 We started off with a little discussion about the name actually, it's rain water management because there was a bit of confusion, are we really talking about the rain or also the other sources of water, we had a bit of a discussion about that but I think we did agree that we had to look at different aspects, so the rain is probably the main source but we might also look at how we refilled rates and that ends up in groundwater and things like that. And then we looked at do we agree about these different components and does it work, this concept for you and I think the main answer was yes but there was some kind of an if added to it so it works but only if it's proper, if the rainwater management is probably managed so the institutions are in place, the policies are in place, we involve the different stakeholders with real emphasis on the end users and also we have to really look at different practices and the combination of different practices, how they might involve trade-offs and we have to look at those different goals, we might even have to look a bit at conflict resolution in that sense and then we also touched on the question where does it work and we said it probably works, we started off with saying maybe more in the water scars areas but then we went into variability of rain so it's not only the total that matters but also the variability of the rainwater availability. You asked me how useful is this kind of rainwater management strategy framework, the board being again was that it is useful and people liked the concept in terms of the way the landscape is divided, quite simply but meaningfully it's a island in Lowland, some questions around the landscape concept is quite hard to pin down and perhaps makes it difficult to be monitoring if we get to that stage, it was thought that the kind of strategies that have been developed for the site seem to be based on quite good characterisation of the sites but some questions remained around that, is there actually necessarily enough water available for the irrigation which was proposed for example, is there clear demand, are the livelihood linkages well developed, connected to that where are the markets in these strategies very kind of natural resource management based, a point that we should learn from previous initiatives such as big projects to roll out rainwater harvesting for example which have in many places failed in the sense that the investments upon having been sustained perhaps they weren't based on local demand and so being very careful not to make the same mistakes, I think that's one, it was appreciated that the concept includes linking the different areas of the landscape in terms of upstream, downstream trade-offs and so on, that's very important but we perhaps need to be even more explicit in the strategies about what the trade-offs are and who benefits and so on. Coming to how the strategy could be used, I have a table of largely modellers over here who thought that the characterisation of the catchments which has been done is very useful for modelling, these scenarios could be put into modelling in terms of could model what the hydrological effects would be with these strategies as a scenario could also use models to test whether there is adequate water for the strategies to implement it and to be scaled up but the point that modelling something complex, a strategy with several components is complicated so there may need to be brought down to keep around us and finally in terms of other processes there would also be a need for capacity building and piloting and for a lot of discussion with stakeholders at different levels to say is this really the strategy that we want, does it need to be refined, working in innovation platforms and finally thinking about who would need to be engaged to actually implement such a strategy and understand the benefit of the economy in the decision-making process. Yes, we had a very interesting discussion around the whole load of issues. I think three key points were, first of all, do we need some sort of controls? So where these rainwater management strategies are being implemented, how do we know that they are actually having an impact and how do we judge what that impact is and contribute that impact to the rainwater management structure itself. So we discussed a bit about the need for controls by the outside of the wires we're working in or perhaps the new controls within the wires themselves, so places where interventions or practices aren't being implemented to see what the differences are. We also discussed whether these were basically top-down type approaches that we're suggesting at the moment, to what extent have farmers been involved in designing the rainwater management structure that we have today and whether or not there will be more farming interventions or more farmers involved to understand their perceptions of trade-offs, etc. and let them identify the solutions more. So more farmers identifying solutions and identifying their priorities and get some discussion around that, where water is always the main issue that farmers are concerned about and discussions around that. And then the next, the other thing we discussed was basically how we take these IMS strategies forward now. What's the next step in the process? How are we going to involve farmers more and how are we going to actually implement these things and try to implement them in the future? So those are basically the three sort of areas that we discussed. We're mainly on the wine section of the second question. And in terms of the basin scale, we felt that where this would work is where there's high land degradation in particularly uplands and there's high rainfall variability. We then moved on to looking at where the concept wouldn't work and less in terms of basin location and more in terms of the strategies. And we had an emphasis on the need for the strategies to encompass all three zones. And we had a lot of discussion around the trade-offs that would be involved in looking at trade-offs, not just in terms of the different practices but also trade-offs between the three different zones. So in particular, for example, the need to ensure that, for example, increasing production in the uplands doesn't result in decrease in ecosystem services in the lowlands. And then in terms of where we could use this, some aspects of this could be used within the modelling, but some also can't but that was the emphasis on the trade-offs. And then we moved to looking specifically, for example, at Fugera site in terms of challenges and very much focusing here on the enabling environment. It came up that there's no water user association at this site and that water conflict isn't the issue. And that the process will also depend on stakeholder adoption and to open us to adoption. So one of this assumes that there is an enabling environment already present and, for example, financial resources available. So in our discussion, actually there's quite a number of elements that I've already heard, so I won't go too long. We also discussed the Rainwater Management Strategies. The concept basically is working okay. The issue is that the strategies need to be integrated to be really useful and fully integrated ones will be very useful at the annual scale for engaging farmers in discussion about where you go forward, but the fully integrated ones are actually very difficult to model. So there was a discussion about needing to get to the state of much clearer questions about exactly what we will be able to model, what we model, not necessarily expect the models to capture the complexity of the strategies, even though we need the strategies to have that complexity to be valid sort of at the local level. We talked about how the types of materials that are being gathered, like the list of possible strategies and practices, will probably be very useful as a toolbox for engagement with communities, information for providing options that was useful. We need to consider also how we're going to make any of this available and to whom. There's probably a variety of ways that you could use this information, but just think about how it could be useful. This is a step that we have to take. And then there was a lot about this sort of where does it work issue we need. I think what came up is we probably need more work on integrating things like land classification methodologies to take our simple landscape to the next level of sophistication perhaps and how we're advising. We need more value chain perspective probably. And again, what everyone has already said, we had a long discussion about the whole issue is that there's these trade-offs. So how do we move from what simply is talking about interventions in certain key areas to the trade-off issue? We all have the same concern. We started by questioning the question. The question was about legitimacy. Whose strategy is this? And we debated from where the budget and how fluid it is for changing for competition. Then we said, if this strategy is good, we're going to use it. How can it be used? How do military end users benefit from this strategy? And we also went to the discussion where more on the issues. How do you supply the studies for processes? So is it a process that is going to be adopted as well? Or is it a strategy that is going to be adopted as well? So how to do the process and how we can get things done probably is what is the implication that the strategy is set. So that's another thing. We talked about also the role and the validity of the strategy for the end users. How far we should go to talk to farmers. On the one hand, the farmers are very specific, tiny, individual, but we are trying to address an issue which is much bigger than that. It's already in these two different demands of different skills. So this work was having a few courses that I would like to end at a concert. So we talked about these RMS strategies and I suppose one concern was if we come to the communities with already made rainwater management strategy or the implications for ownership of the strategy by local stakeholders. So then the question is does the RMS come first or does the community conversation come first? So then we talked about what we mean by community conversation was the mechanism for having that community conversation and I guess we agreed that it might be the innovation platform. But of course the innovation platform is not our traditional conception of community and that it doesn't just involve farmers but it involves a whole range of other stakeholders. How do we then bring in perspectives from upland, midland, lowland communities. Then we got to talking a lot about modeling. I guess one of the benefits of developing these rainwater management strategies is it gives some kind of framework for developing models. Then how do we link the outputs of those models to the ongoing community conversation. I think that's the big issue that we need to address. And finally as those we try to define what we mean by community. Is the community farmers or do we mean a higher level community which involves representatives of farmers and also representatives of other higher level stakeholders within the landscape. This is Alan Belkin for MPDC. We raised at the first the challenge of putting the practice here on the list aside to the different learning sites. Because of the number of things discussed, particularly the detail inside the list. The specific area because rainwater management strategies are side-specific. Just as an example we pick one side, try to put a list of 10-30 practices from co-op and livestock. And at the end we learn that this is actually an integration. And probably what we can also or if I could raise which model will catch this integrated approach. And we just ended up with that. Thank you.