 We had a session on the viability project this morning with I think eight presentations from contributing scientists. And after methods anyway that we could do better than that. And the key the key results seem to be that, you know, maybe it is maybe it isn't viable we couldn't really tell. And we knew that anyway. So, I think actually that position is sort of a little bit a little bit unhelpful. And what that we're going to do now in this is do what we were asked of a quick overview of the project because some of the audience is different from audience that was here this morning. And then we will very rapidly run through some of the key results that are emerging and I believe these things are new. They are potentially important and real real useful outputs from the project so far. And as you'll see, this is only the beginning. So, a little reminder from those that weren't in the for those who weren't in the morning meeting. This is a project set up to better understand the socio socio economic viability of agricultural practices and their livelihood system impacts across environmental and demographic gradients in Africa. Looking particular income and production labor and work patterns, the lock ins and drivers that help or provide give barriers to to prevent people using these things. And what does this have in the environmental concerns in this is based on case studies. There are 11 case studies in eight different countries, I think a total of 21 sites. Some of the case studies are in multiple sites, and the whole thing has been supported by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The methods that we've used is one of trying to provide a common framework that can be used across these enormously diverse sites and cases. Yet, so that we can do some integration and cross case analysis, and yet which are adaptable and to those those different situations. And we, we talk about the steps step one, one, two, three, four, etc. step one was about using secondary data to sort of characterize the context of each place. And we've assembled that data for those 21 sites from 11 case studies. In the next stage of using key informant interviews to understand the status of agroecology and use of agroecological practices in each of those sites, and there are 200 and something interviews recorded. Then there was a farm and farm household survey step set up to understand the farm structures and ecological practices and try and see whether we can find some common patterns in relationships between those. So 1000 farms were surveyed. Then a series of focus groups discussions, which were particularly looking at those drivers and lock ins of use of agroecological practices. And there are 85 of those in the common data. Data based framework. And then finally, some more detailed studies looking particularly at work and labor and using a participatory costs benefit analysis to try and get a handle on the, the multiple factors and trade offs that people are using when they're deciding whether or not to use agroecological practices. So, the, what's been going on is analysis and reporting of data from each case study is by the case study team and you, you saw a few of those this morning. It was only a selection this morning we didn't have time to invite all the teams to present. And then doing cross these cross case analysis by different groups who are focusing on different aspects and you heard from Pierre Gerard this morning who was talking about the structural analysis. You heard from Benoit this morning also, and you heard from Sydney talked about the narrative analysis that was based on the key informant interviews. This analysis of well the data that's actually data compilation is still going on it's still in process, and most of that cross case and the individual case analysis and publication is still going on in December. We had a results meeting here in Montpellier hosted by Sirad. And at that meeting we, although these were these were preliminary results and most of the cross case analysis hadn't been done. We felt that there were some strong messages coming out of the project already. And at the results meeting, we sat down and wrote we wrote down what do we what do we feel are the big messages which are coming out. And we then wrote that up and it's just come out as a working paper. This, this, this one here. It's, it's, it will be online. Well, as soon as Fabio gets a minute away from this meeting actually it's it's kind of there but there were a few, a few little details of the of the paper that needed needed finalizing and then it will be available. And so what we're going to do in in this session now is just is just highlight not not all, but some of the key messages which are coming out from there. Before that, we were asked to say what's going to happen next 2023 and beyond. So we're going to wrap up the data collation. We're going to analyze the Fin try and wrap up the analysis and publication of each cases. There are some of those out already there are some papers published already so one from Ethiopia for example as a paper is already published. Others are in the process so one from bikini faso that Michelle presented this morning that's that's, that's just under under review by the journal. For cross case analysis, we have a process by which people involved in anywhere in the project can propose themes for cross case analysis, get other people to engage in that. Do the analysis right them up and publish them. And there are currently in the system there are 10 of those in process, whether they all, you know, reach the finishing line. We don't know but we'll do everything we can to make sure that happens. And the target is that we would have a, like a final results meeting in December of this year when all that will have been will have been wrapped up and we hope most of it published by then as well. So, the key messages now I'm going to Nadine, who has been coordinating the project from the sir outside is going to go through the, the first, I forget how many key messages, and then the last couple I will, I will take over and wrap up so Nadine I'm going to hand this over to you. I think we'll, I'll, I'll advance the slides when you tell me to. Okay, great. Next slide please. So, one of the key message we we identified based on the what has been presented this morning is that agricultural practices are used widely and diverse. So if you look at the graphics on the left, you can see that it depends on the country in some countries you have more agroecological practices used them than you know the context, but what is common is that farmers are using generally more than only one practice so it's related also to the that we had this morning. And this looking at the link between these practices and I shall be principles, we can see that many of these practices are addressing the first two principles of input reduction and so helps. This is really based on the fact that we made an emphasis on the farm and household skills, and that broader skills were not addressed directly in this project. But this practices of them practice, of course, can be related to various principles. Next slide please. What is important to note is that practices are used in many combinations that contribute to changing farming systems. We had also this discussion this morning that practices in fact are combined at farm and household skills, and even at broader skills. That generally applying as these practices need a redesign of the form of the farming systems. So, the combinations depend on the sites. For example, in Tanzania you had specific combinations of practices that were different from the ones that we identified in Ethiopia. Next slide please. Agroecological practices used have multiple origins. And also this point this morning where the practices that we analyzed in this project, where in some cases coming from traditional knowledge and indigenous knowledge of farmers and communities, whereas in other cases that were co-developed, mixing this traditional knowledge with the one coming from scientists or technical advisors. And in other cases, these practices were fully introduced. And this is a case for example of the agroforestry with exotic tree or pure pesticide found in some cases. A co-development of practices mixing this traditional knowledge with scientific knowledge is one key principle of agroecology. And in most of the cases we've seen such a combination of knowledge. Next slide please. What was important to notice in this work is that farmers were using these agroecological practices despite unsupportive regimes. Here we have some example of statements from key informants that highlights the unsupportive role of private sector or even public policies, but also of including scientists in some cases that were not or were promoting alternative modes of productions. But what can be said is that in some cases we can see emerging positive public policies such as in Senegal or in Burkina Faso where they are now trying to support the not only synthetic fertilizers but also compost or other source of organic manure at farm scale. Next slide. This figure has been presented this morning here. What is important to note is that different farm types use different combination of agroecological practices here as presented by Pierre. We've done a multifactorial analysis combined with a cluster analysis on the 5000 surveyed farms in order to see links between structural characteristics and agroecological practices. It was not always easy to find simple trends between structural characteristics and practices. However, what is important here is that small older farmers are not always the one using agroecological practices. In many cases it was in fact the farmers that were able to use their social assets or technical assets to implement these agroecological practices. Next slide please. An important key message from this project is that farmers use agroecological practices for a wide diversity of reason. Of course it's changed from one side to another and this yield is one of the important reasons for using these practices. This is also related to the principles we've seen at the beginning where decreasing inputs and also side health were one of the important principles observed in the site. However, we see that environmental reasons and also social reasons are also mentioned by farmers as a reason for implementing these practices and it's important in this assessment of agroecological practice to also include these dimensions. Next slide please. An important key message that we wanted also to share with you is that labor is not always a barrier to use agroecological practices. This has been presented by Rachel this morning but also by Benoit that sometimes even if labor was an important constraint in various sites it was sometimes also implementing agroecological practices was also an opportunity to reduce the time needed to work to earn income to buy inputs. And what we've seen also is that farmers are in fact balancing trade-offs between the various benefits, environmental benefits, social benefits and in many cases they are okay to implement more labor because they also consider these other economic, social and environmental factors. Also, what we've seen is that wage labor is a means of dividing agricultural incomes between small older farmers where you have an employed family workers that can work on bigger farms that need more investment in terms of labor. So as mentioned by Benoit this morning, there are gender differentiated effects linked to the division of tasks between men and women and promoting some practices may have effect positive or not on women or younger worker at the farm scale. So, thank you. Rick, can you go ahead. One or two things we did have a key message about methods and this feeling that assessing the viability of agroecological practices or assessing agroecology more generally is certainly complex. So people pointed these out this morning, practices are not used on their own, they don't work on their own, they're used in all sorts of different combinations, these things interact with each other. So the agroecology is about shifting systems and that can't actually be reduced to changing in practices. There are other things in a system as well as just the farm level practices. Viability depends on the regime and context beyond the farm. So to say, is this practice or even this set of practice or even the system viable. You have to say where it's situated and what's going on around it what's supporting it and what's blocking it. Viability isn't something that exists as a as a as a separate sort of out of context property of a practice or group of practices. The point of view matter. It's not only about net metrics and indicators. Many of the, the, we didn't show data on this sort of cost benefit analysis. But when you look there you think that the, the, the way farmers are reaching conclusions about these are often based on their own feelings and to farmers, immediate who who are experiencing exactly the same thing in terms of the metrics come to completely different conclusions about the viability of it. Understanding directions and drivers and system they change these longitudinal data and there's limits to what you can do with single time points. And all the concepts and definitions that we use starting with what we mean by agro by agro ecology are contested and they are evolving. And I think actually one of the I hope that one of the outputs from this project will be we actually advanced up a bit and we'll come up with another iteration of what some of these are to my mind none of these things invalidate the findings that we have got already. And the final one I want I wanted to put up again, what I think is is really important message. And that is the one that Sydney presented this morning about these alternative narratives of what agro ecology is what it means for Africa. These things, Sydney reported them I'm stating them here maybe in a in a slightly different way this was based on the analysis of that key informant data with these three visions of what agro ecology is about. One is that it's it's keeps current systems where they are it's for poor people and it may be a poverty trap. The second is it's shift. It's, it's provides tools which are part of a more extensive toolbox, which help farmers move to more intensified production that is move up on the the production or economy scale there. But the third one is the one that says, agro ecology is a vision of a more holistic system that not only improves production economic benefits and welfare but at the same time provides those social benefits. So agro ecology contains improves ecosystem integrity locally and globally, and the vision of agro ecology as as, as what it is to do that is, is the third one. Quite a lot of the variability in the way people are assessing and talking about agro ecology comes down to the fact that they see agro ecology is contributing in these different ways. So, I think these these narratives and these weren't the only three that that they identified from there the word there were more but these are the most important ones. I think these are important for providing insights into the current results for predicting future trajectories. There's a there's all the difference in the world between number two and number three when things change. If, for example, fertilizer suddenly becomes cheaper again. If you're if you're a number two agro ecologist you'll you'll just go out there and buy the fertilizer and forget about all the work of composting. Whereas if you're a number three type agro ecologist, even when you can afford fertilizer you might decide that you should keep on recycling and being synergistic etc. And they also of course have have big implications for designing strategies and interventions. I think we need interventions and strategies which are going to help more people become type three agro ecologists.