 to invite Mons to the stage, he's research director of SEI and has been leading SEI's involvement in the independent research forum, the IRF, which has been organizing seven retreats for negotiators in New York over the past two years, which has given them an informal space for dialogue and also provided knowledge inputs. And he also contributed to a major scientific assessment of the goals and targets coordinated by the International Council for Science. Thank you, Osa. So just two days ago the UN machine released the zero draft of the new decision that is expected to be discussed over and over again and then finally, hopefully decided upon and agreed at the summit in September. They're sticking to the 17 goals and the 169 targets that have been developed by the open working group. It's interesting to reflect a little bit where this comes from, and I'll start with that. The predecessor of the SDGs were of course the MDGs, the Millennium Development Goals, and the Millennium Development Goals was a kind of a closed expert process where actually it started in the OECD and Development Assistant Committee, then taken over by the UN and the United Nations experts and bureaucrats that sit in their office and decided these are the targets. Very focused, very measurable, very clear, and very poverty and development oriented. When the Rio Plus 20 conference was held in 2012 in the attempt to actually rescue something distinguishable from this long process, there was an ambition and a move from certain countries including Colombia, also with support from Sweden and others, to come up with sustainable development goals to replace the Millennium Development Goals. However, this process was entirely different. It was a political, open, complex manifestation of the new kind of political reality in international arena. The result has been a frenzy of activity, an enormous amount of interest group action and member state discussions over the last two to three years, and it's resulted in a quite sprawling agenda. It's vague, it's a little bit less clear in some cases, but it's much more broad. So no longer is it just about poverty reduction and development, it's about sustainable development for all countries in the world. So these are some examples just to give a flavor of what it could look like. Promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and by 2030 significantly raise industries, employment and GDP in line with national circumstances and double its share in least developed countries. So here you have a certain, there is a certain smartness to this target, you know this, that political goals and targets should be smart, they should be specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time bound. And you have some specific things that happen here that you see is going to be 2030. There's a significant raise, what does that mean, line with national circumstances, perhaps not so clear, but the double the share at least, that's very clear. A more socially oriented target, progressively achieved by 2030, income growth of the bottom 40% of the population at the rate higher than the national average. Also quite clear, there's a time bound factor type of smartness also to some degree. Many of the environmental targets have been on the other hand criticized for being much more vague. Here's an example, target 12.2, 2030, we should achieve sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources. So you see this is not perhaps so smart. The question is, with all these, these are just three out of 169, is this a miracle that some say, what has happened in New York is a miracle, this new agenda, or as Charles Kenney pointed out in his blog on Dewex, is it just that we have entirely lost the plot about what we're trying to achieve? We've replaced these measurable, clear targets with something that is very obscure and very difficult perhaps to measure. We're aiming for something that is transformative, something that is integrated and something that is universal. These have been input principles that were agreed in Rio, and this should be the backbone of what we're trying to do. Are they transformative? Well, probably not. It's not clear how these things add up and how they link to each other and what will be the ultimate view of a society where we will end up if we would reach all these targets. Is it universal? Yes, I think it is universal. There's been a fantastic achievement in terms of finding relevant targets for all countries in the world and many different actors around the world. It's not just about poverty reduction, but it sees poverty reduction in the broader global context of international relations, environmental development and social development. Is it integrated? Yes, I think it's been quite successful there as well. This is about integration of environmental, social and economic factors, and you see in many of the goal areas there's a lot of integration going on. They have several of the goals. You have both environmental, social and economic factors. But as we now move into action, this is the question, would it have been better if all the targets were very specific and very clear and very indicator driven? In our work, we have carried out to figure out what these targets mean for different countries. I think there is a trade off there actually, because if these targets and goals are supposed to have meaning not only for all countries in the world, but for all the different actors that are supposed to act upon them in business, in civil society, in religious organizations, it might not be so bad that they are vague and a bit utopian and a bit strange. Perhaps it's a way for us to have this ownership, but I will stop there and we will hear a little bit more about how this looks in the different context, in business and in different countries. Thank you.