 I wanted to talk a little bit about the gap between science and politics and I got so curious Christian, I mean what is really the biggest difference between being a policymaker and a scientist or a researcher when it comes to what you want to do practically? I think the fascinating thing is exactly turning knowledge and research into policy. That's absolutely fascinating and my example of the World Bank social safety net in return of fossil fuel subsidies I really that that work gets a boost out of good research. When you can prove that you for instance can get the same poverty impact for a quarter of the price with the social safety net then you can with a fossil fuel subsidy that's good evidence that can really that speaks to politicians you know you know in Egypt they say oh we can get the same poverty income for a quarter of the price or fifth of the price you know and then we can do good climate policy at the same time that's a good deal for us you know. So turning more science more numbers more quantitative stuff and my ministry here will know that I'm pushing constantly for research evidence numbers numbers numbers in to inform my policy. But still there's still a consideration between the voters and showing them you know these are our results and if possible faster results while you're still in the government and this is what science says that can be much slower or could be something that you need to give money to this instead of creating jobs or you need to create jobs meanwhile you're doing international aid. Is there not a challenge in between attention in between these sometimes? Oh yeah at home and abroad that other gender is there for sure and right now of course all countries in Europe are pressured on their economic challenge on employment and youth unemployment Sweden Denmark Spain much worse even but therefore we need to be able to tell a convincing story also and I think more research should be done on that on how this is an investment how our international engagement is a really good investment in reducing poverty promoting human rights peace and security but how this investment is a really good deal for Europe as well and how it comes back multi-fold in peace and insecurity in less pirates and terrorism in less instability and conflict in fewer refugees and in more jobs and growth in Europe. We have just done a new report that hasn't been published yet we're still working on it that tries to make that point how this is an investment in Europe and I believe sincerely that only with a stronger international engagement right now can we pull Europe out of the crisis in the long run because we are missing big opportunities out there. Africa fastest growing economy half of the 20 fastest growing countries in the world are in Africa you know that's where we have opportunities new possibilities for Europe and if we're not internationally engaged right now we're going to miss out big time in the long run but you more researchers should come in show us prove discuss perhaps you know it's not a positive story but then we need to turn it into one at least. We have to tell the story to find the story. Gunilla today we have said that 20 years ago 90% of the poor lived in poor countries today most of them live in middle so-called middle income countries how do you comment should we consider folk focusing on poor people rather than poor countries or how do you see it. Well I think we can do both but it's also to see that we have a division of labor I think what I've said for the Swedish development assistance is that we should address people living poor people and oppressed people living in low income countries but of course most of our investments goes to poor people in middle income countries hopefully to people in the middle income countries but we also still in our area lack some good evaluation some good results we don't have enough data we have to be much better in collecting data improve the evidence back home to our voters because we still have and I would like to touch a little bit upon this with research because sometimes I'm who are coming from a farmers family and didn't do any research in my young years I really looked into reality but the problem when doing development assistance is that you're doing it from your own prejudice back home and your voters are also from here and they are feeded by Swedish news and media so it's it's not always that the science and the evidence are trickling down and sometimes the science as I see it is not really designed for politics even though we are coming from the Nordic countries where we do believe in science that has made made a fundamental basis for our welfare state what do you mean we are realistic what do you mean that science is not made for politics no but sometimes when you have a good report you have really to translate it four times in order to make it for those people that are working with development assistance or to my friends in the Swedish parliament it's really you know because sometimes there is an academic discussion going on that is not for people that are making the decisions and here we have to have Swedish parliament with us we have to have and and sometimes I feel that there is a huge gap and sometimes that that gap is too alarming because we have doing development assistance to in many aspects interpret this not only for a Swedish audience but also to make it in conformity to the poor people because they are my other servants I have to serve I serve the Swedish taxpayers and I serve the poor people in the world but also to see that these agendas are converging and it's really that we have to really see that we work with the people based upon science and evidence and here is still a linkage to be made so how would you like it to be I'd like it to be more much more practical and I like us who are doing development assistance to really prove the evidence and the results and to show that this is a good Krona invested for our common future because that's also speaks to all our politicians because we are happy to have quite a generous aid budget but I mean it can't be taken for granted we have to win that every every year not in Sweden we have it every four year every four years exactly because now we have a parliament that really believes in it but it's not taking for granted so I think if we can't root this in a timacy for development assistance and also to show the proof and that's why we have to work a little bit more on this with science when we are deciding upon our policies but again I think we really have to address the knowledge and the awareness about people living in low and middle income countries and thereby I'm really impressed by our own history in doing research without development assistance and not only have the research from Europe on this but also to have the local capacity in many developing countries that has benefited from our development assistance to build their own capacity to do their own interpretation and to show that this is actually valuable knowledge that's interesting because the researchers or the scientists often say oh we want the politicians to listen to us we want them to take our research in consideration because we have a lot of things to tell you and you say we would like to but we need to understand it better make it realistic for us so there is a possibility yeah but it takes two to tango I think we should be you want to hang out but I think also that researchers have to realize in what conditions politic political decisions are made these days okay before I let the audience in I'm very proud to welcome Mr Steven Anna Otto Arthur he's a member of parliament in Ghana and a former minister a local minister and mayor and he is here with us today an applaud one of the thing we had talked about today is also improving effective and good governance in the developing countries and well you have listened both to the ministers today and you've listened all day yes so are we on the right track on the right in the right direction do you think yes thank you very much before I get there love me um say a big thank you to you and you wider for the invitation extended to me to be here today and to you my honorable minister says an honor for me to share the same stage with you um I must say that climate change is a reality earlier on it was just a conjecture everybody thought that oh um this is something very far away from us but since this morning and what is happening in Africa particularly Ghana it is a reality if rainfall is become erratic if temperatures are rising on the average 1.72 uh degree Celsius uh nobody will tell you that it is a reality but is it that the local people out there really appreciate that there is climate change that is a big question if I tell you you go to so many places in Ghana and being so religious they tell you that the erratic rainfall is the world of god the end is near it tells you that it's been attributed to something else you know um the end is near which end is near I don't know but that is that is something um which is which is out there it also tells you that uh most of the um response from our areas to me is becoming more of responding to international architecture uh reporting uh sort of mechanism if the look including parliament including parliament how many times do you go out there and talk on platforms podcast platforms about climate change it also tells you that we myself in parliament institutions and others need to build their capacity to even to even be able to talk about climate sensitive budgets in our parliament if in parliament people do not really appreciate it and then you go to uh decentralized department the councils uh how would they be able to actually develop uh medium-term plans that respond to climate change but again the debate which has also come up I listened to Ed here when the honorable minister uh from Denmark spoke on um tariffs for instance removing tariffs um about 15 years ago in Ghana we saw this threat of climate change and for that matter we subsidized LPG uh um localized uh petroleum gas so that a lot of people will not be continuing failing trees for food but then they will be using gas the development partners the Bretton Woods institutions are telling Ghana look if you don't remove the subsidies uh this and that you're not going to get them any longer for that matter this year uh we removed subsidies from liquefied petroleum gas you go to rural areas people have gone back to cutting down trees for food so that debate about um you know subsidies do not get to the poor something that perhaps will be with us for for some time it is true this one I heard from Caesar that aid flows have been continued to Africa and she made mention of Ghana it is true but a bad news says this from 2012 to 2022 the 10-year period development partners have signed a compact with Ghana saying that uh Ghana has suddenly become a lower-income country there's oil finding in Ghana and for that matter by 2022 aid will cease from 2012 to 2022 it'll be waning until it ceases by that time how then would you be able to mitigate some of these challenges that climate change will definitely uh bring to us that is a big question what would you like what would you like to see now from the aid donors I mean you have I think that the dialogue that Ernabel minister has made mention of is very very very important it has come to be like it is uh country owned but is it really Ghana owned or responding to what the need that was see that what USAID and others really want Ghana to do so that aspect of country owned I don't really think we own we're responding to what that our partners want us to do to a large extent but a dialogue that has come up here I think is very important if both of us sit down we agree that look this is the way the people of Sweden the people of Denmark wanted to be done this is the way Ghana wants it want to see it we meet at that level I think it will solve the problem than you know responding to perhaps you know call it the powers that be we also talk about multilateral versus bilateral most people saying that multilateral would be more effective but you are talking about sitting down with Sweden and Denmark no by electrons in Ghana are doing very well they are actually contributing to budgetary support uh in Ghana and it's going to about between eight and ten percent annually which to me is quite huge between four hundred and five hundred million uh dollars yearly which is quite huge uh so yes so you think that's working well to me it is working the area that we need to uh engage each other the more that's the area that I'm talking about it's working okay comments on that I think what what Christian also said earlier and where we also have to sit down together a little bit better is also where we see the aspiration now in Africa about uh the capacity and the thinking about how to have much more of sustainability where Europe might lose out because we are so full of ourselves so we don't see the developments on the continent with a lot of aspiring also high tech a lot of knowledgeable people thinking about how to solve a practical problem and they might be very local but then can be scaled up and also making these leapfrogging in technologies so I think that's why we not only have to leverage on aid we also have to see how our private sector can also have a platforms for further discussions some other capital flows but also innovation technology and research that should be much more extended and and and uh changed uh exchanged uh because here I sense that we we have specifically with Africa solve our problems together and we are not really organizing for that and perhaps development assistance can be a better stepping stone for it but but what do you the two you say bilateral multilateral what would be the balance well we are increasing our multilateral share of aid but I don't think that's the most important question perhaps I think the most important question is how do we form a relationship between Ghana and Denmark and and I must say um I think we've had very good results together and also by means of budget support and I'm a huge fan of budget support sorry and uh and and uh because it's it's it's it's a starting point for a contractual relationship between us first of and and that's how we have to go forward and I think that what we wrote in the paper that Channing and I wrote is uh which was a little bit provocative is that the global blame game has to be over right uh you know we global blame game when we talk about climate change you know the global blame game has to be over we cannot any longer have negotiations internationally we say it was your fault so you have to solve it before we can sue anything and if you don't solve it first and we won't do anything you know that is not taking us anywhere and what we wrote in the paper and Channing wrote it so I can quote it uh is the world comes as a package right it comes as a package and and and there okay we are responsible for climate change but we also invested in windmills it's true uh that that that we did not behave well in colonial times but we have developed a few vaccines on the other hand and the mobile phone so the world comes as a package uh and you get it all and and that's why we need to get rid of that kind of your fault my fault and let's work together but let's do it in a contractual relationship and I think budget support is brilliant to do that where we can say to Ghana we will add our bit we will come in and assist you because we believe that everybody has core human rights and we should get them in place in Ghana as well we also believe that Ghana uh have a huge opportunities in terms of renewable energy uh in terms of preserving the forest for all its values and so let's do kind of a contractual relationship and and say we'll add our part you'll add yours and that's result spaced approaches to development and they can come multilaterally global partnership for education the global fund for HIV it's kind of a relationship like that and it can come by naturally but how do you create governments that urge adaptation and mitigation to climate change because that is has really been a big topic here today that good governance is the key for promoting this but that's why I want us to move out of this kind of a dependency and that's also what we hear from Africa now we gain independence but we are still dependent on aid and we have to have a true relation that is based upon equal understanding and equal responsibility and that's why I think the governance issue is key but if we only think it can be promoted from donors doing development assistance and capacity building I think we are doing a mistake we have to really see and to hold African themselves accountable for doing the job like Ghana has done and Botswana Sweden are not any bilateral donor to Ghana we are even more than Denmark in situations of fragility and going into two very weak situations so we are hardly no middle-income countries any longer and that means that we have another view of looking of this and I think when it comes to multilateral aid or bilateral it doesn't matter it's the result that counts and where I see in the future we see that could be the trading house for figuring out where to spend the money because they already today do a lot of multi bilateral but the debate about how we govern the world has to be based on equal understanding and not because I'm a donor you are a recipient and that's why we have to start to talk about global governance and look to ourselves and look to Europe if we are trustworthy because sometimes we also have double standards and that's why I think it's really has to be rooted from local also these things with understanding the need for good governance and thereby you can manage new scientific research you have to make better budgets in the parliament you can mobilize your own resources and to be held accountable yourself but while that is taking place of course we should support good governance and and and assist in capacity building on that but that it's not the only key