And welcome to module five of your online course, Where we going to look at some of the ways in which the MAPS community responded to the challenges that they faced. My name is Michelle du Tait, and I'm the MAPS program manager. I work at a climate-change NGO in Cape Town called SouthSouthNorth. In our previous model we realized how, that MAPS face some challenges. There were challenges in achieving a sound evidence for transition to a low carbon economy. And there was also difficulties in realizing the target that science had sent us. In fact, here was a gap. A gap between this target, that science says we must meet in order to avoid dangerous climate change, and the action that countries could take in order for their countries to continue to develop. Because of these challenges, we had to take a step back and reflect in order to innovate and problem solve moving forward. We had to reflect on the tools that we use, the approaches that we take, and also on our ideas of the future in the long term. In order so that we could push innovation in our response to this climate change mitigation challenge. In this module we want to share a snapshot of some of these responses that the MAPS community took. As Marta highlighted in module four, some of the reasons for the gap were technical in nature. They were around the limitations of our existing tools, and as such were around the production of knowledge in the MAPS processes. In our responses, we had to look at the tools that we had available, and see if we could improve the information that comes out of these tools, so that they are more useful and relevant to the policymakers that use them. The other reasons for the gap from the target to the action that the countries have taken was more political or behavioral in nature. That looked at how the knowledge produced by the MAPS processes was consumed. How data became contested, how vested interests influenced the production of the knowledge, and also how humans operate, take decision, and make action. As such, our response was looking at how we approach this challenge, and also at our human ability to grasp and take action in the long term. We are going to be looking at three of the responses that MAPS took in response to these challenges that we were facing. And we hope that this gives you a broad understanding or a snapshot of some of the possible ways in which we can approach these challenges. There is still much more work that needs to be done in this field. So we also hope that this inspires you to delve deeper into the subject matter. And to think of ways to work on the work that we've already done. Build on this work. As well as thinking of your own possible responses. We're going to be leaving lots of links and pointers to additional resources on our module notes, to give you this opportunity to delve more deeply into the subject matter. The first response we took was looking at how we could improve our available tools. And tools we generally use in this climate change mitigation field. What we did is link two models that are commonly used. These are sectoral bottom up models with economic wide top down models, and looking at the ways that these two can interact so that they give us better information, or rather a fuller picture so that the policy makers that need to use this kind of information can make more informed decisions. What is important to these policy makers, is how the mitigation decisions that we take, effect the socio-economic situation of their countries. The second response that we're going to talk about during this module, is how we, as a climate change community of practice, approach this climate change and development problem. The disciplines that we surround ourselves with, the communities of practise that we engage with. We're looking to broaden our approach to include more disciplines. And also to include other policy agendas into the work that we do. The third response that we're going to look at has to do with how we approach the long term, what we as humans are able to do, and how we can work with those inherent challenges we have in our ability to think about the long term future.