 Kiitos, tehtävä,My compensate like. It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you also for this opportunity to participate. I hope I can contribute even in a small way to this discussion. Probably we are going to raise some of the similar issues with the other panelists here in the beginning. But hopefully there's going to be some contradictions. Let's see. I'll start off when we can stop speaking about climate mainstream. Sitten saamme muutamia words about climate and development, development cooperation, and then what kind of steps we could take towards climate resilient or climate compatible development, and then a few concluding remarks. I'll use as a framework starting point this very basic familiar picture to you about from IPCC. The science should be clear to all of us, at least to we who are sitting here, maybe not so obvious always to everybody out there. And the question is why is there such a huge mismatch between this climate science and the things around it. Partly I would say that if you look at the investment for instance into fossil fuels today, or the fossil fuel subsidies, it's crazy to know that almost half of all the already available fossil fuels stocks cannot be or shouldn't be used if we want to stay at the two degree objective. So still the market say invest into these fossil fuels, there is huge mismatch. There is a huge mismatch in how we build our cities, where we build them, how we build them, how we invest in agriculture and forestry, how we consume, what kind of food, how as consumers we behave. This huge mismatch, where does it come from? I tried to point out a couple points, and then in the end I dare to say maybe propose some solutions or pathways forward. I would say that one part of the problem is actually come from science within science. And it's very much I would say a question of how the scientific community communicates about issues. They should be capable of communicating much better of certain things. And there is positive development. We can see this picture here. There is more work on probabilities and uncertainties, yes. And there are better scenario work and so forth, so forth. There are many things that are happening but there is a problem within the scientific community and how it communicates about things. And then there is the other thing around it. There is the problem of how the societies react, how we manage this information. It's about transformation very much. How we look at the costs and benefits and so forth. So what does this mean for development, this climate change and also the mismatch? We already know that the impacts are here. And they are felt worse by the people who are less least prepared. And we know already what the future will look like if we don't do anything. We are already committed to a certain amount of temperature increases. And there is plenty of information explaining us where we are going. If we don't do anything and even if we do something. What is positive is that there is now increasing information also about the costs and benefits of action and inaction. I am, by education and economists, haven't worked on that area much but a little bit ashamed of how little the economists have contributed to solve these problems. Now we are beginning to have different kinds of economic assessments, various assessments to look at what does it mean if we don't act today. And this is one of the most recent ones that I have picked up. And it's interesting to know that we see this high bar going of no action. And actually if we start mitigating the costs are already below it today. And going to the end of the century we are looking at maybe close to 10% of global overall GDP. What about then the financial flows? How are they flowing? Do they reflect this information in any way? Here just a few examples. Of course global fossil fuel subsidies. There have been lots in the news and media. G20 is trying to do things about it. G20 looked at these issues but actually it's something happening. It's a huge challenge to start removing these detrimental subsidies. And then we look at global official development assistance, the size of it and to the right completely we have this climate finance bar. Really small and not even close to what should be the level of it. According to scientific information or even according to the pledges and commitments that have been made in climate negotiations. Of course this is not the whole picture. Outside of this there is lots of things happening. Lots of financial flows, lots of investments. For instance if we look at the carbon markets. Despite the financial crisis last year actually the carbon markets were over 170 billion USD. Big part of it is European market and then we have the CER market also. That is now in a rather bad state. So things are happening outside but this gives some kind of indication that there is a big mismatch. Is something already then happening? Yes some development partners are waking up. The first steps what I have seen is that they start to look at their own portfolios. How is climate change impacting? Here the picture is not that clear but on the left hand side you see the total flows, aid flows in millions of USD. And the red bar shows what part might be at risk due to climate change. It could be bridges, it could be lively huge projects, it could be different kinds of projects. But anyway there is considerable risk already within the portfolios. And this work is ongoing and several development cooperation partners are looking into these things. And they are also starting to realize what mitigation and adaptation actually is. What is the optimal mix of these two? We need both of them that's for sure. And there is major differences between these two. Sometimes under the climate negotiations and when we speak about climate we easily bundle these things together. But actually they are very different creatures. And sometimes it's much more useful to look at mitigation and of course energy poverty and those kinds of issues together. And adaptation together with health issues and education. So it's not always these two together that are the best fit when we speak about development in general. This is an interesting picture. I'm probably stealing some of actually everything I have stolen this. I'm an consultant but I've been working with you and NGOs and so forth. But I don't have much of my own here. I'm just putting things together and presenting them to you. You will go deeper than in the seminars later today and tomorrow. But I want to take this one from CDKN because I think this is one of the great positive forces during the past few years that I have seen. It's funded by the UK government and then also by the Dutch I think. And they are really doing hard work to try to describe what kind of approaches and tools we need that we can get towards this climate compatible or resilient development. And in the center we have this. It's well being sustainable green inclusive growth and adaptation and mitigation. We have to bring them to that core. It's not about climate change. It's about development. And there are lots of mainstream tools and approaches that are entering the scene from multilateral actors. There are portals of information from bilateral actors. These are just a few of them. But there are several governments, the German government. Of course the Danish government is doing lots of work. The Dutch government, UK government. There's lots of work. Even the Finnish government is doing work on these issues. But there's still lots of work to be done. And also outside these, it's good to remember that the private sector is also doing things. It's very much working on climate risks as well. So that can be a force to be harnessed as well. They are of course doing it for risk management. But they are also looking for business opportunities. Be it in disaster risk reduction or adaptation. And it's then also traditional CSR corporate social responsibility things that they are working on. So then a few concluding remarks. What kind of pathways forward could there be? I see, well these are my own. Everything else is stolen more or less. But I think there is an obvious need for the scientific community to do things better. In particular communicate better about the results. Be a little bit braver and bolder also sometimes. There are uncertainties. There are multiple interconnections, yes. But we take decisions in the societies every day within uncertainties. Lots of uncertainties. And we shouldn't hide behind those uncertainties. It's true everywhere on the planet. And I see this climate risk approach. Speaking about climate risks as one positive approach forward. I've seen pictures of a climate roulette where you see more or less the probabilities of today how we are playing the game. Today maybe we have a 20-30% with this business as usual development to remain under a temperature increase of two degrees. And we need ways to communicate about these risks better to politicians, decision makers to the business private sector. But then we need to communicate to the public. Because unless the public is aware and interested, there is not a pushing factor so that the politicians and businesses really start to act. There are four runners of course. But we need to have a big, big change in which direction the ship is going. And then there is a need for economic wide approaches. Too often it's been an environmental issue. It's not about environment, it's about development. And it's positive to see that the costs and benefits now there starts to be fleshy around these bones and various assessments about the costs and benefits of action and inaction. And we need more of it and we need it on national level and on local level. And we need also information about the benefits, co-benefits and synergies between climate measures. Adaptation mitigation, yes there are synergies, for instance in the agriculture, forestry sector, they are evident. But in some cases there are trade-offs. Sometimes trade-offs between one mitigation measure and another mitigation measure and sometimes between mitigation and adaptation measures. And also I would like to point out that the uncertainty can be in some cases handled by so-called low-regrets or no-regret solutions. But we have to be careful when we speak about those because they let us understand that we can continue as usual and then just start doing these low-regrets and no-regrets. Yes we have to do them but in addition we have to commit to bigger changes to transformation. So sometimes let's call them revolutions in societies, how they are built. And as I pointed out there are already a number, every day there's popping up new climate mainstreaming approaches and tools. And we just have to start using them, put our mind to them, start training and start using them. And one important aspect in them is that you have to clearly define the responsibilities. Who is doing what if you want to make mainstreaming happen? What's happening in the headquarters, what's happening locally, regionally, what's happening on the ground? And my last point is that what do the development cooperation partners have to do? At least put your own houses into order. Make sure that your input is climate-screened, proved. And even if it's a small fraction of the financial flows in the world, order and climate finance still today, the partners, order partners have the possibility to critically influence the enabling environment where then businesses and other actors hopefully will work towards climate resilient, climate compatible, welfare improvements, sustainable development, whatever you want to call it. Thank you for your time.