 Hello. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, depending on your time zone and welcome to this session in which we will be speaking about some hard questions of synergies, of trade-offs, and how to manage them. My name is Martin Frick. I'm working with the Secretariat of the UN Food Systems Summit, where I'm serving as the Deputy to the Special Envoy Dr. Agnes Calibata. Before I come to our wonderful panel, let me introduce our keynote for today. Barry Martin. Barry is the member of the Managing Board of Rabobank and the Chair of the Food Action Alliance. And Barry, without much ado, I'm handing over to you to kick us off. Over to you. You have the floor. Well, thank you very much. Can you all hear me? Well, thank you very much. It's very, well, very excited to discuss and have this, to be part of this, this panel of both actions. I do think I'm a strong believer that in the build-up to FSS, we really have to think about it. So I would like to start my talk about what we have seen in the web this year. If we go to the next slide, please. It's all about when we started talking and we were together in Davao, it seems so long ago, is that if you see in the last years, we transitioned, but we thought that risks were geopolitical to all the risks that we have identified, the major risks that we have identified, being all related to climate, related to nature, related to our biodiversity. So it's quite something. I know that we now are in discussion about the pandemic, but really, we as society, we as leaders together, we really thought, look, we need to do something for climate. We need to change something. And I think while we are going to FSS, it's clearly that how are we going to deal with nature is going to be the big issue. In the next slide, I show here a little bit about how big that task is. We need to feed our population by 2050 of almost 9 billion people, sorry, by almost 10 billion people, going up most probably in 200 to 12 billion. That means that in this short period that we have in front of us, we need to increase the amount of calories by almost 60%. At the same time, we all know that Paris Agreement said, we need to reduce the emissions of the production of food from 12 gigatons to actually four and hopefully under four, so that we can reach the climate goals. That means if you put both together, actually in a very short period, and even in half of a lifetime, we need to become four to five more times more efficient at how we use carbon to produce food. This is only possible if not only by investing in technology, but also have a major shift in behavior from all parties in the value chain. So if we go to the next slide and to be able to move behavior and to change, we need to be extremely, let's say, clear in what do we want and what do we want to achieve and what really are we talking about. And I give you one example here about a strawberry. One is produced in Spain, that's the one that you buy in the supermarket in the Netherlands. The other one is produced in the greenhouse in the Netherlands. And here you say, if you are looking at carbon, then you obviously would buy a Spanish strawberry. At the same time, you would think, how can it be because it has to travel so long? Yes, but the greenhouse has to be heated and that's why it consumes so much energy. At the other side, if you think about water, if water is the issue you want to measure, then you see that you could rather buy a strawberry coming from the Dutch greenhouses. So what are we measuring? What are the trade does we are thinking about? Then you come to the next point, which is extremely important, if you go to the next slide please, is that we actually have to really think about what do we really want to measure and what behavior we want to change. If you look at my presentation here, I have taken three products which all are coming from the plants. One is green beans, red pepper and again the strawberry. If we would only measure the efficiency of that and would pay behavior, the right or wrong behaviors, only by how much grams emissions by grams, you would certainly buy the green beans because they actually have every 100 grams they produced of the least emission. If you only would look at the nutrition index, only look at how much nutrition is there in the food, you only would then have the red pepper. However, if you would divide both, you would again go back to the green bean because from a emission to nutrition index, it's much more efficient to eat green beans. And then if you look at water again, that's my point, you would go back to the red pepper. So one thing is for sure, you would never eat strawberries anymore if you really. So the question is, are we clear to society, towards ourselves exactly what do we measure and what do we think is important and what do we want to reward? So are we clear to the farmers, if we go to the next slide, to are we very clear, what do we really think is healthy, nutritious? What do we think, what is sustainability? And what do we want to appreciate in the way we produce and what we are doing? What is really that we want to change as a behavior? We want to change the behavior on grams, we want to change the behavior on water, we want to change behavior on emissions, we want actually to have the best nutrition in a sense, the most healthy nutrition or we want to have the tradeoff and maximize the tradeoff where we get all together the best. So if we go to the next slide, my call for you to both action in this panel is that I think we have to go and have find what is the true pricing of nature, have a scientific guidance on that. What is really that what we want to measure? What are the metrics that we want and how are we going to then by of rewarding the right behavior, rewarding the right consumer behavior, giving the right information to the consumer? What is the one we want to reward from farmers so that we can have the right behavior of the farmers? What is the right behavior that we as bankers have to finance? And most of all, let's keep it simple. Let's not try to be perfect. I think that nature needs at least 80% right so that we can move quickly. So as I said in 2050, we have to be four times more efficient. So my wish, my both action is that we are clear, that we influence and that in the FSS in 2021, we provide a framework, a roadmap, how to do it right, how to take this action quickly, because we don't have time. Over to you, back. Harry, thank you so much for kicking us off. And when we are venturing into a food system summit, we are of course dealing maybe with the most complex system that there is because as we know, nothing is affecting more our biodiversity. As a sector, food systems are a massive contributor to greenhouse gas. We are talking about the largest consumer of water. So they are very difficult questions to ask and synergies to be found, but also trade off to be discussed. And that is what we want to do for the next hour with five high profile individuals who are also central to the development of our food system summit, as they are leading or co leading our five action tracks. The five action tracks are access to safe and nutritious food for everybody. Number two is change to sustainable consumption pattern. Number three is about a shift to a nature of positive production. Number four is about livelihoods. And number five is about resilience. And I would like to kick off with Lawrence Huddatt, who is in his daily life, the executive director of Gain, but is kind enough to serve as the chair for action track one. And let's start with the kinder question. And the kinder question is what kind of synergies can we build? What kind of synergies do you want to see? Do you want to emphasize in your action track? Over to you, Lawrence. Thank you. Thank you, Martin. And thank you, Barry. That was a great introduction. And I really like the beans, the strawberries and the pepper chart. That's great. Thank you, Martin. One of the synergies I will be looking to in action track one is around women entrepreneurs, especially small and medium enterprises in the middle of the food system, in the middle of the food value chain. It's kind of remarkable that we know entrepreneurial talent is equally split between men and women. And we know that women are discriminated against in pretty much every country when it comes to getting access to finance, access to knowledge, access to networks, access to capital. You name it, women entrepreneurs are discriminated against either explicitly or implicitly, either knowingly or unknowingly. Fascinating studies looking at loan applications from women and men. Identical loan applications sent to loan officers. The loan officers routinely give the men bigger loans, even though the loan application is exactly the same. I think it's a 10% more loans. And interestingly enough, it's the male and the gender of the loan officer doesn't matter. It's the gender of the person making the loan application that matters. So this discrimination is real and it's visible. And if we can change that, we can begin to change gender transformation. More importantly, we can generate more livelihoods, more equitable livelihoods, and we know we can generate better food and nutrition outcomes. The evidence is very clear on that. And I suspect we'll generate better environmental outcomes as well. So for me, here's an opportunity, not enough focus on women entrepreneurs in the middle of the food value chain. They're incredibly discriminated against. It has major consequences for themselves. But also for everybody's livelihoods, everybody's nutrition outcomes, and probably for environmental outcomes as well. Back to you, Martin. Thank you very much, Lawrence. And if anyone has any question about the enormous potential of really empowering women in agriculture, I would highly recommend the Sophie report that FAO did in 2010-2011 that speaks exactly that clear language. Action track number two on shift to sustainable consumption pattern is led by Gunhil Stordalen, who is also the executive chair of the EED Foundation. And Gunhil, I want to ask you the very same question. What's the number one synergy you are working towards and which you want to amplify when discussing shift to sustainable and healthy diets? Over to you, Conrad. Sorry. Thank you so much, Martin. Well, to me, this is actually an easy one, because if we succeed in shifting to sustainable food consumption, I mean, meaning healthy and predominantly plant-based diets, this would avert around 11 million premature deaths every year globally, while at the same time, we could cut food-based greenhouse gas emissions in half. And if that's not a synergy, tell me what what is. And on top of that, a shift to more plant-based diets would also mean less intensive livestock production, but better quality meat, which would lower the risk of sonotic diseases and pandemics, and also reduce the need for antibiotics. And we know that today around 60% of antibiotics in the world is used at a farm level. So that would really help halt the problem of growing antimicrobial resistance, which again could help save many more lives. And at the same time as shifting diets, if we manage to slash food waste, that could add even more synergies into the mix in terms of reducing the pressure on natural resources and biodiversity, et cetera. And here I just want to refer to a very recent modelling study that came out from the Potsdam Institute last week, which really adds more evidence and emphasised that we cannot achieve zero hunger and healthy diets for all, and a food demand compatible with environmental boundaries without a redirection of current consumption trends. But the interesting thing to me here is not that there are so many multiple synergies by reducing waste and consumption of or overconsumption of animal-sourced food and overweight, but that eliminating hunger and underweight in the world would not substantially increase food demand. So obviously this shift in consumption is at the heart of Action Track 2, but is also of critical importance to the other tracks as well. Over. Thank you very much, Konil. And indeed, the Potsdam Institute is led by Johann Rocksturm, and he came out in 2008 defining the planetary boundaries of our planet. And at this point, we were already about crossing many of them. But today, I think it's really fair to speak about a planetary emergency. So of course, everything that we are doing to improve food and nutrition somehow has to work within these planetary boundaries or even has to help to go back into planetary boundaries. And that is very much what we are looking into in our Action Track number three, which is led by Joao Kampari, who is the global leader food practice for the World Wildlife Fund. Joao, what's your number one synergy and how can we amplify it? Thanks, Martin. Delighted to be here, everyone. The one synergy that I'm most looking forward to exploring in the summit process is the one that connects consumers to producers. Let me qualify this a bit. When we talk about the relationship of food systems with nature, we automatically tend to think that food producers, farmers, and fishers are the only ones to bear the responsibility for the stewardship of land and water and the ecosystem services that they provide. This is a supply side approach. It's super important, but it will not take us very far when we think about the systemic transformations that we need to achieve in the summit process. So we need to explore more how consumer choice, the demand side, can help inform food producers about what to produce and how. By helping consumers become more aware that their food choices impact their health, as well as the health of the planet, may send market signals to producers about what to produce and how to produce it. This has synergies. This consumer producer approach has synergies with all other action tracks. I mean, for action track one, for example, we need to diversify the number of plants and animals that we eat. So let's diversify. We're talking about agro-biodiversity. With action track two, consumer behavior needs to be more present for more nature-positive choices. Action track four, that addresses equity issues, it's super important that we discuss how to bring the 9% of the planet population that are excluded from the food system. Because they go hungry every day, although they have the human right to save the nutritious food. And finally, action track five, to build resilience everywhere. So my number one synergy, there will be others, but it's to link consumers and producers. Over to you, Martin. Thank you very much, Joao. Short and concise. And you already mentioned action track number four, which is about ensuring the livelihoods of, I think it's directly one billion people who are working in food systems and indirectly two billion people who somehow depend on food systems for their livelihoods. This action track is lent by Michel Nunn, but Michel cannot be with us today. And Christine Campo is working as a senior advisor within CARE. And Christine, so I'm asking the question to you. What's your favorite synergy and how can you in the work and the daily work on the action track four amplify that synergy? Over to you. Thanks for that, Martin. Being born and raised in a farm in Canada and having farmed on small farms for most of my life, I'm keeping the focus on the livelihood of small female farmers, which matches a bit what Lawrence has said, but I'm going to dive a bit deeper into that. So women currently make up 43% of the farming workforce in developing countries. And as Lawrence said, they have unequal access to resources. Only in land would allow women to be in a better position to make longer term decisions and enhancing environmental outcomes, soil and water conservation and productivity. Direct link to action track three, biodiversity and conservation interventions that adopt gender and social inclusion strategies are associated with increasing dietary diversity. Action track one, two and three. Land ownership, women's land ownership is linked to income growth, greater bargaining power within their households, which results in better child nutrition and higher education higher educational attainment for girls. If women earned a fair wage, they would be in a better position to afford safety, nutrition, food for themselves and their family, linking back to action track one and two. We need to build this agency, this confidence, self esteem, knowledge, skills and capability. We need to change power relationships from the intimate ones that exist in households to the one that women face when they get to the marketplace. And we need to transform structures, the discriminatory social structures, customs, values, laws and practices to make sure that they're really geared towards gender equality to have true transformation within our food systems. Thank you very much, Christine. And again, a strong appeal for gender equality and gender empowerment in food systems. Our action track number five has become tragically much more important than it had that it had already because with the current COVID crisis, we see our vulnerabilities, the fragility of our food systems, long value chains and the ripple effects that the COVID crisis has had and is still having on food security and nutrition security worldwide. Our action track number five is co-chaired by Professor Salim Hoek from Bangladesh and Santrin Dixon, the president of the Club of Rome and we have Santrin here in a field such as building resilience. Where can be the synergies here? Which synergy would you like to amplify, Santrin? Over to you. Thank you, Martin. I just want to thank Barry again for such an incredible introduction because I think that Barry really put the emphasis on the complexity and the differentiator between all the different variables that we all have to deal with and the resilience track is a cross cutting track. So for me, the synergy is if we don't get resilience right in all of the tracks, then actually we will not be able to have healthy food for healthy people on a healthy planet. We can forget it. So for us actually, for Salim and myself and the discussions that we've had, it's incredibly important that we build in security and vulnerability within across the food system and that we look at that from the perspective of the different action tracks. We have to take into consideration exactly as you indicated, the planetary boundaries as being core to the way in which we take into consideration resilience. So part of what we have been thinking about is what then is a synergetic approach that we could actually also start to think about as a model for today. At the Club of Rome, you know that we have the author of Donut Economics. We also are working on well-being economics and if we look at the congruence of new indicators to grow, we immediately can start to shift our consumption patterns. And so we've heard some of that from Green Hill, both from production all the way through waste. We can start to look at the social indicators that are so important in the SDGs, which clearly give a very important role with regard to gender. And then we of course need to put in totally new ways of producing and innovating in a way in which we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and regenerate the land so that we ensure that we are not just talking about net zero emissions, but we're talking about positive impacts. And so I think that from a synergy perspective, first of all, we have to think about resilience as being integrated across all five tracks within all the thinking. Now, does that mean coming back to Barry's very good point that we need to have a resilience factor? Do we need to actually have a new metric, which is a resilience metric? Or is our resilience factor more a costing mechanism that we need to look at? So I think within this structure, we're going to have to think of the real economics of all of this coming back to Barry's very good point around how we actually cost the impacts within the food system and truly start to have the right metrics to measure resilience so that we can have healthy people living on a healthy planet for much longer and not actually succumb to the existential risk of the convergence of tipping points that we're seeing today around COVID and the pandemic, as well as climate, as well as biodiversity loss. Thank you very much, Sontrin. And what I hear here is also a direct relationship to jobs. And jobs are so often presented as a trade off when it comes to environmental protection, but maybe we can come to this question of building resilience and restoration as a job engine. I want to start the second round. And I said the easy one and the happy one is the one on the synergies. But the difficult question is, what trade offs are you really afraid of? What are the hard nuts to crack here? And maybe I start again with Lawrence from ActionDrag1 to ask that very question. What trade offs are you scared about and or worried about? And how could we potentially address those? Lawrence? Thank you, Martin. I guess, you know, it's interesting. The trade off I'm most worried about is the synergy that Gnild mentioned. So like every strength, every strength when it's pushed to a certain extreme can become a weakness. And I'm very familiar with the global model that the Potsdam Institute has put out. And at a global level, it's totally correct. Everything Gnild said is totally right. But we don't live at a global space. We live in a national and subnational space. So I think the trade off I worry most about is just to eat more plant-based foods. I think that has to be very carefully nuanced. I think for populations that consume a lot of animal source foods, absolutely, you can generate the synergies brilliantly. Eat less animal source foods. Every food-based dietary guideline says if you eat a lot of animal source foods, eat less. It's good for your health. It's also good for the planet. It's also good for Zoonoses. It's also good for animal welfare. So it's really quite straightforward, it seems to me, in a context where there's a high level of animal source food consumption. In contexts where there's low animal source food consumption, and that's many countries in South Asia and many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, UNICEF's advice is we want young infants and young children to consume more animal source foods. We want them to do that because those foods are rich in vitamins and minerals that are so essential for their immune system development, for their cognitive development, for their bone and muscle development. So I think we need to tailor the messaging really carefully to different geographies. And I'm worried that there's a sort of a spillover from the high animal source food consuming geographies to the low animal source geographies that will actually inhibit the consumption and the development of animal source food industries that are desperately needed to diversify the diets of young kids who are eating cereals if they're lucky three times a day, seven days a week, but they're not eating anything else. That's a recipe for disaster. So the question is, can we develop animal source food production systems in low income settings that provide just enough animal source foods for low income consumers, especially kids from low income households, but that are also much more efficient when it comes to greenhouse gas emission, land use, and so on. So I think that's the trade-off that worries me the most, actually. It's how you approach these things, whether it's a high animal source food consumption setting or a low one. Over to you, Martin. Thank you very much, Lawrence. And of course, we are not speaking about one food system, but very many food systems. And to your question, bringing animal protein to children in Sub-Sahara, Africa, we will have a third round of questions basically looking at these synergies. And if I'm thinking and I'm looking at Joao here about practices like holistic grazing and restorative agriculture, maybe there are solutions available. But I want to go to Kunhild with the same question about the trade-offs that you are a little bit scared of and maybe how they could be addressed. Kunhild. Thank you. And just let me say thank you to Lawrence as well for shedding some nuanced light on this. Obviously, it's not about the world-going vegan at all. And this will look very different in higher income and high-consuming countries versus low and middle-income countries. And clearly, some regions will have to eat more meats, but that also calls for an even steeper reduction in high-income, over-consuming countries. So getting the balance here is so important and it's absolutely a trade-off we need to consider. But we also have to acknowledge that the nutrition transition where we are seeing that people are moving away from their traditional, more plant-based diets, shifting towards more ultra-processed unhealthy diets and more animal proteins is also a challenge that we need to help prevent for the low and middle-income countries to leapfrog the challenges we are dealing with in many of the western countries. But to the question of what I am most concerned about when it comes to trade-off, I mean, might sound a bit philosophical here, but it's actually around the level of the narrative. Because if we choose to adopt an either-or narrative or logic rather than both and narrative, we will end up failing. And because this food system has to be all about addressing the enormous contradictions and dysfunctions, I mean, the massive trade-offs in our current food system by coming up with solutions that are not zero-sum solutions, but synergistics. And obviously the either-or narrative has been the one dominating the discourse until now, that there is a choice between enough food being available and affordable and environmental protection on the other hand. And I think the UN summit must adhere to a different logic with a both and narrative. And once we succeed in making this conceptual shift, hopefully, then we can start zooming in to the huge dilemmas and trade-offs that characterize our food systems as they exist today and come up with solutions that actually can solve them or at least reduce their severity. But just to give you a very concrete example, I would like to mention the trade-off between cheap foods for consumers and quality employment. And food production, I mean, quite possibly the most important job in a healthy society, has been constantly undervalued and the race for high efficiency, high productivity and low cost has basically taken the value out of food. And we fail on gender, we fail on youth, we fail on equity and environment when we are going down this pathway. But some of the interesting solutions here are to start investing public funds into public goods, such as agricultural subsidies for carbon capture and water and biodiversity, and, of course, to incentivize farmers to produce a diversity of healthy crops, and, of course, also shorten supply chains, although there is a very important balance between trade and self-sufficiency. But shorten supply chains and linking urban or Perry urban farms directly to urban markets is another opportunity. Over. Thank you very much, Gunghild. And what Barry told us at the introduction that we need to look at the full costs, we have on the other side also look at the full benefit of what farmers are doing, when what they are doing, they are doing right. And payments for ecosystem services, payments for biodiversity for carbon can actually also help to address one of the problems that we talk little about, which is aging in agriculture production. It has been not an attractive perspective for young people to stay in the countryside or to go to a countryside. And that can change if we see the all of society benefit that farming can bring. And that brings me to Joao. Joao, what do you worry about? What are the trade-offs that we need to look critically into and honestly? Martin, thanks for this question. Every time I think of trade-offs, especially for action track three, I keep thinking of the urgency that we need to change the way food is produced. And the fact that there are no quick fixes. So there is always this tension about the speed at which we need to change these systems. And the fact that there is no single quick fix or magical solution. Again, just to put this into a context, we have 10 years to deliver or miss the Sustainable Development Goals. If you're a farmer or a fisher, you have nine harvest seasons to deliver this. So how in the world are we going to make the transition into major positive systems that will continue to produce food at the scale that Martin showed, the Barry showed at the beginning of this conversation and reduce carbon emissions and increase biodiversity because the rate at which biodiversity is being lost and talking about trade-offs. I mean, food production drives today 70% of the terrestrial biodiversity loss and 50% of the biodiversity on freshwater. Agriculture is responsible for 80% of the deforestation. And the food system releases 30% of greenhouse gas emissions. So the tension between the time that farmers and renters and fishers will have to adapt and the urgency that we need does not seem aligned. So the trade-offs that I keep here in the back of my mind are that we cannot possibly sacrifice food security while the system adapts. So we need to understand who is going to win with this food system transformation and make it nature positive and who is going to suffer from it and create the safety nets so that we can bring everybody on board. What we would not like to see, for example, is that because the pricing signals may increase for food that are produced in a nature positive way, we cannot see more food going into the communities that can afford that and sacrifice the rest. So these are things, these are trade-offs that keep me really awake at night and I'm really hoping that during the summit process we can bring all these to bear and have a very frank discussion about how to resolve, minimize these trade-offs and so on. Thank you. Thank you Joao. And it is a truth that the most vulnerable and the most underpaid people are actually in food systems. So Christine, what do you worry about? Where are the trade-offs in the livelihood workstream that need our attention and need our critical eye? Yeah, I think everyone should earn a fair wage for their time and their produce. However, what keeps me up at night is implementing these changes along the food chain. And when we consider the true cost of the environment, that means there's a very good chance that that additional cost will end up, will be transferred to the consumer. And as we've said, higher prices for food will negatively impact the welfare of the poor and reduce affordability and access to healthy and sustainable diets. We're basically forcing the very people that produce our food further into food and nutrition and security. Thank you very much, Christine. Same question on resilience. What can possibly be go wrong? What are the trade-offs in building resilience that you are worrying about, Sontri? Well, my answer to that is everything that could possibly go wrong has already gone wrong. So, Martin, I mean, this is our chance to really make a difference and be a decade of action. The current food system exactly as Gunn-Hill has said and others before is totally dysfunctional from production all the way through waste. It doesn't optimize for people and it doesn't optimize for the planet. So that would be my first opening statement. The second is in terms of the trade-offs, absolutely. And if we didn't have trade-offs, we wouldn't have had the common agricultural policy totally torpedoed two weeks ago in the European Parliament and by member states who had interests of big agriculture in mind. And that's why I think we do need to think about these trade-offs. But we also need to come back to the principles of people and planet. If we're truly going to optimize both and I would actually make a fair call to large agricultural producers to understand if they truly believe that the system is not dysfunctional and properly costed and that it actually enhances rural communities, enhances job growth, and keeps people healthy, then I would say for the moment those triple answers would be negative, negative, negative, which is that for the moment the agricultural system does not focus on healthy and we can decrease the price. In fact we can create more jobs in regenerative agriculture than in mechanized large-scale agriculture. So the trade-off is will those holding the power let go of the power? And that is key because even if we've got European leadership with a European Green Deal and a head of the European Commission indicating that we need to shift from wealth to well-being and by the same token the common agricultural policy continues to service big agriculture and also subsidies, then I think we have a problem. So I think if this food summit does not actually bring forward those trade-offs in a very clear light and start to hold governments accountable for feeding their people healthy food, for demonstrating that actually the costs of not doing so are much higher both from a resilience perspective and future crises but also direct costs in terms of hospital, health, diabetes, all the other issues that we see and mortality. So I think we need to get better at understanding those key trade-offs and I'll make the last point which is let's not forget that rural communities and farmers have been totally disenfranchised that we have focused our attention as policymakers and those of us who are working with policymakers on urban communities rather than on rural communities and that from a political perspective overall as well we need to bring rural communities and farmers back into the fold of what transformational change looks like and the need for a new food system. Thank you, Sundrin, and we spoke already about narratives and I think one of the key things we need to do is really to look at the existing narratives and question them. Do we really need an unlimited growth of agricultural production to feed people? Is there really a trade-off between feeding the world and protecting the environment? And in my third round of questions I would really like to ask exactly that question. Are the trade-offs that we have mentioned, are they carved in stone? Do we have a chance to flip it around, to basically have a perceived trade-off and turn that into a synergy and how could that look like? Would there be examples for that? And I would start again with Lawrence and asking you this question. You said the trade-off that you are scared about is access to animal protein for poor children basically. Do you have an example for a trade-off that could become a synergy, something that we can really change in this food system summit? Thanks Martin. One of the things I love about what the summit is trying to do is it brings together people who are thinking about these different objectives. And I agree with Gunild when she says, look, these trade-offs are not inevitable, but it's only by bringing together people like these five different teams of people and all the people who care about these five sets of issues. It's only about bringing them together and then every one of them sort of thinking, how are we going to turn this trade-off? First of all, how are we going to minimize it and then how do we flip it? And I think we're actually, we have a ton of choices. When you start looking at it beyond slogans, you see there are lots and lots of choices. So I'll give you a couple of small examples. Actually, Barry kind of stole the example I was going to generate. When you look at vegetables and all the different types of vegetables that can be produced and consumed, and you look at different dimensions, water use, energy use, CO2 emission, nutrition density, nutrient density, there are a lot of surprises and there are a lot of vegetable choices within the set of vegetables, strawberries are not a vegetable, but you know what I mean. There are a lot of choices within vegetables and fruits that get you multiple wins. So if you can be a bit more nuanced and a bit more specific, you can find multiple wins along the five action tracks. Meats, another interesting example. Look at greenhouse gas emissions. A cattle beef have 10 times the greenhouse gas emissions that poultry do. Poultry has two or three times the CO2 emissions of pulses. And then there are different types of animal source food production systems. And then when you look at, and then in those of you who looked at the foresight, the Global Panel foresight 2.0 report that came out a couple of months ago, great report. And there's a great chart in there that says, look, if you're looking at these five different dimensions of environmental conservation or degradation, whichever way you want to look at it, and you look at the different types of foods that have footprints on those five different dimensions. I think it was greenhouse gas emission, cropland use, blue water use, nitrogen application and the phosphorus application, different foods have different footprints for different dimensions. And so this is the crux of the issue is we need, coming back to Barry's point, we need more research and we don't have time for more research. So we need to build, we need to develop more research that tells us what are the nature of these trade-offs between livelihoods, greenhouse gas emissions, nutrition, resilience, gender, and nature? What are the trade-offs and the synergies? And we need to go as fine-grained as possible, but we don't have the luxury of that. So we need the best available evidence now to figure out how to minimize these trade-offs. I think we have tons and tons of choices and we just need to be responsible enough to exercise those choices and be science-based as we do it. Thank you. Thank you very much, Lawrence. And getting to the details of these choices is really a big part of what we are trying to achieve. Gunhil, you already mentioned some of the perceived trade-offs that could become synergies. What would be your hope to changing that? And interestingly, you also mentioned the still very fast and rapidly growing world population and that it's not so much a question of the numbers, but the type of the diet that people have. So what do you think needs to change as a narrative? Where can we flip a trade-off into a synergy? Gunhil? Thank you. Well, I would start by saying that I think trade-offs are absolutely inevitable when we are talking about such a complex system as the food system. And trade-offs are as old as evolution, really. And we deal with trade-offs in our everyday lives. I mean, do I walk to work, nice view and exercise, but it's slow? Or do I ride my bike, which is good exercise, but it's cold outside? Or do I drive my car, which is false to warm? And I get to listen to my favorite radio show, but obviously it's traffic jam and I'm emitting carbon. But I think the important thing here is that once we start acknowledging and dealing with the trade-offs, it very rapidly leads to solutions. So I think our challenge here is that we treat the trade-offs as barriers and as elements that are set in stone and cannot be overcome. So to me, the question is whether trade is not whether trade-offs will exist, but which decisions that we can make to do the most to eliminate, sorry, harmful outcomes and foster healthy ones. So just let me end with an example. And I think that for the food system as a whole, I mean, potentially the biggest trade-off that we have seen is whether land should be allocated for food production or environmental services. And since the Green Revolution, the mantra has obviously been that we have to increase production by 70% to feed the 10 billion and with clear messaging to conservationists that biodiversity and climate are kind of lower priorities and that it is about the choice between production and conservation. But this is actually not the case because when we factor in reduction in food waste and loss and shifting diets and reducing overconsumption and improving productivity, this trade-off almost completely disappears. And I just want to go back to Barry's brilliant kickoff keynote and also to what you mentioned, Lawrence, that we need a scientific guide to correctly pricing food and really factor in the externalities because that will be a huge driver to help us to get this right and minimize trade-offs while maximizing synergies. Over. Thank you, Gunhild. And this session will be wrapped out by a very prominent scientist. So I'm a bit mindful of time, but Joao, over to you. This narrative of we need to ensure food security and environmental protection is second, but also the understanding that environmental protection means so fencing of human beings is their space for flipping a trade-off into a synergy. Absolutely, Martin. Thank you. I'll be super brief. I think that sometimes our perceptions, perception of trade-offs happen because the cost of food is not totally internalized. So there are externalities out there that are totally unpaid for. And the moment that we bring that we account for and bring into the pricing mechanism, the true cost of food, I think our notion of trade-off would somehow be minimized. So let me just stop here. We need to internalize the cost of food before further progressing on our discussion about trade-offs. And maybe once we account all that, these trade-offs will be minimized because we will have reality right ahead of us, right in front of us. Over to you, Martin. Thank you. Thank you very much, Joao. And all too often, human beings are treated as externalities instead of being right holders and the people we care about. Christine, what do you see as a trade-off that can be flipped into a synergy where can we change the story and change the reality? Yeah, conscious of time. I'm going to stick to minimizing trade-offs while maximizing synergies. As Jean mentioned, accountability, who are we accountable to? And I know that's something that we as the Action Track Leads think about a lot. Who are we accountable to and how do we measure success? So when we think through these things, it's examples that come to my mind are community scorecards. And how can the accountability tools actually be in the hands of the people that are involved at the food systems at all levels? And yeah, all in there. Thanks very much, Christine. And Sontrine, last in the row, if this food system is as broken as it is, there must be a lot of space for great development. Over to you. Yeah, absolutely. And I agree with Joao's point also with regard to the costing. And let's be clear that the costs would reflect environmental and labor. So you've got both the social and environmental costs that are probably taken into account, which means already there you're creating a protective mechanism. That's a win-win. That's not a trade-off. The other would be diversification of our food system. I mean, if we're looking at other sectors that are really shifting like the energy sector, what we're seeing is that, for example, electricity producers or even car manufacturers are starting to diversify within their sectors. If we could see more innovation within the food system, where actually we could find that countries are looking both at their marine innovation in terms of food as well as soil innovation in terms of production and crops, then we would start to have a much more optimized thinking all the way again from using the land or the ocean through to waste. So I think there is so much inefficiency within the system that if we start to actually unpack the trade-offs, we'll see that there's such a series of win-wins from reducing those inefficiencies, optimizing the system, bringing in real collaboration that will have a completely different view of the food system. Thank you very much, Sontrin. And with that, a big thank you to the excellent panelists for this inspiring debate. And I want to hand over to Professor Joachim von Braun, who is the director of the Center for Development Studies in Bonn, and he's also the chair of the Scientific Group of the Food Systems Summit. Professor von Braun, you have the floor for your closing remarks. Thank you. Thank you, Martin. Great panel. It was very inspiring to listen to you and I look forward to the continued cooperation with Action Tracks, at least about the involvement of members of the Scientific Group in each of the tracks. So I think we have a big task before us. Let me just make a couple of remarks. Number one, the level of ambition. You have to have a high level of ambition and not lose sight of the SDG2 challenges and the climate goals and the biodiversity protection. The level of ambition, I think, can easily get lost if we focus on synergies and trade-offs rather than at the whole level that needs to be achieved. While I am aware of the trade-off and synergy discussion needs, we also need to tackle them with quantitative modeling. Addressing them with careful consideration verbally is the starting point, but we need to get at the quantitative nature of the trade-offs and synergies and then some that look big, maybe small, and some that look small, maybe big and protracted. So ambition and quantifying. Secondly, I was delighted to hear the whole panel to talk so carefully about system rather than about track. And that, I think, is important. We all, I think, and I'm convinced even more so after what I've heard, know that we cannot address the food system summit track by track. The summit then will be a success if it achieves results and that requires bold and big action, as this conference suggests. But what are these big challenges for action? Number one is institutional innovations and institutional change. Fixing the food system without changing institutional arrangements of in-value chains, across-value chains, and among the major building blocks on the consumption side, the behavioral change there, the resilience side with risk, with de-risking aspects there. The private sector playing with the farmers and the processing and retail industry in the nature positive production that I think all this needs to be on our agenda. However, we need to look at some cross-cutting themes. And I was delighted to hear so many of you talk about gender and women. In the scientific group, we will not only be very supportive of your complex agenda, but also develop papers that cut across action tracks. And the issues of agenda and women and equity and of trade are at the top of our list there. And how will the suitable transition of the smallholder farming communities into the viable livelihoods? I think the livelihoods agenda is so important. How will that be managed? How can that be facilitated? True pricing and true costing is critical for the incentive structure to put the food system on track. But we also need to talk about financing. What do we need? At least 50 billion incrementally over the next 10 years in order to achieve SDG2. We must not shy away from these challenges. COVID-19 has demonstrated the level of ambition that's feasible in collective action in regions and globally. The green agendas launched or about to be launched in Europe, in China, in North America and the US must not be single block green approaches. We need a global green transformative agenda. So are these agendas coherent, which have been promised by the heads of state from China, the incoming president in the US and the European Union leadership? We don't know. For that, we have the science work to deliver. The scientific group is there to assist you but also to critically assess the policy agendas that are before us. I look forward to continued cooperation with you. Ambition science system is part of the systems approach and focus on action. That's what we are here to deliver. Thank you very much Professor von Braun and that brings us to the end of our hour. Let me put a couple of points very, very briefly together. When everything is so broken, there is a massive opportunity. This is something I take from this panel and we need a fair amount of optimism to really make it work. As we are working between the five action tracks, we need the boldness and the courage to leave our comfort zones and really ask the hard questions and work together. We don't only want to do that on a global level with the action tracks. We want to come to every country of the UN membership and there is an opportunity to have similar open and honest and productive discussions in all the different member states and also between different stakeholder groups. We need to build the trust. The trust is the oil that can unlock the gearbox and bring us forward. In the end, let us not forget that this is an SDG summit and it only can work and it's only a success if we have managed to leave no one behind. With that, I want to thank our wonderful panelists. I want to thank you Professor von Braun and I hope that all of our attendees are keeping engaged. Please check for example on Twitter at food systems to be involved and engaged. Our action tracks are doing open fora in which you can participate and make your voice heard and we want to work and continue to work and debate with all of you. Thank you very much and a wonderful day, evening, morning to you.