 Good morning, and welcome to the sixth meeting of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee. As a result of membership change, our first agenda item is the Declaration of Interest. We repeat our thanks to Ms Webber for her contribution to the committee. This morning, we are joined by Maurice Golden, so Mr Golden, I welcome you to the committee. We look forward to working with you and invite you to make a declaration of interest. I'm delighted to be here just to make everyone aware. I attended, particularly given today's session, a trip to Nepal with Kate Forbes in the last session of Parliament, which was sponsored by Tierfront, to look at human trafficking and tackling climate justice. Thank you very much. We now move to agenda item 2, which is a decision on taking business in private. Members have invited to decide to take the consideration that evidence should be taken at agenda item 5 in private. Are we all agreed? Thank you. Can we agree that for future meetings too? We now move to agenda item 3, which is part of our international development work. In the run-up to COP26, we are looking at climate justice. This will be a one-off session, and the committee will hear from two panels this morning. I first welcome Jamie Livingstone, head of Oxfam Scotland, Caroline Sawyer, acting chief executive at the Cora Foundation, and Chris Hagerty, senior adviser for Christian Aid Scotland. Good morning to you all. We are going to move straight to questions this morning, and I'm going to invite Mr Cameron to open questions on behalf of the committee. Thank you, convener, and good morning to the panel. I'd like to ask a very general question around the general central principles of climate justice, one of which is protecting and respecting human rights. As ever, there is a tension between the important principle and its everyday application in practice. In terms of practical application and more importantly, enforcement of human rights, how do we overcome the challenges around protecting human rights when, across the world, different thresholds and standards are applied? I'll go to Mr Livingstone first for that. Can you hear me okay? We can. Did you hear our questions? We can. That's great. I did. Thank you very much. I think that it's a really important question. Part of that solution to that is about setting the highest possible standards within your own powers. Of course, here in Scotland, there has been a large and substantial focus on human rights and trying to integrate human rights into Scots law. For example, when things like the right to food are denied to many people around the world, we also have issues with people being able to access food. That's why activities to try to integrate human rights into Scots law and give life to them in Scotland is so important, because if we do that, we can credibly champion human rights internationally. In relation to climate justice specifically, I've seen the interaction between the climate crisis and the denial of human rights internationally. Sometimes when we talk about climate justice, it can seem very theoretical, but it's very far from that. In 2016, I travelled to Malawi and I saw the impact of the food crisis there, driven by drought. I met families who literally had no clue where the next meal was coming from. When you speak to people like that, human rights frameworks and standards seem like a very distant prospect. Scotland can support and do support. In that case, we're supporting those individuals to access their right to food, but we need to get the framework right in Scotland, too, so that we can do that work credibly. Can I invite Ms Sawyer's? Good morning. I echo a lot of what Jamie Sawyer has already said. Obviously, our role here as Cora Foundation is as a grant manager on behalf of the Scottish Government around the climate justice innovation fund. My contribution is based on what we are hearing from grant holders, what we are hearing from organisations in partner countries on those issues. I strongly echo what Jamie Sawyer has said about setting our own standards and approach here in Scotland. For us, the start is from the responsibilities that we bear as a country that has benefited most from industrialisation over its periods and contributing most to climate change. As we hold that moral responsibility, it feels to me like our push to act. It is extremely strong. We very strongly welcome the human rights framework in Scotland. As Jamie Sawyer has set out, that is the basis for our actions elsewhere. Good morning. I'm afraid I missed the first part of the question and the first part of Jamie's answer due to the connectivity issue, but I can't really contribute on that. The question was basically how do we overcome the challenges around the world in terms of protecting human rights when internationally different thresholds and standards are applied? For example, the right to food is a good one. How do we make the right to food mean something that can be enforced and applied internationally? Mr Hegarty, are you able to hear us? I'm sorry. I think that there's an issue. I wonder if maybe we could switch Mr Hegarty's screen off and perhaps he would be able to just have audio to see if that's any better. Can you still hear us, Mr Hegarty? Is Mr Hegarty there? I think that we're going to have to try and get Mr Hegarty on board it again. I'll come back to Donald for a supplementary question. I suppose that it's the same question that I just asked Mr Hegarty, which is just to drill down. I fully acknowledge the comments made already about what Scotland is doing in terms of human rights and the frameworks here. The question is how do we make something like the right to food mean something internationally in developing countries so that it is something that can be relied upon by individuals and enforced? I wonder if you've got any observations about that. Mr Livingston. Thank you for taking me off mute. Obviously, human rights are universal. Scotland and the UK have an obligation to hold other countries to account for the delivery of those human rights, but, alongside that, we need to do what is within our gift to support their delivery. I guess that one of the important things, as well as demonstrating our commitment to those human rights at home, is about supporting their implementation and realisation internationally, and that's where our international development contribution is so important. The UK and Scotland have a good and strong track record on development assistance. Of course, we voiced concern recently around the cuts to overseas development assistance at the UK level, which we think have come at the wrong time, and will result in more people being denied their human right to food. In that regard, we would urge all rich developed countries to fulfil their commitments to 0.7 per cent of aid, particularly in the context of Covid that is applying additional financial pressures on very many countries on top of the pre-existing development challenges, and on top of the new additional challenges that are created by the climate crisis, that overseas development assistance is even more important. We need to get our own house in order, realise the right to food here in the UK in the context in which far too many people are relying on food banks because of facing income crisis, but do what we can internationally to hold other countries to account for the realisation of the right to food and supporting the delivery of that important principle through our overseas development assistance. I bring in Ms Sawyer's—I think that Mr Cameron has a supplementary question on that. I bring in Ms Sawyer's, and then I will come back. Thank you. Drilling down into that, as the question asked, I think again to reinforce the points about recognising our own responsibilities, gotland modelling, what is needed, and that feels to me to be really critical. We are modelling, as a country, the progressive commitments, the policies, the implementation that recognises the drive towards achieving and securing that right to food, as you are talking about, and really bringing together our policies in a sense of coherence so that they are working together, our policies at home, as Jamie has highlighted, and our policies as we are working in international development. I champion here the role of explosive Scottish Government and encouraging others in not only modelling what is happening but playing a leadership role with the private sector, with the third sector, with other Governments to facilitate the kind of collective action that is needed to secure the rights in the way that you are drilling down and asking. My final question is about the right to development, which is an important aspect of climate justice. Can you help to define that for the committee and perhaps explain where you see it fitting into existing conventions of rights and existing domestic legislation, both at home and abroad? I think I'll let others on the panel and perhaps on the future panel to the point about legislation here. I won't speak to areas where I'm not an expert and give you a false sense of my expertise on those legal points. The right to development, from my point of view, as an organisation working alongside partners in Scotland and in our partner countries, is primarily around the development of a path to low-carbon economies in the partner countries that Scotland is working alongside. To exemplify that, for example, in the climate justice innovation fund and the work that we have done, where can we embed and support that path towards adoption, adaptation and the use of and development of low-carbon economies in a way that is obviously recognising climate justice and recognising the climate crisis that the partner countries we are working with are at the sharp end of any experiencing. So I'm not to go into detail and you'll hear from organisations like baseflow and others in the later panel, but we have practical examples here of working with partner countries and organisations in partner countries towards that developed economy, which is a low-carbon economy. I want to emphasise that transition, I suppose, in the context of the climate crisis that we're facing. As Carlin mentioned in her first answer, rich developed countries developed on the back of unsustainable use of fossil fuels and we need to recognise that and therefore we need to move first and fastest in order to reduce our emissions in order that developing countries can continue to develop and we need to support them to do that in a way that jumps beyond fossil fuels to more sustainable routes to development. In a Scottish context, of course, the Scottish Government has supported the implementation of the SDGs, which are really important, but a really important thing to bear in mind is that the climate crisis is effectively undermining development. A Scottish Government funding from the international development fund, for example, is doing some great work in order to support communities in their development objectives. I remember, for example, watching and finding out about Scottish Government-funded solar panels that were increasing the yields of crops in Malawi. The problem with that was that the solar power pumps were pumping water from the nearby river up to increase yields of crops and thereby increasing the community's income, but the drought meant that there simply wasn't enough water, so the impact of the climate crisis is undermining development. The only other thing that I would mention is that we welcome the commitment to the creation of a wellbeing and sustainable development bill in Scotland. That offers an opportunity to lock in some of the welcome commitments that we are seeing in Scotland to things such as policy coherence for development, whereby we do not, in one hand, give international development support and, on the other, not meet our climate change targets. We, as a rich developed country, have an obligation to develop and deliver our national outcomes, as expressed in the national performance framework, in ways that do not undermine the opportunities for other countries to develop and create wellbeing too. In both your submissions, in Cora's submission, they talk about the focus on listening to communities. Mr Livingstone, your own submission is about a human-centred approach. I wonder if you could say a little bit about what that means on the ground. I will go to Ms Sawyer's first. From our point of view, the way that you do it is the way that you do it. In this case, it is both what you do and the way that you do it. I am delighted that you have picked up on those points about participation, voice and partnership. More broadly, in our work, and this is true in Scotland, as it is in working alongside the Scottish Government and partner countries, funding that starts from and embeds the participation of communities in shaping the work that is undertaken and reflects their key priorities. The climate challenge programme in Malawi is framed in that way, and, similarly, climate justice innovation funds over its time period, as it has grown over since 2017, has very much embedded those principles of partnership. How that works in practice is what we do, which is to receive proposals and applications. It is critical that, as we consider those proposals and think that that is the right idea to develop and to fund, to understand how those proposals have been developed alongside and led by communities that are impacted and directly impacted by climate change, how their voices and leadership have been centred on those proposals and how their power and agency within those proposals is demonstrated. How it works in practice is looking at criteria that assure that the proposed sustainability that has the voices of communities within it understands issues such as gender equity, what is the role of women and girls and is well embedded within its community. A couple of points to pick up. It is specific to the climate justice innovation fund. It is a fund that supports partnerships between organisations in Scotland and in partner countries and, progressively, is tipping the balance of power between those organisations. That is certainly a point that we would want the committee to have to the front of their minds, the potential for funding approaches to intentionally tip that balance of power and place power, participation and the strength of partnership very much in the global south. In climate justice innovation funds, part of the way that that has been brought about is to seek locally led partners, not just an organisation based in a partner country, but a locally led partner who is embedded within a community and who represents and involves and hears the voices and champions the voices of people who are living there every day. I do not want to go over too much of what Carolyn said, but I would flag, as we speak right now, that a community is being launched under the banner of the Glasgow climate dialogues, which was supported by Stop Climate Chaos and the Scottish Government. In the session that Oxfam hosted on how we boost support to low-income countries to adapt to the climate crisis, that point about locally led adaptation came through really importantly. There was a clear call for the UNFCCC to integrate the locally led adaptation principles into all their systems and processes, because part of the challenge is that we are seeing far too little climate finance that is mobilised and we are seeing a big gap in the volume of climate finance mobilised. We are seeing far too little of that reaching the least developed countries and small island developing states, but, further than that, we are seeing far too little of it reaching local communities. We know that local communities are best placed to understand their context, best placed to mobilise additional resources and to deliver capacity. We really need to try to get money to those local communities and to do that we need to make sure that our application processes are proportionate, that our accounting processes are proportionate, and that we put in place the capacity support to allow and enable local organisations to lead the delivery of climate justice activities internationally. Welcome to the panel and thanks for the submissions that you have sent us in advance. They have been incredibly useful. I would like to ask about reflecting on the fact that it is five years since the Paris agreement, and we have a huge opportunity and a stroke obligation at COP26 in Glasgow. I want to start off with Jamie from Oxfam. In your submission, you highlight the fact that the Paris agreement has three pillars. It has mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. Most of our focus in Scotland so far has been about mitigation and adaptation, but you mentioned the loss and damage issue. That comes forward very strongly about the capacity of global south-low-income countries to put in the investment. The comment that you made about that is that we were the founders of the industrial revolution in Scotland. What can we do, given that COP26 is in Glasgow and our role, historically, to push that third pillar of the Paris agreement, which we need to redouble? The comment from Alex Sharma, when he spoke at the next zero committee, was that we need £100 billion a year over the next five years, 2020 to 2025. Our contribution is going to be great. It's going up, it's doubling up to £6 million. Where are we at this and what more do we need to do if we're going to lead in Scotland? I'll start with Mr Livingston. I'll just let the panel know that Mr Hegerty is back on board on audio only, but I'll bring in Mr Livingston first. Most of the focus in terms of the Paris agreement delivery is on the mitigation side. In terms of a climate justice approach, we, of course, need to drive down emissions quickly. However, we need to recognise, as the recent IPCC report really reinforced, that this is not a distant threat. Communities need to be able to adapt to the climate crisis that they're facing now. Currently, rich countries are abjectly failing to fulfil their $100 billion climate finance commitment. Within that promise, 50 per cent is meant to be going towards adaptation support, but currently we're only around 25 per cent. Our analysis shows that between 2020 and 2025, we're looking at, in the region, a $75 billion shortfall in terms of climate finance support, yet we know that even that $100 billion target was insufficient to meet need. On top of that, we need to recognise that there are limits on how communities can adapt to climate change. We are now seeing irreversible climate damage, and that brings you into the conversation about loss and damage. We've seen incremental progress globally in discussing loss and damage. We have an international mechanism now in place in order to drive forward progress, but there's no financial mechanism that sits behind that in order to get loss and damage finance to front-line communities. Alongside increasing climate finance for adaptation, making sure that, critically, that is in addition to overseas development assistance and not displacing it, we also need to see COP26 make progress on that discussion on how we secure the additional finance to deal with those irreversible climate impacts. In terms of Scotland, it's really welcome that we have the Scottish Climate Justice Fund. We were concerned that it had been frozen at £3 million a year for five years, despite spiralling climate impacts. However, we're really welcome to increase to £6 million. Crucially, that is separate and additional to the international development fund. That allows Scotland, as a sub-state actor, to call on other rich countries to increase their financial commitments. On loss and damage specifically and briefly, there was a dialogue, as part of the Glasgow climate dialogue, on loss and damage. There was a call made by participants from the global south to the Scottish Government to consider a solidarity fund in order to demonstrate that leadership on loss and damage ahead of COP26. That's a really interesting proposal. I think that it would have to be additional and separate to the adaptation support and to fulfil or to show as much leadership as possible. We need to demonstrate that we can identify innovative new sources of finance or climate finance and loss and damage. We need to be driven by the data that shows clearly that emissions are being driven by the richest in society. We need to curb emissions of the richest in society. One way of doing that would be around changing incentives, but we also need to raise new finance by progressive taxation on high emitters, high incomes and wealth. I move to a core foundation. You were in a position, Carlin, to access a raft of different donations from big organisations. Is there an appetite for addressing that loss and damage agenda from big financiers and people giving support to charities and foundations like yourself to really make that difference in the next five years? I would hope so. That's an idea that certainly merits exploration. Obviously, our experience is more primarily around funds that have been around adaptation. I mean, just to echo some of what Jamie has gone through. It's clear that our current action, certainly through climate justice innovation fund, is more in the space of adaptation and our actions here in Scotland are primarily more in the space of mitigation. Exploring the potential for raising funds more broadly around loss, again, the Scottish Government can potentially play a leadership role here in bringing together and building funds along with others. It's an area where, as you're well aware, there are many Government players, there are many large global philanthropists and foundations active in the field more generally. Their number of grates is a really well-connected funding community in Scotland of foundations and trusts. I have to say that the orientation of most foundations and trusts and givers in Scotland is more primarily towards working in Scotland and that's been, I'm sure, not surprised to say that. Part of what's powerful, exciting and interesting about those kinds of sessions and actually the visibility of COP26 in Glasgow is the way that it brings to the top of the agenda, the potential for collective action. That case can increasingly be made and would expect it to be made, certainly, as we drive towards COP26. Chris, do you have a comment? I can't save your hands up or anything, but do you have a comment on the issue? Thank you, Sarah. Sorry, I apologise to everybody. My broadband keeps seeing it's unstable, so I'm losing connectivity. I do apologise. To try and build on what Jamie said, I think, on that and Caroline. In my experience, the way in which Scotland has the biggest impact on those kinds of issues is by setting helpful precedents. I wondered about loss and damage at the whether there might be a parallel in terms of the issue of climate justice maybe 10, 11 years ago was something that really Northern Governments were very unwilling to even talk about. The way in which the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government started talking about the issue of climate justice really quite transformational, quite revolutionary in terms of being the first sort of Northern country in the world to set up a fund called the Climate Justice Fund. But even as talking in terms of the words climate justice, the feedback that I had from partners and colleagues in places like Africa at the time was kind of more effusive, if you like, than I expected. Simply having a rich Northern Government using the term climate justice was significant and very helpful in international terms and was seen as an important breakthrough. I wonder whether there might be scope to do for something similar in terms of loss and damage, because loss and damage is an issue that Northern Governments, for simply financial reasons, are reluctant to even talk about. Perhaps that might be a means by which Scotland, Scottish Government, Scottish Parliament can develop another one of those helpful precedents that can puncture through some of the narrative and linguistic barriers to get this on the agenda, as Jamie-Anne said. I just wanted to pick up on some of the thoughts around the human rights bill and Jamie's comments about the wellbeing sustainable development bill. How do we ensure that climate justice is effectively delivered in Scotland? Who does the governance on that? There is a reference to climate justice in the climate change act, but I am thinking about how do we enshrine it further into legislation and who champions it? Is there a need for a commissioner or future generations commissioner or some other body or function that ensures that every public body that has a role to play in this is delivering alongside those important principles? I would be interested in your thoughts about how we would take that to the next stage, because it is a useful principle that is now there, but how do we embed it further in public policy? You are right. It is there on the face of the bill. I am just looking at it now. It says that we will support those most affected by climate change but who have done the least to cause it and are the least equipped to adapt to its effect. It is really positive, as Chris was saying, that we have got that not just as a rhetorical commitment but as an in-law commitment in Scotland. In terms of the proposed human rights framework, one of the proposals in there is about introducing a right to a healthy environment for everyone, which is really positive. We need to make sure that that applies outwith Scotland's borders as well as inside Scotland's borders, so that our activities here are not undermining the delivery of a healthy environment for people internationally. Scotland has made a lot of progress in areas such as the national performance framework, which is obviously locked in through the Community Empowerment Act. We have the Climate Change Act. You are right that something that falls below those that drives implementation is still necessary. That is why the wellbeing and sustainable development bill offers an opportunity for us to explore how we can drive that progress. For example, we need to make sure that all public bodies have to conduct impact assessments in relation to their decision-making on how those decisions will impact internationally, including things like climate emissions. Wales has its future generations bill, which I think has been a useful mechanism in Wales, but there is still an implementation and accountability gap. It is all very well having commissions and commissioners, but unless their recommendations are acted upon, the realisation of those aspirations is where concern lies. In Scotland, lots of people will be trying to define what that bill looks like. From our perspective, it has to include the international dimension. How are activities in Scotland having knock-on implications for low-income countries, including things like excessive emissions? I am not a huge amount to add to what Jamie just said. To be honest, in terms of an assessment of those things, there is a hierarchy of preferences in terms of those kinds of bills. It is better to have something on the bill or something in the bill than to have nothing. The next preference is to have greater teeth embedded in the legislation, but, as Jamie said, we had an interesting call with colleagues from Wales recently, in light of Scotland being about to embark on the wellbeing and sustainable development bill to try to learn from their legislation from some years ago. They said that, in some of the aspects that they have tried to embed, that they thought might have given them quite as many teeth as they might have hoped. There are pluses and minuses of having commissioners. They said that, in many ways, just having the wording in the bill was perhaps the thing that they used the most in trying to hold decision makers to account for those things. There is probably a hierarchy in terms of things that we want to get in. We also have to balance, if I am honest with you, how politically likely we are to try to get some of those things in. Those are the kind of things that we are weighing up at the moment with regard to your work on the wellbeing and sustainable development bill. Ms Sius. Again, I echo the comments that Jamie and Chris have made. It seems to me that one of the most important messages that we are trying to get across here is the potential power of joining things up, which is inherent in your question. There is a lot of good legislation in Scotland and a lot of good strong narrative and commitment, so the potential here is to join that up and make it coherent, integrated and more than some of its parts. I again think about the point about great nationality and great legislation. What we are really thinking about then is how do you make that happen on the ground and make implementation and the realisation of rights as strong as the statement of them. For me, it is about that matrix of getting all the levers working at the same time. My perspective is obviously very strongly from a funder of organisations in the third sector, but it seems to me that in order to ensure the realisation of rights, as well as strong legislation and narrative and commitment, we clearly need capable and well-funded organisations in the third sector who are able to strongly advocate, who are able to hold to account. We need vibrant democracy and people connected to that, having their voices heard. We need political will, and certainly we need an underpinning effort to ensure that the public dialogue is there as well. I am just trying to add to those points about getting the legislation right and getting the mechanisms right, just to see a rounded picture where you also need vibrant democracy, strong third sector organisations, support for advocacy and engagement with the media and the public to get that underpinning will and desire to progress. Thank you, convener. I would like to explore two aspects of Scotland's role on the world stage. I will start with Jamie Livingstone, if that is okay. The first part is how do we get more bang for our buck for the investments that Scotland makes in tackling climate justice? Would a thematic approach help to achieve that? For example, we are potentially facing water wars between competing states over riparian basins, watercourses and aquifers, household-level water scarcity. Would focusing on a particular theme equally focus on human trafficking, access to education, labour standards, renewables or agriculture? There is a whole variety of themes there, but would that be something that is worth while exploring? Jamie, in your submission, you said that the Scottish Government should demonstrate its commitment to climate justice by making clear its opposition to approval of new oil and gas licences. The second question is what impact, if any, has the Scottish Government's failure to meet emissions targets over the past three years that it has in the sphere? Over to you. Two fairly chunky questions, which I will try to address in turn. In terms of bang for buck, currently there is a valuation of the climate justice fund going on. There is a meeting about that this afternoon to start setting out some of the findings of that, which I will be joining. Carol is perhaps a better place to talk on that. Obviously, the Scottish Government's international development programme is geographically focused on the partner countries, Malawi, Rwanda and Zambia, for exactly that purpose to try to deepen the partnerships and deepen the bang for buck by having predictable and stable funding. I think that there is general support for that approach. There has also been generally a focus on water and renewables within much of what the Scottish Government has been doing. There are two parts to the support that low-income countries need. One is finance, of course, and the other is technology. Therefore, it is welcome that there are commitments to set up new global platforms to share learning between Scotland and some of our partner countries on things such as renewables and the like. I think that all of that, marrying together the technology transfer with the financial support, comes together to increase Scotland's bang for our buck. On Campbell specifically, we obviously all agree that we need to have a just transition, but the transition needs to start. The International Energy Agency, the chair of the UKCC at UK level, has both expressed concern that we shouldn't be giving approval for new oil and gas extraction, because it is simply not compatible with our climate aspirations. In that regard, we very much welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has urged the Prime Minister to review existing licences. We think that the next step for that is that the First Minister of the Scottish Government should make clear its own opposition to the Campbell project. You obviously referenced missed targets. Scotland has what we would describe as a relatively strong climate action record. We have, as we have discussed, really strong legal targets, which is great. We have made progress. We have reduced emissions since 1990 by an excess of 51 per cent. The challenge being that we are falling short of our legal targets. In 2019, while emissions fell year on year, we still missed our legal target. That was the third missed target in a row. From our perspective, that places Scotland's climate justice credentials in a great jeopardy. The cabinet secretary has committed to bringing forward a catch-up plan, and we think that that is critical, because distant 2045 net zero targets will count for very little unless we get on track to deliver our 2030 emissions targets. We need, collectively, to remain within 1.5 degrees. The UN has been clear on that. The IPCC has been clear on that. We do not think that we can afford to miss any more of our legal targets, because it begins to undermine our championing role. We want to go into COP26 and beyond. We want the Scottish Government, the First Minister, to be able to go into platforms such as the Under 2 Coalition, or through the wellbeing economy governments initiative, and to have a credible climate justice example to show that we need to get on track, and that means faster emission reductions now in order to ensure that we meet that 2030 target. Thank you. I was keen to build on Jamie's points and try to answer both questions to the best I can. On the question about how do we increase the bang for a buck, I make a distinction on the various strands of work done in Scotland on climate justice. In terms of emissions, the Holyrood is responsible for emissions cuts in the same way as many other countries are. In terms of things such as climate finance, it is not a devolved area, so it is something in which we end up innovating and doing some things around the edges. If we are talking about how to make the most of that relatively small-scale contribution, then Christian Aid is very unabashed about saying that poverty is political. In some times, you can get a much bigger bang for a buck if you work on some of the underlying structural issues, on advocacy issues. For example, I noticed that the Scottish Government had funded some research for the name that we do. It is called Women's Delegates Funds and training support for women's delegates from least developed countries in COP. We could be focusing on one or two key advocacy issues in which Scotland perhaps has a good story to tell and has a particular advantage in supporting. We could, perhaps not to the exclusion of the programmatic work that is done, but certainly as an additional important feature, then ultimately you can have much bigger effect through changing things at a structural level than by programmatic work on the ground. In terms of failure to meet targets, it does not help. It undermines the credibility of the work that is going on, and it encourages a degree of cynicism, I suppose. As Jamie has said, ultimately, the legislation is strong. The track record is relatively strong in international terms. Scotland has cut its emissions by 51 per cent or so since 1990. If you look at some big international comparators, the USA has increased slightly since 1990 and Canada has gone up by 21 per cent since 1990. Scotland has a relatively strong story to tell. In terms of emissions, what I would love Scotland to be able to do is to cut its emissions far and fast and to be able to share that positive story with other parts of the world. That is something that we should not overlook, because there is still a strong positive story to tell, but I agree that the missing of targets does not help our ability to do that. I look back to the question. I suppose that the first thing that came into my mind was to reflect to you that our bang for buck at the moment is quite strong. We want to make sure that the committee heard that message. We have been managing 15 grants in the Climate Justice Innovation Fund, making a real difference for over 30,000 people in our partner countries. What we are funding there is strongly around renewable energy and innovative farming techniques. There are real benefits to what is 1.5 million pounds in terms of a small amount of money. Obviously, there is always potential to increase that bang for buck and understand the reason behind the question. However, there is a strong record to build on, which is the point that I want to make sure that you hear. How can you strengthen that? What we have heard from our grant holders, from organisations in partner countries is a strong desire to really strengthen the learning in exchange. That links to the question that you are asking. What we are doing in the Climate Justice Innovation Fund is trialling, testing and developing new technologies. They clearly have the potential for benefit, not just immediately for communities that we are working alongside, but potentially for wider adaptation and trialling. The way to really maximise that and get bang for the buck is to intentionally support learning in exchange in south-south conversations between communities and partner countries, and with partners in Scotland. There is a strong appetite to do that. If we are thinking about how to reform and frame climate justice funding in the future, our advice would be to strongly embed that potential for learning in exchange in order to make the most of the potential technological developments and adaptations that those spend can have. The impact of the grants is really strong. Those grants are making a real difference to people's lives. We have access to electricity, we have clean water and improved farming approaches. That is the kind of work that will make a difference, but we have to intentionally embed that kind of learning in exchange. It will happen to an extent, but to intentionally invest in it and ensure that it is happening as a core part of Scotland's climate justice funding would strengthen and achieve the stronger bang for the buck that you are looking for. A very big point to build on, Chris's point, is to say that that international championing role is really important. That is why we very much welcome the release recently of the indicative nationally determined contribution by the Scottish Government to be clear. That was an entirely voluntary step, but the fact of putting Scotland's climate action targets and progress into the language that is familiar to parties to the Paris Agreement is important. It is particularly important because at the moment, the UN is saying that if you add up the combined NDC commitments globally, we are on track for emissions to rise by 16 per cent by 2030. That championing role, that influencing role, is absolutely critical, because Scotland can deliver our targets, but unless we get past our progress internationally, then, of course, those two things need to go hand in hand. Just a brief supplementary to Caroline Sawyer's, if I may. You mentioned the substantive positive change of the Scottish Government's climate justice innovation fund. What metrics are used to assess that? Absolutly. We operate a full and engaged funding programme where partner organisations, both in Scotland and in our partner countries, are tracking a whole range of metrics that are appropriate to the work that they are doing. Primarily, the one that is always easiest to talk about is how many people are experiencing a positive change, who are projects reaching, how many people are they reaching. That is obvious and easiest one to sum up across a whole range of projects that are obviously doing different work. We are operating a fully engaged monitoring and evaluation process with each partner and gathering regular information on the achievements and outcomes that they have set for the projects and pulling those together to understand the overall impact of the projects in the programme. As Jamie mentioned, there is, incidentally, brilliant timing, although it might be better if the meetings were the other way around, but there is a publication of the evaluation of the climate justice fund as a whole this afternoon. I am sure that we will be sharing further information about how the fund has worked as a whole. From our point of view, I will certainly be happy to follow-up with committee members on any more detail that would be helpful. We have full monitoring and evaluation reports coming through from each project, six-monthly reports that are not just about finance but about the difference that the projects are making on the ground. Critically, I suppose, the learning that is coming through from that. What we are learning about the technology and its use in situ on the ground, what we are learning about the different ways to engage people and organisations in the work, the whole framework that we would be delighted to share more information on. That would be great. My first question is really about the voice that people in the developing world have in all of us. You have both mentioned that and referred to it, but I am keen to know what can be done to bring that powerful voice to the fore, specifically at COP26. How do you feel that it is likely to be heard? It has been a long-term challenge. I am trying to calibrate that in different contexts. In a Scottish context, those voices have been heard. The whole issue of climate justice was thinking back to the 2009 climate change act. I remember the then cabinet secretary with responsibility, John Swinney, saying that he was inspired at the end of the whole thing, the whole process that he had been inspired by, the whole concept of climate justice and the voices that he has heard from the global south. It is something that we in Scotland have been doing for a long time with some success. I think that the Scottish Government and the Scottish politicians of all have been notably engaged with people from the global south throughout the last 10 or so years that I have been working on those kinds of issues at COP26. I think that the challenge is how to make the case more of the norm. I am trying to calibrate that in terms of practical things that people in Scotland can do. Civil society in Scotland has put an enormous amount of effort into planning for this COP in terms of how civil society can support and amplify the voices from the global south. The Stop Climate Care Scotland coalition through a whole range of processes has already talked about the dialogues through supporting people to visit and stay in Glasgow and have plenty of opportunities to speak. The Scottish Government and Parliament have already mentioned supporting training and development for spokespeople from the least developed countries. That is the kind of thing that we can and should do more of. From a Christian Aid perspective, we are working to make sure that our spokespeople at COP26 are as diverse as possible and from the global south where possible. The range of things that we can do, I will come up against the limits to some extent of what we can do in the Scottish context, but there are some of the things that we can think about in terms of making sure that those voices come to the fore. I am reflecting on what Chris has said in a lovely phrase about amplifying voices from the global south. It was exactly what was in my mind. From my point of view, not just at COP26, although I understand the reason for the focus of your question, but it seems to me that amplifying voices from the global south within the way that we think about climate justice funding and wider international development funding is vital. That line should be drawn from COP26 onwards. We are going to a new phase of climate justice and international funding as well. As you know, the Scottish Government has taken a wider look at its international development funding not so long ago and very clearly signalled a shift to amplifying, strengthening the voice of countries from the global south within that process. Not just their voices, but their actual power as well. From my point of view, we use the term voice in Coral Lot, but it is not just amplifying voices, but it is listening to them. It is those voices making a difference in real decisions. From a grant making point of view, that is a much wider trend of participating in grant making, which we would absolutely endorse and follow through not just in climate justice funding but in any funding. That wider role is a strong voice from the global south, not just at COP26 but in funding. For us, it is about rebalancing and recalibrating that sense of power. Relationships are the words that are in my mind here. Relationships and trust are a two-way street. Again, we need to intentionally build relationships that are respectful, transparent, accountable and have a real sense of parity of power and partnership. That is the approach that will, in the long term, make Scotland's role in climate justice funding as strong as it can be. I think that it would be remissable to say that the concerns around participation in relation to COP26 in Glasgow are a level up from the pre-existing concerns that have long been held about global south voices being heard and listened to, as Carolyn said. Obviously, there is a great focus on the challenges of global south attendees coming to Glasgow. It would be remiss not to point to the underlying vaccine inequality that is fueling some of that with a context. As we speak of, only around 2 per cent of adults in low-income countries are fully vaccinated right now, which is a critical issue that all rich developed countries need to act upon urgently. There is also, in general, a mismatch between what is going on outside of COPs and inside of COPs. I was fortunate that I went to the COP in Madrid and there was a real sense of frustration that the upsurge in global south voice in the chambers or the corridors outside the formal negotiations really weren't filtering through to the urgency that was coming through within the chamber. During the Glasgow climate dialogues, which were specifically designed to try to ensure that Scotland plays a role using its soft power at COP26 to amplify the voices of the global south, the ambassador of Belize was talking about COP26 being a point of reckoning in terms of the role played by rich developed countries. The only other point that I would make is that, alongside the funding that the Scottish Government is giving to support women to participate throughout the UNFCCC processes, it is also really positive that it funded the confidence of youth coming up given the intergenerational concerns and the fact that really young people are pulling the rest of society along towards the more urgent action that delivery of the Paris agreement requires. Thank you. On building on that point that you've just made there, Jamie Livingstone, about the nature or the shape of COP26, we often talk about COP26 in quite abstract terms without much of an idea of what the agenda and the format looks like and who's allowed in to what. So I just wondered if you could say a bit, both of you, about how your organisations or the organisations you're affiliated to actually engage with COP26 and what bits of it, given the concern that we've heard, expressed to make sure that the voices of the global south are heard. Mr Livingstone? Organisationally, Oxfam internationally attends COP and we do that in order to hold bilateral meetings on the fringes of the formal negotiations. A big part of what we're trying to do through that is to be a conduit to amplify the voices of the global south. For example, at COP26 we'll be bringing a smallholder Ugandan farmer to COP26 in Glasgow and trying to create platforms for her voice to be heard, because in order to rebalance power dynamics and give opportunities for the global south, sometimes that requires global north participants to step aside, use their power to join the dots and then allow global south voices to be heard strongly. People talk about COP26. Within COP26 it's a huge operation with multiple streams going on throughout the two weeks. You have to be quite targeted in terms of saying what are the work streams that we're going to be trying to influence. For Oxfam, the focus will be on climate finance, getting rich developed countries to fulfil that $100 billion promise and to go further and recognise that that is hugely insufficient and that we need a new global target for post-2025 that really reflects the scale of the adaptation needs that are required. Not a huge amount out of what Jamie said. I guess the other dimension that I would bring in is that Christchurch is an organisation with substantial presence in the UK, based in the UK. With the COP presidency being with the UK at the moment, I guess that another dimension has been substantial work with and towards directing that to the UK Government in terms of its particular role in this particular COP in shaping the agenda. In some ways we've tried to act as something of a conduit between the issues that are raised and prioritised by the communities with which we work in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Raising that voice or those voices with the UK Government in its role is with the COP presidency, so things like women's participation, climate finance, loss and damage and just the sheer urgency of cuts in emissions. Like I said, in addition to the things that Jamie has talked about, we operate in a similar way to Oxfam, in many respects, to add that other dimension. In the Scottish context too, if I'm honest, it's been quite difficult to work out the role of the Scottish Government within the COP. To the extent that we can, we've tried to work with the Scottish Government to help it to raise its voice very appropriately within the COP. Ms Sawyer. To add, as the grant managers for climate justice innovation funds, our main engagement today has been making sure that there are some really strong and powerful case studies available that the Scottish Government will, we hope, will be using as part of COP26. Organisations such as those that you're here from later, make sure that their stories and the impacts of their work has been heard as part of the process. Secondly, just to mention that, from a more local point of view, independent funders in Scotland have done a little bit of co-ordination to think through how best we can make sure that there's some support available to Scottish organisations working on environmental climate justice here locally in Scotland. So just to make sure that we get joined up and that's probably slightly more about organisations who'll be on the outside of some of the formal proceedings of COP26, but making sure that, as funders, we're working together in a wee bit intelligently to identify some of the great work that's happening in Scotland that we hope would have a voice. And then just lastly, and certainly more broadly, to say that the COP26 itself is obviously to provide a framework for independent funders, trusts and foundations to be reflecting on their own practice and what's happening. I would expect that there is some engagement of international funders within the COP26 framework through a global organisation, but more broadly, it's actually prompting a strong discussion about what's happening around funding for the third sector in Scotland around environmental issues, around climate justice locally in Scotland. So it's not an area where there's significant independent funding at the moment in Scotland, so it's some knock-on impacts of COP26 in Glasgow for funding more broadly. Thank you. I heard diplomatically put there that it was unclear what role the Scottish Government might have. I suppose that's a question that would have to be addressed to the UK hosts of the conference. On another theme, I was interested to know about the Scottish Government itself, what lessons the Scottish Government can learn from, not just COP, but some of the issues that you're raising as organisations about climate justice in terms of how to mainstream the things that we're doing in international development as a Government into all parts of Government in Scotland. That's a big question and we're trying to chunk it up in my head to answer it in a succinct way. I mean, there are two or three clear points from the management of climate justice funds, which we hope are—I'm happy to—we included in our written submission and I'm happy to just summarise here. They'll also be echoed in the evaluation of the climate justice fund that's being discussed later today. There are clear points that we would want the Scottish Government to take on board about, as we've talked about before, the importance of learning in exchange within funding, the importance of locally led partners, the importance of participation voice and really making that central to the processes and the way that funding is distributed and shared. I'm thinking about some of the broader lessons for Scottish Government work. It's clearly an area where there's an example here to be made of the potential for joining up, what we're doing around international development and the learning with broader policies that are, again, progressive within Scotland around community-led action, community empowerment or for diversity, equity and inclusion. There's a whole range of progressive work that's happening in Scotland that's very much informed by and speaks to our international work that should be reinforced. I touched there briefly on my previous answer on what we're doing in Scotland. From a funding point of view, it's an area where I believe there's room to strengthen. We pick up some of the things at Cora Foundation, just since I've got the chance, is doing. We're working alongside some partners supporting the development of Scotland's first young people's forests. That is a development led by young people. There is work now in train that is helpfully and mutually reinforced by our work in our partner countries. I think that we need to focus on the potential for that. I guess that the scale of what is required on climate change is such that it needs to be joined up. I'm getting an echo here. I'll carry on now. The scale of what is required on climate change is such that it needs to be a cross-T parmental thing. That's perhaps the biggest lesson, but to be fair, I think that the Scottish Government or Parliament recognised that some time ago. Several years ago, I set up a cabinet sub-committee on climate change to try and pull it together in a cross-governmental way. The need to continue to do it on that basis. The need to join up is something that we've been working with the Scottish Government on for some time. The need to have policy coherence for development so that you're not making things better on the one hand and perhaps damaging in the other respect, and the need to weave that into that. To continue with that strand of work and to weave that together with the work on climate change. The impact that the Scottish Parliament and Government can have through climate change, I would argue, is one of the biggest single ways in which we can have an impact on international development. We need to try to weave those two things together. I don't want you to take us in a formal direction to hear me okay. It's to say that one of the key lessons I think has to be, whilst we've talked a lot today about climate justice internationally, we need to be delivering climate justice within Scotland, too. That means trying to find opportunities to drive down our emissions in Scotland in ways that also support social justice in Scotland. We have far too many people in Scotland to face fuel poverty. We need to find ways that target our emission reductions at the high emitters, and that tends to be those with high incomes and wealth, curbing excessive emissions from car travel through investment in public transport that we know will disproportionately benefit those in poverty, curbing excessive emissions from flints and rekindling the work on the circular economy. It's still there in the background but seems to have been pushed further into the Parliament. I think that we need to pick that up. The only other thing that I would mention is that we are really acting upon the now increasingly widespread calls for greater conditionality in access to public money, so that we require private sector companies who are accessing Scottish Government funding to support the transition that we need. The advisory group on economic recovery called for that, and the previous lead climate change committee in the last Parliament called for that. We really need to see that coming through in things like fair work first and the like, so that we harness the collective weight of Scotland and recognise that Government can't do it alone. We need the private sector's weight behind it as well. The panel has been a very informative evidence session. I would like to focus on young people, if possible. In all your submissions, you have talked about harnessing the transformative power of education for climate stewardship. I am interested to know what you have talked about the young people's forests, and we have talked about young cop as well, how your organisations are working with young people in Scotland and perhaps connecting them with young people in the global south and allowing the global south's young voice to connect with our young voice as well. Thank you. I will pick up on two strands of that, if I may. The first is around the whole notion of education and climate change. Scotland has a wide-open goal. We, as civil society and climate campaigners in Scotland, have a wide-open goal via the curriculum for excellence and the focus on global citizenship. It is something that not many countries have in terms of embedding issues of sustainability and climate change in the education system in the heart of the curriculum. We have already developed several resources focusing on climate change and trying to bring the whole issue of climate justice to light for our young people via working with schools. If I can plug in some of our resources, you can find out what our website is for schools and for young people on the issue of climate justice in the run-up to COP. How do we bring young voices to COP26? At the moment, we are focusing on one of our major mobilisations with an organisation called YCCN, and they are undertaking a relay all the way from the G7 in Cornwall that is culminating coming to COP in Glasgow. It is a walking really throughout much of the UK. It is arriving in Scotland on 15 October, and that is one of our major mobilisations to try and get young people involved throughout Scotland on the route of the march. It is coming to Berwick on trade or the border just north of Berwick on 15 October, and then walking through East Lothian and Edinburgh to Glasgow. That is one of the major focuses that we have in terms of getting young people involved in COP and inspiring them this year. I have two or three quick points from me. The first I wanted to mention was that young people have been inspiring us as an organisation to do things. It makes complete sense that, given the question that you have asked, we have found young people to be well ahead of us in that. Their leadership is leadership that we are following as an organisation that they have inspired us, our staff team and our partners to be taking more action for ourselves as an organisation, looking at our carbon footprint and to think about the role that funders, foundations and trusts play in Scotland and internationally around the climate crisis. I want to acknowledge young people's leadership in that, and if we can be alongside them and support their voice and journey, we are happy to do so. I have two points to mention. Cora Foundation is involved in a wider movement, which is called I Will, which is supporting young people's social action. I want to put that on your radar to say not surprisingly how strongly that work happens in local communities across Scotland, in fact across the UK. How strongly that work is informed by young people's social action around the climate crisis. It is a clear focus of their work and, as funders and others involved in that advisory, we are supporting that. I mentioned a minute ago the young people's forest in Scotland, which is in development. It is a highly engaged young people's panel who are thinking about how they plan it, how they design it, how they own it and how they find a site. It is a really exciting example. I am so loved for them to be at an appointment in a few weeks time when COP26 happens for the way to tell the story of where they have got to and perhaps even use it as a fundraising opportunity to get that forest planted in the future. Just looking back to the climate justice innovation fund, it mentioned very briefly that a number of the projects that have been funded have a very strong youth element to them. The potential is there to connect up young people who are involved in those projects in partner countries internationally, certainly with communities and young people in Scotland. One of the demands that are being made by young people is for teaching on climate issues to be core within the education system. It is there. It is one of the four key pillars, I believe, within the curriculum for excellence. We have the entitlement to learning for sustainability as well. Of course, teachers need to be supported to deliver on that entitlement. It has been really positive in recent years that the Scottish Government has funded the network of development education centres across Scotland to provide that kind of DPD support to teachers, produce resources that they can use within the classroom. We have funded the west of Scotland developing development education centre to produce a specific teaching resource on COP26, which I would commend to the committee. It is really important, though. It looks back to something that Carolyn was saying. Those centres are embedded within local communities. Their funding is not particularly secure. I would commend their work and urge the Scottish Government to continue to invest in it so that teachers have the support that they need in order to realise the welcome legislative commitments to giving young people the skills to critically interrogate the world around them, not to tell them what to think but to give them the tools through which they can make up their own minds and raise their own voice. If we try to be brief, we are running right up against time for this morning's panel, but Ms Minter, do you want to come back in? It is not so much a question, it is more a comment. I was really pleased to see Caroline's face light up when she talked about the young people's forest. I have to admit a connection in the time of the champion for Celtic rainforests, so I would like you, if possible, to put that on your list as possible suggestions for the woodland. Thank you. I do not think that I will go back to the panel. I want to thank everyone this morning for their attendance and also for your submissions, which were really helpful to the committee for today's session. I am going to suspend briefly while we change the panel over. Welcome back to agenda item 4 on climate justice. I can introduce our second panel for this morning. We have Professor Tassine Jaffrey, director of Caledonian University Centre for Climate Justice, Muti Shema, director of Baseflow Limited, and Dr Geraldine Hill, advocacy manager for Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, SKEAF. We are tight for time this morning, so if I could ask for contributions or questions to be succinct, that would be really helpful. I want to have an introductory question with each of you in turn. I start by asking Professor Jaffrey if she could just summarise on the summit on climate justice, which she hosted last week, to give us a flavour of the discussion and outcomes and how you see that feeding into COP26. Thank you. Very good morning. It was a fantastic conversation. We were overwhelmed and over delighted with the content and the quality and the contributions of the second world forum on climate justice. What struck out to me is the pace of how fast the conversation is moving on climate justice. We were connected live from Van Wattu right through to Inuit communities in Canada. That was as far-reaching as it was. We had new insights, new research, new approaches and developments that have been taking place right across the globe. The things that struck out from the world forum are the need not just to work as individuals, but how connected the conversation needs to be. It needs to be connected across disciplines, across landscapes and social actors. The direction of travel for climate justice has moved on considerably over the past five to six years since I started working on it. We are now in the realms of looking at not just the technology solutions that relate to not just the mitigation but adaptation approaches to tackling the impacts of climate change, but how the conversation is really moving towards the need and the urgency to look at social and human not just values but approaches to supporting building resilience and helping communities cope with the impacts of climate change. On how it relates to COP26, the world forum is taking that insight and shaping those conversations in the platforms at the centre is involved in across the full two weeks of the COP26 programme, whether it is in the blue zone, the green zone or out of those zones on campus. We are influencing the agenda that is out there, not just about what climate justice is, but about how we do it, what is the methodology, what is the approach and how we take it forward and implement it to see structural change further down the line. From a practical point of view, I think that this is a really important point in time that we move and shift the conversation from just a conceptual idea and the niceties behind it into something that is tangible, meaningful and measurable. That is where the direction of travel is going. I just want to say that we were honoured to have the DG of the WHO, Mary Robinson, Nigel Topping and everyone across the whole platform, including Indigenous communities, talking about the need to highlight and bring to the fore the justice issues of climate change. If I could turn to Mr Sheaimeau, thank you very much for joining us from Malawi this morning. I wonder if you could tell us just a little bit about your work and your relationship with the Scotland-Malawi partnership. Good morning. Good morning. Thank you very much and thank you for welcoming me. First off, I hope that the assumption is not that I speak for all Malawians. I am just one voice of many. My perspective in terms of the work that I have done with Scotland in the relationship between Malawi and Scotland has mostly been in the water sector, so I will speak more broadly about that. My organisation has worked very closely with the University of Strathclyde as part of the climate justice water futures programme for the last four going on five years. There were several components to the programme, but I think that the largest, I would say the crown jewel of the programme, was a national water point mapping exercise that looked at trying to map all water assets in rural Malawi. That was actually quite significant because the last time the Malawi Government did such an exercise, they assumed that it had 77,000 water assets. When we were completed with our exercise, we were able to find over 100,000 of them, so there was 25 per cent more than what the Government assumed was out there. That was made possible because of the climate justice water futures programme in partnership with not just the University of Strathclyde but several organisations. My organisation was just one, but there were several organisations working together with the Malawi Government. As was mentioned earlier by Mrs Sawyer from the Cora Foundation, my organisation has also been a beneficiary of the Climate Justice Innovation Fund. One particular grant is very technical, so I will not spend a lot of time on that, but the one grant that I think links very closely to climate justice, and I think that I liked the previous speaker who said, trying to focus on the climate justice. One of the pieces of work that we have got in support for is looking at how we can hold non-state actors accountable for failed water assets. The mapping exercise that we did proved that there is a lot of assets being installed in rural Malawi with resources from different development partners. Most of those are not installed according to standard, meaning that they break down sooner than they are supposed to because they were not installed properly, and then we put blame on the poor for the failure of those systems, which itself is an injustice. Those are systems that are meant to build community resilience to the impacts of climate change. If they are installed properly, people will have water that they can use during times of drought and other natural disasters. To be honest with you, I did not expect to get funding for it, because it is very risky, because essentially most of the accountability work looks at holding government accountable, and yes, government must be held accountable. However, NGOs and drilling companies, private companies, are not held accountable, and what the work that I am doing in partnership with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency as my Scottish partner is trying to develop a framework for making that happen, to see how we can hold them accountable, but by raising the community voice to be the ones to hold these stakeholders accountable. What my organisation is doing is providing the data and the space to enable that to happen. That is how my organisation has been benefited from the Scotland-Malawi partnership and how that is also impacting work here in Malawi in terms of the water sector. Dr Hill, your submission says that we should be championing the principle of additionality, and you believe that there is potential to be a global leader in that area. I wonder if you could just give us briefly some more context about that. Sorry, you will need to point me to where it talks about it in the submission, because someone else wrote it. Do you point me to the section that I will elaborate if I can? I do not have it in front of me at the moment, but do you want to say a little bit about where you think the priority is? I think that that would be better. All the discussion earlier was really interesting on what climate justice means and what the approach means for the Scottish Government. There are two key aspects to that. One is how the Scottish Government approaches through its international development support for work on the ground. The other element is all the policy-prohere and stuff, which you talked about in the last session. In terms of the support on the ground, Giaff implemented the climate challenge programme in Malawi, which really was, for our point of view, a fantastic success. We did a virtual visit with the minister a couple of weeks ago so that she could get to see in person the approach that was used. It has helped over 40,000 people, the majority of them women and girls in southern Malawi, to improve their access to food, water and energy so that they are better equipped to cope with climate change and with climate disasters. We think that it is really been a fantastic success in terms of female empowerment, increasing household income and also protecting volatile livelihoods from extreme weather events. In the last session, you were talking quite a lot about local-led adaptation. We think that that is key. It is really important to build from the bottom up. The way that the CCPM project was implemented was through seven local partners, and they were very much listening to what they were saying that they needed to do at the starting point. Secondly, based on the leave-no-one-behind approach—I think that you were touching a little bit on that in the last session—it very much ensured participants from different vulnerable groups and communities. Disadvantaged women, men, youth, elderly and disabled people were all included in the consultation, design and implementation phases of the programme. There was a real strong emphasis on gender employment to ensure meaningful participation through female-only forums, design and implementation and all that. As a result, there are now more than 505 women in leadership positions changing the dynamics of communities and providing really good examples to young girls. Another aspect to it was increasing climate literacy, and that ensured that participants understood their human rights in terms of climate change and encouraged them to speak up about them. I also raised awareness of district government officials on their rights and responsibilities on climate change, and that is an important part of that. When we are trying to support communities, we need to think about supporting their capacity to do their own advocacy. I think that it was mentioned earlier. It is important that that element is maintained within the work, because that is what is going to get the long-term impact. It is also important that we build up the links between how we are supporting communities on the ground at the local level, what we can do at the local district and at the national level, and how that can feed up to the international climate architecture. That brings us to the point about COP and how we enable those partners on the ground at the local level. We have already been talking about it earlier. From Skiaf's point of view, we are also bringing partners from Malawi, from Dambia, from Columbia and one of our top priorities and objectives is to ensure that those partner voices are heard. That is why we have also been working closely with the Scottish Government. We were kind of leading on SCCS's co-hosting of the Glasgow climate dialogues, which Jamie mentioned earlier on. The launch of the community was this morning, so it would be great for the panel to look out for that. It was mentioned earlier that there are four key issues that we are getting discussed at the dialogues. One of them was loss and damage, which we have been talking about earlier. Global participation—you were talking about that earlier—and all the kind of access to vaccines and all those kinds of issues that should be in addition, which is another hugely important issue. That is part of that whole policy coherence question, too, and then adaptation. I think that there is the whole side of the approach to what is happening on the ground and how we go about doing that, and local adaptation and all that, and then there is all the policy coherence stuff, too. We basically agree with everything that was said earlier on by Oxfam and Christianead on that. Just for reference, it was section 3 of your submission, and it was about financial additionality, so I probably did not make that clear in my question, but we can come back to that later. I am going to move to questions from Mr Cameron. I can remind everyone that we are kind of tight for time, so if we could have succinct answers, that would be really helpful. Thank you, convener. Welcome to the panel. I am just going to oppose the same question that I asked the previous panel, which is to ask about human rights, which is, of course, a central principle of climate justice. To ask, there is obviously a difficulty in converting theory into practice, and I have greatly enjoyed listening to what you have been just saying about what you are doing on the ground. In terms of human rights in particular, how do we overcome the challenges of protecting human rights and enforcing them as a matter of practical application when, across the world, different thresholds and different standards are applied? Yes, sure. Thank you for that question. I think that it is hugely complicated, there is no doubt about it, but I think that I am just getting directly to answering the question. The first question is about protecting and enforcing. For me, it is about working very closely with different bodies and different frameworks. The UN Security Council, for example, is working very closely with the UNHCR, for example. It is our position and what we stand for, our values, and we are trying to instill our approach, our thinking, our direction and our vision for all of that. We are working closely with those big frameworks and the big actors that will then be able to put in place those practical approaches that can then protect, that can trickle down to global and local levels to embed some of those values into those approaches. That seems to be a missing gap here as well, and I completely agree, because the direction of travel that we are seeing so far with the work that has been done with the Climate Justice Fund is more around the technology in some sense, it is about the water access, it is about the solar panels, it is about those sorts of things. What we need to do is to see a step change towards building those alliances, building those relationships and showing how influential we can be in changing the landscape as we move forward. I think that that is an important contribution that Scotland can make, because it is a hugely complex area to break into. Thank you very much. I will most likely speak directly from the Malawi perspective, because I think that the issue that I am dealing with is concerning the right to water, which by the way is not in Malawi's constitution. It is assumed that the right to water is built into the right to life, and this was something that was a bit of a surprise to me as we were doing some of the work on the Climate Justice Innovation Fund. The question that you are asking is one that I have been reflecting on quite a lot as a practitioner here, because one of the reasons why it is difficult to enforce human rights is when you have institutions that are unfunctioning. I think for Malawi that is for the fundamental problem that we have. If you take a step back from all the problems that Malawi has, Malawi has two problems—an abdication or inability of institutions to do their job, that is number one, and two, a lack of accountability mechanisms to ensure those institutions do what they are supposed to. The work that I have been doing, going into communities, talking to chiefs, talking to women, understanding how, when we share the data with them and say, this water point that was given to you should not have been given to you. It was not installed properly. They understand that there has been an injustice. Now, the problem is how do they claim their rights? As the problem has been going on, one of the things that I have discovered—yes, using community development approaches where you bring people together, they talk, they have go-karts and things like that—those kinds of community engagements are welcome, but they are not enough. One of the things that my organisation is doing at the moment is really looking at how we can use the legal framework to enforce the right to water. That is something that my organisation is looking at. So, trying to work with legal practitioners—I am not a lawyer, but my organisation is working with legal practitioners and institutions such as the Malawi Human Rights Commission, which are mandated to ensure the protection of human rights, so that this can also be something that they track, that this is something that they can ensure is being enforced. The grants, like the Climate Justice Innovation Fund or the Climate Justice Fund itself, could look at supporting these institutions. Supporting organisations like mine is fine, but the fundamental problem is the failure of institutions to do what they are supposed to do. I think that that is where the investment must go. One of the things that I am doing right now, which is outside of the funding from Scotland, is trying to see if we can work with the women who have been impacted by the failed water assets to take the drilling companies or NGOs or their local regulator to task, which means legally taking them to task within the legal frameworks of the country. I think that is long-winded, but that would be my response. Malawi has the legal framework to ensure that the issue is just making them happen and catalyzing that to them. Can people hear me? Yes, we can now, thank you. I think that what I would say on this is maybe just equine what Muti said. It is about voluntary versus mandatory approaches. For a number of years, I worked with human rights environmental defenders in Latin America, and there is a real huge increasing problem of environmental defenders being criminalised or for the work that they do. We work in Colombia, and that is one of the countries where environmental defenders are most at threat. At the UK level at the minute, there is some work that is trying to bring about a new law to hold companies to account when they fail to prevent human rights abuses and environmental harms. The law is obviously about a mandatory approach, trying to get insurance for undertaking companies to undertake human rights and environmental due diligence. I know that that is obviously at the UK level. At the UN level, there have been voluntary approaches for a long time, the voluntary principles on business and human rights, for example. I suppose that my contribution would be how do we assign this stuff in law, because often what we see is that voluntary approaches are to be a little lacking when it comes to implementation. Thank you very much for joining us this morning. I wanted to start with Professor Geoffrey and ask you about the principles that are in the Paris agreement and the UN framework on climate change around the respective capabilities of states and what that really means in practice. Perhaps I could get your views in relation to the just transition. Does that effectively mean that states that have more capability, more wealth, should be making a just transition faster than others? How is that being interpreted? Thanks for that question. There is no doubt about it that the biggest global emitters, the G7, have the biggest responsibility in cutting their carbon emissions. The challenge before us is how the question is a methodology in that whole process of transition. The just aspect is what a lot of organisations and stakeholders are grappling with, not just about what does the just mean but about how we do it, what is the approach, what is the methodology and how do we measure change that has come about. With reference to the just aspect, it is that one about relating to the sustainable development goals. It is about ensuring that no one is left behind in this journey. For us, the just means is ensuring diversity, inclusivity, representation and that people have a part. Everyone has a part to play in this journey. At the same time, ring fencing and providing social protection for those who are going to be at the bottom end or the receiving end of that process of change, which we must all ensure does not happen. We are already seeing that play out in the United States with Joe Biden and the declarations that are coming out from there. At the same time, it is about ensuring the diversity in the jobs and upskilling and ensuring that that whole process takes place equitably and fairly. However, the significant part of that is that as we go through the process, we need to be really mindful of what it is that we want to achieve as a result of that and how we are going to measure over the short, medium and the long term the just aspect so that we can look back and stay with confidence that we did achieve not just a transition but it was fair and equitable and it was just. That is how we are measuring it. It is complex, it is challenging but I think that this is the difficulty in this journey just now that I sense from across different organisations about how do we do this. Other panellists want to come in at this point. Could you repeat your question? I think that my line was breaking up so I didn't catch the last part. If you could just repeat your question. Yeah, it was primarily Mr Schimer about the just transition and about whether countries that have got more capability, effectively more wealth, should be accelerating their just transitions. Well, I don't think that there's much I could add to that because, again, I'm speaking from the Malawian perspective but what I could say, if there's one thing I could add, I think as a country, as Scotland, one of the commitments that you have made is doubling your contribution to climate justice fund, which is something that, as many have already said, is mordable. I think that there's a lot of discussion. It's very easy for people in the south, like myself, to say, what should you do more of as northern countries? Of course, for obvious reasons, because of your relatively more contribution to greenhouse gas emissions as compared to the south, but that said, there is still a question of what the south itself has to do. In this case, I'm speaking specifically about Malawi because Malawi itself also has to go through a transition because as much as you're looking at the sort of what does justice mean globally, for me justice, of course, from my sector, I've already mentioned about justice in this case being the poor should not be giving assets that fall apart shortly after they've been installed. That's one aspect of justice for me, but I think if we look at it from an environmental perspective, you're seeing, I think there's a lot Malawi needs to do that. It's not doing when it comes to sort of protecting and having a better stewardship of its environment. I think it's no news to everyone that the environmental degradation is quite severe in my country, and this is having knock-on effects on the water resources as well as putting people more at risk of natural disasters. I guess my point is as much as people are saying, what should Scotland do? I think what Scotland should do using the soft power and the access and the friendship that Scotland has with Malawi is to also challenge Malawi and say, what are you doing? What can you do about better stewardship of your natural resource? We also have a part to play in this. We're not just merely recipients of funding, we are also contributing to the degradation, and I think that that also needs to come out clearly as much as developed nations need to do their part. Developing countries like mine also need to do the same. I just wanted to add that. Thank you. Dr Hill? Maybe I'll just come in here. One of the things that's just come out from the Glasgow Climate Dialogs has been clear that the just transition really needs to be based on the UNH triple C principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in the right to development, which requires all countries to do their fair share of emissions reductions. Obviously, given everything that we know and given what you've heard in the previous session as well, Scotland has to do its fair share, which means Scotland's early industrial country is a huge responsibility, both model and legal duty, to act. In terms of what that looks like in terms of climate justice credentials, we put in at the end of our submission a series of things that we think would need to be considered if Scotland is to do its fair share. Can I just follow up on that? There are some really quite difficult questions for Scotland to answer in relation to just transition. One is about transition away from oil and gas, and we recently had the just transition commissioners into the net zero committee in Parliament. They put a very difficult question to us, which is that, as we're transitioning away from oil and gas, we'll still have some residual demand, even if we're keeping to the terms of the Paris agreement. Where does oil and gas come from? As they put it, there are three options. It could come from countries where it's cheapest, such as the Middle East. It could come from new sources like Ghana, which will have the most economic development impact, or it could come from domestic sources. From a climate justice perspective, where do you think our residual oil and gas demand should be coming from in the future? If you could go to Dr Hill first, since you're on camera already. That's a hard one. Yeah, I mean, it's a really hard one, and I don't have the answer, but I think it's about, it's about, you know better than I do, it's not a switch off the tap. We need to get out of oil and gas. It's clear, but how do we do it? How do we transition through to that? Moving out of oil and gas and building into newables and all the rest of it, it's a really, really difficult one. I really don't have the answer. I do think that Muty's input was really interesting, because one of the things that we obviously hear from our own partners in the global south is, wait a minute, we haven't developed yet. We still need this oil and gas to develop. We don't have the resources yet in renewables and everything else, so how quickly can they build that up so that they're not having to go down the route of over reliance on oil and gas? That in the global south is a big topic of discussion as well, because we know that we need to move out. We know that we don't want to have the same development path that you had, but how quickly can we do it? Right now, if we've got the reserves, we need to use them, so it's a difficult one. Can I ask Professor Jaffrey that same question then, because obviously there is a right to development that's important as well, but I suppose the question is what type of development. I think, you know, with reference to the residual, where is it going to come from? You mentioned that the cheapest is it from Ghana and domestic sources. We must be really mindful of not transferring our position, our responsibility and our contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and offsetting it and getting it from countries from other parts of the world. That is our issue, our problem, and we need to work very hard to address that challenge. I think that the owners of responsibility lies with us in Scotland, and it is domestic sources. I think that acknowledging that and recognising that, but also having a very clear vision as to how that's going to filter out, and like everyone knows, it's not going to happen overnight. However, I think that it's really important from a climate justice perspective that we don't continue to place that burden and that ownership responsibility to other nations' states. This is something that we need to really work on, hard as it might be, but I think that it's our job and our responsibility to do that. I don't know if Moody's got any perspectives on this. We're asking you to solve our particular problems, legacy problems here, but I was wondering if you did have any perspective, but also to ask you about the right to water as well and just how states will be mobilising around those issues at COP26, particularly from Global South. Well, I don't think there's much I can add to the discussion about your transition from oil and gas to more renewable energy. I think that's obviously a conversation that Scotland needs to have. I think that the only thing is someone who's sitting outside of that conversation from my vantage point. I think that the issue is always about trade-offs. We've got so many different options of technologies and the question is what trade-offs are you willing to incur as countries? You do have options in terms of nuclear energy, you do have wind and solar, but they have their trade-offs each and you need to look at it in terms of the impact some of those options have. Wind and solar have their impacts in terms of the impact they have on endangered species, birds and owls and things like that. Nuclear energy, despite the rapid gets, does have some evidence that exists that suggests that if you actually compare in terms of the number of deaths per capita, nuclear energy is actually very, very low, despite the bad rapid gets in media. So I think that the only thing I can add as a layperson who is looking at this from outside in is, as a country, what trade-offs are you willing to take on board? Because there's no perfect solution. All you have are trade-offs and you need to decide which one you want, which one you can handle, and the hard part is selling that to your people. That is always the hard part. So we're going down this route, we don't have any other better option. Personally, I give up on the idea of this idea that there's a best option. There's no such thing. There are only trade-offs and you need to decide what trade-off you're willing to work with as a country. Speaking to the issue of the right to water, at the moment somebody asked a question earlier about how the Scottish Government is engaging voices all the south around that. My organisation, for example, I will be at COP26, not physically. We have actually contributed some inputs to COP26 looking at the issue of right to water in Malawi, what some of the issues are. Of course, we are looking at the mapping exercise that we did and the value that data is having in terms of Government decision making so that they can have more improved and co-ordinated implementation of their water and sanitation interventions. That's what we are doing. Even in the content that we've provided, I emphasise the point that I've made already, that southern countries like Malawi need to do their part. Scotland has supported the generation of those assets. It's up to Malawi to use those assets, to scale those assets, to leverage resources to increase the impact of those assets. Scotland has done its part, and Malawi needs to take it forward. At COP26, that's the messaging that my organisation and other partners that we collaborate with are making today. Thank you, Scotland. Now we should take it from here, and this is how we want to do that. I think that that's what I would say in response to your question. In the last session that I asked about the issue of where we are, we read the loss and damage pillar of the Paris talks. It was partly prompted because of our Commonwealth parliamentary presentation that I attended, where we had states from the Caribbean talking about the massive impact that they've experienced from regular extreme weather incidents and where they have no funding to rebuild, leading to climate refugees' horrendous impact. In the last line of the Skiath submission to us, you've got this question here, how much Scotland pays for adaptation and loss and damage overseas, and how that's compared to its fair share of global action based on historical responsibility. Do you want to come in on that, Dr Hill? What do you think that is? We've got our climate fund, but what more should we be doing in Scotland? I'm sorry, I cut out there. Is that a question to me? Yes. You mentioned loss of damage. I'm sorry, I've got to put you in this question. I've mentioned most of the question, but I'm not sure what you're coming from. Can you hear me okay? If we maybe cut Dr Hill's camera, because I understand that there's a bit of a problem with the broadband, so could we go to audio only on that and say if you want to repeat your question, please? Okay. In the last session, I asked about the issue of where we are with the loss and damage pillar that was agreed as part of the Paris agreement five years ago, because recently at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association event, representatives from the Caribbean gave us incredible graphic evidence about the impact of the regularity of extreme weather and how it destroys communities, and it's going to lead to climate refugees in the future. It's to go to the very last point that Dr Hill made in your submission, where you say in assessing Scotland's climate justice credentials how much Scotland pays for adaptation and loss and damage overseas, and how that's compared to the fair share of global action based on historic responsibility. Just as we go to COP26, what should we be saying about that in the discussions on that third pillar of the Paris agreement? I think that, as I said previously, loss and damage has had much less attention within the whole process than it has to have. It is a key issue for the global south. It certainly was one of the key issues that is discussed at the Glasgow climate dialogues. As Jamie mentioned, there was an MP from Bangladesh who was saying that the Scottish Government should be working with developing countries to establish a solidarity fund to help to address loss and damage. Maybe that also talks to the additionality point that was mentioned earlier, because it's about loss and damage needing to be over and above the support for adaptation. It's also about Scotland playing a symbolic role and championing the need for that to be on the agenda to be taken seriously at this COP, because in the past it hasn't had the attention that it deserves. The climate justice fund is a bit of a drop in the ocean in terms of need if we're talking about adaptation and loss and damage, but we're very well aware of that. We also know that Scotland can use its soft power and champion those issues. That's what we would be calling for. We would also like to see Scotland tie emitters and polluters and see new and additional forms of finance to help to fund both adaptation and loss and damage, but it's more about the soft power and the symbolic role and pushing for that to be taken seriously. Excellent, because I'm sure you'd be able to spend that money. Now, thank you very much. The comment that was just made about the climate justice fund contribution being a drop in the ocean, yes, that may be the case. I want to give a practical example of how that drop in the ocean can actually start a tidal wave, particularly here in my country. During the flooding in 2019, using the database that the Scottish Government supported the development of in partnership with the Malawi Government, one of the problems we identified was that there were water points that were heavily impacted by the flood and therefore there was a high risk of contamination to the population. You're looking at about 150,000 people who are at risk of contracting waterborne diseases, and what we did with a small amount of investment from the Scottish Government, we were able to leverage more resources from you saying here, but we were able to walk in the door because we had not just the support, but we had the financing from the Scottish Government to be able to walk into that door and say, we need this additional financing to actually deal with this problem. As a result of that, we were able to visit, I believe it was close to 370 water points, did shock chlorination, repaired them, and 150,000 people now have water because of that investment, but it was a small investment, a drop in the ocean, but it was able to leverage the rest of the ocean, and we were able to bring in other partners to do that. I think this is where I think Scotland can play a role. I think I had to think of 100 billion a year for the next five years. I hope your assumption is not that you intend to raise all of that money, but I see Scotland as being an active broker for leveraging other resources, but also sharing the experience and the ethos of the partnerships that you have with the Climate Justice Fund and the Climate Innovation Fund, which is respectful and listening to the local voices. I think there's a lot that can be shared in you walking into rooms that someone like me can't walk into, where you can influence for changes in, for example, the way one practical example I think would be the Green Climate Fund, which is the largest climate fund here, which is extremely difficult to access money from, but with your experience working with people from Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda and taking that experience and walking into the doors where decisions are made, you can influence for more, I wouldn't say flimsy, but more flexible sort of requirements for people to access that money, especially in times of natural disasters like the flooding in 2019. So Scotland has demonstrated this already by using the little money that you bring in to leverage more money. In the case of the flooding, it was more, it wasn't planned, it was more impromptu, it was in the moment, but something more structured and coordinated, as mentioned by the professor, would actually be good, that there's a pool of money that's there and it was proven during the 2019 flooding that the resources are there. It's just a matter of now bringing people together and I think Scotland can play that role of a broker of other development partners in my country. Thank you. I think those points are incredibly well made so I hope you make them when you go to court virtually. Can I pick exactly those points that are being made with Tazine Jaffrey? Do you think there will be an appetite if Scotland uses that kind of soft power of examples? Is there an appetite for other countries to begin to address those kind of issues and to pump prime investment and do the education that you talked about very powerfully? Do you think there's a chance of getting that third pillar acted on at the COP26? I think that the issue of loss and damage is now coming more to the fore. I think that it's recognised across the landscape that there's been a lot of attention paid in the previous COP to mitigation and a much more direction needs to be paid to adaptation and building resilience. That's coming through quite clear. To capitalise on that change in direction of travel and focus for COP26, I think that there is a lot of opportunity here. I think that where we are and where we're positioned with our climate justice fund and what we've managed to do and deliver thus far, it's kind of like building blocks and a pillar for influencing others, such as, for example, the green climate fund, the development banks and others, to build alliances and bridges across the landscape of climate justice. One thing that I would like to add is that there's been loss and damage. I think that the whole language around how it comes across, and that's what I'm hearing in different conversations that I've been having. Loss and damage in itself is about resources coming in, money spent to build that infrastructure to help people rebuild their lives and so on and so forth. What I'm hearing is that that conversation needs to also move on and embrace and embed how we actually support individuals, human beings, social and human wellbeing is really, really important. Bringing what you mentioned earlier about the climate refugee crisis, the projections are incredible. Up to £1.2 billion are at risk of displacement by 2050. That isn't just about loss and damage, it's about helping people to rebuild their lives as they're losing the value, the worth and the ancestral home. Things that they will not be able to recover through loss and damage because it's lost. It's really important that, again, this is coming through from the World Forum, the fresh thinking around these meaningful dialogues because the conversation has moved at peace and at pace. I think that the challenge before us is to be very acutely abreast of the climate just conversations across the world and what everyone is asking for. Not just about the funding but what the funding will actually be used or who will get access to that support. If it's in that bucket of loss and damage, fine, let's make it that, but there needs to be much more robust thinking around where is it being directed to, how is it being directed, who is going to benefit, how are they going to benefit and what is it that we want to achieve out of this. I think that that's a big ticket question that I have, is what is it that we want to get out of this and how is it different from other landscapes around just now, the international development funding landscape? Where is the difference, I guess, I'm trying to say? How can we position this and then use that to influence others to say, this is where we're heading and would you like to join us? Thank you, convener. I thought that that was a really powerful point there about what we want to achieve with the funding. I'd also like to go back to the education side. I asked the last panel about the transformative power of education and young people being involved in climate change and climate justice and what you have learned, what you've worked with, perhaps in Malawi, connections with young people in Scotland as well. I'm interested to know your thoughts on that. I think that the issue of young people becoming more and more important in my country. If you've read Malawi's vision 2063, it's placing a strong emphasis on young people. For good reason, I could share some data from the work that we're doing. Some of the work that we're doing in the water sector specifically is looking at whether women and young people actually benefit from water entrepreneurship. Interestingly, the data is showing that both women and young people are disadvantaged in Malawi based on the data that we have, but young people are actually seven times more disadvantaged. You find that both are disadvantaged, but young people are extremely disadvantaged. This is because of their place in rural as well as urban society. In rural communities here, you're only considered an adult if you have your own house. A young person who's 20 years old, most likely, probably won't have a house, but a young person is stuck in a cash 22. For him to actually have money, he needs to participate in development activities, but most of those development activities are monopolised by the elderly or those who are much older than themselves or those who are married in the rural communities. You find that they are trapped because they want to get involved, but they are told that they can't be involved because they don't have a house. How can I build a house if I don't get involved? Young people are stuck in a kind of cash 22, which is why young people are very disenfranchised in districts such as Mangbochi. For example, it is very common for young people to trek to South Africa to look for work. As in many other parts of Malawi, where young people leave Malawi to look for employment elsewhere, young people don't feel there's a space for them in terms of community development within urban or rural areas. This is something that the Malawi Government, the current administration, is pushing very, very strongly. This is something that I'm doing personally as well. I am the second oldest person in my office. I am 41 years old. The average age of people in my office should be 33 now, because I'm 22 years old. Again, this is what I'm trying to do to get young people to get more involved in the work that we're doing. I think that's what we're doing. One thing that I didn't mention at the beginning is that I'm a board member of the Malawi Scotland partnership here. I'll speak generally about what the Malawi Scotland partnership is doing. They're doing a lot of work trying to engage young people in issues to do with climate change. They've got a young climate champions programme, which is supported by the Scottish Government, where they're getting young people who are doing exceptional work in environmental protection, working with cookstalls, working with young people to deal with issues of climate change at the local level. They're trying to promote those voices in other forums, together with the sister organisation, the Scotland-Malawi partnership. That's something that's already going on outside of COP26. It's a recognition of the fact that young people are the future. It's a cliché to say that, but within the Malawi Scotland partnership and the Scotland-Malawi partnership, that is already happening. It's young people that are driving it, and it's young people that are at the forefront. Those dinosaurs like ourselves are taking a backseat, so they are the ones driving the agenda. That's something that's happening in Malawi. It's not just the work that I'm doing, but also through the Scotland-Malawi partnership effectively. I don't know if Dr Hill and Professor Jaffrey want to comment very briefly on that. We're now running really tight for time. Dr Hill? Yeah, just really briefly. Young people were involved in the climate challenge programme in Malawi, which we implemented for the Scottish Government. A couple of them are coming to COP26, so if anyone is interested in meeting them, please let us know. A couple of the young folks are coming. Just to reiterate the climate literacy stuff and the climate education stuff, we've been doing that both in our work overseas but also in our work here in schools here on developing materials for schools here. Climate literacy stuff as well. Professor Jaffrey, please. If I could just come in very briefly on the transformative power of education, I think that with educating our young people, this is not just about primary school children, but this is our adolescents and our older children as well, whether it's in Scotland or overseas. What I'm seeing and hearing just now is that we're making strides in supporting primary school aged children but when you get to that 12 plus and dealing with young people of that age, those who are very powerful and can be very powerful agents of change across the education landscape in Scotland, that education on climate change and climate justice is not embedded within the curriculum and I'm hearing that. If you're not taking the relevant subjects at high school, it won't be taught and nor am I hearing it presented at assemblies or half an hour out for children to learn from that. I think that there's a lot of work that still needs to be done if we want in Scotland to capitalise on the transformative power that education can have off our Scottish young people and similar issues across the globe. On a positive note, from an education perspective, when I started this journey with developing the centre, it was academically challenging but now people from other parts of the world are developing other centres, other groups and others to look at climate change and climate justice and modelling it on the work that we've been doing at the centre. It's a huge privilege that's been happening but it also tells you how committed the global landscape is to try and get traction to educating people on the subject matter. We are very tight for time. Two members still wish to ask questions. I'll go and bring in Mr Goulton first, please. Thank you, convener. In the interests of time, I'd first of all like to ask a question to Moody and then a separate question to the other panellists. It's great to hear everything you're doing. I wondered in terms of Malawi showing climate leadership if they might become a signatory to the UN Water Courses Convention. I realise you'd share a lake with Mozambique as well as rivers with other downstream states and I think that would be brilliant to see. I note that Chad is the most recent signatory to that convention. Any thoughts on that would be welcome but I also wanted to ask you specifically how you obviously have finite resources, how you prioritise both infrastructure for specific water uses, whether it be drinking, sanitation, agriculture or industry versus flood prevention mechanisms that you touched upon earlier. Thank you very much. I think I'll start with your later question just to see if I understood it. You're asking how my organisation works within those resources to do the work it does. Is that your question? Yes, and how there could be competing, do you put in flood prevention mechanisms or do you prioritise putting in a water point? How do you make those decisions on the ground? Okay, fine. Thank you. One of the things that we are trying to do as an organisation is to try to promote what we call water demand balance, which is a basic methodology that you go into an area and you try to understand how much water has been taken out and how much water is coming in. Is there a deficit or is there a surplus? If there's a deficit, that will tell you that you need to invest in some kind of managed aquifer recharge or some way of recharging the ground. But if there's a surplus, it's now an issue of how that can be maximised for maybe sustainable agriculture or other things. This is something that the Justice Innovation Fund has helped. Using data is extremely important, and working with experts who know how to do that is something that would help with that particular issue. Using data to understand what is the water situation, that would inform how we invest that money. I can't speak for the Māori Government, but I know that some of the work that we've been doing with the University of Strathclyde is contributing to having a better understanding of the transboundary relationships that Māori has with its neighbours. You all know the complicated relationship that we have with our neighbours when it comes to the lake. On top of that, our intention is to tap water from the lake too long way, which also has impacts for our transboundary relationships. I'm not privy to the discussions that I've taken place around that, but I have been in discussions or forums where I have echoed my sentiments, which is that the Māori Government needs to be very careful and to really talk to its neighbours to understand what are the transboundary issues from a technical, political and geopolitical perspective before it makes any decisions. That's what I could say to that. Thank you. That was incredibly insightful. To the rest of the panel, and I'll start perhaps with Geraldine, but just the same question. Thinking about Scotland's role on the world stage, I note in your submission that you have said that with reference to the Climate Change Act, the credibility of the act appears to be wearing thin. For Scotland to be meaningfully regarded as a climate leader, it is essential that there is a step change in action. I just wondered your general thoughts on that area. Yes, I mean, I said that with specific reference to the mitigation efforts, to be honest, and the fact that the targets have been missed in the last three years. That was in relation to that. Sorry, what was the second part of your question? That was all. The additionality thing that was mentioned earlier, that was to do with climate finance, and it was to do with the need for climate finance to be additional to the aid budget, basically. That was what that point was about. Thank you. Have you got a question for Professor Jaffrey? Just if she's got any specific thoughts on Scotland as a climate leader and versus the failure to meet the targets. Very, very briefly, Professor Jaffrey, if you don't mind that. Yes, I think that we have a valuable contribution to make, I mean, despite the fact that we've not made our targets, we are making good strides collectively in other areas, and we have a very strong role and contribution to play. My only suggestion would be when we place ourselves on that world stage, is being crystal clear as to what it is that we are contributing with reference to our climate justice approach, and how it's very clearly different from just the stage of development. What's the added value that we're bringing to the global platform, because I think that is what's going to gain, give Scotland a lot of traction and get others to follow suit. Dr Allan? I'm here at the end of this time. I'll address my question to you if I get away with it purely to Mr Atalayma. It was really just to ask if he can give some indication to people watching who perhaps don't realise this, but just how dramatically the landscape in Malawi has changed over the last 40 years, deforestation was mentioned, all those problems are connected. I know that when I was in Malawi two ladies came up to me and very politely but very forcefully pointed out that I had come in a car and they had to walk an extra two miles every day to get water and there was a connection between the two things. All these things are connected, but perhaps you can give some indication of how the landscape has changed. Thank you. I probably can't speak to the land question. I'm really not a land specialist, but I will speak from the water perspective just so that people understand. I think that if you use, there's a piece of data called renewable water. This is the amount of water per person per year, very simply. If you go on the World Bank website, they actually have a graph that shows you how much renewable water comes to Malawi per person per year. If you look at it, of course the graph is like that, but what people don't know is that the amount of water per person per year, I think it's now about 900 cubic metres per person per year or something like that. It's almost the same as Morocco, which is a country that's in the middle of a desert. A lot of that is partly because of population growth. We've grown substantially, but what is also exacerbating that is the degradation of the environment. What that does is that you don't have any vegetative cover, so water erodes the surface of the land and that leads to siltation in rivers. Rivers go dry. As someone who's working in the groundwater sector, I have seen some data from one water monitoring well. There are several monitoring wells across Malawi, so I want to emphasise this, where the water table was dropping on average a metre per year. That is the impact in one particular area of Malawi. That's the impact that mismanagement of the environment is having on the water resources. They are dwindling. This is not me saying this. Even the line ministry responsible for water affairs has publicly come out and said that Malawi is drying up. Because of that, we need to invest in approaches that make sure that the water that we do have is conserved and protected. Part of that is going to involve more investment in improving and increasing vegetative cover. I can speak from the water perspective. I wish that I had at my fingertips the data for the cover, but I would encourage people to go on Google Earth and see how the greenery disappears over time and appreciate the impact. It is quite substantial. It is having a knock-on effect. That is why I said, yes, I can tell Scotland what you are doing about climate justice, but that is why I emphasise what Malawi is doing about the environmental difference. We have our part to play as well. You mentioned that the average age of population in Malawi is young. You mentioned issues about accountability and promoting accountability. I know that the Scotland-Malawi partnership and the Malawi-Scotland partnership work together on those issues in both Scotland and Malawi. Can you offer some perspective or predictions on how you feel that this is all going to develop in the future as that generation comes to the fore? Will they have new ideas about accountability? Will they have new expectations about accountability? What can we do together to work through those issues? I do not want to be a prophet. Last year, nobody could have predicted that Malawi would have had a rerun of the election. Nobody, not even me. Malawi is a small giant. It is capable of doing big things when it puts its mind to it. My prediction is that if I can go by the young people that I have in my office and the quality of young people, the things that they talk about, the things that they think about, the way that they challenge me as a leader, I think that the future is bright. However, they have to be deliberate efforts to involve young people. The real crisis with young people is that they are underutilised. You have all this knowledge and all this energy that is not being maximised to develop the country. It is quite saddening that you have students who have graduated and they can stay five years without being employed. If I could share my screen, I could show you emails that I get from young people asking for internships with me and they do not want to be paid. However, I am like, I cannot just hire you for nothing. There are hundreds to contribute, and there are no outlets for them to do that. With the new administration, I have seen the more willingness to engage young people. It is in the strategy, and I am hoping that they will live up to it. If they do, that willingness to engage young people meets the enthusiasm of young people, I hope for a better future. As I said, we did not think that we would have a rerun of elections last year. I think that we will do better if we utilise the resource of young people that we have. Thank you for your contributions this morning.