 I hope you had a nice lunch. With Erika now we're going to do what we should have done right at the beginning of the workshop, which is introduce the workshop. The scope of this presentation is just to contextualise why we're here in this way. I'm going to say something about the assessment of climate risk and how this is the tool we're working around and it's informing the development of adaptation strategies and also going towards building resilience. The assessment of climate risk as it was, it's interesting to see how it evolved in the IPCC. When you go back to the AR4 on the left, there's my magic button, sorry. Here we are. This is a really cool button that people can see online like this tool. It was predominantly an assessment of impacts and vulnerability and as it moved over the assessment cycle, so AR4 was in 2007, something like that, and then in the AR5 that was around 2013 or 2014. You see an evolution of this concept and how we're not talking anymore just about vulnerability to climate related and environmental related impacts, but this risk framing has emerged where there's an interplay between the climate signal, the hazards, and the vulnerability of society and also the ecosystems with their exposure. This is where the famous propeller diagram emerged and you see these interactions, these more dynamic perspectives of how hazards, vulnerability and exposure all are interrelated and you can make an assessment of the risk of these potential impacts and bringing in both the socio-economic dimension with the physical science dimension and the vulnerability side also takes into consideration differences within society. Within a society you'll have different vulnerabilities and this is where this concept moved towards in the AR5. I don't have to introduce this in great detail because we had a very nice talk from Envera, but you see here the way it's come forward into the AR6 and so it's an intersecting interplay between climate impact drivers, ecosystem and societal vulnerabilities and their exposure, but also now consideration of the response to climate change. So how you adapt or mitigate can lead to risks obviously, it can lead to consequences that you need to consider. On the working group one side, we have, as you've already heard, this multi-hazard approach to the assessment of the climate consequences and the assessment has shown how drivers of impacts are becoming larger with increasing global warming, the frequency is increasing, they're appearing in new locations with different timings, there are concurrent or compound or cascading effects and just as a reminder, when we look at the vulnerability we're talking about 3.3 to 3.6 billion people who are currently living in highly vulnerable contexts and we're also talking about ecosystems. With exposure, for example, 1 billion people are exposed to sea level rise by 2050 and when you talk about responses, here we're thinking about the consequences, for example of pressures on land, for example mitigation actions and lock-in coming from these responses that can lead to maladaptation and so the diagram has become really complicated so you see all these little symbols they show when there are bidirectional, so going between vulnerability and hazard, you have unidirectional effects, you have effects that aggregate, that cascade, so here is the framework within which the AR6 assessed risk. So this very nice figure, which Ilvi already showed, shows you how they intersect with positive and negative consequences moving around the cycle, climate change, the effects on much more integrating the consequences for ecosystems and biodiversity in the assessment and human society. I think Working Group 2 really took this concept to another level in showing evidence for how considering all these interlinkages together, actually you can not only adapt and not only incrementally adapt, but you can undertake transformative approaches where you take a systems-based approach considering the picture as a whole and then there is a possibility of actually making these links working for each other with positive consequences in fact, depending on how you take into account human systems, governance aspects, participation, justice and equity, how you look at ecosystems and their services as almost on equal footing with the human systems and future climate change consequences. So in practice, and this isn't IPCC stuff, this is from my new position right now, it's a project I'm working on climax in the European context, it's really interesting to see when you do a comprehensive review of, it's mainly grey and white literature currently national adaptation plans and strategies, how they're actually handling the climate risk assessment and when you go through these list of, our evaluation of these plans and strategies, you see that in actual fact, we're still in the AR4 days and this is why I showed you this history, we're actually in practice still at the AR4 days, mainly considering an assessment of impacts and perhaps vulnerability, but there's in fact a need to include risk still in many cases, it's quite remarkable, and the move towards a more complex systems approach, also the multi hazard compound and cascading risk approach, what you often see is that vulnerability and exposure are compounding, so it's hard to unpack vulnerability and exposure in these strategies and there is starting to be an inclusion of response effects, but it's a novelty, I suppose, in the consideration of risk and extending the assessment of risk beyond monetary terms, so non-monetary terms as well. Some positives are that you see an increasing awareness of maladaptation, you do see the involvement of stakeholders in the co-design process and there are many good practice examples, so there's a chance to learn and share experiences. This is a European context, but I think it's probably comparable in other parts of the world. Just to show you still in Europe how international cooperation is important when you're looking at building transformative change in how you approach climate change risks. There's a green new deal that's called in Europe and there's a mitigation-orientated part of that, but there's also an adaptation mission and it's really interesting to see how this works in an international context, so there's an effort to coordinate growth of capacity across different types of players. Obviously, you will know how heterogeneous this landscape is, so we're talking about local authorities, regional administrations, national administrations, also sectoral administration, I suppose. In the EU, there's funding which is actually going in towards helping, I suppose, in a case study approach to build capacity from the ground. This project that I'm involved with isn't a research project, it's more an implementation project and it's research in itself, in fact. It's really interesting. You go from the bottom where you're trying to build preparedness and awareness of climate risks, because as I said, we're in the AR4 days still, so there's lots of road still to do. Then there are some very good examples already out there, so you can build and strengthen these examples through the transition to designing enabling conditions and solutions in this transformative framing. This particular mission approach is aiming to, I think it's by 2030, elevate at 75, they aim for 75 case examples where they're building resilience, in fact, in their planning. The way in Europe it's working is that there is this heterogeneous landscape and you try and develop a sort of bring everyone up to standards and then show by learning how you can actually implement these conceptual ideas that I was showing you from the IPCC. Back to the workshop, and I think it's really interesting to see how, on the one hand, we hear a lot about the IPCC assessments. It's important because it speaks to global scale coordination and cooperation and UNFCCC. You heard that from Yuri this morning, but it also sets standards. When we looked at those risk framings, they evolved over time. They are setting the standards, best practices, for all parties to look at. I think here, on the one hand, we're bringing together the communities who are working on the ground on the research that advances our understanding of risk and the methodologies, but also this context can create a sort of growth of capacity in your local country context, working at a national or local scale. We have a really nice opportunity here for cross-feeding between the IPCC on the one and the higher end, I suppose, which is quite conceptual in some regards, how to improve the presentation of the IPCC, aggregating the knowledge that you're generating, and on the other hand, bringing these best practices down to the local contextualised research and activities that you may be involved with. So this was a bit our motivation, I suppose. We have a nice programme, and I just introduced it very quickly. I hope you can read it. So the times are a bit rough. This was a kind of sketch programme. Don't look at the times. You have a more detailed agenda, but you see some colours. Just to explain the motivation, on the blue, we're thinking of having some more I guess there's a bit like lectures on the latest knowledge, be it from the assessment process, but also from other activities that are really pushing the boundaries of the assessment of climate risks in different sectors in a way. Sea level and coastal risks, ecosystems, biodiversity, agriculture and land use. We have health and we have water security. You'll see these are really nice. What we try to do is bring working group one type people and working group two type people together, and it won't be just a boring lecture, I think. You'll see various different formats, and we try and intersect these two parts of the world. Then we have what you can see as green. I picked the green ones. These are soft skill development sessions. In the IPCC process, we really had a nice experience working with experts in communication, visual design, outreach and data science. We think that it's worthwhile to share these experiences and maybe introduce you to some of the techniques and methods because as a scientist you probably find yourself often trying to answer questions from your local authority or from stakeholders in your region. People are really interested in your research. The idea here is that you take these skills forward and make your research more widely known and impactful. Then we have a couple of talks. One is on information design on Wednesday. A really interesting one coming on Friday which picks up this issue of relating to the development of policies themselves. This is an invited talk looking at going from research to the policy sphere. Then we have a really nice road that goes through the workshop which is the yellow and you'll hear about it in a minute. This is where we want to discuss with you because this is a workshop. It's not like teaching stuff. You have expertise that's unique in a way we're bringing this all together and we're going to start discussing what the priorities are from a research perspective but also thinking about these international corporation, international assessment or regional assessments. Soon you'll hear how this will work but we're trying to develop a collective piece of perspective of what's coming out from this discussion during this week. I think that's all I can say. At this stage maybe Erika can complement as well. Just to tell a bit of the story. Initially this workshop was designated so we spoke with Anna a lot. We shared the same institute. We are here both of us. Over coffee we were discussing and thinking about how can we directly get to the stakeholder that is you of the APCC information. This was originally scheduled for the TS writing workshop that was back to the TS writing workshop that was here in Trieste before the COVID. Your feedback could also come to us directly during the APCC process but this was of course not possible because we had COVID and then the workshop got postponed. This just to tell you that already from the beginning when this workshop was like say taught or invented or kind of shaped was because we wanted to know how could we improve the APCC process if there is something that we have done that is for us it looks very important instead for the stakeholder community but also for the research community is not. Also if you how this could be changed if you see that there is an alternative way to shape the storyline across the working group the three working group or the way in which the information is treated. This was the original intention of the workshop and still it is today this is why you see this different colour. In particular when I just want to highlight the yellow one because next after us there will be the yellow session starting. So during this yellow session what we want is really interact with you and then Sarah will introduce how the section will going to be today and also during the talk from you tomorrow on Wednesday your talk has to be of course we will listen to you but also think about giving your talk as an input for us to understand which are the answer to the question that I asked you before and also think about the question that I've been shared with you before the workshop so this is really what we want to know from you during this yellow session and all across the workshop and I think this is what mostly what the workshop is about