 Good day everyone. It's nice to see people coming in and as we've reached 50 participants. I think it's a good moment to start this session. Welcome. My name is Bart, Bart Weiss. I work for CARE and I'm pleased to introduce you to our session on our adaptation finance tracking methodology. In the past two years or so we've piloted this methodology in six countries. We worked with partners in all of these countries and we've been tracking over 6 billion of adaptation finance over the period 2013 to 2017 to these countries. As far as we know, it is a unique research in its sort. I'm happy to hear if you have other thoughts on that after this session. Let me give you a few remarks or guidelines for engagement in the session. I see people saying hello in the chat. Very good, because that's what we were hoping you would do. If you have any technical difficulties, we have a Zoom volunteer standing by. So then please put a request in the chat to the volunteer. I hope you can share any questions that you may have and stay on mute for the time being until I open the floor for questions. If you have any technical difficulties, we have a Zoom volunteer standing by. So please put a request in the chat to the volunteer. I hope at least you'll be able to access the chat. A quick overview of what you'll want to expect for this session. We will start with a short poll to get a bit of an idea of what your background is, and also your expectations for the session. Then I will give you an overall introduction to our methodology. And then we'll go into our questions and then we'll go into our cases for Uganda and the Philippines. And then we'll have some breakout groups with the researchers from these countries where you can ask them basically any questions that you have about the research methodology. And finally, we'll come back in the plenary. We'll have a sneak preview of the overall outcomes of our research. And then I will then close and then it should be one and a half hours more or less from now. I would like to ask our volunteer Chandler to share his screen with the Mentimeter poll. Let me stop sharing. Can we go back to the first slide. This is the second one I see. So you can see the instructions at the top. Please go to menti.com and then you can use the code 705774 for to log in and answer the questions that we share here. Yes, I see the first person found the link. So you go to menti.com and use the code, please. 705774 for by the way we are recording this session so that we can share. Yeah, so that people can listen back afterwards. Just so you're aware. So we have 30 people, more or less answering the question and you can see an overwhelming majority of NGO colleagues here, some research institutions to government and one business, one student and one other. So that's it's quite clear that we are among peers, which I suppose is nice but also happy to have some other people around so that you can offer some fresh and different perspectives. Can we go to the second question, Chandler, and have a look at the word cloud. Great. It's nice to see this developing it's nice to see also that I think we're that you are in the right session, because we'll be talking about adaptation finance and will indeed be hopefully sharing new things. And helping you to broaden your knowledge to get a better understanding of adaptation finance and how to track that. Good. Well, feel free to keep on adding expectations will be saving this cloud afterwards. So it will become part of the package of materials for this session. And meanwhile, I'm going to start up my presentation and walk you through our methodology, go to full screen. So, the basic purpose of our adaptation finance tracking research was to assess whether donors reporting adaptation finance is reliable and accurate, and whether the full amount genuinely genuinely target adaptation. We also investigated if the adaptation finance benefits the poorest and most climate vulnerable parts of the population, and we sought to develop a methodology that civil society could use widely. We initially piloted this in six countries. Overview, the in Ghana, Uganda, Ethiopia, Nepal, Philippines and Vietnam. The scope of the research so far that we've investigated 112 adaptation projects in these countries. We focused on international international adaptation finance from bilateral donors and multilateral, the multilateral donors for the development banks. We included in each country, the 10 largest adaptation relevant projects in our sample. In the total, we covered almost half of the total climate finance received across these countries throughout the period. Why, why is this study needed. Well, for one, I think most of you will probably be aware of the agreement and the agreement or the intention declared in the agreement to have a balanced approach to climate finance balanced over adaptation and mitigation. And by most people, his balance is interpreted as that 100 billion or 100, yeah, 100 billion climate finance should be 50% adaptation finance and 50% climate finance mitigation finance. So, in order to track that. There's basically two methods that are used to report on adaptation finance, and both of these methods have their issues. One is the real marker, which is be used by developed country donors and reporting to the OECD. And it's a very rough estimate because it's just a marker one or zero one or two. And based on that, the calculation is made of how much of a project budget can be reported as adaptation finance. Most donors say that if real marker zero is 0% obviously real marker one is 40% so it's a bit less than half, and real marker two is 100% adaptation finance. So on the slide, you can see that if for a real marker for a project to get a real marker to on adaptation, the climate change adaptation objective should be explicitly integrated into the documents for the activity, but and it should be a fundamental reason for design so basically the project should not be there if if not if if there will not be no need for climate change adaptation. Then for the real marker value one. The objective of the project should be related to adaptation, but it is not the primary reason for undertaking this activity. And finally, of course, if there is a real marker zero then it's not related to adaptation at all. And then next to this there is the method that's employed by the multilateral development banks, which is called the three step method, which we are going to use over which we used in our methodology actually, actually. The disadvantage of this one is that it's totally non transparent and the banks do not disclose how they exactly assess their projects and and the evidence of that assessment so as civil society for example we cannot dive into that and investigate whether they are indeed assessing their projects correctly and whether that adaptation finance is indeed can be judged to be adaptation contributing to adaptation. In our methodology. We started with OECD dark data for the six countries that we meant that I mentioned for the period 2013 to 2017. It was reported by the donors. So it is all based on project documentation and the real markers, and then the three step approach for the MDB's. We used then our, our own variation on the three step assessment based on these development banks, because in our view, the questions that these these three steps ask are, you know, our relevant questions to indeed assess whether finance is relevant to adaptation. And because it's, it's an, it's a method that's also being used by the donors themselves. In our research we combined document and observational analysis, which is one of the, the contribute. Yeah, one of the things that we I think this research contributes to the evidence on adaptation finance. We used a rating skill as I show on the right hand side in this slide to come to a granular, granular calculation of the adaptation relevance of the project. I'll show a picture of that in the next slide. But basically, and with the skill we, we gave scores to each of the questions for the three steps, and then with these scores, we calculated the adaptation relevance of the finance. And we also included in our methodology and assessment of the poverty and gender orientation of the project. So in a way, the first part of the research focused on the quantity of adaptation finance, and then second part, more on the quality, in which we seem to do, and we, we did a rapid assessment to what extent the project includes poor communities, a gender assessment based on a cash gender marker, and an assessment using the joint principles for adaptation, which will probably be familiar to some of you because it's been developed. It was they these joint principles were developed by the southern voices as principles for, yeah, adaptation could practice basically. These are the three steps in assessment. The, the first step or the first question, basically, yeah, the steps basically translate into three questions. One, focus on the climate vulnerability context. And, and questions, how well the project sets out the context of risks vulnerabilities and impact related to climate variability and climate change. And second, focus on the statements of statement of purpose or intent in the project document or in the project. So is the intent of the project explicitly to address the identified risks vulnerabilities and impact related to climate variability and climate change. Now finally, is there a demonstrated direct link between the risks and vulnerabilities and impacts, and the finance activities. And for each of these steps, we basically we, our, our assessment format took the form of a table in which for each step, we, we assessed on one hand, what, what, when looking at the project documentation, what, what score we would give. On the other hand, we combine that with observations, observations from sources from the areas where the, the projects were implemented, or other relevant additional sources that we could find. And we did this because we, because, on one hand, the donors themselves score the, or, or judge the adaptation relevance of project purely based on project documentation. So we wanted to replicate that process and, and see whether we would come to the same conclusion. But on the other hand, we also wanted to see whether in practice, and reality would actually confirm, then the, the assessment of the project documents. And what I'm showing here in this table is basically an example calculation, where you could come where, well in this case, we come to the conclusion based on our assessment. That's, let me see for based on so that there is a difference you see a clear difference between project, our assessment based on project documents and project observations, where in actual observations we come to a lower estimation of adaptation finance, but also that link to that. If you, if, if our according to our estimation adaptation finance is only around 65% or 50, 56% then it would not be correct to give a real market one or sorry a real market to. This led to is basically. Sorry, now I'm going too fast. So the next slide and I'm going to show this very briefly because I cannot share all of this with you but. So we also had these assessments for poverty, gender and the joint principles for adaptation. And basically these were separate elements in our methodology where we had teams in the country's assessed poverty and gender and the joint principles, according to a number of key questions. And then again, coming to an assessment rating. In the end, this led to maximum of 20 reports per country on 20 projects. And then these 20 projects reports were synthesized into country reports, and we are currently finalizing the overall synthesis report. It's almost done so we can share some first findings later in the session, but we're still looking for the, yeah, the best order. Yeah, the best moment to publish it because of course all, yeah, the whole agenda of the UNF triple C is shifting. And so we're a bit puzzled. Yeah, puzzling to see what's the best moment to reach the right people. Any suggestions on this welcome or some first lessons and there will be more concrete lessons shared by my colleagues later. The first lesson is that the access to data. And that's obvious, of course, that is crucial and it's not always easy for national civil society so for example, for our colleagues in Uganda or Ethiopia to access these In our study this was facilitated by a consultant in Denmark. And what we saw is that the collaboration between NGOs and the expert consultants was crucial for the result. So I think in developing this methodology and taking the with the ambition that it could be widely applied by civil society. We underestimated the importance and of having this access to data and also having this expert insight in. To calculate, for example, or to have to crunch the numbers. And it's, we also found that our methodology is still quite complex. I think that's probably also what you, what you, what you conclude based on my presentation so far, because it has a number of different elements. And these elements need to be better integrated. So we had a dating skill where we had 10 different grades should be simplified to five points actually because it's difficult to distinguish between 10 different grades. And then finally, our conclusion is that the combination of document and observational analysis does have a great added value, because we found that from our observational analysis we come to different conclusions than from the documents. However, to get that observational evidence was more costly than we expected. Because what we expected initially was that through contacts through networks. CSO counterparts, we will be able to reach out to people by phone, for example, to investigate to ask them about their knowledge on the implementation of a certain project in an area. It turned out to be more complicated than we thought. It turned out that in many cases we did need to go visit areas ourselves or our call or my, or our CSO colleagues it did so, and organize focus groups for example. So, it turned out that this observational evidence was different was more difficult to gather than we had expected. So here are some of my, the first lessons and a brief description of our methodology. I imagine that you have questions based on this. And we have some time for that. I would like to focus on really on the clarifying questions and save any discussion for later. Let me just see if there's any questions in the chat. And meanwhile, I'll stop sharing for a minute. Let me see. So I'm going through the chat now I see one question on poverty orientation and poverty cut off points. Let me see. I must admit I don't have to direct answer to that. So one of my fellow researchers has an answer, because we follow we use basically for simple questions to look at to assess the poverty orientation. Christine, please. Thank you so much. Thank you so much but for the presentation in regard to the poverty. We have four questions and we also use the existing poverty maps, we use the World Bank map for Uganda. Then we also use the the household survey reports. So those formed the yardstick for determining which projects were actually responding to poverty. And then by the four questions on whether the project did the poverty analysis, whether it is taking into issues of inclusion. So that is what we basically did. Thanks Christine. We'd be happy to provide a more detailed answer afterwards if you can. If you want to have that. Then please just reach out. I will share my email later on also in the chat. Another question on what basis this research considers the finance as climate finance. And that's actually not so difficult because we basically use the OECD DAC report climate finance. So the basis in this case is what the donors themselves reported as climate finance to the countries. And then what we did of course is check whether we indeed agree that this is adaptation finance. It'd be also good to add here that we focus on adaptation finance because this is. It's, it's easier to measure mitigation finance generally. And it's also, so there's an it's easily in it's no it's easier to measure the impact of mitigation generally. And what we've seen in past that there has been a tendency to focus more on mitigation also because mitigation is is easy. There's an easier return on investment. So we focus our study on adaptation finance because we could because we also saw the necessity to draw extra attention to adaptation finance and and because we had the assumption or the hypothesis that adaptation finance is actually being overreported so that what we mean is that what I mean then is that a lot of the current reported adaptation finance doesn't really count as adaptation finance. Okay, let me have a look at last look at questions. The countries involved where Uganda, and Ethiopia and Ghana, and then Nepal, Vietnam and the Philippines, knowing how much adaptation finance. This is a good question, which I would would also be good to bring out in the break breakout groups is knowing how much adaptation finance is reaching communities really more important than knowing the adaptation or resilience impact of that finance. And we try to address this question by also integrating the poverty and gender components into our assessment. But of course, that still is an assessment based on how the project is set up and not so much on really the real changes in resilience that we see at community level. That was also a step too far for this research. This was focusing on public funds. I see already answered my question on the question on the countries. Okay. Let me see. I think a number of these questions I see here are very good questions to also ask the researchers in the breakout groups. So what I would like to do is go to the presentation of my colleague from Uganda. Jalia was doing the research in Uganda for Emily together with Christine and probably some other people. And you will tell us more about the research in Uganda, your findings there and also what are some of the lessons you learned on the methodology. Jalia, can you share your screen and unmute yourself. So let me see. Jalia, can you hear me. Otherwise, Athena, would you be okay to go first. I see Jalia starting to share her screen. Okay, Jalia, can you. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Hello. Hello, good afternoon from Kampala Uganda. Hello, can you hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Good afternoon. It is a good afternoon from Kampala Uganda. My name is Jalia Nambiru. I work with Emily, Emily's environmental management for library hood improvement by Safe Facility. We are based in Kampala. I work as the program's officer. I'm glad to be sharing with you the findings we got from our study. Let me start my video. Let me present as you see me. Yeah, this is a snapshot of our findings by way of overview. For some of you who might not know, Uganda is a least developed country and categorized with low human development index. That is according to UNDP 2018. According to the ND gain metrics, Uganda is ranked as the 15th most vulnerable country with that ranking of 0.58. We note that Uganda submitted our national adaptation plan roadmap to the UNFCCC in 2015. By doing this assessment, we assessed a total number of 701 projects. Which we are totaling to 1 billion USD. That is between 2013 to 2017. For the projects that we assessed, we are 21 in number to a tune of 495.1 million USD. But we looked at German as being the largest climate finance provider during that period we assessed. In our findings, we observed that 55% of the 495.1 million USD of the total that was committed was adaptation related. That is what we found out. And we went ahead to find out that 43% of the adaptation finance did not address gender equality. Still, we saw that 16% of the total received was remarked as principle for both mitigation and adaptation. As Bert has already alluded to it, the donors themselves do report their commitments. That is on climate change adaptation to the OECD real marker. So we focused on the database by the OECD. That is the information. That is where we got the information. We also found out that 55, 57.1 million USD of adaptation finance was found to be under-reported. Here we note that some donors do report and the recipients of that money from the donors do report again on those projects. So we found a mismatch in reporting, which we identified as under-reporting from the two entities. We go ahead to share with you some of the issues that we found out as very key. Bert has already alluded to some of them. For example, the limited transparency on project information. We found out that most of the donors do not expose the information related to their commitment of projects. So it was a very big challenge for us to find information related to projects that were reported in the OECD real marker database. The inaccurate donor real marker allocation across projects. That one has already been noted. We also looked at the limited focus on adaptation projects. That is in relation to gender equality. Gender was not a very good focus in relation to project development. In some of the projects that we managed to go and visit the sites, we found out that some projects have been delayed. The implementation has been delayed due to some bureaucracy, maybe from the implementers. That is from the government and other CSOs that were involved in the implementation. In line with the lessons and key outcomes, we note that capacity development on the tracking tools is very crucial. Of course, Bert has already mentioned that the tool seems to be complex. Yeah, we all agree to that. So we need some continuous capacity development in line with those tools. We also note that transparency on project information is important. This point speaks so well with the pointers I have already alluded to, in line with the limited exposure of project information. We also note that there is need for a fair understanding of the country policies, plans and strategies on adaptation. So here we observed that some of the projects that were assessed were not readily linked to the Ugandan policies, plans and strategies related to adaptation. So this has to be a very key thing that should be taken into consideration when developing projects. We see the mult-stakeholder engagement as a very key thing. This takes into consideration the state and non-state actors because for some of the projects that we managed it to go to, some did engage the communities, which was not the case for other projects. But still we note that this is a very key thing which has to be taken into consideration. The next lesson here is in line with the gender action plans which should be integrated in projects documents. We note that gender is very key. And of course, as care, we know very well that our themes are very well aligned with the gender action plans. So here we note that gender action plans should be integrated in project documents for it to be taken very good care of. We found out that some of the projects did not do gender analysis. We found out that in some of the projects that we visited, some gender groups were not considered. For example, we visited a project in Cavali, that is the Eureka project, and we found out that women were assigned roles that were too heavy for them. They could not manage. So we think that gender has to be split and considered very well in the project documents. That is from inception, implementation, rather, and evaluation. Yeah, in terms of outcomes, we saw that we built state and non-state actors capacity in fracking adaptation financing. And we also developed a database of 21 adaptation projects. So to speak, and for your information colleagues, our government was very much appreciative to the study. So when we developed this database, it was taken in on by the government, and they will be using it whenever they will be qualifying adaptation projects. We are building capacity. If I can report to this congregation as Emily, we've gone ahead to continue with the tracking of adaptation finance. This year, 2020, we are continuing with tracking adaptation and mitigation. From last year's assessment, we got a number of questions as to why we are not involving or including mitigation. In the end, we managed to widen our scope to include mitigation in our assessment. But this builds from the experiences we got from this assessment. I submit. Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Telia, for sharing your lessons and findings from the work in Uganda. It's really good to hear that you are continuing the work and updating the findings for the years after 2017, and also that the government is also so engaged in this. I don't want to lose much time. So let's go to the next presentation. Athena, are you ready? Hang on. Telia, can you stop sharing your screen? Thank you. And can you enter full screen mode? Yes, perfect. Sorry. Hello, guys. Wait, hang on. Hello. Can anyone, everyone can hear me? Yes, we can hear you. All right. So I'm Athena. I'm the researcher for this adaptation finance tracking for the Philippines. I work with assistance in cooperation for community resilience and development together with ICSC and CARE Philippines, of course, to undertake the research. My partner from ICSC is also here. So later, we can just, if you have more questions, we can answer them for you. So basically, of course, as you would probably know from this typhoon and earthquake profile from the Philippines that we are definitely at risk to hazards. We are at the fifth in the climate risk index as of 2019. And then we are definitely prone to extreme weather events. And we have felt the slow onset effects of climate change specifically for like the second largest island in the Philippines, Mindanao. El Nino was really bad last year and it has led to a lot of food insecurity in the region. We have, we have climate policies, but we currently do not have a national adaptation plan. It's supposed to be developed this 2020. When we were doing the research, we were, we had CCC, the Climate Change Commission, together with other government agencies and a CSO representation, discuss about a database. Commission in the Philippines said they will be establishing a climate finance system and services, which will hold all relevant climate financing in the Philippines and hopefully track climate finance. So that's still to do something to do for the government. So far, there has been, there is 223 climate related projects from within 2013 to 2017. But then specifically for this project, we only reviewed 18. So the criteria we used were, well, we looked at the largest projects in terms of financial value. Of course, projects that also scored one and two for adaptation. And we also tried to include some of the projects, even if they weren't, even if the financial contribution wasn't a lot. We tried to include some, some projects with gender markers. So yeah, the largest donor, at least for the Philippines so far is Japan and the World Bank. So what we found out during the research is that a lot of climate finance in the Philippines to leans towards mitigation. And apparently a lot of the climate finances also primarily through loans, only 7% are grants to the Philippines. And then that there is also a lot of overreporting if, if you, if we go back later we can just discuss it also in the breakout groups, the methodology, the, the tool that we use in the three step approach we found out that a lot of donors are overreporting. And because Japan is the highest donor or the largest donor in the country, we found out that 54% is overreported. 54% is just, 54% is estimated to be generally adaptation relevant only. And of course, one one key issue was that gender was not a key objective across all projects only six projects at six out of the 18 projects scored in in gender. So there was a key issue across all projects. The key lessons we found out and the use of methodology the methodology was that again similar to Uganda we had very, it was very difficult for us to access project documents and to access the projects themselves. We had to do different strategies across partners across ICSD and Accord, in order for us to get just get, you know, documents from from agencies or, or local government. It was evident also that whoever was thinking, whoever was doing the study for reviewing the project, there are inter-rater biases and how we scored. So I think similar to Uganda we think that building the capacities researchers are very, very important to ensure that there's a minimize inter-rater biases. And then, again, similar to what, what do you call it. As Bart said earlier, the tools are very still very, very complex, and it's a lot of work. So it requires a significant amount of time and resources to finish it. And then, as a suggestion, of course we discuss it also with the team. I think it's better also to use participatory approaches to make sure that the researchers are not just like academics or people, you know, CSOs, that also local communities are also the capacities of local communities are also built for them to be able to participate in the actual data production. And also track the projects themselves because these projects are supposed to be the ones that, you know, will impact heavily on their lives or would reduce their risk to climate. So climate change. So, yeah. So there. Sorry, am I speaking too fast. Sorry guys. No, it's perfect Athena. Thank you. It's good to hear your experience as well. And I'm looking forward to going into depth on these projects further in the breakout sessions. I have set up a number of breakout rooms. Each will be led by one of the researchers involved. And I invite the participants to basically share all their burning questions and with them then and discuss those. Let me show you quickly a Google document with the questions that I set up for this, where we aim to capture the outcomes of the breakout groups. On my screen now. And basically, I've created a number of tables with the questions. I'm totally fine if you only discuss question one, the first question and go into the burning questions, but please take notes in the group of the questions that you ask and also the answers in bullets. It's not necessary to be very comprehensive. This will be the ones will be our fellow researchers. And I'm going to ask you to at the start of your breakout group, do a quick round and also see who is willing to take notes. I will share the link to the Google document in the chat right now. So you can all access this. And I just need to find my chat of course. Where did it go sharing the link. I'm sharing it to everyone here. So I'll send you to the breakout groups now you'll have 15 minutes, you come back because we'll be sharing a sneak preview of the overall findings afterwards. And of course we'll have some time in a plenary to close together. Hello, welcome back. Thank you, but we are not finished. I understand if you haven't finished. Yeah, there's probably a lot to discuss. And I think there's also a limitation of this format that we have a methodology that's complex and a lot of experience that's simply not possible to share all of that in the time that we have. But we do hope that this is, it works as a teaser, and we'd be happy to share more afterwards, if you get in touch with us. I would like to ask a different breakout leads to briefly update me update the group on what you discussed in your in your breakout. Shall we go through the groups just one by one. Yes, please be seen. Yes. In our group, there was a question on what is how are you able to to differentiate over reporting and under reporting. So in our group we've been able to touch the over reporting and under reporting, whereby if the budget that is reported to the OECD is higher than what is being reported by the assessment team, then that is, that is over reporting. And we also tackled an issue of, we tackled an issue that was a question on how this study is going to is relevant for future, for future work. And we noted that the study is relevant tracking adaptation is relevant because by then we shall be able to try to hold governments and providers of climate. Accountable by looking at the impact of climate finance at the ground level and also be able to trace how much has been committed by the development by the developed parties. And then on the issue of the recommendation, members suggested that the methodologies should be made easier to be worked with. And then for the lessons learned, it was learned from members that gender aspects should be integrated in project designs from the work to be able to track and to be able to to ensure that the projects are gender responsive and climate finance is considering gender aspects. Thank you so much. Thank you, Christine. Can we go to the group by with Jalea. Yeah. Please just briefly in a minute. I mean, yeah, thank you, but and thank you colleagues. Unfortunately, in our group we just managed it to cover question one. The time was very limited. Moving forward, we discussed about the issue and transparency in line with projecting from information. And here we were wondering, all members were wondering how we manage how we can manage to trace money that comes from an agency to an intermediary up to communities and back maybe the reporting back to the donors. So how do we like put a distinction between all those entities or among the entities. We also discussed about the methodologies being used in tracking finances. Here we indicated the real markers, the JPAs and poverty maps in terms of poverty and the gender care marker in terms of gender. But still here we also focused on gender as something that should be explicitly included in project development. One member inquired about how we can differentiate between mitigation and adaptation finance. Noting that I don't know can give money whole sum Lee, but actions, some of them can be contributing to mitigation and adaptation. How do we differentiate. And maybe, yeah, we didn't go. We didn't go further because time was not on our side. Thank you. Thank you, I understand. Let's see Andrew, maybe you can update me shortly on your group. Yeah, so we had some good questions on how the research can be used as an advocacy tool in budget tracking. And I think that the main point there is that currently climate finance towards the Paris Agreement targets is very dominated by the donors who mark their own projects and report their own finance. So some kind of mechanism using this method or a version of this method to be able to fact check these donor numbers is the main way that this can be used as an advocacy tool. And the global findings that we'll come to in a bit kind of support that. And then we had a question on the differences in the amount that gender equality was targeted. And here we found that a lot of projects didn't really have any gender focus. And there was very few projects that stated that they were focusing on transformative gender action. Yeah, I'll keep it short and leave it there. Andrew, Athena can I ask you to go next? Sure. Ours was, we didn't finish quite well there. But then the first question was that, was it possible to compare data between countries because the processes might be different. We delve into a bit of poverty, whether we can compare poverty indicators across countries. So we tried to simplify poverty and even gender by just asking the four key questions that we did, and we had a workshop to discuss their findings together and try to come up with general patterns and trends. There was also a question on whether there's a linkage between the gender scores. If you score high on gender, would you score high on adaptation to or or poverty. What we felt across is that there is no, no clear pattern yet. So far, even those that scored high on gender, sometimes they don't score high in adaptation as well. So, there's also question on, was it difficult to access documents. And yes, we've said this earlier, it was very difficult and, and we, I think across countries we did different strategies just for us to get the documents, and have, to look over them. So we, we had advisory groups, we tried reaching out to national government agencies, local governments, communities everywhere. And then, so yeah, those are the burning questions so far. That's all we finished. Thank you Athena. Kyros, you are last. Hi again. I finished mid sentence when you called us back to the, to the main plenary. But where we, we talked about some interesting issues in the group issues that are sort of lying in the, in the borders of the methodology of what we talked about, you know, looking into localities. I mean we, we sort of, I mean the research looked into the international flows and how it's implemented in the local levels. And from, from ECAD asked, you know, did the research try to look into, you know, the difficulties and what it actually takes for localities to access financing, climate financing. And I think that's, that's interesting. But it's not explicit in the methodology of the research. Shelton asked about the research come across any corruption issues, which I think is important, especially in some of the, in a lot of countries. We also talked about whether there is an experience where in a fund is not necessarily tagged as adaptation, but then we looked into it and decided that, you know, it's actually good. It's actually an adaptation measure on the ground. I just shared one of our experiences in the Philippine research where in, you know, a, a fund flow, what is, is intact as an adaptation measure, but it's actually used as an adaptation in the local implementation. So that's, I think that's, that's an interesting question. And last is, you know, similar to most of the groups except for the main reasons for having difficulty in getting information. And I think that's been answered several times, especially on the, on the grounds that you know it really varies from from country from one country to another. These are all important. I think supporting studies or lens on climate finance, this research would also benefit from in the future. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. It's interesting that you point out that the need in some cases we also found underreporting so the example that you mentioned of a study or a project that wasn't tagged as adaptation finance but which you in practice found to be contributing to adaptation is an example of supporting. Andrew, I think we're coming to the point that we will would like to have a sneak preview on what are some of the global findings from our study. Let me put up your PowerPoint. And then can you walk us through. Yeah, it's just a slide. Right. Yeah, let me just take any of our epic numbers pre pre publication. Okay, just a minute. I'm trying to. Yes, here it is. I'm starting to appreciate people helping out with all the technicalities around these kind of things. Once you do it and yourself. Okay, it's online. It's on the screen. You should be able to see it now. Yeah, we can. Yeah, so we've been involved in pulling together these six country reports and looking at the figures and more global perspective. And there's a few things that we can pull out in terms of global findings. And that's in general, adaptation finance is being far more likely to be over reported than under reported. And it's really substantial across the six studies we're looking at over reporting figures that run into billions of US dollars across these four reporting years, five reporting years. And so when you take into account this over reporting, then these donor numbers that have been reported officially to the OECD and the UN and their biennial reports. They can be considered unreliable. And we say this because we've looked at 112 projects across just six countries, and we're finding figures that are this large. So if this method was to be repeated elsewhere, then we think that these figures could change quite substantially. And that can be linked to things like the UN adaptation gap report, which looked to try to estimate adaptation finance needs by 2030, they put them at about about 140 to 300 billion per year. And then if you look at what the OECD is saying at the moment, in terms of how much donors are providing in 2017, the OECD recorded 13 billion of adaptation finance which donors reported themselves. So if you take this low amount that's already being reported and then factor in over reporting, and then look forward towards adaptation needs, then this adaptation gap is widening and might be being underestimated. And then if we look at the issues on transparency, then we're seeing that bilateral donors, the developed country donors are particularly bad at providing access to documentation. And the multilateral development banks, although they do provide documentation which is an important distinction that came out from across the six studies with the banks have public public registries of their documents. But they don't provide information on how they make their figures. So this transparency issue is across all six countries. And then as we've just heard from the breakout sessions, gender is not being integrated consistently. And that was a finding across all six studies. And from the rapid assessments on poverty we're seeing patchy integration into these adaptation projects. So it's not, you know, the, the, the gender and the poverty analyses they were more rapid and we were looking at how the donors are integrating into their documentation and also some observations. But there is, there's, for those to be considered as integrated consistently into adaptation projects. There's a lot further to go. I would say that this role of this civil society organizations to act as watchdogs and adaptation finance. We think it's been proven as necessary and should definitely continue to keep going. Yeah, I'll leave it there. Thank you, Andrew. I'm really tempted to open the floor for questions still and final remarks, but looking at the time. We simply don't have time for that. I'm, I'm, I was really happy to be able to share this this methodology with you and the first findings of our research. We're excited to be able to share the findings in the foreseeable future. And we need to still figure out what's the best moment. If you have any thoughts on that, please share with us or any intelligence on who to to reach out to one of the target groups for this research, especially the overall report we thought would be the developing country negotiators, so that they have a very clear picture of the potential of reporting that's actually in adaptation finance. Again, as Andrew shared, we think that this report, though we, we, we, we on one hand, encounter challenges in doing the research and doing accessing information. Also, it's really challenging to, to investigate these very large infrastructure projects for example in the Philippines. But it also for us really highlighted the role of civil society and the need for civil society to be somehow watching investigating these projects to indeed assess whether they are adaptation relevant whether. So the whether the reporting makes sense. And also whether they are addressing gender and poverty. Because we see that there's gaps and we see so we, it really underscores the necessity of transparency and civil society involvement in assessing these projects and I think there's a long way to go there. And a lot of, of our lobby and advocacy efforts will go into, into that as well. The good thing also and maybe that's on the side. It's very easy of course to call to talk about overreporting and and point fingers, but there's also a number of donors that are doing quite well. So we see that a lot of the overreporting comes from few donors, which is is good news for some, I suppose. And, and in some cases there's case of underreporting so there's also adaptation finance that's not being reported as such. However, the overall tendency, or the overall conclusion in our research is needed there is much more overreporting than underreporting. We will be sharing the recordings we will be sharing the presentations of the session afterwards through the CBA. I think that's it from my side. Thanks again a lot. Maybe a final suggestion is that we turn on our cameras so that we can actually see each other and wave each other goodbye. Please stay in touch if you want to. I'm now putting my, my. It's good to see you all putting my email address in the chat so you can reach out to me. So goodbye. Enjoy CBA. I hope you'll learn a lot and share a lot. And I hope we'll be in touch. Thanks all for joining. Thank you. Bye. Thank you.