 It is a very big challenge because we can talk about landscape in terms of a physical landscape and in terms of crops and forests and livestock and so on. But there's also people's landscape. There are settlements and communities are not homogeneous. Communities are unequal. They are divided by class, by rich and poor, by gender. And those are the communities who will then make the landscape approach a success or not. So although we talk about community involvement, the question is how do we ensure that the voices of the most disadvantaged who have the most stake in local landscapes in fact get heard and influence the dialogue process. I think there are many aspects. One is people being, you know, increasing solidarity among a local community of the disadvantaged. Now we find many examples of that happening. So for instance, self-help groups in South Asia and there's also equivalent groups in Africa. We have small groups who come together for credit and sometimes for local enterprises. We are not having a discussion necessarily with them about a more integrated approach. These are the groups through which you have greater voices of the poor being heard. And these are the groups with whom we provide the foundation in some senses for taking this forward. Now this dialogue has to take place between communities with the poorest being empowered, with policymakers, and also with academia, with scientists. And I think it is possible if we recognize that we shouldn't just talk to a few but we should empower the many to speak for themselves. That's right and recognizing that people don't have equal access today. So if there are institutions on the ground which have been built over the last 10, 15 years which enable greater voice of the disadvantaged, they could provide another basis, an integrated basis to have a discussion and see how they relate to this approach strategically and how you take it forward. Well they do have increasing negotiating power as a result of this within communities. It's because there was a recognition that they don't have voice that we begin to think about an idea of groups rather than individuals alone. And now we have to take that idea further by saying people are responsible not just for what they do but how it affects others. So for instance what you do in your own field as a farmer affects others. If you draw too much of groundwater it's going to lead to less drinking water and less water in your neighbor's fields. And that requires people to have a discussion saying look what you're doing is affecting me and how can we move forward in a more cooperative spirit. By that I mean that the term landscape seems to be politically neutral. A political economy approach will mean that you recognize that there are serious inequalities within communities. There are class inequalities, there are gender inequalities, there could be other forms of inequalities based on ethnicity. And these inequalities are not just social, they're also economic in terms of the distribution of resources and access to resources. So if you're talking about landscapes as resources then we also have to recognize these inequalities and see how both in terms of their voice and their choice and the access to resources increases. And if you match the two then you'll actually come up with a much more realistic possibilities of sustainable landscape integrated approaches. We need to recognize that we can't just eulogize traditional systems. We need to enable traditional systems to be such that they also have enabled people to have better livelihoods, higher incomes and all of that. And that requires a scientific, if you like, a two-way system where what farmers need and what they provide in terms of innovations but also how the scientists then take it forward one more step and bring it back to the farmers.