure out always how to how to change it. But thank you for those for those responses to leave. A couple of questions that have come in for Tom for Tom. Dr Thomas Tanner. This is from Johnny. How do we address the anxiety of children over climate change. I am 69 and even I feel it and that links to your point there about emotion. I think you're on mute. That's the classic zoom teacher. And yeah I don't have the perfect answer at all by dinner from my own experiences that the temptation to to live the life you want to live to be part of the solution is important, but it's also limiting because that can lead to shame if you're not doing enough, but also can be dangerous that actually it's not enough that individual responses, even collectively aren't enough to change to make the changes for a to limit non dangerous climate change. So, the lesson is what can we do is to inculcate within with children to encourage them that their actions matter that they can individually and collectively help to change systems, and individually, that can be just communicating through an MP, or, you know, anyone who holds power that you are interested in this, and you will follow these greener agendas, whether that be through how you vote when you're legally able to, or through influencing your pet your household. You know, as you as you have more collective response you actually can start to change the systems that control decision making all the way up to and someone's made the point Catherine's made the point here in the comments that, you know, businesses are starting to realize that structurally, not only the kind of gosh dimension that there is a market to be had in environmental goods and services, but actually the climate change dangerous climate change really poses a risk for many organizations and business activities. And so they are structurally changing the way they work whether it be in terms of their environmental footprint or their levels of resilience to those shocks. And that's, you know, that again is something that you can push as a consumer as a group of consumers to say, we will want to see this we will buy from companies that do this. And you've seen the more forward looking multinationals in particular positioning themselves to do that. You know, around the whole world, they see this forward market around sustainability in a very much longer term way than many others. And, you know, I think you can feed into that those systems, even if it doesn't, it's much harder to feel your own impact to see a discrete change in the system but actually, you know, we have we have that potential through lobbying collective action in particular. Okay. Thank you for that time you've taken care of your two questions. Now I suggest by the way that I don't think we're limited by bandwidth or anything or by getting in the way of each other's presentation slides now, maybe a Philippine fair would like to turn their, at least their videos back on so that we can all at least sort of see each other. I think that takes us through the questions that we had in the in the chat box right now. I mean, I had one actually which was for fair. You know, it was really powerful to hear about sort of the, as you say the very kind of afterthought character of participatory mechanisms within within red plus it's something that's decided at the global level. And then, oh, well, where have we got areas which has sort of got good forest cover. Oh, there happen to be indigenous people living there but we'll just go and do stuff there rather than starting with the people who live there and which enough in many cases are actually a higher level of sort of what we would call conservation value than you would get even in protected areas that's the case in Brazil. And as I'm sure that you, you know, fair so like my question would be around in the research that you've done in the different areas of the world that you've worked on this. What has been the response from different indigenous peoples once they've found themselves, you know, bound up in these sort of afterthought mechanisms of participation. And what has been their response and has that have there been sort of attempts at processes of some sort of resistance or subversion has there been a level of capitulation has there been a sort of level of running away trying physically to get get away from the level of, you know, or a greater presence of a sort of, you know, set of dynamics and processes around, you know, kind of the expansion of capital sort of accumulation frontiers or the presence of the state or whatever. What has been the response, you know, that you've seen in the red plus kind of mechanisms from individuals. Okay, thanks. I mean, it'd be no surprise that there's no single response. And, you know, we casually use the term indigenous peoples when it refers to an almost variety of peoples of cultures of ways of living in the forest as well and working with forests. And I'd like to point out the, the biodiversity rich areas where the highest is generally where those indigenous peoples are the greatest concentration in terms of responses with in regard to red plus you see a range of responses. It doesn't just depend on the, the indigenous peoples themselves, but it depends on the governance of forests within that country as well. And the relationships between the authorities and the government and indigenous peoples and other forest users. There's a historic dimension to this and I think so trying to bring this out a little bit more as well. Brazil, for example, the tent that a huge tension is between the colonizers in Brazil, who dominate the government, who dominate the decisions around land use and land use conversion and indigenous communities. There's about 50% of the indigenous communities in Brazil do not have contact with the outside world. So their engagement with this international process is not, is nothing. But there are some communities that see it as an opportunity to, to protect their, their, the areas of the forest that they, they do have some degree of control over to prevent agricultural conversion. So, so they're trying to so find allies beyond the Brazilian government. So that's just general sort of political economy tactics working out here. So that's an example in Brazil. There are different examples in sort of DRC, Democratic Republic of Congo, where there are real differences between the indigenous communities who have been in civil conflict with each other as well. And this is another difficulty around the way in which we even articulate some of this, some of the responses. It's, it's trying to understand what's going on in the ground and how that's playing out in international pilots and projects. Who's actually involved can actually play out really badly on the ground and lead to more conflicts in internally in a country. So there's that I do want to come back just to the point about businesses. And maybe pick up a little bit about what Tom was saying about the forward looking multinational enterprises that there's quite a lot of research about sort of, they are for they appear to be forward looking. It's the triple bottom line effect of, well, if we're going to keep our business going, then we need to source sustainable sustainably. But again, this is about them dictating the use of that land and the use of those forests without consultation working with communities. And, and it's generally beyond the state and because most of these companies are in the global north. Although it's big companies in global global south as well in China and in Brazil, for example. The proposal by the European Commission is very interesting about what you have to look on the whole, not just about sustainability, but about human rights abuses. And how you determine what human rights abuses are, because this is another thing this is another issue is that what constitutes a human rights abuse in terms of environmental human rights defenders. We're talking about participation and when we're talking about access to information, the right to communication, if they're being curtailed, does a business have a due diligence not to invest in that country. So there are real questions there about when is it, when is somebody's right to communication being curtailed, and should a government should a business, not invest. How do you prove it. There's all sorts of legal dimensions to this. I don't really want to come in on it. But yeah, so it's, it's, yeah, big questions. Tom, do you want to come back on that. The, the interest of these big companies is not to change our habits and a big driver in terms of land use and land use change in climate is to move away from the agricultural base diet that we in the West have basically moved to which is one of the big drivers for agricultural land conversion. So planet a plant by its changing what we eat changing how we consume. These are all these are somewhat threatened the business model, even if it did go sustainable, whether that's possible. There's a big debate about whether you can continue to have, I guess, growth of some description and square that with, you know, living within, you know, what some people would call environmental limits and and it's very easy to talk about sustainability if, if there is a, you know, it's, it's also very difficult to, to change that idea that that growth is something that might in itself, you know, needs to come to an end and if that's something that's to what extent can you square that I suppose with sort of, the best corporate social responsibility really. And I mean I don't know if any of our people who are asking questions Catherine for example, who's been attending interesting webinars about the role of business and climate change mitigation and feeling a bit more optimistic than maybe the sort of the reflections of fair sharing with some of the things that I've been saying. I don't know if you have a sort of response to this Catherine please do feel feel free to write to write more I don't know if we have a way of getting you to speak directly. There's a, there's certainly, you know, a legitimate debate to be to be had there. Absolutely. So, we've got another question that's common in the meantime from from pre drag. An attempt to bring all three issues together which is very welcome and water and forests are deeply interconnected as the forest keep the small water cycle going. And today's children will experience the consequence of today's inadequate conservation policies don't need more awareness raising around these issues and linkages sorry and concrete action to engage children and adults to reforest and rewild to plant the rivers of the future today. What can we at so as to do about this. So, I think that can be a question for all of our panelists for leap we've not heard for for you from you for a while so if you want to come back in. Okay, maybe I'll use that to also link with one comment that came in the chat in the meantime or a response that came in the chat in the meantime. I guess awareness we need and maybe Tom will say more about awareness, but awareness should also be built with not just participation with the engagement from the ground up. That's where the the comment link that links links links sorry and links that with the previous comment that I did that it's the idea of looking at it at the international level, maybe a dead end in itself because we know that states may never have the Okay, many never sort of willingness never have the guts to actually do what it takes which is to go beyond their own sovereign interest, and that's the only answer that can actually come it's from the ground up and did okay that's great. That's all the other movements that may be building up from the ground in terms of ensuring that government have to listen to what people who are affected by ongoing climate change and adaptation in the future will tell them that they have to do. There may be no other option and that needs to be done then in the context of stronger ecological democracy in the many parts of the world where there isn't enough of that so that needs to be claimed. In other words, it's not just there it needs to be claimed. And that may also link with the other discussion you were just having now. The fact that it may be impossible to reach where we need to reach unless we manage to move ahead of development, whether it's called the gross whether it's called something else is another question, but it may well be that as long as we're within the current paradigm, we will get stuck at the same kind of loops where we've gotten stuck or stuck over the past, at least 25 years kind of during the period of the Kyoto protocol up to today. Okay. Sorry, thank you for the suggestion. Do you want to comment about fair and then we'll come to Tom. Certainly the essentially it's a recognition of ecosystems that we live within ecosystems, multiple ecosystems. So, we can talk about more water based ecosystems and we can talk about forest ecosystems but they will obviously there'll be some interlinkages, when you have a river going through when you have a forest near a wetland. And these just variations of ecosystems and how reliant we are on them. I mean, I think something that is very, very difficult for policy and lawmakers and politicians will generally is to appreciate how little we do actually understand the world that we live in. I mean, that we depend on and the idea that we can somehow manage and control it and move to a good Anthropocene a good future through interventions. It demonstrates the arrogance of the human era that we're in. And certainly, and I mean this is coming through in what we're saying is it's a more ecological legal jurisprudence where is a sort of humility and recognition that more attention is needed in the way in which we constructs our normative framework. And so, our rules in deference to to to the natural world to the environment and that we are part of many other species. This is integral that we can't just keep taking and taking and taking to sustain multinational enterprises to sustain rich elite lifestyles in in the global north and in the global south. And I think that a day of reckoning is upon us, and that if we don't, if we don't shift now, it will be forced on us, and it will be forced on us in different ways in different parts of the world. And many people will suffer inordinately because of the actions of certain people, but everybody will be impacted. And that's really important to sort of bear in mind that we are all are impacted. Our immediate attention should be in reinforcing and increasing the resilience of ecosystems, because we rely on the healthy functioning of ecosystems, not ecosystem services, so that we can exchange them in a trading system, but as systems within which we live as other species. And this will require an enormous transformation in how law and policy is thought about and framed and stuff, but there are definitely indications that that's starting to inform some people and I think the radical shift. Radical shifts happen quite quickly sometimes. And I think we are in a moment where there is a whirlwind of transformation and within the next 10 to 20 years. There is a whirlwind of transformation indeed. So, I don't know how, as again, I'd sort of be interested to hear what Catherine thinks of that and I was hoping to then put this over to Tom who has now reappeared right at the right time because I wanted to get you back into the question that we started with, to get you to the one from Prodrag, what can we do about the rewilds, plant the rivers of the future today, and you may not have had everything that Faye was just saying, but I thought we might tell you that with the question or the observation from Catherine that it's an exciting time to bring the business world on board. You know, as you said, Tom, Unilever are making this a big thing and the rap bones are really reinventing themselves on ethical investment. The challenge, as with Greta, is to change the nature of the dialogue and make it essential to engage with business and industrial communities in the discussions. So often they are seen as the baddies. So that's almost the counterpoint in some ways to what you are saying, Faye, and there's something here about recognising the potential. I wonder if that chimes with, you know, the point you were making, Tom, about Unilever. Yeah, I've lost it. Unfortunately, having dropped out, I've now lost the chat. It's annoying, it's reset the chat. There is a lot that comes down to personal beliefs around how the world works and how to make a change in that world. And there's a lot of distrust around the existing systems and the capitalist structures, the business community, because it is so focused on short term extraction of surplus of natural capital surplus for pursuit of profit, with scant regard for real longer term sustainability. So that's, you know, whether you believe that you can incrementally adjust those systems or even transform them from within or whether we need a radical, revolutionary approach is, you know, it's still hotly contested. And from a, from a kind of young person perspective, it's difficult to hear that, that on the ground that there's a real sense of kids recognising that things and there's been 20 years for the kind of incremental change that's needed. And that's been what's been promised. And now they are realising as they, you know, become adults that actually that that change isn't sufficient and that changes in fast enough, and some some different, some different mode is needed. And, and as, you know, as systems do they, they mobilise to put down the threat. And we see that happening around the world with those threats being disregarded, or being given, as I say, tokenistic attention. But yeah, that's, that's, I mean, that's still that's, that's really hot within politics of the world is how we whether we see this as something that needs revolution and a completely radically different approach to organising ourselves on the planet. So, Tom, let me bring this back to a question from from Rubiner, which I think is sort of, I think your answer, you know, what you've just been saying now but it's hard to know what is that we need to do and what is possible is there. So, you know, this is one of the big questions for us here at SAS is, how do we bring change about and what is required to do that and there isn't an agreement on whether it's, you know, a sort of radically sort of reformed and rapidly reformed, you know, but ultimately capitalist system or what or whether it's something else. But, and, and, you know, your answer that just now acknowledges that Tom, and bringing in Rubiner's question I you know that she says that I don't think individuals going through the current political legal or commercial systems. I think what you have brought us to this point is remotely the way to change with the urgency needed that's a bit more on on the side that fails, but been arguing that there is no such thing as a forward looking. Quite different perspective than that offered offered in our chat by Catherine. They is right it requires a tailored negotiation to set aside. So my question to you know to add to what Rubiner saying here my question to you Tom would be in terms of when you. It's been really it's been really beautiful in size to look at the work that you've been doing with children and to make these careful points about making this space in which children can actually be heard and listening to for them. So what do you feel about sort of what space is there for children to sort of to voice, you know, their, their desires and their, their request their demands for change in, you know, in, in, in, does that make sense as a question Tom. Although you were fading out with your turn to have internet problems connection problems. Would you like me to repeat that. No, I think the point is worth making is that is to accept and the whole point of the so as festival ideas really is to accept that we are not experts who have all the answers and what my research is really showing me is that actually providing the spaces for the agency of young people is absolutely vital because it's not about driving that agenda it's providing the space for us, it was things like providing the tools providing the video editing skills and teaching them how to edit videos themselves rather than doing externally. And about, yeah, that's that that's part of the process that we want to affect changes as academics is to provide some knowledge to provide an analytical skills but also to provide the spaces for people to be able to to take action. And yeah, maybe you know, maybe I'm more an incrementalist than than greater. And, but I think it's, it is about like creating that dialogue creating the space for that for those changes to happen and get and promoting the bear facts I guess we're still talking about being led by the science and coven but not so much in climate that the science is telling us that we're not acting fast enough that the impacts we can expect. Even in the best case scenario is a pretty severe to both the system on which we depend on the ecological foundations of our lives so that's, you know, that's what I think we can add in a way is to create the spaces and to create some of that foundational knowledge. That's very near mouse failure to unmute. So, which I think brings us a little bit sort of closer to a further quite observation that's been made by by Catherine I mean, which is, and I'm really glad that you're here Catherine because, you know, you have a quite different perspective than some of us here at so I wonder who we sometimes speak to maybe I'm being a bit disrespectful maybe I'm just assuming that we, we don't reach out to some of the people that we could but your point Catherine is that in this academic milieu, which is need to be built between academic academic and business and it's just possible that in this virtual world, we all now have it that that might be a bit easier so maybe that's a question sort of. And for all of us it's quite a different perspective from from that offered by Ruben I have noticed your question got your your observation got split into two. So just to read the whole thing. And, although the second part of it rather fair is right. It requires I mean change requires a tailored negotiation to set aside protected areas and make it worthwhile through eco tourism. There's a question raised here which might be best for fair to answer. Although other shipping if you know of course is in Brazil, what is the balance between deforestation by the timber and the agricultural industries. Well, obviously balance is a sort of relative tone balance for who balance of what I mean we could say. Again, if we just go back to what I was saying about like, placing at the forefront, the, the importance being ecosystems and resilient ecosystems. Think of thinking of them in a trans boundary sense as well so if you think about the Amazon it's not just Brazil it's it's trans boundary includes a number of countries in the region. In terms of balance. One of the, one of the dictating factors for Brazil as a, as a state for balance is is an economic model, which is, which is tailored around extractive industries, and it's not just, it's not just deforestation for agriculture commodities. It's also mining. So that's that's a large area of mining and conversion for highways and and dams. So the balance is a question of a balance either to destroy some part of the ecosystem. So that part of the Brazilian government and the people living outside the forest, the metropolitan and elite, and those in the, in the south of Brazil, can increase their income, their livelihoods. So who bears the burden in that sense and that will be forest peoples as well as biodiversity. Is it a balance that also includes those that consume and rely on the production of commodities from Brazil. So, where does the balance lie for them is the balance in ensuring that whatever comes out of Brazil is sustainable. When they consume it, or do we move to a different balance in terms of our consumption. There's also questions about balance of the life cycle of our consumption patterns over what period of time. One thing that we haven't mentioned, I'll discuss very much is waste in the cycle of policy measures to address climate change. So sort of the idea of a circular economy. One that reduces the carbon intensity within the economy. But also over time. So that would require a real transformation in in the balance of materiality of economy and how a country would be part of that. So Brazil's balance now is a balance of producing agro commodities, or keeping the forest. But if we have a different model of balance, it would, it could respond differently. So the question of the balance that's posed is one in the in the moment that we're in, rather than thinking creatively about an alternative way in which balances could be achieved to meet different stakeholders interests. Right. Okay, so yes, balance is not a word that we can take for granted. Well, I wouldn't say it was an easy, easy answer to, but I think sometimes when we're asked questions about. Is it this or that. And you just say, we just need to reduce a little bit of this and a little bit. We need to move away from that kind of way of thinking, you need to think that there's space for creative solutions to finding balances of interest, but we can't do it using the same options. Yeah, absolutely. So I think that there's something about if regard even almost regardless of whether it's an incrementalist or a more revolutionary approach, there's something about it's, you know, or a reformist as opposed to revolutionary which does something about not just thinking it can be a relatively piecemeal, sort of response that we can get by with sticking classes and making, you know, fairly modest changes to what we do and how we live there's something much more fundamentally systemic that we have to that we have to think through just on that note that because there have been a couple of questions about what, how do we do conservation. I just thought I'd throw in a little resource here. There was Ingrid's question to Philippa originally, pre-drags question about sort of, you know, rewilding and reforesting. There is also a big literature which critiques the ways in which conservation works and who is included and who isn't included within that. And then to which conservation itself really challenges the underlying drivers of global environmental change, you know, and establishing a protected area in Madagascar using the proceeds of Rio Tinto mining activities for Ilmenite which is one of those implications in quite a lot of our electrical goods is arguably perpetuating, you know, a sort of a system of consumption for the sake of being able to sort of have a a more a better resource, you know, you know, set of protected areas in Madagascar. It's something that we need to think about our conservation and how we're doing that as well. And some of the people who've been trying to do that, I mean, not sure exactly how robust we might find their interventions or their suggestions right now. But there's a, as an organization called convivial conservation, I'm just putting in the chat right now for people to check out by themselves who are trying to think about, you know, how we do conservation in a way which is, you know, bringing up fairs points, maybe maybe a bit more sort of fundamentally different, whether that's in reformist character, you know, the objective overall is to have some really substantial change, and whether you get there through reform or revolution, you know, it's not to say that it's what you can't do is just change things a little bit. So, to look at the comments of coming in the meantime Catherine completely agrees with Tom's answer on any of these questions of how to bring about changing and where children sit within that. Completely agree with Tom on that but build back better is the sum of the time. So, Jeané says listening to the discussion to me it's the capitalist system that is the problem. Please comment I think we have been talking about that a bit but to make it explicit. If we could do a sort of round Robin on that a few thoughts on the capitalist system itself from all of you. Maybe we'll start with Philippe because we haven't heard from you for a while. And then we'll see where we are time wise and whether we whether we wrap up or whether there's time for one more question. Philippe. Okay, but I guess I'll go back to what I was trying to present at first is that whether it's capitalist or not it's a more the model of development that we've been following so in that sense, very much sustainable development is probably at the center of the problems we are facing. And because in that sense because it has not proved to be sustainable over the past 33 years if we assume 1987 as a starting point for the era of sustainable development. And that's probably where just in terms of concepts, we need to move ahead of where we are so that we can start with thinking things differently. I was just okay linking that with what you were saying before was actually just about what I was saying before. I was just thinking in terms of linking it to covid, and since it's present day thing. One of the things that has collapsed in front of us is the tourism industry, the tourism industry has been one of these problematic industries from an environmental change and many other perspective. So it's collapsed from a certain point of view it's great, even if you want to look at it in terms of climate change from another point of view it's catastrophic, because there are millions of livelihoods jobs, and other things which depend entirely on tourism, we can't just cut it off. I think, if that's what we're doing now then the consequences will be dramatic for millions of people. And that's from a social and other perspective. So, environment is one side, the economic dimension is another side, the need for change is one that doesn't mean that we throw everything out at the same time because we'll create an additional problem. That's exactly what we've seen happening during the lockdown with lots of people around the world, being thrown into deeper poverty out of the consequences of the public health induced lockdown. Thank you for that, Philippe. Tom. I'm not sure if I have much to much to comment on that really. I'm, I'm minded and with you that there is a lot of the kind of greenwashing of sustainability, including in conservation areas and the rewilding of projects and the critical thing I was come back to is always the need for longer term horizons and incentive structures. And that for me implies, you know, a role for government regulation that incentivizes and even, you know, makes illegal short term these approaches that pray on the natural resources in the short term without any incentive to leave them for the longer term. And that seems to be one of the kind of structural misdirections that we have in the world at the moment that we need to address and isn't probably being talked about enough. Thank you Tom. And Fayette, over to you, your thoughts on the capitalist system. In eight minutes. I agree with my colleagues. It's, it's more, it's a, it's a model of extraction. And a model of life livelihood and a model of development and ways of meeting those models of development. Value has not been placed where it needs to be placed. Things have been determined as of no value. But they are of high value that and we're only we're beginning to recognize that I mean through ecological economics, begin, you know, placing value on the cost of the loss of ecosystem. ecosystem services. Also the cost of pollution. So incorporating that into the production costs. And that that cost should be reflected in the pricing of goods that are consumed. There is a great deal to be said I mean we're seeing it with the sort of move to economic and social governance. Accounting systems. There's this new sort of field in impact investment. Recognizing the full cost accounting of investment and then the production of commodities. And that pricing should be done in that way that would transform the way in which we consume the transform the way in which we invest transform the way in which we produce. There are, there are ultimately economics can assist if we have the right rules the right interventions the right regulations to mobilize and value appropriately. Whether you call that capitalism, it's up to you I think like because I think you, you completely alienate people as soon as you say well we need to get rid of capitalism and bring in something else that we need to value in a different way. We need the rules to do so we need the regulatory instruments to enable that. And we need to respect people to be part of the process to make that happen. One point that I really want to just underscore that I think that Tom made about engaging people to enable them to deal with the anxiety of crisis and the moving away from the sense that it's inevitable victim hood. I think there's a loss of value of people if you're not engaging and bringing them into into the processes of change. So in terms of a straight answer to capital system, so I'm not going to give away. But I think the key thing is is about where we place value and then how we build our governance systems around that. Perhaps that's the point which we could sort of all agree on because there might be a role for, you know, organizations in the private and the public sectors and organizations which don't fall into that categorization to be part of that conversation around value, assuming that this is the conversation that we all agree we need to hear that we have the right voices sort of the right we have enough, whatever that means voices contributing to the conversation. And so I think we it's kind of time for us to draw this to a close because we have the next session, which is about to start after us. The next session is called duress and virality or virality, the endurance of racial capitalism that's happening from three to five p.m. So in order to help people get set up I think we should probably wind up. I'd like to give a big thank you to all of our panel members I've hugely enjoyed speaking to you today and being part of this event and hearing what you have to say. I would really also like to thank the people in the audience you've got involved. I'm sorry that I didn't notice all the comments in the normal chat as opposed to the Q&A. It's hard when you have both of them going at the same time. But it's been great all the time, great all the same. And thank you very much. And enjoy the rest of your day and do stay for the next session if you possibly can. Thanks very much guys. Thank you.