 Dear ladies and gentlemen, when I arrived about a week ago in Uganda, I was really excited to have the chance to actually spend a week with so many fellow practitioners to learn more about climate change adaptation, a thing which all of us know a lot about but with still so much to learn. So today after the field trips, after about 20 sessions with interesting panel discussions, after a lot of chatting during the coffee breaks or around the campfire, I'm sure all of us will have some valuable insights to take home with them. Let me highlight some issues which I found interesting and which came up a couple of times during the conference. One issue was raised in almost every session was the issue of trust and mutual respect. This applies when we engage with the communities. And one example was also building trust in government agencies, for example meteorological services, when they communicate with simplified numbers or scientific numbers in the farmers just to what I think is indicated and then the weather just decided to be a little bit different than expected. And then the trust in the Met Services lost and it takes a lot of time to, of workshops, participative scenario planning and working on joint definitions, joint understanding to actually rebuild the trust. Another issue which I would like to highlight is that the need to get a CBA and EVA to scale. It's just not enough to have a really fantastic demonstration site. We just have to get out of the niche of this lovely community but we have to go mainstream. This will need new partnerships and also more efforts in the design power interventions that they are actually more independent of a specific project to push them but they should convince the people to take them up by themselves, by their design, by their activities. I would like to thank the organizers that they have put the role of ecosystems from the location of the center of the conference. You might know that the International Climate Initiative from the German Ministry for the Environment is putting a lot of funding into EVA. Today, it's the most important funding priority from our implementation time, you know, because we think it's worth investing in EVA. We think it works, at least that's what the growing body of evidence is indicating. We also think it's worth, and this is where most of all the mitigation that might be changed but also assist the convention to acquire diversity and to undertake this identification and serve the center of the framework. So it actually helps us to meet our standards. To me, community-based adaptation and ecosystem-based adaptation are actually requirements. Local communities are, at least jokingly, the stewards of their natural resources and therefore no EVA intervention can be successful without the idea or the ownership of the local communities. The approach of working with nature and not with working with nature and not against it is also supporting the communities to actually have long-term perspectives in their natural resource management. And as the upfront investment for EVA often are lower compared with built technical-grade infrastructure, they can also be more accessible. But we also should talk about the potential trade-offs. For example, if we manage a certain ecosystem to improve adaptive capacities for the ecosystem's services, they might not be available to produce cash drops which might actually provide income to meet important consumption and investment needs. However, communities cannot do this alone. They need enabling framework conditions, they need know-how, technical support and they need access to climate violence. And what do we need? We need more evidence on the effectiveness of EVA in which context, does which measure work, how can we integrate closer with more technical approaches. And we need to make a strong economic case, for example through cost-benefit analysis of other economic tools. Last but not least, we have to strengthen our monitoring evaluation to actually analyze the impact we are having in a more systematic manner. So let me close with some of the lessons learned on what we should do more when we leave this conference. First, I think we should follow the principle of fund globally act locally. The international community has committed to mobilize a hundred billion US dollars a year for climate change in developing countries. While this will probably not be enough to meet all adaptation needs, it's actually quite a big sum. And this might also lead to a reference for rather big adaptation programs. So we need to ensure that such programs with rather high volume actually put the communities, don't forget the communities. For example, that you build into your funding structure to have NGOs play a big role in having small grant facilities or having innovative finance mechanisms which put the communities at the center of climate finance. Second, actually the big funding volume might also help to solve the issue of scaling up because with bigger programs this enables us to also go to scale. From a donor perspective, we also have to deal with the sharing regarding community-based adaptation. Since most CDA interventions are defined together with the community at the beginning of the project, the precise description of the activities might not be available when your organizations are actually applying for funding. For us donors it might be often difficult to actually improve a project without knowing exactly what you will do with the money. So on the one hand the donors need to learn to be a bit more open to the uncertainty as part of CDA but scientifically some evidence about the effectiveness and efficiency as well as the monitoring system might help us on the other hand to still have a strong case why we should invest in CDA. Third, what is clear is that all these challenges cannot be solved by one organization on its own but we have to increase our cooperation, our coordination and our exchange. So next to firms such as this conference, there are many other possibilities to do that. One example would be the Friends of Ecosystem based adaptation, FIBA, a former network but also communities of practice on a global or regional scale. UNFCCC official channels also provide the possibility to improve coordination and exchange. So on behalf of the German Ministry for the Environment, I thank everybody involved in this conference for all your inputs, especially thanks to the organizers for our perfect logistics and the thematic guidance and the government for being such a welcoming host. So I hope to see you all again at CDA as well. Thank you.