 Thank you Fergus and hi everyone and a warm warm welcome to this truly global and also truly hybrid webinar that takes place in person here in Stockholm, in person in Nairobi and then with many many participants joining us online so a warm welcome to you all. My name is Marie Juriso and I'm Operations Director at SEI and on behalf of SEI just to say welcome we are very happy to co-host this event with Siani, with C4Ecraft, with SLU and UNEP. The topic of this event talking about food systems transformations and the role for agroecology is of course extremely topical I think the need for bottom up territorial and contextualized solutions to local problems has never been as important perhaps as it is today in wake of the geopolitical situations that we find ourselves in so I'm very much looking forward to learning from the speakers today. This is of course also an associated event with Stockholm as 50, the large global international conference that is taking place in Stockholm this week. The focus of this conference is on dialogue on high level political dialogue on sharing experiences and also building momentum for even more action going forward. So I hope that our associated event here today will serve as a good inspiration to all the people meeting further south in Stockholm later this week. So with that back over to Fergus to introduce our speakers and the warm welcome again. Okay thank you very much and it's wonderful that we've got nearly 900 people listening in online and people in person in Nairobi and Stockholm. Could I have the first slide. Sure coming up. So the context of this just go to the second slide the context of the discussions that we're going to have today are around for interacting global challenges. Three of which have UN conventions. That's biodiversity loss, climate change and land degradation. And the fourth broken food systems is obviously critically dealt with by the committee on world food security. And the key issue that we want to explore is the extent to which agroecology can contribute to integrated ways of addressing these constraints with which these crises which need a systemic response because they're interconnected next slide. And there is a sort of missing middle, if you like, between the international and national commitments, whether it's AFR 100 to land restoration commitments to to the each targets commitments to a whole host of really desirable outcomes, but translating that to action on the ground where things are integrated in terms of farmer practice is critical. And as we get closer to the farmer, the need to integrate across sectors becomes more critical. Next slide. The transformative partnership platform on agroecology was launched at CFS 48 last year, where the coming from the high level panel of experts report from CFS on agroecological and other innovative approaches to global food security. And it's a partnership that has brought in many different actors that are interested in addressing the knowledge and implementation gaps that constrain widespread adoption of agroecology. Next slide. At UNFSS, the United Nations Food Systems Summit last year, the coalition to transform food systems through agroecology was launched and began to emerge. And that was quite a main outcome of UNFSS and perhaps a surprising one, because in the lead up to UNFSS, agroecology wasn't even on the program. Because of some pressure from member states, a session was shoehorned into the pre-summit. It was extremely well attended, and that led ultimately to the coalition emerging. Next slide. And it now has 33 countries, including the European Union and the African Union as members, and 61 organizations, including key UN organizations, civil society organizations, research organizations, a very broad coalition of actors. And it is a coalition of action. Next slide. And it's a coalition of the willing. And that is quite important because it means not everybody in across countries has to agree on everything in order for action to happen, and getting people to act so that other countries and other organizations can join in as momentum builds is proving very powerful. There are five working groups in the coalition, and this meeting was organized through the research and innovation working group. Next slide. Thank you. So this session is divided into three sections. We start with a framing, and then we move through to look at integrated policies and their implementation. And then our final section is on farmers as natural system integrators. And then we'll have our final discussion and a poll on implementation challenges through Slido. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce our first panelist Pat Mooney from IPS Food. And we're really pleased to have Pat starting our session because there have been a couple of reports coming out of IPS, the most recent call the perfect storm that are really relevant to the framing of this discussion around these interconnected global challenges and how to tackle them. Pat. Thank you very much for this. Can everybody hear me? Is it about enough for? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Good. And I'm very glad that you first mentioned the beginning, the importance of the role of the committee on the world food security in the role it's played in supporting our ecology. I think it has been a critical body that is still a key sort of policy forming body in the United Nations system in the multilateral community to understand these issues and moves ahead. And it's a body which has, I think more than any other reached out to the other actors coming out of the real conference 30 years ago now, trying to bring together the concerns about recognizing the issues around climate, around biodiversity loss, around soil degradation that need for the broad cooperation among systems to work together to solve these problems. Two reports that IPS food has been involved in that relate to this, I think you mentioned one, which is an imperfect storm, which we brought out at the beginning of May, which tried to again look at this coalition of unfortunately disasters that have come together in the last short while, actually all of the century, but especially in the last few months, we've been aware of it. As we see what's happening to the planet, the so called people have called black swan events that would have expected a war in Europe who would have expected that to come together at the time of massive famine in Africa was just terrible lack of rain in the world. These kinds of problems in the middle of the pandemic at the same time, all these things have come together and it's created an imperfect storm. And how do we respond to that brings together the challenges of climate change with biodiversity loss and the food crisis altogether in place. And that's been important. We also have done a report last year, which was looking at our long food movement, the need to try to understand how we get ourselves and where we are to plan far enough ahead to do enough sort of horizon scanning, looking at the scope of events that are taking place. That means looking at on the rise, looking at the other kinds of crises, the other kind of so-called black swans that are out there that we're going to have to address. And that work really concluded that we need to have two things. We need to have a long-term strategy, and we need to have the capacity to strengthen territorial markets, to strengthen local food systems to survive the decades ahead of us. And perhaps the thing that brought the two reports we've done together, and I think is important to this conversation, is that we came to understand in the course of the research of the panel that there aren't black swans, that in fact they're just grace ones, that these are things that we know are out there, they're not a surprise to us. We shouldn't be surprised by the fact that we have a climate crisis that's not news to anybody. We shouldn't be surprised by the fact that we're facing the political fallout of those kinds of climate crises. Pandemics are not a surprise to anyone. We're all telling each other now how we should have known this decades ago, and many of us did know these things decades ago. And we know where they're going to happen again. So for us, a grace one, which we've referred to in both reports, are again those things which we can't understand the parameters entirely. We don't know exactly when they're going to happen. We know they're going to happen. We know we'll be faced with these crises again. We can debate whether or not we're in our third food crisis of this century or our fourth at this stage, but we've been through a series of them. We actually are living at a time, I would argue, living in a century, which is sort of surrounded by a squadron of grace ones of all kinds. It will circle this century and affect our lives for the rest of the century. And the question for us then is not to simply address them as a food crisis or address them as a climate crisis or as a health crisis, but to understand that they all do fit together. And the responses to these crisis, these grace one events, is knowing that they're out there, knowing that any one of them, whichever one instigates you, whether it is a political crisis in terms of war or it's a crisis in terms of a disease, we are still going to find ourselves in the kind of the same situation where they all affect each other, fall upon each other, create a crisis for all of us to deal with together. And how do we do that? And understanding that, then we end up coming back to the key point of how do we create, from the food side, a system which is dealing and strengthening the capacity of communities to take care of their own food needs as far as they can, and to amalgamate that or link that to the other institutions of the community level that can come together to get us through crisis? How do we build the structural basis to allow that to happen? How do we find the political space at the global level to allow that to happen? How do we address everyone from the WTO to WHO to make it viable to make communities more viable to get us through this century of great swans? And that has become for us a critical conversation around what we've learned about supply chains in the course of these last few months and few years with the pandemic, how we've understood more and more that these complex supply chains that we had work very well sometimes and work terribly other times. And we don't work well at all usually for those who are in a food crisis. It's not a matter to be waiting for a semiconductor to show up. It's a matter of trying to get food on the table. But even the semiconductor failures can affect the ability to get food on the table. And so how do we then create the political space to do the things we need to do to create more food viability at, again, local levels around the world? And that's a real challenge for us. And one of the conclusions that we came up with in the long food movement report, and we refer to it again in the Imperfect Storm, is the need to look at legal structures that would create a change of environment, a legal environment around any crisis. The legal structure that allows us to say, OK, in this context, we need to have a change in the rules of the game when there is, for example, if we start just with the food side of the crisis. How do we suspend, for example, intellectual property law to allow for access to whatever seeds or whatever other materials including farm machinery and repairs of those machinery that we need to get through this crisis? How do we suspend land tenure arrangements and land so-called land grabs arrangements in such a way that local people get access to the land they need to grow local food? Rather than have seen food exported or land not being used at all. How do we suspend or address at least the crisis around debt, which is a huge problem for many countries now, to not be forced into now paying more in debt servicing that we've been able to pay in some countries for to survive the social crisis of the pandemic? How do we say, no, those rules, that regime of relationships has to end, we have to have an emergency legislation environment in which food is at the center of the solution. And whether it's again intellectual property rights or it's land or it's any other sort of financial arrangements, how do we change that structure to allow people to feed themselves? And how do we create the environment where we have still a globalization of knowledge? How can we in this crisis, in multiple crises ahead of us, how can we make sure that while we can support as much local development as possible, as much local food production as possible and access to that food, how can we do that in a way where we still have access to the information we need to have to help each other? And that's absolutely critical in terms of these decades ahead. We look at just the area of seeds, which is there that I've been more familiar with. How can we ensure ourselves that farmers, working with other farmers and farmers organizations around the world get access to the seeds they need in an era of climate change? How do we use agroecological strategies to ensure that the gene banks of the world are available to the farmers of the world to do the experimentation they need to do themselves to make sure that they grow the food they need to have? How do we switch crops if they need to? How do they adjust to new climatic conditions and new disease conditions and share with other farmers the information they need to have to be able to get food on the table again and produce that food, of course. These to us are critical questions of we need to think now about creating not only at the local level legislation, at the national level legislation and at the international level, a treaty that around food emergencies that will ensure the right of people to write to food at the local level for communities to create the environment of what of course we call in the community on food security, food sovereignty. To us, that's the task ahead of us. These are, of course, ridiculously difficult challenges we're facing. The great swans that we're facing are dangerous and not entirely predictable. But in the kind of structural changes we need to make, our complex ones, which are not going to be easy to achieve, but which we have to start working on now in order to make sure we can survive in the decades ahead. So they're difficult, daunting political challenges, trying to address the issue of intellectual property rights, for example, it's just absolutely, almost impossible it would seem, although it's been nice to see that the United States government reached in the context of pharmaceuticals or access to medicines is starting to make changes. How do we change the environment in terms of trade and understanding the flows of food? We discovered in the course of the pandemic and now with the crisis with the war in Ukraine, the need for more transparency in the corporations, the grain trading companies, the ABCs and Ds of the world, who are still holding too much information, it's not being allowed access for others. We can't get access to that information. We don't know who's got what food reserves exactly we're in the world. How do we change that transparency? Which is not, we've promised ourselves to do since the 2007, 2008 crisis in food and we still haven't done enough to make that system transparent. We still don't know enough about our own food supply chain. We've got to change the rules of the game around that. It was nice to read in the paper today, for example, in the financial time through reports that BlackRock as the world's largest asset management company with investments in every single agri-business anyone can name in the private sector, BlackRock has said now they're going to be more transparent. Well, that's what that means in real terms. Finally, we'll wait and see, but with $10 trillion in assets, that's an important issue. How do we make sure that Cargill's going to be transparent? How do we address those companies and challenge them to do their job, keeping us informed as to what's happening to our food supplies? How do we make sure that again, back to local communities, how do those local communities do the job they need to do, how do we get the information they need to have to again get through these crises? So it's a complex series of issues. I think for us, it's important to think about the immediate needs and the steps we need to take to strengthen agroecology at the local level. That's critical. But we also, in the struggle to achieve those short-term needs, we need to be aware of the long-term goals we have to have to get us through this century. And those are long-term political changes, government changes, which we have not addressed in the past. We've had through again, three or four food crisis so far in this century. And we have much more to face in the decades ahead. So we should do that now. I should especially say though, that all of this and looking at ways in which we can have local support for agroecology and strengthen our food production at the local level. The same time that is going on, we're seeing a centralization strategy going in terms of agricultural research. And that alarms me. I think many of us are just becoming aware of the fact that the consultant group on international agricultural research, as what was once 15 different independent institutions are cooperating together to provide, I think a debatable level of agricultural research but still a useful public sector research initiative. How is it that we're seeing that all of a sudden we're being centralized? Suddenly the government structure of these separate institutions responding to their own conditions of their own post-countries and in their own regions of the world and cooperating with each other, I think quite successfully often. How do we actually allow them to move ahead and be centralized in some way that really denies local communities, denies national governments of access to the governments of those institutions? To me is an absolute reversal of what we should be seeing in the plant today. We should be seeing in fact, the 15 centers of the CG system cooperating more closely with the Committee on World Food Security. And building into that, the social understandings of the Committee on World Food Security and the government's concerns that they have and tying that to the scientific research that we need to have from the public sector. So I want to highlight that in my mind at least is one area which has not been debated in the international community where major changes are taking place in the most important public sector agricultural research we have on the planet. And this again going on without any discussion by anybody. So that's a serious worry we should be discussing. Two minutes. Two minutes. I thought I'd run out, so thank you. So I addressed these areas then. Let me just go back and highlight what we discovered in our work. One again is the need for local to local treaties or legislation that allow for emergency rules to come into play and which then change, it allows for changes in terms of land tenure, financial arrangements, export, import range and so on in support of local production. Secondly, we need to have a system of international agricultural research where farmers are at the center of that research who are going to need to have to fundamentally change what they grow and how they grow it and need to work with other farmers to share experiences as the climate shifts and as pests and diseases shift and as crops are going to shift how they can cooperate together and to work with the public sector research community to get us to a safer place. We need to go back and look at the promises we've made to each other in 2017, 2018 and again in 2010, 2012 and again with the beginning of the pandemic to be clear about what as governments we will do to ensure for transparency in the food chain so we can really understand what's happening to our system. It's simply irresponsible that we live in a world where four companies can tell us what they want to tell us about the food system and we can guess that maybe they have 70% or maybe it's 90% of international trading and agricultural commodities, we can't be sure. That's unacceptable. And that's the task we have for us. Let me leave it at that. Thank you very much, Pat. And you've put a lot on the table there. And we're gonna have our first sort of discussion session after we hear from Laura Scandura, president of the Catier Board of Directors, the Agricultural Research Institute in Central America. And we're very lucky to have you, Laura. You've been a champion of advancing real solutions to complex challenges. So we're really excited to hear from you. Please take it away. Thank you so much. Do we have a presentation up? There you go. So good afternoon, everyone. Very pleased to be here and participate in that panel discussion. Today, what I'd like to do is set the stage for our conversation by sharing a few highlights of Catier's work on transforming food systems in Latin American and Caribbean, especially as it relates to building a resilient climate change, reversing biodiversity laws, increasing food and nutrition security, and also building sustainable development. And this is important work because as we all know, biodiversity laws is accelerating around the world and the global food system is the primary driver of that. Our food system has been shaped over the past decades by this cheaper food paradigm with our policies and our economic structure really aimed at producing as much food as possible at the lowest possible cost. And that's had some negative impacts. It's degraded our soils, our ecosystems, and it's contributed to GHD emissions. So without reform of that system, without reform of our food system, biodiversity laws is going to continue to accelerate and literally threaten our ability to produce enough food for a growing population. So the question for us is, if we want to sustainably nourish a growing population, how can we transform our food systems for climate resilience, sustainability, and community well-being while producing food in a way that really recognizes that interconnection between people, animals, plants, and our shared environment? And then more specifically, what role does agro-culture play? Next slide, please. So if you're not familiar with criteria, I'd like to share just a little bit by way of background. It's the oldest graduate school in Latin America dedicated to tropical agriculture. Based in Costa Rica, Katiye has been focused on that nexus of sustainable agriculture, natural resource management, and equitable and inclusive communities for nearly 50 years. So that really gives Katiye a unique perspective and some insights into what works. And next year, 2023 is going to mark our 50th anniversary of putting that combined combination of scientific knowledge and local knowledge into practice. Over the years, Katiye has evolved into both a graduate school and also it acts as a regional platform for conducting applied research. So together with its partners, it generates impact by taking that research and through donor-funded development projects and technical collaboration. And with its network of 17 member countries, Katiye sits at that nexus of the environmental agenda and the agricultural agenda. And this is key to bridge the gap between the two. And so Katiye also actively works to connect the small landholders, communities, and marginalized populations to those two agendas and then also work through its member countries to influence and inform national policy frameworks through evidence-based approaches and applied research. So in this way, the sub-Katiye drives sustainable inclusive growth in the region. The next slide, please. I'd like to turn now and just share examples of both Katiye's resources in its work in agro-ecological intensification. Next slide. One of the things that Pat mentioned was the importance of seed banks or germplasm banks. Well, Katiye's coffee and cacao germplasm banks are world-renowned. But we also have a seed collection that holds some fairly unique materials that have been collected over decades. And the good news is that some of these materials, we think are really quite promising for adaption to extreme weather events and agro-ecological management. However, without some fairly significant outside funding, it'll be difficult for Katiye to identify the most resilient materials and then work with farmers to figure out which ones have the most potential. But all of Katiye's germplasm is in the public domain and it's available to public and private researchers, I think at a cost of $15.75 per sample. Next slide, please. This slide summarizes Katiye's approach to transforming food systems. And what I'd like to emphasize here is Katiye has a holistic or transdisciplinary approach to promote the practices, policies, tools, innovation solutions across economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainable development. Katiye's approach is participatory and it's also contextualized to meet the needs of a specific region or local community with agro-ecology being key component. And finally, it does put farmers at the center of research. Next slide, please. Katiye is a host of development projects that focus on the SDG goals, but just in the limited time that I have available, I just wanted to highlight two of them to give you a flavor of how Katiye's work. So this one is called the Mesoamerican Agro-Environment Program, otherwise known as MAP. And it's addressed a host of issues related to poverty, inequality, food and nutrition insecurity, ecosystem degradation, and climate change vulnerability in two territories in Central America. And the project used climate smart territories or CST approach, which is something that's been championed by Katiye, and partly because we found that this really gives people the information that they need to build their capacity, share information, and make informed decisions. And through this approach, Katiye worked at three levels, the local level, the territorial level, and the national level. So at the local level, we Katiye focused on things like strengthening the capacities of small producers and their families, promoting agro-ecological and agroforestry management practices, and also focusing on improving the nutrition, the food nutrition of rural families. At the territorial level, the focus was on strengthening business, producer business organizations along valley chains, and then at the national level, it was helping to create or inform those enabling policy environments. And across all of this, across cutting issue was gender in use, and largely strengthening participation of both women in use in decision making. The next slide, please. Here you can see just, you can get a sense of some of the results of the MAP programs. If you look at those brightly colored lines, you can see that across the 5,000 or so families that participate in the program, there was an increase in both production and consumption of fruits, vegetables, and cereals. As well as improvement in the participation of women in household decisions, and then increased resilience to climate change in the uptakes of climate smart practices. Next slide, please. I won't go into this in detail, but based on the success of the MAP program, Kathleen is working in Sweden to scale the MAP approach to additional areas, to additional vulnerable areas to build resilience to climate change. So we're very much looking forward to that opportunity. Next slide. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Katie's work in livestock and environmental management, particularly silvo-pestoral systems, which is something Katie is known for. So Katie's work is largely focused on creating a productive, yet low-carbon livestock sector, by once again working with farmers on things like improved pasture management and the uptake of silvo-pestoral systems. This is a bottom-up approach, but it's also combined with top-down interventions that are designed to create those enabling policy environments. And we think this is a very impactful way of accelerating sustainable intensification in livestock production. Next slide, please. Katie's research has shown that the introduction of silvo-pestoral systems can increase productivity, reduce grazing area, and increase forest cover, particularly with the introduction of policies like payments for ecosystem services. Next slide. So building on the proven techniques, this approach is being scaled and incorporated into national policies, including a non-venomous facility in Honduras. And the next slide. Are you drawing to a close now? I am drawing to a close. Sure. Thank you for your attention in closing. Now, I'd like to invite you to partner with Katie to sort of build momentum for a more robust discussion and action around how we can accelerate food systems transformation through agro-ecological approaches and also the one help.paradigm. And there's just some thoughts on that slide in terms of how we can potentially do that. Thank you. Thank you so much. And particularly for bringing livestock in obviously many of the agro-ecological principles require integrated livestock crop systems. And it's fantastic to see that being highlighted. We now have 10 minutes for discussion. We have people asking questions online and also in the room. If you are physically in either Nairobi or Stockholm, please indicate if you want to ask a question. If you do ask a question, please start by telling us who you are and then asking the question. And if it's to a specific panelist, then please indicate that. I'm looking to see whether there are any hands in Nairobi. While I'm doing that, Marcus, do you have anybody indicating that they want to ask or make a comment in Stockholm? Otherwise, I have got questions online. Go ahead, Fervence. We don't have any question from our side at the moment. Okay, so let me start. The first question I have is to Pat. And it relates to the comment about changing legal frameworks and the need to do that in emergencies. One of the key outgoing directors from the European Union recently indicated that there were problems with the food price crisis that's happening now in the rolling back of legislation around things like pesticide usage because people are worried about short-term production. So it seems as though what's happening at the moment may be the opposite of what he was suggesting is necessary and the responses to short-term crisis seem to be to push longer-term requirements into the distance. I don't know whether you could address that, Pat. Yes, I'd love to. It's a classic strategy. Unfortunately, when we have a crisis, the constant comment is always, don't let a good crisis go to waste. And so we find in a time like this that there are those who I would say mainly from the fertilizer industry and the chemical industry that see it very advantageous to say, gee, in this crisis, we've got to produce all the possible food we can. Wherever we have to do that, we will. And we, let's, as a ecology, let's get us to anything which we think isn't a production of strategy for the immediate time. Even conversations that I've heard coming up in Europe and in the United States about the possibility of looking at, well, the agriculture has got some, or Africa has got some agricultural land that could be utilized for the rest of the world more beneficially. So maybe we should find ways to exploit that more rapidly than before for the benefit outside of Africa. That kind of discussion always happens, mainly client called it the shock doctrine effect. And I think we should be very wary of that. In a time of crisis, you don't do that kind of thing. In a time of crisis, what you do is build from the strengths that you've got. What we have around the world is peasant food production or smallholder food production, which is central to food security for about 70% of the people in this planet, especially in Asian, African, Latin America. You don't provide all of the food, but you provide the majority of the food for those people. And we need to build for them in their situation to get us through the crisis and to decide now that we should abandon that and become more dependent upon, again, the long supply chains that are related to fertilizers and agricultural is, I mean, a serious mistake. We shouldn't fall victim to the shock doctrine. Great, this question is to both of you. And it says the rate at which agroecological practices are being promoted to rural farmers is very, very slow, albeit the fact that our present day farming practices are not sustainable and are not providing the required nutritional balance to the increasing population in the world. This concern is more evident in sub-Saharan Africa with its current expanding population. Would you like to comment on that? Perhaps Laura first. Well, it is slow. And I think most of us would like to see it accelerated, but what it really comes down to is funding because we know what works. And it's something that can be scaled, but at the same time, particularly for institutions like Katiye, funding to be able to go and work with community organizations to be able to work with farmers to be able to put strategies like the CST programs in place require funding to do that. And there's a lack of that. And if there were more funding in effect the whole process could be accelerated with great results. I think the good news has been, I think in the last little while as we've seen the European Union give a much larger commitment in the past towards agriculture, more financial support to that and more policy support for agriculture. And I think that's to be commended by other parts of the world to do the same thing. I think we're seeing stronger moves also particularly in West Africa among farmers organizations and governments recognizing importance of agriculture and a different approach that we should be applauding. But we also have to be asking ourselves the question of how do we get from where we are what we build upon? Do we build upon an industrial food chain which has really ruled the roost in terms of policy in the world for the last 70 years and we still hasn't managed to do very much. We're still after 70 years of policy control and enormous economic influence. What we managed to really feed adequately about 30% of the world's population and very inadequately some others. And that body can't be expected to get us from where we are to a safer place using the same technologies and same traditions that used in the past technological structures and conditions that used in the past. We need to build upon what does work which is a business system as the basis of our production which is more localized which gets right to the people and does the job and can be strengthened certainly through agriculture. I think that and also along with trying to bridge the gap between the agriculture agenda and the environmental agenda and we're already seeing that where they're coming together in a number of cases and we're seeing the benefits of that. So to the extent that that would be accelerated. But by definition agriculture is that it is that kind of environment and social issues. Great. I wonder, Marcus, would you like to make a comment at all on the European dimension of this one? Well, as Pat just mentioned, you kind of woke up for the agricultural approach. Nevertheless, the funding of agriculture is still very small compared to the funding that was through the Conventional Agriculture. And I was just discussing on the other day about the subsidies that we have in the European Union. Right now we're still funding much more the area and the production. And the idea that we are advocating for is that the subsidies should be directed to the promotion of ecosystem services and also to people. We don't, one of the ideas that we have is that the subsidies should start to be paid not based on the area that the farm has but on the number of persons that are employed at this farm and also which ecosystem services is this farm providing? Beyond like, obviously food production is one ecosystem service but we have a range of other ecosystem services that farmers need and want to provide and they have to be supported in this. So there are initiatives going on definitely but we still need to increase this dramatically. The good thing is that the society is realizing more and more how important this is. And I have hope that it will change significantly in the coming years. Thank you. And one question, we have another discussion session after the next two segments. And a question has come up, how crucial is the use of local language to the globalization of knowledge? So maybe that's something that you can be thinking about and we can come back to in the next session. But at this point, I want to move on from the framing and to the section on integrated policies and their implementation and invite Veronica Dettu, who's head of the climate change unit in the Ministry of Agriculture here in Kenya. Veronica. Hello and good afternoon. I'm happy to be in this forum. And what I want to do is to look at the Kenya situation when we are looking at integrated policies and the implementation. So I hope everybody can hear me. Sorry, I could be... No, you're very clear. Thank you. Yes, so I'll be looking at it from the national perspective and looking at how policies could be integrated or how we could look at the integration of the policies and implement them to achieve the goals of the real conventions next. So of course, we are looking at the biodiversity conservation. We are looking at combating the certification and land degradation. We are looking at addressing climate change. But at the same time, we are also looking at the food systems because of course, the challenge is that we are in... As we talk, we are still having people food insecure. We are still having the impacts of climate change and all these challenges as somebody has said in the beginning are still affecting us. Next please. So I look at the agroecology benefits in terms of if we implement agroecology, what are we looking at achieving? And we are looking at ecological circles and principles that optimize interactions between animals, human and environment while considering the social benefits through resource use efficiency, long-term sustainable productivity so that we don't just produce en masse and then we are causing problems. We are looking at improved resilience because we need to build the resilience of the farming systems and the farmers to the impacts that affect them of climate change and others. Restoration of degraded soils because soils are continuously getting eroded as a result of our farming systems as also a result of the climate change impacts. By promotion of biodiversity, improvement of the rural livelihoods, equity and social well-being. So it is an interaction not just of the farming systems but also of the human beings, of the animals and every other system that exists. And this is supposed to lead into increased biodiversity, improved soil health and the context specific knowledge, traditions and enhanced food security, health, nutrition and we also address the impacts of climate change. Next please. So as I said, I looked at the national policies and how they speak to the three objectives of this convention, the convention and I looked at the climate related policies because in Kenya there is quite a number of climate related policies that range from the national climate change response strategies, strategy, the national adaptation plan, the NBC, the national climate change action plans, the Kenya climate smart agriculture strategy and implementation framework, as well as the climate change act which is the legal framework to address climate change in Kenya. This is among many others because I didn't want to analyze each policy alone, I would bore you with the Kenyan policies but I also looked at the agriculture development, food and nutrition security and this range from the Kenya vision 2030. The agriculture sector development strategy, the national policy for sustainable development of the Northern Kenya and other arid lands which are mainly impacted on by climate change and that are very vulnerable to any other impacts. The agriculture sector strategy, agriculture sector transformation and growth strategy which is, which precede the agriculture sector development strategy and that is in implementation currently. The national lives of policy, the oceans and fisheries policy, the green economy strategy and implementation among many other policies in Kenya and these are the ones that are not necessarily looking at the climate change but they are looking at agricultural development and also food and nutrition security. So from this analysis, I go to the next slide where I look at how I see the integration. So the agroecology aspects in these policies, when we look at the climate change policies, of course they all talk about adaptation and mitigation measures that need to be integrated in all government planning and development objectives of course realizing that we are very vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. We are looking at the issues of resilience building through management of climate risks in agricultural systems and here is we look at the agroecosystems, the landscape and the community-based approaches. So this looks at all these things are looking at and raising in one way or another the principles of agroecology. Efficient management of soil, nutrients, water and on-prem energy resources using proven technologies and practices for resilient livelihoods. Conservation and sustainable use of agro-genetic resources and this has been spoken to in terms of seeds and others. Sustainable in justification of agricultural production, enhanced energy and resource efficiency, increased tree cover in the Kenya area, making efforts towards achieving land degradation neutrality, scaling up of nature-based solutions, sustainable waste management systems, broad-tolerant traditional high-value crops, among others. Then when I came and looked at the the agriculture development that put security system policies, some of which I have mentioned, then you find that there is a lot of interrelation even without looking at, I mean going through each one of them, we are looking at focusing on sustainable development goals, issues while addressing social, economic and political issues, looking at the water management, the land cover and all these are really related to also what the climate change policies are saying. Looking at the mitigation and adaptation of course, resilience, sustainable livelihoods and then there is also the ecosystem-based sustainable exploitation of fisheries and other conservation issues. So in short, and then the issue of also equitable use of land and raising environmental issues, pollution, land degradation and pollution, conservation and management of land based natural resources, protection and management of fragile and the critical ecosystems, including the wetlands and arid lands. So this for me is really- Are you drawing to a close, Veronica? Yes, sorry, next slide please, I'll be done. So next slide, thank you. So when you look at all the aspects of agroecology, they are contained in one or two policies that are found in Kenya, but the issue here is then the problem may not really be lack of policies but the implementation. Because if you implement any of these policies, you will be achieving the objectives of many of the other policies. And so there is need for synergy, collaboration of the existing initiatives so that we can be achieving the objectives of the three conventions. We also need the multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder approach for enhanced efficiency because I don't think when we, because as we speak here, other people are somewhere speaking about food trade, talking about food systems and food talking about many other things. But we need to create a meeting point. We need to be able to speak to each other so that we can have an efficient and effective implementation. We also need to analyze these policies in various levels so that we ensure that we are including specific practices and we are also gaining in terms of synergy. And then of course we need to consolidate financial, technological and capacity issues so that we can be able to achieve sustainability. Because to me it is this, most of the things is that we need to move from the statements to implementation and to action at the firm level. And this needs to be really brought down from the levels at which we are discussing to the levels at the firm level. Because again, there is also demand. Farmers will tend to do what looks possibly practical for them and they can gain immediate benefits. But then when we bring down the issues of how do we make these gains be realized by the farmers? How do we make these policies implementation at the firm level then we'll be achieving the integrated policy implementation. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. And it's interesting there that you were pointing to so many agroecological elements in the other policy domains rather than just agroecology policy per se. Can I now ask Elizabeth Simulton, the policy specialist of agriculture in CEDA to say a few words from CEDA's perspective. Elizabeth. Thank you, Fergus. And I think we've listened to very interesting messages on integrating and implementing policies and my key take home messages from these discussions are that we do need to change and we do need action. We need to step up from the ground actually and I think you also pointed out very interesting that the action at the middle is where things need to we need to meet from top down and from bottom up. For example, through national action plans and agroecology can capture many of those solutions that we have seen here in the last presentation as well that there are needs for more systematic approaches. So right now we're watching the impacts of the war in Europe unfolding hunger and famine in other continents where there were where than where the war is and encounters that could be producing food themselves. Many are still recovering from the pandemic in dealing with impacts of climate change. And these are, as Pat already pointed out, a series of connected events. They're not treated and we shouldn't treat them as individual events. And my reflection on this ongoing initiatives to solve multiple global crisis is that we're quite comfortable to talk about production, trade, ecosystem restoration, climate initiatives but we seem to evade one underlying cause to food insecurity which is conflict resolution or prevention and empowering local based, local rights based organizations and in their capacity to resolve conflicts. So CEDA's priorities are to take advantage of synergies between what we have seen today, the climate biodiversity and soil degradation conventions, degree of conventions in the work for sustainable economic development and prosperity of all, which is actually one of the headlines of this week's conferences in Stockholm plus 50, the Healthy Planet for the Prosperity of All is our responsibility and our opportunity. And so in doing that, I was thinking about an ABC which was, first of all, to look at the agency, strengthening and make sure the local knowledge and local capacities are part of the development process and working with local organizations to bring together the local knowledge that people have and the capacities and other knowledges that they have to avoid conflicts and also to build up on their own resilience. Biological diversification, so that's the B, circular processes that reduce the dependence on external inputs and contributes to agro-biodiversity and that also builds resilience to disaster. I think we've learned a lot from recovery during the pandemic where economically resilient areas actually were quite able to come up with small, where small-scale producers were quite able to come up with quick and flexible solutions to change from what they were producing for other markets to produce locally in the short of a speed security where they were acting, when these value chains were broken down and seed for context dependence. There are no ready blueprints, much investment capital focuses on quick scale up as Pat was mentioned here with big numbers rather than long-term sustainability. And this means, of course, it's easy that we build up and build in all the same and new errors into the system. So coming to closer, I think we really need to know what causes problems and then remove them when we've been back. And we have an opportunity, I think now to do that when there is chaos, there is an opportunity. Thank you. Thank you very much. That really brought things together. And I'd like to now move on to the section looking at farmers as natural system integrators. And Marcus, I'd like to bring a question from the web to stimulate your remarks. It's from Esther Milberg. It says, I feel uncomfortable with the constant focus global south as places where people need to be taught the good way. What I see here in Brazil is that even within a very difficult political context, movements, communities and grassroots initiatives are much better at transforming their food systems through agroecology than organizations in many European countries. What can we learn in Europe from such transformations? Maybe they should be teaching us. As just mentioned, there are less policies and financial mechanisms for agroecology in Europe. So with that, just to make your remarks more difficult, Marcus, please. Thank you very much, Ferris. And it's really a brilliant question. As a Brazilian, I'm also aware of this programmatic and this sometimes keeps me awake because we are dealing with totally different, totally different not, but by different society and the struggles are different. And the conditions that allow the adoption and promotion of agroecology in Brazil are not found in Europe. So, but this also brings a very important thing related to agroecology. Agroecology is not based on protocols. Agroecology is based on principles. And then the way that the principles will be deployed changes from place to place. But yeah, definitely some important patterns are that in Brazil, agroecology was only adopted because it was adopted by the social movements. And it was like social movements, academia and governments, they joined forces to promote agroecology. And they did exactly the same. Well, okay, without the social movements but academia and governments, they joined forces to promote the Green Revolution and it worked. And why it should not work now to promote agroecology? And this is something that I always discuss a lot people and I was talking to Pat about this, is that sometimes people say that only the private sector is the driver should be the driving force behind these changes. But it was never like this in the past. Like the Green Revolution was promoted by the public sector and it should be the same for agroecology. But then coming back to this topic as farmers as natural systems integrators, and I will try to be very short here, is that farmers in the society they are realizing that we are reaching the limits. When it comes to the conventional production system, we are reaching the biological limits in terms of production. We cannot produce more even if we increase the amount of inputs there we are not really increasing the production anymore. So in what to do, and farmers know this but farmers don't have enough possibilities or not enough support to make this transition. More and more they have higher costs of production and lower profit. And they are still stimulating to produce more and more. There is an even lower climatic resilience or biological resilience. Pests outbreaks are a huge problem despite the huge amount of possibilities for chemical control. These two cannot control pests and diseases. And then obviously by the contamination of the environment we lose a lot of ecosystem services that now start to affect people living in cities too. And this is a direct consequence of the simplification of cropping systems. Agronomic research in the last decades was only directing the simplification of the system. And we know that nature is not simple it's not simplified it's complex it's a lot of synergies. And in agriculture we were doing exactly the opposite. And then now and now we are realizing that okay we should start to learn from ecological process from nature again on how to farm. So biological processes instead of using external inputs to realize certain roles in the system like nutrient provision on the cycle we can use ecological processes mechanisms for this. Biological control is also a fantastic option instead of using a synthetic insecticide we can start to create a system in which we have our own biological control and also a system that will not be a condition that favors the past to develop. So Veronica already presented a lot of those ideas. So how does integrated approach should look like? And I'm very happy that she mentioned principles. Again, we should work based on principles and not protocols. This is a very important thing because this also implies learning. Farmers should learn how to manage their systems considering their local conditions. And this is very important. And consumers should also learn how to consume. And we are not really talking about this because we have to look at the food system. I'm not looking only at the production system anymore. We need to go beyond. We need to go beyond and more and more people are waking up to this. And as society we also need to pay more for the things that we produce. When I look at the European crop production systems we are already very productive. Is there really a need to produce more? I think that there is a need to produce better to increase the efficiency. The carbon footprint of our production is very high. The ecological footprint is enormous. We have to learn from the past even using the green revolution experience on how to produce better. And nature helps us a lot with a lot of knowledge and a lot of examples. Just to close here and coming back again to what I mentioned before there are some initiatives and wishes and some ideas. In Europe there are the subsidies, the green deal and like the cap. And there's a possibilities that we have to shape our systems in a better way. Systems that can produce food, fiber, energy but in a better way with nature in combination with nature and also with the society. And there is a lot of knowledge because farmers are out there and they are doing a lot of things. What they need is support. And we also need public support to promote it. I'm also part of Agriculture Europe which is a European association for agriculture. And two years ago, the youth network on agriculture made a fantastic survey and they gather experiences from 11 European countries that are working with agriculture. Examples, contacts, they even give the name of the persons that are doing this because they want to share the knowledge. There's a farmer to farmer approach. And this is something that they will ask later on to share here. So... Marcus, that's a really good moment to move to ask Monica Yatoh here to share her experiences from Kenya. She's from the Indigenous Women and Girls Initiative. Monica. Good afternoon and thank you all for having me here. I would like to share our experiences as a indigenous organization. We are actually doing agro-agrology practically that is farmer to farmer approach. And why do we need agro-agrology now? At this time of pandemic, and also at this time of food crisis, the economy is really bad. And what happens to rural economies? Those women, indigenous women, who don't afford to buy even fertilizer. As we speak now, fertilizers are very expensive. Pesticides are very expensive. All impacts of climate change. But for us, we train farmers on how to make organic pesticide because we have to integrate livestock keeping and organic farming. We have to integrate livestock keeping and also farming. So we train women how to protect their own indigenous seeds. As you realize, nowadays we don't have indigenous seeds. So we encourage farmers to store their own seeds for future planting. Okay, and then we also encourage farmers to form groups, facilitating groups so that they can protect the environment. Through soil health, we train them how to test the soil. We train them how to also make compost manure. It's very expensive now. Fertilizers are going for 8,000 to 10,000. So we're really bringing in agro-agrology in a practical way and in a more easy way for us to have food security in our own tables. And as you know, most indigenous communities are depending on livestock. But now for the integration of ecology, we are bringing in a live-lute defecation initiative so that we don't depend so much on livestock. So when there is climate shocks, most of them die. So we go back again to zero, starting to see what are we going to do. And then for this, we reduce a lot of conflicts in our communities because when we have farmers now who are integrating agro-agrology, they can feed their economies. We have now women having a small income to feed their families. And that for me is gender equality. So now we have a lot of policies. I like what Madam Veronica talked about. Yes, we have policies in papers, but what do we want now? We need actions. Actions means supporting farmer groups, supporting women group, supporting even that live-lute defecation initiative to enable us realize these SDG goals. SDG number one, SDG number two, SDG number three, SDG number five, SDG number 13. What are we doing? What is the government doing? Who speaks for those vulnerable communities? It is us to make action now. And we need to go back to bottom up, as Mr. Faga said, we need to really listen to farmers. We need to document what farmers are doing. We need support from donors, from government to look at these marginalized groups. Where are they? What can we do for them? So agro-cology to me is climate change resilient. It's food sovereignty. And also we need to focus on land tenure. Do we have enough land? Why are we having a corporate international grabbing our land? Who is protecting our indigenous land? Who is protecting our forest? We have a lot of forest destruction now going on. No one is trying to even bring initiative to restore this forest. I am coming from a past world community, added and semi-added area in Kenya. Nobody is speaking about dry land restoration. We are speaking about replacing forest and repressing forest. What about this dry land? What about the Pasolese community? We want also to be recognized as a livelihood. Pasolism is viable. I am a Pasolese. I was educated by Pasolese. So Pasolism is a forgotten livelihood that we need to talk about. And of course we can integrate agro-cology and also livestock keeping. Thank you. Thank you very much, Monica. And you're getting applause here in Nairobi, obviously speaking very directly to the audience here. Let's now move to Asia. And Irish Bagelat from the Asian Farmers Association who's talking to us from the Philippines is going to give us a perspective from Asian farmers. Irish, please. Yes, thank you, Fergus and greetings everyone from Manila, Philippines. So as Fergus mentioned, I am with the Asian Farmers Association for Sustainable Rural Development or AFA, which is an alliance of 22 national farmers federations in 16 countries with around 13 million small scale women and men producers engage in crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry, earning and pastoralism. So before I give my intervention, thank you to all the speakers for the very important discussion. So as AFA, we say that beyond food production, smallholder family farmers have contributed to sustaining communities. We have helped, for example, we have helped conserve agro-biodiversity and local knowledge and wisdom. And we have developed innovations that enable communities to sustain themselves and their livelihoods. And we as farming communities have thrived with agriculture practices that is intertwined with our culture. I myself is from the Ifugao tribe in the Cordillera region of the Philippines where we grow rice in terraces for rice terraces for decades and that our rice terraces were sustained by an integrated forest systems that we call Mu'yong that we have developed for decades. In Asia, local communities rely on small scale of farmers, forest producers, fishers, herders for diverse diet. Most importantly, the local communities. But despite us producing significant amount of food, in Asia, we produce, smallholder produce about 80% of the region's food. Ironically, we are also the most affected by hunger and poverty. And also we are very much affected by climate change. And some of our members are living in the most degraded lands. And women farmers are affected in different ways. Women farmers in Asia face bigger challenges when we talk about control and access to livelihood resources. And women farmers have less assets and most of the time are left out with no access to social protection. But despite all the challenges that I have mentioned, we have been adapting to the changes around us. Thus, we should be recognized as knowledge producers and solution providers. Family farmers have been implementing integrated sustainable systems, as I have mentioned, my personal experience. And some of these belong to what we call the agroecological practices. And several AFA members, they have been implementing programs and projects that have improved farm productivity, food safety and soil health. And one example in Laos or in Laos, our member, the Laofarmer Network, they have trained their members in producing, processing and labeling organic products for the market. And they have been promoting agroforestry combined with high-value and nutritious products. In Indonesia, our member, the Alianci Petani Indonesia or the Peasant Association is promoting farmer-led innovation, such as rice breeding. And in the Philippines, our member, the National Farmers Federation is promoting integrated diversified organic farming system by training farmers, which in turn train their other members. And in India, our member, they have the initiative called CAMLA, where they process traditional food products and are distributed back to the communities. And our partners in the Pacific region, the Pacific Island Farmers Organization Network, they have what they call the Pacific Bread, Fruit and Seeds Program. They have worked with several institutions and they were able to develop technologies around breadfruit and community-based intervention to conserve local seeds. And this is their response to mitigate and adapt to climate change. So we can go on and mention several of what our members and partners are doing. But what we want to highlight here is that we should be recognized as knowledge producers, as solution providers, as in the context of the transition to a more agro-ecological food systems. I also wanted to highlight that in reality, many of our members are left with no option, but to practice conventional agriculture, which has contributed to the cycle of poverty. So in the context of promoting agro-ecology to solve many of our challenges, we recommend the following, we have three points. So first, we need support from our governments for enabling environment policies that secure our rights to natural resources, mainly lands, water, forests and seeds, and policies that incentivizes transition to agro-ecological approaches. And second, this is game-changing for many of us, support and work with farmers organization. We recommend that you strengthen national and local farmers organization so they can expand their membership. When more organized and with more support from development partners, just like who we have here in today's event, these farmers organization become more credible and trustworthy and are capable to engage in the business of overcoming hunger, poverty and promoting agro-ecology and sustainable food systems. And also we call on partners to support farmers cooperatives or agricultural cooperatives because when they are professionally managed and with dedicated leadership, they are able to share profits through dividends or patronage refunds to their members. They can provide effective economic services to their members such as loans, housing loans even, educational loans and loans to support inputs. And most importantly, cooperatives can help them engage with bigger businesses and the bigger market. And lastly, we call on development partners to directly finance farmers through their organizations and again, cooperatives. So they can better respond effectively and quickly to the members' needs in research, innovation, extension in post-service systems in capacity building and even in crisis, just like what we have seen during the pandemic. So lastly, we want to say that if we are fully supported we are also, we are key game changers in promoting and scaling up agro-ecology in our communities. Thank you for the opportunity to have this intervention. Back to you, Fergus. Thank you, Irish. And that was very clear in articulating that farmers and civil society organizations are knowledge producers and solution providers. And I think that's one of the elements that the coalition to transform food systems through agro-ecology is hoping to do in terms of reconfiguring or supporting the reconfiguration of research, education and extension so that you can facilitate co-creation and sharing of knowledge with farming communities rather than having power asymmetry in that whole process. And the transformative partnership platform on agro-ecology launched through support from Switzerland, the Million Voices Citizen Science Campaign, which seeks to really support civil society organizations in being the glue that links national commitment to local action and supports local innovation. Now, we have a huge number of questions from the web. We're not gonna be able to address all of them in the time that we have, but we will respond to all of them after the event. So anybody who has asked a question, there will be some response. Given to some, there are also some useful comments. And again, we'll make those available on the TPP and the agro-ecology coalition websites. And I'm sure Siani and others will also make them available. As we're getting tight on time, I want to move to an audience poll at this point. And I don't know, Fabio, whether you can put up the, but anybody who's got a mobile phone, I believe that's how you interact with Slido. And Fabio there is putting it, so you join at slido.com and in order to access the particular poll that we're doing now, you go to hash TPP stock. And I presume that if you take a photograph of whatever of that QR code, it also takes you there. So please, all of you, whether you're joining us online or in a room, please get yourselves connected to slido.com and put in hash TPP stock. I'm just looking around the room here to see whether people are doing that. They seem to be looking quite happy in a general sense. So in a general sense? So yeah, let us move on then to the polls. And what we've got is five issues here. And what we're asking you is the extent to which from one meaning not relevant to 10 being critically important. And the first one is that agroecology is explicitly mentioned in the text of Rio conventions by the CFS Committee on World Food Security and related UN documents. How important is it for agroecology to contribute to integrated implementation to address these four interrelated global challenges? And I can see that people are voting away. Things are still going up and down. Fabio, I guess you can gauge when the voting is slowing down, can you? Yeah, there's a number on the top right which tells us how many people have voted. And given that in the online Zoom room, we have more than 250 people connected and plus the people joining us physically, I assume we will need to give them a bit more time. But yeah, votes are coming in. Okay, it seems that people have stopped voting. So we're gonna give them another 10 seconds. I'm gonna count from 10 to zero and then we can move to the second issue. 10, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one and we're closing this one and moving to the next one. Fantastic, so there was a pattern of responses there. The next one is greater integration of policy formation and implementation across sectors, e.g. food, energy, environment, water, agriculture, forestry, trade. Horizontal integration, how important is design and implementation across sectors or actions to make it happen, I guess. And again, people are voting away. A different pattern emerging in this case looks to me that there's a higher proportion of people who think this is more important than what's written in the rear conventions. Maybe not hugely surprising, but still significant and important. And we might want to think about how much resources go into these different areas as we think about the importance of different types of action. Are we about there with that one, Fabio? Yeah, I think so. We had 80 votes for the first one. We're around 85 here. So I'm gonna count from five down, five, four, three, two, one. So make your vote because we're moving on to the third issue. Over. So the third is about vertical integration, greater integration of policy implementation across scales, international, national, subnational and local, including addressing the lack of policy structures and social capital at local landscape or territorial scales. I think in the French speaking world, people tend to talk about territory. Quite often in the English speaking world, it's its landscape. So whatever your preference. And again, a different pattern emerging here. And interestingly, the scale issue seems to be less important than the cross-sectoral in terms of people's opinions, although voting is still going on. We can see these bars going up and down. Okay. So we're gonna do the counter back. Five, four, three, two, one. And we move to the next issue. And there's only two more to go. So this one is reducing power asymmetry in food systems to avoid vested interests of those pursuing the currently predominant industrial model of agricultural production from resisting food system transformation. And perhaps reflecting an agroecology-based audience, this one seems to have so far be the one that has received the highest level of importance. And of course, that's in itself a potential difficulty because if we're only talking to each other rather than talking to the vested interests that we want to change, then that could be problematic. Do you want to countdown on that one? Yep, yep. We're almost there. Five, four, three, two, one. Okay, make your move. And that's very stark. Nearly everybody who voted thought it was incredibly important. And then the final one is increasing the agency of small scale farmers, including pastoralists and fisherfolk and food consumers in being able to express their preferences about how food is produced, processed, stored, transported, sold and consumed. And again, this one is receiving a large proportional, they're not quite as clear as for power asymmetry, but a lot of people thinking it is very important. So Fabio, do you want to countdown? Yep. So last chance to cast your vote. Five, four, three, two, one. And I'm going to lock this. Okay, here we go. All right, so. Okay, and we will make those results available with the whole sort of transcript and information about the event. So you will be able to access it. And I think it's quite a useful thing for us to have seen. Now we were going to have closing remarks from Philip Osano of the Stockholm Environment Institute who's normally here in Nairobi, but is actually in Stockholm. But I understand that he hasn't managed to get to the venue in Stockholm. Is that right, Stockholm? Yes, that's right. So I think being as we're beyond time, we probably need to wrap up the meeting. I'm sure you'll all continue discussing these issues in Stockholm, here in Nairobi, and amongst all of you who have joined online. I think this is very much the beginning of a discussion. And I can see that there's a real need to move from the talking to the action that seems to be very much on everybody's lips. And I hope that we can, and that this new coalition will really begin doing things on the ground and helping get national and local transitions moving. With that, I'd like to thank everybody, particularly those who made an effort to come to the two venues. It's a strange situation that we're in these days having been used to the COVID conditions in which we couldn't meet together. It's actually really wonderful to have people here in the room in Nairobi to see people having traveled to Stockholm and be able to interact. So thank you very much. And thanks all of those online and particularly all of those who've made presentations today, I know it's difficult. You get a short amount of time in these sort of contexts but I think it's been very rich. And I'd like to thank you all very much indeed for taking part. And with that, we will close the webinar.