 Thank you, Frank. Thank you very much, Niall. Good afternoon, everyone. And so my name is Frank Tamal. I'm heading up our Asia Center research cluster on reducing disaster risk. So we're going to switch topic now to disaster risk reduction in Asia. And so we have an hour. And we have, I think, a very distinguished panel. But before we introduce the panelists, I'd like to give a little bit of a background on the work that we do. So the purpose of this session is to present and discuss some different perspectives on disasters and disaster risk reduction efforts across Asia. And also to examine the opportunities and challenges in reducing risk and the role that a research organization, such as SEI, in collaboration with its partners in the region, can do to address these. So just very briefly, we have a small, very gender balanced group of disaster researchers here, located in Bangkok. And so we're a team that has sort of transdisciplinary and also complementary skills around the sort of nexus around disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, but also environmental sciences and development studies. So all the research clusters have only existed since about the beginning of this year. We've all formulated our strategies and are now in the process of operationalizing these plans. So our guiding light here is the Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction. This was the first strategy or framework that is part of the post-2015 development agenda. It was launched in Sendai in 2015. And it's got seven aims that will be achieved, so hopefully through these four priority areas. Now, as with all the sorts of agreements, this is a non-binding voluntary agreement. And so now there's a process now through the ISDR, which is the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Production, to formulate practical guidelines to translate these principles into sort of operational plans that national governments can take to reduce risk within their countries. And you can imagine that this is, of course, quite a process as with all of sort of similar agreements. And so our group aims to support the implementation of the Sendai framework in the region. But at the same time, because we're an independent research institute, we also want to provide a critical perspective on how the Sendai framework is implemented and how it's then also monitored and evaluated. And so whilst the Sendai framework is a big step forward, and it has a lot of the rhetoric that we would expect in such an agreement, we also still have to face some challenges that were also discussed in the previous session around vested interests, power relations, growing inequality, and just the sheer scale of change in the region. So we have organized our way, our work in our research cluster to address these four priorities. And so one of the areas we're looking at is to really strengthen our role in facilitating regional cooperation. So working with different stakeholders across Asia, and particularly in Southeast Asia, where we're based, to overcome some of these challenges, particularly the sort of institutional silos that we're experiencing. Under our work on empowering vulnerable groups, we're working with people with disabilities to look particularly at how we can develop more disability-inclusive approaches to disaster risk reduction. We're also working, and we will hear more about that from one of our panelists, Dr. Parichad. And we will introduce all our panelists very shortly after a short introduction. And we're also looking at the role of gender in how women and men experience disasters, how they prepare for, and what their particular vulnerabilities and capacities might be during and after a disaster. And we're also very interested in the role of culture and cultural practices in disaster risk reduction. And the idea here really is to place people at the center of disaster risk reduction efforts rather than structural mitigation efforts for the protection of assets. And so just to mention a couple of things we've looked at, for example, how organizations that are engaging with communities at risk, how their organizational culture might clash with the local cultures of communities, and how that might actually lead to actually increasing people's vulnerability to disasters. And then we have a project which is looking at the long-term recovery after major disasters in the region and to try and understand across a number of case studies what are the sort of promises that were made in building back better as one of the ideas promoted by the UN and others, and how this has actually played out over a time frame of, say, five years or up to 10 years, where the efforts that were put into place are they still being maintained? What are the sort of forces that are all the narratives that are changing these commitments over a longer time period? And then our Azure Center here is also leading up our global initiative on transforming development and disaster risk. So this initiative really tries to untangle the very complex relationship between how disaster risk is created on the one hand through development processes, development choices, and pathways, or, on the other hand, how development can be used as a means to reduce risk. And so for that we have developed a number of approaches. So just very briefly, we're looking at what are the trade-offs and decision-making both in disaster risk reduction and development decisions and how they might actually contribute to creating risk now or in the future. And so what then would be the sort of insights from that that would lead us to more sustainable equitable and sustainable pathways? The idea of equitable resilience is really about the process of building resilience and how organizations that are intervening in communities at risk, how they can enable a process that makes sure that the resilience outcomes are actually in the interest of all people, not just a select few. And then the governance is a really important component of this, of course, to see what sort of government, governance approaches, what sort of institutions, policy would actually be needed to enable these sorts of quite transformative ideas towards more sustainable and resilient development. And I'm very happy to share with you the news today that we received last week at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Mexico, which is that we have been successful in securing an international center of excellence for disaster risk reduction to be based here at our SEI center in Bangkok. This is part of the Integrated Research on Disaster Risk Program, which is a 10-year research program that is funded by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, the International Science Council, and EXU. And this whole initiative, or sorry, this whole center of excellence, or ICOE, is actually building on our Transforming Development Disaster Risk Initiative. And we're hoping that this will really help us to leverage our work in the region, to raise our profile in terms of the science, the research that we're doing, but also in connecting with important stakeholders that are driving the change on the ground. So just to give three examples here, where we are engaging in regional processes and global processes, one is the Asia Science, Technology, and Academia Advisory Group of the, again, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. So this group basically provides advice to the national governments in the region on how to implement the Sendai Framework for Action in terms of developing national and subnational plans. And then we've been doing quite a bit of work recently with the ASEAN community, the ASEAN secretary, and the member states in developing the State of the Environment Report, and also now the Environment Action Plan. And building on that, we're also developing an approach to work with the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response. So those are very concrete opportunities for engaging in the region, both at the sort of regional level as well as the national level. And then we also have a membership on the Global Stack, which is the Science and Technology Advisory Group to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. So through these three regional and global processes, we're hoping to inform and also influence some of the processes in the implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the Sendai Framework. So these are just some examples. And with that, I would like to invite Dr. Louis LaBelle, who's the director of the Social and Environmental Research Unit at Shanghai University and a longstanding affiliate of SEI Asia to facilitate the, to introduce our panelists and to facilitate a discussion around the role of science in implementing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Thank you, Louis. Okay, so we don't have much time. So it's gonna be very important that our speakers don't take too long, right? So they each a chance. But what we'll do is we'll take probably two of the talks and then we'll open the floor for questions rather than waiting until the end of five, okay? So I think the first speaker will be Hans Goodman here from the Asia who leads the ADPC. We also have Mr, you can go ahead and we have Mrs. Parishad, who's a consultant that's been doing work with disabled people. And our third speaker will be Professor Ladlin from the University of the Philippines. And then I think the fourth speaker will be Ratif, who's a member of just about every advisory group you can find, but it's also a professor at Keel University and Natalia from the Rockefeller Foundation with the last speaker. So Hans, would you like to get us started, please? Yes, and good afternoon, everybody. I'll hope you had a very good lunch and are not feeling too sleepy for the moment. I was asked to elaborate a little bit more on developing collaborative projects to build resilience for inclusive and climate adaptive disaster risk reduction. Now, we in the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, or ADPC, has three principles that is underpinning all of the work that we are doing, which is abbreviated in three words, science, systems and applications. And basically it looks into that the work that ADPC is moving forward on should be evidence-based and be an inclusive process of disaster risk reduction. In there also, of course, we are promoting gender equality, looking for poverty reduction opportunities and promote international cooperation. But I would like to just go through three examples of the type of collaboration or cooperation that we do in disaster risk reduction. And in the news for the moment, of course, tragically enough, in Sri Lanka, there was quite a lot of impact of the cyclone that went through there recently with up to 150 dead. And we currently have in there working on landslides trying to reduce the incident or reduce the impact of landslides by a predictimum. And it builds in previous years, we worked on a similar project in Bangladesh. And it's quite involved science of understanding what the moisture of the soil and the intensity of the rain in certain high-risk areas and finding triggers that are simple for the communities to understand, to be able to predict that now we are in a high-risk situation and actions could be taken to move out of the area or otherwise. In those areas, because it was important to work with the local communities, et cetera, ADPC, apart from being advised by highly technical advice from, I think in this case it was the Norwegian hydrometrological institute. Obviously it was very dependent on working with NGOs, local communities and others to make sure that the messages were understood and that the triggers were understood so actions could be taken. So that's one example. Another example is a USAID funded project that was ongoing where we are working closely with SEI which is called Severe Mekong. It aims at trying to make earth observation data and tools better able to address development issues in the Mekong region. And it aims also to impart to be demand-driven insofar as institutes and others we are working with can come up with requests on what they would like to address. And I think the important example there is how Institute in Vietnam was approaching the Severe Mekong and we're looking into how to deal with droughts which then have led to coming up with some tools which can be applied in the field and in the local areas of Vietnam based on earth observation data in order to better predict droughts and how to deal with them. Also together with Stockholm Environment Institute, ADPC was looking into how to better use remote sensing data and GIS information in bringing gender dimensions better into disaster risk reduction issues. And a third example perhaps where we're going opposite in a way from the first example is working on hydromete information to predict the strength and the path of cyclones or early warning systems where we've been working earlier and continue to be working a bit with Bangladesh in trying to improve their ability to predict the cyclones such as the one that is approaching Bangladesh as we speak. There we have been working with the Norwegian Meteorological Institute to improve the prediction of where and how and how strong the various hydrometeorological events would be in coastal Bangladesh. But in order for making that effective and I think it's perhaps opportune to talk about the very sad events that we have is about to happen in terms of a cyclone moving into Bangladesh and Bangladesh government that was informed was it's now about to move or try to relocate and put into safety one million people and that's an enormous undertaking. But because of not only the early warning system but that the mechanisms are in place and Bangladesh is a good example of how they have improved that they may be able to move most of these people into cyclone shelters or further inland so they are safe from the impact of this approaching cyclone. And I think we can contrast that we're looking at Myanmar which does not have either the predictive capacity nor the community organizations. I think it's important again to stress that we promote the use of evidence-based knowledge to shape policy and that's where SEI is a very good partner for us in helping with that. Thank you very much, Hans. Please Dr. Parisha. You got... Thank you. Okay. Can I just click? Huh, magic. Yes. Hello, good afternoon everyone. My name is Parisha. I'm going to present to you the project on disability and disaster. Empowering people and building resilience to risk in Thailand. This is a project that's specifically not only for persons with disability but non-disabled people as well. The project has three components. First is the research component. The second one is the training and the third one is networking. Everything starts with research. We have to find out because there is no research on disability and disaster. Actually not much in Thailand in terms of inclusiveness. So we have to do our own research. We have to find out what kind of impact of disaster on disability and what kind... Since we are going to do the training to empower them to let them know about disability inclusive, we also have to do the research on the learning methodology. Like what is the best way for a person with disability to learn because we have to tailor made our training curriculum to meet the needs and the learning style of a person with disability. And in this project, we work with a person with physical impairment or a person with the mobility disability, the person who has physical mobility, the blind and the deaf. So they learn differently. But we want to send across the same message. What do we have to do? So we really have to do the research on this. And from the research, we use the research to produce, to develop training curriculum so that we can know the issue that makes suitable for them. And then during the development of training curriculum, we consult person with disability that if this is the most suitable way of communication, the most suitable way of learning for them or not. Not only the person with disability, we also have the training for rescuer to understand, to work with person with disability in emergency situation. So we also consult the emergency rescue professional. And from the research, we also use the research to identify the gap and the issue that we can use for policy advocacy and for implementation. So that is the three component of the project. And this project has only one year life, one year funding from global resilient partnership through University of Sydney. And we have SEI as our partner. So we help really help each other to achieve a lot of things within one year. No more magic. Okay, let's go. So, what... So the role of GRP, Global Resilient Partnership Project that shaping the IDRR in Thailand, we find that we can claim that the research on the IDRR, this one is the very first in Thailand. And the data collection is done by person with disability. We train them to understand the questionnaire and we train them to interview each other and we train them to collect data and be able to write the report. But we supervise them, we help supervise them. So it takes time. If I hire a research company, it can be done in two weeks. But because we want to empower person with disability to be able to find out their own issue. So we train them and it takes four months, but it's work because now they understand and they know how to do the research. And then the research fighting, as I said earlier, that is help to identify the entry point for collaboration between DRR and disability sector. So we know who should play what role and when and how. And then the research can also identify the issue that we can tackle. So another thing is that this project produced handbook and manual and guideline because after the project aims, we do not want the knowledge to disappear. So we produce the guideline and it is very first in Thailand because we adjust the IDRR concept into Thai context. And it can be used in disability sector and disaster risk management sector. So and then during the project period, we prove that person with disability with more training, they are able to contribute and participate in national and international forum that related to disability and disaster. Thank you very much. All in one year. In one year. It's very impressive. Very exotic. So I think from both the first two speakers, we've heard quite a bit about the use of science and the need for science to be somehow brought into practice. And I think in both cases, sometimes it's a very technical science using Earth observation systems. Other times it was about the lived experience of people with disabilities. And they were able to tell practitioners what they need. You train creatures, very interesting. So after the next speaker, I'm gonna open up the floor for some questions. But I think we'll hear from Professor Ladolin first. Good afternoon. I'm Professor Ladolin Lim Mangada from the University of the Philippines, Visayas. I don't have a slide. I'm going to share with you the status of recovery and rehabilitation in Yolanda. As you have been informed, 90% of the total damage to houses come from the so-called no-build zone or from the coastlines. And these are what? Resettlement sites. These are informal settlements or urban poor. Today, government has constructed more housing units, but a good number of housing units are unoccupied. Why? Because people, especially the IDPs, refuse to stay because of lack of a, livelihood opportunities, the absence or lack of basic services. And then the resettlement site is located near the landfill. In fact, most of those who decided to avail of the housing units would go back to their old residences just to wash their clothes. And then, secondly, those who availed of the government housing program are under stress. This is the new stress that the IDPs are experiencing because they don't have any document. They were not given any certificate of occupancy. And then one of the limitation of government housing is that it is only limited to the so-called traditional family. So the LGBT community was excluded. As far as the developmental organization and humanitarian agencies housing, what's this, projects are concerned, it's still ongoing, but it's more exclusive. People are meaning the beneficiaries. They are oriented. They attend, they would organize meetings and they would listen to the needs and capacities of the beneficiaries. The second component that I would like to share with you is about livelihood. I think if you can get the report of USAID, Anna's report of USAID in Tacloban, their livelihood projects I think did not really succeed. Even what's this, Red Cross. Red Cross in my interview with the management, they told me that among the livelihood activities that they initiated, it's only one that they can be proud of. It's about a small stall selling young coconut near General MacArthur Monument. The rest, the livelihood assistance that they gave to the IDPs were utilized for a different purpose. After Yolanda. Excuse me, let me, the IDPs, these are? Internal displaced persons. Okay, thank you. And then after Yolanda, there was a report that there was a surge of remittances. There was outside help. Actually, when we did the survey, those who were living in the coast, they were not able to access and mobilize this remittance money. It was more of the middle class. And generally, outside help coming from relatives came only one shot, because other members of the family were also affected by high end. As far as the psychosocial side is concerned, people living in the resettlement sites no longer voice out about the trauma they incurred as a result of high end. But they were saying that it's more of the anxiety of their tenure of housing. Because as I mentioned earlier, government has not given them any document. They're still anxious how much they're going to pay or whether it's for free or whether they're going to pay for a certain amount and for how long they do not. They do not know. These things make them insecure and this is the kind of trauma and fear that they have at the moment. They said that they were able to recover from the so-called trauma because the neighborhood, the community would help provide psychosocial support. So far, these are the main findings that we discovered. And it's for you to decide whether truly we're building back better or we're simply going nowhere. Thank you very much. I'd like now to turn to the floor. We can probably take two questions. Please keep them very short. If you have hands or for Ladilino for Dr. Parishad. Does any comments or questions from the floor? No, okay. Not yet. Then please turn to Rativ, please. Thank you very much. First, my heartiest congratulations to ACI for being the IRDR's new ICOE and I'm very much looking forward to actually work with you. I am presenting here with my two hats. One is with the IRDR hat where I used to serve as the executive director and also the UN S-TAG which is the ISDR Asia Science Technology Advisory Group. I warned everyone that you had many, many hats. Thank you. Please, Rativ. So can I have the magic button? Yeah. Thank you. I have three specific message actually to ACI as well as partners, especially science into disaster reduction. Number one is Frank mentioned this in the beginning that while it is important to generate new science, it is also equally important to bring science advocacy, like how science can be actually used for disaster risk reduction. And the advocacy can be made at different level. Of course, national advocacy is very important, but I think the regional as well as global advocacy is also very, very important. We have a few process here which you are seeing in the slide. At the regional level, we had the Asia Science Technology Conference which the first one was held in Bangkok, hosted by Thai government last year. And the next one will be held in Beijing, hosted by government of China Ministry of Science and Technology. And this is not the scientist conference, but to bring science into decision making for disaster reduction. And also we have a parallel process, what you call the Asian Ministerial Meeting. So the idea was that the science technology conference, whatever is discussed there, has a direct feedback into the ministerial process. So we did it for the ministerial meeting in Delhi last year, and we will be doing the same thing for Mongolia next 2018. So this was the regional process, but also in the global level, some of you know that the first global science technology conference was held in Geneva last year. And the second one will be held in Japan, in Tokyo, hosted by Science Council of Japan, UNISDR, IRDR, and IKSHU, International Council of Science. And that will be held in end of November. So I strongly encourage ACI as well as all the partners to be more proactive into making the science advocacy into disaster risk reduction. So that's my first point. Which direction I should be? Okay. My second point is strengthening the national level science capacities for disaster risk reduction. As you know that Sendai framework has now all the different types of indicators. So the important thing is that how we implement Sendai framework at national level. And there IRDR has been doing some work as well as the UN hashtag. I'll just show you one example, that this is an assessment of 11 different countries we did last year that where science stands, what is the status of science in disaster risk reduction in this 11 countries. And you can see the names in the top and in the, you can't see, very small. Yeah, I'm sorry for that. But lots of numbers in very small countries. Sorry? Lots of numbers in very small countries. Yes, actually I would like to actually focus this, the bottom one, which shows the accumulated score. This was actually processed, it's a don't judge that it is 35, 36. It's not a beauty contest of the different countries. But this is just an engagement process with the science as well as the decision maker in the countries. One important part is that we try to make this analysis into three segment. One is how science is used in decision making. And there are the few indicators. The second part is the investment in science and technology. And the third part was the link of science technology to people. So you will see that in most of the countries where they have scored relatively high in the decision making or in investment. But the link of science to people is still very much lacking. And that's possibly a crucial area where we had also some earlier example that how science can actually feel that last mile to link, bringing science into disaster risk reduction, especially linking to the people. And for that we also did some science technology plan. Madam Monthip was there from Thailand participating on the Thailand science technology plan. And we had a few other countries in 11 countries where we did this one. And my last point here is that when we talk about the Sendai framework implementation, we are talking about 2030. So it's very, very important to focus on the youth group. And we have, in Ayatollah, we have started recently a young scientist group and we have now 41 young scientists from different countries. And I strongly encourage Asia as well as other partners to work or to make some sort of promotion or mentorship with this youth group and try to engage them into co-designing research, especially with different types of practitioners. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Rajiv. Natalie, please. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Natalie Pohonyotin and I'm an associate director at the Rockefeller Foundation's Asia Regional Office. We do have an Asia Regional Office here in Bangkok. And just allow me to quickly introduce my organization in case some of you are not familiar. So the Rockefeller Foundation, we are a private philanthropy. So we are basically a grant giving organization and it's a pleasure to be working with some of the organizations in this room and some on this panel, actually. So we are focusing on urban resilience within the resilience field. And we've been in this field for around a decade now focusing on urban resilience with a grant contribution totaling $500 million in the last decade. We have been supporting programs such as the Asian Cities Climate Change Resilience Network as well as the Global Resilience Partnership in which Dr. Parichart is a part of. And I guess what distinguishes our approach is that we've been hearing a lot about hard infrastructure today but also the soft infrastructure. So capacities for people, entities and institutions actually to be resilient. And I will try to figure out how the magic works. First of all, let me say we are very excited to always be consulting with SEI. We see SEI as really a valuable thought partner. Why? Because it's very hard to find organizations who can actually translate research and evidence into implementable action on the ground. That is people-centered. And we as a private philanthropy, since we only give out grants, we rely on institutions such as SEI to actually link people on the ground to research and then link it again to policy. And I think they make a fabulous thought partner for a philanthropic organization like us. Now, why do we work in urban resilience? Why should anybody care about resilience? Well, if you look at the figures, as you see on the screen, in Asia alone, a projected 410 million people will be affected by flooding by 2025. And that includes people here, us. We will all be affected by flooding. Hopefully not this afternoon. And as we know, the risk multipliers are just increasing. It's not just rain or storms, but it's the scale of impact and also the rate of change of how things are changing. So we do have to be prepared for this eventuality. So, oops, didn't wanna ruin the surprise. Okay, so at the Rockefeller Foundation, we have a working definition of resilience. And again, you can see on the screen, you could read that it's the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and entire systems to survive, adapt, and thrive in the face of chronic stresses and acute shocks and even transform when the conditions require it. So we would like to think about resilience adding another step. It's not just about surviving and recovering after a crisis, but one should be able to catalyze on the resilience investments to actually thrive and transform when conditions can allow that. So I think there's a slight definition of resilience here if you compare to the basic resilience definition. Now, again, why should we invest in resilience? You know, the economic statistics say that one in three development dollars are lost to shocks and crisis. One in three. Between 1980 to 2012, $3.8 trillion was lost because of recurring crises. So basically the same money is being put in the same areas. And as we all know, there's not ever gonna be enough funding to fund all the SDGs. I mean, we're talking about from billions now to trillions. So I think there is an economic reason why we should all be focused on building resilience. And you can't just build a case for investing in resilience without the science. And I think especially the science of measuring the resilience dividend, measuring how much do we actually gain from all the investments made into resilience building. Now, we've all heard a lot today about natural disasters, but are there really natural disasters? Thought about that. I think most of them are somehow man-induced. And another disaster that I think the Sendai framework touches upon is biohazard. So we haven't really heard the talk much about natural disasters that come from infectious diseases. And South Asia and Southeast Asia are highly prone to zoonosis. So these are diseases that are spread from animals or insects to human. And what you see here is just to wake you up after lunch. This is Ebola, yes. Ebola is a highly virulent disease, infectious disease. It has a fatality rate of 90%. It brings about hemorrhagic fever and we've all heard of all the negative impacts on Ebola. So this slide just quickly captures the cost to society as a whole if you are not prepared for such a disaster. And you will see that there's 2.2 million shaved off from GDP in one year and in the three countries affected. The three donors have donated 3.8 billion only for recovery. And this is not including the loss of lives, right? The loss of aspirations. Also the morbidities caused by survivors. So the cost is extreme. And I think it just demonstrates the need for really thinking about resilience and not just when it happens, but really how can you mainstream science into the whole chain of prediction, prevention, recovery and rebuilding? And so I just chose Ebola because I thought it would draw your attention from a very enjoyable lunch. Thank you, Natalie. Do you have any other key points? Yes, and I just wanted to do, summarize maybe the key lessons also from the Ebola case that could be channeled across sectors is you do have the science. The science will enable the solutions, but how do you get the scientific message to the local communities? As my colleague here mentioned, similarly with Ebola, how do you translate the science to the local community health work and the communities who would actually implement that? And number two, again, is really maintaining and integrating science into the whole chain of the development cycle. Don't just talk about it when you want to prevent or recover from science. And as a donor, I think I would add a third point is that use science to your advantage. If money is spent well, there will always be money. I'm quite happy to take some comments from the floor. We have not very much time, but for me, there's many different questions we can focus, but if we look at what the speakers have mostly talked about, they've really been intrigued by the role of science in disaster risk reduction. I think all of you touched on it in different ways. And none of you disagreed. I mean, are scientists producing the kind of knowledge you actually need for practice? What about non-scientific sources of knowledge? Does local knowledge also matter? I'd like to hear some comments from the, you know, it seems to me that's the topic that really came up in our discussions. We all seem to have an incredible faith in science delivering the stuff we need, but are they doing that job? Do scientific agendas need to be shifted? Please, Hans. Yeah, I think it's very important here to recognize that local knowledge or knowledge that contextualize either the questions or the problems, et cetera, that then science can provide, if not the whole answer, at least the foundations for those answers that then often needs to be put in the right social or as we're talking about reaching down to the community, et cetera. So I don't think science on its own will be able to deliver these things. It is a whole ecosystem of other things that needs to be put around it to be able to come to the actual solution. Okay, that's a much more sophisticated answer than we heard for. Do you, do the rest of the panelists agree? Or do you have any specific examples? I mean, what about Dr. Parishad, your work with disabled people? I mean, the scientists weren't thinking probably in the right way when they started, right? I mean, surely local knowledge of people who are affected was important in your work. Well, actually, we start from research. But when we have to translate this research into layman context and cultural context and disability context, this is all the challenges. But we work with persons with disability. My other challenges is, for example, when I have to translate the DIDR concept to make sure that the deaf person who use the Psy language understand the concept of DIDR, which is very, well, large word. And we have limited Psy language for that kind of words. We have to work with the expert on Psy language. We have to work with the Psy language interpreter. We have to train them, get them to understand the concept and have the Psy language interpreter who understand the American English Psy language to read the original content. So that kind of translation from the scientific content into the terms and message that they understand, it takes a lot of interpretation. We make sure that person with disability understand it and we were able to achieve that. Okay, I'm not satisfied though. You still seem to be talking about this pipeline from the scientists translating it all and getting it so that the little guy can understand it. It seems to me there was much more involved. You told me that you had firemen come to your classes. That's another training, yes. So other people had to learn what was the problem from the victim's point of view, if you like, or the person needing help. That's the different direction, right? Scientists have to learn, researchers have to learn what the problem is for the subject. Not yet only throw it down the pipe and hope you can understand it. No, no. We really have to adjust into the context, the culture and how people learn from it. Ratif, do you have any comment? Let it in first, please. And Ratif. In my place, it seems that there is a low appreciation for scientific evidence because what prevails is the indigenous practices and some people would attribute everything to God. So even though there are studies, there are findings, there are researches, people would simply brush it aside and put everything to God. So I think in the Philippines, the role of science should be highlighted because sometimes these practices become unreasonable to the point that it would be the source of the loss of lives. And I'm happy to take a question or two from the floor after, Ratif, please. I think it needs to have a balance between the demand-driven science and interest-driven science. We can't say that either one, both are equally important and we need to really see this balance. But the point is that who does it and who funds it? That's always a major challenge. Whether we have enough funding for this type of social research or transdisciplinary research, that is a major gap. Rockefeller Foundation is possibly one of the classic philanthropic organizations who promotes this type of thing. But not all foundations are like that. So that is a mindset issue also. But another issue is also in our academic system. In most of them, you are a classic example who does this type of very proactive, demand-driven research. Encourage your student to talk to them, people get the solutions or get the problems from there. But not all academicians are like that. Our university academic system, higher education system is not fit for that. So possibly we need to have different levels of changes. And I see this as a sort of overall movement, science movement. It's not just scientists. It's not just policy makers. It's not just a funding agency. It's not just international agencies. So it's a holistic movement of different groups which possibly needs to work together. Thank you very much, Rajiv. Any short comment or question from the floor, please? Johan, you've got a comment. I don't know if we can get your microphone or not, I'll give you mine. Thanks. It's a little bit going back to this issue of scale again. I mean, we talked this morning about all the investments that we're gonna see in this region, in Asia, not least. In India, 70% of the infrastructure which will be in place 2030 is yet to be built, for instance, which is quite incredible. What is the risk that we end up having a community talk about disaster risk reduction and not really reaching out to all those making the key financial decisions when it comes to investments in infrastructure and so on? And if there is a gap there, if you would agree there is a gap there, what can we do? What can an organization like SEI do to bridge the gap to those making the key decisions? The economic decision makers that we tend not to have in rooms such as this one or international conferences dealing with the disaster risk, for instance. Thank you, Johan. How about you, Lade Lin? It seemed to me you might have a response to Johan because you were talking about how many of the projects that essentially failed, right? Go ahead. Sorry for the technological lip. On the question of scale, I think there is a question of fit to scale. So you don't just talk about one big scale, but you see various, it's like an artichoke, you peel various scales to get to the global level, right? But of course there needs to be movement from above and from beyond. So a case in the example is a city who knows really well what their resilience issues are, but can't, don't know where to get the funding because all the green infrastructure funding are mostly for national governments. So I think it's also about identifying what gaps and at what scale should certain match and make be. I think there's enough money in this whole world to fund many investment projects. I mean, there is a lot of money flowing in the world. It's just in the reallocation. So I think it's also about thinking how do we actually think differently and make it make the incentive so that funding can come to certain resilience infrastructure or resilience issues. There is that as well, right? I mean, it's also trying to put ourselves into a situation when what do we need to break within the system? What do we need to change? There are models of innovative financing that are drawing in the private sector as well. So maybe try to think also differently in terms of who else are the stakeholders that haven't previously been involved in. Thank you. I think that's a pretty good answer. Hans, I think you might have almost the last say here before we turn back to Frank. Yeah, just pertinent to the same question there. I think one particular issue which is important is to really be able to speak the language of the investors. I mean, we have spent a lot of time of trying to speak the language once you have the evidence-based information to try to convince policymakers to take it into consideration when they make the policies. Likewise, for investment, if we're gonna mainstream disaster risk reduction into infrastructure development in urban areas or for critical infrastructure, et cetera, having a cost-benefit analysis, having some sort of analysis of financial returns on it that speaks the same language, ideally building on the existing tools with some modifications so that not only speaks the same language, but has the credibility so people look into it. Often when we develop new tools, it will take some years before, if ever, they get accepted. We still hang around with GDP as a good indicator for development simply because it's easy and it hangs around. Now, when it comes to cost-benefit and analysis, we need to have a risk-informed search that the investment community understands as well, and then we can probably move forward better. Thank you. So, Johan, I can't help but also offer my comment here. I feel that in this region, we're not only talking about talking to the investors and hoping that they will do nice things for us. I think a lot of the large-scale infrastructure decisions are very opaque. Nobody knows how those decisions are made. Nobody knows which winners and losers they're gonna create. So, going back to one of the sessions that in Babette's session before the lunch, this kind of transparency around large-scale infrastructure things, I think is half the problem. If this was transparent, then people would know what the project's gonna happen, where the winners and losers, who's gonna get flooded, who's no longer gonna be flooded, et cetera. That's the first step. If you don't even know what's going on and all the decisions are made behind closed doors, you can't even start to think about green investments, about safe investments. Who's at risk isn't even on the table yet in many of these countries. So, I think we'll have to stop there and turn back to Frank if he has some final comments to close our session. Please, Frank. Thank you, Louis. Yes, well, first of all, please let me thank all the panelists for your very interesting and insightful contributions and to Louis for doing such a great facilitation. So, as we're moving our work forward, I think we have a lot to think about. There's a lot of different ways in which we can look upon the role of science in not just the implementation of the Sendai framework, but also in how we can link this also with, for example, the sustainable development goals that we talked about earlier this morning, but also with the, of course, the climate change agenda and the humanitarian agenda. So, the field is wide open, but one of the intentions with this SEI initiative on transforming development and disaster risk is exactly to do this. It's trying to overcome these really quite entrenched silos that are the current sort of communities of practice that are still operating quite within their own mandates and narrowly defined scopes. So, this has always been one of the ideals, I think, within SEI that we've been trying to do and that we're going to push with this initiative as well. But then also for the ISOE, the International Send of Excellence, what will our contribution be? We're really at the beginning of building up this center. And I should also mention that ADPC and Shula Longhorn University, as well as Rockefeller Foundation, have all expressed interest and support in partnering with us in this endeavor. So, we will reach out to you guys and many other partners in the region for how we can best build this up and how this ISOE can support the ASTAC, of which we're a member as well, and the ASEAN community, as well as the other subregions in actually implementing policy and practice. So, there's a lot to think about, a lot to work through, but it's also a very exciting time and opportunity for us. So, with that, I'd like to close the session and please help me give a big hand to all our panelists. Thank you. Thank you, Frank.