 Thank you, Leanne. Colleagues, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, wherever you're joining. I'm told there are many people online and I'm delighted that you are. So thank you, friends, partners, and colleagues. I'm very pleased to be participating in this. I'm glad to see this happening because I have had a strong interest in this area for a long time now. I came for convert to the one health approach. When I worked in the World Bank and had responsibility for trying to deal with the avian influenza and swine flu pandemics. Of course, the virtues of the one health approach precedes us by many, many years. All of you who work in this area know that this term of one medicine was coined by Calvin Schwabby in the sixties, who saw the interaction between animals, the environment and humans. Proceeded to think about this in the context of how you bring these two, three together to make the best of a health system that would serve all. Of course, since the days of Schwabby the term metamorphosized into one health. One health itself has had different definitions and different meanings to different people. Our definition is the one that we follow and was proposed by WHO, FAO, OIE and UNEP. So it is a concept of delivering health at the interface of animals, humans and the environment. No secret that despite the virtues which we see for the one health approach, it has not progressed as rapidly as many of us would like. We know the virtues by working at this interface, and particularly in the context of zoonotic diseases, so much can be accomplished. We see this not only in our partners, we see this not only in the context of managing pandemics or preventing them, but also dealing with the endemic diseases, which are so prevalent and so difficult for the small holders whom we serve. So this approach of dealing with zoonotic and related diseases. Pandemics, but pandemics as well, has enormous, have enormous prospects that we must continue to pursue despite the slow progress with the one health paradigm. So the question could be asked if you're so smart, why aren't you rich. If one health is so good, why isn't being pursued. In the context of this conference that's where I like to make a few more remarks. First of all, the issue is about funding. As you know, governments, whether they are development donors, or national governments, we prioritize only the most important things we see at that moment. When a disease comes as this one that current pandemic has costing the world trillions of dollars, we're mobilized to do something about it. But as soon as the risk or the challenge abates, we move on to something else. And that's been the problem with funding one health, we respond only to the immediacy of the threat that confront us. That needs to change. And governments, probably in the face of the expenditure that they have had to make in the context of the current pandemic will ensure that we don't have to do this over and over. But it's not just the expenditure. It is the social and other dislocations that we suffered over the spirit and are still in the midst, as the Omnicron has become evident. So hopefully funding will be more and more reliable. But the second area I think that militates against getting one health going is the differing view of what it really is. And I hope that this conference will collapse around the definition that is put forward by the organizations I just mentioned. One health concept, elaborated by FAO, WHO, OIE and UNF. And it's the one we should use. I believe if we use the definitions of one health that so many others use that includes soil health, plant health, this concept becomes so large that it collapses on its own weight. And let's keep a definition that is manageable, operationally, operation and liable, and so on. So, funding, the definition. The third thing that we must study is the disciplinary insularity that abounds in this area. The vets and the medics don't work very well together. The vets and the rest of animal agriculture don't work well together. The vets and the environmental scientists don't work together. And all of us, our discipline is paramount. I think we need to put this aside. This has been a big constraint to moving one health. I'm sure we are guilty of this in this conference, that the vast majority of people who would be joining this conference are probably animal people. We need to get more vets, more environmentalists involved. And so this is a challenge for us as we move forward. We must break down the disciplinary insularity that abounds, because that also set up insularity at the institutional level. We need institutions that ask what needs to be done rather than what is my role in the case of an urgent pandemic. We have to get better institutional and policy arrangements and get governments working better together. We all know the dog's breakfast we've confronted with respect to the current pandemic. Every country has its own regulations about travel, coming and going. Every country approaches things slightly different. This is terrible for business and for the public. We also know that one of the big virtues of the One Health approach in dealing with pandemics in particular is that if we were able to detect diseases early, then the cost of controlling them is much, much reduced. If we were able to find out that this virus started in Wuhan and been able to contain it there, then the rest of the world wouldn't have been. And so we can say but many other pandemics which has preceded these. Early detection is the key. Therefore, surveillance is the key. Early notification is the key. Yet as we've seen with Omnicron, the minute you notify others about a threat, they close the borders. And so who would notify anyone about something that is about to happen if the first thing that happens is punitive. This needs to stop. We need some mechanism where governments will agree about early notification. Surveillance that works, healthy developing countries that don't have the capability to do surveillance. And as we proposed in one of my early documents in the World Bank, some sort of a fund that is contributed to. That countries which suffer from an early notification and other punitive measures can draw on that fund for compensate for its losses. So we have a lot of institutional work. And let me end on this point. We must act in solidarity. We must not end. Whether endemic or pandemic diseases without solidarity. So we must act in solidarity. So the challenge before us that we've been grappling with artillery. And I know many partners are. And I hope this conference with imbibe and take forward. Not only do we have to do the good technical work, such as perhaps vaccines in the future for for family of diseases, rather than individual viruses, better surveillance, better capacity building and all the work that is going to take forward. Those are all very good technical stuff, but we also have to deal with many of the institutional challenges, which I spoke about, breaking down the insularity, breaking down the institutional boundaries, working in solidarity. So creating institutions and institutional framework, which help us to act in solidarity. So I'm very happy to see this conference. The potential of this paradigm is great. We need it. We know we need it. The work that is going to be done is critical. Not only to Ilri to Africa, the farmers, but for all of us everywhere, as we learned from this recent pandemic. So Leanne, back to you, and thank you much for the opportunity to make these few remarks at this very important conference. Thank you so much Jimmy for your time and your wonderful remarks.