The map that you see in front of you now is a map of the IWS, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, that demonstrates the extent, range and depth of conflict around the world today. The majority of those conflicts are internal conflicts, and the thesis that I'm putting forward to you today is that the nature of international relations today is such that the possibility of great power conflict is back. Arguably its likelihood is higher now than at any point in the last 25 years, and this is because two of the big powers in the world, China and Russia, are beginning to try to challenge the global predominance of the United States and its allies. And they're doing so not only on the ground, but also through their declaratory policy. Vladimir Putin, our commanders always have the authorization to use any means for the defense of the Russian Federation. The chief of his general staff, we must not copy foreign experience and chase after leading countries, but we must outstrip them and occupy leading positions ourselves. President Xi Jinping, we will make it our mission to see that by 2035 the modernization of our national defense and our forces is basically completed and that by the 21st century our people's armed forces are being fully transformed into world-class forces. And the French naval commander noting the strategic landscape is changing rapidly. China, for example, built in the last four years the equivalent of the entire French navy. And I'll put a footnote to that to say that in September 2016 the French navy was outstripped in the Mediterranean by the presence of the Chinese navy. There were more Chinese naval vessels in the Mediterranean than there were French. And at present the US administration is of course having a challenging time in working with its NATO allies, working with its Asian allies. There's a degree of unpredictability in the geopolitical environment. Europeans for their part are becoming a little bit more conscious that the world is a dangerous place, but their capabilities have been hollowed out since the end of the Cold War and perhaps even more hollowed out in the wake of the austerity that they've had to conduct after 2008. Now great power conflict isn't inevitable, but we are at an inflection point and I think that some of the initiative is moving towards the challenges to the status quo rather than those who wish to protect the status quo. But defense spending is still an interesting indicator of the distribution of effort and you can see from that slide that still today the United States remains by far the largest defense spender in the world at more than US $600 billion in the last year, 38% of the total. But Russia and China are spending quite well themselves. The difficulty is that Russian and Chinese defense spending is not very transparent. For instance, China that is indubitably the second biggest defense spender in the world, we estimate their defense expenditure at 195 billion, the official budget in China is 150 billion and the difference resides in fact they don't put a lot of things in their defense budget. The Council for example of China is in charge of arms purchases and that's not part of their defense budget. The other interesting thing that has happened in recent years is the way in which defense spending has changed region by region. Since 2011 defense spending in Asia has surpassed total spending in Europe and during the Cold War while NATO states dedicated a high degree of their national wealth to military expenditure with defense expenditure sometimes being as high as 6% of GDP, almost all key NATO states spending way above the current declared minimum of 2%, now only 5% do. And this slide shows a little bit those trends. Look at those numbers in 1980. France spending 3%, Germany 2.7%, Turkey 5%, the UK 6%, the United States 6%, and then you come down all the way down to 2017 and you see those numbers rather dramatically reduced. 1.9% for France, 1.1% for Germany, United Kingdom just about holding it 2% and the United States even with this great talk about making America great again and spending a lot of money to ensure the United States stays ahead of their peer competitors 1.1% it still is a proportion of GDP, a lot less than what United States was spending at the height of the Cold War. China is the country that is moving most rapidly to become a peer competitor of the United States. They have made rapid strides in the field of air to air missiles putting high value platforms of the United States that used to be able to loiter safely outside of engagement zones in the Taiwan straits for example under great risk. Within the next two years the United States will lose its monopoly on operational stealth combat aircraft with the Chinese J-20 entering service that J-20 having stealth technology that the Chinese state stole from Western industry through their intellectual property theft operations. China continues to pursue advanced technologies, extremely high performance computing, quantum communications, AI and what this slide is demonstrating is that they're making a lot of their advanced weapons available for export where the United States is unwilling to sell the Chinese will often enter that vacuum and the result is that there are more lethal weapons in more hands in more places and the West will have to deal with an environment in which all military domains are more contested. Now it's important also to underline that technology in itself is not the only factor that matters. The enemy gets a vote too as military commanders like to say. The current US National Security Advisor General McMaster has a nice phrase.  Chinese military lacks combat experience. They're in the process still of developing joint doctrine and training but the point here is that China is catching up fast and Chinese defense spending and military capabilities are not limited by mainland China's geographic borders. China is of course hugely concerned about maintaining its sovereignty over the South China Sea and since 2013 China has reclaimed landed outposts in the South China Sea and by 2015 it reclaimed 2,900 acres of land or 17 times more than all the other claimants to that territory combined and while President Xi Jinping pledged in 2015 not to militarize China's islands in the South China Sea Chinese occupied islands in the Spratlys now host munitions depots, sensor arrays, radar systems, missile shelters as well as three 3,000 meter runways on the big three islands and together China's presence in the Paracels and the Spratlys provides the PLA pretty comprehensive military coverage of the entire South China Sea and those of us gathered here in Davos have been extremely seized by that great Chinese geoeconomic experiment the Belt and Road Initiative and while it is primarily an economic project the Belt and Road Initiative will be giving China tremendous infrastructure on which it could choose to build military installations developing a wider international footprint they already have a base in Djibouti and they are exercising as I said earlier in the Baltic and Mediterranean seas so when you hear the People's Republic of China perhaps noting with concern the occasional appearance of American, French or British naval vessels in the South China Sea the Chinese have been as close to the Baltics and the Mediterranean themselves now moving back to Europe we are I think properly concerned about the resurgence of a potential threat from Russia Russia is a country that understands the laws of asymmetry in conflict they have been able to bring different levers of state power to orchestrate an effect in causing challenges in Western Europe the conflicts in which they have engaged in Ukraine, in Syria have served as tests and evaluation laboratories for Russian technology military doctrine and military personnel and Russia has demonstrated lots of anti-access area denial force projection capabilities that are creating more challenges for Europe we have a map here of Kaliningrad just to remind geographically that Kaliningrad is Russian territory it's an enclave within Poland and Russia has the option of potentially deploying intermediate range weapons in Kaliningrad and without wishing to frighten too much if you look at those ranges you can see that Davos would be within the range of Russian missiles that might be deployed in Kaliningrad but actually I don't think personally as a strategist that it's Russian military deployments they are the greatest threat now to European security stability and prosperity it's much more the asymmetric tactics that Russia is able to employ and is doing so without limitations from domestic or international law Russian strategy is to where possible undermine or open societies from the inside and there are at least three areas where people here gather in Davos interested in the Western liberal order, interested in business and prosperity should be concerned about in the way in which Russia now exercises its state power the first is the way in which they are leveraging their financial power including in the private sector potentially to purchase controlling shares in infrastructure in Europe that they might later be able to manipulate the second is the propaganda that they are targeting steadily and effectively at Russian speaking minorities in the Baltic states, in the Balkans and in animating pro-Russian political parties both on the left and the right wing of various political spectrums and the third is in their assertion of cyber power through interference and democratic processes and this includes the dissemination of perhaps not fake news but junk news, trolling and we should not rule out more direct interference we have a slide here showing RT and Sputnik and there should be no doubt that these are instruments of the Russian state in order to advance Russian thinking and to undermine support for the open prosperous societies in the liberal west the sad fact is that today's Russia does not seem to be overly invested in the current international order and while we worry about the rules based order being undermined from within our western societies because of the leaders that we sometimes actually elect or risk electing the challenge to the rules based order also comes from the outside and I think Russia is a principal challenger of that rules based order back to the debate on defense though again to see quite how big the gap has grown since the height of the Cold War look at the numbers there in 1990 the kinds of forces that West Germany alone had deployed or at its disposal and you add those with Italy, France, United Kingdom and the European command of the United States and then you look at the figures in 2015 all the way across this bottom screen if you added up all of these charts in the bottom screen Germany, Italy, France, UK, United States, European command they just about equal what West Germany alone had in 1990 so when people talk about the hollowing out of our military resources on the European continent the gap they're talking about there's no argument necessarily for going back all the way to those numbers but this gap is quite an extraordinary one especially at a time when Russia is determined to potentially use military force more on the European continent as they have in Georgia and in Ukraine just looking at the personnel deployed numbers look at those numbers from 1995 nearly four million coming down over the years to just under two million so when people are calling for an increase in defense budgets and increase in equipment and increase in personnel this isn't an attempt to go back to the numbers of the Cold War but just to begin to rebuild from the huge cuts that were optimistically taken when the Cold War ended and people thought there would be a peace dividend and then the cuts that were additionally imposed after 2008 when the economics of austerity took hold so in conclusion the United States and Europe are now going through about what I style strategic arthritis there is so much effort in strengthening our domestic economies on reconnecting with our people on ensuring social inclusion and the like understanding our electoral processes in the modern and digital age and we have let the first mover advantage slip from us to these other anti-status quo powers principally China and Russia and if I were to leave you with one message is that in geopolitics just as in business there is a first mover advantage and in the last few years Russia and China have been creating facts on the ground that complicate the maintenance of that liberal democratic order that we all champion and if we are to sustain it we need to gain the initiative politically and to a degree again even militarily thank you very much


Okay, good day to all of you and welcome to the second webinar session of WhyCRA, my name is Odelia Chandri and I am an exchange even coordinator from EOS, and I'll be your moderator for the session. Today we will be talking about using behavioral science for youth climate action in agriculture, which is one of the topic covered in a program launched by FAO and EOS in collaboration with the park that is youth for green and climate resilient agriculture or the WhyCRA itself. Now to give more context to this program, let me give the floor to one of WhyCRA's coordinator, Maydee Sinitom from the FAO's Office of Climate Change, Environment and Biodiversity. Over to you Maydee, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Odelia, dear participants, your panelists, it's a pleasure being with you today, welcome. As I say, as I say by Odelia, I work for the Office of Climate Change, Environment, Biodiversity of FAO, and I will just say before we can dive into today's topic a minute of your time to present the WhyCRA program. The session you're attending today is part of a program called Youth for Green and Climate Resilient Agriculture. It was launched jointly by EOS and FAO this year and the program aims to reach the gap of capacity building to help youth contribute to the transformation of agricultural systems. In the competitive application process, we selected eight youth-led projects and from March we have been supporting them, supporting the growth of their project with a capacity building package and also mentoring. In the context of this capacity building, we are also organizing a series of technical webinar that is open to the broader public and the session you're attending today is the second of that series. We have the one in September after the summer on CSA, Climate Smart Agriculture. So we hope that you will register for this one also. And if you haven't watched the first session, I will put in the chat the link to watch the recording. So I just have now to wish you a good session and thank you all for joining us today again. Over to you, Odelia. Thank you for your wonderful explanation, Maydee, and hopefully the intro has given you all a more thorough understanding on Whycraft. We will now commence with the main session of the event and to do that, let me introduce you to two of our speakers. My name is Maydee Price, a behavioral scientist from the FAO's Office of Innovation, who is currently leading FAO's efforts to increase the use of a mainstream behavioral science across the organization. And Phillip Bidroll, a behavioral scientist from Rare's Center for Behavior and Environment with a research focused on the neurobiological underpinings of human decision making and the role evolution plays in biasing our choices. In the next session, we would like you to please take as much notes as possible so that you won't forget any of the questions you have. And we do hope that you can learn a lot through the session on today's webinar. And without further ado, I would like to give the floor over to Courtney to start. Courtney, over to you. Thank you. Thank you so much, Odell, for that kind introduction and thank you all for being joining us here today. I'll briefly just talk about what we're looking to do, what behavioral science is, and what FAO is doing about it. I've had a technical difficulty that going again. Okay, here we go. So, without further ado, how do we change behavior? Before we get into the details, just ask yourselves, what is it that we do to change behavior? When you've had challenges, when you've had the issues with yourself or with others, you know, what approaches have you taken to trying to make change happen? Well, if you're like me, and you went through perhaps a traditional educational program or exposed to basic economic theory or many other kind of rational approaches, we might think of behavior as a rational process, you know, that we make sure people, we need to know what's a benefit of something to ourselves, we need to have information and guidance around it, and we need to have the ability to implement the change that we're learning about. We might think essentially that knowledge drives behavior, but does that really work? Is that really how behavior changes? Well, in order to explore that, let's do an experiment together. Let's look at the power of knowledge. Okay, so read along with me out loud while you're staring at your screens. Barbara has loved listening to classical music since she was a young child. She is an opera fan who enjoys touring art museums when on holiday. And growing up, she also enjoyed playing chess with family and friends. Which situation is more likely? Barbara plays the French horn in a major symphony orchestra, or Barbara is a farmer. Well, you might imagine that given Barbara's interests and her musical abilities, her passions for art and museums, you know, she's probably a musician of some sort, that makes sense, right? But check the data. There's a lot of farmers in the world. There's not that many symphony orchestras and even fewer French horn players inside the symphony orchestra. So it's most likely that Barbara is a farmer. It's very, very, very unlikely, statistically speaking, that she's in an orchestra. Why would our brains trick us like that? Why would we come to the wrong conclusion? I'm sure many of you came to the right conclusion. But not all of us are the same. And quite often, if you look at the data, you look at the trends coming out of behavioral science studies, most of us kind of fall for the trick. We look for associations. And why is that? Well, a simple way to look at it is something that, you know, Daniel Kahneman and many others have become famous for describing in detail is the idea or metaphor that our thinking is built on two systems. The Homer or our automatic system on the left, system one, and Spock are more logical system on the right, the thinking system, the rational thought system. And maybe you've heard this before, but this is the story of these two systems is the important point is that they're not the same. Our system one is really strong and persistent while our system two is slow and lazy. And the result of this is that much of our behavior is automatic. We often substitute complex questions with simpler ones. We often have associations that pop in our brain and override, let's say a more methodical system to approach so as a result system one often dominates. And this results in our behavior being quite automatic. And interestingly when faced with with with complexity, we tend to go for the simpler option. So what's the result of this? What are we going to gather basically system one dominates and system two, or our approaches of knowledge transfer and rational thought are really insufficient to create sustainable change. And so we definitely need to innovate around how we change behavior, how we talk about behavior, and essentially we need to target system one, make things easier for automatic system or wake up our more glorious system to how do we do this, how do we innovate around behavior change. Well, as Philip is going to tell you in much more detail, we need to leverage behavioral science. Before we get into how to do it. Let's talk about what it is, behavioral science is an amalgamation of lots of disciplines. It is a study of what drives behavior in order to use those drivers influence behavior. It's a multidisciplinary approach. And it's, it really has different than a lot of different intuitive approaches. It applies a rigorous scientific methodology to building evidence, experimenting on your hypotheses and drawing informed conclusion as to why people are doing what they're doing, and what would help them change. It's also really good methodology for generating evidence not just on individual behavior change but also what in policies would help people change or ourselves. How can we create enabling environments that make it easier for us to perform sustainable behaviors. And it's a really big opportunity for using or changing the way we approach agri food system transformation how food sector stakeholders interact and can become safer more productive and more sustainable. And, you know, this, it's also something that is last year, the entire UN system is now championing this uptake of behavioral science is really important tool. And as the Secretary General himself said, we need to really invest in behavioral science. And we can see that the movement to invest in behavioral science is coming at a really timely point. We all certainly agree, given our interest in this webinar that behavioral change is absolutely necessary, if we're going to protect people and planet from climate change, natural and many disasters, and other threats so we need to turn things around and find a path towards sustainability and behavioral science is a key way to do that. And FAO is playing key role in exploring behavioral science of how to transform agri food systems. And specifically about FAO, you know, it's a large organization with many offices across the world with a very important mandate to try to help the world tackle strategic challenges around food and nutrition. We essentially food food security really lies at the core of FAO mandate. Think about anything to do with food and FAO is probably involved. Specifically, I feel looks at how food is produced and consumed and you can imagine therefore the many behaviors associated with these processes that are of interest to us today. Briefly, we're at a very interesting point when FAO we're starting out our journey on exploring people science, we're essentially looking at engaging champions raising awareness, and primarily testing behavioral science through some flagship pilots. So, those pilots are of two types essentially one external around the four betters what FAO is trying to achieve around better production better nutrition better environment and better life, where we can see behavior change supporting more sustainable and the healthy behaviors across all these spectrums. And these include working with one of the pilots for examples working with farmers and stakeholders on understanding how to promote more hygienic and safer livestock production as a way to reduce disease threats, which is really important in this post pandemic reality that we live in. Another that is associated with climate changes, looking that how can we make climate information, for example, predictions of drought, more relevant and useful to farmers to inform their actions so they can take preemptive action to to protect themselves against the risks of climate change. So, internal pilots, on the other hand, we're looking around corporate environmental responsibility. And these are about how can we make it easier for people to sort recycling more effectively when they come to waste bins, but often it's hard to figure out how we also look at how to nudge for healthier choices in cafeterias making healthy food more attractive and easier for people to use and choose. Okay, let's look at we're also looking at travel, how can we take advantage of the reduction in travel we've had so far to reassess when we need travel and insert more of a system to approach to choosing and budgeting travel so we're not unconsciously or automatically budgeting too much travel that we don't need and contributing to carbon emissions. So that's really all I have for you today from the FAO side, a brief introduction to be able science and an idea of how we as a FAO as an organization is exploring this really exciting discipline, but for a lot more hands on ideas, practical knowledge and really application to conservation sustainability. It's my pleasure to give the floor to me. Thank you. Thank you Courtney. I'm just gonna set my screen up. Also, while I do that I really want to commend you on the stock image of the lady feeding the cow with their French horn shirt took a lot of searching for that. Thank you. Let me take advantage of this pause to ask any of our hosts if they want to talk about the Q&A in the chat and then what might work best for everyone. Unfortunately, the chat is disabled at the moment we will be able it and then as soon as the chat is enabled everyone can introduce introduce themselves and feel free to post all your questions in the Q&A section.  We also try to monitor the chat for questions but it's easier to monitor the Q&A section. Okay, so I guess I'll jump right in. So, as Courtney said, kind of introducing the concept of behavioral science and how behavioral practitioners think about applying behavioral science to programs that's what I'll be covering today. And so just before doing that I wanted to quickly introduce you to the organization that I work for. So I work for Rare, which is an organization that's been around for about 45 years. And in that time we've led essentially a few hundred behavior campaigns around the world and we've really solidified ourselves as kind of a leading behavior change organization in conservation and the environment. But most importantly, we're one of the only nudge units working specifically on the environment and conservation. So we're one of the few groups that really applied behavioral science to these challenges. And specifically in 2017 we launched the nudge unit that I work for specifically the center for behavior in the environment. And so that really is there to support conservationists, environmentalists in their work and their programs tackling different environmental challenges. And that's kind of my background as I hit into this. And as Adelia was saying earlier, I was initially a neuroscientist and now I work in conservation with my understanding of human behavior. So that basically means that every day I work and my team works on issues that you see on this screen. So problems related to what people eat, what people buy what people throw out. There are different choices that people make all the time. And though all of these problems seem very different, the solution to a lot of these problems actually quite similar. Someone somewhere has to change their behavior. And so our job is to help them help these people make different choices and ones that typically are better for them and better for the planet and all of us. How do we tackle this? Well, more often than not, we start this process by thinking through program activities that could help people understand why or how they should change their behavior. So we launched activities, some people change their behavior, and then we measure the impact that this change had on some type of social or environmental outcome. I'm sure that that's very familiar to a lot of you. This green box here though that the psychosocial state that I'm introducing this theory of change is where behavioral science really becomes quite important. So this here represents the beliefs, the attitudes, the knowledge, the norms, and the choice architecture that needs to be in place for us to be able to successfully encourage a change in behavior. And unfortunately, that little green box is often missing from the way we look at behavior change. So what I want to do first for the first few minutes of my talk is really go through this process of identifying these states with you. And work through a framework that we have basically to think through these problems to generate these states and how we can start thinking about using behavioral science to address these. So at Rare, our team uses one of the frameworks that that is available. There are many out there so not forcing any frameworks on anyone I just want to kind of run through these different steps. But we have behavior centered design or BCD for short. And so I was talking about theory of change and kind of these frameworks that you can use. And BCD is the process that we use to create our theories of change and it's essentially a mix of behavioral science and design thinking. And it really helps to structure the way we think about intervention making. So there, like I was saying many frameworks out there. Don't worry about the one you use the important bit is that you use the scientific method and that you generate hypotheses about behaviors and its drivers. And that's usually the point that is missing from a lot of these more traditional economic frameworks. So for us, behavioral centered design really helps us go through identifying target behaviors, gathering and analyzing data, and then generating new hypotheses and testing solutions the very very crucial part. Before you start launching and assessing your wider interventions so we start with the first step here framing the problem where we really want to make sure we can describe our target behavior, the target audience, and the target setting as precisely as possible. And then we move on to empathizing where we deploy qualitative or quantitative instruments to understand the target audience and what are the motivators or barriers to adopting specific behaviors. From there, we go into mapping where we map out the relevant behavioral insights the cognitive biases that we've identified and create very tangible hypotheses about our audiences behavior and the states that have to be in place for change to occur. And then we go into ideation, which is basically brainstorming. We start thinking about different sets of interventions that we could prioritize to generate the states that we need. So those beliefs and knowledge to choice architecture that we need to be in place. And this is really where we start thinking about program activities. So it's already quite far into the process, not before. So we go through this we start generating essentially prototype. You can think of this as the how do we do this plan, which you then take on to the testing step. Very important, you make sure that you're not relying on assumptions that everything you've built into your program can be validated with a small group. And then after that, really the two most logical steps that unfortunately actually quite often ignored you launch, but you launch in a way that you can assess. So that's one thing that is very important to us is that we're able to assess the effectiveness of our programs and also assess the effectiveness of our activities in changing the states that we need. So two crucial parts of program design. And so when you make assessment possible, essentially, you're able to generate evidence for other groups other conservation organizations that might be able to use your interventions but you're also making sure that you actually are having an impact, and the money you're spending is best spent on the program that you've generated. Anyways, this is kind of behavioral centered design in a nutshell. It follows a very simple linear process, but you can always go back test new things. What's really important is that you just go through these steps you don't jump the gun. And you basically just make sure that you have very stable hypotheses on which you can build your program. So that's very theoretical. We have this beautiful schema, but I want to run you through an example to really show what this means in practice. And so if we go back to the environmental problems I had on slides earlier, kind of pick one just randomly here that might be near and dear to follow his heart. Agriculture, specifically how can we encourage climate smart agriculture. So agriculture is a particularly tricky topic, as many of you know, mainly because it's inherently dependent on a healthy environment, but it also has a direct impact on the health of the environment. So we know for example that clearing forests for production is contributing to rising CO2 emissions destabilizing the climate and it's negatively impacting the livelihoods of millions of farmers around the world. We also have a similar problem with the over reliance on chemical fertilizers. Unfortunately, more fertilizers does temporarily improve production, but it also carries the long term costs of depleted nutrient pools, which then traps producers in a cycle where over time they produce less and less and unfortunately become poor and poor as a result. Another challenge in the agricultural field right now is how do we get farmers to shift from intensive agricultural practices, the view that more is more to generating regenerative ones where oftentimes less is more, and you can start relying on natural processes like composting to keep crops healthy productive and to maintain the natural resilience of the surrounding ecosystem. And so what I have a little schema there. And actually one of the challenges that rare founded lines for life for so if any of you are familiar with our agricultural program and lands for life it was created in 2019. And it was essentially created because in Columbia, where this is based, we were seeing a lot of work that hadn't been done to address a lot of the barriers the more traditional barriers that were preventing people from switching to climate smart agriculture. So a lot of these issues are still present there but NGOs are working really hard to make basically parts of the country get better access to financial support, or getting proper training or proper extension services to farmers. But even with those efforts, we weren't seeing the numbers of farmers adopting climate smart practices that we would want to have meaningful change. So we went in instead in Columbia, with our main focus on behavior, and especially on how we can think about farmers at the root of the behavior of not markets. So how farmers think about agriculture not how markets think about agriculture. And if there's anything that the last 30 years of research and behavioral economics and psychology has taught us is really that there are many cognitive biases that we typically tend to deal with and it's very important to address these when you think about agriculture. And since farmers are kind of central to our culture here, understanding how they think and how our own human biases might influence the way we think about agriculture. It's a very important thing to consider when designing a program. For initial research we did in Columbia, we found that there was essentially a number of cognitive biases that really took center stage. So we have some like temporal discounting where we tend to perceive gains in the future as much smaller than a loss today. We had status quo bias which describes our tendency to keep things as they are and rely on familiar practices, even though there might be other alternatives out there. So we have information bias, which is another one here, where essentially we all tend to do this, we tend to focus on facts that align with our own worldviews. And finally conformity bias really are our inherent human need as social animals to follow the pact. And what these biases mean is that they lead to very specific behaviors in the case of farming. So applied to farmers we can see how these can really have a negative impact on adoption of different practices. The discounting means that it's very hard to sacrifice income today as an investment into a more stable future, especially if you're not very sure about the outcomes right and you feel like maybe investing today would mean that if it fails you might not be able to feed your family later. So it's a very big concern. And then we also have status quo bias, which leads farmers to being implicitly reluctant to changing the way they do things and to keep to the path of least resistance. Then confirmation bias that unfortunately also leads farmers to focus on positive information about their practices and to unfortunately ignore or focus on the negative impacts of new ones or negative stories that they might have heard. And then we have finally confirmation bias, which essentially means that if they're if farmers are seeing everyone around them using intensive agriculture, they're much more likely to also use intensive agriculture so we tend to follow the pack. So when we were thinking about program design. We had to look at all those biases that I've moved to the top here and really generate this chain of results this theory of change that could address the biases that you see at the top. And this is where applied behavioral science comes in. And essentially what we can find about science tells us about changing behavior. So I'm going to start with three of the most familiar tactics we have for changing behavior we call them levers of change, but same language here that Courtney used earlier. And so I'm going to kind of run through a few of the examples and go into what the behavioral sciences say about these. Typically, in a classic behavior change organization or intervention, we would look at three different ones. Essentially, can we set up a material incentive related to certain choices. Can we enact rules and regulations, or can we provide people with more information or capacity about why or how to perform certain behaviors. And so go into more details. Essentially, material incentives are about money time convenience or effort. And in more theoretical terms, this really comes from economics is really how can you make this feel cheaper for people. Well, for example, can you increase the value of a decision. Can you reduce the cost of making alternative one these are all things that we traditionally tend to do in that first lever here. So we have rules and regulations where we like to think that everyone follows the rules. So we create regulatory frameworks that really help support behavior change. So this often comes in the form of policy. It's going to come with tags like right or wrong, and we're going to create new rules for behavior to follow. And then finally we have information. And that's probably the favorite lever in this field. Essentially, if we tell people what to do or we give people the reasons why they should change their behavior, we assume that they're going to do it. And that's something that we all tend to do it's usually the go to in many different fields. But it's also a very specific type of lever that's going to only affect the very specific type of decision making. And in fact, the three levers here we call them more traditional, because they are going to be targeting the more traditional things that we think about people making choices. So if you go back to what Courtney mentioned at the beginning of the talk we have kind of system one and system two in the way that we can think about decision making. So system one is fast and effortless, but rather irrational. So it's not just like economic models would predict that we have system to which is the one we like to associate with the most, which is deliberate conscious effortful and slow. And also the one that we're going to be targeting with these more traditional levers of behavior change. So the ones I was talking about earlier material incentives rules or information. So you can see on the graph here I have them on one side, but what I really want to illustrate is that system one is actually the majority of our decision making. And to think that we're deliberate all the time but a large majority of our decisions are actually reflexive and guided by this Homer if you want the system one is also one that's prone to biasing that follows shortcuts or that thinks of it too quickly. And so we need different types of levers to engage with the system one and really engage with most of the decisions that people make, especially if you think that this is about 80% of the decisions that we make on a daily. So to think about this, let me summarize what the behavioral sciences tell, tell us about human behavior. So first, it's important to remember that context matters so psychologists, sociologists, neuroscientists behavioral economists, they will all tell you context really matters. And that's to say that the way in which a choice is presented to people can significantly influence the way that they will make a choice in that scenario. And many of you have likely heard of nudging nudge units nudges work, because they alter the context of a choice without changing the values of the options themselves. So it usually helps when people intend to do something but they don't end up doing it. And that's where nudges going to be very, very powerful. The second one here humans are social animals. And because of that we all tend to conform to the norms that we see others doing around us.  And most of the time we don't even notice how much it drives our own behavior. But if you think about the pandemic, think about entering a room with a mask when no one else is wearing one you'll see how how we fall prey easily to social norms. And finally, and this is probably the most obvious. Do we like to believe that we are deliberate and calculated in all of our decisions and emotions often overpower reason. So recognizing that these three truths about behaviors really tend to drive a lot of the choices that we make. It's important to also consider how we can use these different biases to help change behavior. So this introduces really the three other level levers that we have in our toolkit choice architecture, which refers to how we can expertly design a choices context so either by directing attention simplifying information or reminding people of their intentions at the moment of choice. We also have social influences that are all about highlighting existing norms or making people's behaviors observable. And we also have emotional emotional appeals which are all about how can reframe choices around emotions and people's core values right. So, three new levers that we can use, but it's much more easy to understand them with BC examples. So with choice architecture, and you can think about this as influencing people's decisions through attention, getting cues, a bit like a GPS system that would guide their behavior. There are many examples of this SMS messages, reminders that you can have at different places, but one of my favorite examples is from a study that came out in 2019, showing that adding labels that translate CO2 emissions associated with specific foods into minutes a light bulb would be on significantly influences how people think about CO2 emissions so instead of getting people a number about CO2 emissions they just made it understandable in everyday terms. And so this simple simple intervention reduced by about 50% the amount of high intensity foods that people would pick so it's very, very simple. And then when you look at the label and show you all they did was just compare what are the minutes of light bulb that this would relate to, and they were able to influence behavior. Then when we think about social norms, and the two important things are what people can do, or see you do, and what other people think that you are doing so two very important distinctions and norms. And what's really important to remember is that overall norms tend to really be driving a lot of our behavior. So we like to think that maybe things like political orientation or belief in climate change tends to drive a lot of green behaviors, but our own research has shown that in very different neighborhoods, especially in the US. You tend to just do what other people in your neighborhood are doing, regardless of what you think about politics or the environment. And so very, very important levers here. So what we think about emotions, and these get a bit more tricky. Different emotions will get you to do different things, but the last 10 years of research have really started solidifying a framework for thinking about emotions. And this is a great table that summarizes this different emotions will have different impacts on what you're trying to do. So you can think of fear, for example, which we all tend to avoid, but ironically is really good at making people avoid things. And hope is great when you need to motivate people to start doing something. Shame is useful in combination with social influences pride tends to motivate people to keep doing something. Anger gets people to confront and address different situations and curiosity, which is a very powerful one interest here motivates people to get involved and look for information. And these are all very powerful levers, you can see when they're deployed, how effective they are. They have a cultural campaign from where I live actually in Australia called cane changer, which started I think in 2018, and they essentially have a huge emotional appeals campaign called setting the record straight. And what they did was launched a slogan slogan in areas where a lot of sugar cane farmers were working right next to the Great Barrier Reef. And essentially make farmers prideful of the reduced impact that they have on the reef so they had all these community events, making people feel proud that they're managing the reef and not overusing fertilizers. And these campaigns combined with emotional campaigns with the communities actually led to think I don't want to mix up the numbers here, but 49,000, 49,000 hectares of sugar cane farms, actually implementing best practices. So very, very powerful without having to introduce new rules, pay people to do it or even just give them information. And I hope we take away from this is that essentially we have many levels of change that we can use for many different things. And the science is there it's telling us what we can use in different contexts is so when we think about different biases different programs, it's important to look at the science and think about it a bit like an engineer. You wouldn't think about hiring someone who isn't an engineer to build a building. You wouldn't think about hiring a behavioral scientist or a specialist in the area to start thinking about these biases and design interventions that really address them. So we're going into lands for life earlier. Here you can think of the different levers that we've used we've built a program essentially around emotional appeals to address some of the biases. We've built people into little celebrities in their communities which make them very, very prideful. We use choice architecture to basically remind people what they should be doing and to compare current practices with old ones. And we also use social norms to make everyone feel like everyone else is on board with climate change architecture so very, very powerful level of levers here that are helping us in Columbia. We've got more. We have a portal here that basically links you up with different behavioral scientists or evidence. So feel free to check it out. But otherwise I'm sure we're going to have a very interesting conversation about behavioral science for the rest of the session. So thank you everyone. Thank you for the insightful explanations, Philip and Courtney. Now that we have covered the concepts and basis for today's webinar. Let us continue with real life case studies for a clearer understanding. In the next session we will have two young entrepreneurs present behavioral challenges in their respective markets, and then Courtney and Philippe will help with ideas to solve them through a panel discussion. So don't forget to pay attention and save your questions for the Q&A later. And also don't forget to introduce yourself if you just joined and put your questions in the question box or the Q&A platform. Let us give a warm welcome to the founder of Native Seaweed, Gabriella de Cruz, a marine conservationist based in Goa, India. So Gabriella, the time is yours. Thank you, Adilia. Hi everyone. Thank you very much for joining us today. I'm really excited to talk about my project but also to have to get some solutions to the behavioral challenges that we are experiencing. Just as a brief introduction, I run a small company that wild harvests and farms seaweed on the west coast of India, and we supply locally to restaurants and we're hoping to expand to other restaurants as well as food companies and the rest of India. We are facing a challenge of introducing a new food product in a country that's not used to eating seaweed. So in India where while we are largely vegetarian, we don't often consume a lot of seafood. And so it's quite challenging talking to people about seaweed even though we have a range of native seaweed species, but everyone perceives seaweed to be a Japanese, Korean, Chinese food source. And so it's not easy to get Indian people to eat seaweed. If we are going to continue with our farm model, which is that we grow seaweed or wild harvest seaweed, which is a low carbon, local, incredibly nutritious food source. Then we need people to shift their behavior towards it and consume more or show more interest towards this new food product. We also have another challenge on the other end of our supply chain, which is that the fisheries industry is very extractive. And so it's very difficult to shift the fishers perception of continuing with extractive industry towards moving towards seaweed which is more regenerative and circular in that sense because we grow seaweed and we also make sure that the local ecosystem is conserved. And in that sense, we also are interested in working with fishing communities to try and put in guidelines so that we make sure that we don't over harvest seaweed. We don't use invasive seaweed species and overall that this industry grows to be sustainable and not extractive like other fishing industries. So, on both ends of the supply chain we have quite a few challenges when it comes to shifting behavior. And I'm very curious to know what we can do about it so maybe we could have a discussion about that. Thank you. Maybe if we could, Odila would you recommend that we have a few discussion points for the next part of the session. Yes, of course, if you would like if you would like to ask for something for example to the panelists, maybe to Courtney or to Philip, you can ask the questions now or maybe Philip or Courtney do you have any, any intakes or any opinions towards the challenges presented by Gabriella. Sure. Well, thanks so much for that one and give Gabriella thank you for giving us that outline of this really exciting, you know, initiative you're spearheading, and it sounds like it takes so many boxes on how it can improve sustainable agriculture and improve diets. It's a lot of things going for it and it's really I commend you for for working so hard and making this this opportunity happen I think your example for a lot of people trying to do, do create make possibilities for sustainability and an FAO know it's really, it's really great to see a champion like yourself and work with you. It's really hard, let me give a caveat and I'm sure Philip might expand on this. It's really hard to give advice from about about these behavioral challenges in a very specific manner, because actually one of the things really really focused on I really appreciate is this scientific approach to understanding barriers. And one of the things we're working with an FAO a lot of with our teams is there's a lot of intuitive options well maybe we need to have an awareness campaign or people should know about the, the behavioral aspects or etc etc. And I always come back and say, Okay, great. But does that address a behavioral barrier that we have identified. So, at the risk of being too boring and not perfect not having perfect answer I would just fall back on that now, and maybe we could talk about you, what are the behavioral barriers to some of these challenges you're asking for to consumer uptake, a more increasing consumer demand for seaweed, as well as sensitizing or increase or changing systems for fishing to to to avoid over over extraction of seaweed as I think I think I understood these kind of to supply channel of the way you framed it. So, what do you think those barriers are, and even more important question, what have you, what have you done to find out what those barriers, maybe a behavioral science before it can give you what to do about it, it can give you a first step on how to collect knowledge about what's not working. So that would be my first question, my first turning the question back to you. If I start from where we work with the fishing community and where we try and understand the most sustainable means of farming and harvesting seaweed, we have tried to understand what are the ways in which fishing communities might be able to be more resilient.  The fishing communities are not very resilient. And I think in that sense, if we were to better understand what they feel as a threat, and what they feel like they'd like to move towards to be more resilient, maybe we'd have a better understanding of how to shape the guidelines. Another thing that we realize we really need to do is have more consultation with fishing communities. Quite often, supply chains of this nature are very dominating, it's very market driven, and fishing communities are forced to conform. So they're forced to be extractive, they're forced to, you know, go out and fish without proper safety gear, they're forced to sometimes have to live along coastlines that are eroding because they don't have any other option, you know, they just make the money that they can make. In that sense, I guess, you know, just having conversations with fishing communities because quite often the conversations we have had have been communities out of desperation saying we don't actually want to be in a very extractive, very dangerous industry. We want to move away, we'd like to move into other sectors, but the skill sets that we have, the debt that we have, the fact that you know we don't have the money to be able to move or to move into a different sector means that we are, we are restricted to this particular occupation. So I suppose in that sense we could continue like we have been doing to have these conversations, and then maybe find a win-win situation where we could offer communities a higher price, but also help them understand that to maintain this higher, you know, higher price for the seaweed, that we need to have high quality, we need to have protection of the marine environment, we need to have better water quality, and that a lot of people would buy more expensive seaweed if they knew that the marine environment was being safeguarded. There's a win-win. And I guess in a way also just offering fishing communities things like insurance, offering them access to educational opportunities, but also maybe even health insurance safety to make them feel more secure and more resilient would probably be ways we'd like to move. And just on the market side, we just have to understand, I guess, what people would like to eat when it comes to seaweed. So I know that a lot of other seaweed companies in other parts of the world have re-branded seaweed. So instead of saying eat seaweed as sushi, they're saying why don't you have a seaweed burger, or why don't you have seaweed chips, or seaweed sprinkles on popcorn, or something that's a lot more relatable, rather than making someone shift to a completely different cuisine that's different in flavor, and that they're not used to doing. So in some way we've been trying to speak to chefs, speaking to people in the food industry to understand how do we incorporate seaweed into local Indian diets. Can we have a local Indian dish that has seaweed in it? Because we have 800 species of seaweed, and yet nobody eats seaweed in India. So that's something we're also trying to do. Fascinating. Oh, sorry, didn't mean to interrupt you. Great, great, great reactions, really interesting approaches. I think I would say build on what you're already doing, if you can, if you can afford it, or if there's opportunities to work with nonprofits that have behavioral science expertise, because they can add the tools like qualitative and even quantitative research methods that enable you to judge and decipher some of the information you're getting from these communities. And can you can even think about employing small online if it's possible or which is cheap or small physical experiments or laboratory type experiments, which will give you a little bit more data. And then you can base your intuitive, which, you know, rightfully so you have a lot of experience in the in the in the culture in the place so a lot of your intuition could be very right on what is needed in terms of feelings, etc. But basing that on really what do experiments and what do research tell you are the barriers, and it could be that something like Philip described in terms of the food labeling, making seaweed benefits more salient to the environment to our health could be something, but it has to be based on a barrier you found through the initial research the scoping, whereas as as as we showed the journey in the beginning. But anyway, really exciting stuff. And, oh, the other thing I was going to mention that if no one's doing something. It's very hard to get people to start doing something new. But we've there's interesting research around small groups doing things and small trends in data, something called dynamic norms. So if you can identify small groups of champions which are growing. That has the similar effect on people has a large saying the majority doesn't you know even if it's a minority but they're growing that can be motivating as well but yeah really exciting and I can't wait to see how you might integrate behavioral insights into your scoping and experiment experiment and I monopolize time I'm sure Philly has some great insights to share shall pass over to him. Yeah, thanks Courtney I was just gonna basically start maybe a step higher just the way you were talking about kind of not just native seaweed farming but actually the entire thing for me kind of divides into two if not three actual behavior change campaigns or interventions or how you want to think about it you have one encouraging essentially fishers to become seaweed farmers. The other one is how do you get suppliers to want to supply it and the last one is how do you get people to consume it. And I think the order in which you're going to tackle this is going to be very, very important because they will create the other levers that you need for the other campaigns so I don't know right now if there is a big like said there isn't a big demand for for seaweed so if I wanted to start farming seaweed right away, would it be able to make a profit. Maybe there is maybe there isn't if there isn't I think the next one right away would be like okay how do you generate the demand for it that might drive everything else so it's really kind of layering these three different behavior change interventions or topics first and then digging into them. And one thing that again I probably should kind of do a bit of research and make sure that norms are actually driving this but something that is generally applicable across the board is humans in general if there is kind of a collective good message. And you make the good and the bad behaviors observable. They're much more likely to do it. So, in a community, if you were to have some kind of great social marketing campaign that says how native seaweed farming is going to save this community it's going to save their children it's great for the planet for the health. And you make it very observable who is doing it and who isn't doing it. And usually that does tend to encourage behavior quite a bit. So, so those are kind of the different levers that you can think about it's really make sure that you create a visual distinction so that people can look at things and observe if what are the norms essentially. And they also tend to self police in that way without you having to create rules or spend money on police or any of that. So those are very, very useful tools. The other thing like Courtney was saying is having some kind of simplified labeling carbon labels are becoming very, very trendy right now, especially for consumers. I think, especially like you said in India if there's already a big prevalence of vegetarian diet, how what values can you tap into create essentially a label that people are going to want to see and associate with, and that aligns with people's intentions. So people want to reduce their emissions, if so, make it easy for them to do so. Right now when we go shopping we see price. That's pretty much the most salient thing but what other things can you make salient for people.  We found that this is very, very powerful, but you have to figure out which market is the most powerful for the behaviors that you want to change. So we do a bit of research into who is looking at what what demographics are looking at who, and you engage with those people. All of these social emotional norms are very, very powerful. So if you can find a way to basically leverage that once all the other rational things are in place, usually set to really increase adoption. That's incredibly helpful. Yes, right now we're actually looking at engaging with people, mainly women that engage with the ocean so swimmers sofas divers. There are a lot of women that from various backgrounds or even women from the fishing backgrounds that are harvesters of mussels seaweed a range of other species and just sort of getting them to tell their stories and getting other people really interested and not just that you go to the supermarket and you find some food that's nutritious and maybe carbon, you know, neutral but it's that you see the women and the stories behind them and how they engage with the ocean and sort of build a narrative around that because we found that that's actually quite powerful that a lot of people are very interested in the story like you were saying, more than just the product. So that's kind of what we're working on, but this is really helpful. Thank you. Okay, thank you to Gabriella Courtney and also really that was a really great discussion about the behavioral challenges with the seaweed market in India. But I believe that your discussions have also generated a lot of interest from our audiences. And as the time for the Q&A with the audiences is only five minutes we would like to ask you to please keep your answers short and simple. Okay, so the first one is a question from Arinda Yvonne would like to ask how much effort has Gabriella put in to help change the behavior of the Indian community to adopt to seaweed food consumption. So, what's your answer to that. I work with chefs and we work with people that are talking about new food systems. So I think a lot of young people are very excited about the prospect of shifting to less intense food, you know, local food, food that's actually nutritious. And there are a lot of fitness influencers that are really interested in getting people to eat healthier and, you know, shift behavior in that sense so we've been mainly working with people as like chefs and food influencers and having conversations. And I think what we really need to do is invite more people to be part of these conversations and maybe we were thinking of doing something called a seaweed surprise box where we post you a box of seaweed, and then we ask people to come up with innovative recipes, and then sort of talk about that. So then it's not just, you know, people with the knowledge talking down on other people, it's sort of a more, you know, joined interesting inclusive way of exploring how we can all collectively eat more seaweed. And it's really exciting actually working with chefs. So that's mainly how we've been going about doing this. Okay, thank you for the response Gabriella. And then for the second one, wait, I think this. Okay. So, it's a question from Anna Christina Fides. Hello. This is for all of you for all the panelists here. What are some tools to better understand the social and psychological context of the people with behavior we're trying to change, maybe from Courtney or Phillip first. Yeah, so I can jump in here. You don't mind Courtney so the way we go about it is usually to kind of get an understanding of what are going to be the general motivators and barriers for behavior through some kind of qualitative interview. And that's going to be the first step we have when we tackle a project that we know nothing about. And it's really going to understand how people think about the way they make decisions. And then from that, usually we do some kind of literature check of seeing what has been done in the field what can the science tell us about these types of decisions about what people have said. And usually we're going to complement that then with a quantitative analysis of how many people have X barrier how many people will have X motivator how can you distribute that across the demographics, and then be able to layer that into an intervention. So, for example, that the lines for life program I was telling you about there we did a huge assessment and found that really there were kind of three main categories of people. We were really curious and wanted to just try things, some that will be convinced at some point they just need to see other people do something first, and then other people that will really not be convinced unless there's an expert cost to not doing the proper behavior, usually in the form of social pressure. And so we found that out with our qualitative and our quantitative data, and then we were able to build the program from it. So it's important to really gather as much as possible. And a lot of the time the evidence that's already out there is going to be very, very helpful to help you kind of think through the program but you always want to anchor it to your specific context and your specific audience. Yeah, that's, I mean, absolutely agree with you for leaping excellent response I would say that, you know, even if you know these are some of the most, some of the most basic, let's say, or approachable tools that help also are, for example, you know the various technological or conceptual frameworks from rare from many other organizations that you can use as a way to start putting on a behavioral science cap or using a behavioral science lens. And one of the most approachable is the East framework by the behavioral insights team. Can you make the behavior easy. Can you make it attractive. Can you make it social. Can you make it timely. So these are four concepts that seem simple, but when you dive into it, it gives you a lot of ways to brainstorm new different ways to approach the problem so that would be a place to start. Thank you for the great answer it has been very insightful Courtney and Philip. And unfortunately, that question will be the last for this session, as the time has run out. Thank you for sharing Gabriella it was a pleasure meeting you and hopefully the solutions provided will help you in the future. And now I will be keeping you up with my chatter so no longer as I believe that it might actually bore you more. So let me give the next, let me give the floor to the next presenter. The next panelist is the founder of higher Himalaya Samir Tiwari is an agricultural engineering scholar currently working on zero energy and cold chambers for the preservation of apples in the higher Himalaya region in Nepal. And without further ado, Samir, the time is yours. Yes, you may share your screen. Is my screen visible. Yes, it is indeed feasible. Hello everyone. This is Samir Tiwari from Nepal. I'm one of the founder of higher Himalaya actually higher Himalaya is a pilot project for agriculture engineering student currently doing their bachelor's in agriculture engineering here in Nepal. Actually is the project, which is working for reducing the post harvest loss of apple in Himalaya so that the Himalaya can be financially grown high so we can consider the Himalaya to be more higher Himalaya. And we all have agriculture background so we started doing a project named higher Himalaya which is about considering the high post harvest loss of apple in Himalaya. The major cause of this loss is there is no electricity connection up to the date there. The transportation is very hard due to the uneven topography and the customization of apple is near about zero because we don't have a good infrastructure to customize the apple for making it into many by product. So we come up with the idea so that we get the apple from farmer then we grade it at number one, and then we start to store it in our zero energy double chamber coal storage which operates under zero energy doesn't need any electrical energy. We use the evaporative pooling method, anomalous expansion of water, and the conventional way of pulling these three principle of physics help to pull the apple in December, we can further discuss if you have any queries in this. So we value the apple if the transportation condition of jumlah the place where we are doing project doesn't improve, then we can make it into many products like apple cider vinegar apple wine dry apple and apple sauce. Till the date, we have not completed all our project it we are doing our project. And as you know that making the concrete structure in a Himalaya slopey region need a lot of governmental permission policies for that to make our work easier we have collaborated with a lot of governmental bodies. Till the date, as you can see in the slide that is regional agriculture development program. Apple Superzone in jumlah agriculture development ministry, secretary of agriculture of Karnali province and finance. And finance minister of Karnali province, and we have select the site till the date, so that we will talk further in this process that when we were there to build our police stories, many of the farmer come with us to ask for making our police stories prototype, that is also one of the behavioral stress of the people over there we can discuss it later on. And the next thing we have done is we have ordered the construction material because it needed more than a month to reach a brick a truck or lorry of brick or lorry of steel up to the higher Himalaya zone because it is one of the remote place and topographically challenged place. And we have done the feasibility test so that the zero energy chamber will work due to its low humidity air breeze in Himalaya and many more. And further we have the future is strategic strategy is to find this sponsorship and stake holder in our project to complete the construction process to complete the construction process for the valuation and provide the market for the valuation process is another things that should be considered a behavioral science in the coming future and to reach out in the other Himalayan region because making only one chamber at one place is not the ultimate solution of post service losses of Apple in the region, so it will make other chamber in other part of Himalaya which is extremely high to reach. So it, it are the further strategy of our project. And this is my team which is doing the project as we all are the agriculture engineer here in Nepal. And up to the date we are reading our course. And also doing the project in such a topographically challenged place. It is quite hard to go very efficiently because they shouldn't get hits by many things, they shouldn't get hits by research assignment assessment and even by exam and practical. So, there are other other things which may hit us in a behavioral science again. That means, I have noted it here that is one of the talents, which deal with behavioral science in our project is that the community, the family and the community here in Nepal are more exam oriented, more marks oriented in term of a student rather than doing projects, rather than pitching the idea rather than doing research, they, they, they make a student they make their son and daughter more oriented towards an exam to get good grades. So, by that things, we the student doing project have to delay in many things. We cannot go any time we want in the place because it is 100 1067 kilometer away from our campus. So it need all three day in a bus to reach out the project. So, okay, other things can be discussed in question answer session. Thank you. All right, thank you for the presentation somewhere. And now I believe that we can continue with the panel discussion session with Courtney and Philip. So maybe from, since we start with Courtney, the last time we can probably start with Please open up. Yeah, perfect. And so maybe, as I was to go go straight to like that the simplest common denominator here. I guess in terms of behavior. I won't even try to understand any of the engineering things that that is not my background. But is what you're trying to, I guess the two paths here is it, how do you get farmers to want to use the service more and then how do you get municipalities that subsidize that or to build those are those kind of the two ways you're thinking about it. Yeah, actually, it is the things where we deal about behavioral science. We are thinking forward to make the chamber chamber in the farmers field because we, we the student cannot buy the land there and land in Nepal is quite high in term of monetary value, despite of all this disadvantage of topography. So we cannot buy the land so we need farmer who can donate us or we can build our chamber in their own field to use it. In that Tom, there is one main challenge that the most of the people doesn't go through the background what they are going to build. And as we have the government which is making a good fund in agriculture, they have funded many time to make full chamber, but which operates on the solar energy or under electricity there is no any chamber which operates under zero energy in Nepal. People even don't know that we cannot get electricity in a frequent way, and we cannot get the good solar solar light in every time of the year. So it the apple can be gay, they, they all run in that subsidiaries to get it and to build it and people get the money from the government to make chamber, but they make it as a home, or as a cow said so that they can use it as a home or a cow said not as an apple storage. So it is also one of the behavioral challenge of the people in the region. Gotcha. Gotcha. Then maybe one quick recommendation I would have is the main thing you're going to want to do is figure out like you were saying why are they using the shed for for something else but but mainly why are they not seeing the value in the storage capability. And I think that that's going to be the first thing you really want to start with because clearly like giving people just the information is not enough for them to. Okay, let's just build that on my farm right. So you want to understand really, what are they worried about what do they feel uncertain about a really drive kind of why would they prefer to lose 52% of their apples, as opposed to invest in this. That's going to be your starting point. There's probably many biases there. Maybe they think it's, it's not actually worth it. It's cheaper to lose apples that than that. And I think that's going to be your main starting point to really clearly label what are those barriers that you can then address in your development strategy, but that would be really the first starting point is identifying why is it, why is the behavior not happening on itself. Yeah, we have gone through the things before that is a when we went to zoom la the place where we are doing project, every coalition seems similar as a home or a cow said, then we start asking about, is this a coalition is, is this the shape of coalition is this will build, then they say that, while we get subsidiaries from government or fund from government to make coal destroyers, then they make two plans. One is plan, plan a, if the electricity comes continue, continue, continuously, that means if the electricity power cut off doesn't happen, then the plan a works that they will start to make that concrete structure is a cold storage. But the second plan is a plan B is if they happen electricity cut off, then they will start making it as a home or as a cow said. And that is one of the reason is, one of the main reason is the behavioral habit of people, because they can ask for a proper cold storage which can operate under solar and electricity both when getting funded but that next thing is the government's unplanned way of giving fund, because they are not giving any fund to develop the electricity grid up to higher in Malay, but they are giving the fund to make the people electricity operating police storage, isn't it sound like unscientific or unplanned. So, the behavioral science should be the matter not only for people in Nepal but also the politician or government or a policymaker in Nepal. And most definitely, and Philly, did you want to reply, go ahead. Oh, no, I just saw that last bit. I think very often we focus on kind of the end user or the end bit of the demand side for behavioral science. But if you like you're saying one of the big problems is just higher up from the farmers. Those people are people too right. So, there's always a chance to use behavioral science to influence policymakers or municipal decision makers. And that is important to consider to it's the burden is not always on the end user and it shouldn't be. So, so I think yeah that that's an important thing to consider. When you're looking at it. So I don't think you have a very precise recommendation yet, but but yeah digging into the barriers and motivations of both those groups would be super important. And I would add to that just to say, you know, exactly the similar points we're making before, you've done a lot of research on your own, you've investigated. How have you done it. How have you collected that data how have you analyzed it, and can we learn from behavioral science, a few other tricks of the trade, in terms of how to get some more insights, for example, surveys are not perfect but we can often use the surveys in an interesting way, not just for information gathering but as experiments themselves to simulate what we think people might do in a certain situation. So you can you can design a survey in a way that will maybe tell you something about someone's behavior. Similarly, you can do interviews in a way that might give you some insights into how people's intention. Being a little bit too generic for what you want, but to say, agree with Philip like that research part is really important in it, you know, behavioral science isn't just about what do we do to change this. It's also about help us understand first and foremost, what is going on. So just just throwing this out there, and I do not have the context myself and I've only been to Nepal once I'm not super familiar with everything you're dealing with, just throwing it out there, there could be something going on with the messenger effect, how we receive information is really important, and sometimes who gives it to us is more important than the information itself. So you could do a little bit of an experiment, even in your team with changing who delivers who who who is who approaches your target audience and how what you asked them to do or what you asked them what they'd be willing to do and you might find, you could do an experiment to find out which type of messenger age, gender type of job description, whatever receives up a more positive reply. That could be an indicator of how you might approach even marketing, or behavior change social behavior change adoption of these of your of your of your equipment in that system. But once again, we're reaching here for some ideas without that basis of qualitative or even quantitative experimentation to give you an idea. Hmm, probably here there's a messenger effect happening or hmm probably here it's a social norming thing so it's too hard and one last point on government and then an infrastructure. The best things behavioral science is good at is to tell you when behavioral science won't help at all, because not every behavioral science is not a hammer looking for a nail. Quite often we find that infrastructure physical economic or other challenges are just too great for a small nudge or or or behaviorally informed communication campaign to have the change you want. So a real honest look at the infrastructure and electricity challenges. These could be economically could need just more government ownership and then you might want to shift your focus upstream to those policymakers you were talking about. Hope that's of interest or help. That's actually really really insightful from Courtney and Philly, but also from somewhere I actually got a lot of new insights from all your answers that's a really great session. But I believe that the audiences have also posted some questions. Either about the higher email itself or also about the behavioral sciences. But before that I would like to remind every participants here every audiences that if you have any questions for some of your first then please do post your questions on the Q&A box. We actually have one already from Arinda Ivan. Mr. Samir, please share with us the storage facility if possible. Is that possible. Yeah, I can say you on this thing. One thing is certain that in the western part of Himalayan region of Nepal. There is a wind risk there happens a wind risk, which is a very low humidity it's around 30% of humidity. And this low humidity here, enhance the evaporative cooling in a very good rate in comparison to the high humidity here. And by this low humidity here, we can lower down the temperature of our chamber by using the evaporative cooling principle up to the storageable temperature of Apple that is minus one to four degree Celsius is we can predict that Imale is itself a cold region we have a lot of snow capped mountain by near snow. And the next thing is, we have a lot of snow during winter in Himalaya, at that time, we are digging the swell up to seven feet down the whole of seven feet in which we can store the apple of winter season, or we can store the winter season, so that the anomalous expansion of water deals with the temperature of water underground. That means we have the four degree Celsius water at the bottom of the table. That means, which is one of the best temperature for saving the Apple. Did I address it well. It is actually very, very well, but I believe that I am not an engineering student so I might not understand it that much but I believe that our audience have gotten a very clear idea about it. Okay, and since I guess there, there is currently no more question for Mr. Samir we will go back after this of course if we do have any other questions for you. I just failed to read all the sentence from Irvinda Ivan. That means he has, he has noted that I have mentioned that there is 52% of loss of Apple in my presentation and he's asking about how much you are going to reduce from this percentage. That means the one chamber of our will be of the capacity 5000 kg that is a average production of farmer in Himalaye. By that way, if we get a, we are the student we cannot invest by ourselves, if we get the fund then we can make this chamber in a very much part of the place because this chamber doesn't need any external source of energy. So it can be built in any part where we can get the raw material like brick cement and so on. So, we can reduce it as much as we can, not zero but very near to zero. Okay, let's go to the general question. Okay, thank you for the add on answer somewhere. And now I will continue with the question from up the Wahhab Amit. So, this is I think this is for Courtney. So globally governments private organizations and international development organizations have invested large resources for developing agricultural extension systems adoption rate for the new change is very low changes not happening. Why, why do you think it is Courtney. Well, it's a really great question and it's something that I think, you know, I'll be Wahhab is not alone in asking. So the first thing I would say in response is that there is change happening actually it depends where you look, and it depends what change, you're, you're hoping for. It's a big challenge and this is something coming also from the evil science is that, you know, we as are the way we tend to perceive information we, we like yes or no questions. We like binary situations and so it's very tempting to see, and I feel frustration as well and in terms of wanting to boost and do more about agricultural innovation and systems change. But it's not as simple as we might be tempted to think so that's my first kind of like very generic answer is that you know it actually depends where we're looking and and one of the things that the Office of Innovation where I work is doing is really working on agricultural innovation systems and agricultural and boosting and finding ways to boost extension services through very detailed training regiments but also socially informed engagement strategies where co innovation on the ground is really the objective and top down innovation and suggestions are not necessarily automatically the best idea. That's a little bit outside the behavioral science portion of what we do in the Office of Innovation but it's a critical way to approach the question. And I would say let's take for now instead of dodging the question let's let's attack it head on. Okay, for example when things are not adopted. A large digital information system that's supposed to provide farmers with climate data, or, you know, a new app that is supposed to help you manage your, your crop systems or let's for AI powered tractors. There's something that in some places, there's uptick use of drones for surveillance of disease or or perhaps there's a lot of different place things that sometimes they're not being uptake used and others are so the question is not wrong there is problems with change. I think a lot of what happens is I think and I don't think behavioral science is the only answer, but I think a lot of these approaches. I don't take the stakeholder situation as the very fundamental starting point. What is it that we think we want this behavior. Let's check in behavioral science gives us tools to and collaborative and participatory approaches can help us understand what's happening here and I really have talked about engaging with stakeholders to really check our own biases as you know as supposed experts. Is this the behavior that people want is this the tool or product or service that will really help people after those discussions happen and you actually know that your target behavior is something that other people want. And that's going to work its magic behavioral science is best when people want the same thing. So, why is it not happening, I would say, in many of the cases, we're not doing enough needs assessment we're not doing enough co innovation or participatory discussion to understand that the product or innovation is actually useful or necessary or helpful or beneficial, even when it is beneficial then we're not using data behavioral data around what the reasons people don't adopt something. We're genuinely using our intuition, which is what I talked about in my speech the rational model of thinking, Oh, people need to know about a benefit. They need to understand it, understand it and then they're going to adopt it. That model is just not true the idea that if you knew what I know means you'll do something different has is not worked, and the behavioral science gives us a new way to approach it. Is it social is it attractive are people are other people doing it. Is it too far outside my my cultural understanding or norms. Is there are there some people opinion leaders who I defer to unconsciously and, and if I got them on board might might make that eat that option easier if my farm, if my next door neighbor used a new technological tool maybe I would try it. So it's less about what I know, and what I understand about something new, it's more about the context around it so if, if policymakers and innovation leaders can integrate behavioral science into their planning of a product. I think that would lead to more change on the ground. Okay, thank you Courtney and also really do you have any opinions on the questions before like I mean. Yeah, I have a very short one. So don't worry we won't go over. I'm like mine, I'm like mine. I was just going to add actually to your answer Courtney in the sense that everything you said 100% agree and I think one additional thing is that, again, we always concentrate on the farmer, but like you were saying, who are the other people that they defer to and so to be very honest like I have experienced climates for agriculture in one very specific context in Columbia. And in that one very specific context. One thing that we found was that you could give as much information as you want, who they trusted was the agrochemical salesman that had supported them for 30 years. So you could tell them, no you have to start reducing this but the person they trust for the last three years is going to say no do you want to keep producing this how you do it and those people also think that it's going to be better for the other actors that you need to either inform or have a behavior change intervention on to then be able to affect downstream outcomes is going to be very, very important. So that's the one thing we keep forgetting kind of build a big systems map and then figure out who do you actually need to target with your behavior change. It's not always the farmer. So I think that's going to be very important. Thank you for the great comments, Philip. And that was a really insightful discussion I really do feel like I'm very, very honored to be here actually because I actually learned a lot of new insights here. And also thank you somewhere for sharing. Thank you also to Gabriella for coming and sharing your stories your challenges and we hope that all the solutions given today will be useful. Thank you, but also to the audiences at home. And also that marks the end of our discussion for today's webinar and we hope that this webinar has given you many insights on behavioral science and how to use it for youth climate action and agriculture. And now allow me to summarize some key points during the discussion that is behavioral science is a multidisciplinary approach to human behavior through systematic experimentations and observations. Behavioral change is a crucial way to improve a lot of areas, especially in the agri-food system in which it is divided into two systems with system one or the Homer system being a dominant factor to behavioral choices. And then three behavioral center design can be applied to agriculture where the root of human behavior and its changes can be the center stage for a better and more sustainable design for the environment. And through three most common tactics material incentives, rules and regulations and information that can support behavioral changes. And aside from that, there are various ways of understanding the problems to help with a better behavioral shift that is through identifying and also understanding the context behind the behaviors itself from there then we can actually think up a lot of ideas and solutions to finally push the needed behavioral change to happen. And I hope that has covered all of the key takeaways for today. Thank you to panelists for sharing and providing us with a pleasant discussion today and thank you for coming to the audiences of today's seminar. We hope that this has been useful for you understanding towards the implementations of behavioral sciences as well as its concepts in youth agriculture. And I, Odelia Chandra, as the moderator for today's session would like to sign out and apologies for any mispronunciations in the event. See you on the next YCRA events and have a good day. Bye. All right, bye everyone.


Hi, I'm Darlene from GoDaddy's How To. And I'm Emma from The Journey, and we wanna talk about why you should create gift cards that can be purchased from your site. A gift card can be the secret weapon for your business. Whether it's during this difficult time or throughout the rest of the year, gift cards are one of the most popular gift options available. Yeah, you can take your gift card offering to the next level by providing your customers with a way to purchase through your website online. So let's talk about why every small business needs a gift card. They are the ultimate driver of customer loyalty. When someone purchases a gift card, they're either guaranteed they'll be back or they care enough about your brand to share that passion with their friends or family. That's huge. Contactless payment is highly encouraged during a health crisis, right? And so make sure you let your guests know that they'll be able to pay virtually when advertising your gift cards. It's often not considered a perk, but reducing human interaction as much as possible is so important right now. With an eGift card program and especially with the reloadable eGift card, you have the opportunity to connect with gift givers and receivers in a whole new way with multiple touch points. Recipients may visit your website to activate the gift card, check the balance, reload the card, see what's on sale, check store hours, and so forth. If the card is also tied to a loyalty program, then you can reward customers with each visit, purchase and reload. Rewards tailored to customer buying habits lead to repeat business and brand fan. Yeah, so how to choose the gift program that's right for you. There's a wide range of web-based gift card apps that allow you to sell eGift cards online, including on social media and your company website. However, most eGift card companies that sell eGift cards may charge a small monthly fee or charge a percentage-based fee for each gift card sold. Yeah, if you're evaluating different systems to offer gift cards, you might consider switching to one of the top SMB POS systems as they are all great overall point of sale systems in addition to their gift card functionality. Shopify, Square, Toast, and Clover are some examples of eGift card companies or apps for small businesses. If you have websites plus marketing, you can add gift cards to your site like this. We're gonna start on your websites plus marketing dashboard. Click Edit Site to begin editing your website. Add a section and then look for gift card. In the gift card menu, select Gift Card Settings. In a separate tab or window, find your preferred eGift card provider account and copy your digital gift card URL. Back in your websites plus marketing site, paste the URL that you copied into the gift card URL field. Edit the rest of your section settings and remember to publish your site to make your changes visible.  Number one, can you accept gift cards using your current POS software and equipment? Two, if your POS doesn't accept gift cards, would you consider upgrading to one that does? And three, are you willing to pay a monthly fee to include gift card functionality? If so, how much? There are so many options for accepting gift cards at your business, but if you weigh all of the above considerations, you should be well on your way to figure out what kind of gift card program you need. So how do you incentivize gift card sales? Well, to get started selling your gift cards online, it's important to grab your customer's attention on your business's website. They should know that you offer gift cards early in their visit. There are many ways to do this. You can place the banner on your website pages, create a separate page for your website navigation or use pop-ups.  However, you should also use other resources online to push your gift card option. Social media is another great way to advertise any and all promos. So if you've just launched a buy one, get one free gift card promotion, post it on your social media channels. Social media is also a place where you can be transparent with your customer base, especially during a health crisis. People are searching for ways to help support the industry. If you can use your social channels to convey how important every last gift card and dollar spent with your business is, your customers will hear you, appreciate you and hopefully help you out. When the doors to your brick and mortar business suddenly close, it can be a scary and unnerving time. Hopefully with these tips, you found ways to spark customer engagement and generate revenue during a difficult time. Stay safe. Stay healthy.