 I'm going to talk about the arts and a very, very little bit of the science behind how we engage people, and in particular the people who depend on and impact nature. And I'm going to give you a few examples of how the Natural Capital Project has been doing it in ways that are both imaginative and fun and creative. So I hope to inspire you to get involved and try some of these things out. I'd like to begin first with a confession, use this as a bit of a confessional, that I have been involved with many projects that have failed. They have failed to have impact. And I hasten to add that most of these projects were before I joined Natural Capital Project in WWF, obviously. When I was young and foolish in previous roles, acting as an environmental economist in government agencies. And what I would tend to do is hire some very good consultants who I respect their work. I would hire them. I would ask them to do a report on the value of ecosystem services. And there would be very limited engagement with people. So these consultants would fly in and out, maybe do a choice experiment, maybe do a survey. They'd write up a really nice neat report about each ecosystem service and the value of them. And they'd put it all in some sort of total economic value framework. And they'd hand back their report. And needless to say, those reports gathered a lot of dust and had very little impact. And one of my favorites, and I dearly love the people who worked on this, if they get to hear this, was in Monster Rats, which is an extremely curious place in the Caribbean, a very small island that in 1995 had a previously dormant volcano erupt. So two thirds of the population had to flee Monster Rats. And about 1,000 people stuck around. And I tell you, those people are fierce and fearless because they stayed even when lava was running down the hillside towards them. But it meant that we didn't really hear even that many people to engage, but still we didn't do it. So we built a lot of these reports. They had great titles. This one was called Value After the Volcano. But they didn't really have a lot of impact. And if you look at the broader picture of ecosystem service studies globally, there's also a kind of worrying picture. So this is some work done by Jan Laronce in Paris with colleagues back in 2013. They took about 450 ecosystem service valuation studies and they looked at whether they had documented a real use case of use in decision making or even had some analysis of use or had cursory or no reference whatsoever. So actual use cases was 3%. Some exploration or analysis of use was 6%. And the rest, the other 90%, barely mentioned it at all. So there's obviously a large part of the community that is doing this without exploring use in decision making. And this is obviously dated to 2013. And this report actually then kicked us to really write up and explore some of this in earnest in the subsequent years. So based on my own personal failures and the subsequent, you know, I would say some successes, some really, I believe successes we've had at NACAP, I've come to the belief that our work, this community's work on natural capital, will only have impact if we engage with people. If we do not engage with people, we're going to have no impact. And that is a challenge to all of us. So we need to learn the skills and the strategy for doing this. And it's more important and it's more difficult, in my view, than the science and the data itself. So we need to come down from our ivory towers or our NGO offices or whatever walls you like to live within and get over the fact that we have few incentives and we have few of the skills and few of the tools and too little time to do this. Because if we don't do it, we're not going to achieve what we're all setting out to do. And this shared sort of two-way communication is really important. Now this slide I'm going to whiz through. I was once told by a mentor of mine that when giving a talk you should have one really wonky framework slide that shows you thought about this deeply. So this is the slide. We thought about it deeply. We've studied a lot of places. Great, you can take some pictures and study it later. This is from a paper we did where we looked at three NACAP case studies on spatial planning. And we looked at the different ways in which knowledge was used. Now the one takeaway I want you to take from this is that in all three of those cases, we found that this way of using knowledge, which is called conceptual use, was foundational. It was not the only way it was used. And this is about understanding and beliefs and values. People had to use knowledge in that way before they could then use it more instrumentally, you know, to change a policy or change a plan or more strategically to maneuver their way through the political and power dynamics. But that underpinning of conceptual use was the first thing in all three cases. And so for me the takeaway is that, and we also found that to get that kind of use, you need to have regular, meaningful participation with stakeholders engaging diverse groups regularly. And so we understand the importance of all of this. So now I get to the fun part, the creative part. And I'm not saying these are all the answers. There are going to be many, many other ways we have to engage people. And especially if we're working with different groups, private sectors, different power dynamics, we've got to be very thoughtful about this. But I want to give three examples where I think the Natural Capital Project in the last 10 years has done this really well and has also had a lot of fun doing it. So the first is playing games. The second is being creative with communication. And the third is listening actively and earnestly to others. So starting on games, and Henry, who you've all got to know and love because he organizes the symposium, and Greg, and if Greg Verruches is in the room, could give a hand wave. He's not here. Oh yes, there he is. He was behind a lot of this work. That we've developed what we like to call, some people have liked to call serious games, although you can see from the quantity of beer and wine on this table that we also have lots of fun doing it. And these games are really about examining the impact of alternative development paths. We tend to play them with different groups. And one amazing moment we had with a partner in a financial institution that's pretty mainstream and hadn't at the time thought about the environment much. We'd been talking to them for about a year and it wasn't really clicking. And then they came to this event at the symposium and they played one of these versions of these games. And then they said, I get it. I get it. I get what you're trying to do. So it's a really nice way of people having those aha moments. So there's a whole series of these games that Henry and Greg can tell you more about. There's ones that first one we did was based in the Belize example that you've heard about. There's an agriculture one based on terrestrial and freshwater services. There's an arctic one which I've worked with a lot looking at arctic development and one which is more around linear infrastructure. And all of them are available for people to use and to print out. And what we find that they're useful for doing is conveying the concepts of how people, how nature contributes to people, bringing home the difficult decisions that need to be made between development and conservation, what you lose and what you gain, and demonstrating how spatial information can be particularly powerful for locating where development takes place. So they've been really powerful and fun tools. So the second example is around creative communication. So this is a group that is playing the game, but can anyone do spot the difference and see what's different in this picture? No beer. Oh yeah, there's no beer and wine. Also, we haven't done an online version. Those two guys on the phone are not playing an online version. Any other guesses? Yes, easel is great. So there is art in the background. So, and I'd like to credit a colleague of ours, Jill Schwartz, who's at WWF, who in our communications team, who has really pushed us and inspired us to be more creative with our communication. So this is a forum for sustainable infrastructure that Kate Newman organized also, I'm sure in this room, where we played the linear infrastructure game and as well as how playing the game, they had this art in the background to get people thinking. And in Myanmar, WWF commissioned a young local photographer to take pictures of how people were interacting with nature in the countryside and then hosted this gallery art show, both in Yangon and in Darway, showing people interacting with nature. So they framed the photos and they laid them out side by side with the natural capital maps. And according to Hannah Helsingen, who works at WWF, Myanmar people are still coming two years later and saying how much impact this had on them, how much they took away from this, how much they understood about not only the people they were seeing in the photos, but their own interactions with nature. So many people came, more drinks, that's a bit of a theme. And yeah, some really, some really powerful moments. So as well as working on art, we also developed this interactive website. You can go and have a play around on this. It's miamarnaturalcapital.org. So we visually enhanced the natural capital maps and posted them online. So the underlying data is much more accessible. So it's really beautiful. It's really interactive. And it makes the concepts much easier for a lay person to understand than many of the maps that we've been looking at for the last two days, which for this community, nice, you can interpret them for the average person, mean absolutely nothing. This is the video. We also, those of you who are here at the lunch break, got a chance to see this video that we did about natural capital in Mozambiques, also using videos as a creative forum. So finally, our final tactic here is active listening. And I've put this last, but I think it's probably the most important. And this is, obviously, we're engaging with people in that gameplay and in those creative communications. But this is really down at the project level. So where the natural capital project team are working in places with conversations. And Ann Gehry spoke yesterday about this importance of listening, patience, I would add, emotional intelligence, different ways of knowing, reflecting back that you've heard people. And this is something that I would say many people in the NatCap team are really good at. It's an absolute joy to be with people who are so good at this. So I wanted to give a brief example from the Bahamas work, which Catherine Wyatt and Katie Arkimer have led where they developed a development plan in Andros Island with the Office of the Prime Minister and Inter-American Development Bank. And in that, I think it really epitomizes how the work was done. Chatting with people, asking them simple questions. What do you want? What matters to you? Then coming back with things from education to health to transport to food security to water security, coming back with things that really matter. And then the NatCap team translating that back to how ecosystems and ecosystem services support all of that and how we can explore those trade-offs. So there's some really lovely examples. One of the quotes that Katie shared with me was a profitable land crab that put our children through college. I love this concept. And then there's a thing called the bone fish, which brings $50 million annually to Andros Island and this recognition of the importance of these fisheries for their communities. So you're probably quite familiar with these kinds of maps now, but using that kind of conversation to have insights and influence into what matters to people so that ultimately the kind of science we're doing does have impact. So in conclusion, I would like to encourage all of you to come out of our ivory towers and get onto the street or the beach or the lagoon or the forest or the river, whatever, or maybe into the finance institutions office, but get into the street. So we're talking with people and I encourage you all that we have lots of tools, lots of experience that are impactful and also incredibly fun. Thank you. This is really important work and I love the creativity that went into this. One of the things I'm curious about is how organizations learn from their mistakes. And I talked about this in a previous session, so I apologize, but we're pretty good at doing an evaluation and figuring out what did work and what didn't work. What we're not so good at is creating organizations that actually know how to learn so that these lessons are learned and implemented. It sounds like you've figured this out. And I'm just curious what you do within NatCap and WWF to make you capable of actually changing your plans based on knowledge that you've gotten from the field. I'm looking at Rebecca, who's our chief scientist. I'm sure there are many better answers than the one I'm about to give off the top of my head. But what I found, I would say what we've done in NatCap and Archie, it's emerged almost this meetings emerged from it is a culture of reflection. So we have something called our Olympics, so called because we run many different events that are quite tiring. It's like an inter for people who are involved with the NatCap project partnership. We come together once a year, a bit like with the symposium, a smaller group and we reflect on what we're learning and what's going well and what's not and we share. And I mean, I think that would be my instinct is it's pretty informal, but having a safe space where you can be open and where people again are good at listening and sharing across disciplines is very powerful. Hi, Emily. This culture of active listening, I also really appreciate and I'm wondering if you can give a good example of a case where this kind of active listening led to a real sea change in the kind of work that was ended up being done because I can think of a lot of examples where we listen to people and we integrate what they say into the way that we were kind of planning to do things anyway. So I mean, that's not being entirely fair. But you know, like is there an example where it really shifted fundamentally the way that you approached a problem? The way I approached a problem or where they, the way they did? Oh, either. Me either. Yeah. Yeah, so I'm looking at Spencer at the back. Spencer and I have been working with an institution that doesn't typically work on environmental issues and learning about how they make decisions in the finance sector, how, what their constraints are, what they, the way they operationalize things internally to really, like we spent many hours and many meetings really understanding their incentives and their structures and their processes. And through that thought about how we could adapt the way we work, the way we do use and produce a natural couple of information to meet their needs. So that's one specific example. I mean, I think you need to get yourself into the headspace and it could, you know, those examples I gave were communities, but it could just as well be a business or a financial institution or a government, but understanding their positions, their opportunities, their constraints, and then being imaginative and patient and all the many things that Spencer is. He's hanging, being put on the spot. To think about how we would have to adjust the science we do and the way we work to meet their needs. Can get me later, Spencer.