 It's great to get a chance to do a sneak preview. What I'm going to try to do is squeeze an awful lot into this short space. But I want to start off by acknowledging my colleagues in the project, first and foremost, Claudia and Annika, but also our colleagues at the Resilience Center with whom we share the overall project. So just a couple of words about the project. It's in its second phase, started off as a Swedish initiative, without a co-chair. Along the way, we picked up the United States as a co-chair, which the timing for that works really well for us because it allows us to deliver the report at the end of a chairmanship that's very consistent in terms of its values and goals with what the Arctic Resilience Report is seeking to do. Our interim report was delivered in 2013. Final scientific report, as Claudia says, is going to be ready in September. And our final synthesis that includes some policy recommendations or policy relevant insights will be delivered to the ministerial in 2000. It's actually 2018. No, 2017, that's right. Good, no mistakes in the slide yet. So let me start with just a couple of general statements of things that we've identified in this report overall. I don't think these will come as a surprise, but one of these is that we see a clear sort of speeding up of the rate of change in the Arctic. So this is really difficult for humans to manage. It's hard enough to deal with change itself, but when the rate of change is changing, it's very difficult to keep track of. And we see that both in terms of the social side and in terms of the swings and normal variations going outside of the norms that people are accustomed to. An important part of this is the interconnectedness. And as we learn more and more about the scientific, about the sort of natural world's interconnectedness, how ice is connected to the rest of the planet. We also learn that there are important social components to that. So even as we begin to understand that much more clearly, we see that these social connections, this is just one example, are intensifying. For example, the opening up of the sea ice in the north makes it much more possible to think about and begin to test the opportunities for shipping. But that's one of a whole range of options. The Rexx Project deals with one of these resource extraction in the north as the snow and ice disappears. But tourism and other kinds of activities are expanding very rapidly. And those have a local impact on the Arctic, but it's also part of this global impact on what's happening in the Arctic. So that brings us to the basic frame that we use for this report. This social ecological systems framework. And the reason for picking this image here is a lot of the images we see of the Arctic are these really dramatic shots of ice and snow. And sometimes polar bears or other wildlife. But it's a lot less often than we see the humans in the system. And fundamentally, the Arctic resilience report is about us. Whether it's humans outside of the Arctic or people who've called the Arctic home for generations or for even thousands of years about the effects of Arctic change on us and how we feed into those kinds of changes. And this is the basic sort of the schematic of the model, this social ecological systems framework. What's interesting is a lot of the discussion about resilience and social ecological systems tends to home in on one side of the system or the other side of the system. And that has consequences for the way that the resilience is talked about. I'll come to that in just a moment. The second property with this social ecological systems framework is that it's multi-scalers. So for example, some of what we're investigating, governance sits up here. But it impacts what happens down below that scale. It's also influenced by the global agreements that create the context in which the Arctic Council and other bodies are taking action. And it certainly sets a context for local communities that are trying to manage the kinds of changes that are coming at them. So this is one of the issues I have to say that I've struggled with a lot because resilience appears to be everywhere. Its use has exploded over the last three or four years, certainly since I've been involved in this project. And you find that people mean different things when they talk about resilience. So very often, this is a fairly standard definition, the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize, but essentially keep the same functions. The variation of that I like is a Timex watch ad that I grew up with, takes a licking and keeps on ticking, which essentially, it's the capacity to just keep on rolling despite lots of disturbances. But the problem with that is it speaks quite nicely to the ecosystem side, but it misses the essential component on the social side and that's agency. It's our capacity to learn from our experience, to take that knowledge and put it to work and use it to steer our choices. So that we, ideally, we avoid the big pitfalls and adjust continually as we go. So this is a definition that's much more similar to what you see in the disaster risk reduction work or in the UN or the Sendai framework, where it really focuses on human agency, on our capacity to learn, to steer forward, to adapt, to change, or even to transform some fundamental aspects of what we do while still holding on to what's most important. And our definition of resilience, well, it's these two combined, which means it's too long to read in this kind of a time frame, really combines both of those so that we capture both sides of this and most essentially, we capture the agency part. One of the essential elements of this framework is that we look at change in a non-linear fashion, so they're thresholds. And the tricky thing about the thresholds, this gets a little blurry here, but is that they're most easy to identify when they're behind you. And that's part of what we're worried about in the Arctic, because we in this report have identified essentially 18 regime shifts or thresholds that science believes that we're either in the midst of passing or may already be behind us. Some of these are pretty familiar, loss of sea ice. Is one, diminishing quite rapidly, you'll hear a lot of reports about, I think this year is the lowest level of sea ice recorded so far. And what this analysis looks at is the driving forces feeding into that change. And then the impacts coming out of the change, which in some instances create feedbacks that actually reinforce that entire loop. And this is just one of these 18, one of the simpler ones I would say, but a really important feedback loop. This is, similarly, you see climate changes down here, but it's a more complex set of changes in part because not only are we upstream in this question, but we're also adopting more and more efficient and effective technologies for harvesting fish, which has impacts on the fish populations. And of course, there are impacts that come out of that, that also feedback. The tricky, this is not a shot from the Arctic. Although I do think there are places where you see traffic jams. But the trick here is that when we look at the drivers of change in the Arctic, some of these drivers are fairly predictable. But when you put them together and you put them together with the feedbacks, the eventual outcome is very difficult to predict. And with the kinds of changes taking place in the Arctic, what we know is that it's difficult to identify the thresholds. And exactly where those changes are going to occur is going to be very, very difficult to predict. Thanks. And one of these sort of examples of these unexpected developments that is actually pretty frightening is that, have you all read that the axis that the earth spins on is shifting? Because of the loss of ice mass on Greenland. So if you took a top, spun it, and then you picked it up, stuck a piece of chewing gum on it, and spun it again, you'd find it wobbled differently. And that's what the earth is doing as a result of the loss of this mass. And people may have expected it, maybe that's why they're doing the research. But the real challenge there is there are other surprises in all likelihood. So the social side of this, and this is what I'll wrap up with, is looks at comparative case studies spread across the Arctic, 25 different cases that look at cases where we see resilience, where we see successful adaptation, or even transformational change, or where we see loss of resilience. And those are analyzed for factors that are known to contribute to resilience. And I'll summarize this very briefly. But what we see here is consistent with case studies actually around the world looking at resilience, and it's the capacity for self-organization, or for people at a given scale to come together, decide on a set of problems, and how to respond to them. That's the single most important element in their capacity to successfully respond, where that's undermined from above by two restrictive rule structures, or by their own inability to pull together. The result is much more likely to be loss of resilience or even failure. And then the final point is we have these decision structures at all scales. And in particular, we have the Arctic Council sitting here at the pan-Arctic level, but it sits within a larger context. And it's also influenced by what happens up and down the scale. So thanks for the chance to give this quick preview, and we'll look forward to being able to deliver the whole hard cover version of the report. Thanks.