 A word first on wider, about twenty years ago I was graduating from my doctoral studies as a mature student and I happened to stumble on a talk at Oxford involving only about four listeners. It was by a very charged up young British graduate student who had just spent nine months wandering around war-affected Sierra Leone. And he was very observant and also very angry about what he had seen there and he was very good at communicating the urgency of what was happening there and the underlying economic incentives at play for a number of the actors. I didn't really know what to do with any of this other than be interested but Tony Addison offered me a path forward not long thereafter because he invited me to come to one of these conferences. And during the conference I was sort of desperately listening for entry points to the economics community of which I'm not a member, I'm more on the political science end of things. For this bundle of issues with economic features, political features, some other features. And the conference was hugely useful to me. I went back, I was in the Canadian Foreign Ministry at the time, reported to my foreign minister that there was an opportunity to do something. He was an activist and he had an activist British counterpart, Robin Cook, who many of you will remember. And they together decided to sponsor quite a bit of academic work in this field involving economists and political scientists. So that was one of the many strands woven from these wider encounters over the years. It was important in my life. It was the beginning of my life as a researcher really and extremely helpful to me. One of the institutional strands that was quite interesting arising from all of this is that not long thereafter Paul Collier left Oxford for a while to go to the World Bank and head up a research group there. And for the first and only time in history, the Security Council became extremely interested in the World Bank's views on this set of issues and invited Paul to brief them and educate them on this set of issues, which he did. Now the SDGs don't spring from a vacuum. First there were the MDGs and a word or two on the MDGs, because everything has a history. The MDGs sprang as an outcome, the outcome really, of a millennium summit full of high flown sentiments and good intentions, genuinely good intentions, but an amorphous mess intellectually as is often the case with international conferences. And it was ultimately left to a very small team in Kofi Annan's office with some expert advice from some people in this room today and a few others to formulate the millennium development goals. The member states of the UN were rather put out. Who were these mere officials to be formulating global goals? Well, given that the member states had signally failed to formulate anything themselves and as they weren't presenting any alternative, the goals were adopted rather grudgingly. And it's important to remember that for the first five or six years of the goals, opinion was very pessimistic that they could be achieved, that they would be achieved, any of them, and certainly not the majority of them it was felt. And actually, things turned out otherwise because the majority of them were achieved. The first 15 years of the new millenniums were very good ones for much of the developing world in terms of economic growth and in a number of other ways. And so the serial pessimists were confounded. And this is what led to the idea that perhaps a more sophisticated package of goals with perhaps more methodological input would be helpful. It wasn't uncontroversial from the outset because this time the member states wanted to formulate the goals, but most of their negotiators weren't particularly knowledgeable. A number of them were, of course. But it became very much one of these titanic UN negotiating processes, which was much more about winning and losing your point than the substance of anything. There was some input, a couple of high-level panels, one shared by a president of Finland, I think, President Halonen, helped because they managed to become more serious about the content. Member states basically aggregated most of the good ideas they heard rather than essentially trying to prioritize anything. They usefully established links between different subject areas. I think that's one of the strengths of the Sustainable Development Goal package. They introduced something that would have been too controversial for the millennium development goals. The sector of peace, security, justice, institutions, tremendously important in development as we know, because in the absence of these things, development becomes so much more difficult, and eventually came up with the package you know. Now there are pluses and minuses. The plus of the MDGs was it was simple, straightforward, any idiot could understand it, and governments found it relatively easy to get their heads around it. And governments, after all, are the ones charged with implementing the goals. The Sustainable Development Goal package is hugely more sophisticated in the positive and also derisory sense in that frankly it's very hard for any government to digest fully. Politicians want you to come at them if you're an advisor with an easily achievable program of action where they can see the end of the tunnel. The SDG package is the beginning of quite a long tunnel, and the end point is hard to detect now. Why? Because change is accelerating. We should be optimistic because the pessimists were wrong about the millennium development goals. But with accelerating change, it may well be that those changes favor achievement of the goals overall. It may be otherwise. We don't know at the moment. An exciting project for the UN, and by the way a side benefit for those who are interested in institutions, is that for the first time really the bank and the fund fully came on board a UN project. And that made the UN feel a lot more positive about the bank and fund than they had for a very long time. And the relationship is now much better partly because of the leadership of the three institutions and partly because they didn't gain a great deal out of their competition. There's so much we don't know about the changing world economy. This is like Anne. I was very excited by what I heard at the conference. I was above all listening and trying to learn. And it seems to me that wider is tremendously well-placed to help not so much guide us through, but enable us to learn from each other over the 15-year span of the Sustainable Development Goals, what we're missing, what's new, where we're failing, where failure was perhaps impossible. We can't let failure paralyze us. We need to move on when we fail. Thanks so much, Christine.