 Okay, so thank you everyone for joining us for this next very exciting installment of the natural capital conversations. Today we're going to be exploring the question is the science and practice of resilience changing the way we do development. And we have a really exciting lineup today. I'll do a little bit more introductions in the next few slides, but first I want to admit that, you know, there's that word mantle. I noticed that we have kind of a fannel here which I must say I'm, I'm excited about, but maybe next time we'll strive for a little bit more diversity. Okay, so next slide. The natural capital conversations are put together by the natural capital project which is a partnership of many different in on the world. The core partners are shown on the bottom of the slide here we're centered at Stanford University. And today we're featuring our partners from the Stockholm resilience center at Stockholm University. And ultimately the natural capital project is working to pioneer the science technology and partnerships that enable people and nature to thrive. In fact, during the darker days of the pandemic, we launched this series natural capital conversations to help spark conversations with scientists and practitioners and leaders in government and business. We're going to have engaging discussions and learn from one another experiences and promote connections across different time zones and different parts of the world. And we've, over the course of the series we've featured everything from climate smart coastal planning to cultural ecosystem services to things like today's topic, exploring resilience thinking and new ways of doing development as we think about moving toward the ambitious agenda out in the sustainable development goals. Okay, so next slide. Today's conversation. We have a really exciting lineup, including Jamila Hyder from Stockholm resilience center, Maya Schluter also from Stockholm resilience center Michelle Lee more also from SRC you'll see a theme here, and the session has been put by Belinda rares, who is a professor at the University of Pretoria in South Africa where I am currently visiting her, which is why my camera is off because my internet is a little bit questionable where I am at the moment. I promise I'm a real person, but Belinda also has appointments at the Stockholm resilience center at the Bayer Institute, and the Stockholm resilience to I believe. Okay, next slide. Just a few housekeeping kinds of things I think are next. So our agenda here is, I guess I didn't introduce myself I'm and Gary I'm the chief strategy officer and one of the lead scientists at the natural capital project and I'll be moderating the session today. So we're going to start with examples of resilience from Michelle Lee from Jamila and from Maya. And then Belinda is going to talk about her work on the review. Then Michelle Lee will be talking about resilience approaches changing the way we do development, Linda will then wrap things up and then we will have a half an hour for discussion so please start thinking about your questions and you're also going to use the Q&A, which we will get to in a second. So next slide questions. That would be great and I can incorporate them into our discussion. And we have lost your audio. At this point, if you have questions, please put them in the Q&A box that you'll find at the bottom of your screen. And if you have technical issues, please contact the event technical team through your chat box. We seem to have lost and so I wonder then if we should just get speaking and wait and hope she joins us. As we go. If that's okay with you, Laurie. Yes, please Belinda and team. Thank you so much. Great. Okay, so it's wonderful to be here. We're all going to turn on our videos now so you can see there are some faces behind these voices. And we just took over your job and I'm now going to hand over to Jamila sitting in Stockholm, who's going to kick off this conversation with a few introductory remarks. Actually, we're spacing things up here already. And first of all, you can hear me okay still. Yeah, okay, great. Thanks, Belinda. I just thought we'd actually start with a question to see if we could start a again, recognizing this is intended to be a conversation to start with a question to all of you online listening. We see a few familiar names, but lots of new ones as well. And so we're curious about you and the work that you're bringing into this conversation and so we just thought we'd start with a kind of an open question about are you are there questions that you're sitting with about resilience. It's not that we think the four of us have all of the answers necessarily. But what we're hoping to do then is if we can just hold them in our minds and maybe their things we can bring out and try to weave into the conversation as we as we go through the discussion today. So I don't know if you want to put them in the chat box. I just want to unmute your microphone and shout out a question but I think it would be really nice to just hear from from all of you online. I think the only option is the Q&A box. I don't think participants have the option to unmute so unless I'm wrong please just go ahead and use the Q&A box and we can read those. I'll just give people a minute. And don't worry if there aren't any we can of course endlessly fill the time talking about resilience. And we're happy to do so what we wanted to hear from you first. So we'll just give you a minute. Okay, so we have one from Neil interested in the importance of social capital and collaboration and conflict. Conflict conflict transformation sorry in resilience so if pieces more than the absence of violence resilience should be more than the ability to withstand crisis. Yeah, that's wonderful. And I think generally you'll get right into that early so thank you. Neil. Yeah one for them in the Q&A thinking about resilience metrics. Yes, always a question. We've got recent advancements in this area interest you most. Great. Yeah, that's definitely going to come come up. And we'll try to focus on that a little bit near the end Allison. I'm curious that there are examples of government departments and agencies interacting and purposefully interacting with the resilience principles. And then of course the gaps and barriers to actually using those in practice. Thanks. Thank you so much for your general resilience research in COP 27. That's all. That's probably a whole other hour but certainly. Oh, great. A former master's student I Nicole. Great. Working on spatial analysis of ecosystem services. Oh, wonderful. Continuing the resilience tradition that's wonderful. Please. Oh, and here's another one just before I close here. How should development economists and practitioners be thinking about resilience. In the context of the twin goals of development and climate resilience. Yeah, that's that's a real challenge challenge. Again, we don't necessarily have all the answers, but we'll I'll try and weave that in in my piece a little bit. And what we what what can you take away from from what we'll be talking about super well please feel free to keep popping those into the into the Q&A box and into the chat box. And, and in the meantime, I'll hand it over to Jamila to at least get us started for now. Yeah, thank you for me and really nice to be engaging with everyone and already these really important questions and comments. So Linda, could you, is it going to change the slide slides, you'll be able to pull up the slides please. Thank you. Yeah, so I'll just speak for a couple minutes about the motivation behind the review which we started as part of the grade program at the Stockholm resilience center, which was the program for the official name was guidance for resilience and the development of the vaccine investments development, which was funded by the Swedish International Development Agency, and the main goal of the program was to bridge worlds of resilience thinking and development practice. And I think this program and this quest also sits close to home for me who before I became a resilience scholar I guess I just say, I work within development in Afghanistan which was one of the most highly funded development, and in 2010 2011, all of a sudden resilience was just popping up everywhere and kind of replacing sustainable livelihoods and became resilient livelihoods, which at worst you know resilience risks than becoming a buzzword which was also already brought up, or, or being really narrowly measured. So within this, this review we kind of also then thought back, what, what has, how has resilience been incorporated into development programming, especially 10 years on from the SDGs and looking at seeing an end to programs like race, for example, which was another large investment, looking at building resilience and adaptation to climate extremes and disasters as one example. And so we started to do stock at how resilience has been incorporated into these programs, but also the relational aspect of what can we learn from sustainable development practice. And so we also then define, I guess, just to set the theme there, sustainable development. Like more, more broadly, I think this is just an image of some of the many resilience investments that that have taken place over the over the past 10 years at housed also at the resilience center now is the GRP global resilience partnership, which is also in partner with many of these, these organizations. So this was part of the motivation of the review and when we're looking at sustainable, we're looking at sustainable development within kind of the agenda 30 concept 2030 context. So, looking also beyond a more narrow definition of what international development has been. So that was looking at, yeah, has resilience changed anything. How has it been reshaping development practice and policy towards more sustainable and does help helping engage in understanding resilience from a complex and dynamic systems perspective, help us do that. And can we actually differentiate within these programs, a resilience approach to this, a business as usual sustainable development approach. But Linda, if you could change the, the next slide. This is also to recognize that there's a plurality of resilience definitions and approaches. I like to use the word or sorry the term also resilience multiples and acknowledging that resilience is also context and place specific but and also has its own, its own histories from different fields. So these are just two examples of the plurality of how resilience is used within the sustainable development context. And the Linda if you could just go the next slide. You. This is to situate how we approached resilience within this, this paper but I would say also more broadly. In the context of complex adaptive systems which we understand as Maya is going to speak a bit more about this I'm actually just setting the scene for her diverse interactions dynamic and having emergent behaviors. And that's socially logical systems are one type of complex adaptive system with whether it's many interdependencies between society and nature humans are in nature and taking a sustainability perspective. And it's within this context that we understand resilience as the capacity to absorb adapt and or transform. So indeed it's this broader capacity to deal with change, often in the event of a surprise or a shock but not only. And so those goes far beyond the more narrow definition of resilience as an absorptive capacity, which is one of the ways that it's popularly used. But Maya I'll hand over to you to give a bit more context about our complex adaptive systems approach to the review. Thank you tomorrow and hi everybody. Yeah, I'm just going to say a few words about the conceptual framework that underlies this review but our work also more in general. So resilience thinking is really grounded in a complexity perspective that that is a beat that views socially logical systems as complex adaptive systems of humans embedded in the biosphere is to more just said. And that's the perspective really represents a mind shift and how we understand actually the nature of the world. And that really has implications for both how we study, but also how we intervene or act in social logical systems. And Rika Preissa from South African colleagues, also from the Stockholm resilience center have distilled kind of a set of six organizing principles could you switch to slide them enough. That. So these principles that kind of distinguish such such complex adaptive systems from more mechanical systems that can also be studied following Newtonian principles of worldview. So as generally set for resilience. There's also multiple perspectives on complexity. And we found this particular perspective useful for understanding how resilience thinking reshaps development and research research and action. But it is important to know kind of the plurality of different views of complexity. So the first one principle acknowledges the adaptive nature of living systems so complex adaptive systems and have adaptive capacities. That means they self organized. And co evolve evolve. So they respond to contextual changes, and the practice of knowledge is in values and bio physical environment and mutually influence each other, and mutually shape each other and kind of this evolving process. Most importantly there, they are constituted through relations. So they're determined more by relationships than part. And that's really the relations between elements and how they are organized that determines how the system behaves. These are relations that are prior to the parts, or the objects and they define what they actually also define what these objects are. So they shift the focus on relations away from like individual actors or objects, they're radically open, meaning there are no really set boundaries, it's rather the boundaries are rather defined by the activity of the system in relation to its environment. And that really means that we, we draw the boundaries, like more in our analytical process. So we need to be reflexive and how we all and what they mean and in class. They're dynamic is the fourth one. So they constantly change and this change is often non linear. It can be a prop such in regime shifts and feedbacks and path dependency are really fundamental processes that shape the behavior of these systems. So we can't study them through representation representation of kind of linear cause effect relationships, for example, which is often the case. And that's probably one of the principles that is most kind of known and highlighted for social ecological systems or processes and functions are contingent on context. And finally, they are characterized by complex causality and emergence. So that means they actually cannot be understood by analyzing just the parts alone. So this complex causation really entails that we have to deal with multiple causes across spatial and temporal scales that we need to account for these feedback such shape these dynamic processes. There's novelty and surprise or uncertainty. Uncertainty about, for example, how processes evolve and consider kind of the co evolution of phenomena through and if intertwine social and ecological processes. So this complexity or this complex adaptive systems framing really underlies the six shifts in practice that Belinda know is going to further elaborate on that we think are better help help us to better engage in complex contexts. So I'll hand over to you Belinda. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much Maya. And thanks to all of you, you participants for joining and being part of this conversation and to and for setting us up. So as Jamila was saying, you know, we were really interested as part of this, this program to, to look at how is, I mean, and I think many of you on this call to will be interested in how is our science being used. The science of resilience being put into the practice of development and as Jamila said, that's development interpreted in its broader sense that includes sustainable development, national development, international development and even economic development. And how are these enterprises and practices of development using the concept of resilience. Specifically, we wanted to look at whether the use of resilience is helping to fundamentally reorient or reshape development to better engage with today's realities. So this notion of development has been around for more than 70 years now. And we, we really know that there are multiple calls for development to move beyond its conventional approaches and its origins which were focused on, you know, development and economic growth, or even sustainable development that was introduced in the 70s as the idea of growth that still minimizes environmental impacts. So today we see more and more this, this notion of these three pillars of sustainable development of the social the economic and environmental aspects of development. And, you know, I think that within the resilience world, we're also looking at moving development beyond that notion of these three rather static pillars into a development practice that is able to engage in the uncertain the dynamic and the connected contexts in which development happens today, the world is a very different place from what it was in the 1950s and 1970s when these development practices were developed and became so entrenched. So basically we were asking when you put resilience into practice is that practice or action distinguishable from mainstream or conventional sustainable development practice. And so to answer that question, we framed our review around what we called the six shifts in practice that we would hope to see or that we think are needed. If one is now starting to move from more conventional approaches to development to development that fundamentally engages with the dynamic and complex contexts of current times. And so my has introduced us to the six key features or a set of key features of complex adaptive systems and from each of these, we could then develop a shift from what we saw as the current mainstream focus of development effort to where that focus needs to shift towards innovative approaches, able to account for complex system dynamics. And a paper that we reference here and on the website where you registered, we go into these shifts in more detail and I don't want to take the whole of this evening or today's time to go into them, but very briefly, I'm just going to describe them and then try and give you an example so at least you can have a grasp of what we're talking about. And so shift one acknowledges that the dynamic nature of development moves us away from this focus on the productive base of development of natural capital of financial capital of social and other capitals that are important for development, and more towards an understanding of the dynamic capacities that shape responses to change. And so these principles or assets matter, but only in as much as they create the ability to respond to change, and they've been found to be very poor proxies of capacities. And so this is a shift I think that many of us are undertaking in our work in moving from a more static asset based focus in our work to a work that looks at what are the dynamic adaptive capacities that exist in ecosystems in a society that allow us to be able to respond to changes. The second shift is the one that my introduced us to this need to focus on relationships. And so we really want to move away from the tendency that even something as amazing as the SDGs have of breaking systems apart into their social their economic components, in order to understand the system because we know that the whole of the system responds and behaves differently to the sum of its parts. And so the focus here is arguing rather for a focus on what connects the parts the relationships that actually determine the behavior, and that shape the context and the sustainable development of those contexts in which we work. The third shift is exploring the challenges of defining boundaries for systems in which we work, whether that's as researchers or practitioners. And the risk that we take whenever we define a system boundary that we are excluding an important factor that's external to the system, or that we're ignoring some of these really important cross scale dynamics that are shaping in very important ways in contemporary times, especially as the world becomes more globally interconnected. So yeah the shift isn't saying do away with boundaries but it is about away from treating boundaries as static to approaches that are able to see boundaries as dynamic porous, and in need of constant review in collaboration by those who are involved and affected by the boundary decisions and choices. The fourth shift is one that might be familiar to many of you we're also arguing for a shift away from a focus on static and often short term outcomes and targets to rather focus on the process of sustainable development and how different development pathways emerge, and are maintained or are shifted. This isn't that we're saying outcomes and targets aren't important, but we move away from viewing them as fixed endpoints to recognizing how outcomes themselves are shaped, and actually shape the processes of sustainable development. In the fifth shift we build on from many in this development space who caution against the use of blueprints and generic interventions to recognize the importance of context. But we go beyond the notion of context as idiosyncratic to acknowledge how the behaviors that are relevant to sustainable development, often emerge from recognizable patterns of dynamic interactions that shape and are shaped by context. So this shift to context sensitivity and the interplay between context and intervention and that enables us to ask questions such as what about context can be generalized for context sensitive interventions and a move towards understanding the types of interventions that might work in relationship to certain types of contexts. In the sixth and final shift, which actually pulls a lot of the other shifts together, we really explore this idea that many of us are challenged by a search for effective interventions to bring about desired outcomes that's what underpins a lot of our work. But that search for effective interventions is actually founded on many assumptions that are often quite hidden and not explored. And many of them when you look to them are actually based on quite a linear cause effect logic, leading to assumptions such as this input or this impact that I have has resulted in this particular output, which results in this particular outcome, which we know is not the way systems work. But it ignores as Maya said that the complex causality of cause effect relationships, such as the cross scale interactions, such as recursive causal pathways ways where an effect may feedback on a cause, and cause and effect become entangled where we have to learn to deal with novelty and unexpectedness and uncertainty as processes evolve. And so the shift to complex causality means that projects that aim to strengthen something like resilience need to actually be embedded themselves and shaped by the processes of development, rather than external to those processes and this is quite a different model of doing development. So what we did then is with these shifts which will also happily exploring a bit more detail in the discussion session. We looked across all these programs and projects that we engaged with during this large resilience and development project at the Stockholm resilience center, many of which were coming to an end of the 10 years of substantial investments in building or increasing or enhancing resilience. Sorry, wrong slide. But as you can all imagine when you type in the words resilience and development to see how much work and how many projects you might find the answers are tens of thousands of articles that have the words resilience and development even just in the title. So we actually were reliant on what we call a review of reviews we were very fortunate that many of these large investments were coming to an end and we're publishing large evaluation reports. Large stories and narratives on the work that they've done big meta evaluations done by consultants employed to look across those programs. At the same time we were seeing a lot of systematic reviews going on in the scientific literature looking at things like adaptation interventions and the use of resilience and whether they were working in developing countries. But then because we know that so much of the literature is dominated by the global north and by more global examples we specifically went and looked for examples of work that we knew was happening in parts of the world, such as Southeast Asia, and parts of Africa to. And so we're able to find smaller still reviews of case studies operating at quite specific small scales like this one here in northern Namibia. And so we, we were working very hard to get quite a representative sample of the scientific and practical and policy and geographic scope of the work on the use of resilience and development. And then across all of these six shifts we reviewed each of these documents, looking to track progress made in each of the six shifts. And what we then did was, I'm going to hand over to Michelle Lee just now to take you through some of the larger findings but what I can say is across each of those shifts we found fantastic examples of exciting evidence of practice and very practical and new methods and new work going on of putting these very complex and quite theoretical ideas that you're being introduced to in the session into very realistic but also very innovative practices. And just here on the slide I've got an example that was work on building relational resilience on family farms with some fantastic ideas around the measurement aspects as someone was asking in the question session. There was also work that we found produced by global scholars from the global south working on violence in Zimbabwe and more relational approaches to building resilience in those cases and publishing an entire book in this case. There was great work by large programs like Oxfam doing the shift from the capitals to capacities, really highlighting the need to focus on the absorptive adaptive and transformative capacities. There was a lot of resilience in their work. And then there were even examples of shift six, which is quite a difficult one to wrap once head around, but for example mercy core in their work on gender norms and intro household change have actually moved into the original sort of more linear theories of change to be able to bring up what they are calling these complex resilience causal chains of tracing the recursive causal pathways involved in shaping gender norms at the household level in their work. And we found these examples give one a lot of excitement and a lot of hope showing that these shifts are not only plausible that but they're actually imminently possible, resulting in very innovative practices that are clearly doing development differently in ways that have helped to engage in these complex and uncertain contexts in which many of us work. So I'll pass over to Michelle Lee to see if there's any discussion and questions at the stage. Thanks, Michelle Lee. Yeah, thanks Melinda. So we just wanted to take a pause. We know that we've sort of been throwing a lot of jargon out into the to the discussion so we just wanted to pause here for a moment. And I'll give you some of the overall findings beyond these kind of pockets of progress to see if there's any questions or any just clarifications that you that you're would like to ask. So we'll just give you a moment for that. And I realize I can't see my chat box. Oh, here we are. And seeing none Melinda did you for now and but please feel free to pop them in. Belinda do you want to pull up the next slide. I'm just sorry Michelle Lee just to mention I saw there was one question around references. We're definitely going to give a lot more material and a lot more references in this presentation and make those available as well online. Thanks Michelle Lee. Yeah, great. Thanks. Great. So if you want to pull up the next slide Belinda. What I wanted to get into with some of the barriers and challenges that we found around actually trying to make these shifts in practice as you can imagine, although we found these really innovative examples and I see, as Belinda pulled the screen again I get excited just thinking about some of those ones that we found they were super interesting. But of course there's real challenges with with doing this work and so, but I know a lot of you are are trying to do this work either in practice yourselves or working in partnership with groups that are trying to put your theories into practice and so I'm just curious a little bit about. Yeah, what, what challenges and barriers you, you're finding because I suspect some of them, you know, follow similar patterns to the kinds of things that we were finding in this in this resilience work so I just wanted to kind of open it up and see if anybody had any initial reflections on sort of what the challenges and barriers are to operationalizing this kind of work. Okay, so I have a question in between around around any of the relational complex causality theories of change integrated into policy strategies for development planning practice, especially in urban systems beyond project interventions. And Belinda I don't know if you want to hop back in on the on the mercy core work the complex causal chains there, and whether that had ended up getting into actual policies or not. That's a good question I think that we were ceiling seeing definite uptake in the policy level of development agencies themselves. And, for example, the work that we've had as a follow up to this work with groups like the African resilience framework or the UNDP human development report office. We're seeing, you know, the work on relationality and complex causality maybe not under those labels but we're definitely seeing more of that in their policies. But I'm not sure if there's a specific set of policies that you'd like us to explore a bit more. I mean, was there something you wanted to add in from I didn't see the mercy core work ending up at a policy level, but quite a lot of useful feedback from mercy core to, for example, the policy frameworks of funders around some of the challenges of adopting a more complexity oriented perspective, and how little time there is allowed for that in the design phase and the scoping phase of funded projects and working in these contexts. And I'm thinking this, I'd have to pull it up now right. The death weight work was also looking at using a complexity where approach within some of the work that Australia natively was funding. But I don't remember if it was specific to urban systems which are asking about so I'd have to double check that for you. But a great question. Any other questions. Maybe we've stunned you into silence with all our jargon but hopefully you'll have some, some questions or thoughts and reflections from your own work about the challenges and barriers to operationalizing this kind of work. Yeah, so the challenge of how you can influence future resilience funding and the scoping of a resilience are oh I know an ongoing question that we grapple with a lot. And as Jamil mentioned, the secretary to the global resilience partnership is housed here, which is, I think it's over 60 agencies that are part of that partnership so certainly trying to continue these kinds of conversations and share these kinds of lessons in into that space as well with a with a and that partnership itself obviously representing a kind of an enormous amount of funding in terms of when when it's taken kind of in its totality. So the partners themselves and the resilience programs are investing in. Okay, so if I don't see any others for now, I'll, I'll, and again, please feel free to keep popping them in the chat, or the Q&A sorry, I should say, and I will move into actually discussing these challenges and barriers and blend if you want to hit the I'll bring up some of the text on the slide while I speak. One of the overall findings across, I would say all of the six shifts, but particularly the first three so capitals to capacities objects to thinking more in these general dynamics terms, and moving from very closed, very small scale boundaries to thinking them at them as more open was that based on the initial description of the shifts that we would see, whether it was in the factory text of these large scale programs, or even in some of the research articles about specific projects or initiatives, the language that was being used around how they were perhaps describing the need for resilience or what they were hoping, or and, you know, hypothesizing I suppose that using resilience would add into the initiatives that they were working on and the types of changes that need to take place in sustainable development practice. A lot of that discourse and language felt very, very familiar, and very, and, and certainly mirrored resilience science literature. So it seemed quite a line and, and if I'm totally honest, some of it was certainly a better articulation in some ways more clear than I can do myself, certainly and so that felt quite, you know, like, okay, we're all on the same page here. And, but when we started to chase that through these large scale programs, you know, beyond the introductory text to actually what methods were being used, how they ended up funding that overall program ended up funding certain projects and initiatives. What exactly ended up being measured again, Alison, you raised this issue around measurement always comes up, right so what exactly they were measuring and what was counting as impact, and the metrics and numerous indicators that in there in that were there tended to be this real kind of reversion back to very object oriented capitals using assets as a proxy of some type of overall resilience capacity. Just as an example, I think one of one a common one that often comes up is to use the number of live a stock per household for instance, as proxy for a broader capacity to adapt to some type of shock or stressor. Or there's been a lot of work now increasingly around social network analysis so people looking at the number of relationships that an actor might have so the social capital of an actor. And, but then they're using that to sort of create this quantifiable number that's meant to represent again, this like dynamic relationality that they've been describing in the introductory text, and so seeing a bit of a divergence there. Another last example is resilience assessments are very common under these large programs and a number of them obviously get published and I'm sure you've all heard about them. And there, they are very explicit about this issue around boundaries and this kind of we were talking about one of these ships needing to be moving from closed to more open systems and I think there were often some fantastic participatory processes that were being tested and and tried in practice to to acknowledge that these boundaries are socially constructed and determined. But then once thought that that process had taken place, then it still became a very fixed boundary. And so they weren't necessarily looking at the connections to other scales. And so that's when the assessment started, which I think then ends up sort of missing and neglecting some of the explanatory power of those other cross scale connections that could help explain some of the project outcomes. And I think this is happening despite resilient science and I would say sustainability science more generally, actually having some very good tools, and while established methods to do that kind of work. And of course, seeing some ships, not necessarily seeing it play out in practice. And then unfortunately I think, although there were these really innovative practices which Belinda mentioned and, and which we were really excited to find through this review process. It gave us a sense of okay maybe these shifts are really happening. I would say, and as the evidence started to stack up. And again we have these, these large reviews of reviews sort of these comparative studies of 34 different empirical climate change adaptation resilience interventions, a systematic review for instance that I looked at about 276 different articles, one meta analysis that was comparing across 87 different studies. And what we were finding in those and in, and in particular with these larger program investments. And the, the braced prime and tango, which Belinda and Jamila had mentioned, we're still seeing quite limited progress. So they're still very much dominated by a focus on capitals on objects, linear assumptions about what will change how it will change when it will change. I think in, in do in observing that. It seems that not only is there a divergence from where the practices and, and what resilience science might indicate would be worth focusing on or would be worth measuring. And I think that's a huge leverage. They're not, there isn't necessarily a following of that but they're actually not even following each other. So, everyone's creating their own frameworks, everyone's creating their own definition of resilience, everyone's creating their own indicators. AR Cedars work which is mentioned on the side slide here has done a nice review around the, the huge number of indicators that are used around adaptive capacities. And I think it gives a promise that all of these things are somehow about resilience, but then in practice they're sticking with these very standard ways of doing development. And some of the scholars we were reviewing where again, this is quite misleading, and maybe even bordering on on ethical to kind of repackage standard practices but call it resilience, which of course itself has been long studied and seen it's problematic already. So, so a little, you know, kind of a depressing finding that that's this overall progress is quite limited but perhaps, personally at least the most depressing was that there was work being shown by scholars, like Lisa shipper and Siri Erickson and others that and they're looking particularly at resilience and interventions around climate change adaptation. And they were finding that it's not only that some of these initiatives aren't building resilience. That was a double negative, but so they're not building resilience, but in some cases they're actually eroding it and increasing vulnerability. To climate change. So if you're interested in in some of that evidence, you can probably do a quick search around maladaptation and the work that's sort of emerging or under that umbrella. So, of course, not seeing a lot of progress we're seeing a shift in the discourse but not really carrying through in the pro in the actual practices and and maybe in some instances actually even increasing vulnerability and eroding overall resilience that begs the question of why. And one of the most common themes refers to the barriers that we see around how the funding itself how these portfolios of funds are actually designed. And then how the programs that respond to those funding calls are designed, and then how those are evaluated so that they can show accountability and impact to those funders. And addressing that barrier it's it's recognized as challenging because you can't actually resolve it just by collecting more data, or simply tweaking, perhaps a method on the ground in a, in a, you know, at a small scale. And on numerous scholars were pointing to is that there is this issue around the ways that conventional development practices themselves are embedded in paradigms, often associated with more reductionist approaches to science. And then there's this approach is to sort of managerial science and planning approaches. And when you try to squeeze complex social ecological systems approaches to resilience into that. You can potentially compromise the science and the theory or at least the potential benefits that that could have actually provided. And I really hear Tillman Hertz at the center, often talks about this in relationship to mainstreaming which some of you may also come across in your work so these large organizations that institutes sort of an idea around mainstream gender mainstreaming, meaning that all of the the programs and then all the projects within those programs need to think about their work in relationship to for instance gender issues, or climate change mainstreaming, or in this case resilience mainstreaming. And as you, I'm sure we all know, when you simply try to apply, add in an idea and apply it using all the same ways that you were working before. Again, you sort of end up maybe compromising the, the possibilities that could have come from doing something differently. So I'm just going to, and I should just say also that I think the studies that we mentioned that we're really showing progress in these shifts those instances where we did see some progress. They were often describing these barriers and showing there are alternatives, right and demonstrating those in practice that you can adopt a more process relational approach or a complexity aware perspective to sustainable development. So I'll just add on that point, which I've already mentioned is that the evidence. It does, there are these pockets of progress that show this this these shifts are very feasible already. There's a range of tools in resilient science itself that can help but also that practitioners on the ground have been creating over a number of years now. But we did also observe that there are many other ways of knowing and doing and being that have been marginalized by the existing approaches to sustainable development, that themselves represent a real form of capacity to engage in complex adaptive systems and many societies and indigenous ways of knowing and being have struggled to be heard for a long time. And I would say they were still not well represented or well recognized in the work that we were reviewing. I'm going to pass it back now to you Belinda. Thanks Michelle Lee. And so I'm just going to do a quick wrap up and then hand over to and so we can get into the Q&A I see a lot of questions coming up in the box and so we'll be answering those online as well as by typing if we don't manage to get to you. But I think, you know, to, to then talk about this, these challenges and this progress, you know, the shifts themselves are challenging. We found that they were plausible. There were examples of practice making several of the shifts and in fact we found that when you make progress in one shift you often bring along progress in many other shifts that the progress and the shifts themselves are intertwined. So by adopting more relational approaches, it becomes easier to see the dynamic processes that are involved. And it obviously is also then underpinned by a richer understanding of the complex causality in that system. And so we found this a little, you know, after all the sort of challenges and barriers, we did find it a nice positive spot that even very small programs with very small parts of funding were able to make significant progress across multiple of these shifts because of how the shifts enable each other. We also found in those little pockets of practice that where the shift was actually being made, we were actually seeing several of the long standing tensions in sustainable development being resolved. So for example, there's, you know, been a long challenge between understanding whether it's social capital that matters or natural capital that matters and a focus on relationships really takes away that tension between the social and the ecological because one focuses on what connects them. Similarly, the long standing tension between bottom up and top down approaches becomes a lot easier to resolve when we acknowledge how open these systems are and how important the cross scale dynamics and external factors are. And I think not only did we see exciting pockets of practice we saw good examples of shifts bringing along other shifts, and also how by implementing these shifts many of these existing challenges in sustainable development can be actively resolved. I think that what we wanted to do in this conversation is also to engage with all of you and your experiences of reflecting on, you know, how do science and practice actively meet. There was no intention in doing this paper of this or this review of this being a critique of practice, you know as if practice isn't able to use all this great science and all these useful ideas and theories that scientists are generating. We were asking of ourselves as scientists who also have worked with practice in the space, you know why are these shifts not happening everywhere. You know, we can see some of these challenges on the side of practice, but what is it that science needs to do differently in order to mobilize and gain momentum in multiple of these shifts. I think we're all having follow up experiences after having done all this work on grade and on this review, as we engage with different groups who want to hear more about these shifts and how to implement in the work that they're doing, which is really challenging as to think differently about the research that we do the and the kinds of research that we're actually delivering in the space of resilience. So I just wanted to put up one more slide before we start the discussion which is that many have asked for references. This review article is available, open access at the following link. We also have more popular magazine type articles available at this next link on rethink dot earth. And then we actually have a great set of videos that explore several of these shifts in more detail not just from the perspective of science, but actually from the perspective of some of the practitioners that we met along the way and engaged with around some of these shifts. And those videos are all available on the Stockholm resilience centers website as well and I'm sure with Laurie we can make sure we share these links with you if you can't scribble them down now quickly from your screen. And with that, I'm going to hand back to Anne. I'm going to be really bold and try to turn it on my camera. Hopefully I won't disappear again. Linda you might have been right about the internet at the moment, although I seem kind of blurry. Thank you so much for really fascinating and thought provoking comments from you. I don't talk much because we have sick questions in the QA, but I did want to pick up a thing that you were just talking about Belinda in terms of really highlighted for a paradigm shift, and way deeper thinking about that app between science and practice and neither a paradigm shift in all of those six different dimensions. And I'm about that connection between shifts so affecting a shift in two of those can help run along the others. I'm wondering if you have other practical idea for how we can affect change so that we can. Oh no, did we lose Anne. I think she was too brave in putting her video on. So I think I'll just repeat the question in case some of you didn't hear and then also just to double check with others that I heard the question correctly because it went in and out. So really looking at, you know the points Michellee was raising around sort of the deep philosophical and methodological orientations where we find these compromises being made, because the complexity paradigm doesn't fit well with the reductionist paradigm of funding for example, and change paradigms, which is like million dollar question. And I'm going to hand over to Michellee to just give us some thoughts on on that in that work that she was presenting and then also amongst Jamila myself and my I'm sure we can add a few thoughts as we keep track of the Q&A box as well. Thanks. I think it was a bad idea for me to turn on my video. I'll keep it up. I'll let you all. Sounds like you're moderating yourself so maybe I'll just stay out of it since I'm one reliable. Okay thanks and we I think Belinda had just sort of lobbed your question at me around these sort of how I mean if I if I understood it correctly was how do we actually, you know if the challenges these kind of paradigms how do we actually start to shift them then. How do we grapple with that, and I think it, you know one of the references that I mentioned the death wait at all paper was a really fascinating read of how they had, they had inside their own agency had been granted okay well carve out a little pot of money to try this complex be aware approach, and I think they got two years in and we're sort of constantly being faced with. Okay, but how can you show us impact like what is it that you're trying to do and they were really trying to challenge that narrative even that it's supposed to be this fast measurable thing. And especially when you're trying to do something completely new and different obviously that's going to going to take more than you can report on in one year to your but yet their whole system is set up so that you can report each year. And so they were really getting a lot of pushback even internally in their organization about the work that they were trying to do around this. And then eventually and I'm not going to I don't have it up in front of me so I'm not going to get the numbers right but it was only a few years into it, when their funding became was cut and maybe not not so surprising to those of us who are trying to do this work, because it does challenge the system. But I think it was just a really, they have a really nice discussion in there about the very challenge of even within a single organization, never mind talking about, you know, practice writ large or across a number of different agencies that might be working in these spaces but just even within one organization, the challenge of trying to navigate that the very real pushback that can come when you start trying to transform certain aspects of development. So I don't think there's easy answers around that. And, but again, as we said there, there were examples there were examples of people doing this, and which are published in which we referenced in this paper and so I think there are these. But again, we're, we refer to them as pockets because they're small, you know, there, it's not the mainstream and it's not widely known and it took us going through this extensive review ourselves and working in this area for several years before we're even coming across them. So there's certainly not the mainstream way of doing things and I think it will remain an ongoing challenge to do that kind of work. Of course, there's a bigger discussion about how you transform systems writ large which I could probably go on endlessly about but I'll just pause there and see if anyone else wants to jump in. Well, I guess just to add, I think if I also heard the rest of the question and I'm not sure but about the kind of different leverage points to that paradigm change and the interrelation or intertwinedness also as one a question just came that came up as well on the shift. And if I'm, I'm now kind of looking at some of the questions to link this a little bit about how this the framework or the framing that we used could also be used in other contexts that aren't development context. And I would absolutely, I mean, it's a very, you know, we framed it around progress within development but it can be, it can be as much more quite broadly than that but which would be interesting to think and chat more about and hear more from from some of you about but just to say I think that it's a really interesting thing to also look at where to intervene. And I think there would be different questions around that so it could be like where there are shifts happening that could be an easy entry or an easier entry point. So if it is capacities over capital, for example, and then kind of getting at some of the stickier ones like their relations, and how you could kind of, yeah, look at the interlinkages between the shifts, I think would be yet another way to kind of look at paradigm change from kind of a leverage point perspective of what would be the easiest entry point to leverage point to enter on, and how could that transcend across some of the other shifts. And perhaps and I mean I think Danela Meadows who writes so what beautifully about system change talks about how easy it is to change an individuals paradigm because as soon as you see the world differently, you don't need any more convincing, but that institutional paradigms are some of the most inflexible and hardest to change. But I think there's also this point to be argued that we're not trying to argue that there's only one paradigm or that there's a right paradigm. And in fact, Michelin makes this point that in some ways resilient sciences, Western sciences way of coming to recognize the non reductionist and, and more complexity oriented perspectives on the world that many other groups and scholars and communities have had for a lot a long time. And so I'm seeing in places like the intergovernmental platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services which has been very thoughtful about their engaging with other paradigms and other knowledge systems has actually been able to navigate and increase people's awareness of the existence of paradigms and even their own paradigms, but also the plural paradigms that are involved in efforts to do sustainable development or conserve biodiversity or whatever the initiative is that you're involved in. And I think that Danele Meadows writes beautifully about that ability to be agile in our own ability to see others paradigms and also to be recognizing when we're getting entrenched in our own. And that can be, I think quite useful because I don't think any of us who wrote this paper or in this conversation want to say that this is the way to understand resilience, or this is the way to do sustainable development. I'm just looking at these significant investments that have been made in resilience and, and trying to tease out where there might be innovative practices that are actually better able to grapple with some of these turbulent times. I think people end up building on that a little bit. I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit more about if, if there are people who are listening, for example, who have different definitions of resilience than you do. So might your work apply to them, like how, how do those plural definitions of resilience play into the need for a paradigm shift and, and sort of allow us to make progress here. And actually, when we were talking a little bit about as we were preparing for this conversation, I know Jamila has some thoughts on this topic on the plethora of resilience frameworks. So I'm keen to hear what she has to say and then Michelle Lee also I mean in parts of the review. We saw some of the challenges of the plethora of frameworks and indicators and measures I wonder, maybe Jamila can talk about and then you could talk a little bit to those challenges. Yeah, I guess, just start by saying the importance of recognizing plurality and then linking it also to context sensitivity shift that we mentioned. And that recognizing and embracing for like resilience multiples or plurality of resilience doesn't mean that you can use it in any way at any time without specificity for that context. So it still means any time that we define it, sorry, a project context or an academic context or whether it's to be assessed or to measured. There's rigor involved in defining what that means in a context specific place, while also embracing the vernacular, there's been interesting work coming out of what was the step center on vernacular definitions of resilience in different languages and cultures. Which I think would be really interesting to incorporate more especially into development programming. But then again, yeah, on the flip side and maybe just then handing over to you, Michelle Lee, the risk of resilience being defined very narrowly in the sense of maintaining a status quo, which is how it does often end up being used. Which, again, it's not wrong to use resilience in that way and it's potentially useful to measure it in specific context. But if that's the only way that resilience is being used in terms of the types of system and paradigm change that we need to see, then it can become problematic. Yeah, those are a couple thoughts on that. Yeah, it's such an important question and I, we have thought a lot about this. And it was certainly something that was a very real part of our experience in the grade program and as a knowledge partner to this, this global resilience partnership, because they're, you know, every organization that comes in as a partner does have its own. And I think there's even a sense of that they don't even necessarily, you know, as individuals coming into that space, they don't feel like they have sort of the agency to like completely change the definition being that's being direct that the funding is directed towards because that's almost like changing the mandate at an organizational level, like, this is how they've defined it and this is how they've invested the money so there's no kind of changing that now and so I think, but they sort of hung on to them, in sort of a, you know, in a way that could be again as as Jamila saying you know it'd be one thing if they were doing it because it was context sensitive so you have this plethora of different ways of approaching it because you're thinking about how you can make meaning in these different places but that wasn't what a lot of this review found is happening, right and instead it's actually just like people creating their own and kind of doing their own thing. And I think, interestingly, this complex adaptive systems approach to social ecological systems resilience, at least in our experience has actually been a place where people start feeling like they can see how they fit in then. Everyone was kind of off being protective of their own version of resilience, but then actually starting to see how this framing around thinking about complexity, it actually ended up being a really powerful framing, at least in our engagement in the global resilience partnership of how to actually start thinking about bringing this resilience work together. So I think it does hold a lot of promise. And maybe even creates a maybe a new opportunity space to start bringing together things that were, you know, previously, although I'll call the same thing, quite siloed and quite different. So long kind of the same lines if I may add just to that briefly, as I'm engaging critically with different views. I also really foster reflexivity by pointing towards blind spots, or kind of raising new open questions that if you stick within one of you will go unnoticed, for example. Great. Thank you. Let's turn to some questions from our Q&A box. Sorry, I was just going to say I see there are a couple of questions in the Q&A box that we could speak to a little bit in more detail. And I did want to say, you know, there are lots of people asking for specific examples and because this is a review, we can't actually lift out all these wonderful examples but we do actually have the list of all 40 of the components they provided in the review. And, you know, so there is a traceability there of people I see there's a question around the role of local capacities and citizens and local government and it was a fantastic example in the city of Cape Town of using the international approach to look at how knowledge around early warning systems in the climate change space actually moved between citizens and between citizens and local government. I'm showing that it isn't just really the asset of information that is what helps in the case of a disaster but actually in how networked and how those information flows, and the capacities to access that information. So we'll ask some nice examples for people asking questions around that. And Alison and a few others have asked the good old question about resilience metrics. And I'm happy to take a first stab at that one. You know, I mean Alison as you yourself as an expert in the space of resilience assessment and measurement. No, this isn't an easy one to say that there's a simple answer to. I think what we did found were quite innovative approaches to the challenge of measurements. As Michellee says, so much of this measurement is kind of a forced evaluation for forced accountability and not that we're saying accountability shouldn't happen. But it is a little bit of the tail wagging the dog in many of these cases, but we did find fantastic indicators of more relational aspects around relational approaches to resilience. There was for example the Zimbabwe resilience building fund who actually didn't measure resilience, but looked as it as a means to human well being ends that they then did measure. So I think we were seeing quite innovative ways of exploring resilience with a complexity lens and not always moving into the space where development tends to go of measuring resilience as an outcome in itself. And so there are a couple of those examples we have actually some case studies and reviews of community monitoring systems and indigenous scholars and indigenous community monitoring systems to that are using very different approaches to measure what we would call resilience, but that they have different names for in more relational ways. So I think we were excited by those. You know, I certainly don't have the answer that says, you know, he has the secret measurement for resilience that everyone can use. But I do think it was about what about acknowledging the complexity and the dynamics and the core features of this context. What do they tell me about what I need to measure to be able to ensure that the changes that are happening are the ones that I'm tracking and and learning from Charlie Jamila any thoughts to add to the metrics resilient metrics challenge. No, Maya. So I think this is the challenge that comes back to us right when as I was saying, and as well that you know this isn't only about what practice needs to do to use resilient science but what scientists need to be doing in order to provide some of these answers to the measurement and the accountability challenge. There was a recent publication of on evaluation in complex contexts that were showing some some great innovations in that space. So they certainly are examples that one can point to but that wasn't resilient specifically that was just around evaluation in complex and dynamic contexts. And all the other questions coming up. I think it would be great if you could try this one. Any of you, what would success of operationalized resilience thinking look like with respect to capacities of local governments and with respect to citizens. I'm not sure if I totally understand the question is it do is the person mean. You know what what capacities do local governments need in their interactions with citizens that would lack some sort of resilience in the system I'm not sure if I totally understand the question sorry. Yeah, that's. Yeah, do not could add to the Q&A here but I was just thinking about the what would success look like in terms of building capacity in local governments and or in citizens like what what does it mean to have without getting away from the metrics question a little bit but what what does success look like without having to come up with something that's measurable. Like what is what is the vision for success in development, having operationalized sort of imagine you've made this these six shifts. What does it look like for local governments and for their citizens. We shall need you want to. Sorry. I wasn't sure if you were talking. I'll just say something more general and then because it's kind of bridging off what you were saying Blinda in just a sense of the measurability of things and I think also within science we struggle with a lot of this like taking a relational approach to empirical data is really difficult and it requires taking a relational approach from the beginning and that is a bit related to also these these questions of spheres of influence within policy and I mean that we work at very different speeds. I think that was an issue that we faced within the program. The resilience center at the time as well that co development with different government agencies civil society and researchers there's I mean I'm sure probably everyone is called struggles with this but that there's these different different demands and as a qualitative researcher that's something that I really struggle with a lot is this need for metrics and measurement. And this is going a little bit into this question then often. So in some like deeply qualitative material I'm working with right now. It's to have a good life like that's when looking at what resilience is that often the response it means to to have the freedom to do what I want to do in order to have a good life. So for example that's not something that can be given a metric and as soon as you give it a metric you lose the some of these shifts that we actually talked about. So one of the like meta shifts I think would be great to see within whether it's development or science also generally would be more value of these qualitative ways of assessing that go away from the need for for such metrics. But yeah, I don't know if you have something more specific to say on that. I was wondering you know your work on looking at what capacities have been built through the fellowship programs you've been involved in. And, you know, I think, in that example I don't know if I'm understanding the question correctly in terms of what success would look like, but what, what are we finding in terms of what are the important capacities. We're working at that allow for adaptation or transformation under certain circumstances. Yeah. I mean I think one of the things would be success would be don't create any more different indicators would be a really practical one which I think most governments are going to try and do when they create a strategy around resilience right. But actually to start thinking about how we can build off of and learn from all of the existing work that they are, but to the point that Belinda raises I mean one of the things. And I think we saw this in a lot of the review. And others have documented very well is we're talking about these capacities. There's this whole mixing of, of the different kinds of capacity so that absorptive capacity or that capacity to ensure a system persist. The capacity to adapt the capacity to transform. They're very distinct transformation and adaptation are very distinct kinds of change in a complex adaptive system that are going to follow different trajectories and different patterns. And so I think this mixing of well this group calls this an adaptive adaptive capacity and this group calls it absorptive and this group over here is calling it transformative. I think that's, you know, part of the problem is that it's very difficult to learn and compare across because everyone's sort of mixing and, and jumbling these up. But also, I'm some of some research, published back in 2012 actually so a while ago now by Nadine Marshall and others was showing that and this was a very small scale study on peanut farmers in Australia so take it for what you will there's only so much we can generalize it. It was one of the first studies I came across that showed actually the capacities to adapt we're hindering the capacities to transform in that particular context. We still don't know enough about about how those interplay and whether there is a, you know, I don't think all of them hinder each other, but you know what is it that is the capacity to adapt and what is it, what is a distinct capacity to transform. And Allison who's on the call and I have done some work around trying to, trying to synthesize the literature around that I think some of these capacities are actually as as they're more about relationships. And so what would have, you know, a good quote unquote relationship look like between local government with its citizens right. It's a fundamental rethinking of we're talking about that usually isn't part of resilience programming. And, and I think thinking about, you know, we've come, we've been doing a lot of work around, what does it mean to navigate emergence, when things, you know, novel things are happening in a system, but does it actually mean in practice to do that. Right, what are the capacities you need. There's a lot of work going around imagination, lots of fun and interesting work trying to test out art space approaches and things like that. But all of it in effort to see does it strengthen certain capacities that we may need to think about different kinds of change processes. So, to me, success would be to start actually been thinking about it in those ways rather than lumping it all is this one big thing and then just kind of inventing some indicators. Yeah, I'll pause there for now. Great thanks. How about, let's try from the very beginning when you asked for questions. How should develop economists and practitioners be thinking about resilience in the context of twin goals of development and climate resilience. And what can we take away from your knowledge that seems particularly important with the cop going on in Egypt. Thanks, and yes sorry I'm just trying to make sure I'm seeing the right question and understand the webinar chat at the beginning. How should development economists be thinking about resilience, the twin goals of development and climate. Any thoughts from others in the conversation on this one. I mean I do think a lot of these shifts would be very relevant in that space. But climate resilience and development to me seem quite interwoven, rather than separate goals but I'm assuming that in that policy context they are being set up as separate goals. I can imagine that thinking about the capacities required for developments in context of climate change would be important to have the shifts to focus more on the processes of development and climate adaptation processes for example I know that in the big review he mentioned around the work on climate on my adaptation for example was finding that a lot of those interventions not only don't reduce vulnerability they often just displaced the vulnerability to another area. And so that brings with these risks where we put boundaries around systems and and ignore the offsite burdens and the blind spots that the the connections between systems bring. So I think that the the the open system focus would be very relevant for development economists working in the space that vulnerability to climate change is not usually a local cause effect problem but actually a complex series of dynamics that need to be taken into consideration rather than handled at the local scale only. So I can, I think that everything that we worked on could be useful here, but I'm not a development economist so maybe they wouldn't agree any thoughts from others. So if you're on mute Jiminda, did you want to say something. No. Okay. And sorry maybe it's the late hour that many of us are sitting in at the moment, and our energy levels are starting to flag or my synapses are slowing to be able to answer some of these questions. But I'm hoping that no that was great Belinda. Okay. Okay, so we have minutes left and I'm wondering if any of you panelists would like to say anything in wrap up or Jamila you answered and others of you answered questions by typing if there's anything you would like to highlight that's over in the answered category. This would be a good time to do that. It's good to say really quickly there was a couple of people sort of flagging that question around the Canadian context. And, and I was just going to, which Jamila has also answered, and briefly, but I think there is. I do know that the specific salmon initiative well and there is some work being done by I believe and Solomon at SFU that you could, could take a look at but I think, and I would say some of the examples that we reviewed actually because we were looking at the relationship as well there were, there were some actually from in the from an Inuit scholar. So there's some examples actually included in our review that would be relevant. I think there's also some really interesting work being done by the health sick nation along the actually looking at the relationship between language, three different languages groups I believe and the territories of grizzly bears when and where they're moving salmon when they're eating them and consuming them. So there is quite a bit of work starting to kind of emerge around that space that you could take a look at. And I guess just to add, yeah, that's a great example, or and context, new context thanks for bringing it up and also from Neil about the, your project the relationships project that you shared. So I think also just to say that we felt that this was a meaningful way to try to conceptualize and think about the change that we need to see and we did that in a broad, but still specific context of the review that we did. And just to say that it's really, really encouraging and nice to hear about these things and do get in touch with us and with any of us, I guess, and it'd be really nice to continue some of these conversations. Yes, I can echo that as well. And to say that, you know, we've also been thinking quite hard about these shifts in the natural capital space which is after all the topic of this discussion and I'm seeing some really exciting examples there. So looking forward to exploring some of these ideas with those of you working on ecosystem services and accounting for nature in different ways of doing development and excited to test whether these shifts are relevant and what sort of innovations are helping to surface in the work that we're all doing. Great. Thank you so much. Panelists, thank you for Belinda for organizing this. And thank you all for listening in and participating in all the various ways that were available to you today. And we look forward to continuing the conversation on email and in other ways. So thanks so much for joining and being part of this important work. Thank you.