 The thing about data seems to come up again and again. Of course you are researchers and you want to have real data. But how do you really solve this, that you have so little data, sometimes the data is telling two different things. Do you have an idea for that? Would you like me to? In fact you're asking about me, about a project that I'm working on right now called GeoShare and it's designed to bring together the world's experts, in fact to bring together the FAO and to reconcile these databases and to figure out which one is best for what purpose to make this available to people in developing countries for decision making. So I think you've got to get more cooperation in this area, so it's not entirely a lack of funds, it's a lack of cooperation amongst groups, a lack of incentive to come together and actually figure out which is right. There's often a strong incentive for people to build their own empires and to pound their chest and say, no my answer's right, and not to come to an agreement. Fram, do you think that more data would do better governance? You talked about poor governance where it doesn't work very well. Do you agree? Yeah, I mean, there are so many politics. But empirical evidence and data is not easy to manipulate. If people know what's going on, it's going to help. So yes, data is going to be very helpful in guiding the policymaking and decision making. I'm putting pressure maybe on, okay. My name is Wisdom, Wisdom Aqbalu from the State University of New York. The finding that government effectiveness actually leads to increased crop land use is quite troubling because if government effectiveness is correlated with good governance, then essentially what we are trying to say is that good governance can lead to land degradation. So would you like to throw some light on that? Okay. And please. I'm Mike Chen from the College of William & Mary, working with aid data. So my question's for Ephraim. I thought the results of your model were really interesting. I'm assuming that the data on foreign aid flows was at the national level. I wonder if your analysis would be improved or how it would change if you could find out where money actually flowed within Botswana or the DRC, especially with large countries like the DRC that vary so dramatically in terms of their, you know, so what bio stocks are, but also what governance is like. It obviously varies throughout DRC. Did you have location information on where the aid was flowing within the country? And then we have the third question. You talked about the problems of using more land for crops and agriculture. So would the solution be to, understand, make, if we are to feed more people, to make it more intensive, and how is that to be, is it, do we need to put a lot of research in getting better grains, we're talking to Jennifer, GMO, or what's the solution if we should not enlarge in the crop land to feed more? Okay. Who wants to start? Do you want to? Okay. I'll back clean up, unless you want to. It was about governance effective, and then, yeah, where did the money start? No, you're very right that we need government effectiveness, but the level at which the African governments are, I'm happy to see that it's increasing crop land expansion. There are countries where the, my good example is DRC Congo. The farmers cannot even, sometimes they cannot go to farming because there are bullets flying around. They can't go farming, and at the current level of government effectiveness, we are still seeing an increase in crop land area. But we did the demarcation of the countries, and we found that in countries where there had been a reduction of crop land area, a good example is Botswana itself, the government effectiveness actually is the highest, is 0.4. The government effectiveness ranges from minus 2.5 to 2.5, and Botswana, there are very few countries which have positive government effectiveness, and in those countries, we are seeing actually a reduction of the crop land area. Now, regarding your question, this data is at the national level, so it is not aggregated into a level where we can be able to find the micro level impacts of the aid and all those things. Now, related to the weather, the crop land expansion is good or bad. It's bad because it is replacing forests, and forests are important to the very people who are cutting it, but they have to weigh between cooking their food and preserving the forest. There is another good example of Niger. In Niger, we know the re-greening of the Sahel. The people were given the tree tenure, and they ended up planting more trees and protecting more trees than cutting them. Research and development is an important aspect which is going to increase the agricultural yields, and in that way, we are going to avoid deforestation. Go ahead. I wanted to pick up on this very interesting question of intensification. I think, again, taking the long view, looking back 50 years, if you asked me what was the most important thing that happened over the last 50 years in global land use, it was a point Ephraim alluded to, and that's the fact that we tripled crop production globally, and we did that by very modest increases in area. Now, where the production occurred has shifted around a lot, but the aggregate area devoted to cropping increased by maybe 15% or less over that period. That's a tremendous accomplishment. Our task in the next 50 years is more modest, rather than tripling just double crop output or maybe even a little less. If we can match this historical experience, I think that will be remarkable, will be in good shape, but there are challenges. There's climate change that's working against that. As Ephraim said, the yield gaps are getting smaller in some many parts of the world. Is it going to be hard to continue to accomplish this? But I think we do need to think about this intensification in a global context. It may well be that you build roads in an area, they intensify and expand, but as a result, you may be able to preserve other areas. So you need to think about it, important to look at it at the case study local level, but it's important to look at it at the regional and global level as well. And that's the real challenge, though, that we face over the next 50 years. Can we replicate this experience, getting most of our increased production from intensification? So it's an excellent point.