 I want to just thank very much in terms of the home team here at the British Red Cross for hosting us today. And the cooperation has been fabulous. Thank you. And also with Reep and to Ben and the team for helping with the agenda and connections and so on. I think a real signal with IID and ICAD working together to put on an event like this. And in some ways that is also a signal of those organisations collaborating that highlights from a loss and damage perspective who we need to bring together. You know, you've got humanitarians working together, those that are bringing the science, bringing the research and evidence, bringing the community connections and so on. And great to see in the room and Ro and welcome to you bringing insurance in as well and the world about a mile in that direction. So I think that's fabulous. I think also I want to just note that we've got people in the room here and it's great to see you in person. And I know London Climate Week has been about meeting in person and so on. But also we've got people from all around the world, including from communities on the frontline of the impacts of climate change, suffering, loss and damage. And I think it's really nice down that we can have an event where we can try and pull off the technology that is about a genuinely global event, while also having a group of people in the room here so really delighted with that opportunity. Then the other bit of choreography that we're going to try and pull off today is the fact that we've got speakers here in the room, and we've got speakers in different parts of the world. So we're going to be going through these three panels chaired by esteemed colleagues who will come on and introduce themselves. The first one really looking at the practical experiences of loss and damage what is actually working to tackle loss and damage. Second panel saying right well how do we scale that up. And the third panel looking at what are the options for actually putting the money into that that allows you to get to scale. So that's necessarily how we're going to cover things today. And one, I suppose, were request is that this was intended to be a panel and a process that looked at the practical experiences what can we do now given that there are people really suffering loss and damage. This is not a space where we're going to have a big discussion about the politics of loss and damage finance or of governance and so on. And we've deliberately designed it like that because we think the agency that we can take now is about that practical action. Let's not wait for some political process may or may not land in some x period of time where that's frankly probably already well very very late in the process so I would really request that when you come in with questions let's not have a big discussion about the politics of loss and damage this is about the practical components. Just also at start of thanks as well to those who've been able to work on the tech today and I know there's been good cooperation between the organizations but we'll keep our fingers crossed that we can both have people from around the world speakers coming in from around the world and so on. But let's see and we will hope that that comes off beautifully. And I think without further ado we should get on with the order of business. I think one final component is that some of you will be aware that we've been trying to pull together this program called all act, and the idea of all act being an alliance of organizations working on the practical components of loss and damage. And so to those partners who are already involved in all act welcome as well and to those who are online. And we're certainly looking at how we can really draw on what is an enormous practical experience already around the world of how to tackle loss and damage. I think of this as something that is radically new or different to what has already been experienced in many places. This is about building on the collective resources that we've got and acknowledging that the nature of threats is changing in a very rapid way. So welcome to all those who are involved in all acts if you want to know more. I'm delighted to talk more with you about that. Let me pass over to those then on the first panel if you could join me up on stage and I'll pass over to you Salim as the as the chair of that panel and maybe you can introduce your panelists as well. Over to you trying to take the mic. Thank you very much Tom and good afternoon to everybody here in the room and also everybody online. As mentioned, I'm going to be moderating the first session. My name is Salim oh I'm the director of the International Center for climate change and development at the independent University Bangladesh. I'm normally based in Dhaka but I happen to be in London for the London Climate Action Week. And it's a great pleasure to be co organizing this event with ID and with our other partners to British Red Cross and read. In one, we're going to be hearing from three panelists I'll introduce them in a moment on examples of things that are already being done. So loss and damage from climate impacts is not new they've been happening for many many, you know, generations forever. What is new is that the temperatures gone up above 1.2 degrees centigrade, and that's making things worse so there's going to be a lot more impacts of climate change to come and losses and damages from those impacts to follow. And that will be much much much better prepared than we have been, but we need to build on what exists what we know what we are doing. And that's the purpose of this particular panel. I'm going to hand over next to Sheila Patel, who again needs no introduction to people in this audience. Sheila has a very long history of working with some dwellers international globally in India in particular but also all over the world. And particularly working with women living in the slums in the cities around the world in the developing world. And they've been doing some very remarkable activities and practices which I feel are extremely relevant that we can then build on going forward learn from and scale up going forward so Sheila and support absolutely so Sheila, tell us a little bit about some things that you feel we can build on that your colleagues are doing. Thanks, Salim. You're giving me five minutes right. I have to compress 40 years in five minutes. So I'm going to. Okay, so I'm going to give you two examples that reflect the way in which we began to deal with what we thought were crisis and which now we have a label for call losses and damages so the first one was that my work began with people who lived on the pavements of Mumbai and faced evictions from the municipality every 15 days to a month. And we had developed protocols of how to get early warning, you know, you get these great vans that come. So there's always somebody from the nearby area will quickly come and tell you that the vans are coming. As soon as you know the vans are coming, you take everything that is important in your house, and you stash it in a safe place. All the building material that you want to save, and you leave the touch that the things you don't care that you can easily replace for them to take away. Once it so happened that we were not able to do that and they broke the houses. There's also a standard procedure that the people who are the daily wage workers who are also slum dwellers themselves are told you can take all the stuff inside the house and you can sell them. So the new protocol we did after that was that we would always find a local photographer who would photograph the whole event take the names of the badges of the people and everything. And then follow these people when they take the material to sell it. And we use that as an evidence to put a public interest litigation in the court. Because our liars always told us that you guys are all bleeding hearts and you think the courts will feel sorry for you, the courts only judge, you know, give you a judgment that's based on the law and the law says they can evict you. And the court says, now you have evidence that they have taken your property. And you won't believe the women had made a list of 26,000 is a very small amount in pounds. But every single thing was documented the houses were numbered, and the municipal cooperation of Mumbai had to give a check of $26,000, which the guy who broke their houses had to give to them. And we produced lots of different things. Now we didn't know that. Now that we say that all disasters are manmade. Should we include evictions in this or not. But those are the kind of things that began our own understanding of that another traumatic exit. I don't know how many of you remember that in the year 2000 smoky mountain which is a garbage dump in the Philippines in the Metro vanilla area collapsed. This settlement was destroyed and half of the people died. Two months before that or sometime before that a team from another STI country which included India had gone there to train communities to do detailed mapping of houses. And so that neighborhood around that area knew every single household. What was the amount of land they had how many people were there how many had died. That was also the year that my colleague got the Maxis a award and so when he went and met the president he says, by the way, this is what happened at smoky mountain. And these are the people who need new houses. And short of taking a checkbook out and signing it next day he came to the settlement he was that famous actor who became the president of Philippines. He came with a check, not only of his contribution but all the parliamentarians and they rebuilt all those houses. So what I want to bring to your notice is that poor people have long and deep experiences of coping with crisis and developing ingenious ways to survive with as much as they can. But the reality is it's a leaking bucket it keeps reducing their ability to deal with things it reduces their assets, and it depletes their energy and it's only when you create large networks that come and help you and support you that the energy to continue goes on. So within STI now we have a we have we collect money from different donors, and we have a protocol where we send $10,000 immediately to that city, because our communities are fed up of soup kitchens. They say everybody feels sorry for us for the first five days, and then they forget about us. So, we don't want that guy we want we want our community to be fed by us. And when we feed each other we document the whole thing, and we decide what alternatives to do and the reality is that the alternatives mean you build another house again in the same place and wait for the next evictions. So, a lot of our work in STI has been to stop evictions to support people through evictions to negotiate for long term solutions, and to take and to bite the bullet to say that we will accept relocation, if we cannot deal with this. I'm going to bring into this conversation the challenges of addressing relocation, because very few organizations have experience of doing that, and it's never included in the loss and damage discussion. So either people have to move for their own safety, or they have to move because they don't have a right to stay there and it depletes them. I feel that those are the kinds of contributions we can make but we also feel that poor people are tired of being victims. We believe that they are the first responders and they don't get treated like that. So I'd like when you continue this to go into that and the last part is I have to do my PR. So we have a campaign called roof over our heads. It's a campaign that acknowledges that poor people design construct and finance their own homes, and it keeps getting destroyed and they have to do it again so we're going to look at ways by which we produce much more robust resilient homes within the affordability that they have initially, but subsequently work with various commercial and local organizations to start treating them like a market. And then go to the municipalities and their associations to say, aren't you ashamed of yourself that you talk, you go everywhere and talk about poor people in your neighborhood you come back and do that because we don't have a way of giving them tenure. So, but we said that is second first you have to survive. Thank you very much. Let's give Sheila hand. So, I propose that we hear from all three of our panelists first and then hopefully we'll have some time for some questions and comments. So, over to you, Ritu. Thanks, Salim. I'll let you introduce yourself. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So thank you Salim, and I'm Ritu Bharatwaj. I'm the principal researcher with the Climate Change Group at IID and I'll be talking about I don't have all that very very grounded practical experience like Sheila to share but we have a project, a tool that we have developed, where we are saying a people's plus tech approach and this people's plus tech approach is essentially to deliver climate resilience through social protection program. Okay. So, you know the program I'll be talking about is MGNR EGS, Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. There's some statistics there on the screen. It's essentially world's largest public works based social protection program, annual budget 11 billion reaches 250 million people. And it also has a component of guaranteeing 100 days of employment, wage employment to every rural household you demand it you don't get it, then you get covered to unemployment allowance. And then it also guarantees additional 50 days of employment if a drought of a severe categories declared. And with all this works through it's a public works based program so the works that is used, it's then used to generate natural resource management assets, and these NRM assets in short, essentially our land development, soil conservation, moisture conservation, and those kind of structures. This program has been implemented for last 15 years. So you can imagine 15 years, $11 billion invested into the rural infrastructure on soil and moisture conservation, the rural landscape should have transformed by now. It hasn't. So the reason is much of these structures are built on an ad hoc manner here and there. But if it had been done in a proper way, we could have taken these communities towards a longer term water security and so on. So we tried to design this tool, which has essentially three components to it so there's a drought early warning system. And the reason why we created this drought early warning system as a component of this tool was typically, you know, the program has a component of providing additional 15 days of employment, but the drought gets declared three to four months after drought actually occurring, which means by then people who are in despair already undertake distress migration by the time they are back, even if it is sanctioned the financial year is worth there and they can't avail it. The second is, as I said, you know, most of these structures are ad hoc in nature. So what we did the second component of this tool is about doing a landscape based planning a rich to value a watershed based approach. And this is by layering about nine layers of GIS information, along with climate information. And I talk climate information, it's not about how the temperature is going to change how the precipitation is going to change because rural community can't make a head or tail out of that information. They need information like is my ground water going to deplete is is the runoff going to increase the thing kind of information they can actually use for planning the agriculture or, you know, allied activities. So this was again the second component and the third component is where we try to make the monitoring system work two ways. It shouldn't just work for the for the government officials to see oh where is my investment going is it being used properly, but rather for community to use it as a power to make sure that structures that are meant for them are built where it should be of the quality that they need. And that's why this tool has this component of crowd sourcing data monitoring data, but the community members themselves can geotag an asset, click a picture and upload it. And if there's an incomplete structure if there's a structure which has been put on the record that it's there, it's not there, they can also click a picture about it and then upload it. The idea behind this tool is to convert crisis into opportunity not always keep giving relief during drought but rather take them towards permanent drought proofing flood resilience and also take community towards a more longer term food and nutrition security. One thing that I forgot to mention is we have you state of the art technology here. So we have used artificial intelligence. You can click anywhere on the map. It calculates the catchment of that particular location, and then tells you which exact structure is best suited for that location. But it's not very top down the this tool is more about both top down, because we're using technology but also bottom up the power is in the hand of community to say, you know these structures are okay, but no I don't want these structures I want to build something else here, and they can change it if they want it. While developing this tool we made sure that it's it was co designed with the government official because there is no point developing state of the art technology, which they can't use the infrastructure does not permit the people who are going to use that they don't have the capacity they don't have the technical knowledge. So this tool was very much designed in spirit and in every way with them. And that's why this this tool is completely institutionalized within their system. The way in which we implemented this tool. Yeah, so you know right now one of the success factors of this tool is the government of India we have implemented this pilot tested this tool in two districts in mother predation India, but now government of India is scaling it up right in fact we are in the process of developing a proposal as to how it can be scaled up pan India level. We are also using now to try to see how this social protection program can be used to converge with some former labor market reform because as part of this work we are also looking into some of the non economic loss and damage such as, you know farmers suicide, the distress migrant because migration has always been there it's a part of the livelihood package of the community, but how do you make sure that there's some portability within the social protection provision, and also to see if there is an insurance payout mechanism can be club with this social protection program. So, in, in the process of just quickly what I'll show you a few slides very quickly. So, when I, my first slide said people's plastic approach so I just talked about technology not talked about the people. The success of this tool is very much people because without people it won't have succeeded and the way in which we scaled it up was using climate selfies or climate volunteers, or in real sense climate friends. And these are people from within the community. And they, they, they are trained on how to use the tool but then they use it. You know, to so this tool was launched about two years back, and we just tried to capture some of the impact of how this tool is really looking on the ground. First, first kind of impact was on the gender intersectionality. What this tool did was it gave power to the people to the women, because we know all know that women play them. You see, you know, these are the women who perform almost 60 to 70% of the work in the agriculture sector anyone who's worked in this space would know women are the one who perform most of that work, but they never get the that role or decision making power when it comes to deciding where the structure should be built how it should be struck the build. And these women, you see all of them, they like this lady I remember Rukmini when I actually saw her in action in the village. God like she can really run for the president's election, the way she commanded and the way she talked. And I thought technology had given her additional power because now she went, she said that now when I go to the village meetings, people look at me with awe and respect because I have information that people don't have and I, I'm able to guide them what they should be doing. But we say women lead differently they don't keep the power to themselves they share it. And there are just a few slides of which I wanted to quickly run if it allows me so and then they even in India, you know, they are certain marginalized groups which are called schedule cast and schedule tribe they have been traditionally marginalized. And this scheme gives additional provision a special provision for some of these structures to be built on their own private lands, but they don't get their voice in the in the decision making the sub engineer would go and tell them, oh your location is not suited for the structure. Now with this technology they know exactly they can go and demand for what can be built. So I'm just quickly flipping through these are. So they were as the slide moves I'll just see if it can. So there's some of the other areas where we saw this this impact so some of the other areas were early warning early action I'm sure Ben it's your agenda. But you know what we really saw that what some of those areas are areas from where people traditionally migrate. But what this did it's not it didn't stop them from migrating, but what it did it give them gave them information much before beforehand so they were not migrating in distress. Next slide so these are just some of the community and then it has as I said it helped in like landscape based planning which help in delivering longer term drought proofing. Yeah, just so you know if you look at the agenda in the agenda I didn't write my name because to a large extent I don't think I like we can claim the success for what happened with this tool and I feel really these are some of the things I have close pretty years of experience but there are some things which really stuck with stick with you because you think that you really did something good that it really touched people's life. And these are some of these women who I think should be the ones who should have come here and talked about it and for me they are the real climate warriors and I just hope that you know we are able to support them and to take some of these success to a larger scale up. So thank you. Thank you very much. Let me now invite our third panelist. Are you with us. I am can you hear me. Yes, please go ahead. Super super thank you ever so much. Super so thank you very much for giving me the opportunity. It's good to see a few familiar faces online and in the room. I'm sorry I couldn't be with you in person but it's good to be with others in solidarity online from all over the world. My name is in any in any Chadburn and I'm head of humanitarian and resilience at tier fund. But in actual fact tier fund is part of the start network and I'm here today representing the start network. I found it with interest that Sheila said quite early on. It's only when you create large networks that you get energy and start network is a collaborative of over 80 international and national based organizations coming together because they believe in systems change for humanitarian situations, including the fact that I personally feel it's immoral that you wait for a disaster impact to happen. And you do not support communities to be able to seek opportunities to protect and serve themselves and self determine their own outcomes with humanitarian financing in advance of a particular event from happening, because we know in this day and age we have a new technological understanding and a real sense of insight into what could trigger new and emerging crises. So I'm going to tell you a little bit more about a start ready. But just to give you a bit of insight start is actually got two sides of its work. It has got the start funds you may know as best with start funds which is rapid flexible pool contingency funding, funding for dynamic decision making for small to medium scale price crisis. But then you've also got start ready which is predictable triggered funding at scale for foreseeable crises using risk analysis collective planning and scientific modeling. And that's what I want to just push into a little bit for you today. So what is start ready. So I'm sorry this is a very complicated slide. Can I also just tell you some of the things that we have to do to support communities around anticipation are quite complex. And that is actually the challenge and one of the challenges that I do want to share with you as we go throughout. But we've got two sides of the screen here you've got one where you have pooling and one which you have no pooling. So what start ready is is a risk pool. And that says on the left you can see where it says no pooling. Maybe you have four different bilateral donors who commit to certain countries. We have Bangladesh Pakistan Philippines or Madagascar, and they say they want to support either in terms of anticipation or even in terms of emergency response those countries for the hazards that they face into. And now they happen every one in two years one in four years. But you can see there's a decompartmentalization of the funding. Now if you go over to the one on the right, you can see by pooling it, we're able to stretch the money to actually cover and provide social protection to up to one million more. And that's because we're using a sense of risk analytics we're using statistical modeling to be able to say well hang on a minute that one in two year event is going to mean that not all of that money is used all at the same time. And if you to look at it another way is saying that you have the funding held in the non pooled is 20 million. But the funding you need to pool is actually in the pooled fund is actually only 4.5 million. Because it's your worst case scenario is that 20 million is needed, but there is less than a 0.01% chance of that happening in any one year. So even if you only hold 4.5 million you're guaranteeing a pooled fund of 20 million. And that's a little bit hard for people to get their head around. And it may include it. I'm no mathematician. I'm no statistician. I do not work in the insurance industry. And all it is is I have a heart for communities who are affected by disasters on a regular basis time and time again. So it takes a lot of thinking to work this through but let me see if I can explain a little bit more as we go through. So we're at the end of our first year of our first pool. And we had an efficiency ratio of 1.6, which means that we stretch the capital to cover and socially protect 280,000 people across six countries covering eight risks. And that was a stretch the 2.68 million capital was stretched to be able to cover the equivalent of 3.4 million. And the activations that we had in pooled one word for a multiple of different hazards. We had heatwaves, three times in Pakistan, we had drought in Zimbabwe we had drought in Senegal, cyclone in Madagascar drought in Somalia and riverine and fluvial flooding in DRC. And notice the terminology here as we learned to as part of our journey as the governance committee of start of start ready. We learned to the differences between fluvial flooding and fluvial flooding and how you're protecting and you're using your statistical modeling and you're triggering based on all of those aspects to be able to get you what what you need. And it is quite a complex process. So the way that we work with communities is absolutely front and center of what we do. We want to make sure that these are nationally held systems and embedded and built and created by local communities and local NGOs who know and understand the life of the land, the regular hazards they faced. And I think, you know, again it was Sheila who said we communities have long and deep experiences of coping with crisis. And this is exactly what we see as well. So you can see there's many different steps to the process that are both at the global level and at the national level, but the most important thing is that the actual system is built by the communities themselves. They assess what risks they're vulnerable to, they assess how much money they need to draw down on point of crisis, they create a contingency plan, and it's then able to be dispersed. So we're now moving into risk pool to, and it's exciting for us we only kicked off in the last two months but again we've already had draw downs for heat waves in Pakistan. So what we've done, you can see the multitude of countries that we actually cover in this. And you can see that this time because donors are beginning to get their head around it. We've got it we've got a larger pool and it's exciting for us. So we are having to be we are able to stretch it to even more countries. And this time, we weren't able to secure a reinsurance limit but let me tell you a little bit about the reinsurance. If there is that 0.01% chance of all the money being drawn down, we don't actually hold that capital. So one of the things we need to do is also hold a reinsurance product, which is a little bit of funding we buy within from the insurance industry to make sure that we have the extra capital to be able to serve all of the communities that we want to serve. So here this is the seasonal calendar so there are times of year when we actually have a greater vulnerability for draw down up to a high number. And we have to do an awful lot of statistical modeling that we would have the right available capital at the right place at the right time to be able to disperse appropriately to the national mechanisms. It was a five minute quick whistle stop tour of what we do as start ready. But I just want to pick up on some of the issues that we need to push into some of the challenges, and some of the ways we want to do business. So, we do realize that we need to address vulnerability appropriately. And it triggers that demonstrate where an impact of a hazard has happened on on across the whole of a community. But how do we pick out those who are most vulnerable from the impact of that hazard, rather than doing a blanket event. And we need to do some work to actually drill down on that work better with our national partners to be able to secure that. And I've alluded to quite a bit throughout this, it's complex, and it requires commitment scale and expertise. But here's the thing. It is an extraordinarily interesting and a very important tool I think that we could multiply scale up and utilize in different countries and locations globally. And it doesn't need to. We've begun to build up a whole packages of tools and resources that can work with different countries in different locations. What we need though is flexible donor funding that's, and it's hopefully linking it back more effectively to climate finance. At the moment we're drawing down on humanitarian pools of funding, which means that they want to say, we need to show that to us by a certain date. When with the risk pool one they wanted us to spend down as much as we could to the very end in the edge of the pool, and to be able to predict that appropriately was extraordinarily difficult. But we did manage it in the first year we were probably a bit to us dear, and we've actually pushed out our risk a little bit more this year, and taking it really further to the edge in our analysis and are in our statistical data understanding of how we want to final two points are we want to continue to embed this as nationally and as locally and mechanism as possible. We want to be able to demonstrate that we don't have to use heavy, you know, into sets of mean intermediaries we can get this down to as locally as possible via just this simple pull mechanism, and by having this networked approach that we can all use global expertise alongside that real sense of understanding and insight from the communities are affected by climate disasters, and to come together to actually make sure that we can actually take really take take this to the next level. And the final thing I wanted to say is that this isn't the only tool in the box, and I think that's also really important to see. We can't address all risks was this this approach. One of the things that start network needs to push into more is actually having a diverse cross section of different financing mechanisms to be able to support nationally led responses to different kind of climate risks that are coming. So it is, it is complicated, it requires investment, it requires commitment, but it's certainly doable, and it's certainly exciting so watch this space for what else happens over the coming months and years. Thank you. And this second session will be looking at how we move to scale. So we've heard some of the solutions that are out there. Now we want to hear how do we really scale. And so it's a great pleasure to be able to introduce. We have Dr Christopher white pilot, who is head of climate diplomacy with the government. I just think what time it is in that one. We will hopefully be joining us. We have Kishan Kuma Singh, who is head of the MEA unit, which is the multilateral environment agreement. We have the Ministry of Planning and Development and Trinidad in Tobago. We have Ambassador Diane black Lane, who's the director of the department of the environment of Antigua Barbuda. And she's also Antigua Barbuda's ambassador to climate change and have been involved in a transitional committee on what's the damage. And then we also have Marek Silvasi, who's senior program manager on climate justice with the open society foundations. We have the same two questions for all of our speakers on this panel. So let me just read out those questions, and then we'll go to each speak individually. So the questions are number one, how is your government organization being scaled up efforts to address the impacts of climate change in recent years, and what have you learned through that process. And the second question, because we know that this isn't only a government responsibilities, not only state actors, we have to have a whole society approach to how to involve civil society and NGOs. She was mentioning how we make this a whole society approach. So, first of all, let me hand over to Dr Christopher Barbuda. Can you hear us? Fantastic. Well, warm greetings to you all from the people in the government of Vanuatu. I'm really pleased to join you in this event. Let me say that I'm scaling up action is truly what is needed right now, because we are absolutely out of time. I'm going to take us a little bit back to the early 1990s when Vanuatu as the co-founding chair of AOSIS asked the developed world to make available funding to help our island communities actually scale up what they were already doing to try to address loss and damage from sea level rise. Now let's fast forward to now 2023. The international community still has not mobilized a coordinated response to that request in the form of the fund or in other forms. But despite this, Vanuatu has and will continue to act to address loss and damage, and we will scale up that action nationally. About 10 years ago, we began to scale up this action by decentralizing loss and damage work, the assessments, the planning and the implementation of action down to as many local level actors as possible. And we did this by promoting the establishment of community climate disaster and climate change committees. So these committees are made up of village chiefs, church authorities, men, women, youth, people with disabilities, and they hold a mandate to do this long term risk planning and capacity development for slow onset and rapid onset events and post disaster need assessment. And very importantly, the work of the CDCCC is formally recognized in our disaster management systems, their roles and their responsibilities are in fact written into our national standard operating procedures. The other very unique thing about the CDCCC is that they are directly experiencing the nuanced slow onset impacts as well as the non economic loss and damage impacts and that means they have the knowledge and the solutions required. Based on their context. So now we have CDCCC across the country, and they are requesting and receiving tailored and on demand technical assistance from as well as finance from a range of NGOs, businesses and OBNEs who are working in those areas. It's impossible because our government and non government community work very closely together. In fact, our NGOs have joined as part of the Vanuatu Climate Action Network, and our business community is part of the Vanuatu Business Resilience Council, all to provide direct support to these CDCCC organizations. And in fact, because of this coordination, these networks now have a formal seat on the decision making table of the national government which is the national advisory board for disaster climate change and disastrous reduction so the key message here is that the nationally defined system for addressing and scaling up loss and damage is actually premised on a whole of government and on a whole of society approach and it formally includes community, the CDC is themselves, as well as our non government stakeholders into our institutional arrangements so that we can flexibly design and implement and scale the loss and damage solutions that are most appropriate and contextualized. One final example about scaling action in Vanuatu, one of the questions that we hear over and over again is what exactly do you want to fund with loss and damage funds and how is this different from the adaptation and humanitarian funding that's already available. So rather than continuing to speak in the abstract, Vanuatu and in fact most specific island countries have been very concrete in describing what it is that's required to scale and we were one of the first countries to put loss and damage into our nationally determined distribution as a standalone section, and there you'll find 12 very tangible and concrete fully costed commitments and solutions so for example, our lnd commitment number four speaks to doing loss and damage needs assessments that build on non economic loss and damage and also on set indicators, so working with what the CDC is already doing but helping to add on these additional assessments, our loss and damage and DC commitment number six, which is $20 million and focuses on rolling out micro insurance with the provider to support our subsistence fisher folk and farmers so what this is demonstrating is that we are already planning within this kind of mosaic of solutions that exist and a mosaic of actors already planning how we can scale up these solutions that that have already been identified at the community level So in our view scaling really does require cooperative solutions we cannot keep getting stuck in this dilemma of well I will only act if you act first. We all have to act and that's why I want to so proud to be a part of the all act program that we heard about earlier. We know that when I want to and the other Pacific SIDS and so many vulnerable countries are not responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions the fossil fuel production that's causing loss and damage, but we are acting and we are scaling up that action. And so in our view it's time to see this level of commitment from all parties and all non party stakeholders, because more is desperately needed to support these locally designed solutions. Vanuatu is not a member of the transitional committee that is now working on some of these proposals and solutions so I very much thank you for allowing us to voice some of these concrete proposals and we hope they make it into the presentations at But look, know that in Vanuatu you continue to have one of the highest ambition allies for anybody who is dedicated to protecting the most vulnerable from climate harm and scaling up practical effective and locally led loss and damage action. Thank you so much. Thanks so much Christopher really helpful presentation and very concise to the point as well, maybe given that you've gone through so rapidly let me just take the opportunity quickly to ask you a question because I know it's later at your end as well. I may need to jump offline but out of all of what you've learned so far out of those excellent examples that you have what would be your top piece of advice or top tip for other governments who are who are attempting to achieve scale like out of all, all the lessons that you've learned which is the top one would you say. Well, let me give you all three kind of in summary the first is that we've got to use these national systems that are whole of society approach and acknowledging that it's more than just governments or more than NGOs or humanitarian actors. The second one is that we've got to define what we're going to do and scale and then commit to funding it like Vanuatu is done with our own national budgets and our NBC. And the third one is that we all have to act there isn't any more waiting. It's everybody has to do now everything that's possible. Thanks so much Christopher. Okay. Let us move on to kitchen to missing from Trinidad and Tobago kitchen can you hear us okay. Yes. Good. Good morning from where I am. And thank you, Tom retu Salim and ID for the opportunity once again to share my thoughts on this emerging and important issue. Before I start let me also. I would like to thank the previous panel and Christopher as well on this panel for sort of setting the stage for what I'm about to say because I'm draw I will draw on some of those presentations I do not have a formal presentation. So bear with me on that one as well. And therefore, with the evolving work on loss and damage now with the decision to establish funding arrangements and a fund and the transitional committee now deliberating on what the architecture of that fund and those arrangements could be. And I think in responding to the question that can work simultaneously or in tandem with scaling up national national efforts is the need and I've said this before is the need to. In the context of the international funding arrangements now the need at the national level, and even at the sub national level and community level to develop some kind of approach, or some kind of methodology for quantifying loss and damage. And this is has to include both extreme events and slow onset events because with each manifestation of climate change impacts, there will always be some kind of residual loss and some kind of residual damage and I think that coming up with some kind of methodology some kind of tailored approach at the national level or the sub national level or even the community level or sectoral level to assess on and quantify those, those losses and damages would be a critical first step to gather the empirical kind of evidence that will now be I assume in future for making the case for funding. We've heard from previous panelists, the case for targeted funding and fit for purpose and so on. And where would these funds be placed and I think I'm drawing on Christopher's last point. So we can kind of approach some kind of methodology for quantifying both the direct economic losses as well as the non economic losses because they are the economic approaches and methodologies for for assessing non economic losses as well, which can be quantified I think as a first step or internal or simultaneous with scaling up loss and damage efforts at the national level. We need this kind of structured approach, so this kind of empirical evidence gathering to make the case, so that we are not speaking. You know, sort of from an opinion based perspective and I heard the first panelist allude to the fact that sometimes the people say no you don't know what you're talking about and sometimes you don't take you seriously and so on so I think in God, that kind of empirical evidence from a from a quantifiable approach is critical. The second thing I think that needs to be incorporated into loss and damage conversation is the is the issue of just transition. We only share our own experiences and our own approaches on just transition. We have developed a draft just transition policy, which is now before the cabinet awaiting approval and the next step of course would be to develop an implementation plan for transition and it's not. It's not only restricted to the low carbon or the energy transition and the expected and the unintended consequences that may arise from that from a lever perspective but also in keeping with the no one left behind principle of looking at the impact of climate change and franchisement of loss of livelihoods and of loss of income from the direct impacts of climate change and this would invariably involve issues related to loss and damage as well. And so the just transition equation also has to include loss and damage as a as a variable. And this is how we have been approaching that. How we are approaching adaptation or is perhaps instructive to share as well. Our approach to adaptation has not been, has not been one that is project based based on long term adaptation. Primarily because the the temperature which you know the the earth will settle up towards the end of the century is still a moving goalpost and will be foolhardy to plan or benchmark any temperature goal at you know on which vulnerabilities to be assessed and therefore plan for adaptation. So our approach has been more of a pathways approach, looking at assessing climate risks at all levels, some national sectoral community levels, and formulating responses to those risks and responding to them. And then when the climate impact manifests itself again, whether it's drought or whether it's flooding or extreme weather events to evaluate those resiliency approaches, and then tweak them, of course, bearing in mind and keeping an eye on long term adaptation. So it's a pathways approach to, to building climate resiliency through a risk management or climate risk management approach. And to that end, what we have been doing is really, as a, as a, as an approach to scaling up and truly integrating climate risk in the national development paradigm is to train local government bodies, the sub national government bodies, the community level bodies to to assess climate risks because every sector, every community is different and would have a different vulnerability profile and therefore a different sort of loss and damage risk that may arise either from extreme weather events or from slow onset events. For example, here in Trinidad, we have, we have communities that are dependent on natural resources near the coast or on the coast, as well as communities high up in the hills, and of course you can easily, you know, fathom that that they would have different extremely different vulnerability profiles and therefore loss and damage potential and risks. So what we have been doing to scale up and to integrate is really to afford or to empower these local government bodies, which have responsibilities for various jurisdictions within their remit to assess climate risks within their jurisdiction to to also quantify what those risks may be because this will feed into the national budget requirements as well. And as well to inform international multilateral financing for for loss and damage not only from an extreme weather event perspective, but also from a from a slow onset, whether that manifests itself as drought as food production limitations as copies as health impacts and you know social costs and so on. So that is how we are doing the scaling up from a bottom up approach to empowerment and capacity building. But again, I wanted to underscore the need for a structured approach. And I want to repeat my call that I have done on this forum before for for an approach to look at asset management, to look at resiliency of hard infrastructures and a soft systems as well, and how they can withstand climate risks. And this of course is in keeping with the accepted now accepted broad definition of loss and damage in terms of averting and minimizing. So that attention and focus can be can be made on on those assets that are particularly at high risk to the climate events, and therefore, as fast as possible, quantify what those risks can be when a particular climate event manifests itself where there's an extreme weather event or slow onset which will have to be revisited going forward consistent with our pathways approach. So I'll leave it there for now. And this has been our approach and the again, coupled with with the requirements for building that requisite capacity to address loss and damage from a more structured and empirical approach rather than subjective, you know, sort of semi qualitative evidence. So I'll leave it there. Thank you very much willing to address any questions that may arise. Thank you. Thank you. For me standing out you can see how relevant the Ministry of Planning and Development in this case but equivalent departments around the world is so critical on this agenda to integrate into those longer term plans. Let's move on and then see if we have time for questions towards the end but Ambassador Diane Black Lane from Antigua and Barbuda. I know that you've been heavily involved in scaling up efforts. For a number of years now. Can we turn to you in terms of how how you've managed to do that what you're working on currently the lessons you've learned, and also how civil society has a role to play from from your perspective. Can you hear us okay Diane Diana you online with us. If not, then we will move on to to Maric and come back to Ambassador Diane Black Lane in a moment. Maric, can I turn to you for the same questions please. Hi, can you have a sign. We can yeah thank you. Thank you very much. I'm really honored to be to be with you today. I will try to respect the time. I'm working in the open society foundations and climate justice program and my foundation is meaning to be honest that we are rather late convert to climate change space it's been about one and a half year on that we systematically start working on on climate, although before we've been funding climate but not in a systematic manner. And we've been since trying to like evaluate our strategic niche and comparative advantage for effective impact. And there is something we're bringing in from from the from our other areas of work with our focus on human rights inclusion participation transparency or accountability. That's why we decided in the foundation not to set up a climate change program but from the very outside, look at that justice elements to the climate politics that and in that we're bringing in like an awesome legacy, which is very much focus on the protection of climate and to defenders working against the working is on to Italian politics and bringing, as I said, human rights and people centered approaches, and what is very specific also focus on vulnerable states communities and specifically global south. So, out of this, our strategic thinking has been that we concentrate on on our funding and our efforts on working on climate resilience and loss and damage. And this has been since our inception and the initial pledge, the foundation made at COP26 and Glasgow where we joined the Scottish government and pledged for some loss and damage funding. How we how we operationalize or think about this, the strategic focus is, we have three streams. One is specifically loss and damage funding arrangements and funding, but within that space we also very much looking into the issues of climate mobility and displacement. We also put our funding and resources to capitalizing adaptation through blended finance, and we also look at the climate effective multi autism and transform transformation of the system climate influence in that mess. So these are our key deliveries on loss and damage where we where the foundation is is moving. So in general, what our work sees to trigger is a set of reforms within the global and multi actual financial institutions, especially in the UN system and what we call Bretton Woods institutions and institutional investors to equip vulnerable nations and communities with the resources and safeguards, they need to address loss and damage and tackle climate impacts with dignity. And so we've been witnessing quite an impact at the last COP where not only because of the loss and damage funding arrangements announcement but also how the how it was ushered in an era of multi actual development banks reforms and climate lenses and we've been very much following those processes as well and supporting our partners. And here I'm, I recognize that most of our focus is indeed on global and natural environment but what we try to do and what is our key key element is to bring those voices of vulnerable communities and states that need to be heard in these processes and building the capacities and and helping to open access. And just to give one example perhaps of this work few, we've been supporting the 20 in setting up their own office and in Washington so they're closer to those institutions of global capital and like both bank. We've been supporting some of the small island states or least developed countries in the UNFCCC processes and building trying to provide some resources for technical expertise. We may know since that is one and a half year supporting civil society and research institutes and loss and damage space to provide some some input, especially for the for the work of transitional committee. So I think, even when we operate in this multi lecture, which is most likely most often space to state driven process, we are trying to bring in the divorce of communities and CSOs and in those processes. Right, and so perhaps like when it comes to closest is the work on the climate mobility and displacement where we try to really have communities in the whole consultation processes when it comes to the plan relocations or the mobility path. So they think that the end day solutions they voices and their knowledge is being being respected and in the in the in the design of those those processes. Last thing and just in this very sketchy contribution I would say that we obviously we are a ground making foundations where we distribute resources but we also have some other tools what we use we have an impact investment department where we try to. Try to bring more. Deescalations or more the risking process elements to the climate funding. We have just as initiative colleagues who are working on legal tools, including litigations or providing legal advice to do to our partners and we also have a specific advocacy department that is working with opening the access for our partner. So I would stop here because of shortness of the time but really appreciate for having a space to talk about our work. Thank you. Thanks medic. Thanks so much. Thanks for your first sharing your, your thoughts and what is standing out to me as some of the elements that we need to consider for scaling up so the legal aspects the policy and the planning the financing and the human elements the capacity to be able to deliver this. I don't think the ambassador Diane black Lane has been able to join us, but we do have a whole nother panel to turn to you so I won't ask questions right now but thank you so much for joining to all of our panelists in that session. Let me hand over to the next moderator. Claire Clement from the bridge, Rick cross over to you. This is Ben and I'm just going to invite Gemma to come and join me on the stage. Seamless hand over from moderator to moderator. So yeah thank you for Ben for introducing me I'm Claire Clement I'm director of international law and policy here at the British Red Cross it's lovely to be hosting you all in here. I keep having slight connections about all the technology so I hope I think it's working okay. Thank you to my wonderful team for fixing it in real time as we go along so thanks for putting up with with the slight hitches here it's really appreciated. So this is the final sub panel we have. We've had a really good look so far at the types of practical actions that we can take. We're now going to have a take a look we're going to take a look rather at how we are, how we can and how we should be financing these actions. It's so often the critical question as we know, I'm delighted to have representatives from three different governments here to explore this with us. So we're going to look across financing options such as climate funds grants loans innovative financing models, including finance for anticipatory actions social protection programs. We're also going to look at the challenges associated with accessing and mobilizing financial resources and transferring it to the community level. So this is an element that's been a really strong thread across the panels today, and it's an area in which British Red Cross has certainly been looking at closely. So let me introduce our three speakers to you. On the stage with me here I have Gemma Tanner who's the Senior Adaptation Advisor at the UK's Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office at FCDO. On the screen I'm hoping we have Catherine Simone, who is our adaptation lead at Agence France de développement. I have just completely butchered your mother tongue apologies for that. So from AFD Catherine lovely to see you there who you are there. And then third we have Sinead Walsh who is the climate director at the Department of Foreign Affairs for the government of Ireland and you're there as well it is working beautifully fantastic. I'm going to ask all of you a couple of questions I was going to do this in the round, but I think given the technology and the timing as well I might ask each of you to two questions at once if that's okay. So if it's all right Catherine Sinead will start here in the room will start with Gemma so Gemma the two questions I have for you are first of all, could you share with us some examples of successful financial mechanisms that support practical action to reach the most vulnerable communities and that support the inclusion of communities as well in particular marginalized groups in decision making. And then once you've shared with us any examples you might have it would be great to understand from you how you think we can scale up these sorts of successful models and approaches, and what lessons or challenges that we might need to bear in mind. So one is the examples the next is the scale up and challenges over to you Gemma thanks. Great and thank you very much Claire and thank you everyone is always hard to come on after two great panels that have really focused on the real solutions and the real work on the ground. And many of the examples I've been thinking about have actually been referenced today, and I don't want to get in detail when the real experts are sitting in front of me. And I think, you know, when we look at things that we can learn from, I think typically the early warning early action area is particularly an exciting one because it starts to really bring together development climate and human humanitarian action on the ground. We can look to cruise and as an example, and wiser the UK funded program with the Met Office, which I think not saying we're getting everything right, but I think in the early warning space we, there is final real recognition of the need to involve communities, not just as recipients of the information, but also part of the the code design, and that's the only way we will get success. In terms of scaling up the finance for example increase they have the work with the GCF to look how they can actually increase flows of funding through the GCF process to those sort of projects. And that's going to be critical is trying to find ways and mechanisms that can link the different streams of finance that are available. The increasing fragmentation of the financial system is a challenge, and how we do that better at the international level and the national level I think is going to have to be a focus of all of us working in this area, going forward. And I wanted to also talk about innovation, because I think we've talked a lot about how important is to build on what we know and what works and that's completely right. But at the same time I think as I've said we're in a new world now in terms of both temperature and challenges, also in terms of technology and what that offers. And I think from a financing point of view that raises up a number of challenges because donors need to be patient, and we need to do risk taking. So I think, you know, we have examples of that, like the braced program the UK funded, which funded a whole range of looking at how you can devolve finance down at different levels, different models work, some didn't but we learned. And I think it's the flocker, I can't remember what that stands for, but that example in Kenya shown that that actually you can pick up that innovation and learn. Another challenge is how we get that sort of evidence and learning out of these bits of innovation and bring them together in a way that can match up with that finance and those multiple finance streams at scale. So I think that would be my key message to take away, we need to build up what's working, but also find that space to innovate and really work at bringing the examples and the hard evidence to the place where the finance is available. Great, thanks Gemma thanks for pointing to some of those examples we have that increasingly, I guess look to better community participation, including in the code design and also pointing out some of the problems that we still face in terms of innovation challenges fragmentation of the system is a critical one as well. Turning to Catherine now if that's okay for your take on these two critical questions around whether you can share with us some successful examples of financing models that you think have worked in particular to get funding to that critical community slash local level. And then based on that, what are the opportunities here for scaling up those types of models and what challenges do we face and lessons we should be learning. Thanks Catherine over to you. Thank you and thanks a lot for the invitation. I'm really happy to participate to see this exchange and it's been really interesting and the two first panels on solution we're really instructive for us from I have this perspective I think the main point to for all of you is that we are a development bank. So we are part of the French climate team, and we are funding climate and development activities but we also are not directly engaged in climate climate negotiations and we are implementing and funding and reaching the most vulnerable and mountaineer communities can be a challenge because as a development bank our traditional partners are mostly national regional institution and our tools cannot be always adapted to support local action but nonetheless. I have there is also funding some activities and supporting progress on aid localization. We have dedicated tools that specifically targets project population and support aid localization. For instance, we do have a fund supporting organization of civil societies and NGOs in calls for proposal through calls for proposals, and we have the funds that is dedicated to peace building called Minka, and that encompasses a pillar specially dedicated to aid localization. I do think also that it's important to mention that we have a huge experience in funding local regional institutions and that this project are encode on decentralization devolution processes, which are systematically they are not systematically taking into account climate activity, but they represent a really important background work that we are doing with political dialogue, local communities, and on the local action so we can build up on all this experience and dialogue for introducing climate actions. For instance, what we are doing on a proper basket fund in Rwanda, which is a project called Funding with KFW, and we are working with the Ministry of Local Government with the support of the Global Center on Adaptation in order to integrate climate dimensions within an existing fund of decentralization and proper basket fund. We also work on adaptive social protection, where we fund a lot of opportunities with the World Bank. We find a lot of opportunities for targeting the most vulnerable in appropriate ways. I do think that we also need to improve the knowledge we have on what is needed in the ground, and especially with this emergency of loss and damage needs. And I do with a project on Adaptation, which is a program dedicated to especially dedicated to adaptation and working in 12 countries in Africa. We are funding with IED, a research program that came to assess what are the needs in Senegal when adaptation is reaching some limits. And I do think that this is also a way for us to improve our knowledge and to really experience and innovate in terms of activities that we can fund, especially again as a development bank where our tools can be a bit different and various. Regarding your second question about how to scale up and the lessons and patterns to be in mind, I think that it's important to recognize the necessity to be really context specific and such the scaling up can be not so easy that we would like. And there is a need for recognizing there is discontinuity in the scales of actions and the replicability is not so easy. So defining suitable solution will always and even if you have such kind of successful model and I've been involved in my previous work on braced activities and that was also one of our braced lesson. Even if we have really nice pilots and really nice solutions, the scaling up of action will require expertise and time. We need to have dedicated means, sorry, for technical assistance for capacity building and this is something we are pushing a lot at the French Development Agency to really dedicate financial and also human means to payload this solution. We also find that it's necessary to have a mosaic of tools in order to best response to the context and the challenges. And this is with a layering solution with taking it to account the multidimensionality of vulnerabilities and the different scales of action that we will be able to provide a robust solution. And finally, I will echo what Jim mentioned about the importance of coordination. We do foresee that solution will not come from one partners and one unique solution it will be the coordination between climate finance but also between the different actors private sectors public sectors development actors that will help us to to coordinate and provide the relevant responses and the level of response that we need. Thank you very much. Thanks very much Catherine for those comments. Obviously a lot of richness in there but in particular noting your point around as we're looking to scale up these examples, the need to remain very context specific and we've obviously heard a lot of practical actions from different contexts today so how do we actually feasibly sensibly scale that up while maintaining that context specific approach is an interesting one. Shanaid over to you in terms of your, your thoughts on these two questions so just a reminder the first around sharing with us some examples of successful financial mechanisms as you see it and the second one around how we might scale these up and the challenges we might face in doing so thanks over to you. And I think I know we're very short of time but but happily I think Catherine and Gemma have mentioned some things that I might have otherwise mentioned so I'll try to be quick. And I suppose like, like some other countries today Ireland is sitting on the transitional committee. And so it's just really good to be getting, you know, kind of insights from these kind of events to feed into that. I mean, I might be, you know, slightly provocative and sort of question the question a little bit because one of my concerns, frankly, about the climate finance sector which is a very fast growing sector is that there is like as in as in the development humanitarian sectors where where I sort of come from, and there is a great tendency to jump to conclusions about certain initiatives, which sound good, and which say you know we are serving vulnerable communities and we are being participatory and so on, and without waiting for the evidence so I I'm finding, you know the climate sector is is is quite prone to trends and I think that's just something we need to be very careful of and and sort of maybe jumping to to the question first I think, you know, one of the principles is we need to be very tough with ourselves about evaluation and evidence because almost every initiative says, you know, we're really serving communities and etc etc we're really meeting the felt needs, but actually when we evaluate we often see something that's quite that's quite different. You know, I think it's it's obviously good that that climate finance is is increasing quite rapidly we were actually in the process of doubling in Ireland in three and a half year period so it's it's, you know, it's obviously something that I see as positive but it also does does concern me that we sometimes hear nice principles and then we associate that with with practice, and I think that's quite a big jump and so I liked, you know, listening to you know me talking about how this work is complicated I think let's not run away from that reaching communities is actually one of the most complicated things that you can do. So, so let's let's make sure that we really rigorously evaluate what we're doing before we before we scale up. And the second thing I wanted to say, just before getting a little bit specific is that, you know, I think we have a huge amount in climate finance to learn from the development humanitarian sectors which are which are a lot older, which have indeed made many, many mistakes, but also learned a lot of lessons and so one of the things we're doing on the transitional committee is looking at, you know, things like the health sector, for example, how do we, how are, you know, how are we reaching, you know, not just looking within climate finance but how are we reaching communities well in some of these other sectors in terms of how we design new arrangements. And so I suppose like, like, like others have said earlier, you know, the kind of loss and damage finance for us is quite a new, quite a new concept. But if we look at, you know, some of what we do in other areas, I think we can see the kind of models that we want to scale up so I would just mention. And I think this is, I'm sort of glad that this is sort of echoing what others said earlier, like retube, and you know, for example, because I think where one of the areas where I see the most potential is indeed in in anticipatory action and specifically in shop responsive social protection, where, you know, again, there's already been quite a bit of work there's already been, you know, mistakes made learn, you know, lessons learned. So we've got about 40% of our humanitarian funding is now going to anticipatory action. And, and I think, you know, some of its country level some of its global programs like like the draft, you know, start fund surf and so on so forth. And I think, you know, we all know that that anticipatory action works we have the evidence for that and we all know we never seem to do enough of it. So in the country level as well our embassies are Irish aid programs in different countries are finding, you know, that that there's really some some good potential to scale up what they're doing in those countries specific mechanisms which is coming to also to to some of our Christopher and Kishan spoke about in terms of the country ownership so in Malawi, Uganda, Zambia, the PSNP in Ethiopia which a lot of people would be familiar with. I mean, we have seen evidence of what works and I think, you know, these are some of the areas that we'd like to scale up. And, and just just maybe to come to the last, the second question again. A last few points about maybe what should we bear in mind in terms of that scale up. I mean, I think, you know, one thing that that springs to mind I would totally agree with what's been said about national ownership and national systems and that's a very good example of that, of course. And, but I suppose a couple of things on that one is, we still need to evaluate how those kind of programs are working. And also, we of course need to be very conscious of particularly conflict affected situations and countries where that kind of national ownership that we've heard about and national systems are just not going to be an option in the same way to reach to reach all vulnerable populations and I think we have evidence in fact that land finance is particularly neglected in in fragile and conflict affected states so we really need to sort that out and I know there's a process led by the Red Cross and on the World Bank that many of us are are involved in to try to to try to see what we can do about that. I think there may be, you know, scaling up, you know, principle that we should have. I mean, Gemma talked about about donors taking more risks which I totally agree with. We've heard about flexibility of donor funding, which I totally agree with as well, and longer term funding. And I think that's something that we're trying to do we've actually just launched a big scheme for for all of our main civil society partners in both development and humanitarian work one year for all of their development humanitarian work five years, you know, basically core funding. And I think this is the kind of way that we need to go because these are very difficult contexts. And, and we need to be by definition very responsive. And so I think as donors, you know, we need that that flexible long term funding and also we need to be taking some risks ourselves, and maybe maybe last point on on risk. I think, I think one of the things that we need to be careful of in our work is, is not to not to be biased and close off possibilities. So for example, you know one thing that Ireland is is is newly funding is the Global Shield in terms of loss and damage. And there's been quite a bit of bad press about it frankly by mostly by a lot of NGOs kind of saying you know oh this is insurance it's you know profit for Northern insurance companies etc etc. Insurance doesn't work blah blah blah and those are a lot of generalizations that just don't hold up and I think we heard from you know these presentation earlier that you know we need leveraging you know we need to use whatever we can to get more finance into into the climate sector. And so I think insurance is is is one tool, and we need many others, and it has its limitations but I think we need to get over maybe some of the sort of biases that oh well you know this is private sector and so on I think. And as others have said and I think as Catherine said as well, we need a variety of actors, and we need to find ways to work together in the most productive way and those of us who are maybe more oriented to you know communities and all of that. We can of course try to influence those other, those other actors. And so so I'll leave it at that. Thanks very much. Thanks very much, Sinead. And with all of our three speakers. Thank you so much for being comprehensive, being concise. In particular, Sinead, your points around you know not a tough message at all a very welcome message around that need for better evidence learning evaluation. This is so critical for all of us in this patch I think to be able to evidence those things so we can attract better and more financing to the table on this. More use of multi year and flexible fund financing that was very critical and important to hear that governments are thinking about that and how they can utilize those in this space as well. And then your points at the end around insurance and really in capturing a broader point around the validity of different types of financing tools in this space so that we're not only looking at donors is governments we're looking at all sorts of private sector tools as well it's incumbent on all of us to be able to bring that evidence evaluation and learning to that diverse group of finances as well so thank you for those excellent points. I'm really aware we are out of time. Thank you so much to our three speakers. I'm really sorry to our in person audience and online that we don't have question time for this panel because I think that would have been fantastic but maybe in a broader three week session, we could do that to unpack all these issues. So just thanks very much for bearing with us in this subpanel and over to read to or Tom, I think now. Thanks all. Thank you Claire. Thank you so I'm going to speak very briefly and then pass to Salim for some final words I suppose of inspiration as we go. I think what today demonstrates that in an hour and a half. It is tough to get all of the voices in and have a proper dialogue but equally I think an acknowledgement that we need that range of actors to come together. This is a kind of a recap we've heard from humanitarian organizations those working together with slum dwellers, those working across a whole system to get resources to the local level to a national social protection schemes we've heard from philanthropists from banks from two governments from donor organizations and so all within an hour and a half. All spread around the world and all doing so grappling with the fact that it is imperfect to try and get everybody into a conversation. But I think it equally is exactly as I said the illustration of what we need. We do need to acknowledge that all of those groups have to come together and with others to with insurers with investors and to make sure that we can tackle this in a joined up way. We need to make sure that we don't necessarily not to let there be a situation where the politics of this discussion gets in the way of action and I think it's a reinforcement that there are roots to action. Yes, we need to make sure that they're working and the money flows in the right ways and so on but put communities at the heart of that. That's very clear, but also we need now a systemic approach to this. The effort that we've got with all act is about a systemic approach of bringing that community together in order to be able to act at scale. So yes it's early days for this but we really look forward to welcoming everybody who's been on the panels online in the audience to be part of the journey now which is about banding together in a much more systemic approach rather than one that fragments which we've heard is not the way forward so thank you everybody sincere thanks for the help around this final words to Celine to send us off into the London afternoon. Thank you very much Thomas thank you to all the panelists and apologies to the audience who didn't get a chance to say anything at all. So I've spent the last week here in London participating in various events in the London climate action week. And it's been a very very enlightening exercise. And I feel that this particular event in London has a lot more potential than we are making of it. These events that have that have taken place over the last week are all very good but also fragmented. So can we start bringing thinking of doing this together in a much more scaled up manner. Next year, and in the in the homework for all of us being connecting with each other finding collaborative activities and things that we might be able to learn from each other, even do together. So next year come back and talk about things that we are doing from the ground level, taking to scale at national level we heard the case of India, and then taking to scale at global level because we have no time to lose I think we are going to have to take a new way of doing things smarter, quicker, more effective, while we are learning at the same time so I think the London action, the climate action week is a very good opportunity for us to utilize as a practitioner led combination of factors, some based in London some coming into London and some coming in online, but we can actually make that a practitioner is an action oriented series of events, particularly in tackling loss and damage from climate change which is now my number one agenda. So I think it's about nowadays, avoiding and tackling loss and damage. So thank you all very much. I appreciate your being here and thank you to Tom and colleagues at ID for organizing this. Thank you.