 Hello everyone. Thank you so much for joining us today. My name is Rebecca Shirley. I'm the Director for Research, Data and Innovation at the World Resources Institute. The World Resources Institute is an independent research institute working at the intersections of global environmental and developmental challenges across the world. I've been working in Latin America, to sub-Saharan Africa, India, China, Southeast Asia for the past 40 years, working with partners to run global platforms on everything from energy to food and climate change. I'm so thankful to our organizers Fable and Afsec for this time together today. And we're going to be talking about food systems. Currently, food and land use practices, consumer behaviors and the very nature of our local and global food supply chains have created a situation across many countries of unsustainable food systems with large impacts to the environment, to health, and to perpetuated and deepening inequality. In the last 60 years, the world population has more than doubled. And so meeting the food demand for this growing population in the ways that those with decision making power have allowed has come at high cost of environmental degradation. The global food system generates almost one-third of the global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and according to IPCC, agricultural lands now cover approximately 43% of the world's ice and visit free areas. And over 80% of that agricultural production constitutes food. And these have shown that meeting the sustainable development goals and the Paris Agreement objectives are possible with decisive government action and decisive government action as we all know that is a very complex area particularly for policymakers who face the pressure prioritizing short term results and long term goals, policymakers who are under geopolitical or donor pressure from other countries. So integrated approaches that link agriculture, biodiversity, climate and diets are crucial to ensuring that short term policymaking can support longer term food transition goals, such as the Paris agreements and the SDGs. Now, scientists are supporting policymakers in adopting a long term approach through integrated assessments. Integrated assessments are really important tools that can help governments anticipate, assess and manage the trade-offs between the different land pressures and align short term strategies with longer term ambitions. And notably, they can help support countries in integrating food systems and biodiversity conservation and restoration into their broader climate strategies. So today we're going to have scientists from across South Africa, Mexico and India sharing with us on their experience. They'll work with governments to ensure policy coherence across food and land use sectors, and how they're able to help policymakers align climate and biodiversity strategies with the Paris Agreement and the SDGs. We're in for a real treat today because the presentations are going to showcase how scientists critically assess synergies and trade-offs from transforming food and land use systems focusing on equity and resilience. In a discussion that will moderate after the panelists are able to speak, we will learn how to strengthen the science policy interface so that existing evidence can be effectively informed, can be used to effectively inform policy, and how to use science to support the transition to sustainable, more inclusive and more resilient food systems. And so in total today we're going to be discussing how we can really catalyze food systems transformation to achieve the SDGs. Now, the continent where population growth rates will be greatest over the next three decades is here in sub-Saharan Africa. The IPCC Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents to climate change and climate variability, largely because of a strong economic reliance on agriculture and its climate-dependent nature. Our yields here are already relatively low compared to other regions and IPCC projects that climate-induced yield reductions are highly likely this century, which will then have knock-on effects on Africa's competitiveness and patterns of regional international trade. So without any further ado, let me first introduce our keynote speaker, who will tell us about this very situation and the latest in science policy successes for sub-Saharan Africa. Let me introduce you all to Mr. John Paul Adam, who's the Director for Technology, Climate Change and Natural Resources Management at the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Previously, John Paul has served in the government of the Republic of Asia as a Minister of Health, a Minister of Foreign Affairs and a Minister of Finance Trade and the Blue Economy, where through all of those positions he advocated for the concept of blue economy, negotiated a debt for climate change adaptation swap, and launched the process for Seychelles to become the first issuer of a blue bond globally. So John Paul is very well-placed to speak to us about the science policy intersection and the very interlinked nature of our challenges around food production. John Paul, let me pass over to you for our keynote speech. Thank you very much, Rebecca, and greetings to everyone from Seychelles where I'm currently speaking. First of all, it's a great pleasure and honor to express the greetings of Dr. Vera Songway, the Under Secretary General and Executive Secretary of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. I'm delighted to have the opportunity to say a few words on her behalf, particularly because when we talk about food, we are going to the very essence of sustainable development. If we cannot address the issue of zero hunger, we will never also address the issue of net zero in terms of emissions. So the UNECA is pleased to co-host this side event where we aim to particularly build on the experiences at country level to develop pathways that can also change the global food policy debate. And this is obviously part of the Science Days for the United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021, together with the Food, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Land Use and Energy Consortium, or FABL, and the Food Systems Economics Commission. We're delighted with this partnership and I think it's these types of partnership that can help us move the needle on policies. We look forward also to the Food Systems Economics Commission report that they are developing to address the standard economics of food sustainability, emerging vulnerabilities and food system level risks. So today's session, as has already been mentioned, will highlight the work that scientists are doing and perhaps more importantly, how we can make sure that those messages are addressed by policymakers and can make a difference in daily lives. The COVID-19 pandemic has underlined the fact that a new model of economic development is needed to be able to get back on track to achieve the sustainable development goals. Most critically, we also need a model that solves the climate crisis. While COVID-19 has provided an unprecedented shock to the global economy, climate change has also been slowly eroding at the socio-economic gains we have made. And the ECA has calculated that African countries are spending on average 5% of GDP per annum to respond to climate disasters. And in some scenarios in the future, the climate change may cost some African countries up to 15% of their GDP by 2030. The COVID crisis and the climate crisis are underlying factors which will exacerbate food insecurity. COVID-19 is estimated to have dramatically increased people facing acute food insecurity in the last year. The World Food Program estimates that 272 million people are already at risk of becoming acutely food insecure in the countries where it operates. The latest Africa Regional Overview of Food Security and Nutrition 2020 report states that the overall progress in meeting global nutrition targets remains unacceptably slow in Africa. And sub-Saharan Africa is the only region in the world where the number of stunted children continues to rise. The Food and Agriculture Organization and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa report calls for the transformation of agri-food systems to ensure healthy diets are more affordable for people in Africa. So it's not only about food being produced, it's also about how it's distributed and how we can make sure that the most needy people have access not only to calories but to food that truly allows them to build a sustainable future for themselves and for their families. The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa also earlier this year released a report on a green recovery for Africa, which has shown very clearly that investing in energy, food security and nature-based solutions bring the best return in terms of jobs created and in terms of value addition throughout the economy. In a case study in the Republic of South Africa, it was shown that investing in these green sectors brought a return of 250% in terms of jobs created and 420% in terms of the multiplier effects across the economy as compared to investing in similar fossil fuel-based investments. So science-based evidence and options are vital in achieving healthy diets, efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable food systems, essential for increased human health and ecological sustainability. ECA's assessments have shown that African staples may see drops of up to 22% in yields by 2050 due to climate change, and as Rebekah already mentioned, we already have lower yields than many other regions in the world. So climate-smart agricultural practices can help reduce environmental impact at the local level while also contributing at the global level, and climate-smart agricultural practices are also about building resilience at the point, at the community level to ensure that climate change can be resisted. We need to build this science-based approach into our trading systems and therefore prioritizing food security. We have a great opportunity to do so with the African continental free trade area, and we need through the AFCFTA to prioritize investments which are allowing the growth of large-scale agro-industry, but also empowering medium, small micro-enterprises. We can strengthen a rules-based system which emphasizes sustainability and builds climate resilience. We can also look to how nature-based solutions can strengthen our ability to produce food while also rehabilitating the environment. It is obvious that all African leaders have already made a commitment that we have to build forward better, that we can't keep doing things the way we have been doing it in the past. The big challenge is how do we make that change? If everyone recognizes that there is a better return in relation to green investments, how do we flip that switch? There are obviously huge considerations in terms of the availability of financing, and one of the big questions in COP26 will be how we can channel affordable financing into food systems, and how this can be done in a way which truly ensures that the most vulnerable are supported and their resilience is improved. 2021 could be the super year for sustainable land use and food systems. The 2021 UN Biodiversity Conference in COP15, the UN Food Systems Summit, the United Nations Climate Change Conference at COP26. All of these events provide a great opportunity to increase the level of ambition, raise the profile of land use and food systems, and to critically accelerate the implementation of integrated strategies. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to share these thoughts, and we look forward to the debate and the recommendations. Thank you, and back to you, Rebecca. Thank you so much, John Paul, for those fantastic and very inspiring reflections on how I like the phrase how to flip the switch, how to channel policy and affordable financing into food systems transformation. Now, one of the things that you talked about just now was the role of both smallholder farmers, SMEs, and large scale agriculture. I thought this was really important because I think that we oftentimes, you know, don't think about the spread of actors that are at play here. It's really important to understand the distributional effects of international and regional trade rules, and indeed you brought that up as one of the opportunities as rules based systems that prioritize sustainability. Of course, we're all aware of after the Africa Free Trade Agreement that is now being operationalized. Can you explain for us and just unpack that recommendation that you had a bit earlier. Could you explain for us the ways in which after trade rules and market liberalization more broadly of course may impact national trade balances and smallholder welfare and could be used as an opportunity for securing and safeguarding smallholder farmers in particular. Thanks a lot Rebecca and I think one of the main underpinnings of development in recent years has been that trade should be able to improve the livelihoods of all citizens. The reality is that that has been possible in some cases. But if there is not intervention and appropriate policy and regulation, then you end up in a race to the bottom, rather than a race to the top. We can see that around Africa's successes as well as Africa's limitations. So Africa has actually achieved a lot following the millennium development goals. The huge swath of populations in Africa have been dragged out of poverty. We've seen unprecedented levels of economic growth, but that level that economic growth has is not does not provide the resilience that we need and we've seen this in the pandemic. So for example if we take the overlimes on the exports and and extractive industries. We can note that about just pre pre pandemic about 11% of Africa's exports were from the extractive sector, but they they represented less than 1% of employment. So we see that there's not necessarily been that that translation of the economic growth into support for the most vulnerable. And we've also seen that within countries that have been broadly successful so countries that are now classified as middle income or even upper middle income. We still have large numbers of the population that are living very precariously and are very vulnerable, and this is not being properly captured through the models of trade which are based on what I would call a focus on a focus on let's say going towards the cheapest products but not necessarily looking at the infrastructure for example for distribution, and not looking also at the impact that this has on communities. So the AFC FTA, the opportunity that we have is firstly through regulation to set standards. And that would in some instances for example prevent dumping which we've seen in Africa where you've got you've had situations where large amounts of cheap products that suddenly become available halfway across the world that can be shipped very quickly. And suddenly the local chicken farmer in a small town is is no longer competitive because you suddenly have this large amount of chicken, which has been flooded onto the market. So the AFC FTA should provide guarantees and and certainty for all levels of producers and that includes the small producer that has maybe less flexibility, but is depending on that market access, as well as the larger agro industrial operators that that are hard to play in reaching the food security goals and across the continent but have the security as well to invest in the long term knowing that they're not going to be undermined. And that's a question so so the way of looking at an efficient market and factoring that into the AFC FTA is to factor in climate resilience from the outset. So looking at how does the rules that we are setting how does do those contribute to what's sustainable value chains, which starts from the producer at the local level, and the impact that this has on the environment. Because there are real opportunities to do so there are some very positive positive examples already around a number of commodities and I think by by baking this into the AFC FTA cake right from the outset will have a much, much more successful outcome. And so I was here scrambling down notes I really enjoyed those reflections, Jean Paul, and the very concrete examples and suggestions of ways that we can provide security and certainty for both small holder farmers and our large scale agricultural stakeholders as well. Thank you so much for both of those reflections through your your your keynote talk and the answer to that question. I know that you will have to leave us at some point during today's session so let me just say my thanks up top for for setting us off on such a great for giving us such a great broad landscape to begin with. Now without further ado, I want to turn over to the panel session of today's of today's webinar. And as I mentioned before we're going to speak to three scientists in order about their work at this science and policy interface in their respective countries. Let me first introduce you all to Dr. Odie Rilue Salomine, who is a researcher at the Center for Sustainability Transitions at Stellenbosch University, and the lead of the Fable South Africa team. He's also the director of the program on ecosystems change and society or PEX, which is an international network of researchers working on socio ecological systems. So Dr. Odie, let me please pass the floor over to you to give us your talk about what's happening in South Africa. Thank you Shelly. Absolutely. Yes, you're good to go. Good afternoon everybody. Shelly has already mentioned my name is Odie. I'm really looking forward to to be speaking here today. And also looking forward to the discussions later. Today I'll be taking very briefly about the pathways for food and lens systems here in South Africa as part of the Fable consortium that both Shelly and Paul mentioned earlier. And just for a bit of context, they just like any other country in South Africa is also trying to balance its national development targets objectives with the multiple lateral agreements, which is for the Paris agreement, sustainable development goals, the conventional village called diversity, global biodiversity framework. At the same time, also trying to balance the multiple objectives, policy objectives here, for example, food security, biodiversity protection, and climate change. So for this to be done was multiple ways to do this but one of the useful tools to do this is to use integrative tools that are able to assess both the trade-offs and synergies of this policy decisions. And the tool that we're talking about today is the Fable calculator, which offers half with doing this integrated assessment. And it is focusing particularly on the on the role of agriculture forestry and other uses sectors and how they contribute generally to the to meeting this targets. Right. We start here by asking how this sectors can contribute to meeting this targets and in doing so we develop two pathways. You see this many pathways but as a as an illustration we develop two pathways. One we call the current trends and the other we call it sustainable pathways. The current path current trends is a pathway which really does the minimum in implementing the policies. So it's basically staying on the course as it's going today. So the pathway on the other hand assumes implementation of several of the policies that are currently in place as well as other aspirational ones that are maybe at the moment beyond the what is planned in the current policy ambitions. And this here is the adjustment of certain parameters I will show you in a moment and we look at this between the span of a particular current periods and looking at that in contrast to 2050. So how does that look now and in the future. Pathways were defined by this parameter so we look at population growth of cultural expansion protective expansion, crop and livestock productivity inputs and exports. As Paul mentioned trade earlier, and we'll talk a bit about implications of this in the moment, diet and waste by fuels and climate change. And for each of these they can either decline, they can increase or they can stay the same. So for example, population will increase, of course. But something like biofuels into Africa is not a major sector. So it's unlikely to grow very much so it's likely to stay the same as an example. And just some to illustrate with some few examples of what we are finding from our morning exercise. The key finding is that obviously land use is a key driver of the missions reduction. So if you look at the figure on your left, you will see the, the light green area is an area of posture. Which is very dominant if you look at the, on both those figures green is a very dominant light green is a dominant use this is pastures for livestock. As someone who might know, we are a big meat eater as a country here. If we look at the sustainable option or the sustainable alternative to this current pathway, there's a, at least from 2030 onwards is a decline in pastures. And what this translates to, as this is still driven by changes in rights but what this translates to, if you look at the figure on your right, is that the there's quite a high reduction in emissions. And between this to the current current between both in both the current and sustainable pathways we are seeing reductions in emissions. And, but that's especially the case in the sustainable pathways. And part of that is obviously, as a result of one direction in future with production, as well as the land that has been freed up to become carbon sink that is contributing to this reduction in emissions. So why is that the case, as I've already indicated, this is the results of dive changes. So for the two pathways that we're presenting, you can see that in the, in the current pathway, the red meat consumption and poultry are still big contributors, or still form a big part of the diet, as you see on the figure on the, on the left. And there's a reduction when you look at it on the right, red meat consumption, as well as poultry, an increase in impulses so you see a reduction in meat-based protein use in diet, an increase in plant-based protein sources. But the, this diet change has also other implications, other than or the results of diet changes has also other implications. So for example, when we look at what this means for trade in South Africa, between the current trends in sustainable pathways, you see a three times increase in trade surplus, and this is mainly driven by an increase in exports, so high value, high value products such as fruits, and a decrease in imports of mainly meat products. And as you can see, these are obviously the input of meat products and meat is contributing a lot to this mission profile, so reducing those as a result of diet shift also means a reduction in this emissions. But one important thing to keep in mind for a country like South Africa is that changing to a healthy diet has a lot of implications and also faces a lot of challenges. One of each is that we are a very unequal country with a lot of poverty and food insecurity, so the recent study looking at the impacts of COVID-19, for example, showed just over 50% of households using the source of income to buy food. So, while diet changes are really a big leverage to what the sustainable pathways, it becomes important to think about them in a particular context such as ours, where a change from what I call the normal diet or the current diet to the future one would require both the consideration that people are currently scrambling for just a basic food access, so question of changing diet becomes almost unreachable for most people, and that the change should also be followed by a subsequent change in planting the right crops that we need that are currently not part of our collection profile, or if they are they're still very small. So, in conclusion, this model needs to, going forward, models like ours, the ones we built here, need to really consider this inequality as an important consideration for context such as ours here in South Africa. And with this, I'd like to thank you very much, and looking forward to discussing with you in a moment. Thank you. Brilliant. Thank you, Odie, and you actually finished ahead of time, which is unusual for webinars and thank you so much for that. Let me ask you one quick question before we move on to the next panelist actually since we have some time. You had a brilliant slide with your current versus sustainable diets, it was the concentric circles chart, I was wondering if you could go that through for us a little bit more slowly you kind of talked about what the difference would really look like for South Africa diets current versus sustainable Could you walk us through it again. Yes, do you want me to show the slide again or just talk to you'd like or you can just talk us through it either one. For the two, if you remember the one on the left was the current trend. So this is based on basically projections of what you will need for our diets in the future, based on what we eat now already. The sustainable diet on the other hand is implementing a is implementing a healthy diet, which is recommended by the eat lunch at forum. And this is mainly advocating for reduction in red meat, red meat consumption, as well as general increase in pump based protein sources. So for those two cycles, we see a slight reduction. We're significant reduction in poultry which goes within sort of the remake recommended maximum that we should be using. And a reduction which doesn't get all the way under the boundary but it's significant enough to to to result in essentially free up land that is useful both for for biodiversity, as well as for emissions sequestration and to prevent sequestration by the brilliant. Thank you. I thought that was so interesting that it's not actually a full cancelling out of various needs but really just coming down to required maximums anyway. So I thought that was quite interesting. So coming back to after we've gone through the other panels will come back and ask some more specific questions about about the science of the modeling and the challenges that you face in pulling this in pulling this analysis together. Let me move on in the meantime, thank you, thank you Dr. Odi in the meantime, let me move on to our second panelist. This is Charlotte Gonzales. Charlotte is a researcher at the conservation the territory of insular Mexicano, or Isla, her research focuses on understanding the differences of forming practices across Mexico's eco regions, and they're changed through time. She's also the lead of Fable Mexico, the Mexico team, which is formed by a multidisciplinary group of scientists with experience working at government institutions across health, land and food systems. So let me pass it over to you for your talk about what's happening in Mexico. Thank you so much, Rebecca. A pleasure to be here. Just let me share my screen. Okay, can you see it? Can you hear me? Not yet. We are not seeing a screen yet. Not yet. It seems that there is a problem sharing my screen. Just a second, please. In the meantime, let me say to our participants, we've got some 80 something on the webinar on the call. Thank you so much for joining us. Please feel free to drop your questions in the chat or in the Q&A box in the middle of your screen, whereas you'll see our panelists are ready and able to answer your questions. Dr. Odi's already answering a direct question that was asked about yesterday. So feel free to drop your questions there. Charlotte, can you see your screen now? Are you ready? Excellent. I'm ready. Yes. Hi. My name is Charlotte Gonzalez. I work at Isla as an independent researcher. And I'm going to talk about how the Mexican pathways to sustainable land use and food systems have been developed and how we have been coordinated with some federal institutions in Mexico to show our work and try to cement a collaboration with them that we think it might be mutually helpful. So Mexico has a mega diverse country, culturally and biologically speaking. We have a strong environmental law, but it's in paper. That means that we have very protective laws, very interesting laws environmentally speaking, but most of them are not applied in reality, but they are in paper. That usually is a problem and a frustration, a constant frustration. Despite that it seems that Mexico is a tropical country, it is not. The first of the country are dry lands and that limits our ability to produce food in most of those areas. So there are some pockets of agriculture here in this area, areas that are highly productive, but they rely on underground water storage that takes millennia to replenish. Irrigation of reculturing here is practice, but we have a problem that some radiation, evapotranspiration is so high that is depleting and salinizing soils really fast. So these areas who are very productive pockets of agriculture with some of the highest yields for food production in the country are also the ones who have been depleting faster and salinizing soils faster and depleting our water storage. Most of the country dry lands have been used for cattle ranching for centuries, and many of them have suffered intense biological changes as a result cattle ranching cattle is left unattended in most of those areas and that obviously has created some intense changes in these ecosystems. We have at least 6 million hectares of agricultural areas that are in need of restoration for recovery, not only in the dry lands, not only in those areas of the north part of the country where the REDT is more present, but also in the southern part which has been completely depleted. In 2008 the national mean yield of the most important crop in Mexico Maze was 3.2 tons per hectare. That means that in some places of the country we have 12 tons of production per hectare, but in others we have less than one ton per hectare. Now, if we see on the hillside. We have a problem seven of 10 people are obese or overweight. 27% of preschool children are micronutrient deficient percent micronutrient deficiency and 12% of the school children. The population died have been evolving rapidly due to urbanization in the 1970s more than half of our population was already living in cities. And that with high incomes in the city have increased the amount of animal proteins that are eaten by these urban populations with other processed food. And this intensifying, this is intensifying the pressure of Mexico agricultural systems and ecosystems. We also have challenges on ensuring consistency of public policy. There's a difficulty to coordinate vertically between the Federation, the states and the municipalities, but also challenges on horizontal communication between ministries. And we have other opportunities. Also, also another challenge is because we are part of the United States Mexico and Canada agreement and they are our main market of fresh products. So, all these problems are problems that are not from just one sector is not an agricultural problem is not an environmental problem, not a health problem is some of the sexual problem. It's a very complex problem that needs to be addressed by all sector and then all levels of government. And the problematic in mind we were asking questions in favor Mexico like, how can we reduce the impact of land and food systems on the environment. Can we feed a growing population. Can we have a dietary shift that is equally sustainable but also a healthy transition that is culturally accepted in Mexico. You will think that these are very important questions and that the government, the government's in different levels they are already, they already know it, and they do. The problem is well recognized by past and current governments. However, the solutions that they have been proposed, having usually implemented in this connection from all the other sectors and from the land and food systems have traditional solutions to improve land productivity, given the current demand of the current diets. It hasn't been a solution where there are both things at the same time, let's improve our diets and then let's see what happens with the land and how can we improve our production systems. In Mexico there are at least eight federal institutions responsible for implementing and designing public policies related to land and food systems. And there is a consistent lack of coordination among them. And this is only at the federal system. But if we talk about the state system and the municipal system. There are many institutions that deal with that and they don't talk to each other. Fortunately, this political term, our current federal government has created a few, a new intersecretarial group that has been created on purpose to transform the Mexican land and food system to be just healthy and equitable and sustainable. The name of the intersectoral group is Giza Mac and integrates the ministries of health, environment, agriculture and economy. So our interest in Fable Mexico was to collaborate with all of these institutions. And we are especially interested in collaborating with Giza Mac. And for the past two years we have been working with the National Institute of Public Health and the Ministry of Agriculture to do precisely that to collaborate with them and to try to reach Giza Mac. So, however, in Mexico collaboration with public institutions and academia is not a straight, it's not a straightforward process. We first started by identifying a team of researchers that had academic experience in land and food system and they were willing and they wanted to work in Fable Mexico so we created this group. And then we use our personal connections to reach to those government officials in those eight institutions. Some were on board immediately. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Institute for Public Health, why others need a little bit more work. Originally we had a workshop with those institutions, some of the representative of those institutions were present and we prepare and we show them what our work was and our modeling platforms. And they gave us some feedback that feedback was integrated into our models. And with that, we created two pathways and several scenarios for Mexico reality. And actually the same methodology that all the out my my colleague that previously presented for South Africa. Show us. So basically what we did was with the help of the Ministry of Agriculture, the National Institute for Public Health, part of the Ministry of Environment we designed two pathways and several scenarios. So they could be analyzing an integrative model called the Fable Calculator that examines complex synergies and trade offs between agriculture, water, land use, biodiversity, diets, greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas emission policies. We initially focus on current policy and international commitments of Mexico. So basically what were the trade off of implementing them and how much would they contribute to the national and then the global goal for sustainable development. We created two pathways, current trends, we basically shows historical improvements for crops and livestock. Some federal reforestation program that are current right now since the 2018 that the new government started. And we represented or we model the current diets which basically Mexico are high on ultra processed foods, fat, sugar, refined cereals, and in urban populations high consumption of meats, red meats. And then we presented a sustainable path, which basically improve maize jails using pilot programs funded by the government. So modern civil pastoral systems that have been tested across the country by some researchers, a reforestation of 8.4 million factor by 2050, representing one of the Mexico's commitments. Healthy diets and culturally adapted diets were generated use by collaboration with the Institute of Health, which basically means more fruits, veggies, legumes, whole cereals and less fats and sugars. So what happened here? Well, we the results of our model show that dietary changes deeply reshapes cropland areas in Mexico compared to current trends. So we compare the sustainable pathway versus, I'm sorry, versus the current pathways, the sustainable pathway, just with the dietary changes and improvements on production of with civil pastor, modern civil pastoral practices, and with some of the improvements made by the program for maize production. So really, the share of areas that are used for agriculture for cereals drops from 40% to 20%. For fruits and veggies, it increases because we need more fruits and veggies for the for the diet that we presented so it goes from 24 to 40. Some of these changes are explained by exports, which I didn't show because this is not it's not part of this conversation but basically what we did is to mimic what already happens. We want to export fruits and veggies because we are really good at it. We have the correct environments for it and we have our markets already there. But we also want to import more meat and more milk so we don't put too much strain on our ecosystems. So what happens in here is that some of these results are explained by exports and imports, but not not not that as important as the dietary changes. So what happened is that with the increment of fruits and veggies consumption, it also impacts water demand, more than 50% of more water is needed to produce that much food, that much veggies and fruits. So the implementation of modern civil pastoral pastoral system generates a reduction of pasture land, an important increment of land where natural processes predominate. That means that they become carbon sinks, as well as abandon some of the abandon agricultural areas that will happen for those areas that were dedicated to Syria production. We also have reduction of greenhouse gases. And if you can see the my graphing here, and if I can show you the graph with my pointer, no. The difference between the two pathways is very important. We have an 89% reduction compared from the current trends, if we move towards a sustainable development. So we have basically a reduction of deforestation, a recovery of natural land, reduction in pasture, increase of reforested land and the reduction of some of the greenhouse house emissions. So this is mainly using a dietary change and some improvement in our food production practices. So, finally, integration of sustainable agricultural practices might increase productivity without an area increment and an important reduction in GHG emissions. The results indicate that it is possible to integrate sustainable agricultural practices that will increase productivity without an area increment. That means favorable back can contribute providing the quantitative tools to analyze the trade off of those changes. Most land in Mexico is used to produce food for internal consumption. Any changes in diets will impact how the land is used. These might not be the same for other countries like for example Argentina or the US, where they not only use their land to feed their own population but also importantly to feed other countries. The sustainable diet shows how a changing diets with some sustainable practices improve productivity and can revert pasture lands into carbon sinks. As I told you, most of our arid lands are full of cattle that is left unattended. If we improve those practices we can dramatically change what is happening to the environment that is being degraded in those areas. His amac represents a cross cutting mechanism in Mexico that is still untapped. It should be used to put in forward proposals for public policy coordinated between departments. And that these proposals are based on a shared vision represented by exercises like Fable or Fable by itself. Basically, we are here to help, we can help, and we are trying to cement collaboration with these institutions. And with that, thank you so much for listening and I'm here if you need anything. Thank you Charlotte, a really wonderful presentation. I'm already seeing some questions for you that you can probably answer directly in the chat, but we'll come back to this again after our third and last presentation. Once we have once we get into our, our panel question and answer period. So what we're going to do, let me invite our third speaker or third panelist sorry to, to, to start up his screen, and it's going to be Dr. Ranjan Kumar Ghosh. Dr. Ghosh is currently an associate professor at the Center for Management and Agriculture at the Indian Institute of Management in India and he is the lead coordinator for Fable India. Dr. Ghosh, over to you to please tell us about your work and your research in India. Okay, thank you very much Rebecca. Thank you everyone for giving this opportunity. It's a nice opportunity to share what we have been doing. It's a very important panel and I'm really grateful for that. So, as you can see, I'm just going to briefly talk about, you know, some of the modeling exercise or some of the scientific exercise we have been doing which to our attention or our knowledge is, you know, the first time we're trying to look at the impacts of you know, the food and land use changes and what are the interactions and the role it plays in India's sustainability transitions. So, next slide. If we all, you know, for those who work on in India and those who would be aware, India's CO2 emissions may be, you know, small in compared to, you know, some other developed countries but it has been steadily increasing over the last few decades. And a large share of that close to over 23% comes from agriculture, livestock, forestry and land use changes and land use sectors. India has also made commitments to reduce its emissions intensity by a significant proportion 33-35% under the Paris Agreement. And, you know, but at the same time, we also know that India's population is projected to be, you know, increasing and as far as some of the scenarios predict over 1.6 billion by 2050. And that puts a lot of pressure on agricultural production and pressure on land. And there is also a predicted move towards more high animal based protein consumption, which means dietary consumption shifts under current trends towards more meat consumption and dairy consumption, more livestock based consumption, which again is an additional pressure on the land and the production agricultural production system. Next slide please. Okay, so how the question we ask is how will India meet its development and sustainability targets together. What we do in order to attempt to answer some of this, you know, very, very complex questions is to apply, you know, under the fable consortium as you're working with over 20 countries. And, you know, like other countries we have, you know, take part in a synacon which is an exercise where we all come together and integrate our data on a platform. And then we look at, you know, what are the different pathways. So, we use a dynamic model, a land use partial equilibrium model called magpie which is developed and hosted at Portsum instead of climate change, which basically integrates in a specially explicit bio physical factors such as land availability, potential crop yields and available water. And also it's an economic decision making process with population economic growth we feed that and climate change scenarios as exogenous drivers use a global modeling a platform and then we use it to actually down scale it for India and update it for India and then, you know, we try to create pathways next slide, which are basically. So we built on shared socioeconomic pathways, which you know, I'm sure many of you are already familiar with, and very similar to what the Mexico team and the South African team did is in terms of having a business as usual current scenario, where we add to that, you know, we add eat Lancet healthy diet recommendations and then we create a pathway for that and then another is a more ambitious climate high climate achieving pathway which we call as sustainable pathways and some of, and most of the parameters are same as we have seen in Mexico and South African team so I won't repeat that. So this model basically optimizes in a crop crop production land use patterns, water and carbon stock exchanges. And then, you know, it puts it in a partially given platform to see how, you know, we will be able to under this different pathways what are the, you know, what are the world views by 2030-2050. Next slide. I will not go into the details of the model or, you know, some of the results, particularly because we know you can access them and see that in our famous enough on report which the links for which have already been shared and just quickly go through some of the results. What do we see? So in a sustainable scenario to achieve some of these sustainable goals, which meet our development targets. If we actually, you know, we try to achieve the eat Lancet recommendation dietary changes, then we can actually achieve a reduction of a significant reduction of 761 in a empty CO2 per year. Additionally, 310 empty CO2 reduction can be achieved, apart from, you know, moving through dietary changes to improve livestock food efficiency biofuel and afforestation targets. If we meet our afforestation targets, if we go for improved, you know, food efficiency, if we move towards biofuel, then, you know, it is possible to actually have additional gains in terms of CO2 reductions. We also observed in 2050 a decrease in pasture land and cropland areas where the demand in a when the demand for plant-based diets such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, pulses and oils increase and the demand for dairy products, poultry and sugar decrease. So we actually see a significant improvement if we, you know, transition towards healthy diets where we move towards plant-based diets and reduce the demand for dairy, poultry and sugar. Next slide, please. So the minimum calorie requirements in terms of the food security in terms of the minimum dietary requirements, as in some of our colleagues already discussed, especially in the case of South Africa, you know, we know that India is also highly in equal countries. So what happens to the food security situation? So this can also be met, but not under high mitigation targets. So not under sustainable pathways, but under the EAT Landsat, current plus EAT Landsat pathways, we can meet them. So under moderate climate emissions, as per our results right now, we can meet them. For that, for all of this to happen, water withdrawals in agriculture actually should reduce by 11% by 2050. And how do we achieve water withdrawal reductions by actually shifting away from rice, wheat and raw sugar? So to sum up very simply, transformations need to be planned in a way, you know, where we achieve or we move towards plant-based diets. You know, there is a use of second generation feedstock that is more biofuel, you know, as per the new biofuel policy of India. We have to reduce dependence on cereals and shift to water-efficient crops. And for example, moving away from sugar can sugar. If we do these, then we can actually achieve, you know, in a healthy diet scenario, we can achieve, we have a pathway towards a sustainable transition by 2050. That is what, you know, we model, we show through some of the complex data and scientific analysis. How do we connect, next slide please, how do we connect with the policy makers? Well, that's a challenging part, as we all know. So what happens is, you know, there is, of course, an increasing awareness and concern among policy makers about achieving sustainable agriculture and food transformations. There are two problems, however, one is that there are, there is lack of scientific assessments and tools, there are lack of integrated tools. So we have analysis which will probably look at the impacts of, you know, water or conservation in agriculture. We'll be looking at, for example, shift towards biofuels. We will be looking at, you know, different agricultural and food subsidies. But there is hardly answer and so on and so forth. But there are hardly integrated tools which can actually reduce assessments and results which talk across sectors. So that is something which, you know, with our fable kind of an exercise, we have been able to, you know, make a first attempt towards this. And wherever we have spoken to policy makers, presented our results in an informal or formal setting. We have seen that there is a lot of excitement in terms of actually policy makers being able to see having some view, some peak view into, you know, the next decades in terms of what, you know, how we need to move forward. So there is an excitement and there is an understanding of that. However, policy makers are also overwhelmed. And when I say policy makers, you know, as we have also a very strong federal hierarchical structure, but starting on from the central decision makers to the state decision makers to the bureaucrats to the political actors. They are quite engaged with immediate objectives, political objectives. And we also, you know, transition from a traditionally agrarian economic with very in a serious structural constraints in terms of, you know, the land structure in terms of, you know, the inequalities in terms of tenancy in terms of the sizes in terms of the migration issues. Also in terms of the prices which go for cereal crops, for pain crops, there are value chain issues where farmers where because India is a largely a small holder farming country in terms of not being able to connect to the end markets. There are a lot of important policy issues which, you know, and which are also often near a short term goal, which actually engage them. So that's a challenge in terms of integrating our long term assessment results and, you know, trying to build up a narrative where we can communicate these results in the context of what needs to be seen also in the short and the near term. So that is one challenge. And other, you know, important challenges that the environmental and the climate policymakers, the sustainability policymakers, those who engage they also do not talk much to the agriculture and the food sector policymakers and the stakeholders and other factors. So there is, that is another challenge to actually create platforms where we use these kinds of scientific assessments, but also bring policymakers from different fora together, where there is a need for increasing communication between different different stakeholders and different sectoral policymakers. So that is one challenge. We are of course in a witnessing. And this is but, you know, it's very nice to see that there is a very, you know, there is a very very positive response to this kind of work. And moving forward, this is what we'll try to do to come up with more state of our assessments and communicate with our policymakers to move forward in achieving these targets. Thank you very much. Rebecca, thank you very much. All the panelists and the participants and the audience. Brilliant. Thank you so much, Ranjan. I'm going to ask if you can keep you can just stay with your. Your video on and then Odie and Charlotte if you can join us as well. We are right at the top of the hour so you all did perfectly in terms of your, in terms of following on time. We have presentations and now we have about half an hour to engage in some conversation and also to take some questions from the audience and there's some really thoughtful questions in the chat so far so we're going to give those in just a quick second. Let me pause just each of you one quick question first. And I think already I will start with you. And just go in the order of those presentations. You, you, in the, at the end of your presentation you were talking a lot about, you know, even as we have models that demonstrate for us, the opportunities for sustainable versus current or business as we have diets and pathways that inequality is an important characteristic and important variable to rope into our modeling, especially in countries like like South Africa, which are which are so in equal. My, my first question to you is, how would you suggest incorporating inequality into these models so we're looking at not just what sustainable pathways look like but how to achieve those sustainable pathways. I think that is a question that will be best answered by working more closely with the stakeholders so that in the fable process. There's the modeling side of things where it's more technical, and there's a, there's a site which is really core developing the pathways with the stakeholders. And I think it matters a lot, which stakeholders we bring into the room. So a question from from for breeze about health and environment windmills and I immediately popped in my head that we haven't actually in our, in our case here is that considered the health sector. It's a huge and an important sector to include in the conversation about diet. We looked at their policy documents but haven't brought them into the room so already bringing the different voices in the room that represents this voices and I think for, for, for equity we also need to, to, to, you know, kind of missed in the room as well as who, at least here have people have done a really good work of modeling equality and trajectories about that. So I think it's, it's both a matter of bringing the right stakeholders in the room, and not only your typical land connected stakeholders, and as well as the technical side thinking about how to incorporate more socio economic data into the models and I think this really starts within the table. Thanks. Brilliant. Thank you for that, Odi, and Charlotte or Ranjan. Do either of you have a response to that as well. If I can just, you know, pitch and I have nothing in a body has really answered it very well. So of course, you know, we are limited by data, we are limited by, you know, the models abilities to actually handle the complexities at a more granular, resolution levels because you know these are also tuned to look at global pictures and this is an ongoing process which, you know, of course, we are moving towards that, but also in parallel we need to model farm level impacts and that is where, you know, this ultimate marriage of these two will give us really stronger and, you know, a better idea so under the FSEC we are, you know, we are about to start working on something like a CLEM model which is a sort of livestock enterprise model which looks at really and in collaboration with CSIRO, which is going to model really the activities at the farm unit level where, you know, these complexities in terms of, you know, the inequalities are best reflected in, at least in the agricultural sector in terms of how big or small a farmer is. So, you know, those complexities will be captured when we try to actually model them at the farm level and then, you know, use outputs from that to actually feed into our more larger scale models to get better pictures. So this is again, you know, this is a two-way process and of course, you know, in them as Odi said, taking the stakeholders and their inputs all in all. Brilliant, thank you. And just on that note of, you know, having multiple stakeholders around the table which I think you're spot on Odi and Ranjan. Charlotte, you mentioned the cross-sectoral platform that has been developed in Mexico, I think it was called Gisamaq. This is one of the questions in the chat as well. You know, you mentioned that it's not an agricultural issue, it's not environment, it's not health, it's not economy, it's all of the above. And the problem is recognised but that we are still implementing solutions in these silos. Could you tell us a little bit more about that platform in Mexico, how you're seeing these sectors now begin to work together? It's a very new platform and along with that platform being created have been some budget cuts across the federal government. So that means that some of the institutions that are part of this platform have had to reduce the amount of people who work in them. So what I know that is happening now, we have been in communication with some of the people that form part of this platform and what we know is limited. What we know is that they are doing some very important work which is basically they are trying to change the dietary recommendations. So they are creating like the food pyramid, but regionally. One of the problems that we have had and we have been very critical is that we have one food pyramid for a very culturally diverse country, which that doesn't work. But now they are doing it regionally. They are collaborating with different institutions. So this food pyramid and these dietary recommendations are going to also change the food baskets, which are the main mechanism to create some of the incentives for agricultural production. So it's like a little chain, but that is happening really slow and it's basically in hands of the institutions that form part of this because he's a Mac, the same platform doesn't have a budget of its own. So the institutions that are part of it are using their budget to work and collaborate with them between them. We haven't seen any changes, nothing that we can appreciate yet, but they are still working on it and they are fairly new. They just started in 2019. So we are hoping that eventually they will have their own budget and we will be able, of course, we are hoping that we will be able to communicate with them and collaborate actively with them. Thank you Charlotte. And then just one question for you. You had some at the end of your presentation you were talking to us about how you've been able to connect the science and the research to policymakers. You mentioned the lack of integrated tools being a challenge, but the fact that the tool in the model that you're producing Fable was actually able to create some excitement across across sectors. Can you tell us a little bit more about some of the experience that you've had working across these various sectors and any lessons that you might have learned about what is required in terms of dealing with multi stakeholder and multi sectoral groups and stakeholders. Yes. Thank you, Rebecca. So, so of course, you know, we are at a very initial phase because our, you know, our work has, and it took some time to of course, you know, set up these scientific tools that has been going on for a few years. And unless, you know, we would be able to, you know, to actually come to a level where we can confidently talk it's in itself been a journey. So in the meantime, in this process, of course, it's a two way process. So, you know, we have been participating in some of, you know, some some organized panels by some policy think tanks and internal policy think tanks of the government some in a civil society driven scientific in a policy think tanks independent think and we have been presenting our results and that is where, you know, the interactions happen very strongly. We have also been, you know, talking to some state governments because we have to understand that in India, the actual policy, the the impactful policy actually happens at the state level. So we are a federal, you know, we have federal states, we have a central government, which basically lays down guidelines, especially when it comes to the food and agriculture sector, because food and agriculture are state subjects. So it's the state departments and the governments which basically, you know, have the ability to change, you know, the course of action, and coming down to more municipal and state levels. We have been in communication with some departments. And there is a very, you know, what, of course, is visible is that let's say the state agriculture department, you know, is not very cognizant of what let's say the state integrated climate change plans are our state integrated development in a plans of which in accounts for renewable energy with accounts for sustainable food transitions. So we see a lot of, you know, good actions very, you know, well intended actions but taking in silos in spaces. So that is something which we observe and wherever possible, we have presented that of course, you know, they look at our results because, you know, so for example, a biofuel policy would be driven by, let's say the energy department, but that would have impact on what, you know, coming down to the level of how farmers that changes the terms of trade for the farmers in terms of what they're growing because that, you know, that shifts the incentives for whether they're going to use, you know, the crop residues for feeding their livestock or they're going to sell it in the market for energy production. You see, so this is something which let's say an energy policymaker would not be worried about or concerned about before we would go and present some of these results. So although it has not been a lot, and we are only beginning to do that because now we are at it, you know, we are having our scientific outputs at some level of confidence. But we can see that these do, you know, create conversation points. And I think this is a very good starting point. Brilliant. Excellent. I'm aligned in terms of taking the science down to the state level and working with state level actors, really important points. Great. So now we've got some fantastic questions in the chat, which I'm going to now raise for you all so this is in no particular order so Ranjan, Odi and Charlotte please feel free to answer these. So the way that the questions are coming through the chat, they're kind of grouped into a couple of different topics. And the first topic I want to talk about is behavior change. So we've been talking a lot about diets and the role that dietary shifts can have in actually creating more sustainable pathways and food production transformation. I just made a really interesting comment that we've got one food pyramid for such a vast array or a very diverse set of communities. So one question which is coming in from Fabrice is, does the food pyramid not work? Do we need to be better about including more local products within the categories of the pyramid? So here's another question is about dietary shifts. Dietary shifts are individual, you know, decisions. How do you take a dietary shift to a meaningful national scale? Perhaps each of you would like to take a short of this question or these questions. I'm going to start with the pyramid. I don't think that they work. The problem is that just to give an example, in Mexico, the northwestern part of Mexico is the land with no, is not culturally maze based, is more wheat based. But in Mexico, most of the people, the cereals are eaten by corn tortillas. We have corn and most of the country eats that. In the northwestern, we don't have corn because we cannot grow enough corn to feed ourselves because it's too high. So we have other types of cereals that are eaten there. When you have only one, only one type of pyramid where you have a predominance of maze or cereals that are whole, for example, the tortilla that is corn is a whole grain in the tortilla, but it's not the same for the flour tortilla. The flour tortilla is made out of wheat with a lot of fat and a lot of refined flour. So that means that the diet change needs to be different. The recommendation needs to be different. You cannot give the same recommendation because in some sense, the recommendation of cereal in the north, if it's based on the same pyramid that in the south, it means that you have more fat and more refined sugars, refined carbohydrates in the north. So those changes, those differences in the pyramid, it's not food pyramids now, they are plates. Those differences, those are important, but also they are important in what they mean when you teach children, when you advise people when they come to the health clinics and say what they need to eat. You cannot tell them you can eat five or six tortillas a day or two or three tortillas a day because that's really different from the tortillas from the center of Mexico, which has whole grains. This is like an example of what I meant, why it's important to have these regional food pyramids and dietary recommendations so people can understand what is being told to them exactly what they should be reducing and what they should be increasing. Ranjan or Dr. Odi? Yeah, I just, maybe before Odi comes in, just briefly add to, I completely agree with Charlotte, and I don't think India is very different in that sense from Mexico. We have immense dietary diversity in the country and that dietary diversity actually is, there is a saying that every 100 kilometers in India, let's say 100 miles in India, the language and the food changes. So we have to be very conscious and conscientious about the proposals we make because as I said, there are a lot of inequalities. There is food security but there is also some kind of preference for food. So eventually as we move forward, our scientific assessments have to go downscale and have to go down and do a ground truth thing in a sense that it accounts for the production system of a particular region because that's also very agro-climatic in a dependent but and also the consumption system. So there has to be a match in that and then so therefore what one thing we are planning is to not only look at eat lines because this is the first round of the assessments which we have done but to actually look at the local nutrition institute of India, NIN guidelines. So basically we are trying to integrate in the next stage those guidelines and look very specifically for what work in India. So this is I think the way forward where we actually have to contextualize and come up with assessments which account for these diversities. That makes a lot of sense. And then Odi, just on continuing on this topic of diet and behavior change, please of course if you have an answer to that question on the food pyramids, do provide it. But there's a question in here that's coming from Peter Haring and I thought that you might be particularly well placed to answer this given that South Africa as you mentioned in your chat is known for heavy meat consumption. He's asked what are the views in your country with respect to less meat consumption while meat consumption is often seen as a status symbol. Even in the Netherlands where Peter is living there's a strong opposition for instance to increasing the tax on meat. So give your thoughts on that and how again this relates to the question before of how to actually create these behaviors to match up with these more sustainable diets. I mean, that's a very good question and a particularly controversial one in South Africa. In part, because people make this argument from cultural perspectives. In other parts from, we're in a dry land system, predominantly. What that also means is that our climate is more suited to growing meat, so to speak, than to growing some crops. So, if I take South Africa, for example, it's a water scarce country. So we actually can't grow all of the stuff we need to. So in some sense trade need to be, trade becomes important as a way to meet the demand for someone's crop. I think the, to me, this speaks to a few things, I think, two things that both the Netherlands and Charlotte told you. But another one of, can we do an assessment of whether we have, we are capable both climatically and in other ways to produce what we need to this alternative diet, for this alternative diet. And if we are not, where are we going to look to for that. And we know that there's other risks that come with the interdependence and food systems. If something breaks, this vulnerability is built into dependence on other far away places and things can change both. It's a pandemic or it's a political change where trade restrictions change. So then it comes with a lot of other implications, how you, if you outsource on your, your, your staples elsewhere so I think there's a real conversation that's needed about. And, and, and then we can talk about the area change. So, and I may be to touch quickly on the video challenge question I think somebody said this is an independent individual. I do agree but in some, in some, in some sense, it is not in a sense of, if I look at sugar content in foods, yes, it's way too high and that can be regulated so it's not, it's not something that people can necessarily change themselves but it can be regulated that food content in food should be less. Thanks. Fantastic great great point. Yes, Ranjan. So can I just add a couple of quick points to what you also said that so I'm coming back to the question of India, you know, India. If you look at the traditional diet of India is largely vegetarian, it's one of those unique, you know, countries which largely in a vegetarian based at plant based diets already. So here one unique challenge we would be facing is to because you know, of course we know historically data that as a country you know moves up in the economic development and growth curve then you know there is larger dairy livestock consumption. And you know, so more protein consumption actually comes from the livestock sectors. So that's a challenge, you know, we are you'd be facing in terms of not actually currently it's more about currently the problems is not in a it's, it's about more about the balance of the macronutrients it's about getting protein from the right sources but it's also about the access to the right kind of protein, because this is an economic problem this is a socio cultural this is a socio economic issue. So access to good food is of course a sign of problem and we need to be again in a conscious and include that as you move forward coming to the point of the trade I think you know I should have mentioned earlier. But thanks to you for reminding is that you know, we also have to be conscious in terms of our self sufficiency so in our models we see that you know it's not very easy to meet the self sufficiency goals in a normal, even in the current or current plus eat scenario sorry in the sustainable scenario. So if you go for a high climate ambition we are actually becoming net importers on some of the food crops where we are actually currently as self sufficient so we need to have really in a very thought out carved policies which what we are doing here is we are actually saying that look, if you want to achieve you know the sustainable goals for 2050 on this path where we are doing fine on many things but you know we are not doing so well in terms of self sufficiency so how do we do we do some policy changes right and our models are being able to connect you know bring the trade angles because these are integrated models where we are looking at the the relations of India's trade with let's say South East Asia or China or you know other parts of the world in terms of both imports and exports. So we really are giving you know we are being able to come up with some deeper insights but they will require, you know, a bold policy and thoughtful policy changes. Thank you. Yes, and that indeed relates to exactly what John Paul was saying in his response on the question about trade and the very important role that that it has to clean and that's exactly what I was trying to get at when I was asking him about that, about that topic is that in certain scenarios you could actually become net importers and then what is that what does that trade off mean for any particular country. As we're talking about trade offs that's an exit of questions so let me just ask these last two questions quickly before we before we wrap. So one question is coming in from Panagiotis about the global poultry market because it's actually increased from 2020 to 2021. So he's asking if we consider and implement policies that reduce meat consumption like poultry for example, how we minimize trade offs for engaging for those that are engaged and employed in this industry. Yes, there was a question from Fabrice that had already been answered about how the production sector response to these types of policy recommendations on behaviour on dietary change. Any quick thoughts from either of you on those on those two questions. I think that I mean it's not really an answer to that question but but to say that I mean this is a real concern I think that. The feed industry in the world is feeding all the. So I think that conversation also also means bringing industry into this conversation in terms of what are the mechanisms for partition in those sectors. When people talk about transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, there's a lot of talk about just transition. I think it's not just transition, it's not just a climate issue. And Ranjan or Charlotte, any thoughts on that? You're on mute, yes. Charlotte, maybe you would like to go. No, I think that Odie was very clear. I just want to make a small comment. So in Mexico, there is a difference of who eat meat and who doesn't. Most of the urban population who have higher income, they are able to consume red meat much more often. That also goes for chicken for poultry. But there are also a large amount of population mostly women in rural and urban impoverished areas that have no access to red meat. So that means that they are also iron they have iron deficiency. So in Mexico, when we look at what are where the transitions in diet, in diet related to red meat, what we saw is that there is not a drastic reduction of consumption of meat just because there is large population that needs that red meat to be able to acquire in a more efficient way than iron that is needed. So I do understand that there are some very difficult decisions that need to be made in terms of economic transitions and economic effects of what happened when you stop producing enough meat. In the case of Mexico, we have, we model trying to import quality meat from places that are much more sustainable in their production and to try to make our own production sustainable and that has helped. But still, there are large areas of the country where they need a more avid consumption of protein, of animal protein. Thank you Charlotte. So we've got just about two or three minutes left in the session. So let me just ask the final question that's come in from the from the audience to you three. And it's about targets, which is very fitting way for us to end. So Gerhard has asked, and I believe somebody has already taken a shot at answering this about land use and land use change and forestry greenhouse gas emissions targets. To what extent, if any at all, should requirements be obligatory. And he's also asked whether or not there are the EU has recently adopted some regulations on emissions for land use and land use change. Are there any other countries, perhaps the countries that you all are calling in from with actual ambitions on land use emissions reductions. And we're next to start with this on emissions targets. Yeah, I can do the problem is that I don't remember the target I Mexico has committed to have by 2030. If I remember correctly, a very specific target I think is net zero greenhouse emissions. That's very ambitious mean 10 years from now nine years from now we are committed to that. It requires a very big changes along with that we have a very ambitious targets of reduction of our impact on the environment. But as I said before, that's all very well in paper. That's all very well in law. What happens in reality is that this is not clear how it's going to be achieved. Of course, they are working on that and probably in a couple of months we will see a very clear pathway of how we are going to achieve that. Hopefully with the help of fable Mexico. Thank you so much. I was just going to say just because we are seeing more of these defined in the climate strategy that is from the culture department or environmental department, but I haven't seen them yet, make their way into the NBC for example so I think that is still a step that needs to happen for those to actually become targets that we can start monitoring. So again, you know, I'll just quickly come in I think from the last point we have also in a forestation and net zero deforestation targets for 2030. And we have tried to include them in our models but again as I said in as just piggybacking on what Charlotte has said is that we will have to basically in account for the fact that it will require very important in a livestock efficiency increases very important. You know, agriculture production efficiency increases, which actually you know create this balance between crop land expansion fashion and expansion and you know meat production and the entire transition we have been talking about so because that will have of course a very important link with the forestry targets. So that is again, what an integrated tool we are trying to work around with. Thank you. Brilliant. Well thank you so much to all three of you and to John Paul who's I think he's left us by now. But we're at the top of the of the not the hour at the half hour so we are just finishing up on the session I want to thank you all for such a fantastic discussion and thank you for all of the audience members who pose questions to the panelists. We've talked about how modeling in this space of food transformation has been improving and I think the three of you three year, three year presentations really showed us how we're becoming more integrated in terms of the models that are being built now to address food transformation, but we also discussed some of the ways of modeling tools can need to continue to improve and for myself as a research director. I really thoroughly appreciated that conversation you know about needing to expand the tools such as they can incorporate equity and access and really reach down to the local farm level of impacts. We also talked about the need to engage multi stakeholder groups, and that there is some progress being made at this in this in this space but we continue to do better and push this even to the state level. And then of course this last bit of conversation around behavior change trade offs and targets showed us that there is still a very live national and community level conversation that's happening that we need to be cognizant of. So I want to thank you all for your participation, both to our panelists, a round of applause to you and to our to our audience, thank you so much for engaging. And on behalf of our sec and fable and Nneka, we just like to thank you all for being part of today's conversation, and grace or Maria who are organizers for today again thank you so much for your organization behind the scenes. If there's anything that you'd like to say to everyone before we all sign off, this is the time to do so. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Excellent work to the speakers and the moderator, and have a good rest of the day. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you.