 Hello again, everyone, and welcome. This is the fifth event in the FAO's webinar series on enhanced transparency framework in the agriculture and land use sectors. I'm Susan Tarabi Parisi and I will be moderating this session today. To start, I would like to thank and welcome more than 70 attendees and the number is going up. Participants in this virtual room are distinguished speakers and partners from the Global Support Program, Initiative for Climate Action Transparency and UNEPTU partnership. And of course, my own colleagues from the FAO headquarters and the country offices. Today, we will have an introduction to the adaptation reporting under the Paris Agreement with the focus on loss and damage assessment. In the next slide, you see the agenda of today. To start with, we'll hear a few words on the general work of the FAO ETF team, including this webinar series. Then we will have an overview of adaptation reporting through biennial transparency reports. We will then continue with the snapshot of the FAO's work on the topic of damage and loss and how it could be utilized for the purpose of reporting under the ETF. And last but not least, we will hear from country experiences in loss and damage assessment anticipatory measures in the agriculture sectors before we close the session. With that, I would like to hand the floor to Mirella Salvatore to kickstart the event today. Mirella, over to you. Thank you so much, Susan, for the introduction and thank you so much to everybody for participating into these amazing events. First of all, you know, allow me to say that this event years as Susan was already saying part of a series under the capacity to progress that FAO is running for addressing transparency in country. For this reason, we also set up a proper transparency network of practitioners in specifically agriculture and land use sector. So just in case that you didn't join our network, we really love to have this opportunity to have you on board in the network and having so many of the experts on adaptation and adaptation reporting in our network. It would be great if you can join and Susan will provide you the link in the chat. So you can easily just have a look and join our network. This will allow you really to be part and to be contacted for any other future event and informed about the work that we are doing on transparency. I would like to welcome so much our colleague from the UNEP DTU and from the UNEP GSP and under the umbrella of the collaborations of the ICAD because in reality this event is a sort of a follow up of the events that our previously our colleagues did just recently where we started to learn from the country the needs of this specific item that wants it to be addressed better understand better what and how they can do it. And that is a really the spirit of also this joint event to try to support each other also from an organizational point of view to ensure to give a next step forward for the country in in learning how to address the non transparency framework. So based on that one I really wish that the session will be really fruitful and very knowledgeable for you. Feel free all the time to reach us out. If you have any further questions and and also start also to send the messages through the network to our email to what you really think that your country will benefit to move to towards the non transparency framework. And we are really happy to develop something that really fit your country needs. So thank you so much Susan back to you. Thank you very much Mirella as you mentioned this online learning session is a response to the interest expressed by many country experts to learn more about the element g of the etf modalities procedures and guidance related to loss and damage before we approach element G though. We thought to have a brief overview of all adaptation related reporting elements through the BTRs this topic is covered as you mentioned in a recent publication by ICAT and UNEP DTU, which I will share the link to in the chat. And today we're pleased to be joined by Thomas William Dale one of the lead authors of this publication who will provide us with an overview of this work. Thomas, thank you so much for joining us today and the floor is yours. Okay, yeah, so thanks. As Suzanne said I'm going to be giving an introduction of adaptation reporting through the biennial transparency report. So the purpose of this presentation is to do three things. It's to first give you a quick and general introduction to what the biennial transparency reports actually is and just for reference I will now be referring to the biennial transparency report from here on in as the BTR. It's also to give you an overview of the information that its adaptation section should include according to the guidelines provided. And, and finally to close I'd like to also give an overview of some of the key challenges countries are going to face in reporting comprehensively against these guidelines. So, starting from the bottom, I'm going to provide a quick overview of what the BTR actually is. So, as its name suggests, the BTR is a transparency oriented report that is to be produced by countries and submitted to the UNFCCC every two years. It represents a key component of the Paris Agreement's transparency infrastructure, otherwise known as the enhanced transparency framework which is intended to enable the COP to track collective progress being made towards achieving all the goals under the Paris Agreement. The BTR's role within this framework is to operationalize the transfer of information from countries to the UNFCCC. And this includes information relating to mitigation, vulnerability and adaptation, loss and damage, support provided and support received. So, I mean countries have already been reporting to the UNFCCC via a number of instruments up until now. So, in terms of what will change once countries start beginning to report through the BTR, the biggest differences related to adaptation are that, firstly, countries will now be able to report an adaptation every two years. This is actually quite a big change since under the current arrangement countries can only report an adaptation once every four years through their national communications. Secondly, countries will now be able to report on loss and damage, which wasn't strictly possible according to the guidelines of other instruments that are presently available. And finally, reporting on adaptation through the BTR is intended to be more comprehensive and of a higher quality than reporting that is presently occurring through the national communications of countries. So, moving on to the main purpose of this presentation, I'm now going to give a quick overview of what adaptation-related information the guidelines for the BTR actually request. So, the guidelines for the BTR are detailed in decision 18, CMA 0.1, which were released after the Katowice COP or COP24. And within this document, the guidelines for all the BTR's adaptation section can be found divided into nine sections, which are A to I. These sections serve to divide the many requests contained within the guidelines into general areas of information. Now, using the titles of each section as a general guide, one can immediately get a good indication of what kind of information should be included within a BTR's adaptation section. Now, as one would expect, the major share of these guidelines are focused on how countries should report on their adaptation processes. And these are covered by sections A to F, which are highlighted now, and provide instructions on how countries should report on all aspects of their ongoing national adaptation process. Breaking this down a bit further, we can see that sections A to D of the guidelines are asking countries to report on the different stages of their adaptation planning processes that they've undertaken thus far. So meeting these guidelines would essentially mean reporting on everything from the results of climate change projections and vulnerability assessments that they've conducted to reporting on the adaptation measures that they've selected to overcome the key vulnerabilities and risks they've identified. As the vast majority of this information is the result of past planning processes, one would expect most of this information to come from previous planning documents. And this could include, for example, national and sectoral adaptation plans, strategies, and also NAPS. So moving on to sections E and F of these guidelines, these still relate to reporting on adaptation and ask countries to provide updated information on how their adaptation plans are going or have gone. So in particular, these sections are asking countries to provide information about how the implementation of planned adaptation is progressing and what the results of implemented actions have actually been. And with regards to the actual results, the guidelines in section F, which is requesting results, are actually quite comprehensive. And as well as asking countries to provide information about the observed outcomes and impacts of adaptation actions, the guidelines are also asking countries to provide evaluations of how successful these actions have been. In particular, in terms of their effectiveness in achieving the desired result, their adequacy in relation to the climate impacts that they're facing, and also their sustainability over the medium to long term. Providing such evaluations is going to require countries to establish and use monitoring evaluation systems that enable data provided by indicators and other data collection techniques, such as surveys and what have you, to be assessed to be assessed by experts who can then evaluate the various dimensions of adaptation success based on this information. Alongside the guidelines for reporting on adaptation section G provides countries with an opportunity to report on loss and damage within their BTRs. Now the guidelines for reporting on loss and damage are relatively novel under the UNFCCC. This is the only instrument which actually has guidelines on doing this, but they're nowhere near as detailed or comprehensive as those provided for adaptation. And the guidelines provided can broadly be understood as asking countries to do three things. The first is to report on losses and damages that have been or are expected to be suffered as a result of climate change. The second is to report on measures that your country is implementing to manage present and future losses and damages. And the third is to provide information about institutional arrangements that your country has established or is using to facilitate the management of loss and damage. And section H, meanwhile, also not relating directly to adaptation is asking countries to provide information about activities that support adaptation processes at national and international levels. For example, guidelines within the section are asking countries to provide information on international collaborations and networking events that the reporting countries involved in. And it's also asking countries to report on efforts to strengthen systematic observation systems and also research related to adaptation. Finally, section I of the guidelines doesn't actually ask any countries to provide any information or specific information per se, but instead it allows countries to include any other information related to climate change impacts or adaptation that's otherwise not included by the guidelines. So essentially this acts as a mechanism to let countries report on anything they feel the guidelines has missed but they want to report on. Okay, finally, before concluding this presentation, I would like to provide an overview of some of the key challenges countries are going to face in reporting comprehensively against these new guidelines, particularly the new and improved aspects of these guidelines for adaptation reporting. In particular, I'm going to focus on the challenges that countries face in reporting on firstly adaptation results and then secondly loss and damage. So starting with the area of adaptation results. So the greatest challenge that countries are going to face in reporting on the results of adaptation, is that many countries are yet to develop an operationalized systems for monitoring evaluating their key adaptation actions. So in other words, they don't have any systems to to track progress in their national level strategies plans and policies. And this this sort of sweeping statement particularly applies to systems that can actually evaluate whether these actions have been successful in achieving their overall objective objectives, which would be reducing vulnerability or increasing resilience. Generally speaking, the development of these M&E systems for adaptation have been hindered by a mix of practical and methodological challenges. So practical challenges would be things like a lack of financial technical or human resources that are required to operate such a system and these aren't necessarily small, while methodological challenges would be those associated with evaluating adaptation. And with regards to the methodological challenges, while there's a wide range of interlink challenges that stymie monitoring evaluation of the impacts of adaptation or the results, the key challenges or two key challenges include the fact that there's no universal or off the shelf metrics for monitoring adaptation results, which means that countries have to spend a lot of time and effort designing and developing their own context and local specific metrics which can take time, energy and resources, and also the fact that there's no widely agreed methodologies for assessing key concepts such as effectiveness, adequacy and sustainability of adaptation. And the assessment of this is key to understanding if adaptation efforts being implemented are enough in the present and the long term. And finally, with regards to reporting on loss and damage, probably the greatest challenge facing countries wishing to report on loss and damage is the fact that there's a general absence of robust approaches and methodologies for fully evaluating loss and damage related to climate change at present. And in part, this is partially due to the fact that the loss and damage field is still relatively new, particularly in relation to adaptation and mitigation. And as such, many methodologies are still in the process of being developed, and obviously we're going to hear about one of these later today. However, the fact that these methodologies and approaches haven't yet been fully developed is also because there's large methodological challenges in fully capturing and quantifying loss and damage due to climate change. And this can be a complex process that requires high quality data and can involve dealing with a great amount of uncertainties. In particular, assessing loss and damage can be tricky when one wants to assess loss and damage due to slow onset events, which is difficult to evaluate due to the inherent uncertainties associated with assessing impacts over long time horizons, or the long time horizons that slow onset events are occurring over, and also assessing non-economic loss and damage, which is difficult to evaluate due to the non-tangible nature of non-economic loss and damage, which means that it's difficult to quantify generally, but particularly in economic terms, which would obviously make it comparable and easier to understand and handle. So as such, when loss and damage is being evaluated at present, it's generally limited to focusing on the direct economic impacts of extreme weather events, and even then it's often done so without full sectoral coverage. Okay, and that's my presentation, so thank you very much. Thank you very much, Thomas, for the concise overview of adaptation reporting under the BTR. I see one question for you in the chat, so I'll just read it, and the BTR will be effective on December 24, the latest. We will happen to countries that have not submitted the BUR. Will this country continue developing BURs after 2024, or they will move to the BTR, and how they can bridge the gap? Okay, so my understanding of this is that countries who are presently have secured funding for a BUR and are presently developing the BUR will still be able to develop the BUR even if it goes over the 2024 deadline. I'm not 100% sure what the bridge to the gap is referring to, but in regards to the first part of the question, I believe that's the situation. I can see we have my colleague Fatima Zahra, who's also quite into this subject area. Is my answer correct, Fatima? Can I confirm? If I understood, I cannot see the question in the chat, but if I understood properly it's what happens if countries do not manage to submit the BUR before 2024, whether they can continue with it or whether they have to submit a BTR. So the first thing I think to understand is that the timelines that are specified by UN at CCC are for developing and developed countries, excluding the LDCs and CIDs, and it's at their discretion. So there is no hard lines for LDCs and CIDs with regard to the timelines for submission of the BTR, though they are of course encouraged to comply with the other timelines that are specified for everyone. However, if a country has funding from Jeff to develop the BUR and are not able basically to submit that BUR before the deadline, there would be provisions coming in. I think if my memory serves me right in 2022 with new modalities for Jeff funding that would be actually providing some bridge funding so that countries can actually instead of continuing with the BUR, they can bridge that gap and convert it to a BTR. So these modalities are not yet available for now, but I think it will be available in 2022. Thank you very much, Thomas for the great presentation and thank you so much for adding to Thomas's response. I see a few questions in the chat, although they are more related to the methodology and the topic of loss and damage. In the interest of time, I suggest we move on to the next agenda item and we will address those questions as the meeting progresses and maybe you find your answers during the presentation of our next speakers. Next up, we will hear from Elisa DiStefano on how FAO damage and loss methodology could be used for reporting purposes in the context of the enhanced transparency framework. This presentation is recorded beforehand, but Elisa herself is in the room to respond to any comments and questions you may have. Let's watch the video together. Good morning. Welcome to the webinar. My name is Elisa DiStefano and I work at the Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment of FAO at work. And here I will introduce the use of the methodology to monitor the Sendai framework indicator C2 on direct agricultural loss from disasters in the context of the enhanced transparency framework. My colleague, Dira Kim, will give more in-depth insight in the methodology and how the population is made, but in the next presentation. By here I just introduced that the methodology can be applied to wide range of disasters, including temporary events, and covers of five different agricultural sectors, namely crops, livestock, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries. In the next slide here, we can see that as an integral part of the monitoring framework of the Sendai and as well as the SPG agenda, the FAO methodology can be used to monitor progress towards the reduction of the direct economic impact of disasters on agriculture. And it can be also used to report and to collect adaptation information for element G of the non-transparency framework as per the Modality Procedures and Guidelines that recommend that countries provide information related to action and support to avert, minimize and address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts. Here we have more insight and more detailed overview of the different components of element G. Element G A refers to the observed and potential climate change impacts, including those related to extreme events, extreme weather events and slow and set events. The information here should be provided on the best available science and the use of the FAO methodology provides a global standard type definition of how damage and loss can be measured, and it would ensure the consistency across countries, regions and disasters for all agricultural sectors. So the analysis of the end evaluation of the impact of the climate related disaster can contribute to reporting under this element. On the other hand, on the next slide we can see here that the component B that refers to activities that are related to advertising, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with climate change impact as per the Modality Procedures and Guidelines, information can be collected to the establishment of an information system that requires several actions, including data collection, managing of the databases, calculating and analyzing the information, and disseminating the results to policymakers. By establishing the information system as per the FAO guidelines, institutional capacity for monitoring, collecting, climate related information on disaster in agriculture can be announced, as well as information to the dissemination of information for policy making and planning. Now, thank you. I can share here my content details and we will have a more in depth overview in the next presentation. Thank you. Great. With this introduction, I would like to invite Virja came from the FAO Office of Emergencies and Resilience to walk us through the Sendai C2 methodology for damage and loss assessment in agriculture. And we'll get back to the questions afterwards. Virja, the floor is yours. Super. So, good morning. Good afternoon to all depending on where you are. My name is Virja Kim. I am the for the of the FAO Office of Emergency and Resilience. First of all, I would like to thank the organizer for inviting us to be here today to participate in this important webinar. Thanks also to Elisa for her presentation earlier, which already present and discuss, I'll highlight some of the linkages on how the ever damage and loss methodology could be used in the context of the transparency framework. Now, it is important to point out that we need to be clear on what the ever damage and loss methodology could offer. So far, it has been used only to quantify the direct economic impacts resulting from natural hazards, induced disasters and extreme events on agriculture. On this basis, and with the help of our statisticians, we can find a way to expect and separate the kind of induced extreme events and impact, can this present a link and a right to enter points to support the adaptation reporting. And now, sorry, I just need to jump between my screen. So, okay. Okay, so I would like now to start my presentation with this slide earlier this year. This is the latest report on the impact of disaster and crisis on pre-cultural security, which is part of the knowledge product on damage and loss and disaster resurrection. It is the report presents the most recent trends in agricultural production loss attributed to disasters across all agricultural sub sectors. We analyzed the latest data to make a powerful case for investing in disaster resurrection, climate change adaptation and resilient building. You can download the report from the link right in this slide, and one of the most striking messages from the report is that between 2008 to 2008, agriculture, including crops, livestock, forestry, fishery and agriculture, have sold 26% of the overall impacts caused by medium to large scale disasters in low and low middle income countries. So we have a closer look related to industry commerce and to result taken as a whole, agriculture on its own, there's 66% of the damage and loss from from disasters. So, with this slide, I would like to give a brief background on how the FAO damage and loss methodology was developed. So within the FAO, the work on damage and loss is coordinated by the FAO statistic division and Office of Emergency Industry and with substantial technical input from our technical division such as forestry, fishery, livestock crops, and of course the organization. So the methodology was developed to address the needs for agricultural specific methodology with the emphasis on data disaggregation by commodity types. This is, this is really the most important thing that's important to disagree data by commodity type by crops types, livestock types. And it started since the Heal Go framework for action, and the momentum boom much stronger when the FAO presented the draft methodology in the Sendai conference in March 2015, which received like very strong by and from Member State for the need to have this methodology that addresses specificity of agriculture. And after the Sendai, the adoption of the Sendai conference in March 2015, I will continue to further the truth and find the methodology and in post collaboration with the United Nations Office for Disaster Disruption. The methodology was approved and adopted by Member States in the open ended intergovernmental expert working group on disaster reduction in Geneva in 2017. And throughout 2018, we have been working closely with the United Nations Office for Disaster Disruption during DRR to ensure that the methodology will be fully reflected and then adopted for the Sendai framework in the Header C2. As you can see on the right side of this slide, the FAO methodology uses standardized computation methods to assess the direct damage and loss that occurs in the agricultural sectors as a result of disasters, which takes into the considerations of all the agricultural, the specificity of each of the five sub sectors, mainly crops, livestock, forestry, agriculture and fishing. And the computation, I would like to inform you that the computation of the methodologies is presented in details in the people annex of the FAO latest report that I mentioned earlier in the previous slide as well as in the guiding notes for the damage and loss assessment in agriculture, and these two resources have already been made available to all participants through the webinar website. So, in this slide, you will see that the three components of the FAO damage and loss methodology are presented in a matrix table. The FAO, production damage, production loss and asset damage. So, starting with the terminology damage, we define damage as the replacement of the care costs of totally or partially destroyed physical assets and stops in the disaster affected areas. The cost refers to the changes in economic flows, organized from disasters, that is, the decline in outputs in crops, livestock, forestry, fishing and agriculture. So, as you could see on this slide, production damage is the value of destroy store inputs and production outputs. The cost of production loss is the difference between expected and actual value of production and the asset damage is the cost to repair or replace damage or destroy assets. On this slide here summarized the total effects of disasters in every culture presented in the five equation here with the three key components, again, production damage, production loss and asset damage across all of the subsectors. Now, zooming into the closer to the methodology here. Here is an example on how we compute C2 indicator for the crop impact. So, C2 crop sector impacts is the sum of annual crop production damage, perennial crop production damage, annual crop production loss, perennial crop production loss and crop asset damage, complete, both complete and partially damaged assets. So, for the crop sectors, we are looking at both annual and perennial crops. In order and after an earlier in order to present the full characteristic of the damage and loss in each of the subsectors, we are looking at three components production damage, production loss and asset damage. So, for the crop production damage, we are looking at the folding aspect. First, pre-disaster value of the store inputs. Second, pre-disaster value of the store crops annual and perennial, and third, the replacement value of fully damaged perennial trees. And for production loss, pre-compute, the difference is between expected and actual value of crop production in non-fully damaged harvested area. The pre-second, the pre-disaster value of the store crop in fully damaged areas, non-harvested at all, and short run post-disaster management post. And for the asset damage, we calculate pre-disaster value of partially or fully destroyed assets. So this brings me to my next point, which I would like to make is that about data, data reform and data limitation and what it means in terms of credit reporting. So this is the, in ideal case scenario, in ideal case scenario, this is how it looks like. So you will have all of the data and information for each of the subsectors, subcomponents here. So in the production damage, you will have all of these detail of the information and data that lists here in this slide. I will not force you in all of the detail. And for production loss, you will have all of the detail as presented in this slide and the same for asset damage. So the point you would like to make is that with this availability of data, you will understand. It will allow you to be able to understand and have a holistic understanding of what went on in the agricultural sector following the disasters. So, but having said that. Okay, so slide here, this slide also showed that the methodology can also function with a minimum or limited data availability. However, it's still very important to have the disoccupation by commodity types. This means that the methodology can work with a wide range of spectrum of data availability, and also it can work with quite few data and taking this opportunity as I would also like to inform you that the data, the optimum data and minimum data are provided in the technical annex of the phone and also of the guiding notes that I mentioned earlier, which are already made available for all of the participants to just set them up. In fact, I also with interest in interest of time, I will not be able to go through all of the other four sub sectors of the of the Africa sector, but the presentation will be made available to all participants after the webinar so it's in the slide, a hidden mode so that you cannot see. In fact, I would like to show you how it looked like in brief for the crop sector, as well as the livestock sector for the Africa cultural fishery and forestry. So then now I would like to move to the next one here. So I would like to share with you with this e-learning course that FAO developed. So with this e-learning course you can learn about the concept of FAO damage and loss and also how they are calculated, what are the data requirements, data source and also looking into the importance of the institutional collaboration for data collection and analysis and how the damage and loss can be data can be used at the global level and also to inform national policy and planning. So this e-learning course is available free of charge at the FAO e-learning academy. It's about two hours so if those for those of you who are interested to learn more about the FAO damage and loss disability please feel free to go to the website and I think that you will enjoy it. This led me to my last slide. So this is really a tool to conclude. I know that my time is running out. This provides the many good progress that we have made, I think from the FAO perspective, greater progress and development support has been much needed in order to improve national damage and loss information system in order to collect and report data on disaster related loss in the culture and further support is needed at a complete level including reaching out to and facilitate data collection and monitoring at sub-national level in order to meet the global commitment once the national system are functioning. And lastly, we need to work together in order to further generate data evidence for policy making in disaster reduction, disaster risk management and climate change action in the cultural sector. So I would like to inform that as I mentioned by our previous speaker Thomas that there are still some challenges in reporting in terms of the adaptation. So from the FAO side, we are about to commence our collaboration with the post-amplifier research and the University of Paso to develop a methodology building on the current one that the damage and loss disability that FAO has has been implementing in order to distinguish and quantify the proportion of production losses in a pre-culture of crop yields by extreme and slow onset events as part of the overall kind of change impact. So this is not an easy task, it's still working in process. We hope to start the research very soon and hopefully that in the next six months we will be able also to come up with some key findings to be able to mitigate all of you again. But it's still working in process and we hope that we will be successful in this endeavor. With this, I would like to thank you for your attention. And I put here also the contact in case you are interested in to learn more about, to reach out to us, please feel free to write us at al-dr.com. Thank you. Thank you very much, Virya and also Elisa for a comprehensive yet concise presentation. In this limited time, it is understandable that you can't go into all the details, but I am sure that participants will appreciate the information that you're going to share with us in the slides, Virya. And now that we have you here, may I ask you a few of the questions that are posted regarding the topic of loss and damage? One of our participants is asking, you mentioned methodological and practical restrictions for adaptation, monitoring and evaluation. I wonder if there are additionally some conceptual restrictions for the loss and damage. In my experience, we'll still have difficulties to conceive loss and damage or vulnerability beyond economic categories. I think to some extent you responded to it during your presentation, but we would appreciate another go on it. And also, there are two other questions related to loss and damage. One is the contamination of rivers and lakes and oceans from leaching toxic chemicals or the damage caused by that is counted in any way in this, in the loss and damage assessment. And the other question is about it is important to differentiate the loss and damage caused by climate change from other than caused by natural climate variability. So how do we approach these topics? I think that's all on this topic. And then there's another question for Elisa that I will ask later. Would you like to respond? Thank you. So that's very, very good, many, many questions. I hope I would be able to capture all of the questions that you mentioned in the microphone. My headset doesn't work quite well. So the challenges for the, for the, from, from outside in terms of reporting, first of all, which is the limitation of the data availability in some cases. Sometimes we have to deal with very, very minimum data that we have. So, but with the methodology, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of the data desecration, so by, by company, by community tax that help us enable us to be able to come up with some of the good enough assessment from, from the losses. More work needs to be done in order to feel a greater capacity in terms of like the national data, data damage and loss information system to make sure that it is functioning. And then I should see if you go deeper into, into the at the country level sometime with the stakeholders that we are working with. So in the case of Chile, we are working closely with the ministry of culture who take the lead in terms of the supporting the institutionalization of the damage and loss system that FAO has implemented, right. And then, while in Armenia, you will see that it is the ministry of emergency, the DRR PowerPoint, who is the one who take the lead the champion in taking up the institutionalization and implementation of the damage and loss information system. And at the same time, in, in the other case in Nepal, you have the dimensional statistics office who is the lead. So, we, there's no one size fit all. So, in terms of what we have done so far without working to see the woman supported countries. It's first of all it's really to understand what exists at the specific to country context, and then we have a multi stakeholder dialogue kind of a discussion with the dissimilational government multi stakeholder then come up with a lot of matter in order to have to go about it. But this is something that we are still trying to address because as I mentioned earlier, each country has different context. And then, I did not get the second question, if you could repeat or I can also address you should be the right thing if it is already available in India. I think your response was very much was very much a fit for for both questions that I asked. And one of the colleagues is asking how does the methodology work is it online or not and you could probably respond that in the chat in writing if that's not a problem. Thank you very much. We are going back to Thomas. I understand that you type the answer to the question that was about the metrics for measuring adaptation regarding the global goal for adaptation but I would also like to ask Thomas if he has any thoughts on the questions that we ask on the conceptual limitation when it comes to it to defining loss and damage. And if you would like to add any other points at this stage, Thomas the floor is yours. Thank you. Unfortunately, my my sound cut out a bit in in Miriam's answer but yeah I think the in terms of the limitations to to defining loss and damage as I touched upon briefly in my presentation and apologies if I'm if I'm repeating any of this. You know is the fact that you know the moment conceptualizing loss damages is to a large extent stuck in the economic direct economic costs which is, you know, from the costs directly caused by extreme weather events and sharp shocks. And I think in terms of method methodologically speaking, there needs to be some improvement in assessing the costs of indirect costs or the costs that occur after the event but are still due to the initial shock but not necessarily to the impacts of the shock itself. So in terms of an extreme weather event this could be like loss in tourism or you know, long lasting effects of of. Yeah, these impacts and then also there there is definitely a lot of it's really difficult to quantify in a way that's useful and applicable to everyone the non economic costs of. Climate impacts and so that this can be really intangible things like a loss of sense of being. It can be a loss of territory loss of cultural sites. And you know these are, for many reasons really hard to quantify in a way that truly captures the losses that are actually occurring in the long term, and also allocate you know, attributing these to to climate change is is even. More than it that it is with shop shop economic shops which of course has its own methodological differences. Right, thank you very much Thomas. I hope if there's any other questions you could answer them in the chat or in a written format. Elisa, I would like to come to you to kind of wrap up this Q&A part with a question. One methodological challenges are recognized are the recommended evaluation approach to adaptation I know that it's a little broader than the scope of this event which is focused on loss and damage, but I thought it might be worth trying to at least give us a bigger picture and zoom out again and put this topic in the context of adaptation reporting, particularly with the focus on please. Yes, I will be brief since we have two speakers from the countries, but there are no silver bullets with regard to I would expand the answer, not only to evaluation but monitoring and evaluation of adaptation. We recognize the limitation that we've discussed briefly in the presentation FAO proposes a potential flexible and consistent framework for tracking adaptation in the agricultural sector has developed a framework recognizing the fact that there is the need to understand the relationship when assessing the effectiveness, adequacy and sustainability of the adaptation action and responses by looking at the relationship between the climatic context, environmental context, the socio-economic and the institutional policy systems. So we propose a methodology which is called TAS tracking adaptation in the agricultural sector. I share the link with the chat box, but basically this is a compilation of 109 or 110 indicators. We look at how you can assess adaptation progress in the same sectors crops, livestock, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture that we actually use to apply and assess the loss and damage methodology. So we again look at four main categories of indicators and we propose a methodology for assessing adaptation progress. But then there are many other on the field, on the ground, the tools that can be applied. We have in particular one which is called SHARP, that we have been promoting it as part of the CPTafolo project and again I can share it's like a field assessment tool for assessing adaptation and resilience of farmers and pastoralists. Again I share the link on the chat box. Thank you very much Elisa and we will make sure to add those links and any other resources that was mentioned today on the event web page. So I invite all participants to keep an eye on that page also for the recording and slides after the conclusion of the event. With that, I would like to conclude this Q&A part. As Elisa mentioned, we have two country representatives that will share their practical experiences from the field with us, but before that, may I ask for all of us to participate in this poll that is going to be launched in a second. You see the questions. Does your country already report on loss and damage and if so through which channels? I would like to thank you everyone for your participation. In this next part we are pleased to be joined by representatives from Bangladesh and Mongolia and here practical examples from their efforts on loss and damage related assessments, actions and reporting. We'll start with Bangladesh and Mr. MTA's Ahmed who will provide an example of how anticipatory loss and damage assessment can help to reduce the climate change related impacts. This presentation is pre-recorded, but MTA's is present for any questions or comments you may have. I would like to ask our tech support colleagues to play the presentation. Thank you. Hello everyone from Bangladesh. So I'm here to present the anticipatory flood response that we did for 2020 monsoon floods in Bangladesh, the impact-based forecasting model that we utilize and the methodology that we utilize to assess the impacts. So, Bangladesh has a long history of deuster management. However, the country's current deuster management plan as well as studying models and disaster is heavily founded on the Sendai framework and Paris Agreement. These two documents actually explicitly lays the foundation for focus-based financing or anticipatory action. So taking this opportunity, Ocha introduced an anticipatory action framework, which is based on flood focus model with a period of five years for the Bajumuna basin. This is actually a two-stage trigger system with 10 days for trigger one and five days before the flood peak. So to develop this model for trigger one, we used low-fast forecasting data. And for trigger two, we used the national sort of forecasting warning centers focus model. So based on this, the most flood-affected areas and the estimation of population and loss of assets was used to develop a composite index and the final do develop impact-based forecasting model to select the priority or target areas. So as you can see, the trigger one was turned on for July, while the trigger two was activated on 11 July. And this is the flood condition that a map that was developed using the data, inundation data on 15 July. And as you can see that last year's flood was among one of the highest in the last 35 years. To respond to this, FA actually delivered two kind of assistance. Some 7,000 households received sea level drums to valuing around $11 and some 11,000 households received animal feed, valuing around $24. So although by principle, anticipatory assistance is supposed to be delivered before flood peak, the trigger was activated almost one month before anticipated time. And so we had little preparation. However, we managed to cover all the target that we had for the response within flood peaks. However, from the unspent funds, we made additional distributions and that was a bit delayed due to EAD and other events. The timeline was significant because following the floods, there was Idul Azha, when the largest livestock sales take place in the country as a Muslim country. And also the among planting time that contributes to the bulk amount of food grain in the country. So to assess the impact we did a counterfactual analysis, we have 384 beneficiary households and 413 non beneficiary households as well as we collected human interest stories to have qualitative insights. So the assessment actually had five pillars. The first one being food security then coping strategy and estimation of avoided loss and return on direct investment and beneficial perception. So in terms of food consumption we didn't find much of a difference apart from that the beneficiary households less number of beneficial households reported poor food consumption status. In terms of coping strategy, we didn't find any significant difference either. However, in terms of loan we found that beneficial households were less likely to take new loans. And the size was smaller and also non beneficiaries spend more loan money to buy any notes and food. The syllable drums, the beneficiaries reported were useful, and it was able to save the seeds. However, we, they reported contradictory picture for the amount of food that they were able to save using the drums. In terms of livestock mortality, we found that the beneficiary houses reported less mortality while only for cattle in terms of animal health, we had a contradictory picture where the non beneficiaries reported lesser deterioration body condition. We also tried to analyze the difference between early and late assistance. By late we are defining those receiving assistance. After the flood peak. However, we didn't find much of a difference. However, we've the small difference that we found that the late response spend more money on livestock, and they had a lower food consumption status. So then, all these avoided losses were converted into monetary values. Translated as fellow assets and production and the difference was again then compared with the total project cost. And we found that per dollar spent. The amount of investment was 80 cents. However, the beneficiaries feel that this assistance was useful to protect the livestock when there was no feed available or even protect their seeds that they used to plant in the coming next ongoing season. And they felt that the intervention was effective and timely. However, they also opted that further complimentary assistance is where required, especially cash livelihood food and more feed. Another important finding was that 68% of the respondents reported that their local markets from where the source of inputs food and animal feed when not fully functional during the times of the flood. And also the livestock feed recipients reported of receiving 20% higher prices compared to their counterfactuals when selling their cattle. There was another Ocha assessment that followed soon after this assessment, two rounds, it had two rounds and the findings more or less aligned. It's notable here that a few beneficiaries had one of the highest rates of recovery compared to other responding agencies. And I feel the key takeaway was that if you was able to test its capacity and experience in a fast sitting hazard contest context. Also, we realized that we should further fine tune the trigger mechanism because often we found the glow fast and FWC focus contradicting, and there are certain errors to the design. Also, flexible financing and pre positioning is required for further agility, along with layered and coordinated action by responding in so for 2021. We are actually doing common household profiling a multi agency one, and planning for complimentary assistance, combining cash and NFI is by different agencies, along with early warning messaging. Also, we found that, apart from the department of deers from management, the other technical agencies involved in livestock and agriculture sector. They need more sensitization and this needs to be further integrated with social protection and resilience programming. Thank you. Thank you very much for this presentation. I understand that we are behind the agenda I apologize to everyone for any inconvenience caused and without further ado, we will go to our colleague from Mongolia. I'm going to use Anna I hope I pronounced your name correctly to share Mongolia's experience in developing and testing a framework for climate change related loss and damage and thanks for joining us and the floor is yours. Okay, so I was allocated seven minutes years. I would be shot. I represent center for policy research it's independent think tank and we are engaged mostly in livestock and cash wasn't the issues and asked to represent on this issue so Mongolia is, you know, one of the hardest heat countries by climate change. And also this is just brief information is about Mongolia between China and Russia is very high attitude country very harsh winter minus 25 degrees in the in the winter and very one of the empties. One empties country is 3.2 million people on 1.5 million square kilometer of land and agriculture is quite big. 12% of GDP and almost one foot of employment and left the curtain is a major economic activity and social safety needs for poor Mongolia's and Mongolian agriculture is of course absolutely dependent on harsh and highly viable natural environment. And as a result, productivity is very low for both animals and also for crop, we have very low crop yield, the hectare and low and productivity, and of course it advantage of this harsh natural environment is that Mongolian livestock produces potentially in products, you know, 95% is based on grass feed, you know, natural pastures. So this is just a general situation of Mongolia it's mostly located in unsuitable zone by international zone by a few here. For example, crop yield is only one ton compared to our neighbors to three tons in two tons in Russia and in other countries. Milk yield is very low 600 liters per cow per year. This, it's just a general assessment of how climate change is impacts Mongolian agriculture and this is actually climate change, vulnerability index estimates by Nature Minister of environment and tourism be opened. Currently, Mongolia stands here, but in 2050, this will be the increase in many, many processes in general because of this increase in the temperature and and drying out is Mongolia becomes more vulnerable to climate change. In 2019, it was the first attempt to estimate damage and loss, agricultural damage and loss, it was actually FAO project is strengthening disaster demand and loss information. Managing in agriculture supervised by Miss Hank Van Farm. And we actually produced historical agricultural damage and loss database for 2005-2018 for 14 years in line with FAO methodology and we have reviewed and also made some diagnosis of the national agriculture damage and loss information management system and produced some recommendations and recommendations for setting up all of our culture damage and loss information management system. Also recommendations include how to integrate agricultural damage and loss data into national. Sindai framework monitoring and reporting. And also continued sharing of agricultural damage and loss data with national disaster management authority. So major issues we have included in our estimates, you know, we have drought and also soup. This is very much Mongolia specific winter disaster. The condition of snow and extreme temperature making animals unable to grace and start to death and transponder the disease, which is also another issue also impacted by climate change. Of course, livestock faith is not very much climate change related but it's again it's also one of the biggest risks or losses. So it is also included in our estimates store mined wind. This is the last one. And for crop. We also estimated drought, hail, and the snow. This is just general summary table of what kind of natural disaster was estimated and how much is the total damage and loss. As you can see here for this 2005 and 2018 total loss, total damage and loss was around 1.6 trillion. It's around 800 million US dollar out of this total amount, almost 84% belongs to this drought and the mostly do you know this winter disaster and others also come for a little percent percentages like 100 disease and followed by. And this again shows this big disaster happens in 2009 2010 because of this Mongolia lost around almost one foot of total livestock to the winter disaster thought. This is it's a major event affecting who does livelihoods and also biggest damage. But these actually just keep findings. So key barrier to prepare and use an adequate damage and loss estimated the lack of clarity. We got the rules and functions and coordination on agriculture damage and loss estimate among involved agencies like minister of food agriculture, national emergency management authority and national statistics laws. These are three major authorities engaged in data collection reporting and disaster management, there is some lack of clarity and also some other functions. As a result, there is no long term historical data were aggregated and subsequent damage and loss assessment was undertaken to inform. Send a framework. So this is a major issue lack of data historical data and capacities and commitment of organizations are also low to to information and reporting of these damaging loss data. And also there is serious lack of data to estimate losses. We have quite good information and data on damage like lost animals no kill the animals by. But loss or productivity loss that is very much like missing. This is just recommendations we put forward for government firstly my father minister of food and agriculture and national statistics also need to work towards to make sure that lost that are required by the provided template will be collected. This template was actually provided by FAO. It was good template and this template was suggested to be featured in regularly annually by districts and integrates that's a provincial level and national levels. And was Dr if I may come in just in the interest of time. Would you mind wrapping up the presentation at this point, noting that the presentations will be shared with participants. We have time to read the slides, but we would love to hear a few closing words from you. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. That's all you can read all these recommendations and happy to present to this workshop and thank you very much. Thank you so much and and empty eyes for very, very informative presentations. I am sure there's a lot of questions and a lot to be learned from your experiences. Unfortunately, we don't have time for a Q&A segment at this point. But if you don't mind, it would be great if you share your contact in the chat box. So if colleagues have any questions could reach out by laterally. I am afraid that you have to close the session at this point. I believe we managed to cover a lot of grounds in this limited time thanks to excellent presentations and engagement by all panelists and participants to wrap up the discussion. I would like to invite Fatima Zahra from the GSB to take the floor share her thoughts and the discussions, as well as possible next steps to keep up the capacity building work for enhanced transparency in adaptation reporting. Fatima Zahra, I would also like to express our appreciation on behalf of the FAO transparency team to you and your outstanding team for an excellent collaboration for the organization of this event. And obviously beyond that the floor is yours. Thank you, Suzanne. Thank you for this nice introduction. First, I would like to thank all the panelists for a very interesting and informative interventions. They both showed the amount of work that needs to be done to meet the requirements of the UNFCCC in this area, but also the available tools, some of the available tools and the progress made in some countries through the case studies that we have seen. I would like to thank you still to see so much interest in this webinar from the participants, and I would like to thank you for your active participation and all the interactions and the interesting questions we have seen throughout this webinar. I would also like also to appreciate the FAO team and thank them for inviting us to collaborate in this event that is timely. We have very good experiences in collaborating with the FAO in delivering some interventions to support countries and respond to their needs in the area of transparency and to prepare them for the upcoming So just earlier this month as has been mentioned earlier we have organized the three day training on reporting on adaptation through the VTR. One of the main takeaways from that training was the great needs from countries on the topic of reporting on adaptation in general, and loss and damage in particular, and the eagerness to learn more and see some practical tools and examples. So the idea of this webinar has generated so as to follow up on the requests and needs that were expressed during that training. It presents a good example of a synergistic and complementary interventions by partners and the good example of joint efforts. It's therefore very important that participants and countries in general are vocal with their specific needs, because as support organizations and initiatives. It is very helpful for us to so as to ensure that we are responding to your needs directly and immediately and like in a timely way. So one also of the learnings from that training and this webinar is the big interest in this subject so this is certainly an area that warrants further attention, both due to its novelty but also to the methodological challenges that its assessment presents. We see that there is an appetite for more targeted trainings in this topic, and we will make sure to take that into account when planning for the capacity within the interventions in the near future. So, for your information, the global support program is now preparing its second phase that will start towards the end of this year. We will continue with the transparency networks that we currently have all over the globe. We have currently 13 networks, we will seek synergies and collaborations with the networks established by other initiatives as well. We will be very closely listening to you so as to tailor our interventions in a way that responds to your needs. We will also be seeking synergies and collaborations with other organizations and initiatives such as the EPO in order to avoid duplication and put our skills and resources together to best respond to the needs. Stay tuned for more news on the GSP phase two that will also include the one-stop shop for capacity building and through merging the CDIT platform and the GSP website. So with that I would like to thank you again all for your active participation, thank the FO team and all the panelists for informative presentations, and we hope to see you soon in the future events. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We couldn't conclude this event any better. Thank you so much to Fatima Zahra also our distinguished speakers and of course all the participants for enriching the discussions today. Just at the final note, the recording of this session will be made available online shortly together with the slides and presentation and all the other resources that were mentioned. If you'd like to stay in touch, as Fatima Zahra mentioned, you can join us in our network and also reach out to us at the email address etfatsainfao.org. I wish you all a great rest of the night depending on where you are. Hope to see you soon in future episodes of the ETF webinar series and other capacity building sessions. Thank you everyone. Have a good day.