 My talk is going to try and see this from a broader perspective. Take the forest and forest issues to the landscape level. And hopefully connect forestry to the broader development agenda, not just the carbon management. This painting is known to many of you in the room, particularly our Finnish colleagues. It's a painter called Eero Järnefeldt, and it was done in 1893. It describes a situation that was very common in the Nordic countries at this time. And I think it's typical. You have the forests, you have people eking out the living from agriculture, and this is the landscape that we are talking about. Now I'm going to challenge the forestry club as you sit here to tear down the sector walls between forestry and agriculture. I'm not asking to change the sectors or the institutions, but I'm asking you to consider not to be bound by those sector limitations when you seek solutions for the future. You can see now that the picture has changed. This is now in South America and it is today. Same situation, same issues, and hopefully we will find some solutions to the issues that we find on the ground. My talk will have three parts. First, about the lines in the landscape that we construct. And the problems that that causes. Secondly, what would happen if we erase those lines and embrace a new landscape approach. And thirdly, look at policy implications in a slightly bigger picture. So, the lines in the landscape, what does that mean? Well, first of all, we have the institutional boundaries. We all know that the governments have forestry departments, they have agriculture departments. The universities have forest faculties, agriculture faculties. The CDIR system where I work has a forestry center and several agriculture centers. And we seem to have problems to work across these boundaries. And the upshot of all this is that we create a boundary on the ground. Either we talk about forest issues inside the forest or we talk about agriculture issues outside the forest. And I don't think that's acceptable, it's not acceptable to sit in the forest and complain over agriculture. To sit in the forest and complain over oil palm plantations. And it's not acceptable to fail to connect forestry to the broader development issues. We also need to recognize that forestry priorities are very different. If you are forest industry, you're interested in green growth, making a profit in a green way. If you're a red negotiator, you're interested in mitigating climate change. And to some extent in conservation of biodiversity, there is a tight connection there. If you're an environmental NGO, you're interested in biodiversity. If you're a farmer and there are billions of them, you're interested in livelihoods, you're interested in agriculture resilience and to extract food and nutrition from the forest. If you're a poor farmer, it is even more pronounced, you're interested in your livelihood and in getting food from the forest. So the point here is that we have to embrace all of these stakeholders when we talk about forestry issues. And I still haven't taken this to the landscape level. So there's a potential here for a serious disconnect at policy levels. We have separate silos, intergovernmental processes, deal with these issues separately. We talk about biodiversity, climate change, timber issues, forest issues. And some of you will not agree that these are isolated processes. But I say that we have some serious problems with disconnects. Why do we avoid combined solutions? Why do we look only in the forest for forest resolution? Why do we want to conserve the forest but don't want to deal with good production? Why do we want to mitigate climate change in the forest but don't want to deal with agriculture, at least not in the negotiations? Why do we want green growth but at least some are skeptical to planted forests? I think it's time that we embrace the opportunities of multiple goals in the landscape. Forests are too important to be isolated. Sustainable landscapes depend on forests and vice versa. If we keep the lines in the landscape, we will not be able to find the better combined solutions. It's basic optimization theory. If you restrict your options, you will not find the better solutions. So I will now turn to what happens if we erase the lines in the landscape. First of all, what we mean by landscape is not the object. It's not something we administrate. It includes the people and the ambitions of these people. I think it's really important, and I've missed that in the discussion a little bit, that people on the ground are in charge. It is the decisions, the ambitions, the aspirations of billions of farmers and foresters in the world that will determine if we move towards sustainable development or not. A landscape concept can pull all of us together, and I say that the global processes don't really do that at this point. But the landscape approach in my view should not be a fixed entity. It shouldn't be something that we draw another line around. It needs to be an analytical framework, something that includes forests, includes farms, includes towns, but at an analytical level. It's a bit complicated. The management of objectives on the ground, they vary in time and space. We never know what one farmer wants and another wants. How do we influence the policies? How do they make their decisions? This looks a little bit like chaos. We may talk about policy interventions that drives everything in the direction we want, but it is a little bit more complicated to that. What I'm going to propose today is that we need a simple basis to pull things together, a framework that everybody can understand that doesn't build on boundaries in the landscape and that provides some possibilities to measure progress in the landscape. I want to propose that any landscape at an analytical level has four objectives. The first one is to provide for livelihoods, to make money, basically. Obviously, we know how to measure that. The second is that we want the landscape to provide food and non-food products. That's obviously measured in the quantities of those producers. Thirdly, we want the landscape to sustain ecosystem services. I propose that we can actually measure that in a fairly good way by monitoring the amount of biomass in the landscape. This gives us a reasonably good picture of the resilience of the water cycle of the productivity and resilience of agricultural systems. The fourth one is that we want to minimize the pollution and make sure that we have resource efficiency. We can measure that by the amount of CO2 equivalents that we emit from this landscape. I'm not saying that this is all salt, but I'm saying that this could be a platform where we can agree that we have an idea that we can share, that this is what we want to achieve. It doesn't have the sector boundaries built into it. The local people are in charge. They will determine what the weights of these different objectives are. It will be very difficult to determine that from the top. I think we should be a little bit modest when we try to design these policy interventions that we are talking about. What I also want to propose is that if these four performance measures all go in the same, in the right direction. That is, if we have a stable or increasing income, we have a stable or increasing amount of products produced, we have a stable or increasing amount of biomass in the landscape and we have a stable or reducing emission of CO2 equivalents. Then I say we have a sustainable landscape. This is a way to start creating a picture of what we mean by a sustainable landscape and it's measurable. At sea 4, we are beginning to work at a landscape level and it's not always so easy because forestry institutions are a little bit afraid about this. What does it mean? Does it mean that we have to change what we do? Will agriculture take over? Can we really relate to a landscape? Our institutions were not set up for it. But we are determined that this is the way forward. You may know about the forest days that we've had at the climate change cops. We had the sixth edition of that last year and that was the final one at the cops. We've not decided that we would join forces with the agriculture day and instead have a forum on landscapes at the cops to create a platform to continue this discussion. Jag vill gå tillbaka till en stor bild. Det här grafen är av väldigt basic public statistics. Det visar att det är många följande insikter som har blivit ungefär samma över de senaste 50 år. Det visar också att vi har haft en fantastisk utveckling av ekonomin över de senaste 50 år. The GDP per capita has tripled. We've also tripled the number of not food insecure people. And we've also tripled the CO2 emissions. The important thing here is that this... There is no correlation between the number of hungry and the amount of food that we produce. There's no correlation between the number of hungry and the GDP per capita at the general level. And that means that when we hear about food policies that claim that we need to produce more food to feed the hungry, that's not really real. When we hear about politics that talk about keeping the food prices low because otherwise people will not have enough to eat, it's not really real. These are just political realities. It's been like that since the Roman times. At the Roman times it was obviously politically impossible not to keep the food prices down in the city. That's the kind of situation we still live with. The consequence of this is that the losers of this are found in the landscape because what this leads to, these food policies, the agriculture silo approach to production systems. It leads to lower investments in the landscapes. It leads to not sustainable approaches to food production. I think I'm showing you this to say that we have a similar problem from the agriculture side. That's also a silo. They also need to look at the landscape level. Where does this take us? I'm going to propose three policy implications. The first one I've said already many times. We need to cut across traditional sector boundaries in the policy interventions. It is not timely. It's not possible to continue to build policy interventions sector by sector. We need to find a political platform where this can be done at the higher level. It's questionable, though, if it can be done by initiatives from within the sectors themselves. Secondly, we need to support affordable and long-term finance for landscape investments. We heard a little bit about this in the previous sessions. It seems to me that the very good use of public funds is to manage the risks of those stakeholders that operate in the landscape. They need capital, they need investment in the landscape. If they get access to long-term capital, it is very much more likely that we will see sustainable approaches develop. We also need to invest in research that address and ask if the research is defined by sectors as well. We need to find the basis for research programmes that address issues at the landscape level. Maybe we'll look out for when this goes. And we need to do that research in a way, in a modern way that provides evidence based that make evidence-based policies possible. We know how to do that. We know how to use evidence-based policies that's been done in many other sectors. We need to register possibility and do it in for the landscapes as well. So, to conclude, erasing of official minds is to look for connections. Is green growth of the landscape level good? It has to be good. I want to conclude with a final slide, which goes back to the painting I showed in the beginning. That shows what the landscape looks like today. I think that this girl having passed did have a good story to tell programme children. The question is what kind of story do we want to tell to our programme children? I don't think we can get stuck in the sectors. I don't think we can get stuck in cold solutions. We need to find ways to work in the cross-sectors at the landscape level. Forestry is included in that. Forestry is not threatened by that. But it's included and I think we need to have different mindsets. That was what I wanted to say. Thank you for that.