 Okay, good afternoon. Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to share some reflections about how we can bring climate change adaptation for smallholder farmers to a critical scale. The topic of this conference is mainstreaming climate change adaptation into local and national planning. And for agriculture, there are two very pertinent challenges that go hand in hand with that mainstreaming objective. The first that has already been mentioned is how do we get from a scale where we are benefiting hundreds of smallholder farmers to a scale where we benefit hundreds of thousands of smallholder farmers. And the second one, which is probably very pertinent to the agriculture sector, is how do we integrate something that is inherently long-term, a long-term perspective on climate risk and resilience into investment programs that very often have a short-term vision, a short-term perspective of increasing agricultural productivity. So how do we get from a short-term crop-based perspective to a longer-term resilience perspective? Now the point of departure for this discussion is a bit tricky because agriculture is on the one hand a victim and on the other hand a perpetrator of global climate change. So it has a substantive contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions and on the other hand people who live most, who are most dependent on natural resources, climate sensitive natural resources, are the victims of climate change. Now agriculture needs to meet growing food needs but do so in what analysts call the safe operating space of integrated food and climate systems. Safe operating space is the space where we can feed a growing population without binging on our greenhouse gas emission budget and without undermining the capabilities of the natural systems that underpin agricultural production. At the moment we are not operating in that safe operating space. And community-based adaptation is one of the modalities that can help us get back into that operating space. There are more than 500 million smallholder farmers in the world, smallholders produce up to 80% of food in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and that is I think a very immediate entry point to upscaling community-based adaptation. Now how do we design smallholder adaptations for such a scale that we can get from village-based interventions to larger-scale national programs? Can we reshape the way agricultural investments are being deployed? Can we change the business as usual narrative? And can financial institutions such as EFAT play a role catalyzing community-based adaptation and bringing it to such scale? The first question I think we have to ask is which investment programs are out there that provide entry points for community-based adaptation. In the case of EFAT it is rather straightforward. EFAT is not only a specialized UN agency but also an international financial institution. The mandate of EFAT is rather well-defined. Our clients are smallholder farmers in rural areas of developing countries and the mandate of EFAT investment is poverty reduction. So the business model, how this poverty reduction is being achieved is to provide low-interest loans and grants to finance smallholder focused development projects and the scale of investments at the current point in time is around 1 billion US dollars per year. So a rather substantive financial scale. If we manage to integrate climate risk management, climate change adaptation effectively into that investment portfolio, this is a great avenue for upscaling. But before we can do that, it's important to understand what the incentives are of planners in the agricultural field to really integrate or engage with something that's called community-based adaptation. It's a new type of language, a new terminology. We have heard about these technicalities of distinguishing between resilience and vulnerability. How does someone who works in the agriculture field engage? Why would he or she? Now an argument that is usually rather effective is that climate change has negative effects on agricultural investments. So there is a direct need to protect agricultural investments from the uncertainties that we are experiencing in the future. A second equally important argument is that climate change brings new opportunities for agriculture in certain parts of the world. In certain parts of the world, like in Central Asia, there are windows of opportunity for different staple crops who are growing better, growing seasons are extending. In some places, like in Nepal, you are now able to grow fruit crops at an altitude where formerly these crops have not grown and that can enrich the diet of poor families. So there are certain opportunities for new value chains in agriculture. This is what I would call the passive dimension, these investments being affected directly, positively or negatively. And then there is the active dimension of these investments also affecting people's vulnerabilities. So some rural development projects reduce small holders growing vulnerabilities to risks. Even without being called adaptation projects, they do a good job building resilience. And then there are others, sorry, there are others who don't manage to do that. So there are agricultural development projects which you would not yet call climate smart. Some of them increase vulnerabilities. Now in order to integrate these incentives, these different perspectives into EFAT's programs, EFAT has designed an adaptation for small holder agriculture program, which is the window, the programming window within EFAT to make climate finance work for small holder farmers. There are five bilateral donors, the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden and Canada who have contributed to the adaptation for small holder agriculture program. And the financial amount is more than 300 million US dollars that is now available for programming, back to back with regular investments. As such ASAP has developed into a centerpiece for institutional change in EFAT, catalyzing the move of an institution which has undertaken a lot of agricultural investments from business as usual to what you could call climate smart rural development, giving a greater priority to things such as risk assessments, risk appraisals, vulnerability assessments but then also including certain things that have largely been missing in agricultural investment programs. And the important thing is that ASAP builds on existing programming processes. So it does not introduce a new type that is called community based adaptation project or a small holder adaptation project. Adaptation in that way is mainstream and integrated into what EFAT is doing anyway. And so with certain new elements that come into the programming process that mainstreaming works a bit more effectively than when we have to communicate a new project type or in a very different language to what agricultural practitioners are used to. Now let me quickly give you that slide about the scale of ASAP. You don't really have to read it. It's there is a global results framework. The important thing here is the overall target impact is to increase the resilience of at least eight million people, eight million small holder farmers to improve land management practices in at least one million hectares of agricultural land. And as a site benefits reduce at least 18 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions. So a rather critical financial scale. And now when we come to the question of how you can bridge this very often gap between the large scale ambitious global programs and the small scale community based adaptation initiatives, there are entry points to bring technologies and experiences from existing community based adaptation projects to scale. This is the lineup for 2013. All these projects have been defined back to back with EFAT country programs and they build on initiatives that are already going on. In the case of Bangladesh, for example, there is a livelihoods improvement project in the Hawar Basin. And ASAP adds a 15 million grand dimension to this project to ensure more village protection and greater mobility in that project. Now, one important question I think that keeps getting raised when we talk with agricultural practitioners about integrating climate change, integrating a climate change dimension is looking at what we have been doing all those years, looking at our work on irrigation, on drought management, on rainwater harvesting. What's really so new about this? I mean, isn't this something we have been doing anyway? Isn't small-holder adaptation just old wine and new bottles? And instinctively, as someone who is engaged with this, you would say, no, it's something new. It's not old wine and new bottles. But thinking about it, we realize that, yes, part of it is, in fact, old wine in a new bottle. Part of this is rural development projects which work well, which increase resilience. They are not called adaptation projects. Sometimes they are not even called disaster risk reduction projects. But those are examples of projects that increase small-holder resilience and it's good. We need to do more of those. So we need to get the half-empty bottle to an almost full bottle, upscaling what works. But this is not enough because, as has been mentioned several times this morning, the past is no longer a very good guide for the future and we need to add a different variety. So the part of a new wine to this bottle that now specifically contributes investments to manage growing risks. Those are investments in early warning systems, investments in climate services, investments in micro-insurance. So things that are traditionally not in the DNA of agricultural investment programs. Finally, if you blend these two liquids and you shake them, then the taste of the whole bottle changes. This is what we would call mainstreaming in the case of IFAD-supported programs. Doing more of what works, adding a bit that is not yet there and integrating it into a programming process that is already available. Now, let me again expand a bit on the projects that already work. Those projects create surplus or buffer capacities. When you look into projects that deal with rainwater harvesting, grain banks, village saving schemes, that immediately increases livelihood capitals of affected families. Some projects strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of natural resource use. So you have integrated water resource management projects. You have watershed management projects, integrated coastal zone management projects. It's nothing very fancy, but it works in practice. Some projects restore natural protective systems and other projects increase the ability of local institutions to access information that is relevant for their planning. So we need to do more of those. And you all know the advantages of things like agroforestry by planting trees in vulnerable sites. You conserve locally adopted agrobiodeversity. You can diversify livelihoods with additional produce, such as fruit. You can reduce deforestation and prevent erosion. So it's what you would call a multiple-benefit approach. The same with biogas. Biogas has a very prominent greenhouse gas mitigation dimension to it, reducing methane. But apart from that, it saves fuel, wood, provides fertilizer, provides energy for children who can study after school and reduces respiratory diseases. So also a multiple-win approach that increases resilience. But we are not really at a point where everything we do is climate smart. We see a lot of value chain projects which try to intensify agricultural productions and try to connect smallholders to markets. But the value chain is not really well understood in terms of where the climate risk comes in. Climate risk can come in at the production site with losses in harvest and water stress. It can come in at the post-harvest section of a value chain. It can come in in access to markets, floods interrupting agricultural produce being brought to markets. So very rarely do you see a value chain project that analyzes the entire value chain. And this is what we need to introduce. Also, some infrastructure projects do not really do a proper risk assessment with regards to climate hazards. That's applicable sometimes to feeder roads, to irrigation facilities, storage facilities, even project offices. I just received an email in Mozambique, a PMU office, Project Management Office has been flooded which is in a way something that's terrible because now you have to spend project funds to relocate the project office. But at the same time, it's an opportunity for people to think about what it means where you put your critical infrastructure, not only the Project Management Office but also the storage facility or the processing facility. So we need to do these things differently and think about how robust the infrastructure is that we are investing in, how climate events can interrupt our value chain work, how long we can really sustain use of natural resources in an unsustainable manner like the pumping of groundwater here on the bottom left. And if we have plan B for crop failures, especially in cases where we are looking at crop systems that are focused on a narrow selection of varieties. And this is some of the things that I would call the new wine in the new bottle, things that are for many of you who work in disaster management, probably well known, but these things are not there in many agricultural investment programs, early warning systems, access to social safety nets, climate services, climate resilient crop choices, salinity tolerant crops, drought tolerant crops, inundation tolerant crops, better risk analysis, more robust and flexible infrastructure, better post harvest protection, diversified farming systems. Okay, only two more slides in this presentation. I'd like to use this one to explain what are the new things that we bring to the IFAD programming process. How do we increase the quality of project interventions in order to get community based adaptation and smallholder adaptation included in these agricultural investment programs? It's important to understand that we are not really doing a lot of things differently. We are using the existing project design cycle, but include a mandatory analysis of risk and vulnerability at the very early stage of the project cycle. This sounds rather straightforward, it is not that easy because many of these investment programs are being designed in very condensed amounts of time, so we have to find a way to include this vulnerability assessment in an opportune part of the project cycle. Sometimes this is done by commissioning a separate study that is funded by ASAP that can then feed back into the project design. Secondly, what's important is when these projects are being reviewed in IFAD internal control processes, the review is about not only the short-term yield perspective, the review is also on the long-term impact of these projects on the natural environment and the question if we are going to be able to sustain agricultural production in a more hostile and uncertain environment. Thirdly, there is a strong emphasis in each ASAP supported project on social learning and institutional learning because ultimately the best exit strategy at the local level is if you have local institutions who are equipped and have access to information so that they can interpret changes in the natural environment and then take informed and robust planning decisions. And finally, the M and E systems include now a number of indicators that are able to give us some metrics that can be subsumed under the term resilience and that metrics can then inform the evidence we need to provide to the donor community so that they see that there is a strategic benefit of investing in smallholder adaptation. The summary of this is if I had to summarize the critical factors on how we can bring smallholder adaptation to scale, I would say the first entry point is understanding the financial and partnership space of existing agricultural investment programs on what basis are they formulated based on which strategy of the national government are they formulated, and then understanding why climate change is a relevant consideration in these programs, either in terms of protection, in terms of capitalizing on new opportunities or in terms of improving things that are or have been designed in a suboptimal manner. Then there is some dimension for climate finance, some funding sources that need to be brought into play to ensure that resilience is affected into the programming, a systematic appraisal of climate risk and vulnerability at an early stage of investment design and systematically increasing the space for social learning, knowledge management and policies dialogue, and lastly, designing M&E systems which capture the resilience dimension. Thank you very much.