 I'd like to invite Swati to come down to the front. I'm actually going to talk about Sri Lanka first and then about Andhra Pradesh. We've heard a lot about Andhra Pradesh because it's, please come up here. We've heard a lot about Andhra Pradesh because it's perhaps one of the biggest agroecological transformations that's actually happening. But let me start with, can we get the presentation up on the main screen, or do I have to do something? It is there. Fantastic. So the first project is a GCF Global Climate Fund investment in Sri Lanka. It actually was a long time in its genesis. We started in 2017 with a national workshop on soil health is national wealth. And it brought a lot of people together to develop a common framework to address contrasted problems in different parts of the island of Sri Lanka. Small island country, but huge diversity. And the interesting thing is that in different bits of the island, you've got completely different things going on. So in some places, you've got excess application of agrochemicals, floods, big problems with pollutions, with disease that's been associated with pollution. And then on other parts of the island, you've got insufficient access to inputs and droughts and problems of very low productivity. And so it became very clear during this that the well-being of different people is differentially affected. The economy, the health, forest, agriculture, water, and soil are all sort of intimately connected. But in the country, these are all dealt with by different institutions. And just getting them together to start understanding how do they work together to actually tackle these solutions is what led to this GCF program. Now, I don't know how many of you are familiar with Sri Lanka, but the whole food security of the country is based on the transfer of water from the wet highlands via storage in reservoirs to the dry lowlands where irrigated rice is grown. And that's actually an ancient system. So it's not just there have been massive increases in reservoir capacity in recent years, but it's an ancient system going back for thousands of years of that storage and transfer of water. Now, what's climate change doing to Sri Lanka? Well, there's a double whammy because the global circulation models predict that in key months in the year, you get higher, more intense rainfall in the uplands, which increases the erosion and therefore sediment flow into the reservoirs. That reduces reservoir capacity. But at the same time, in the dry areas, in the key growing months, you're getting more frequent and more severe drought. You're getting higher temperatures, which means that potentially vapour transpiration goes up. So you've got a problem of less water storage capacity when you need more water in order to grow maize. So that's the problem complex that you're trying to attack. And it's associated with an increase in the prevalence of erosion. This is a decadal analysis from 2002 to 2012 using the land degradation surveillance framework mechanism and satellite image analysis based on it. And lower, so the increase in erosion obviously affects storage capacity of reservoirs. And reducing soil carbon, obviously, is a problem both in terms of the emissions associated with that soil carbon having gone and lower storage capacity, as well as, of course, the agricultural potential as a result of that reduction in soil organic matter. So what is the GCF project trying to do in order to tackle this? And it's basically got three critical components. A large part of the expenditure, by far the biggest expenditure, is actually implementation of innovations on the ground with farmers and other actors to improve land and water management in the highland areas to reduce the sediment flow. And that includes roadside, streamside interventions, managing water flow across the landscape, improving what is happening there. And then, of course, in the downstream areas, you also need more sustainable agricultural production, basically agroecological transition in terms of how the agricultural production is managed. But you can only do this if you can finance it. So the blue elements here at the bottom are the finance components. And they fit into there are two key elements. One is an innovative payment for environmental services mechanism so that the value of water that's being used can be captured and redirected to these interventions to sustain the integrity of the catchment area that the water comes from. And the government already agreed to do a levy on hydropower production from reservoirs. And some of that money being redirected to this agroecological transition. The second way in which you make it sustainable is to upgrade the value chains, to make it more sustainable, to capture more value from a green economy. So getting more processing artisanal coffee and chocolate production, for example, so that more of the value of product is retained within the landscape that allows financing of better practices. And the third element is governance and appropriate rural advisory services. So you can't actually manage watersheds very easily at the moment because the administrative boundaries, which is where decisions are made about policy, are non-congerent with the water, the natural watershed boundaries. So you need new governance mechanisms that cut across those. And you need to be able to bring evidence about what is happening in those landscapes to inform decisions. So dashboards that bring together information that are monitoring the extent to which you're being successful in reducing soil erosion and reservoir capacity, agricultural productivity, and so on become critical for informing the decisions and using a shared methodology, which is stakeholder-based. And it's not so much decision support as negotiation support because you've got a participatory decision-making process where you're trying to get the different people who've got different interests in the landscape, negotiating better decisions and using evidence to make that happen. And of course, you need then your integrated rural advisory services to be tackling the options by context nature of the fact that it isn't a one-size-fits-all policy across agroecological zones, but different farmers have got different opportunities and we need to fit advice in a sort of co-creation way with farmers. And just so that you can see, that is the upland catchment. And you can see it splits actually into sort of two in a way. You've got one which has got quite a large bit of the biodiversity hotspot of the knuckles range, knuckles forest. And that really is a sort of forest and landscape restoration type context. There's quite a big forest area. Most of it actually rather degraded plantation pine forest as well as the natural forest that remains. And a lot of that has got cardamom as an understory as a result of incursion. But then you've got another area which has got a huge amount of degraded tea and other plantation crops. So it's basically really about agroecological intensification. It's a $50 million project, 10 million coming from that levy for the payment for environmental services scheme through the government and a 40 million grant from GCF. And it's part of a broader national program to develop a green economy in Sri Lanka. And please do not be put off by the false narrative that has been around Sri Lanka regarding the movement away from inorganic fertilizer. What happened, and I was with the president shortly before he disappeared, is that farmers were being given inorganic fertilizer free. It was a subsidy to farmers when the balance of payments, the foreign exchange availability became tight. It was no longer possible to afford to give farmers that free subsidy. And that then led to a switch to ban imports in order to switch to domestically produced organic alternatives. And of course, doing that abruptly was not either possible or didn't work well. But in terms of the overall forward look in the country now, the development of sustainable agriculture, keeping that water storage capacity and getting mechanisms to get more economic flows back to sustain the landscapes that provide the water is critical going forwards. Okay, that's Sri Lanka. Let's move to Andhra Pradesh. I'll just say a couple of things and then leave it to Sweaty. The TPP has had an interaction with RYSS in Andhra Pradesh for a while. And it's a supportive one. So what we're gonna talk about here is the Co-Impact Systems Change grant, which is $15 million. And the TPP helped RYSS. We, in fact, brought them into the process and then developed a program, but very much related to systems change. And I think it's really important. And the Co-Impact Systems Change framework is a really great way of thinking about things. And it starts with systems today and systems of tomorrow. You are probably all familiar with natural farming in Andhra Pradesh. And we, one of the first things that we did was actually to bring scientists, including from Reading University in the UK and from ICAR and other places in India together with practitioners of natural farming to look at what was the common understanding of the agroecological transformations that were being promoted and what people knew about them or thought about them. And that was a really exciting exchange of information with practitioners and scientists not always agreeing by any means, but we could come up with an overall framework, which is like a hypothesis of how natural farming interventions affect crop yield, carbon accumulation and resilience to drought floods and cyclones, which is what were the key aspects. And that led to the first reliable yield data from right across the state showing that transitions from conventional farming to natural farming don't necessarily don't result in a yield reduction. And that was quite a significant result which was published last year. And in a moment, I'm going to hand over to Swati because this is the systems diagram that shows what was basically the situation constraining what is happening in terms of agroecological transformation. So just so that you can read the diagram, the green bits there are groups of actors and key partner organizations that form a dis enabling or an enabling environment. So you've got the research extension and education systems, you've got policies and you've got the private sector and how it operates. Leading to negative perception of natural farming, patchy access to knowledge about it. And then you've got markets that aren't functioning in a way that makes natural farming attractive to farmers. And at the practice level, which is what we've been focused on earlier today, high input costs, low prices, use of environmentally disruptive chemicals, unstable productivity from year to year and long-term reductions. Obviously that results in low net incomes indebtedness, poverty and malnourishment. So these yellow things are directly influenced by RYSS activity, what RYSS is doing. And the blue shows measurable indicators in that case, low net income. The orange is a bit difficult to distinguish but climate change and norms like the caste system and patriarchy that has a real problem in terms of the agency of women farmers in the system. Those are really difficult to change because whatever you do, they're quite resistant to change but we know that they're important. And then of course, you can flip this around in order to say, well, what is it that you need to do? What is the future that you want to see in this system? Obviously, different organization of research, education, enabling policies and a private sector that's operating in a different way. Swati, I've said enough. Let me hand over the microphone to you. Thank you so much, sir. Namaste everyone. I'm Swati. I've been working with the Andhra Pradesh program since the last seven years and it's been a year and a half now. I'm working with Ferguson and the craft team and working still in Andhra Pradesh and then now we are moving to national and international. See, one of the big questions I've been pondering since morning is this question of transformation you're talking, agroecological transformation. But nobody has questioned, we are not questioning about the lapsibility that a farmer transforming to agroecology is he or she going to lapse back? Why, what we're addressing with systems change is the lapsibility because we have seen because of the program in RYSS that the, because most of the agroecological projects are project-based, donor-based. The moment the project funding stops, the knowledge goes out of the system. The knowledge goes out of the program and the farmers which is back to chemical farming has been our experience. How do we ensure that this lapsibility of agroecological transformation does not happen? And there are three crucial element. We need to ensure as a project or program or systems thinking three things. Inclusivity, equity, and sustainability. If your end measures of indicators are these three, that is when the systems thinking approach is in place. So our entire agenda, if you see this diagram also, it's actually addressing all these three elements. So that tomorrow if Swati is not there, so tomorrow because of the political change, the government RYSS ceases to exist. The knowledge that is the agroecological knowledge stays in the program. And that is what the systems thinking approach that we have brought in RYSS has changed the entire lenses because still now I, till today I call, we call it the Andhra Pradesh Community Managed Natural Farming Program. A program cannot solve all the problems of the farmers and the livelihoods. So we are shifting from a program-based organization to a systems thinking organization. And this operates at three level, at the people level, at the systems level, and at the program level. We have to make changes in all the three and this co-impact fund that Ferguson mentioned that has brought that $15 million is going to address this in the next five years. We are going to shift and depict, demonstrate to the world how systems change organizations in food system and agroecology works. So at the people's level, we are talking about we need to build capacities of the communities. And that is what I've been seeing since morning that how are we able as scientists and researchers able to communicate to the whatever research has been done to the communities. First is second, second is engendering. Engendering, what we have realized that women understand agroecology better, they adopted sooner. This is anecdotally slash by research has been proved. How do we engender agroecology? One of the big questions that people pose against agroecology is that it increases the drudgery of women. That is a completely false narrative because the moment you give knowledge to the women they become central to the agricultural and system which the conventional agriculture system have kept them apart. This is a story in majority of the Asian countries and I don't know what Africa's agriculture and social dynamics looks like. So women comes in the center and there the drudgery part which people say that is a deterrent to the agroecology adoption is actually they increase the value of women in the entire agroecological ecosystem. So at the people level, this is addressed and the role of civil society organizations becomes predominant here. What at systems change level, systemic level we're looking at is policy changes. So we are talking about the bottom and the approach and the top-down approach as well. Policies, how are you going to change? The winning coalitions. The co-impact has time and again set with partnerships winning coalition that is when Ferguson mentioned we are systems of today and to reach systems of together. Only one program cannot change the entire system. You need to people need to come together. Partners need to come together. Organizations need to come together and talk about it. So third thing is only one program focused on transformation cannot happen. The education department has to talk about it. The health department has to talk about it. The political system have to talk. So the entire system has to talk about it. One program, one project, one norad cannot change it. We are fooling ourselves if we want to talk about the scales and the systems of future. And the last but not the least because I'm very aware of the time also is that program level, how do we bring changes? What we have realized is that science, research and evidence is extremely crucial and that is the reason we are working in the Indo-German Global Academy for Agroecology Research and Learning. We do not want knowledge to be with ICAR institutes, you know, the sole better of agriculture research in India. We want communities knowledge to come in front because that is the spirits and ethos of Agroecology. How do we convert this pseudo science to actual scientific science? And that is what Ferguson has been mentioning, the Agroecology TPP is talking, how do we do science differently? How do we take Agroecology research from laboratory to landscapes to people who are actually doing natural farming or Agroecology? Thank you.