 Okay, let's resume this session. It would be wonderful if the people coming in could sit near the front. That's always nice, thank you. If you come forward a bit, that'd be great. As we said, the business class seats are at the front. Okay, well I have the pleasure in this session to hand over chairing to my colleague, Frank, Frank Wischbaum, who's the CEO of the CJR, and he will introduce our highly distinguished guests. But let me just first say that Frank is the, as I said, the CEO of the CJR, which is a huge consortium, well known to everyone here. There's so much valuable work from the 15 CJR research centers, and he may say a bit more about that. But Frank also has a long and distinguished career in many key organizations. He was the director of water sanitation hygiene, global development at the Gates Foundation, was the director of programs at ghoul.org, and the director general of the International Water Management Institute. So over to you, Frank. Well this is an exciting panel, because of course we're actually quite pleased with ourselves in agriculture that after many years of knocking on the door, there seems to be some difference in the dynamic agriculture seems to be sort of breaking through. And a key fact is not so much that agriculture is at the heart of the negotiations, but that in the INDCs, agriculture shows up much more than we had expected. We've been talking about that, and of course then people say, well, but then it's interesting to know what that will actually mean. What will it mean for specific countries? What will it mean for other stakeholders? Where will be the climate finance? So here we have a number of people on the podium who can tell us more about what this means for their own organizations, what their commitments are, and particularly of course, how we look at the links between these commitments and food security and agriculture more generally. Now the CGIR, to start this off, I mean this morning my colleague Tony Simon says, we should not just have INDCs, but you puts, which was a long acronym that meant put your own house in order before you look to others. So we should all make personal commitments in addition to countries. And indeed, the CGIR analyzed earlier this year that as much as what we thought of about 60% of all the work of the CGIR directly contributes to climate smarter or climate compatible agriculture. And we were also very pleased earlier this week to be a partner with the French government in a new initiative, we got Pormille to try and focus on the soil's enormous capacity to sequester carbon, which we think of as a triple win, mitigating potentially significant greenhouse gas emissions or the equivalent of, but at the same time improving food security and agroecological functioning. So looking for such triple wins is a major opportunity we feel. We are in the middle of trying to get accredited with the GCF and we have prepared proposal with seven countries to try and scale up and out climate smart agriculture with a focus on soil carbon in those seven countries. So that is if you like a key contribution that we are hoping to make. Now we are not a country, but we hope therefore to be working very closely with countries to support them in their INDCs. So with that little introduction and having given you time to be ready for these kind of commitments, we hope that you can explain from your sides. Can we first give the floor to the president of Palau, the eighth president of the republic and the first Palauan to be elected as president three times. So sir, you have a number of roles in the international arena. You're a champion of the earth award, for example, and you've had visionary leadership in this area. So we're looking forward to how you see agriculture and food security play a role in your country's commitments, please. Well, thank you, Frank, for that kind introduction and first of all, it's good to be here, especially for Paris. I'm like a fisherman out of the water or like a fish out of the water. I hope to go back home and have good news to tell our people because our food security is indeed largely based on the ocean. So when we talk about the impact of climate change, we have to put a face on the people who depend their livelihood and what happens to the ocean. So for me, the biggest thing about food security is really the ocean and that's why we hope that out of the discussions here in Paris, out of the NDCs that we have to, the targets that we have to set forward, that we do also in the context of what we need to do to protect the ocean. Agriculture, farmlands and small island nations like Palau are threatened, if not already very much affected by sea level rise. So all are the agricultural farmlands on the coastlines are already destroyed. And our farmers now have to move inland in higher grounds. The thing with higher grounds is that oftentimes the soil is not fertile. So we do need to make that soil prime for agriculture production. That is one challenge. Other challenge that I wish to note here is that because of the global interconnectivity, we're having our share of invasive species, Frank. Fruit flies, which we did not traditionally have on the islands now, are also affecting our farmers. So fruit production is very much affected and agricultural production is affected. So that's a partnership also that I would hope, you know, the private partners and other public partners and assistance can also be allocated to that side. But the other area that I would like to emphasize on is the aquaculture component of food security. You may think we come from large ocean states and so that fish are abundance. But really, just in my lifetime, food abundance, fish abundance and sizes have also dwindled to the point now where we need to have aquaculture really to support the livelihoods of our people. Palau is very happy to be a leader in clam, giant clam farming. We're also a leader in milk fish and rabbit fish production. So we're expanding on that partnerships with our farmers. It is, however, a costly undertaking. So we partnered with Japan and also the Republic of China, Taiwan to build our research and the seedling facilities. But the outcome and the output of those investments have proven very profoundly successful. And we need to expand that kind of initiatives throughout the Pacific Islands. I think the lesson to be learned is that no longer can we just rely on harvesting from the wild. That is not sustainable. We need to increase production by human initiative and aquaculture. Farming, of course, we are very proud to say that taro is our subsistence food, but it's also our export food now. But diseases have also affected taro. But I like to say that we have found and identified a species of taro that even our friends from Samoa came to Palau to take it back home because it's disease resistance and able to withstand saltwater penetration. So these are the kind of things that we need and I thank you for this opportunity. That's a very clear, if you like, expose of the issues that you face. In your INDC, in your commitments, do you see specific actions that the government will undertake or specific needs for climate finance or technical assistance that you expect to be a priority to address these issues? Yes, we are very low emirors to begin with. I think the statistics would show that the Pacific Island are probably 1% of the emission in the entire world and we are affected by 99% of what the world does. We have no practical target but to go through renewable energy. After all, we have a tropical climate, sunshine all year round. We have wind, we have ocean current opportunities. We got hydro, waterfall opportunities and even Otec, ocean thermal energy conversion. So all these possibilities are there on the islands. These technologies, unfortunately, are very expensive to start with but I think with the right partnership, the right commitment and the right investment in the long run, we're able to become really energy efficient and also be a leader in the INDCs. Thank you, sir. Well, yes, you took the question as your commitments on mitigation and I think we'd all agree that it's not Palau that has contributed to the issue mostly but I would expect also that countries like your own will set targets on adaptation as well, on specific things that you will do in years to come to make sure that you can have a resilient food security system for your country. But thank you for sharing your thoughts. Can I move then to your neighbor, to John Bryant who's worked with Kellogg since 1998 in different roles of the company. You're now the president and CEO, decision maker, obviously, but also a leader. Earlier this week, we heard, we think impressive announcement from the World Business Council for Sustainability, Sustainable Development on your low carbon initiative and we know that Kellogg is a leader in that initiative. So we're looking forward to hearing from you how you see the role of the company but also you're here, the representative of the private sector. So feel free to make remarks that go beyond Kellogg alone. Can we give you the floor? Thank you Frank. Well, thank you CGIAR and CCAS for this opportunity to be here today. It's an honor to represent the Kellogg company and it sounds like the entire private sector as well. Sustainability, climate change, critical issue for the Kellogg company and the three different reasons why it's a critical issue for us and why we're addressing it. One, it's core to our values, it's in our DNA. Secondly, consumers absolutely care. Consumers expect companies like Kellogg to take on action and take the change. And third, as a major agricultural company, the ability to source grains around the world is coming under risk if we don't act. First, it's in our DNA. There was actually Mr. Kellogg over 100 years ago who started the company. He was one of the great philanthropists and conservationists of his generation. He gave away virtually all of his wealth which created the Kellogg Foundation. The Kellogg Foundation today is one of the largest charities in the world. Gives away about $400 million a year to children's education, healthcare and is the largest shareholder of the Kellogg company and over half the assets of that foundation is shares in the Kellogg company. So the DNA of the company is impacted by the beliefs of its founders which is still very much alive and well today. But secondly, consumers absolutely care about sustainability. They care about the environment. They wanna know where their food comes from, what's done to it and how do I ensure it's been grown in a responsible way? And with the rise of digital, mobile, social, all these new media out there, the voice of the consumer today is louder than any time in history and it's only gonna become louder as we go forward. So the consumer is becoming a driving force. They expect demand companies like Kellogg to take the actions that we're taking in our system. And then finally, the very fragility of the supply chain worries me. All it takes is a series of droughts around the world and the ability to get some of these key grains becomes at risk. We've already seen it once, back in 2008 when Egypt closed its borders for the transfer of rice out of Egypt and that was our primary source of rice for Europe. So this is a very fragile supply chain and at the same time, we need 70% more food by 2050 to feed a growing population. So we must change our practices significantly. So what are we doing as a company? We have all of the initiatives that you expect a company like Kellogg to have within the four walls of our plants, greenhouse gas emissions, water, waste, et cetera. We have to take responsibility for the entire end-to-end supply chain from the farm all the way to the breakfast table. When you look at the carbon footprint of a company like ours, it's primarily back on the farm and partially within our processing facilities. So we're working to get back on the farm. So we have a commitment to help half a million farmers take on climate-smart agricultural practices. As we think about those practices, they do a couple of things. Firstly, they improve the livelihoods of those farms. You look at where the people who have the greatest, I guess, poverty issues, it's often people working back on the farms. Secondly, it can improve the yield of those farms and reduce the impact on the environment in those farms. So a couple of examples. We have a program called Lights On in Bolivia. We purchase a grain called quinoa. Quinoa is a relatively new grain in the food industry. So we sent people down to Bolivia to work with farmers to improve the yield, reduce the impact on the environment, to ensure that they're following sustainable practices and provide access to solar panels, et cetera, so they could have access to electricity, which then help them from a whole range of ways. One, their kids could obviously study at night, but also they could get access to world prices and quinoa to make sure they're getting good prices and achieving the objectives they're looking for. Another one would be rice. We are a large purchaser of rice around the world. We use it in rice bubbles, rice crispy treats, et cetera. A number of things that we're doing to improve the impact of rice. We're working with Erie on helping farmers move from wet rice production to dry rice production, which obviously reduces the methane gas emissions of that approach. We're working with farmers, with rice farmers in Louisiana, in Thailand, on a variety of initiatives. In Thailand, for example, to introduce a medium grain rice to help biodiversity and soil health. So a number of factors we have going on there. These programs are both in the developing world as well as in the developed world. So we work with wheat growers in the UK, wheat growers in the Sugg and Al Bay watershed in the US around Michigan to reduce their impact on the environment. So it is a full end-to-end supply chain commitment. We've mapped out carbon across that entire footprint and what we can do to make a difference. So we're absolutely committed to it. I'm excited to be here today because I think working in isolation, we can do so much. Working in partnership with governments and other companies, we can do so much more. Thank you. Thank you. And I was pleased to hear you speak about not only making your own operations, carbon neutral. I mean, there have been a number of companies making those announcements. That's a great step. But also working with your supply chains to make them carbon neutral. Now, carbon neutral is one thing. Do you also see yourself play a role in making those supply chains more resilient in making those, particularly the resource poor farmers, adapt to climate change? Yes. I mean, I think there's a couple of elements in there. Firstly, it's one thing to feed the world's population in an average year, but unfortunately not every year is an average year. So we actually have to have a system that is strong enough that if you get a couple of droughts in key growing regions, you can sustain through that environment. We recognize that as we work with these farms, a big part of this is to improve the livelihoods of the farmers. And that's the best way to ensure a sustainable model because the model has to be sustainable both from an environmental perspective and also an economic perspective for the farmers. But also in the situation where we have a shock and the system doesn't work as well as we would hope, we also recognize as a food company, we have an opportunity to step in and also deal with hunger issues that come out of those sorts of events. So we have a program called Breakfast of Better Days. We give away a billion servings of food by 2016. We've actually achieved that goal in half the time. So as a company, we're doing two things. One, trying to improve the sustainability and the strength of the supply chain. And then secondly, also providing a safety net in situations where that supply chain does break down. Great, thanks. So indeed, the kind of commitments that we need is to make in the end hundreds of millions of smallholder farmers both resilient to climate change and work to have a low-carbon agri-food system. Sounds like you're making some steps in the right direction. I'm sure that people here are eager to hear about those and of course, hold you accountable to see what happens with them. Now, can we move on then to Dr. Noka Ishii, the CEO and chairperson of the GEF. Now, you are of course, the primary environmental finance function and you're taking on part of the climate finance as well. We know that you've been a partner with EFAD in adapting smallholder farmers and we're very interested to hear from you, both from your former perspective as a finance minister and as an international expert if you like, how you see the role of GEF particular but climate finance in general for this emerging priority on agriculture and food security, please. Thank you so much and really pleased to be here. Let me start by congratulating all of the attendants or participants today because as I understand from everybody, back in a few years ago, it has been very difficult to even have a meaningful conversation with the agriculture within the context of climate change. Now this agenda has been moving to the central stage of climate discussion so I think it's a significant sea change I have observed and I think that you should be getting a credit of this huge achievement and particularly CGIAR, your leadership and everybody so that I think it's really, really great achievement and actually it's good for the world. So congratulations for everybody, for your real hard hard work. But at the same time, it's not necessarily in coincidence that the world has recognized this importance of agriculture within the broader context. I actually wanna also mention this SDG which is adopted three months ago in September in New York. The SDG clearly recognized that the food security issue as a part of this and the 17 goals and the one thing which is very good at the SDG is they also recognize very clearly that there is a planetary boundary in this world and we need to find a way to still continue to thrive or to develop a prosper within that planetary boundaries. As already mentioned by previous speaker, we are facing the huge challenge of growing population to nine to 10 billion, additional three million of middle class, then urbanization. So we need to find a way to still feed those growing population without undermining the very basis of our future planet, which is ecosystem world. So can we actually then transform our system to meet that end? I think there are three important key systems we need to see or we need to transform one obviously energy system, no doubt about it. Second, how to deal with urbanization. So city system, how we live is very important. But third important key economic system we need to transform is how to produce food. So we are here discussing this tremendous and daunting challenge of how we can transform the food production sector without undermining our own future and still we need to give the very good food to everybody. So that's the challenge we are facing and that's why the world started to recognize everything is interconnected and that's why we need to have this SDG. We want to have this agriculture as a part of this climate change agreement. So in a sense there is no coincidence and we have been seeing this huge achievement you have made, agriculture, now we wanna discuss but as an important integral part of the discussion of this transformational systemic change. So that's my first comment I wanna make. You asked explicitly then what is the GEF's contribution to it. Here I wanna maybe share with you two programs we have launched very, very recently within this context of how to change the food production system and within this challenge. First one is food security in Africa. African agriculture is in the perfect storm. Those three mega-trend increase in population, middle class and urbanization has been taking place in Africa. While the Africa's agriculture is still very, very difficult situation, the low yield and the bad soil and still need to feed the people and the soil degradation and those things are happening. How we can find or transform this food production system in Africa. So we came up with partners with EFAR, FAO and others to pilot this multi-stakeholder approach. As already mentioned by previous speakers, this kind of interconnected issue cannot be solved in silo approach. We need to bring all stakeholders together and that a united value system. So we need to work with the small holders in Africa which is a major producer of the food. We need to work within the community we need to work with the fertilizer company, the seed company and we need to find a way for Africa not to exactly follow the mistake maybe Asian green revolution made. Too much of a fertilizer that the irrigation, the energy supply, how we can avoid that mistake and still can feed the African population in a sustainable way. So this is one area that I actually that I would like to really promote and would like to work with everybody in this room. Second example is supply chain approach. It's already mentioned by previous speaker. Okay, move from Africa to Latin America, Asia. The 80% of the tropical forest deforestation came from four global commodities, the palm oil and the soil and the bees and the paper. So how we can avoid that kind of deforestation while still keeping that providing good food to consumers. Again, that we cannot work in isolation. In case of palm oil, we need to create this platform of how to help the small holders in Indonesia, Malaysia and now West Africa to transit from devastating unsustainable farming to sustainable farming. How we can work with the processors processing company like Weaver or Cardin and how we can work with Unilever or the Nestle. There is already a very good, a coalition of say responsible suppliers, responsible consumers like consumers forum and then there are a lot of NGOs and communities working to make sure the supply chain actually kept under the united value of no deforestation. But there are a lot of weakest link here and there. In case of palm oil, in my view the weakest link is actually how to help transition of small holders on the ground. And here our role is to help those, the capacity building of small holders to make that transition. But we cannot do it in isolation. Again, to make sure everybody along the supply chain play his or her role is absolutely important. I'm very happy to hear today from the chair of the K-LOG that the consumers are absolutely on board. In case of palm oil, Chinese market, Indian market not necessarily consumers on board. We still need to make a huge progress to get them on board to let them understand and share this value of the sustainability. My last point actually is very much inspired by Tommy that how we can value of the nature or the ecosystem, how we can realize that the value and hopefully to sell to the capital market. Here we are working with say some island states and how we can help them issue for instance blue bond. It's one way to recognize the blue economy. So that we are very much intrigued by this idea of the nation, island states can issue the blue bond so that they can achieve the both to continue this sustainable livelihood. But also leverage the huge financial resources from capital market. This is another example that how the financial institution like us can create on the strings on this multi-circuit platform. And I hope this is one way for us to contribute that to enhance the quality of INDC to implement as immediately as possible. So thank you so much. Thank you Dr. Ishii indeed for pointing out the importance of taking a more integrated approach. We know we have food systems that are very unsustainable from a climate but also a land degradation from a water from an energy perspective. We also know that they're not producing healthy food. Not only do we have 800 million hungry people, we have some 2 billion people lacking vitamins and minerals and we have some 2 billion people overweight. So yes, we are very impressed by the fact that we have to transform food systems and that it will take many different sectors that haven't worked together before but will have to work more closely together from environment and agriculture and energy all the way to health. So that's a major challenge. We see some progress and we're sure that you will, through GEFB making some of those linkages happen. Now, can we move to Tim Grosser, the Minister for Climate Change and Trade Issues of a country that is very much an agricultural country. We've already heard you here on stage earlier Tim but you've been involved in this whole climate debate intimately for the last five years and you've seen some changes and we'd like to hear from you what your outlook is both for New Zealand and agriculture here at the COP. Well, thank you very much Frank and I think you're absolutely right and I very much agree with your opening remark that one can sense a shift. I have said to you earlier and to many other people that I have actually it's been eight years I've been working on this dossier that I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall on this issue of agriculture and climate change. Now I feel we are starting to be listened to. The action beyond that still needs a great deal of work so I feel a little more encouraged than where I was when I started on this and I think it's very interesting for you to understand why this realization occurred to a New Zealand minister. First of all, New Zealand is an intriguing country in terms of development issues. Most countries and certainly when I was an economist, I believed agriculture is backwardness and industrialization is the way forward and of course we consider this completely crude. One of the consequences of this is that New Zealand structurally is more like a developing country given the role of agriculture with the income levels of an advanced economy. So issues that we faced in the first iteration of global action on climate change namely through the Kyoto Protocol and I've always known this deeply as an article of faith. Are the issues that we'll have to confound as we move to a comprehensive deal because it ain't just little New Zealand any longer that has to worry about this. So if we step back and look at the first iteration of global action, what we see is this in the Kyoto framework and let me just make this clear, this is not anything even approximating a wholesale attack on the Kyoto frameworks. Kyoto frameworks are going to influence deeply and positively any new comprehensive agreement and the vast bulk of it I think will continue to make sense for many, many years to come. But there is a problem on agriculture. So Kyoto when you strip it down and look at it from a helicopter perspective is very elegant and very simple. It's identify the six gases, two of which are agriculture not just oxide and methane and says to Switzerland or New Zealand or whoever it is the subset of OECD countries that took commitments. You just do one thing. You take responsibility for your emissions and bend the curve downwards. How you Switzerland, New Zealand do it, we don't care. Now for most of these countries their emissions from agriculture were sufficiently small to allow them to take on the commitment and just ignore their agricultural emissions. While the United States is not a member of the Kyoto protocol, sent it through it out 95 to zero, it nevertheless has shadowed the Kyoto frameworks and is reducing its emissions and tells us about this. But for the United States, the proportion of emissions from agriculture is around 7% and there are many, many developed countries in that sort of low single digit space. There was however one Kyoto protocol party, New Zealand which had a fundamental problem because year by year almost exactly 50% of our emissions come from producing food. So we take on this commitment to reduce our total emissions. What on earth do you do if 50% of those emissions are from food? Now, given the small size of New Zealand it's limited political influence. There's not a hell of a lot we could do about this problem but I have been saying to the international community, this is no longer an issue, it's just a New Zealand problem. Look at Columbia, 54% of its emissions are for producing food. Look at Uruguay, 84% was the last stat. I saw it'll be a bit different now from food. So you, the international community are gonna have to start to deal with this problem because the paradox of Kyoto is people often used to think when I start talking I'm asking to exempt agriculture but here's the paradox, they exempted agriculture. They did nothing about their agriculture emissions because they did not reflect on the specific characteristics of agriculture and its role in food security. Second point I'd make is there is a very strong statistical correlation between economic efficiency of food production and carbon efficiency. So I don't, we have a rather constrained agricultural sector in terms of diversity. It's just pastoral plus horticulture. And in pastoral all the FAO data will tell you this is not my propaganda that New Zealand is easily the most carbon efficient country in the world per kilo of output. And we've been increasing that carbon efficiency by over 1% every year for the last 30 years. Now, what we did as a practical matter was everyone else was focusing on what were their priority emissions which is basically decarbonizing the energy sector which is the number one requirement. We then realized nobody was paying any attention to agriculture. So we established, I proposed at Poznan my first COP in 2008 the creation of a global research alliance which is a virtual new organization of agricultural scientists to try to find technologies that would allow us to meet the objective that we, other previous speakers have talked about, 70% more food while dealing with the reality that agriculture food production is 14% that also puts off of emissions and come and just be ignored. And I've got the time to go into it but the big takeaway is this. We shouldn't be surprised that scientists have made incredible progress. If you think about the last 150 years we've asked Japanese agricultural scientists, New Zealand scientists, American scientists to focus on increasing productivity. No one ever asked them to focus on emissions. And the upshot of this is looking at livestock which is our prime need because enteric methane is one third of our total emissions and it's by the way on a global level it is 5% of global emissions. And I don't think the solution on this Frank is to encourage everyone to become vegans. It's not going to work. So we have made huge progress towards identifying a range of technology. I'm happy to discuss this at some other time in greater depth. And most intriguingly just my final comment to our I think great surprise. We found that the microbial organisms inside the rumen of livestock has almost exactly the same characteristics whether you're talking about alpacas or buffaloes. So we organize 140 scientists from 74 countries or international organizations to do a census on this and found that there are no important differences whatsoever. And what this means Frank is that if we can eventually move out of the laboratory and field trials into spreading these technologies we won't have to customize it. And so we're making progress but we got a long pathway ahead. Thank you and thank you for being a leader in New Zealand in looking for ways where we can reduce mitigation from agriculture. Of course that plea does make me want to repeat for a moment that we in the CGI are worried about that but also about the fate of the 500 million smallholders who are not really I think the key part of the problem but are definitely the ones at the sharp end of the impacts. And while I think the economy of New Zealand might have a developing country structure your farmers have a better capacity to adapt. And indeed it is the very low capacity to adapt from smallholder farmers in developing countries that we I think need to combine. And that we're hoping to see more breakthroughs on. We'll hope to see unlocking some climate finance. I think Dr. Ishii you have given us some indication that that might be on the forefront. And we've had here a number of different stakeholders who will all have to work together very hard to see that double or even triple win of having increased food security with low carbon agriculture and better agroecology, better environmental functioning as well to stay away from planetary boundaries. Now we've had here four leaders share their thoughts with you. This was a very short session. We don't have an opportunity for questions. We did stop just on time so I would like to thank you all for your willingness to be here and for your insights here in this panel. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Frank. That was within seconds on time. Could the folks on the next panel please come and join me on the podium. That is Cetembele, Philippe and Sophia. Okay, okay. You guys have a seat. Okay. All right, so we wanted in this last 45 minutes to talk about people. Just in case the previous sessions we didn't talk about that so much but actually we did, which is great but it's still good to talk about some of the socioeconomic challenges around all this which include gender but also youth and other issues. So we thought we'd have a somewhat of a practitioner level discussion about to what extent the INDCs and all this huge effort around agriculture, to what extent this is blind or not blind to some of the major political and socioeconomic challenges that are out there. Great, you're here. Welcome, Agrippa. Right on time. Okay, so let me briefly introduce the panel. We have Cetembele, who is the project manager for Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources at FanPran. So she coordinates their work on youth and gender and FanPran are doing some great work on this. We have Philippe Levec, who is Executive Director of Care France after a long and distinguished career in care but also beginning his career in IBM. We have Agrippa Jenkins, who is replacing your colleague Giovanna Valverdi, who's been called off in negotiations. And Agrippa is an expert from the Ministry of Agriculture on NAMAs and NAPAs. So we're looking forward to hearing more about that. And we have Sophia Huye, who is the CJIR specialist on this subject. So why don't, rather than me firing off questions to the panel, we start with a bit of questions from yourselves. What would you like to hear about from this panel? Or any comments so far on the discussion, specifically on gender, but also on youth and other socioeconomic issues. To what extent is this featuring or not? What are your questions or concerns about it? Who wants to lead off? Please, Natasha. Thank you. Natasha Griss from OBC's Development Institute. I work on climate smart agriculture primarily in developing programs and strategies in East and Southern Africa. But looking more broadly across climate smart ag, what I can see from the gender and social inclusion area is that it's coming up as a topic and people are including it in some of the projects and programs. What I'm not really seeing is a coherent approach to this in terms of integrating aspects of gender, poor, vulnerable, marginalised elderly and youth. And I'm wondering if there is a space to really develop a more structured approach to this and how you think that would be. Thank you. Natasha, just to, because you're somewhat the specialist on all this too, where do you see it missing? Where you would expect to see it in an ideal world? Where is it absent? Thank you. I work with quite a lot of NGOs, but from a kind of research, technical perspective in developing programs. And I think what I can see is that some of the NGOs are really leading on this and absolutely fantastic in designing, explaining and then coming to the forefront and talking to people about these issues. But what I'm not really seeing is it's been fully integrated into larger scale programs and major funding initiatives. And I think CCAS is doing some great work in taking this up in terms of some of the research. But I still feel that it's quite at the beginning and there's a lot more that's needed to be done in terms of looking at what really happens measuring particularly in Africa where women farmers are so predominant, looking at impacts that are potential from a much better, more targeted investment. Thank you. So still something of a check box on the periphery compared to where it should be. I understand correctly. Please, this gentleman. Thank you. Ola Dili from South Africa. My worry about the gender issue in climate change we treat it like any other innovation in agriculture. Women lack their assets, the capital for them to have a meaningful livelihood. And these are precluding them, excluding them from certain things because if you don't have land, why do I introduce you to a new variety where you need land? Why do I introduce you to fertilizer that you will use to support what you are growing on your land? So it's a vicious cycle. Now women are predominant. Climate change has come in as one of those issues. The antecedents of the exclusions for women, they are still there. Are we changing it? Or what are we doing to make it change in order for a greater impact of climate change not to be heavier on women than men? Look at the different sources of communication. And in one of the researches we did in the university, we use extension officers as contact. We use the ICT. But we found that it was only when messages are through face-to-face. That's when cultural barrier, human restriction, women elimination comes in. When you use ICT, you use these that are gender-sensitive, gender-neutral. The degree of exclusion is lower compared with when we use face-to-face. Are we still going to carry climate-smart solutions or information through face-to-face and still continue with the exclusion? Thank you. Thanks so much. They did the back there. Thank you. My name is Andrea. I'm from Peru. I work in collaboration with Ajenica and Yineyami Peoples in the Peruvian Amazon. I would like to transmit one question that I was asked by a Ajenica woman in Ukayali to the panel. To the panelists. She approached me and she asked me, how can I do to communicate to these people that have a concession, a logging concession in my territory when these big machines that are going to open their ways in order to extract wood, cross my patio. In my patio, I'm growing palms that I need to build my roof. The palms are far and farther and farther and it's more difficult for me to get the palms to change my roof that I need to change every certain time. So when I told to the people that is driving these big trucks, they told me, you are an ignorant person. You don't know that there is so many palms. But she's concerned and she asked me, what can I do? These are not illegal logging. These are very illegal logging concessions given by the government. Well, I would like to transmit that question that I was asked to the panelists. Thank you. Probably not an unusual situation. Any other comments or questions? I'll bring in the panel on these and other things. Okay, let me bring in our experts on this. There was a question about, I think there was a common question about why is this issue not really breaking through? And I guess some frustrations that it's sort of there, but a bit like agriculture and negotiations, it's making advances, but not quite there. I wonder if, Sophia, you could say a bit about to what extent this featured in the INDCs. What's the evidence base? Is there an evidence base to support the hypothesis that the issue is still somewhat on the margins, at least on paper? Yes, the short answer is yes, there is. I think many of us are aware that the issue of gender has been receiving much greater attention and there's much greater recognition that gender issues and women's issues need to be taken into account. But I think the questions here so far and our analysis of the INDCs indicate that it's still very much not as well integrated at the integral, at the practical level, and where change is taking place. For example, in the INDCs, we found that gender or women are mentioned. We did this analysis at 160 INDC plans submitted. So I think there have been more since, in our analysis, just over 40% of the INDCs mentioned gender at all. And these were interestingly primarily from the developing countries. So that's a different issue again. Why is this less mentioned in the north? But that's an editorial question at this point. But the references were very, again, I won't say superficial, but just in terms of reference, women are more likely to support women. What will the impacts on women be? Women are the most vulnerable populations. But there was very little in terms of practical planning, practical activities with women, and less recognition that women are actively dealing with. They are active in their communities. They are active in their households. They are active in agriculture. And there's still not a lot of recognition that women play and the capacities they have in terms of their knowledge and their experience in recovering from climate change and in developing adaptation strategies to adapt to climate change. And we know from experience and from research that climate change technologies and practices are actually adapted more technology when they understand these issues, when women are brought into the decision-making and choice around the technologies and practices, and when women's activities, their priorities, and their roles are taken into account in how those technologies are developed. Okay, that's very clear. So it's not really featuring as much as you would hope. And if it's not, part of the implementation, we've got problems. I wonder if I could bring in a gripper to say a bit about, I mean, to what extent you're involved in the INDC, but maybe you could say something about what you've seen from the policy discussions that you've been involved in in creating these climate plans, whether the role of gender has featured, if not, why not, and perhaps something about the implementation of all this. So please, go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm a little bit lost with time, actually, but thank to everybody to be here. We'll like to express a little bit regarding this subject theme, regarding Costa Rica's perspective. So right now we have two NAMAs, one is coffee and the other one is from livestock for the agriculture sector. And regarding, for example, we have in our policy in agriculture, there is a pillar that is dedicated for youth regarding one of the questions, because for us, saying in the implementation part, we haven't seen a change in the generation. A lot of our youth is going to the city that they want to stay and produce at the farms of their parents. But regarding gender, I can tell you about our experience. We have 100 farms in the livestock NAMA, where you can see that for every capacity building, it goes the husband and the wife. And that, for us, was really interesting because you can see the dynamic. We were making some progress regarding economic indicators and selecting information from them so we can have indicators for the whole farm, not only for the family, and we make a little bit of research regarding gender. And also, it was interesting to see how they say the farm belongs to the husband, but the one that is taking all the information that knows what's going on and taking most of the decisions is the wife, which was really interesting to see regarding recollecting information. But yeah, if you go to our general information, you can see that land does not belong to a lot of women, that we don't have a lot of what we call ganaderas. There are really, really few. And it takes a different approach. And even inside the ministry to take the technicians, which is interesting because most of the time I'm the only woman sitting there, to let them know that they need to take gender into consideration regarding technologies, regarding capacity building, and regarding policies. It's really interesting. So that's a little bit of what I can tell you. And I don't know if there's more. We can go back to that. Thank you so much. And perhaps I can just add my current role in the Jeff. We're trying to really deepen the attention to gender in all these environment projects that we receive and fund. And we did some research a year or two back and found that in many, many cases, there's just simply no mention of the, not just gender, the whole socioeconomic dimension. And I think that's part of the segmentation of issues that we're facing is where you have these excellent technicians who are trained and specialists in soil science or something else, kind of leading projects that actually require a whole set of skills that it's quite hard to expect any one person to put together. And maybe, you know, that technically led process that we're seeing on climate and elsewhere is part of the problem. And so we're really trying to use the Jeff as one of the principal funding mechanisms of the so-called environment projects to really try and leverage much greater attention. But anyway, let me hear more from the panel. Philippe, what's your sense of why this issue is not breaking through in negotiations or elsewhere? What's going on here? Well, you just said it. It's a voice discussion. The discussion on climate change came from a technical environmental dimension, which is highly technical, mathematics, science, et cetera. And that's where it is a voice discussion. So indeed, they're mostly men. I'm happy to be with you ladies. They're mostly men around the table in negotiation. That's very clear. So it's a man thing. Second, it's a political thing. And we have to go back to politics. Women farmers make very nice photos. Very nice. You see them all over the place. But as a gentleman from South Africa said, they do not own the assets. They do not vote. You've seen the family photo of all the head of states in Paris last week. How many women amongst them? Mostly men. How many of them care about their population? So there is a link between democracy, whatever the definition of democracy is, obviously, and not judging there, and climate change and poverty reduction, et cetera. It's all linked. Half of the head of states who were there don't care about their population. Now, why should they care about poor farmers who do not vote? And amongst them, for poor women, with no assets married to poor farmers. So we have, and not to mention indigenous people. So we have a link there that is very difficult to break. And for an NGO like Care Like Mine, we put the question of women's rights at the center of what we do, but because we do see this double injustice that they're facing. Injustice from climate change and injustice from gender inequality. I don't think there will be much progress this week. You know, in all this, I've been to several of these negotiations. The first week, number one, the first week of the negotiation is about, you know, making an agreement, saving the agreement. The week number two, which we're entering now, is about saving the cop. There has to be an agreement. Whatever the agreement. But it has to be an agreement. So I think it will be a weak agreement, but I think we'll be lucky if we have a given. We'll be lucky if we manage to have the words, only the words. Food security, not in brackets, but in the activable part of the discussion, of the treaty, and the word maybe gender equality, but at least the question of human rights and gender. It's not there yet. Many governments want to stop it, as you know. And the last thing I want you to do with being a French person is ask the question of language. All these negotiations are in English. It's very difficult for not native English speakers in the delegations to contribute significantly with the compromise Spanish-speaking environment or French-speaking environment or whatever. It's very hard, so it has an impact. And as we have this morning, many of the contributions came at the last minute. I guess how they do it. The Prime Minister, the head of state of the United States, French diplomacy has been very active. They call on the president and say, we haven't received your contribution. We need to have it tomorrow. It's not its name and shame. So they call on the technicians. Younger people in their 20s, midnight, 1 a.m. in their air condition or non-air conditioned office trying to pick up something. And they look like any student. And that's what we get then. They go on the internet and say take an average Francophone country. The biggest Francophone country. Copy and paste the national contribution. So of course it stopped down. No wonder nobody's contributing at the farmers' organization, etc. And if the country next door hasn't been able to produce something, then we go to an equivalent Anglophone country and copy and paste and translate. That's what you get. Wow. Thank you, Phillip. That was life. That was really interesting. I mean, do... I guess, Sophia, it's... And then I'll bring in Seth Emberle. But in terms of what you saw on the text, I mean, was there any... Because I haven't gone through all these INDCs. I mean, was there any of them that kind of unpicked, for example, in agriculture that gender's really important and land tenure issues are a really important part of solving this problem. Was there any of that depth or were they more sort of higher level not really touching that? They were mostly... Yeah, no, they were mostly a fairly high level. There were 10 references to women as farmers or in agriculture. So 10 countries only even mentioned it. Some countries did talk about the importance of ensuring that women and women farmers and other groups were involved in capacity development and were involved in support for agriculture. But the one thing to say about the gender references is that they were primarily about non-agricultural subjects. So that's also an important omission in the INDCs considering women's role in agriculture in most of the world. Which is at 43% at the global average but in some of the least developing countries 60, 70, 80% There are two countries either have or have made reference to a gender and climate change action plan. And that's Liberia which has developed one and Peru apparently is in the process of developing one. And I think that's really a positive model but obviously it needs to be spread. Many parties are talking about the climate change policy being set in the context of the national gender policy or the national poverty strategy but it's all quite high level. We've spoken about gender and I'd love to hear from you on that but also I know you're working closely on youth issues so it's another hugely important area. Tell us a bit more about how you'd like to see in your dreams that featuring in this whole discussion. So when it comes to youth issues we're saying that there's only 40% of mention of gender there's even less for youth and the youth issues are lumped under poverty reduction and socioeconomic issues so it's not standing out clearly. Only about 15 countries have mentioned youth as a key component and of those eight African countries that actually spell out the need to strengthen the adaptive capacity of young people and I think it's mostly because of the challenge that especially in Africa most of these countries are facing with high levels of unemployment and more young people coming into the employment area. So really for instance for Nigeria it talks of diversifying the economy so that it creates more green jobs. So it's really about governments covering their backs so that you don't have a lot of unemployed young people who then become the people that cause problems in the end. But it's interesting for Zambia it specifically talks about developing sustainable agriculture and implementing programs around conservation agriculture and climate smart agriculture and how you can bring young people into that. So there is some hope for some countries and we hope that those that have not included youth and gender issues can take an example a page from those countries. But what I think the challenge really is about it's about not including young people in the discussions. Yes the iron disease was submitted at the last minute but there was a whole year before where people had an opportunity to consult young people they are creative they have good ideas when they don't have jobs they go out and create opportunities for themselves. So it's important that as we are coming up with these iron disease with plans of how we are going to go forward we engage them to say what do they want to see in these plans. They have brilliant ideas and they can actually help countries in framing some of these iron disease and some of these plans that are out there. I'm not sure about involvement but I would also like to touch on my colleague from South Africa who talked about the issue of communication that's another big big challenge we usually talk science to people that don't understand the scientific the technical terms. There is need to distill some of these scientific issues in a language that even the farmers at community level can understand. So it's important that as we communicate we target our audiences and we use the right mediums for the different audiences. Thank you. I would love to hear more from the audience about whether anyone disagrees with what appears to be a consensus view that for the reason I think Philippe and others put very clearly this issue is strikingly missing from much of the discussions around climate change and for the reasons that we discussed. So I'd be interested if anyone actually disagrees with that but then any questions or views about what on earth you can do to try and broaden this discussion and have a much more holistic approach to the issue so who would like to say something please. Hello my name is Camille and I'm from the VU University of Amsterdam so actually my question is one of the questions is actually why is this piece missing and I've been listening to a lot of panel discussions and going through the booths today and we're talking about gender equality including women in the discussion including youth in the discussion but then my question is but we don't know where they are we don't know the communities if we go to the countries like for example Indonesia we don't know who the farmers are we don't know their age there's no mapping of communities no big scale large scale knowing where are small holder farmers what is their background what is their socioeconomic situation so how can we change this and how can we map and get a clear view on how communities are where the people are where they are so that then we can actually point out to something visual like here they are and then include them in the discussion thank you thanks that's very clear any other comments or questions on this anyone actually disagree just to be provocative to get the discussion going or do we all agree with each other great please disagree sorry to disappoint you I'm not disagree I just want to make a comment my name is from the global alliance of climate smart agriculture I just want to give my own view as to why some of these very crucial elements from the grass roots are not included in the INDCs it's in the very nature that these INDCs were developed like it was clearly pointed out they come up through the window or out of the window ask a last minute process why does this happen in my view I think the problem is at the level of how this whole process of developing the INDCs is initiated how it is handled how it is managed if the UNFCCC initiative is serious about getting INDCs with a bottom up with a grass root input from a bottom up approach the process needs to be monitored a roadmap needs to be developed and a monitoring process put in place to check the various countries that from this at this time in the year we expect a preliminary report that indicates XYZ at point B in the year we need an update of the report that indicates 1, 2, 3 if there is a roadmap in building of the INDCs with a monitoring process proper processes proper national consultations will be carried out and you will get the INDCs reflecting what the people feel on the ground not something that is just term sucked at the last minute thank you can I just ask you actually you sound familiar with this is there any clarity on what happens these INDCs after this are they going to evolve are they going to be revised but all still for the negotiating discussions unfortunately I can't answer that because I'm not part of the negotiations but from what I hear it's like okay now this is a commitment and the next step is next day at COP22 see where we are with those commitments whether there will be a monitoring system a monitoring process between now and COP22 I have no idea thank you any other comments or questions from the University of Copenhagen I've been working with the INDCs on agricultural adaptation and we also looked a little bit at the gender issue but we didn't find so many adaptation measures that specifically were on gender so I wondered if you could identify some measures that would have been nice to include so gender would have a fair representation in the INDCs thank you why don't we one more and then we'll turn to the panel hello I'm Lee Kuan Jo from Zimbabwe we just touched really quickly on the issue of youth and I just wanted to ask what exactly is being done or can be done to involve youth in farming and like sustainable future for within agriculture because often youth gain the mindset that we see the bright lights and see that's where the future is but I want to ask if anything's really being done to involve us in getting more into agriculture and sustainable agriculture great question and if I can add when I was in IFAD that was a huge worry of many of my colleagues is who are the next generation of farmers because it wasn't part of the aspiration set of many of the communities we worked and that's a real risk to overall food supplies too let me turn to the panel who would like to answer any of those questions or comments please answer the last question on youth we are having this discussion here the youth are having their own discussion in the next room and I think that's probably one of the biggest challenges to say we want to involve young people in agriculture but we want them to have their own conversation on their own yet we are the people that at this moment are making the decisions we are the people that have the money that can help the youth actualizing some of the projects that they have there are many examples of good projects that have been going on on engaging youth in agriculture for instance the junior life schools program that FAO runs it has done a lot to actually develop the skills of young people in agriculture and we also have examples of young people that have taken the initiative themselves we have the Kulima young farmers from Kenya that have seen that they can't access finance because they don't have anything to give the banks as assurance so what they have done is they have started connecting amongst themselves as young people giving out information they can get funds giving out information of where they can get better seeds for their production so there are many cases of how young people can get involved you talked about IFAD IFAD has also been doing a lot of work in trying to get young people engaged there is a global network of young professionals in agriculture and rural development WIPAD that's also doing a lot to connect so it's really about the information being out there for young people to access and to know about existing opportunities and I think that's what we need to do to just showcase what's out there for young people to tap into thank you there was a question about the evidence base for all this I think in terms of knowing what's going on in the communities and all the data quantitative and qualitative data whenever there's any kind of intervention support but more broadly what's the problem here to what extent all these INDCs fail if this issue is overlooked and you can say a bit about whether we've got all that evidence and if we do again is the problem one of communication or is the one of not really having enough of an evidence base to us to be able to make this argument certainly there's an evidence base out there speaking from the perspective of CGIR and CCAFs there's definitely an evidence base we're in the process of compiling one through the gender household survey that's being undertaken in a number of countries in three developing regions on not just gender but ethnicity who the small holder farmers are what are the differential access to resources and assets what are the differential perspectives on climate change it's a small evidence base but it is developing as that is coming out I think the problem is not we need more information we need more evidence we need more examples of what works and what models are effective we do know the CGIR takes a position that there are three main pillars of ensuring that women and other social groups benefit and can actively participate in climate change adaptation and mitigation and those are that women have access and control of resources for agricultural production and so that I'd like to comment a bit on the ICT comment that is in general a good technology for reaching farmers including women farmers and for reaching youth however what we find with women is that they don't control the technology they control mobile phones they have to request access or borrow access from family members or rent access from the mobile kiosks in fact the best ICT for women is radio and because it's a household it's in the household it's more generally available and women can listen to it while they're doing work so the issue here is that women have access so we have evidence that once women have information on climate smart agricultural practices they use them they improve productivity they increase their incomes and they adopt them very successfully but when women don't have control over the access control over the resources or participate in a decision making about how those resources are used and how it proceeds then we don't have very much progress so those are some of the two main issues that we're looking for and so just to answer the question about what could we include in the INDCs I would say that women's role needs to be recognized and supported in terms of capacity development access to resources services that support them and not just women there needs to be that understanding equity and access equality among different groups and different ages could I just add my experience in the Jeff the Jeff is trying very hard to move from a situation and I'm over characterizing this but there have been worst case examples of projects in the past where you have male technicians working with male government officials to put together projects without really thinking about this issue and the gender dimension was really pushed as a safeguard issue so a risk minimization issue so some box has to be ticked somewhere along the project design that says you thought about these issues so it's entirely seen as a sort of negative filter well we're trying to turn that conversation around and say if you want these cook stoves that we're rolling out to be adopted and to work you've got to recognize the socioeconomics of where you're working and that you've got a consult with the main users which in most cases are women so see it as an opportunity rather than the traditional safeguards risk and that's the way many of the development banks had originally entered this issue once you're stuck there you're always to some extent seen as checkbox anyway just to share that perspective anyone else like to say anything on the comments please I'd like to say about how we did our INDC regarding the question that the colleague made about the bottom up approach actually for regarding the INDC with the part of agriculture we make consultations with the chambers and producers that were invited to first of all let them know what at the INDC will apply for them what maybe consequences so what they think about that because most of the time what we get from the chambers of producers from sugar beef and all of their milk as well is that well we're on board but if we're going to produce right they're not going to tell us in five years you got to stop producing and we're going to leave out of the air so we have like number four actually that we're in touch and we have a national one where we expose and have round tables regarding that so our INDC was constructed a little bit different yes in a short period of time but at least we have the chambers in the private sector because one thing that we learned is that if you do process without taking care not only the socially of course part but also the private one is going to apply it because people sometimes think that private is an enterprise do not think that it's the farm it's the farmer that is going to apply the technologies so we tried to do that it was part of our process thank you we have time for a quick last round of comments or questions and then we need to wind up so we're still a little stuck on this dilemma that this is really important we don't quite know how to change things as fast as we need to in terms of sensitizing us all to this issue so anyone can help us fix this please hi I know you're going to hate me for saying this but actually one group that has done a lot of effort in reaching to women is the private sector good or bad but in terms of marketing and reaching to female consumers there's been a lot of change in the past 10 years in terms of thinking about which products and how we access this space of consumer and I think there could be a lot to be done from a private sector of course a lot of small holders are not consumers in a traditional sense but in terms of techniques and know how for once private sector might have been slightly ahead of this for of course the purpose of making money but I don't think it's a bad motivation so I would urge in that conversation about gender if you are just institutions you're also missing out on a lot of knowledge that's happening in terms of how we reach to these groups that have been excluded in the past thank you could you introduce yourself sorry my name is Isabel Koch I'm with the International Agri Food Network which is a private sector federation of groups but personal comment thank you gentlemen over there thank you very much my name is Olu Ajayi and I work with CTA based in the Netherlands it seems to me that this is a very important thing but we seem to be addressing the same thing rather than the root causes we talk of why women are not represented on the youth but we need to take a step back and look at what are the fundamental issues the level of education if we have all the time to consult all the ministries who will be sitting and representing those ministries most likely men so I think we need to take a step back and look at more fundamental issues that this is just one of the things about climate change if you want to talk of other issues on development apart from climate change you still find the same issue that women are less represented the youth are less represented so I think it's a bigger issue beyond just climate change let's look at the bigger picture and the fundamental issues underlining this problem thank you great point thank you any other comments or questions so let me turn just any final words from the panel the wise words I think that you've all spoken are that you can't really fix the climate problem without addressing all the other developmental problems that hold us back in so many different ways and that's why it's so damn difficult and complicated and if you try and hide from that complexity well we'll probably fail on many things do you want to say a few words in closing and then I'll turn to Michael to wind up well of course there is no easy solution someone this morning said there has to be bruises in the discussions well there are obviously and yes we need to tackle the root causes of poverty and injustice and that's part of the process many of the solutions were said in this room so I think the people here should be at a negotiation table because we know what to do it's a question of political will we know that we need data and science and having access to data is expensive but I'm sure that technical progress will help us to visualize the situation to map we know that we need to work on the rights of women you know many of the microfinance programs you know it or you might not know it are coming to are being stopped now are facing difficulties because this is women who are in the 60s or 70s now who have been doing great microfinance they're dying the younger generation see that the assets of these women are being taken by the brother-in-law or the family so why the hell should they work like hell and then they cannot keep these assets and transmit them to their children so all these fundamental rights have to be issued and have to be addressed but we know it we know it another big flow in all the discussion is that within the question of women and of their rights as a vehicle to an end we use the women because maybe we need to check the box or maybe they do the actual work on the ground so they have a vehicle to an end to achieve better productivity they're not an end in itself in themselves we don't do it on the moral ground because we must have gender equality but we do it because we hope that we take the box and get something so of course it doesn't work and my final comment is that it is therefore very important to see what will happen next to answer the gentleman comment the mechanism of the ambition what is called the mechanism of the ambition so what is going to happen over the past 5 to 10 years how do we have a binding agreement or not can we monitor and do governments accept the monitoring or not and then how can we make them accountable of what they've signed in Paris but to make them accountable we need to have these words, the youth gender equality, human rights food security not only food distribution in the binding agreement if not we as activists NGOs as scientists we do not have the technical and legal instruments that will help us at care or all the other NGOs do our work thank you, thank you any other closing thoughts from colleagues please for me I think my closing thought is that don't lump the issues don't lump gender and youth issues under social inequality issues they need to stand out and stand alone and I think with the years we have just seen a growing global movement of young people that are concerned about climate change issues young people that want to see a future world that is that is good good for them so the main issue is all these things that we are talking about here they can only happen if we have an enabling environment and that has a lot to do with the kind of policies that we have in place with the kind of infrastructure that we have in place so we need to to clean our houses and make sure that we create an enabling environment for women and for youth as well to be able to thank you so much actually Philip just thinking back to what you just said there is something of an analogy in the debate I am seeing between the protected areas logic on environment and the green economy logic with the rights based approach to gender and the economic efficiency case for gender in terms of how you convince people and I think we could have another longer discussion we have just run out of time to have it about how we can persuade or whether we can just mandate attention to this issue and I think that deserves unpicking but we don't have time to unpick it so sorry but thanks for raising it any other closing thoughts or should I turn to Michelle please Sophia I could just follow up on your comment I think climate change impacts have the potential to have huge social effects and they have the impact to really increase the global gender gap in the gender gap so I think this silo problem is one of our main problems that as Philip mentioned it's a lot of technocrat activity technocrat working together copying of text when really there needs to be a much wider integration and understanding of what the socioeconomic issues are so around gender equality it's good to have all of the UNFCC entities be encouraged to have a greater gender balance that's a good start but if UNFCC is not making the socioeconomic issues a priority