 So I'm Simon Anderson and I work for the IID. I think the session concentrated on how we can radicalise adaptation and how we can do that in a way that local people are able to take advantage of adaptation principles or attributes that can be assessed in the way that adaptation is conducted. And I think the key issue in regard to the measurement or the assessment of adaptation was one whether adaptation was sufficiently far reaching, i.e. whether it was benefiting all of the people that need to be benefited by the adaptation intervention, and also whether adaptation was sufficiently far sighted, i.e. was it able to pre-empt climate effects that would lead to poverty tipping points. It was a very interesting question one of the working groups developed which was about intergenerational accountability, i.e. the way that the current generation feels responsible for the adaptation and climate costs to the future generations and how we can incorporate that concept into the process of radicalising adaptation. There was discussion of perhaps the least agreement around the governance structures necessary to radicalise adaptation. There was some feeling that there would be the need to make trade-offs and that trade-offs are best and most easily made or most effectively made by a more centralised decision-making structure so that you have decisions being made at a higher level that would have implications for lower levels and there was a pushback against that saying what radical adaptation really means is a complete democratisation of the process with local people making the trade-off decisions. For me, one of the lessons was that there is appetite for a discussion around processes, both to radicalise adaptation but also to have adaptation conducted in a way that maximises the attributes towards certain principles that need to be derived from those really involved in benefiting and driving the adaptation.