 Good afternoon and welcome to today webinars on virtual training on the SDG 241 indicator. My name is Stefania Bacci, I am Italian, and I am a statistician working in the Statistical Division of FAO since 2008. I started working in the SDG 241 team in early 2020. Since last year, we are organizing virtual trainings on the SDG 241 methodology to help countries gain a clear understanding of this complex indicator. We generally group different countries by region with about 100 participants per training, but today we have organized specifically this training for Bangladesh, and it will include theoretical parts, but especially practical sessions and exercises on data built on your pilot test data. So again, welcome to this special training. So before starting, let me thank our colleague Amirur from the FAO Bangladesh office for having coordinated the organization of this training. I leave now the floor to Arbab Asfandiar Khan, who is the key person for this training for the official welcome address. Asfandiar, you have the floor. Thank you, Stefania, can you confirm if you can hear me well? Yes. Okay, so good afternoon, everyone, and a very warm welcome to you on this first day of the virtual training on SDG indicator 2.4.1. For this training, we are expected to be joined by more than 20 colleagues from Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Let me emphasize that we have collaborated with Bangladesh on this indicator since 2015. So it is a close partnership that we are having with Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, just to name a few instances whereby Bangladesh collaborated with FAO on this indicator. Bangladesh was the country who were involved in the inception discussions around the methodology while we were conceiving as to how the framework of this indicator will look like. And I'm glad that Amirul Islam was the person who collaborated and contributed to that phase of the discussion. So we organized desk assessments in Bangladesh back in 2016 and 17, then we carried out cognitive testing in Bangladesh of the survey questionnaire that we have developed for SDG indicator 2.4.1 back in 2017. We organized field tests in Bangladesh. And in fact, we went to Bangladesh, bilaterally to train the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics staff before us administering the field test and I believe, John Luigi was, was the person who visited the BBS back in 2017 and 18. Apart from all these instances whereby Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics was thoroughly involved at different stages of the conceptual methodological data collection aspects of the indicator. So I'm very excited to have the Bangladesh once again, taking keen interest in adoption and implementation of SDG indicator 2.4.1, which is a, which is a very positive sign. My name is Arbab Asfandiar Khan and I work as an economist with with Statistics Division of FAO at its headquarter in in Rome and I'll be your resource person along with John Luigi, Nico and with Stefania Bacci for this four days. And I'm also a workforce training. Stefania is is the one behind making the organizational arrangements along with Amirul Islam, and Stefania as well will be playing a key role of facilitator and more greater during the course of these next four days. Luigi led the, led the analysis of the field tests in Bangladesh that were carried out in 2018 and 19, and from tomorrow he will walk us through the framework of SDG 2.4.1 as to how we go about data collection, how then we, you know, use that data to analyze it and then the respective 11 sub indicators of SDG 2.4.1. And finally, the aggregate indicator. So with this brief introduction. Let me let me reiterate that this training will be interactive. So you can stop us anywhere where you know where you want to seek more clarity. And we will gradually in a face manner cover the different aspects of the indicator. So with expectation of, of active participation and engage discussion. You know, I now open open this training so Stefania the floor is yours. You may want to, you know, walk the participant through some housekeeping rules. Thank you for this introductory speech. Let me now tell you a few instructions. So you know that this training has been organized in a webinar more. So for the panelists, please follow the meeting in mute mode and click the unmute button only when you are given the floor for the other participants, you don't have the possibility to unmute or not the camera but the host can allow you to do it. So if you want to talk please simply ask for the floor and we will allow you to mute yourself. Both panelists and participants at any time during the webinar, you have the opportunity to submit your questions to the presenters. So to do so just type your question into the Q&A section, please do not use the chat box. You can also raise the hand virtually for requesting the floor. So just look for the raise hand function, you will have the icon in the bottom bar, or you can find in the participants menu. If you have any whatever issue you have please write me, you can use the chat and I will be happy to help you for any kind of doubts or questions or any technical matters you might have. So before starting let me also say that the link of the recordings of the entire virtual training will be shared with you. We will be sharing after the four days and we will be also sending the certificates to all the participants that will attend the entire training. We have already shared in advance as part of the PowerPoint presentation but we will share with you again also after the fourth day and together with many other supporting documents. So now I would like to share the agenda with you. So let me stop the video and let me. So, so the agenda. So you should be able to see the agenda. Can you confirm. Can you see the agenda. Yes, if I'm here. I'm sorry because I had some strange messages. Okay, so today we will be concentrating on the theoretical part with us one yard. So he will introduce all the SDG to for one indicator on with his with its three dimensions and its 11 sub indicators. And he will be showing also all the documents that are needed for the SDG to for one methodology. Tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, we will be working with the Djaluigi Nico that has been already presented, and he will introduce some exercises and some analysis through the state. And everything will be based on your pilot this data. So again, Djaluigi will go through all the three dimensions and will go through one by one all the 11 sub indicators. Then at the end of the third day, we will be having a presentation from a span yard showing the short the medium and the long term expectation that we have. And finally, I will present the data collection questionnaire that FAO is using to collect the data from all the countries. So on the fourth day, so the last day, the floor will be be given to you so to Bangladesh gross the sticks, and you will present your agricultural survey and the all the data sources. All the other data sources that can be used to have some SDG to for one data to collect some data on this for one. And finally, of course, we will have an open discussion where we can discuss on the digups on the challenges. And so having an open discussion with you for any other concern that you might have and try to also have an action plan to overcome all the constraints, in case we have it. And then we will close of course before this. So every day, we will have a break of 30, 20 minutes, let's see, depending on the, on the, on the timing. So, I leave again now the floor to as fund yard for starting the training. Thank you very much, Stefania. So let me let me share my screen with you. So Stefano, can you confirm if you can see my slideshow. Yes. Okay, perfect. So, as is indicator 2.4.1, which is defined as proportion of agriculture area under productive and sustainable agriculture, we will cover in detail the different aspects of the indicator during the course of this training. Before, before even starting this training, let me let me emphasize that we have slightly reorganized the way we conduct this training with understanding that Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. I mentioned earlier is a key partner, you know, throughout the development of the methodology, and is one of the country who are very well aware of the indicator intricacies as well as its complexity. So with that understanding in mind today, we will cover broadly in general terms as a indicator 2.4.1 and then we will go into the data collection part for the analysis we will we will discuss it. We'll discuss it tomorrow and the day after in more detail. So the objectives of this training. So first and foremost, as I mentioned, I will walk you through the SDG indicator 2.4.1 conceptual and methodological basis. It's compilation and interpretation. I will introduce the tools and instrument developed developed for collecting and reporting data on the indicator, and we'll, we'll, we'll let you know about the survey questionnaire and related document, as well as SDG indicator in the context of aggressive survey program and 50 by 2030 initiative. So after we will focus on the pilot tests that were conducted in with the with the help of Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. We will discuss the data collection data entry and data analysis aspects to construct SDG indicator 2.4.1. On the last day on the four day we will hear from you and discuss the data gaps and your concrete plans in the short, medium and long term to collect data on the indicator. In order to bridge those gaps. And finally we will, sorry. Finally, we will introduce the FAO data collection questionnaire as an instrument used by FAO to collect data from the member countries. Finally, an overall aim of this training is has always been to unite or assemble key stakeholder at the country level, those who are responsible for collecting and reporting data that is representatives from the National Office, and those who are responsible for using their data to produce or to develop evidence based policies at the national or sub national level. That is the representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and other relevant institutions. Now I do know that primarily for this particular training we are joined by the data producer that is the colleagues from from the NSO. So just to give you to give you some historical perspective to set the stage for the, for the, for the four days training. In 2016, the FAO strategic program on sustainable agriculture and global strategy to improve agriculture and rural statistics joint forces to develop the pioneer methodology for the then tier three STG indicator 2.4.1 to measure progress was target target 2.4. As many of you may know, defining and measuring sustainable agriculture, which is a multi dimensional concept is challenging as it is complex country specific, and thus despite several attempts in the past 50 years. That is since 1970 has never been done up until now. Given the multi dimensionality of the sustainability concept, FAO initiated a global discussion to deliberate the fundamental questions. That is what sustainability means in the context of agriculture. What are its fundamental building blocks. What are the economic, social and environmental factors that effect and are in turn affected by sustainability in agriculture, both in inter temporal and inter spatial way. Apart from these other questions that that were taken into account was as to what thematic aspects to keep as far and what to let go off and how to strike a balance between the different sustainability issues faced by different regions and different countries, how it will be measured and monitored consistently over time using a framework and data collection tool that are universal in nature. That is that are applicable, both in developing as well as in develop world. As you will find out in the course of this training, the methodology of the indicator though appear very complex. Yet, you know the way structure is simple as it involves are thematic rules to arrive at sustainability assessment of the country. Once the data has been collected, cleaned, processed and analyzed. Now, the approved and endorse methodology of SDG 241 is a result of long participatory and consultative process that involved discussion with and contribution of thematic, as well as subject matter experts statisticians, policymakers, and researchers institutions that has national statistical offices, Ministry of Agriculture, international organizations, civil society, private sector, and academia on on the very issue I mentioned earlier. And as I highlighted, DBS was one of the key institution whom we were engaged with throughout the course of this methodological development. The reason behind us involving these key stakeholders with diverse background was to make that sure that this indicator is owned by everyone, especially countries. The current methodology of SDG 241 embodies the following principles that is it's universal it's policy relevant and and it's practical. Now, the way the methodology of this multi dimensional indicator is designed and you will see that as we progress during this training, as I mentioned earlier is simple logical and pragmatic. This was to ensure the sustainability of the indicator monitoring our time at the at the country level. The goal to zero hunger has five targets, the target that we are interested in is target 2.4, which is written in detail here. Sorry, I don't know if it's only my problem but I don't see that just going. I mean you're not changing the slides. Can you confirm if it has been changed now. No for me. Okay, can you confirm with other participants. No, the only the first, first, you know, phase of the slide is you know, you know, showing you. Okay, so let me reshare my screen with you. Is it changing now. No, no. No. Oh, okay. I try. Can you. Yeah, now yes. Yes. Okay, perfect. So, as you go to, as I was mentioning, zero hunger has five targets, the target that we are interested in today is target 2.4, which is written in extensive there. We have many other SDG targets. This is a very complex one. I have highlighted in red, some of the key aspects that needs to be captured as we try to measure progress towards this target sustainability resilience productivity production. There are a lot of different considerations that is climate change extreme weather droughts flooding soil quality, etc. All these diverse aspects in one single target. Clearly this would require an approach that captures these different dimensions or aspects captured in target 2.4. That was submitted to the inter agency and expert group on sustainable development goals, or IEG SDG, and was approved in March 2015 is proportion of agriculture area under productive and sustainable agriculture. Now the indicator is now tier two, which means that the methodology of the indicator has now been approved and endorsed. There are other refinements undertaken in the biodiversity indicator in 2019. However, in general, data is not available or partially available. Now, the formula that we propose to measure the indicator is very simple and straightforward. It is the area under productive and sustainable agriculture divided by the agriculture land area. Let us focus on the denominator first, which is agricultural land area. It is defined as arable land plus permanent crops and permanent meadows and pastures. It is a well known and established concept that is collected by statistical bodies that is the national statistical offices in countries and compiled internationally via questionnaire by FAO, and is disseminated through FAO stack and is a platform used by FAO to disseminate agriculture related statistics. The issue obviously is with the numerator of the of the formula. How do we measure area under productive and sustainable agriculture. What is clear from the description of the target which I covered on the previous slide that we have to look at sustainability across all its dimensions that is economic, social, and environmental. This means that agriculture land area under productive and sustainable agriculture will be the agriculture area of those agriculture holdings or agriculture farms that satisfy the sustainability criteria for the 11 sub indicators selected across the three dimensions of sustainability. These are the sequential steps that were used in the methodological development of SGG 241. So we first discussed and chose the scale of assessment for SC 241 and the choice made was to adopt a bottoms up approach, whereby we selected agriculture holdings or agriculture farms level sustainability that is then aggregated at a national or We then determine the scope of activities of the holding to be covered by this indicator, and the choice made for 241 was to focus on agriculture holdings that are involved in crops and livestock production activities primarily. We then reviewed the dimensions to be covered, and we decided to stick to the classical dimensions of sustainability, which I refer to on the previous slide as well, economic, social, and environmental. Let me add here that in the beginning of the process when we embark on the development of the indicators methodology, we selected five dimensions that included in addition to the three economic, social, and environmental to other dimensions that are institutional or governance and resilience. However, letter on in the process, it was decided to integrate resilience with the economic dimension and to drop the governance dimension as we are exclusively focused on a farm level sustainability assessments. We then zoomed inside the dimension into what we call the teams are different aspects to be covered within each respective dimension. In total, we have 11 teams across this, the three dimensions. And then, in turn, we selected the sub indicators that are needed to measure progress within the within those teams or those those aspects. So, we have 11 sub indicators and to measure progress within these teams. We have 11 11 sub indicators to measure progress within 11 teams. We established sustainability criteria, also known as thresholds or cut off points for for ease of indicator to classify the agriculture holdings, and the agriculture land area that it owns manages or operates by assigning it red, yellow and green indicators, which we call the traffic light approach. Of course, this traffic light approach will be covered in detail tomorrow, and the day after, when Nico john, john Luigi will be covering the, the data collection and data analysis part. Then we selected the data collection instrument. For the indicator, which, which, for the time being the recommended source for data collection for SCG 241 is agriculture service or farm service. We also discussed to decide on the periodicity or frequency for data collection and reporting for SCG 241 it is set at three years. And finally, the modality for reporting the indicator. For this we develop both a dashboard where all the 11 sub indicators or teams are presented in one chart, where each sub indicator is illustrated separately by sustainability status is the green, yellow or red. And aggregate SCG 241 that can be calculated directly from the from the dashboard. These are the principles that were used to develop the indicators methodology. First the policy relevance action ability. We wanted to make sure that every sub indicator selected as part of SCG 241 framework had a meaning for the policy makers, and thus provided information based on which informed decisions or policies can be made to improve the overall situation on the ground. Meaning the sub indicators must be easily understood, and the results easily interpreted by the policy makers. For example, is agricultural sustainability declining, and why, and what policies need needs to be implemented to address these, these issues. Universality and comparability are fundamental, we are in SCG process universal process. Thus, we needed to make sure that the indicator is applicable or valid everywhere. It must be relevant for all countries of the world that is both developing and developed. Specifically from international comparability point of view. Another important point that we kept in mind was the way the indicators are computed must ensure comparability across countries in order to ensure global reporting. Comparability however does not necessarily means the use of absolute standards. For instance agriculture wages may be compared with the national minimum wage rate, even if these wage rates vary from one country to another. Similarly compliance with national environmental standards or nationally recognized certification systems can be considered in the computing and computing environmental sub indicators, even if national criteria vary from one country to another. So this is a sort of flexibility that we offer two countries for them to contextualize or customize SCG 241 according to their own conditions. Major ability and cost effectiveness were very high. In our mind as we were trying to find the right balance between an ideal indicator from subject matter perspective, and one that can be measured consistently with the reasonable cost over time. The affordability of the indicator in terms of data collection and reporting at a country level was our top priority. To corroborate further on this very point. There are many sustainability issues or aspects that can be considered within the framework of that could have been considered within the framework of SCG 241, but their measurement was either difficult complex or would have involved cost that could not be sustained in the framework of regular monitoring exercise. So cost effectiveness. As it is related to measure ability, the cost associated with indicator measurement have systemically being considered in relation with with accuracy and reliability of the results obtained through different measurement options. And finally, minimum cross correlation between the between the sub indicators. So in selecting a limited set of themes and sub indicators efforts were made to reduce cross correlation between different sub indicators. Obviously, as you know, high cross correlation between sub indicators would imply that two or more sub indicators are capturing the same sustainability team. In this case, the selection or inclusion of one single sub indicator instead of several would have been sufficient to adequately measure agriculture sustainability performances. Now, all these decisions had implication for the choice of the sub indicators for the different dimension, the choice of sustainability criteria chosen for each sub indicator, and the level of sophistication and data collection that we will discuss in the in the lecture sessions. Now, with regards to the measurement scope, as we are interested in assigning agriculture area sustainability statuses, the basic unit of observation and measurement selected for SCG 241 are agriculture holdings are agriculture farms with focus on those that primarily produce crops and livestock or a mix of both crops and livestock, and to check as to whether these holdings are economically feasible environment friendly and socially acceptable. So in a nutshell, to say it in black and white terms, the focus of SCG 241 is agriculture holdings that are primarily engaged in crops and livestock production systems. So here we include both intensive extensive and subsistence agriculture holding as long as their primary activities or crops, livestock or its mix. These may include both food and non food products and crops and those who are producing or growing crop for fodder or energy purposes. And another important point that that is worth mentioning is that secondary activities are considered like say for example, agriculture, agroforestry, if and only if these takes place on the agriculture area of the farm who are whose primary production is crops and livestock products. What is out of scope of the indicator is those holding that are focused exclusively on agriculture or agroforestry. So if the primary production of an agriculture holding or agriculture farm is agriculture or agroforestry related commodities, then those are out of scope. Secondly, production from gardens, backyards and hobby farms are also excluded from the scope. So is food harvested from the wild. Common lands which are not exclusively managed by the agriculture holding for for producing agriculture products and and nomadic pastoralism. To explain what nomadic pastoralism is. I don't know as to whether it is that common in Bangladesh, but it's a practice of rearing livestock by moving with animals from places to places in search of pastors is a way of life of people who do not live consistently or continually in the same place move cyclically or periodically from one place to another. So regarding the periodicity for monitoring the and reporting the indicator was as I mentioned earlier is set at three years. And this was this decision is a result of various considerations. First, the SCG indicator 2.4.1 measure progress toward more productive and sustainable agriculture, and for many of the sub indicators selected as part of its framework. You know it is unlikely that their values will change from one ear to another. Secondly, the three years data collection and reporting will enable countries to have at least three data points on the indicator before 2030. This will in turn help the countries, you know, institutions, especially the National Statistical Office and ministries to make a historical trend to assess the country performance over time and benchmark it against other peers in the region. And lastly, but very importantly, obviously the three years periodicity was set to minimize or reduce data collection and reporting burden on the countries. As mentioned earlier, SCG 2.4.1 current methodology is designed whereby information is collected through agriculture surveys or farm surveys. Sustainability assessments are made for agriculture holdings and agriculture land area that it owns manages and operates and the final results are expressed as a national value. However, let me emphasize that the methodology the way it is designed is scale independent. What I mean by this that it can be adopted for any administrative or geographical level. Though any introduction of additional certification variables will certainly have implication for the sample size, and that's the cost of data collection. To further enrich the analysis for informed national policy making purposes, the indicator can be desegregated. You know, according to the following variables. So, the typical desegregation variables that we propose to countries are household and non household sector. The differentiation of the holding based on as to whether they are focused on crops, whether they're focused on livestock or holdings which are producing a mix of both. And then as to whether this holding is using water for irrigation or not. Other certification variables that the country may want to consider for for national policy making is that they can replicate the indicator at different administrative levels. They can desegregate the results by size of farms, and they can also built in gender desegregation of the indicator within their sample size for them to have, you know, gender desegregator results. Now as mentioned earlier the indicator is multi dimensional. This light presents a table or a matrix that includes everything that we need to know about. As you do for one towards the extreme left, as you can see that the indicator cut across the three dimensions of sustainability. Economic environmental and social within each dimension. We have teams. For instance, you can see within the economic dimension we have three things. We have land productivity, profitability and resilience and corresponding three sub indicators to measure progress within those teams. So for land productivity team we have farm output value per hectare for the profitability team we have net farm income and for the resilience team we have this mitigation mechanism. Likewise, for the environmental dimension, we have five teams and five sub indicators. And for the social team, we have three teams and three sub indicators. In total we have 11 teams, as you can see here, and 11 sub indicators. This decision was of course in relation to the measurability and cost effectiveness as I was mentioning earlier. To measure and monitor sustainability in agriculture, a much longer list of issues or teams could have been considered or captured. However, there was this feeling that capturing 11 in total would be a very good step forward. Another important point or important consideration to take note of is that we had to develop a universal framework that covered the entire spectrum of agriculture, confronting sustainability issues that varies from one country to another, or within country from one region to another. So we had to come up with a framework which is rigid enough for it to be universal, but at the same time flexible enough for countries to contextualize and tailor it according to their own conditions. Another important consideration that is evident from this slide is are, you know, as you can see here, not all the sub indicators are applicable to all kind of farming systems. So as you can see here and we will explain that as part of each sub indicator. You know, metadata exercises that within the social dimension, the wage rate in agriculture and food insecurity experience scale is applicable to a certain kind of agriculture holdings. As you can see here, the reference period and the recall period of all the sub indicator is not the same, which I explained on the previous slide that, you know, some aspect that we are trying to capture as part of the framework of 241 are structurally in nature, and hence their value values may not change from one ear to another. So, and thus we have kept the period, the recall period or the reference period for those particular sub indicators different but this will be explained as part of each sub indicator presentation. So as I was saying earlier the hardest choice for us was to limit the framework of 241 to 11 teams and 11 sub indicators. A series of expert discussions in meetings, consultations, literature review have shown that sustainability is so complex that in general, a much longer list of issues are considered and used to capture sustainability in agriculture. In this slide, you can see some issues that are considered important, but are not captured within SCG 241 framework. We still recommend countries to consider these teams, if these are relevant in their national or sub national context, in order to assess the sustainability of their agriculture appropriately for national policy meeting. But these are the themes which are not covered within the within the framework of SCG 241. The critical aspect that we will discuss in detail, again as part of the sub indicator in the upcoming presentations by Jan Luigi was the establishment of thresholds or sustainability criteria, based on which will be assigned sustainability basis to each agriculture holding and the agricultural land area that it hold manages or operates. Briefly, the thresholds or sustainability criteria are national policy based or international targets or science based absolute or relative values. Above or below which for each sub indicator, the agriculture holding is assigned sustainability status. Now in order to capture the concept of continuous progress towards sustainability, a traffic light approach was was developed or devised in which three sustainability levels were considered for each sub indicator. So, green desirable yellow acceptable and red unsustainable. This traffic light approach acknowledges the trade offs that exists between sustainability teams and dimensions, and the need to find an acceptable balance between them. So for each. So each sub indicator is assessed at the level of agriculture holding, and thereafter the sustainability levels or statuses are associated with agriculture land area of the culture holding, and then these are aggregated by by green yellows and red at the national level for for reporting. Now, let me another important point is that these criteria or thresholds for each particular sub indicators have been discussed and established in consultation with thematic experts and have been fine tuned in the light of the various tests that we have conducted in the course of which Bangladesh was obviously, obviously, one. So recollecting from the previous slides, the reporting of a C241 can be done at various levels using both a dashboard and an aggregate indicator. What we require countries to report on is a dashboard and aggregate indicator at the national level. Now, what makes the dashboard approach more appealing is that it helps visualize the performances across the dimensions as well as across independent themes and sub indicators separately. What makes the dashboard policy relevant and actionable as it gives the policy maker a tool to quickly check at a single glance where the major sustainability problems lies where to put in emphasis what policies needs to be put in place and resources directed to address it to improve the situation and to move towards more sustainable agriculture. An added advantage of the dashboard is that it allows the possibility of combining data from from different sources. So as you can see here, here's a dashboard produced for for country X. We have reproduced the same kind of dashboard for Bangladesh based on the results of the pilot tests. We will of course discuss that with you in the course of this presentation. So on the horizontal axis, we might or on the X axis we measure the teams or the sub indicators on the vertical axis as you can see here we measure the proportion of agriculture land area or percentage of agricultural land area. Based on the on the thresholds use as you can see here each sub indicator is assigned three colors green, yellow and red. Now computation and construction of the sub indicator is carried out separately sustainability statuses are made for each sub indicator agriculture holding level. These are all agriculture holding level results associated are associated with with its agricultural land area. These are aggregated at the national or sub national level by sustainability statuses and finally reported. Again, you know using using this dashboard. If the country wishes to report results at a sub national level for policy use. I'm emphasizing it again and again. Then the certification variables or level of geographical desegregation must be planned in the sampling design of the farm survey upfront to accommodate for it. The final aggregate as you to for one is derived directly from the dashboard at the country level. The final number of two for one is a result of the sub indicator that has recorded the highest unsustainability performance. So as you can see here. You can easily, you know, identify the sub indicator that has the highest proportion or percentage of red amongst the 11. Okay, so in this very example, if we look across the 11 sub indicator, the profitability indicator is the one that has reported 40% red, and this will be the aggregate SDG 2.4.1 value derived from from the dashboard directly. Now another way, using which we can, we can derive the value for the aggregate indicator is using formulas. So we see amongst the 11 sub indicator, the one that has recorded the minimum level of green plus yellow, which is the acceptable that the sustainable agriculture land area, or, you know, put it differently on the flip side, the amongst the 11 the one that has recorded the minimum level of unsustainable or red. Okay. So as you can see here for this particular sub indicator, it's very straightforward it has recorded the highest level of red, or the minimum level of desirable and acceptable which we call sustainable. The analysis of countries over time can be measured by the change in proportion of agriculture area that is that is unsustainable, or conversely by tracking the value of this formula. So we're focused on tracking the level of unsustainability, then in this case and increase in the value of this formula. Our time will indicate further degradation, while the decrease in the value of this formula will indicate improvement. In the beginning that policy relevance is very important consideration. In this respect, the dashboard approach that we have developed is particularly very interesting as it provides a structured and transparent framework to measure and report on sustainable agricultural agriculture, it allow focus on main issues related to sustainability and encourage encourage discussion by linking it to policy actions. And lastly, it drives the policy towards agriculture sustainability issues with focus on intervention at various levels. Of course, as you saw, the dashboard is easy to interpret in terms of the context to which country agriculture is far from being productive and and and sustainable. And it's very easy to identify and prioritize the area that require that require intervention and immediate attention by the policymakers. I will stop here please let me know if you have any question recording the, the this very generic presentation around sg241 that we have covered up until now. So, Stefania the floor is it is 34546 actually in Bangladesh so it's time to resume the training and I leave the floor to Aspandar for the next presentation. Thank you very much Stefania. So let me just open my presentation. We see the email now. Yeah just wait for one second. How about now. That's perfect. So, as I, as I told you earlier, we have slightly reorganized the pattern for this training. So the framework of sg241 which constitute the 11 sub indicators will be discussed from tomorrow in detail or the course of next two days. Today, we will cover the data collection instruments that FAO has developed to collect information on on on this indicator, and to support countries efforts. You know to report the indicator 241 on periodic basis for UNSC reporting. So, as highlighted in the previous presentation, the focus of 241 is to assess the sustainability of agriculture holdings, and it's agriculture land area. Thus, agriculture survey or farm survey offers an opportunity for collecting data to a single instrument for all 11 sub indicator of sg241. The option to use farm survey is in line with the country efforts supported by by FAO to develop farm survey as the most appropriate tool for generating agriculture statistics in a cost effective way. The choice of farm survey was made because of the following reasons. This do exist in countries in one shape or form or another to collect data on different aspect of agriculture sector. Secondly, the use of farm surveys will help collect information on all the 11 sub indicators using one data collection instrument, thus avoiding the additional work of integrating information from different data sources that are usually managed by different institution and organization at a country level. So, using the farm survey, all information will be collected from a culture holding selected through a nationally representative sample, thus avoiding the problem associated with the use of for different data sources. Lastly, as I said earlier, farm surveys expected to be cost effective in comparison to putting in place monitoring systems that is soil and water sampling and laboratory testing, geographical information system and robust administrative record system, etc. However, though farm survey are well suited to measure some some indicators within the economic dimension of of sg241. It may not be an ideal tool for measuring environmental and social sustainability of the agriculture holding. But typically, environmental impacts of agriculture are usually measured through monitoring systems like say for example remote sensing, soil and water sampling, or other tools associated with a specific area rather than within a single agriculture holding. In conclusion, we do understand that for several environmental teams, it is unlikely that farmers would be able to assess the environmental impact of their farming practices on issues like fertilizer pollution, or beside use. The farm survey instead of environmental monitoring systems, therefore would imply moving away from measuring outcomes or impacts to rather measure or assess farmers practices and behaviors. Similarly, the information in the social dimension is generally captured through household surveys. While in majority of the cases agriculture farm holdings are closely associated with a given household, it is not always the case, and therefore care must be given to capturing this information through dedicated survey design. And having said that the methodological note of sg241 does offer the countries the flexibility of using combination of data sources, other than farm survey called alternative data sources that include many different, you know, instruments which we will discuss as part of this presentation. So, to facilitate data collection and reporting on sdg241 as, as I highlighted, we resorted to two approaches. So one is around agriculture surveys or farm surveys. The second is around alternative data sources which I just briefly spoke about. So the within the farm survey approach we opted for two options. Okay. So the first one is standalone survey questionnaire, which is designed as a module that contain the minimum set of questions needed to collect information on sdg241. And now this standalone survey can be administered independently or attach a separate module or integrated at appropriate places within existing existing agriculture surveys of the country. And then we have basically this other option, which I will speak about later during this presentation, whereby we integrated all the questions that are needed to collect information on sdg241. In the flagship projects of of FAO, in collaboration of course with World Bank and EFAT, which is agri-serve program and 50 by 2030 initiative to make sure that these the beneficiary countries of these projects, once they implement, you know, and collect information using the instruments, they are able to readily report on farm survey based sdg indicators, including sdg241. And alternative data sources as I mentioned earlier, it includes a variety of different sources which include earth observation or remote sensing administrative records, such as surveys, monitoring systems, sense agriculture censuses, other ad hoc studies, etc. So as mentioned earlier, the standalone survey module questionnaire is designed as a module with the minimum set of question. It is flexible, it can be administered as an independent survey or attached as a module or integrated within existing national farm surveys. The cognitive tests of the questionnaires were carried out in Mexico, Bangladesh, and, and Rwanda. The basic purpose of us conducting these cognitive tests were to refine the survey questionnaire from design flow comprehension recall and respondent judgment perspective. We need to assess the questions asked within the farm survey module are sufficient and fully understood by a limited number of heterogeneous respondents. We also conducted extended tests in Bangladesh, you know, a couple of years back. We will be discussing it in detail from tomorrow morning. The basic idea behind us conducting these pilots were to test and revise the proposed sustainability criteria to determine the average time of the survey to revise the status scripts and routines that have been developed to analyze the data and revise accordingly the note and and support documents. Now let's focusing while keeping focus on the standalone survey questionnaire, the survey questionnaire has five sections. Each with each section containing relevant questions. The first section is introduction. So it contains information about the survey module, its basic objectives and ask questions related to identification of the holding and the holder. The second section within the survey module focus on the area and land tenure of the agriculture holding. The third section has questions related to economic dimension of the holding. The fourth section have question related to environmental dimension of the holding, and the fifth section has questions related to the social dimension of the holding. So this is how the standalone survey questionnaire questionnaire looks like. It's not new to Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. As I mentioned earlier they were involved in the development of this questionnaire. The first data on this questionnaire was collected in the field from select districts within Bangladesh of course the Hello as fun yeah. Okay, we lost the connection. So, let's wait. Okay, you already joined again as fun that can you hear us as fun there. Can you hear me. Yes, yes. Yes, we lost that in one minute. Okay, so let me go back and share again the screen because we lost completely do you. Can you can you can you see it now. No. Okay, now we can see. No, no, not anymore. Okay, now yes. Let me go back. Yeah, you were at this light. Okay. So I was saying that you know this, this survey questionnaire is not new to bbs they, they are familiar with this questionnaire because this was the same questionnaire that was used to collect information in the field. There were pilot tests in Bangladesh in 2017 and 2018 and 19. Now, there would be trivial changes within the questionnaire since then because there were some discussions after that pilot exercise, based on which we further refine the questionnaire. There will be slight changes that you will see from the one that you already have, you know that was used to collect data during during those tests. Now, the updated version of this questionnaire of course is available on on our website. You know I will show you the page as to as to where you can, where you can, you know, access this questionnaire. And then one one other important point that for data collection during the pilot exercise. This questionnaire was translated into into into local language by the by the Bangladesh Bureau of statistics for them to be able to collect information. You know, from the from the respondents. So, we have developed several support documents that were shared of course with bbs at that point in time and now have been revised and updated and re uploaded to sg 241 webpage. The support documents survey is a background material for the before feeding the survey. So, you know, all these documents needs to be thoroughly shifted through by the NSO colleagues, so that they can better plan their data collection as well as data entry and analysis. The support documents include a numerator manual instruction manual for data entry operations and analysis. The guidelines on data analysis to conclude the sub indicators, sampling guidance for sg 241 and FAO statistical toolkit that comprises of codebook, a tabulation plan and model your status scripts to support data analysis. And of course, along with the methodological node and the survey module, all the support documents have been uploaded to sg 241 webpage, and you can readily access access these. So, focusing on on all the support documents each intern. So, the numerator manual has been developed to train numerators surveyors and supervisors before the deployment to administer the question. This document contains definition of the key terms concepts, and the meaning behind the questions asked. It also provide guidance on the use of skip and filter question filter questions, and gives examples of commonly encountered instances where questions and responses may not be easy to administer and record respectively. The instruction manual on data entry operation has been developed to describe data entry operations of course, that is all the steps that must be performed in order to organize the collected data into an Excel spreadsheet or other statistical package. The procedures to process and analyze data collected and constructed the 11 sub indicators according to the dashboard approach. The document assumes that numerators and data analysts are familiar with the survey questionnaire and the methodology of sg 241 respectively. If not, then the numerators and data analysts are strongly encouraged to carefully read and get familiar with with this document before proceeding with with reading the of this instruction manual. The guidelines on data analysis and reporting are designed for us by the data producers and data users alike. These are meant for government data and statistical authorities like bbs. The private sector as well civil society researchers and other organizations that who will generate and use data and statistics for calculating sub indicators of the c2 for one. Some calculation of thresholds and final reporting of the 11 sub indicator as a dashboard have also been captured in in this document. Now, there is another document which has already been drafted and uploaded on our website. It's about sampling guidance on sg 241. There's a lot of information about sampling design that is sample size sampling units and sampling frames, the reporting units, the different estimation domains that needs to be, you know, kept in mind, before, before administering the, the questionnaire as well as analyzing the estimator and stratification variables, sample allocations within different strata and other issues related to sg 241 sample selection. We have also developed this e-learning course. Of course, this is around option one for the time being we we are still on the on the standalone question that has been developed. This provides information on the key aspects of the indicator, its scope and coverage, the dimension themes and sub indicators, this T data collection and reporting so all, all the stuff that we have discussed until so far and will be discussing in the next three days has been captured in this e-learning course as well which is a very good resource for you to, for you to, you know, take. Here is the screenshot of the support documents that I've been talking about. So, you know, we have this methodological note, then we have an emulator manual around the farm survey module or the questionnaire that I just spoke about, and the different sampling guidance, you know, the data entry operations and data analysis and, you know, calculation document that we have been that we have developed to construct the 11 sub indicator of sg 241. Now, having covered the first part that is the standalone survey question and the option to around farm survey is to leverage and capitalize on agris survey program, which is soon to be scaled up to the 50 by 20 30 initiative that aims to support 50 low and low to middle income countries with a survey program by 2030. So, in this respect, this is just a brief introduction that I will give you about these two initiatives. The agris survey program has different modules of which we have core economy and PME module says the key ones. Yeah, hello, can you hear us. Yeah, we lost. I'm sorry again. Yeah. Okay, you're back. Can you hear me now. Yes. Yes, we can hear you. Really sorry. Yeah, my internet is a bit unstable for the for the moment. But can you hear me properly now. Yes, yes, but we don't see your screen. Oh, yes, yes, I'm going to display it again. Can you see it now. Yes. Okay. So I was talking about the, the second option within the agriculture survey options that we have developed to collect information on sg 241. You know, so here the idea is to leverage and capitalize on the agris survey program, which is soon to be scaled up to 50 by 2030 initiative. And 50 by 2030 initiative is a program which is supported by FAO World Bank and effort to support 50 country with with agriculture survey program by 2030. The beneficiary countries for 50 by 2030 initiative is low and lower middle income countries is is categorized by or is grouped by the World Bank. So within agris survey program, we have different models in fact we have five modules of which we have selected three to collect information on sg 241. And the three that we have selected are the core module, the economy module and production methods and environment model. So, within the core module, we have integrated all the questions of sg 241 within the guidelines of the questionnaire of agris survey program. It allows countries to collect all information on sg 241 in one single year. There is another option which has been developed as well within agris survey program whereby we integrated all the question of sg 241 into economy and the PME modules. It allows for data collection on respective sub indicator of sg 241 in two consecutive years. So the questions from the required for the sub indicators in the social and economic dimensions are integrated within the core module while questions on environmental sub indicators are integrated with the production methods and environment. And the second initiative to be by 2030 we exclusively use the PME module for us to collect all information on sg 241 and one single year. If you are interested in more information on these two initiatives. And if you want to find out as to whether Bangladesh is is an eligible country to qualify for 50 by 2030. Then of course you can, you can click on this link and it will give you more information, or else we can always put you in touch with the relevant colleagues who are spearheading you know the work in these two initiatives. So here are the supporting documents that we have developed already, and these are already available online. So the first one is this handbook on agriculture integrated survey or agris, which is implemented through the agris survey program in selected countries. And the technical note the draft technical note that we have prepared on how the beneficiary countries of these two projects, that is the agris survey program and 50 by 2030 initiative can go about collecting information on sg 241. In these two in these two projects. Now, the option three, which is the use of alternative data sources. As you can see here in this matrix we have highlighted for the sub indicator some potential data sources, apart from agriculture survey around which the methodology is designed some other data sources that can be possibly or potentially used to collect information on those sub indicators. So as you can see here the farm output value per hectare some information about this sub indicator can be collected from agriculture or livestock senses. Other information can be collected using GIS and remote sensing household survey and others, and so on. So for each sub indicator. Potentials alternative data sources have been highlighted in this matrix. However, several aspects that needs to be carefully considered prior to using alternative data sources to the to to report on se 241. In order to produce consistent and reliable data is by recommend the city and scoping of the indicator. It is advised that the use of alternative data sources may be considered when the available data sex fulfilled the following criteria. First in the foremost, it should be demonstrated that alternative data sources respects the recommended certification that is that I just spoke about that is, you know, the farm type as to whether this agriculture holding is focused on crops livestock or a mixed both as to whether this holding is is irrigated or non irrigated and as to whether this is a household or non household agriculture holding. It should be made sure that the data available are at the same level of territorial desegregation at the farm survey. Secondly, you know, it should be demonstrated that the alternative data sources capture the same phenomena as proposed by the agriculture farm survey that these alternative data sources are compliant with international or national standards and classification systems to be internationally comparable. And lastly that the reference air and periodicity is homogeneous across all all the 11 sub indicators. The other important consideration is that you know the data taken from these alternative data sources. It should be made sure that it can be reflected in or attribute to agriculture land. You know, while respecting the different find topologies and agriculture regions. And that alternative data sources can be used to complement or validate farm survey results. This combined approach has the potential to improve the validity and soundness of the results. In particular, in countries that have well established monitoring systems, and that are able to produce quality can information using those systems or time. You know, the information from, from these other sources may be used and leverage in different ways, depending on the quality and regularity of its collection. For example, you know these are the sources can be used to replace forms of the questions of where these sources are available and phone to the sustainability criteria criteria, you know, that I've been talking about in my previous slides. It should be, you know, the farm, the alternative data sources could also complement from survey questions by providing additional contextual information that is helpful to interpret the results, that is to cross check the farm survey results. For identifying any inconsistencies as well to ensure the robustness of the indicator. This validation exercise can be done both exposed, or doing the data collection by providing the external data to the numerators before going to the field in this way the numerator can probe whether the responses to the farm survey are consistent with the a priori external knowledge that the, that the national statistical office or, or in this case the BBS may be having. In any case, it is recommended that countries complement the farm survey questions with the information from monitoring systems that can measure the impact of agriculture on the environment, that is soil water fertilizer besides by diversity, and on health, such as besides residues in food and human bodies. This will provide additional information and help cross checking. Again, the robustness of SG 21 results with regards to environmental dimension of sustainability. So, I will stop here just to highlight to you the, I will cover this as part of my third presentation but just to briefly tell you the guidelines on alternative data sources for the time being are under elaboration. We have concern, we are consulting with the partners to make sure that we have a practical manual that the countries can use for them to implement, which will facilitate them on how to go about using the senses and administrative record GIS or other sources of information to implement on, on some of the subindications of SG 241. So I stop here, Stefania, if there are any questions I'm happy to take this. So in this very presentation that we usually present on the very last day of the training by I thought it's worthwhile presenting it on the first day so that you have a complete holistic 360 degree overview of SG 241. So let's go into the actual technical stuff of how to collect information when to collect information. How then we, you know, enter that information into relevant statistical packages how to play numbers for us to construct the sub indicators. And this, this, you know, today we are giving you more of more, you know, detailed bird eye view of SG 241. So, we already discussed the conceptual and methodological basis for SG 241 is data collection instrument which is, which is agriculture survey or farm survey. You know, we will be discussing the tools and mechanism for for reporting it to FAO, you know, in the course of next days. This presentation will cover the progress made by FAO until so far. Our plan future course of action and expectations in terms of countries readiness to report on the indicator in the short, medium and long term. And it aim, obviously is to maximize the country reporting on on SG 241 and thereby gradually reclassify it as tier one over time. In summary, we will cover the following aspects, the progress made on the methodological front, the capacity development front, the country data collection front, and the reporting of the indicator to FAO. By now, you, you may have a very good idea that the methodology of 241 is based on agriculture service that is used as a main data collection instrument for all 11 sub indicators. And the teaching at this stage where the methodology is now has been a long participatory process of discussions with experts have a lot of testing, which we discussed and follow up technical work on development of methodological and support documents. So in total. We conducted three expert group meetings. We presented the methodology while we were developing developing it at scientific advisory committee of global strategy to improve agriculture and rule statistics. We consulted all national statistical offices of all member states to a global consultation. So we conducted two webinars with the interagency and expert group on sustainable development rules. Again, we, you know, carried out several round of testings that include test test in Bangladesh, Kirgis Republic, Ecuador, Belgium and Rwanda. We conducted cognitive test in Kenya, Mexico and Bangladesh. We conducted a field test of the survey questionnaire in Bangladesh. And then we conducted test of the FAO data collection questionnaire in 45 countries that Sifanya will talk about in her presentation, you know, in the next days. I have some background documents that I just spoke about the numerator manual the sampling guidance that data entry manual the data analysis, you know, guidelines, etc. I have been finalized and uploaded to FAO SDG 241, FAO SDG portal, specifically at SDG 241 webpage. We presented the methodology at several events, you know, at AFCAS, at FAO Committee on Agriculture at Brussels Briefing at ICAS in India in 2019. We conducted bilateral training in 2019 for Bangladesh, Vietnam and Oman. We conducted 10 African countries in collaboration with UNICA for the African region, 17 countries from Asia and North Africa. We lost you as Fandar. I'm sorry, did you lost me again? Yeah, we lost you and the presentation. Okay. Okay, now we see the presentation. So I was saying that you know the methodology was discussed and presented at several location at several key events which include AFCAS, FAO Committee on Agriculture, Brussels Briefings, International Conference on Agriculture Statistics in India in 2019. We conducted several bilateral trainings in the past in 2019. And thereby we visited Dhaka, in fact, Bangladesh and we trained, you know, the national statistical stuff as well as the numerators who are then to conduct these pilot exercises. We trained 10 countries in Africa, 17 from Asia and North Africa, and 18 countries from Asia and Pacific. Bangladesh was one of the participants and recipient of that particular training. So as you can see here the name of Bangladesh is appearing time and again, you know, both in the methodological development phase, in terms of discussions, testing, but as well in the bilateral trainings that were conducted in 2019 and, you know, multilateral trainings for a group of countries in 2019 as well, once again. In 2020, we organized three watchful trainings for Asia, Latin America and African countries. Here already the e-learning courses which we briefly discussed, we have translated the key support documents into three UN languages, Arab, Spanish and French, we are in process of translating the other ones into Russian and Chinese. We also took advantage of the country missions of the in-house colleagues to raise SDG 241 awareness and confirm information on the national focal points and as well as to assess the national data availability and situation. In 2021, we continued with the watchful training amid COVID-19 on SDG 241, like the one we are having now. Apart from this, we have already conducted. We lost you again. Hello. I'm sorry, my internet connection is a bit unstable. No problem. And can you see my screen? Yes, yes. So I was saying that we have conducted three watchful trainings already in 2021. This is the fourth one. We are going to conduct two other, you know, between now and the end of the year. We have translated all documents included. We have to translate all the documents including e-learning into all six official UN languages and we are to develop digital lectures on SDG 241 webpage which will be uploaded to the website. And now from country data collection and reporting perspective, we have, you know, developed the FAO data collection questionnaire as well as the reporting protocols. Stefania will have a dedicated presentation on how countries will go about reporting on SD 241 to FAO. So if you have any question related to the reporting part, please wait until that presentation as most of your questions that you may have in your mind right now will get clarified during that presentation. So this FAO data collection questionnaire was tested in 45 countries. Soon after us testing and revising the questionnaire we conducted or carried out a comprehensive dispatch or a global dispatch in August 2020. We then carried out data collection analysis they're filling quality assurance and quality control processes. We drafted the report. We are yet to share it with UNSD because if you remember the SD 241 has a three years data collection cycle. So we are due for reporting to UNSD in 2022. So we will carry out another round of data collection this year and after that we will prepare a report that will be submitted to UNSD United Nations statistical division. So currently we are in preparation of and dispatch to countries that will happen, hopefully towards the beginning end of July and beginning of August. From June, July to November, we will carry out again the same steps that is data collection analysis get filling quality assurance and quality control. And then by December 2021 we will draft an analysis for finalization to UNSD reporting conditional if we have received sufficient, you know, data points or condition of sufficient countries have reported data to FAO on SE 241. Now the reporting expectation for 241. We didn't expect much. You know the we received low response rate, which was both expected expected and indicate indicative showing the complexity of the indicator and the lake of data. In the short term, we expect country to be reporting even using a partial dashboard. So if they, if they report to us, not all the 11 but at least one or two of the sub indicator even that is a good starting point. In the medium to long long term as I mentioned earlier, we are in process of developing the guidelines around the use of alternative data sources as a practical solution to enable and improve reporting on SE 241. In parallel, we are doing continuous outreach and capacity development support to countries in close coordination and cooperation with 50 by 2030 initiative to collect and analyze detail from level data for SE 241 monitoring. Here is again that the matrix which I showed you earlier on alternative data sources so I'm not going to go through this. So we have some changes associated with the use of alternative data sources. We discussed that as well in detail in my previous presentation so I will skip this slide and the consideration before countries can use alternative data sources this was also covered as part of the previous presentation. So I'm not going to cover this one. And then some information on the use of alternative data sources as to when these guidelines will be ready. So the intention is to have at least draft version of the guidelines prepared by December 2021. So so that is that is the that is the aim. If not then hopefully we will have these guidelines prepared in the first or the second quarter of 2022. And you know keep in mind that the covert situation has impacted. Not only the data collection work but as well as the capacity development and the methodological work. Because the pandemic has inhibited international travel, and because of that reason we are, we are facing challenges in executing different activities. So first off here, you know this was just to give you a holistic overview of the indicator 241. Mind you again, I mean we will go into the actual practical details of the indicator framework as to how we go about, you know, collecting data and analyzing it to construct the elements of indicator tomorrow. So if you have any questions related to the slide that I just covered I'm happy to take those. In the meantime, switch, if you want of course please switch on the camera. So that we can attach the picture to the report. How many people still you have us on there. I have four pending. So that's the problem so it goes quickly to promote this panelist but then it takes time to really have the people promoted actually. Okay. So that that's what I was saying but still anyway, we are very close to have everybody. So perhaps, Stefania, while the participants are getting promoted, you may want to say a few things about tomorrow. I mean like you know the time. Yes. So, so today, yeah, yeah, let me start. Okay, so today we have seen the theoretical part so as I mentioned at the beginning of the training. So, you know, the first day was, I mean, was about the concentrated and what the 241 actually is so I spent that introduced quite a lot of concept. So from tomorrow, we have our colleague who is now present so you can already see him to Luigi Nico. And that is the guy who will present the exercises and the calculation on data. So we will really put everything in practice. And we will not talk about all the other theory, but we will, we will really play with the with your data with the pilot test data that you have collected. So we will start sharp as today. So please join the training few minutes before because we have a lot of a lot on the agenda also tomorrow and we will try to finish sharp as we did today. So please connect few minutes before if you have any problem, of course, you just write me as you did today. So we saw the initial. So I don't know why I have two people that are pending as fun that do you see also two people that are still Latin these I cannot be promoted. Yes, I still see them. I don't know why, but in the meantime, maybe I can take so as one day you are the only one that I see with the camera off. If you switch on your camera. Yeah, so let me take the first picture for the first page. Okay, so let's see if to this. Okay, let me. Okay, I see some people that have the camera off maybe they don't want to have the, the camera on so not a problem adjust for information I'm going to take another picture for the second. The second page of my screen of course, and still I have these two people unfortunately blocked. And I think you know we can do, you know, another photograph later on, you know, tomorrow day after tomorrow, as they know the sessions progresses. Just to let us know if there is a problem or I think I don't know if it is it possible to just to know keep all of them in the panel list so that you know this interaction is more flexible, or you have some other policies to divide the participants in school can at least all. Yes, we, I mean, we prefer to have this, the webinar mode, just for me for easily managing the people that would like to talk, because sometimes I mean we have a lot of noises in the background. For sure, I mean, if you I mean since this webinar actually is not so mean we don't have so many people because you are only 25. We are usually of course having many other people we can have a more kind of all of them promoted as families so not a problem. So tomorrow maybe we can take another picture all together. And these two people unfortunately that are blocked there will be visible as well. So, in the meantime anyway I took the two pictures of what they do pages that are present. Yes, okay, okay. Okay, so, again, thank you and see you see you tomorrow sharp. Have a nice rest of your day. Bye bye. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much see you tomorrow and participants please in the joint exact time so that we do anytime. Thank you very much. Bye bye for today. Bye thank you.