 Okay, let's start. Can you hear me okay? Good morning. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening, depending where you are joining us from. Thank you for joining these side events of the EcoSoc Partnerships Forum. Sustainable Development Goals Building Back Better with improved land information systems. Thank you for joining. My name is Laura Mediolaro. I'm team leader at the Land Portal Foundation, a small Dutch, no-profit organization that works to improve access to land data and information for all. This side event has been organized in collaboration with, between the Land Portal Foundation and the United Nations Convention to Combat the Certification UNCCD. A special thanks to our colleagues for giving us this opportunity and co-organize this event with us. We really appreciate your time to participate in this event and this important discussion. The goal of this event is to bring the SDGs back into the global debate. We know that the recent pandemic has kind of blocked many of the discussions around the SDGs. So we want to bring the SDGs back into the table and take stock where we are six years after the establishment of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals and after more than two years into a global pandemic that has limited our movement and certainly disrupted no man many land governance processes, programs, interventions. So in particular we want to focus our attention to the land-related indicators. So there are more than a dozen of land-related indicators that are included in five SDG goals. We know that data and information is by nature dispersed, scattered across websites and databases of different organizations, governments, statistical agencies. Sometimes it's hard to have a clear picture. We will present the latest information. So related to the SDGs, indicators related to land, where are we in this ambitious process? Has the pandemic undermined our efforts? How can we still build back better? The land portal is also proud to use this opportunity today to launch our SDGs land tracker. It's a platform that offers an entry point into the land data and information related to the SDGs and provides an overview of all the how land is documented and reported in the SDGs. We also want to discuss together with our colleagues at the UNCCD about land degradation neutrality, what role it has within the SDGs, how it is monitored and how it is intrinsically linked with land governance and land rights. Let me now introduce our esteemed group of panelists today. We have only 50 minutes, so less than an hour. I will invite you to please use the chat feature to introduce yourself and the Q&A feature if you want to pose any questions to the panelists. We will do our best to address your questions in spite of the limited time. The first panelist is Shasha Alexander, policy officer with the Secretariat of the UNCCD, where he focuses on the role of sustainable land management and ecosystem restoration in helping countries to achieve the SDGs and specifically the target on land degradation neutrality. We also have Romi Stator from the Land Portal Foundations, she's the network of researchers coordinator and she also worked previously with a global donor working group of land. We have Pamela Chasek, professor of political science at Manhattan College in New York City. Pamela is a co-founder and executive editor of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, a reporting service on United Nations Environment and Development Negotiations. Pamela is the author of numerous books on land degradation neutrality and also on the SDGs more in general. And finally we have Kader Baba, a researcher associate and country program manager at TMG Research. TMG Systems is a think tank funded by Klaus Topfer, a former UNAP executive director. Kader research focuses on social innovations for upscaling sustainable land management. He works on innovative approaches to supporting community rights to land and forest resources. Thank you all of you for joining us today. So let me first give the floor to Sasha Alexander to give us some background on land degradation neutrality and SDGs. Please go ahead, the floor is yours. Thank you Laura. We're very happy today to co-host this side event with Land Portal at the EcoSoc Partnership Forum talking about land governance and the SDGs and to shed a little bit of light on the work of the United Nations Convention to combat the certification and the work that we're doing on land tenure. But before I speak about tenure, the UNCCD as you may know is the custodian agency for SDG indicator 15.3.1, the proportion of land that is degraded over total land area. And as there were no readily available indicators or data sets back in the early period before the SDGs were agreed to, we began working with numerous partners to refine the metrics already being developed within the UNCCD reporting process. It was quite a lengthy process of consultation, capacity building, the provision of default data from global data sets and the development of good practice guidance and user friendly reporting tools, which enabled us in 2019 to collect national data from over 160 countries. This information is submitted through the UNCCD national reports every four years and is published in the SDG indicator database. Now in 2019, the conference of the parties of the UNCCD adopted a groundbreaking decision on land tenure. The decision acknowledges the importance of responsible land governments to address desertification, land degradation and drought and for achieving land degradation neutrality, which is at the heart of SDG target 15.3. So it's groundbreaking because the UNCCD is the only multilateral environmental agreement to explicitly address the issue of land tenure and recognize the importance of promoting equal tenure rights and access to land for all. One element of this decision was to explore options for integrating existing global indicators into the indicators on land governance into the UNCCD reporting process with a view to avoid the duplication of reporting and to ensure the widest reach. However, national reporting on land governance related indicators still remains very limited and we are eager to work with our partners to assist countries with reporting on these important indicators as well as other dimensions of secure tenure that are not captured in the current SDG indicators. There is data out there being collected by different actors at different levels, varying both. However, much of it remains politically sensitive or is often of a qualitative nature and not comparable across or even within countries. We do not have the luxury of respected global datasets, such as we had with the biophysical indicators used for land degradation. So we will need to develop innovative but scientifically valid approaches for new governance indicators with global coverage and comparability. With tenure security, we know that people working in the land are more inclined to make long-term investments in sustainable management and restoration. So this should be the focus as we consider the various elements that provide for this security and certainty. It's a matter of bringing together all the different actors to build a process and a platform that works for countries and helps link administrative frameworks at the local, regional and national levels. So we look forward to the discussion today so that we can advance our common goals of increasing transparency and accountability and land governance. And I thank you for your attention and I turn it back to Laoda. Thank you so much, Alexander, for this excellent overview and also to highlight this intrinsic nature of land, nature and people. This is an issue that will come up again during the discussion and the excellent work that CCDS is playing as a custodian agency for this indicator. Let me just give the floor to Romy now to present to the audience the SDG land tracker developed by the Landport Foundation. The floor is yours, Romy. Thanks, Laoda. I'm going to share my screen now and so I hope you can all see the presentation in a few seconds. Yes, perfect. Okay, so I'm going to present you the SDG land tracker, which is this tool you probably have received at the announcement earlier today. It's a tool that we have recently revamped. And let me just stop by saying that I'm doing this also in view of Anne Hennings, who's the researcher working behind the scenes to collect all updated information and also coordinating with various partners to get the information into this SDG land tracker. Okay, so let me start by just recapping a bit of the words that Laoda gave us in the beginning on this context of the land governance and the SDGs. As you know, land is a key economic resource. It relates to access to the use and control over other economic resources and productive resources. It is thus critical to achieving the SDGs. But it's also a cross-cutting and multidisciplinary field. At the same time, when you think about land data, and particularly because it is such a cross-cutting issue, land data also tends to be dispersed, as both of you have said before, Sasha and Laura, it's also politically sensitive. And it is not always very open. But at least in the context of the SDGs, the openly available data gives us a good overview to look at the land's targets and see what progress we are making towards that. But also because of the nature of land issues and land data, we also see the need for having this overview, particularly focusing on land, and also you will see the need for collaborations relying on the expertise of different organizations in their different expertise. What is related to land in the SDGs? We have five goals. And in these five goals, you will see 13 indicators that are either closely or secondarily related to land. And now quickly on the SDG land tracker. We wanted to do this to provide easy access to data and information on all land-specific SDG indicators. It is open source. It is openly available. You can download the data and manipulate it yourself. And it concisely explains not the indicators, why they are important, and track's progress. The SDG land tracker is now updated with this name. But it actually emerged in 2017. It was established at that point together with land photo and the Global Land Tool Network. That's a program from the UN Habitat. And they were working a lot on various multi-stakeholder consultations on coming up with land indicators back then. And this was prior to the time where there was the real negotiations on the final indicators related to land. Back then, this was called SDG dashboard, this tool. And it was funded by Omidia Network and the UK's Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, previously called DFID and now FCDO. In the course of the recent update, we decided to rebrand it to SDG land tracker because we felt that the term is more appropriate to describe this tool. Currently, this tracker is provided with support from the German Technical Agency, GIZ. Now, if we can jump a little bit in the data. As I said, we have the five indicators. And we have first the, sorry, the 13 indicators. The first one on the gov number one is really the flagship indicator, I would say, for the land tenure security community. That relates to the documentation and perception of tenure security. And you have another three indicators under gov two, relating to productivity and income of smallholder producers. Then we move to gov number five, where you have, again, another two indicators related to women with secure rights over agricultural land. Under gov 11, non-sustainable cities and communities, we have three indicators related to slums, land consumption and public spaces. And finally, on the environmental go life on earth, you can find actually four indicators related to forest, sustainable forest management, protected areas, and degradation. There are three of these indicators for which official data is not yet available in the SDG indicators database. There are many reasons for that. Sometimes it's because data is still being adjusted and processed by the custodian agencies to correspond to specific reporting standards. Or it's indeed because data is not yet provided by the countries. The background to this SDG land tracker is we had the desk research conducted by Anne Hennings, as I mentioned in the beginning, done last year between November and December. And of course, it relied on many collaborations. And I put here the logos of the various institutions which Anne was in closely contact with. And the whole update of this tracker would not have been possible without the valuable feedback that they provided to us. And I also cite here two key resources, two sources of information, which is also available for everybody. But it's very comprehensive on the whole indicators of the SDGs, which is the SDG indicators database and the interagency expert group on the SDGs. Now the added value, of course, of this tracker is because it is very much focusing on land issues. So there you have a one point of access where it can be very focused. But now let's take a very quick tour. So you can see a little bit how it looks like on the tool itself. So here in the beginning you have a quick description of the tool. On the right side in this panel you have quickly its hyperlink to here all the indicators. And over here you also have the descriptions of the targets which they fall into. And if you scroll down, you also have a section with a timeline. And this timeline also gives you a few, and you can click on that to then take it to another page describing a few events and developments in the whole process of negotiations of the indicators but now also in terms of data collection and any further methodological adjustments. At the bottom in LandPorter you also have a collection of news and blogs related to these lands as indicators. And if you click in any of these indicators, let's see 1.4.2, you will be taken to a page like this again with the official description of the indicator. You will see the unit of measure. You will understand why this indicator is important. You also understand how the indicator is measured and monitored. And at the bottom part you also have a quick visualization to some of the indicators. And let me tell you that some of these indicators of course they are broken down into sub indicators. And particularly in the case of the visualization we have here, sometimes we needed to break down even to more levels. So not into just two sub indicators but a bit more. And there you can quickly click and you would have access to download this data in different formats which are also open for you to use in your research or for other purposes. Thank you very much. Yes, and I hope you can take a tour yourselves there. Thanks, Laura. Thank you so much, Romy. Thank you. And also for highlighting the fact that land data is so dispersed and scattered across the web. Still, you also highlighted that this data is available online. So it's publicly available. So we are not really reinventing the wheel. So can you maybe specify how the SDG tracker of the lamp holder is adding value to this data? As we said, does this exist already online? Or how they complement other resources that exist, information resources that exist and are available on the SDGs? Yes, Laura, thanks for the question. Of course, I think it complements by providing an extra point of access now for this information. And it's a point of access that comes also with rich metadata and metadata being this information about the information. For example, it brings you the data itself, but it's also telling you who's the data provider for that data. It's telling you which years are available for that data. What is the license of that data, what you can do or not do with that data? So this kind of information is called the metadata. And with that, which is what land portal provides in this platform, it allows you to, machines can link up information much easier, which makes it that you in your search for information, you have more accurate results for it. I think the other way that it complements is also because it adds an extra layer of accessibility in the sense that on one hand, it is accessible for the land community because it's sort of focused, or for anyone that is working with looking at land. So you have this accessible, easy to find place information for that. And also accessibility in the sense of understanding, it gives you explanations about the methodologies that perhaps is not so obvious to find in the central databases of the UN. Thanks. Thank you, Rami. That was very useful. And thank you also for pointing to the fact that not only the data is presented here, but a lot of additional information such as analysis or blogs and news or reports that helps to understand, making sense out of the data. But we heard that the pandemic has really affected the global debate and limited our movement, the possibility to meet face to face and participating in debates, conferences and events. And as a direct consequence of that, the many online digital spaces have increased in their importance and the presence in people's lives. So what is your opinion about that? Has the importance and the dependence on online knowledge and networking changed over the last few years because of the COVID pandemic, Rami? Yes, absolutely. I think it has changed dramatically, of course, almost to the point that if it's not online, it doesn't exist. It's a bit of a paradox of our society. At the same time, exactly people with the pandemic, they have become a lot more exposed to data. They have become more familiar with graphs and looking for this kind of information. And this at the same time is coming with driving the demand for more data and for more information. Now, what we have to consider is that not everyone is necessarily data savvy. So I think in that context that you have a demand, but maybe to an audience that is not fully yet with the tools to process this data, I think it becomes very important for organizations not only to make data more accessible, more open, providing it in formats that people can actually use, manipulate this data for their purposes, but also that they be aware of providing this in a language that it's also quickly understood. Thank you. Thank you again and congratulations for all the work done. Let me just turn to other panelists that are here today and pose a few questions to them. I want to pose a question to you, Pamela, because you have such a long experience in being part of so many negotiations, not only over the past six years, but over the few decades. So can you share with us any inside stories related to SDGs or any particular targets that you have in mind with the audience? Please, Pamela, the floor is yours. Sure. Thank you very much for having me here today. I'm going to focus a little bit on SDG 153 because it is the land degradation neutrality target. The origins of the target were actually at the VIO plus 20 meeting when the UNCCD secretary took the lead at pushing to get language on what they then called zero net land degradation in the outcome document from that conference in VIO in 2012, which was the future we want. They then took the same argument to the meetings of the open working group, which was charged by the UN General Assembly with negotiating the SDGs and presenting them back to the General Assembly for adoption in 2015. And so at the third meeting, which was in May of 2013, one of the focuses was on land and land degradation, forest, biodiversity. And at that time, the UNCCD also came and made a presentation on explaining why there should be a target somewhere within the SDGs on this whole concept of land degradation neutrality. The idea was further developed, but it wasn't until the very last meeting of the open working group in 2014 that we got to the point where perhaps there would be a target. There was a target in the draft that was up for adoption. And that meeting, like many UN meetings went all through the night. And one delegation argued that we really could not have a target on land degradation neutrality in the text. That their argument was that this could lead to trade offs between countries. So one country might still degrade their land and essentially buying up undegraded land in another country. There was also concern what would be the cost of this, both in developing countries and from donor countries. Some argued, no, this is not a license to degrade land. This is a way to actually restore land to productivity. And the debate went on and on. At the final point, when it was time for adoption of that, this one delegation argued, well, there was no definition. What is land degradation neutrality? At the same time, the UNCCD had a working group that was actually negotiating scientific definition of land degradation neutrality. When this one delegation said that they had rejected this definition, there was an opportunity to reach out to the chair, the science policy interface of the UNCCD to see what happened. It turned out it wasn't rejected. It hadn't been formally adopted yet by the UNCCD, but it was on its way to being adopted at the next COP, which was later in 2015. So this was brought to the floor and eventually the target was accepted. However, there's still been some issues with target 15.3. It was brought into the UNCCD at the 2015 COP in conference of parties, sorry, in Turkey. And it was, should this be a new focus of the UNCCD? And it was agreed that it would only be a voluntary target, just like the SDGs are voluntary targets within the certification convention. It is also a voluntary target, but it is still there. And it is now guiding the work of the UNCCD as in conjunction with SDG implementation. Thank you, Pamela. And for sharing with us these inside stories and how these politics and dynamics play important roles and are very powerful in ensuring that certain indicators get included in such a global framework. So we have similar experiences related to the 1.4.2 that our other organizations working on land issues are very much aware of. Can I ask another question to you, Pamela? We all know that land is a cross-cutting issue where economic, political and social dimensions are all very important. And monitoring all these dimensions might prove to be complex and difficult. So we need to look for different type of data in different organizations, et cetera. And this data might sometimes be closing in silos. What is your experience and your insights and reflections on these barriers that exist across organizations and how collaboration in this case is important? Well, as Romy demonstrated in her presentation, there are a number of different targets related to land and a number of different indicators within the SDGs. And that shows how land degradation is really related to poverty, gender, agriculture, biodiversity, entitled chemicals, pesticides, the rural-urban interface, economic livelihoods. But all of these issues are the focus of different ministries and different departments within governments. And they don't always coordinate with each other. Similarly, at the UN level in many countries, the Environment Ministry takes the lead on the SDGs. But really all ministries and relevant ministries need to work together on this and cross-pollinate and share information. This doesn't often happen at the national level, the local level, or even at the international level. Similarly, land degradation, I think as Qatar will explain, needs to be monitored at the local level, not just at the national level. So you need better vertical integration from what's going on locally up to the national and then international levels, as well as you need more horizontal integration across ministries, across departments within a single country. Unfortunately, at the international level, the high-level political forum on sustainable development, which is charged with reviewing SDG implementation each year, also tends to silo the SDGs. So you're not getting that integration either at the international level. It is because of this silo nature of the SDGs' land indicators that we also face these challenges in reporting, in particular government reporting. Why those challenges? Is there any confusion on who is responsible for monitoring these SDGs' targets? Or perhaps there is a capacity gap in certain governments? And in this scenario, how the voluntary national reviews role is placed into role half? The 2030 agenda for sustainable development, which houses the SDGs, set up different levels of indicators. Global integrators are the responsibility of the United Nations. And the United Nations has, through the UN Statistical Commission, set up all the indicators that Romney just presented on. And they're responsible for collecting information at the global level for which there is already data being collected. National governments were charged with determining their own priorities. They don't have to implement all 17 sustainable development goals and all 169 targets and monitoring the multiple indicators. They should focus on what's most important for them. So it is up to national governments to collect data and measure change at the national level. But as you noted, some governments don't have the capacity to set their own indicators or, once they've set them, to collect the necessary data, especially on a topic as local as land degradation. So they need assistance from local landowners, provincial and state officials, agricultural extension offices where they exist to attempt to accurately collect data on the ground. Within the high level political forum, there's something called the voluntary national review. These were, this was an idea that came up because many countries were resistant to having to report unimplementation each year. They didn't want their failure or inability to implement the sustainable development goals to be held against them as some form of conditionality. So the idea in the 2030 agenda was that countries could voluntarily report back to the HLTF. But what's happened is this has really taken off and each year approximately 40 countries submit own voluntary national reviews at the HLTF. And this is a good way for governments to try to break down silos and measure implementation of the SDGs across their country. But some NGOs and members of civil society believe that sometimes these voluntary national reviews are a little too sugarcoated. They're not really reflecting on the reality, but they're trying to give the best report possible. Thank you so much, Pamela. And maybe this process might be obvious for some of you, but it's so important that you describe it. And because many people don't necessarily aware of all these dynamics and the role of the custodians versus government, national government, etc. One last question to you, Pam. The pandemic has been going on for more than three years now. So what is your opinion about how this pandemic has affected the whole process and impacted the implementation of the SDGs? I'll echo what Romy said as well, is that all gains in areas like poverty reduction, education, status of women, health care have all been reversed since 2020 due to the pandemic. However, even before the pandemic, the world faced a $2.5 trillion annual SDG investment gap, which is most acute in the world's most vulnerable countries and regions. In many countries, implementation of the SDGs have been put on the back burner as countries are focusing on pandemic release, relief access to vaccines, and the inequalities that exist there. And so unfortunately, I fear that many of the 2013 targets will not be met by 2030. I don't know how they're going to address this within the UN system, but I guess we'll have to wait and see. And depending on how quickly the world can recover from the pandemic, we'll see what happens with the SDG targets moving forward. Thank you so much for all these valuable insights, Pamela. Let me just turn to Kader, our next panelist. Kader, based on your experience on the ground and your work on the SDG target 15.3.1, can you share with the audience what, in your opinion, our advantages and the limitations of the SDG target 15.3 and the indicator 15.3.1 on the proportion of degraded land to account for progress in achieving land gradational neutrality. Over to you, Kader. Thanks, Laura. The indicator 15.3.1 refers to the proportion of land that is degraded over total land area. So it serves as a dashboard to alert governments on the status of the land and is respected also to trigger restoration actions for people's benefits, especially smallholder farmers who are among the most affected by land degradation. I do understand the relevance and importance of this indicator. And I also understand the difficulty to be specific at this level of indicator formulation. Specific actions are to be taken by governments through national processes to ensure targets are met. So I will not talk about limitation, in fact, but I just want to raise here your attention on three things. First, the formulation of SDG 15, sorry, so the formulation of SDG 15 calls for actions such that combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil and strive to achieve a neutral world. But the factor it puts people at the center of all the actions. So whether we have a good match between SDG 15.3 and indicator 15.3.1 is a question to reflect further. Second, we could well decrease the proportion of degraded land by large-scale forest reforestation or even by taking drastic measures such as to evict people from forest lands. So the key question are we in the right direction by so doing? Are we really going to achieve sustainability if we are proceeding in this way? These are the critical questions. Third, I would like to recall again that past conservation and restoration efforts that focus only on physical indicators such as, for example, the proportion of land restored, the proportion of protected areas, etc., etc., have in many countries exacerbate poverty and communities' vulnerability, violating hence the basic rights to land and resources. So that's the reason we call for mainstreaming, tenure issues in restoration processes, and to monitor the impact of land degradation neutrality on dependent communities' legitimate rights to land and resources. We vow to clear safeguards to protect dependent communities' legitimate rights and mechanisms to access land, and also without finding a right way to promote their leadership in land restoration efforts at the local level. We may run the risk to jeopardize the achievement of other SDGs, I mean SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 5, in the process of achieving LDN targets. Back to you, Lara. Thank you so much, Kader. I'm very much aware of time. We have six minutes left, so let me just jump to the last question to you, Kader, and then have a final round to close the event, because I know that you are working, you produce a very important case study, responsible land governance in land degradation neutrality program in Benin, and in this case study, particularly, you highlight the tension that exists between two different agendas, achieving, and you have already touched upon this, the tension between nature and people, so from one side achieving the land degradation neutrality targets that heavily rely on forest conservation and restoration, etc., and the other side, how to protect the communities that depend on those forest resources and secure their access to these resources. Can you elaborate a little bit more on this tension and how we can reconcile these two agendas? Thanks. In principle, there is no conflict or tension between the two agendas, since we all agree or increasingly agree that sustainable land management and restoration efforts should be centered on people. Unfortunately, at the practical level, we continue to see the implementation of top-down resource management approach, mostly influences by past conservation paradigm. So, despite open calls and support for a participatory forest management approach, communities are often used as cheap labor rather than white holders and active decision makers. So, in many countries, my impression is that community participation and rights continue to be rather seen as an embellishment discussed to capture fundings than necessary processes that require system reform and change. So, our research in Benin highlights, for instance, the existence of a comprehensive framework document to support forest agendas and communities' participation to forest resource, including clear management responsibilities for each stakeholder group. So, this framework document refers to as participatory forest management plan in Benin, also provides clear mechanisms to access forest land and resources, including the payment of service fee to access cultivation land, fisheries, or grazing resources. But in the process of implementing the participatory forest management plan, field observation highlighted that forest officers often focus only on the enforcement of provisions related to the service fee, together with various forms of abuse and increasing conflict between stakeholders who are, in fact, expected to collaborate in the management of the forest resources. So, the core objective of the framework, which includes capacity development and technical backstopping to ensure communities actively participate to forest management and decision making, is often forgotten. So, we assist here to a typical situation where a policy measure designed to support the sustainability objective inadvertently undermine the achievement of the call itself. Yeah. Back to you, Laura. Thank you. Thank you so much for this insights, Kader. We have two minutes left, so no much time for addressing any questions or discussions, but let me give the floor back to Sasha, Romy, and Pamela, and to ask them if they have any reactions to the other panelists' remarks and perhaps share their takeaway final message with the audience before we close. Who want to go first, Sasha? Yeah. Then Pamela and then Romy. Thank you. So, my takeaway in building on what Kader just eloquently said to us is that for many, in many countries, land is the most important asset that rural populations hold. And land tenure, the recognition of legitimate land rights, resource rights, is an essential empowerment tool in order to achieve sustainable development. Over to you. Thank you for this powerful message, Sasha. Romy. Thanks, Laura. Yeah. I think, as Kader was also going to say, I think there is a lot more now to providing for a sustainable world than, of course, only the SDGs. And I think what we are presenting here is just a very small portion of this whole puzzle. So, yes, and I think I was addressing some of the questions coming in the chat. What about, for example, non-communities that don't have access to internet and the whole drive to have more data? How can they make use of that? So, these are all questions of accessibility that is telling us that, yes, the problems are far more complex now that what we are trying to do here. But of course, I think this is a one framework that it's very important to drive attention to issues that otherwise probably would be anonymous. But it's not the end now. I think it's only the start. And I just wanted to also acknowledge that I saw some Q&A coming, a question from Ruben on the tribal communities, also a question from Evangelia to Professor Czajsak on the number that you provided on 2.5 trillion investment gap, if I don't know if we heard correctly. And also there is a question from Derek also on the sustainable goals, implementations left to volunteerism. We'll try to address these questions from emails to you. Thank you. Indeed. Very sorry about not having enough time to address all your questions, but we will get back to you via email. Over to you, Pamela, for your final remarks. Yeah, very quickly. On the investment gap, that's for all the SDGs, so not just those related to land. Then and that was cited by the UN Secretary General. Also, I just wanted to support what Qatar said about the importance of really bottom up here is that you and what echoing what I said before, we can't get the data, we can't have the change on the ground without working closely with local communities, landowners and those who and giving land tenure to those on the land to really be able to make change. It can't be done from the top down. It can't be done from the international level or the national level. So that's super important of what he raised. Thank you so much, Kader. Do you have any really, really final insights? 10 seconds to conclude. Yeah, I mean, we talk about silos. We talk about cross sectoral coordination. I just want to highlight again that data is important and use of data is crucial. Thanks so much. Thank you so much. Thank you, everyone. Thank you to the numerous participants from all corners of the world. Thank you to this great group of experts and panelists for this really rich discussion. We just touched the surface of this important discussion, but I'm glad that we opened it again and I hope it can stimulate more debate, more dialogue and more collaboration because especially in the land sector, the collaboration is very, very important and so needed. We are three minutes over. So congratulations to all of you to be in time and yeah, look forward to the next time. Thank you. Bye.