 Good morning. Bonjour. Buenos dias to everyone regardless of where you might be. We welcome you to this event that we hope we'll be able to elucidate I'm sure questions that you may have about the purpose of a lecture such as this one. I am not the person who is scheduled to introduce our esteemed lecturer. However, I will begin this event and give the floor to those who will follow me. The first element that we have the first agenda item that we have for you is welcome video by the director general of the FAO. So please sit back and enjoy. Thank you. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, agri-food system layer at the heart of the sustainable agriculture and the rural development. They are essential for the reduction of the poverty and the inequality and the promotion of the health dance globally. We must work together to be in the face of enormous global crisis to support the transformation of agri-food systems. This is at the core of the FAO's new strategy from work in 2022 to 2031. It is our priority, duty to support the 2030 agenda and the sustainable development goals through the transformation to more efficient and more inclusive, more resilient and more sustainable agri-food systems for better production, better nutrition, a better environment, a better life, leaving no one behind. These four methods reflect the interconnections necessary for effective transformation. The law and the use of international legal instruments have an essential role to play in supporting this transformation. And the integrated projects of food security also include legal reform. International policy is an important political instrument by the legislation anchors food security in national legal framework and holds government accountable to their international commitments. FAO is committed to supporting members, develop the required legal and policy framework to support this transformation and to continue to support efforts to promote food security and poverty elimination through national legislation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the path of the laws and legal frameworks were critical to mitigate the impact of trade and movement restriction, especially on smaller farmers. Legal frameworks strengthen the political we are needing, not more than ever before, as the world be at the back better. And they provide the necessary support to ensure that the COVID-19 recovery sets all the countries on the path to meet the system of demand goals by 2030. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think that the Director General's video message has set us on the right footing. Just a quick point of logistics, I would like to invite you, if need be, to use the interpretation services that we have made available for you. At the bottom of your screen, there should be an icon that represents a globe that says interpretation. And if you click on it, you can choose the channel you prefer in English or Spanish. I will now see the floor to the independent person of the FAO Council, Mr. Hans Hugovint. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, excellent seats. Our actions are our future. That's the slogan of Food Day this year. 76 years after the creation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Transformative shifts we certainly need, and we need it urgently. The dots don't connect anymore. We are bringing tourists into space, but at the same time it's more required that they have more than 800 billion people living in hunger. We have three billion people having no access or not enough access to save for the one nutritious food. And we have two billion people with obesity. Let's not forget we are also losing one third of our Jewish food yearly, which is $1 billion in economic sense. Think of what you can do with one billion US dollar. We're also deeply concerned by roughly accelerating pace and impact of global climate change, which, if not corrected, probably will lead to unprecedented collective failure that threatens the future of our planet. We as member states and state courts have became champions of setting targets and goals. Last week we set again targets and goals in Korea, China. But there are no champions when it comes to implementation of goals and targets. Let's not forget we are less than nine years away from 2030, where we have committed ourselves to implement sustainable development goals. And indeed, as Dr. Chou said, we need more sustainable agriculture systems and healthy diets to win our fight against world-wide hunger, even nobody behind it. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, there's also a message of hope. The crisis are made, so we can solve them. Three weeks ago we had the United Nations Food Systems Summit. It's for the first time since decades that we were discussing every food system and healthy diet at the highest level within the U.N. And our heads of states, our CEOs, our heads of organizations, our heads of NGOs made clear commitment to have transformed the change. So we have to use the momentum. We have to translate words into action, swore into plousers. That's the worst of the statute at the headquarters in New York. But political commitments should be clearly touched in clear international and legal law systems. Law and use of international policemen have to play an essential role in the transformation of the change we need. Of course, we need a strong political commitment. We need accountability and we get that via legal systems. We also need legal systems for the living environment to get more investments we desperately need. Legal frameworks have to go hand-in-hand with the wide range of financial instruments and techniques, especially to increase the investments of the prior second international organizations. Excellencies, do we dare? Do we dare bring our legal systems and our legal frameworks to the 2.0 or possibly the 3.0 level? We have seen successful examples of the past. For example, the 3.0 Platinum Resource for the NecroCulture. But of the liars, I witness a growing interest in voluntary guidelines. Are these tools we need nowadays? This year, I was able to chair the negotiations on voluntary guidelines for food systems and health and diets. We succeeded. After 350 hours in two months of virtual negotiations, we got them. And this week, we were celebrating the adoption and the implementation. And all member states said that they are committed to implement, but none of the member states put it in the national legal frameworks. So we cannot keep anybody accountable for implementation and it cannot be invoked in the court. By nature, they are voluntary. So is this a real commitment we made? Is this a sort of change we are seeking? Questions for crash for this afternoon? And again, we see a mess of hope. Based on the recent court rulings against Netherlands, not only governments, but also governments are being held accountable for meeting climate change with their targets. And that ruling was also based on international rights to life and the right to an under-affirmative family life. Do we therefore this example and translate voluntary guidelines into our national law systems? Because we need it. We need accountability. We need an environment. We are celebrating World Food Day. And if we really want to face our challenges related to insecurity, if we really care about 800 million people in hunger, why not formalize white food as a formal international right and implement it in our national legal systems, which can be invoked in court? Ladies and gentlemen, would that not be a real change in history? Need transformative and progressive change? Do we really care? Do we really dare maybe leave nobody behind our reality? Our actions, our future, our legal frameworks, our relation for our future. Thank you. Do not look forward to your lecture. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, ICC. And firstly, I would like to welcome everybody. I wish everyone a very happy World Food Day. The ICC has very ably set the stage for this lecture, highlighting the challenges we face, and also the tools that we could maybe use to try and address some of those challenges. Firstly, you'll probably have noticed we're having a technical glitch. Unfortunately, Professor Eccles, whose Institute's the World Food Law Institute, in fact, is the convener of this annual lecture, is not joining, has not joined us yet. We sincerely hope that she will be able to join her. Nevertheless, in her absence, I wish to thank her for the privilege of being able to deliver this lecture. I'd also like to thank, of course, my colleagues who have made this happen. There's Jocelyn Brown Hall, Director of the FAO North American Liaison Office, as well as her team, and most importantly, as well, the Development Law Service of the Fowler Legal Office. Now, as I noted, the ICC, the Independent Chairperson of the Council, has set the stage. And so we begin. As the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization has said, agri-food systems lie at the heart of sustainable development. But what are agri-food systems? The FAO governing bodies have applied the following definition, and I quote, the agri-food system covers the journey of food from farm to table, including when it is grown, fished, harvested, processed, packaged, transported, distributed, traded, bought, prepared, eaten, and disposed of. It also encompasses non-food products that also constitute livelihoods and all of the people, as well as the activities, investments, and choices that play a part in getting us these food and agricultural products. As you can see, the agri-food system is broad. But it is not working as it should. This has been highlighted, as I'm sure many of you listening today have noticed, by the COVID pandemic. The current outlook on food security is grim. And indeed, according to the 2021 report on the state of food security and nutrition in the world, and I hear again, I quote, nearly one in three people in the world, 2.37 billion did not have access to adequate food in 2020. An increase of almost 320 million people in just one year. Consequently, as the independent chairperson of the council noted, this is a matter of urgency, and it is a matter that needs to be addressed through all mechanisms that are available. And today, I intend to illustrate how laws at each stage of the supply chain can support better agri-food systems. And by contrast, how the absence of laws can undermine agri-food systems. The pandemic affected the entire agri-food supply chain from the farm to the ultimate consumer. It has led to restrictions on movements of workers, changes in consumption choices and options, the shutdown of food production and processing facilities, and placed severe financial pressures on the food supply chain and indeed on national budgets. Most countries have had to revise or indeed create new legal instruments, which address the current emergency and those that will arise in the future. The pandemic, though, has also shown us how actions, including legislative actions, to support better agri-food systems must operate at many levels internationally, nationally, and locally, very locally. They also have demonstrated that legal instruments and government structures, be they multilateral, national, or local, must address both public and private actors. So turning to the law, what is the law? Well, even before King Hammurabi developed the Code of Hammurabi in 1760 BC, setting the law for ancient Mesopotamia, people subjected themselves to rules that would allow order in social and economic interactions. Ancient Egyptian rule, dating as far back as 3000 BC, was embedded in the values of social equality and impartiality, as well as tradition. Therefore, law is at the core of our lives as members of a community. It regulates human relations and it organizes life within a society around certain values that society shares and wishes to promote, such as human rights, which could include the right to adequate food, as the independent chairperson of the council said. Laws are fundamental drivers for change. They can set standards for desirable conduct and deter undesirable conduct. They can establish responsibilities, rights, and entitlements, procedures, incentives, and sanctions for both individuals and for institutions. And as such, I argue that law and regulations are vital to build strong agrifood systems. And I will now try and demonstrate my hypothesis. My first hypothesis is that law can establish the fundamental principles and rights on which agrifood systems should be built. A sustainable agrifood system is one that delivers food security and nutrition for all in a sustainable manner. This includes the development and implementation of conservation and management measures. International laws relating to fisheries provide a good illustration in this regard. Many of you will be aware of IUU fishing, illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. This threatens marine ecosystems because it undermines national and regional efforts to manage fisheries sustainably. And the agreement on port state measures, the PSMA, is the first binding international agreement that specifically targets IUU fishing. It lays down measures for parties to apply when foreign vessels enter their ports and seek entry in ports or while they're in their ports. And as more and more countries have actually ratified the PSMA, the gaps which allow illegal fishes to bring illegitimate catch to market have narrowed. And the PSMA requires countries to have robust legal and institutional frameworks, including mechanisms for prosecuting IUU offenders, as well as technology for cooperation and information exchange. And one good example of the PSMA's beneficial effect can be taken from Thailand, which has effectively used the PSMA legal framework to monitor fishing vessels. According to its Department of Fisheries, Thailand is the third largest exporter of fishery and seafood products in the world. Accounting for around 8% of total world exports. The fisheries sector contributes 3.2 billion euro to Thailand's GDP, and it supports the livelihoods of approximately 2 million people working in the industry, ranging from small fishing villages to large-scale exporters. In 2018, using the PSMA framework through the information exchange procedures established under that treaty, Thailand was able to identify and refuse entry into its ports of 46 containers carrying fish suspected of being caught illegally and thereby protecting its producers and its market. Another international law example is the International Plant Protection Convention, the IPPC. And this treaty aims to protect cultivated and wild plants by preventing the introduction and spread of pests. It controls transboundary movements of plants and plant products. And so, while many of you may not be aware of this, at the international level, you are protected by ISPM-15. This is a standard, which is established under the IPPC framework for wood packaging. And it makes sure that every pallet, every box, every bit of wooden packaging that is used to ship goods, in fact, is free from pests. So that when they cross continents, they do so in a manner which is consistent with safe and sustainable agri-food systems. This international instrument is applied through national legal instruments. So the ISPM-15 mark is registered under national intellectual property laws. And laws are also used to establish the institutions that need to provide the entry and spread of pests. So, for example, we have a law on plant health, which was recently adopted in the Maldives, supporting the establishment of the National Plant Protection Agency. And very recently, draft laws have been developed by countries as diverse as Nicaragua and the Bahamas, and similar processes are ongoing in Fiji and Mongolia. Due to time constraints, I won't address soft-law instruments, such as those mentioned by the Independent Child Personal Council. However, I would underline the very, very important and fostering harmonization of national laws to strengthen agri-food systems. Turning to my second hypothesis, this is that law can provide a guiding framework that coordinates and drives change across agri-food systems. And in this context, I would argue, national constitutions offer the highest form of legal protection, be they written or unwritten, they enshrine the basic principles to which the state and society must conform. They can compel transition, which would assist and strengthen sustainability in agri-food systems. They can also establish fundamental rights, which do not have to be limited to those rights which are traditionally recognized as human rights. And so, for example, and I think many of you will find this interesting, I did anyway, the 2015 Constitution of Nepal recognizes the right to adequate food, the right to be free from hunger and the right to food sovereignty. It also recognized the right for every citizen to live in a clean and healthy environment. Similarly, the 2009 Constitution of Bolivia recognizes the right of everyone to water and food, and it establishes an obligation on the state to guarantee food security by means of healthy, adequate and sufficient food. These countries have shown that important steps can be taken in recognizing that sustainable agri-food systems are key to their sustainable development. And the potential effectiveness of having a constitutional provision is illustrated by one case from South Africa. In the case of World Wildlife Fund South Africa versus the Minister of Agriculture for Austrian Fisheries and others, WWF South Africa invokes the provisions of the South African Constitution that established the right of everyone to, quote, have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other methods. And the WWF alleged that the Department of Agriculture had unlawfully set an allowable catch quota for West Coast rock lobster at an unsustainable level, thus undermining the long-term survival of the species and threatening the livelihood of the fishers who depend upon that. And the High Court of South Africa concluded that the quotas did indeed threaten the environmental rights codified in the Constitution of South Africa. The Constitution therefore provided a basis for stakeholders to challenge decisions that they considered undermine the sustainability of the agri-food system. While constitutions reflect the highest laws of the land, framework laws, sometimes referred to as organic or orientation laws, are also very helpful in setting objectives, principles, rights and obligations, particularly those related to agri-food systems. And here I turn to another example in Africa. From Tanzania, the framework law of Zanzibar is, I believe, a good example. And then the Food Security and Nutrition Act establishes that, quote, the government has an obligation to facilitate accessibility of right to food to every person through maintaining the right to have continuous access to the resources that will enable someone to produce or purchase enough food, not only to prevent hunger, but also to ensure health and well-being. This act then specifically attributes responsibilities to various ministries, trade, livestock, fishery, social welfare, health, disaster management, among others. It requires the establishment of a food reserve and the Zanzibar Food Reserve, identifies how this will be resourced. It also establishes an obligation on the government of Zanzibar to provide and maintain sustainable food systems and the protection of the right to food from encroachment by any public authority or any person. And indeed, it goes so far as to establish criminal penalties for any personal officer who breaches the provisions establishing government obligations on the right to food. So as illustrated by this Zanzibar law, framework laws can bring together and coordinate multiple sectors to support agri-food systems. My third hypothesis is that sectoral laws can bring about positive transformation of agri-food systems. And you will remember that the definition of agri-food systems covers the journey of food from farm to table. It covers not only how food is produced, but how it's prepared and eaten and disposed of. Agri-food systems can, I believe, be made stronger through specific legislation, including through measures that protect the most vulnerable. Thus, Belize, for example, recently completed the development of a contract farming law that will facilitate the introduction of written and fair contracts for important commodities such as the pineapple. And turning to the other end of the supply chain, there are laws addressing the school environment. Now, this truly, I'm sure you agree, can transform knives. And by way of example, I point to Ecuador. Their legislation on school feeding defines the rights and entitlements of school children. It determines institutional responsibilities and it ensures coordination among different stakeholders. It ensures also budget allocation and provides a framework for monitoring and enforcement. The Republic of Korea has a School Meals Act of 2006, which in fact even goes beyond the provision of nutritious school meals and obliges schools to establish healthy eating habits amongst young people. In addition, legislation can address cultural context. For example, in 2005, Japan enacted the Basic Law on Food Education. In addition to promoting food education, the law aims to protect traditional Japanese culture. And it does this by seeking to promote the revitalization of agricultural, mountain and fishing villages and improving Japan's food self-sufficiency. National and local governments are required to adopt measures to promote traditional and regional food cultures. And then moving away from say, these more the matters which are back to the beginning of the supply chain, I would turn to specific legislation pointing to production. And in this context, I'd refer to the antimicrobial resistance efforts to address this. And AMR, this refers to the ability of bacteria to develop genes that are resistant to many existing antimicrobials, such as antibiotics. And the misuse and overuse of antimicrobials in animal and crop production have, in this day and age, created major risks for human, animal and environmental health. Now, the work in this area is very new. It is, however, thankfully progressing rapidly. And for example, in Zimbabwe, with the support of FAO, the revision of a veterinary medicinal products regulation has been undertaken. And this will prohibit the sale of antimicrobials without prescription, so as to prevent the overuse of antimicrobials and the consequent development of AMR by making it impossible just to buy these over the counter without prescription. So, sectoral laws can regulate the rights of obligations of various acts in the agri-food system, their activities, as well as their political, economic, social, cultural and institutional environment. And in so doing, they strengthen agri-food systems themselves. So far though, I've focused on the positive, the positive where there are laws at international, national levels and their contribution to strengthening agri-food systems. However, I think to really understand or appreciate the impact, the transformative impact of laws, you can look to the impact of the absence of them or the absence of the capacity to enforce them. And unfortunately, regrettably, COVID-19 pandemic has given many, many examples of this. And I refer in this particular instance to the supply chain risk insights report of 2021, which noted that food shortages and high demand of food had led to an increase in food fraud. And this report concluded that the countries particularly affected, here I quote, frequently have gaps in legislation and enforcement that weaken the ability to detect and seize fake food. Clearly, this is a matter of concern for every single one of us as we all consume food. And then looking at a very different impact of COVID-19, e-commerce provides an interesting example. According to an OECD brief on e-commerce in the time of COVID-19, there were quote, shifts towards e-commerce have been observed in several countries, in particular along the food supply chain, including farmers who started using digital technologies to sell their produce directly to consumers or restaurants that switched to providing food or grocery delivery services. However, most food safety laws are not equipped to address e-commerce. For example, few countries have provisions addressing the liability of third party platforms on which food may be sold. It's interesting to hear to look to China, which has some of the world's most comprehensive e-commerce laws. Nevertheless, according to some reports, from 2017 to the first half of 2020, 45% of the 49,000 e-commerce disputes were related to food products. As a consequence in October, 2020, the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court passed an interpretation related to the application of food safety rules in civil cases. And this interpretation confirmed that in addition to food producers and business operators, e-commerce operators are also liable for food safety issues related to the products on their platforms. So in this case, potential gaps have been addressed through judicial interpretation. However, for countries where there is no legislative regulation of e-commerce or limited regulation of e-commerce, efforts to address sales on digital platforms will always be much more difficult. So in conclusion, my premise, the premise of this lecture is that law at every level can transform for agri-food systems. And while not only the mechanisms available, laws are critical to support a transformation to a more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agri-food systems with a view to achieving better production, better nutrition, a better environment and a better life, leaving no one behind. And these are the goals embedded in FAO's strategic framework. And so today, as we celebrate World Food Day, as well as the International Day of Rural Women, it is, I believe, appropriate to consider how laws can help us to achieve these goals. I thank you. Thank you very much, Donata. I will cede the floor to Marcia Eccles, the founding executive director of the World Food Law Institute, which organized this event. Marcia, I think you're still on mute. Perfect. Thank you very, very much. And I thank you, everyone, for your patience, but more for joining our special event today. As you know, we have tried to organize this program to celebrate World Food Day, but also our annual World Food Law Institute lecture. And we were very, very anxious to have the legal advisor present this year's lecture, which she has done amazingly well. And we thank her very, very much for that. Just quickly, I would like to say a little bit about the World Food Law Institute and how this lecture, our collaboration with FAO and others has helped to promote our goal of making the public more aware of legal policies of legal policies and trends related to food that are important for development, developing countries, SMEs, and are certainly the provision of food security around the world. So I thank the legal advisor for her wonderful comments. I thank the ICC for his introduction also. He was a panelist at our symposium last year and certainly helped us to think, he encouraged us to think of law more and lawyers more in a positive way and our ability to create and foster change that is useful and helpful for our social lives, for our economic lives, for development. But he certainly encouraged lawyers to be more creative and active. And I think that the lecture that you have just heard gives you examples of how law, legal institutions and lawyers have been able to help us create transformative change, which we certainly hope for. I would certainly like to say that this program is an example of something that we have wanted to do for many months. And that is to bring together our Institute in Washington DC, our lecture, one of the events that we host each year and FAO in a program that combines many different voices and perspectives. So the wide participation of it sounds as if hundreds of participants today certainly helps us promote our goal of providing interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary international discussions of food law issues. Since I think we have translators for a limited amount of time, I would like to to some extent just limit my remarks, which would have been a little longer for the, if I had been able to present an actual welcome. But please accept these comments as our welcome from the World Food Law Institute. Our chairperson who with me and an international executive created the Institute to promote events just like today's and our future collaborations that we will look forward to. So thank you very, very much legal advisor. Thank you very much, ICC and everyone who has helped to make this possible and successful. I look forward to your questions and the discussion at the end of the Q&A session. And certainly I hope that you will remember the World Food Law Institute in Washington DC. Our goals are promotion of interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary international discussions of food law and policy issues and trends. So I think I would stop there so that there will be adequate time for questions and answers before the translators time has expired. So maybe we could go on from now. I think that some of the specialists from FAO are monitoring the chat box. And so perhaps we could find some of the questions that have been proposed. Any, let's see, I would say questions or comments. So I can actually try and bring a question to the attention of Donata. If there are questions for the ICC or for WFLI, of course, please bring them to the chat and we will pass it on to them. So this is the question. I would like to ask regarding the first mentioned cases of the constitutional amendments to include the right to food and or the right to a clean and safe environment in the law, the examples of Bolivia and Nepal. So the question is the following. What other mechanisms are required to make sure that these constitutional rights are actively protected? Such as the example in South Africa, activism was key in that case. But if governments enact these constitutional protections, what should they be doing to make sure that they are actually upheld? Thank you, thank you. And indeed I've noticed that query watching the chat and I think it's such a pertinent question because yes, a constitution without mechanisms to implement apply is a grand piece of paper and not much more. And yes, as you had indicated, in that case you had the WWF which has a function of sort of trying to advance environmental goals. I would say, and I think most of the legislation that we have looked at, you require to have in built in your legislation, firstly, administration, institutions that can actually take action, that can monitor, that can enforce. You also need to have resources because an institution without resources to monitor, to enforce and to actually implement those requirements is without teeth. And of course, thirdly, you need understanding and knowledge of how to access justice. Many people, those who actually need this constitutional protection are those who in fact are probably the least best placed to actually secure justice. And so therefore I would say in the context of these institutions, in the context of resources, you also need to be raising the capacity of people to know and understand how to access justice so that they can enforce these rights. Of course, these rights have to be translated from a purely legal perspective, the rights have to be translated into regulations, ordinances, right down to the most local level to make them a reality. But so there's no sort of one single answer but I think there are a lot of answers. But as a constitution, because it is the supreme law of the land, every single actor somehow plays a role in advancing it. And so yes, non-governmental organizations play an important role, schools play an important role, universities play an important role, lawyers play an important role, politicians play an important role. But so it's a combination of everything but at least having that constitutional provision gives a hook that people can use to make sure that these fundamental values are enshrined and must be and can be enforced. I hope that answers your query. I did also want to mention that I'm very grateful for many of the comments that were made and indeed we would be happy to make the lecture available in writing, in written form. Thank you, back to you, Kismet. Thank you very much Donata. I don't know whether Marcia has any questions that she would like to pose. I see another interesting one in the chat. Should I go ahead, Marcia? Okay, so how is FAO working with other UN sister agencies to advocate for the leveraging of legal and regulatory frameworks as tools for transforming food systems? Thank you. Yes, we work very closely as you can imagine not only with our sister agencies but with other IGOs as well. But what we try and do and this is I think common in the UN system is that we actually all try to see where our added value comes. And so for example, in recent past and I did see one of our colleagues from the institution is here from IDLO, we began collaborating in the context of activities addressing COVID-19. And so they bring their rule of law perspective and we bring our technical knowledge of food law. With UNIDRA, we're doing a huge amount of work, particularly on contract farming. Nowadays we're actually working very actively on institutions for legal forms for agricultural investment with the intention of trying to develop guidance that could be used that enables say even the smallest agricultural producer to find a form of legal establishment that will then in turn give them access to, for example, credit to markets in a much more sustainable and safe way, a sustainable and secure way. So there's all sorts of engagement with the WHO. Of course, we work extremely closely because of the One Health approach that we take. And indeed the ICC is very familiar with all the work that we are doing on One Health with OIE as well. Because no single institution in the UN system can address these matters alone. We need to have that sort of comprehensive framework and we need to also understand we're not in competition with each other. But there is a huge amount of very practical technical work happening as well, not only just at headquarters level, but also at country level. You'll see we have in FAO, I believe it's 90 or so, offices outside headquarters. And they work closely with their counterparts UNESCO on education, promotion of information in schools, be it health matters, be it labor rights. This is how we work in that context. So all sorts of mechanisms going. And then of course in the governing bodies, there are the definition of policies are endorsed by the bodies. Here, I believe the ICC would be better place to speak. But what many instruments which are recognized say in the FAO also governing bodies are also then endorsed or recognized in others. And indeed, I believe in the AMR Global Plan of Action, that has been endorsed not only in the UN, also in FAO and also in WHO as a way of leveraging our respective constituents, the capacities of our respective constituencies in this context. I did wonder. I apologize, but may I ask a question I muted before. Based on your experience, and as we think about change, transformative change, is the change more likely at international, national or local level? Or have you seen a difference? Marsha asked me a very, very difficult question here. It's very difficult to answer that question because yes, change goes at different paces, but I think one always has to recognize the starting point for change at national level will always depend upon the national priorities and national government. And so great advances can be made on certain issues as has been reflected, say, on some climate change activities, climate change related activities, if that is a national priority. At international level, I mean, here indeed, I wonder whether the ICC might like to comment because he has his vast experience, not only as an ambassador, but also as a chair of program committee of FAO and now as the ICC. And so as far as whether change is fast at the international level, I believe he would be a better place. But my simple answer is that there is no easy answer. Sometimes these go step by step, you know, international action will move national action more quickly. National action sometimes comes together, coalesces in a way that it then influences it demonstrates an international consensus. But maybe Hans, I don't know a few. Thank you very much, Donata. And I think of, of course, what we need, of course, is implementation and transformative change at the national level, the action has to happen. But I think the United Nations and the international rule of law is that we can only get that change done if it's supported by action at the global level. We have to support especially, of course, in the United States it would be Africa, Gulag, or Asia. We have to support them with, I would say, legal structures, legal frameworks to make sure, and with, of course, the financial tools and instruments to make sure that they can increment at the national level action in the legal framework and on the ground. And that's what you're seeing with the Treaty on Platinum Resources. You've seen it with AMR. But my view was this, I see a tendency to go to voluntary guidelines and voluntary guidelines, guidelines are great because it's a negotiated out which we need. So it was clear we also had the food system, but when it becomes voluntary guidelines. So now I don't see many governments putting the voluntary guidelines into their legal systems. So how strong is then their commitment and what we need for transformative change and progressive change is much more commitment and we'll get that if it's done via legal systems and national level because then it can be involved in court if governments are not responsible for and are not accountable. And I think that's the strength of what we need, but I always think we need support at the global level to make things happen at the national level and especially hopefully via via legal framework because then that gives us strength and accountability and accountability and as I said before, not only for governments but also for the private sector. Give them an environment which places short that they are going to use in those countries. Thank you very much, ICC. I know from your participation in our symposium last year that your comments are always very, very thoughtful and helpful. Kislin, I think that we are about at 10.30 and I leave it to you to say whether we can continue with translation or whether this is the point at which we switch off. Thank you very much, Marcia. And indeed we are coming to the point of this meeting where we are losing our interpretation services. However, we had anticipated that and when it hadn't extended the time together by about 30 minutes or so for an informal dialogue. So I will leave it to you, Marcia, to close the event formally but to invite those who are on the chat to stay on for a little bit longer if they can. I know that both the ICC and the legal counsel themselves very busy, but they might be able to give us a few minutes of their time. So we will close formally, but leave the chat open for another 30 minutes understanding that we will be having this conversation in English without interpretation at this point. Thank you very much, Kislin. And I would like to say I hope before we have lost the translations that the interpretation, that I thank you so very, very much for those of you who joined the program today, but more than anything else, I thank the legal counsel for her wonderful remarks and for accepting our outreach, our invitation to be the lecturer for this year's World Food Law Institute event. And thank you for helping to make it possible in this, again, interdisciplinary international fashion. Thank you very, very much. I also thank the ICC for joining us again. Your remarks are always welcome and helpful. So thank you for that. And I would just like to say that I will be thinking about the remarks today as we consider how to move forward. What next? What are some of the issues that might be possible areas for our focus? And that is why I ask the last question. So thank you very, very much, legal advisor. Thank you very much, ICC. Thank you to everyone who has participated in the event today. And I'm sure that it was successful long before I joined it. And so thank you, thank you very much for that. For those of you who are staying on, please be willing to continue with your questions, your comments, and we will try to continue the discussion in English for another 20 to 30 minutes. For part of that time, I possibly with the legal advisor and the ICC, we will just have to see. So thank you very much. We have, I guess to say thank you for this very, very special day, special event. And I look forward to the comments and questions to come. I just wanna interject very quickly and say that the interpretation services have been extended to the end of the hour. So those who may have been discouraged thinking they would not be able to understand, please stay on. Well, thank you very much. So maybe we could go back to the chat and to any comments or questions. And maybe as we're going forward since the legal advisor and the ICC are still on, if you do have any comments to add or perhaps we could do that also. In fact, Marsha, if I may, I wanted in fact to thank those who have presented some really interesting information and questions in the chat I saw, for example, there was information about a matter in Ireland. It's really helpful to, in fact, this is how we learn. This is how we keep our thinking going. So we will be rapidly taking little notes as we go along. And one of the questions, if we have a few minutes that caught my eye was about customary law. And that is a matter sort of did to my heart, I have to say because customary law forms the basis for so many of the sort of norms, practices, rights and obligations in many, many countries sitting there alongside statutory law and not always achieving the say the recognition and the power that it actually has. And indeed it sometimes may be dismissed and Julie, which I believe is a mistake because these are laws and norms that many, many have in fact followed for many years for their lives for many generations. And indeed in that context, I believe some of my colleagues are online here today who are working specifically on a program which is looking at customary law. Customary law in the context of trying to address wild meat conservation and sustainability. And in that regard, there is a very specific recognition that you need to actually look at and understand the components of customary law. You need to look at the systems for dispute settlement under customary law. You need to understand the mechanisms by which rights be they tenure rights, the right to use forest products and non forest products. So that because without that understanding and that recognition of those systems, you are not going to be addressing the full picture. And so I welcome seeing that query and I did just want to interject on that one. Thank you. Back to you. Well, thank you. And perhaps I asked about international, national, local and maybe that I should add a fourth category, customary. And there are many persons in countries that are following customary law to them even if it is not written into statutes. So another question or comment, let's see. Kisilin, do you have, are you selecting something? It is true that many of the questions that were asked in the chat that have been touched upon by our colleagues. One question that came up was, how can I apply laws on protection, how can I apply laws of protection food system and make it highly efficient in different countries with different food systems? So how do the laws that apply to one context can benefit other contexts when it comes to food systems? Again, I may share this with the ICC. I would, I mean, my first answer is there is no one size fits all. Yes, sometimes model laws are adopted and developed but in every single case, a law needs to actually be designed for the setting in which it is intended to operate. So one can identify good practice, which is what I tried to do in my lecture. And indeed what the development or service of FEO consistently does identify what may be good practice, but at the same time, you need to actually look at everything that surrounds the food system within that particular country because to take the obvious example, a country which is not greatly involved in e-commerce, for example, would not need to have maybe the complexity of laws regulating food safety in the context of e-commerce than a country which has huge e-commerce activities. And there would be, in fact, it would be counterproductive because you might then create a huge institutional or administrative structures which in turn cost money but which in fact are not necessary. So there is no one size fits all but I think what we try and do and this through say the voluntary guidelines that the ICC was mentioning as well as guides and other documents, we try and identify what can be done but then it is for each country to actually design it. And for that, I would also say that our approach is very much that for legislation to be effective, for legislation to truly understand the situation in the country, all stakeholders must indeed be consulted. It's not a question of someone sitting in a government office alone to design legislation. There is a need for consultation with the businesses that will be affected, with the communities that will be affected, with the individuals that will be affected so that you can take into account the needs of all to create the legislative framework that you need to advance food systems. And I think this applies to all legislation that I've worked in different places where we've tried to do that but I think it applies even more in the case of food and food systems because this affects absolutely everybody in different ways be it as a producer, a distributor, the supplier, the consumer, et cetera. So you need to have the laws which say guarantee or safeguarded food systems need to really be designed in the context of the framework of the economic, social, cultural, historical setting in which a country is to be found. Thank you. So I don't know whether the ICC wanted to chime in. If not, I will, I think so. Well, I can agree because I fully agree what was said by Donata and I think that's the strength if you develop an international level, voluntary guidance, and I hope even more strong legal framework. Of course, they have to be general to make sure that they have to be implemented in all the countries of the United Nations. And then the strength of course comes if it's translated the national level in accordance with the national priorities, national circumstances, and as was said also very well by Donata, national circumstances can differ from country to country also when it comes to cultural backgrounds, et cetera. And then the strength again is if you then have a trade at the national level and we learn from it and you make good practice in the national level, you can further strengthen it again the next step of the implementation. So I think it's an interaction between the international and the national level legal frameworks. I think that's what we try to do. And sometimes we have great successes but sometimes we see that we are not there yet and I think it's a way of thinking. Thank you, thank you very much, ICC. I see another question that I think might be interesting given that the legal office is right now looking into this is the role of data protection and digital technologies in shaping food security and agriculture. So I will let you answer that. I have to say I don't feel particularly well qualified to answer that. It is because it is a highly specialized field. We there, for example, I could point to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which is looking very, very carefully, addressing very, very carefully these matters. The rights in fact, providing sort of access to certain genetic resources and trying at the international legal level to ensure that there is access and benefit sharing. So data protection and IP plays a huge, huge role in that context. We also are aware of other treaties. I mean, there are sort of UNEP administered treaties which are also relevant in the sort of more data protection intellectual property field. At this moment in time, the FAO legal office is not working as such on guidance in this regard. So I have to, I would be wary about saying too much because I don't want to say something wrong. But it is, yes, without doubt hugely important and particularly as our food supplies, our food systems grow more global and protections and the recognition of rights are hugely important and with a view to avoiding abuse or exploitation inappropriately. But with that, I mean, if you would like to provide an email address, I'm sure that we would be able to, after the lecture, share sort of some sources that we have that maybe you could find of interest in assistance. Thank you. Thank you, Nat. Any deed, I think there was at least one participant who asked whether we could share additional resources that would be related to some of the hypothesis that have been made in the lecture. So this is something that I think we could certainly try and do. There is another question here. How does the law work to implement ideas related to climate change? What are the challenges and factors that are affecting the implementation and its effectiveness? So how the law works to implement ideas or initiatives related to climate change? What are the challenges and the factors? Thank you. Thank you. And indeed, this query is one which is very, very, very, very topical. So I don't need to say that to those around the screen at the moment. And indeed, there is a lot of work ongoing in this regard at the moment. Most of it is still sort of at the developments, very much of the development stage conceptually. There are very few countries which have implemented, say, climate change laws specifically to address food and agriculture. And yet, as has been recognized, I mean, say in the coronavir process, that food and agriculture, addressing food and agriculture will be essential for climate change. And indeed, many countries, NDCs, also have highlighted the importance of, say, climate smart agriculture with a view to addressing their climate change challenges and global climate change challenges. But to be effective, and I'm afraid here I gain, I sort of return back to, say, my response to an earlier question. To be effective, you need to actually first review what you have in your law. Because some countries have gaps. Some countries have laws which maybe could achieve climate change objectives. But we'd say some form of adjustment. Other laws, no doubt, would need to be heavily revised because they, in fact, counter to sort of the needs of the globe right now. In order to be effective, like any piece of legislation, I mean, you need institutions, you need resources, you need regulations that are actually implemented and are enforceable. But in the context of climate change, it is very, very tricky because when we look at that whole supply chain, that whole agri-food system, you're dealing with not only Laentenya questions, you're dealing with also your production questions, you're dealing with your distribution questions. You're all the way, all across the food supply chain. And so it isn't easy, but as I said, we have begun analysis and we hope to begin being much more active, but we've already begun analysis addressing adaptation, mitigation measures that could be taken in the context of food and agriculture across the different sectors. Because it's not just livestock that you need to address. It's also the questions of fisheries are of them, which I have to say until we began that research, I wasn't aware of, but right across the spectrum, consumer laws need to be addressed. So climate change, effective laws to address climate change in food and agriculture are a priority, but they are not easy. And they would require a huge amount of political will just from governance, precisely because of their very complexity. You need a real dedication to be looking at that and to be addressing them and the real needs to be ready to transform. Because for some sectors, it is likely there will need to be quite significant transformation. Thank you. There was one question or comment in the chat that made me think about the impact of the laws and the food and agriculture sector on different segments of the community. So the question was about women and trees and tenure, I think, but women and youth have been two of the constituencies groups that have become, I guess, we always try to think of laws and policies that might address the concerns and needs of both of them. So I wondered if there might be a comment about either, what FAO is doing, for example, with some specific projects or programs legally, that might help either youth or women. And I also ask that because our first world food law lecture was presented by the Nobel laureate, Wangari Mathai, who talked about forest and food. So again, the whole idea of trees and food and different ways of finding food security, promoting food security and secure livelihoods. Thank you. Thank you very much, Marsha. Yes, you're quite right. At the moment, there is a particular focus in the work of FAO on youth and women and also indeed, specifically rural youth. There is at the moment under the careful guidance of the ICC, the finalization of a rural youth action plan. And with respect to women, we have from the governing bodies, we already have the endorsement of the importance of addressing particularly the needs of vulnerable communities and specifically vulnerable sections of the population and particularly women. Women are some of the world's largest number of the world's producers of food. They are also those who need food to feed not only themselves but their children. And so there is a focus on these. Within the context of our legislation work, there we, in the context of designing or assisting our member nations to design the legislation, we would also always do an analysis of the impact, say on women and how can we help women within that framework. And again, the actual recommendation for action will differ from sector to sector in country to country. Some regions, some countries, you have say large number of say women fisherfolk and they're as reflected in many of our voluntary guidelines, et cetera, we then address the needs of that particular community in our recommendations. So that's how we try and ensure that communities that maybe need that extra recognition and extra support are actually addressed within the context of laws. They would also be engaged, of course, representative groups would also be engaged in consultations around national laws. Whenever we work with an individual country that is in the, that has requested our assistance to develop legislation, multi-stakeholder consultations are for us an essential part of the process. And that includes those who would be most impacted by the legislation. So that's quite a generic answer, I'm afraid. But again, we could point you to a lot of the guidance that we have actually developed in that context of how do you mainstream some of these major challenges that we face and that countries face and that communities within countries face so that the law actually works for the entire nation. For us, that is essential. Thank you. Back to you, Lashne. Thank you very much. We have a few minutes left. And I wondered if the ICC has a comment he would like to make to help us conclude and before we, I think, give the final word to the legal advisor. Thank you very much. And first of all, I think I would like to compliment you, Masha, and I would say to Google Institute for having these discussions and certainly listening to Renata. It's always very much our joy to work with, our insights also to see how we can make the recommendations much more strong to be implemented in the national legal framework. For example, when it comes to gender, the position of women and girls that I don't work, one of the most difficult issues we negotiated when it comes to the voluntary guidance. And we still use differences in the information at the national level. Of course, only if we give them a strong, if we translate it in legal frameworks, we can give women and girls access to lead and access to financing. Because if you own an international level, an international level can only make recommendations. But we have to do our utmost to convince those countries to put the legal structure so that it will happen on the ground. And as long as people pushing, perhaps we get step by step forward. And that's why we need that strong legal discussion so that we not only speak about political commitments, but we try to translate it in much more stronger commitments via international and national legal frameworks. And I think the shared growth or not, and I have different positions within the FEO organization, but I think that's the only way forward we really want to achieve sustainable food systems and health and diet. And if we make the mistake, that we can do it. We are getting nearer. But again, we are not yet far enough. Thank you. I thank you also. Donata. Well, thank you. Thank you, Marsha. And thank you to the Institute firstly for providing this forum, which brings us together what's a year to exchange thoughts and views and to learn from each other. I've learned a lot in this session. And I would like to take the opportunity also to thank the ICC with whom we work a lot with other things. But so this is the first time that I think on these sort of issues that we've collaborated closely and it has been a true pleasure. And of course, the team who have been helping us arrange this. But most importantly, I really would like to thank those who have taken the time to join us and to be here today and to think about what we're saying and maybe just to leave with a plea that maybe from this, please don't stop this conversation. Please have this conversation with others and please be a champion of legislation and law to promote secure food systems, sustainable agri-food systems. I think this is essential because this needs everybody's engagement and those who are here have so much knowledge I can see from the comments that they've said and they would be the most important advocates globally for really solid agri-food systems. Thank you very much to all of you, goodbye. Thank you very much, Donata. And I would say also thank you to all of the participants. Perhaps this could be the start of the network that I've had in mind for many years, a legal network to continue discussions like this on a particular topic. So perhaps we can think about that as we go forward. And I want to thank Kieselin also for all that she has done to help make this successful and pull this program together. So thank you very, very much for that. We at the World Food Law Institute are honored to have been involved in this to help to make it possible. And we look forward to continuing collaborations and programs together. So thank you again. Thank you, Donata. Thank you, ICC. And thank you very, very much to the attendees from around the world, for your participation, for your questions. And I certainly look forward to hearing any comments or suggestions from you as we go forward. This does not have to stop right now, as Donata said. So let us think about how we might keep the discussion going forward. Certainly we will consider them as we plan our roundtables, which we hold perhaps every quarter and the symposium, which we will hold with FAO in next year. So we think we'll think forward, but certainly I would welcome your ideas and your questions as we go forward. And thank you to those who have made this possible through your interpretations. And thank you for staying over.