 Okay, so I will give a short overview of the genesis of where Faber is coming from and what the global consortium is doing. And then later on, my colleagues will talk about the UK specifically. So the basic motivation and ambition of Faber is to find pathways, future pathways to feed currently 7.6 billion people but then in the future it goes up in our scenarios to nine and even more billion. The other issue to mention is that the agricultural sector globally is actually providing the livelihood of about 2.5 billion people. So there's also a job market issue to the problem. And then if you take kind of the nature-based economy definition, there were calculations that it's still 50% of global GDP. So here it's not only about the food system GDP but also forest sector mining tourism and so forth. So what we are talking about is a very large chunk of the global economy. And at the same time, we actually need to make sure that we stay within planetary boundaries. And planetary boundaries doesn't only mean climate policy but it's also the integration and coordination with policies that ensure biosphere integrity with respect to biodiversity but also biogeochemical flows, land use systems, fresh water and so forth. So this is really the large ambition. And when we now look into what jointly countries deliver for the respective global politically processes, you actually get a little bit into frustration and you start to understand the challenges. And here I just plot some work we did two years ago where we looked at on the aggregate where countries together in terms of the business as usual, the projectorium, their pledges and what countries should actually do to be compliant with the 1.5 or two degree world by 2100. And what you see is that there are huge, huge ambition gaps and when you look into the details in this case of the national determined action plans of countries, many times the Lulu CF sector, the land sector is actually not even properly represented at all or very poorly. And at the same time, we see that global models that provides kind of the long-term term traectoria for the 1.5 degree scenario, they actually disconnected from the realities in countries. And this gives us the basic ressent de être for favor to exist. And just specifically when you look at the pledges that were done for Paris and now they're wretched up a little bit but by far also not meeting the targets. What you see is that the national reports actually suggest in the baseline a business as usual that's going even up. The INDCs in that case could be interpreted as a kind of continuation of business as usually if you take the recent trends into account. And this is where we actually should be. So there's a lot to be done. And this basically, this basic frustration and the appreciation of this large challenge led us to initiate this consortium. And now we are 20 country teams and as you see on the map, we are covering really the very large countries, both developed and developing countries. We still have gaps in Africa, which we're trying to fill, but overall we have probably enough critically mass to actually push off a larger evidence of ambitions or to say. So what do we do specifically? What we are after are globally consistent long-term national pathways. And the national pathways, they should reflect the realities, the preferences of individual countries, which in the end together play out to meet global targets. In order to do so, one means in order to get consistency international pathways is actually to harmonize trade assumptions across countries such that at least trade balances are closed. And then what we have seen as I showed in the previous slides, countries are typically far away from what's actually required in terms of their current ambitions. So a ratcheting up process needs to be installed. And this is what we do. And I will talk about the mechanisms a little later. We go through iterations with all countries in order to get more ambition into country plans. How do we do this technically? So first we look into, we actually take a starting point, we take FAO national data, we put it into the database and we communicate with the specific countries whether or not we can improve from the very basic input data sets. So these are land use balances, but also food balances, biodiversity information and so forth. Then we prepare the joint models. Typically currently we use an Excel based calculator. Then what we also engage in the scenario building, we have developed a verification tool where we just look at plain errors, but also we spot unreasonable assumptions. So let's say on excessive assumptions of agricultural productivity, for example. And we strive for consultation with stakeholder engagement that we get vetting off the scenarios of the pathways from national stakeholders. This is then aggregated up to the global level and we try to meet several global targets. So more specifically with respect to the Excel FABL calculator, we have quite a lot of detail in terms of products. Currently we have included about 76 products of crop, livestock, oils, but also for a sector commodities. We do these scenarios in five year time steps and how we construct the scenarios, it's in such a fashion that we first determine demands and demands that you will see later will be kind of modeled in terms of any continuation of current diets, but also we are quite engaged in defining diet shifts. And we also take care of the very nature of land use that land is a limited resource and so there is competition for land induced in the scenarios. Just finally to give you an illustration how what we call Senaton, which is kind of a scenario marathon like a hackathon where we construct these national and joined it up global scenarios. So what we basically do is we have these calculators on the national level. We do allow for bilateral coordination which sometimes happens, but many times it doesn't. And we look through kind of a linker platform, we look out for trades consistency. Once trade consistency is achieved, we display the outcomes of the individual of the sum of individual contributions by countries in a global dashboard. And if we see that we don't meet the global goals, be it biodiversity, greenhouse gases, food security and so forth, we go into a new iteration and we iterate basically pledging even more as long as we meet all of the global targets and then we finished the Senaton. So with this, I will now hand over the presentation to my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Mikhail, for that overview of the Fable process. And now let's hand over to Paula who's going to go into the details of the results from the latest UK assessment. Thanks, Jim. So this is actually a double act with Alison and myself. So Alison's gonna start by providing some background to the pathways and then she'll hand over to me and I'll describe some of the results. So Alison, do you want to go ahead and have a minute to move? Yes, so first slide please, Paula. Okay, so as Mikhail described, each of the 20 Fable countries has defined during the Senaton process with stakeholders has defined two or three pathways, a current trends pathway and then either one or two sustainable pathways. And most of the countries use the Fable calculator to do their modeling, but a small number of countries use the Magpie global partial equilibrium land use systems model and the pathways run until 2050 in each case. Next slide please. So we're aiming to meet globally by the menu and all the different country pathways together, we're aiming to meet these four different global targets. So for food security, it's based around the average minimum daily calorie requirement in all countries for land and biodiversity, we're trying to meet no net loss of land where natural processes predominate. And that's a kind of amalgamated data set which includes intact forest land, key biodiversity areas, and also low impact areas with low human impact. And then by 2050, we want to increase the area of that land by at least 20% and also have zero net deforestation by 2030. For greenhouse gas emissions, we want to have global emissions from agriculture less than four gigatons by 2050. And we want to have a net sink of global emissions from all land use and land use change activities. And then we also have a target for water use which is a quantitative target. Next slide please. As you can see here, there are very different assumptions across the 20 different countries. In general, the sustainable pathways are characterized by lower population in some cases. In many countries, they reduce their total calorie consumption that's in the more developed countries. But in some of the less developed countries, they aim to increase their calorie consumption. Higher crop and livestock productivity is a key feature of most of the sustainable pathways. Very mixed assumptions on imports and exports. Most countries have higher forestation in their sustainable pathways and also reduced food loss and reduced food waste. But I want to point out that, although it's a very complicated model, there are still some limitations. So for example, we don't currently represent organic farming or agroecology or agroforestry in our models. So it's based around a kind of land sparing approach, but we don't model any specific land sharing in terms of having more sustainable agriculture in the areas where farming does take place. Next slide please. And next slide again. So for the UK pathways, we went through a state-configured input process and some of the people here today helped us during that process. So we invited key policy makers from the UK government and devolved regions. We couldn't at that stage contact anyone from Northern Ireland and I'm really glad that we've now got a couple of Northern Ireland representatives here today. But we had representatives from Scotland and Wales and also expert researchers from, for example, the UKCH and Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. And we produced a flyer and then we held some structured discussions in two parts, first in October, 2019 and then later with a workshop in February, 2020 and subsequent emails and phone discussions. So the state-configured had a lot of impact and a lot of inputs to our pathways, helping us to choose the best parameters with the UK version of the Fable calculator. And then we also had Mike Bourne from DEFRA seconded to us for one month to help us look at future options for developing the model into a more spatial model in future. Next slide, please. So this is a very brief summary of our pathways and then I've got a few more slides that will go through them in a bit more detail. So broadly speaking, the current trends pathway is based on current policy. And then the sustainable high ambition pathway is a very ambitious pathway based on adopting the E12 diet, very significant increase in tree planting, slight increase in protected areas, ambitious increases in crop yields and livestock productivity and pasture stocking density and also decreases in food waste. So I'm going to go through these in a bit more detail now. So next slide, please, Paula. So for land use and biodiversity, we have a sort of medium projection for population change and then for urban expansion, that's based on current projections to housing needs, which is an increase of 26,000 hectares per year between now and 2050 for the current trends and the medium ambition scenario. But for the high ambition, we assume that that could be only half that rate if we have, for example, more compact housing growth. For tree planting, the current trends is a continuation of the current levels, which is 9,000 hectares per year. And then the medium and high ambition matches the CCC scenarios. So that's 30,000 hectares a year, which is the current target. Or in the high ambition, a very, very ambitious 50,000 hectares per year. And I know that a number of people have actually said that this is really not achievable, but we thought it'd explore it anyway, since it's the purpose of the models to test the very most extreme scenarios, which are possible. And then for protected areas, the current trends remains at the current 27.6%. And I should point out that they did not all kind of high biodiversity protected areas. They include national parks and AOMDs, which clearly have a very large amount of farmland, which is not high biodiversity value. In the medium ambition scenario, based on the 25 year environment plan ambition for an extra half a million hectares of land for nature recovery, we assume that all that area would become protected. And then for the high ambition, we have an additional target to protect all the peatland, which is currently not protected. And that brings the total area up to 29.6% of total land. So it's still a relatively small increase. Next slide, please. For crops, we've got quite ambitious targets for crop productivity increases in the high ambition. So the medium ambition is all crop yields increased by 39%. And that's based on the revised CCC medium ambition scenario. And the high ambition, they increase by 65%. So for example, for wheat, that would go from the current average of 7.7 tons per hectare, up to 12.7 tons per hectare average yield in the high ambition. So this is still pretty ambitious. We're doing two climate change impacts. And we assume that in the current trends, we're looking at RTP 6.0, but in the high ambition scenarios, we're looking at RTP 2.6, so a lower impact on climate change. And then for post-harvest losses, we're currently losing 1% for crop products. And then we're assuming that's going to go down to 0.5% in the medium ambition scenario. And in the high ambition scenario, we're also going down to 0.5%, but earlier by 2030. Next slide, please. For livestock, I'm just going to look at the bottom line first here, which is stocking density. So we're assuming that the livestocking productivity improvements for ruminants occur through increasing the stocking density from 1.2 livestock units per hectare at the moment, up to 1.2 in the medium ambition or 1.7 in the high ambition. And that's in line with the CCC high ambition scenario for that high ambition scenario. We have had this querage, some people have pointed out that actually because of animal welfare and water quality impacts and so on, the current ambition is actually to reduce stocking densities rather than increase them. So again, this is a very ambitious assumption. And then looking at the upper rows there for livestock productivity, in the current trends, we're assuming a continued increase in milk yield by 18%, that's half the current rate of increase because we assume there will be some kind of flattening off eventually and no increase in yields for the other categories. But for the medium ambition, we've also got an increase in poultry productivity. I should point out that these are not carcass weights. So we're not talking about 15 kilogram chickens here. This is actually the total yield in kilograms of meat per head of herd at any one time during the year. And then for the high ambition scenario, milk yield increases by a higher amount, 27% of the current rate, which is 75% as the current rate of increase. Next slide please Paula. This is the last slide before I hand over to Paula. So for food, we're assuming that the current trends is the same as the current diet. The medium ambition is in line with the CCC medium ambition scenario. That's a 20% reduction in meat and dairy consumption by 2050. And then the high ambition is the eat well diet, which has a much stronger increase, a decrease in dairy in particular and also a slightly higher decrease in red meat consumption and a much higher food and vegetable consumption. And then for food waste, we're assuming a decrease from current levels of 14% to 12.5% in the medium ambition or 7% in the high ambition. And I could hand over to Paula now to talk through the results. Okay, thank you Alison. So yeah, I'm going to present results for a few indicators, both at the global level and for the UK based on the assumptions that Alison has just presented. And I'm going to start by looking at the bigger picture of actually what happens to land use change at the global level first and then we'll zone in on the UK. So here in the stacked bars on the right-hand side of the plot, you've got the current trends pathway that all of the country teams submitted and were linked together in the upper stacked bar and a sustainable pathway because some country teams only did two pathways, one current trends and one sustainable and other country teams did two and were able to bring in a medium ambition as well as a high ambition sustainable scenario. So what we can see in the current trends for land use change is we see over time an increase in both pasture area and crop land. So the yellow and the lime green blocks in this upper graph. And we see simultaneously, we see slight increases in forest land here at the bottom despite some new forest areas through a forest station. We're still seeing deforestation and we also see some decreases in other natural land. And that's primarily driven at least half of, almost half of that total agricultural expansion is driven by the assumptions over diets which continue to have higher consumption of livestock products. And that has implications again for expansion of productive areas of certain crops and we see expansions in planted area of wheat, corn and sorghum, and this has implications again then for the overall land use change in the current trends pathway. If we look at the lowest graphic of the stacked bars and the sustainable pathway, here you can see that we see decreases in pasture land right from 2020 and in crop land from 2030. And this provides sufficient space to begin to have net gains in forest area and increases in other natural areas. And this is largely driven again by shifts towards more healthy and sustainable diets that involve a lower meat consumption. And this changes the composition of global crop land areas. And we see 70 million hectares less of corn planted area and significantly more planted area being dedicated to nuts and pulses. If we look at what does that mean for the UK? And here we've got the three pathways that Alison described the underlying assumptions behind. And again, if we look again at the upper stacked bar for the current trends scenario initially, here you can see that you get increases in urban area, in red, in crop land, and in pasture land over time, but also some increase in forest area as our forestation targets are gradually being met. But the increases in all of these areas mean that there's a great squeeze on other natural lands such as Heathlands and Wetlands and Box. And that is just such extent of the assumptions in the current trend scenarios that all unprotected other natural land is lost by 2025. And this means that ultimately we're not able to meet our forestation targets because there's no land left available to meet them with even though those targets are relatively low. And again, this is driven by the assumption of our continuing current diet and continuing high levels consumption of beef, lamb, and milk. And also the crop land area we see expansion in the area of wheat, barley, and rapeseed. Again, reacting to internal increases in demand for livestock feed for non-food products and also for biofuels. And then if we look at the sustainable pathways in the lower two bar charts, mainly particularly focusing on the high ambition sustainable pathway which shows the greatest difference. And here you can see quite large decreases in both crop land and particularly in pasture land over time. And we also have a lower rate of urban expansion as explained by Alison as this is assumed to be half the rate as under the current trends. And of course this then frees up land to allow forestation targets to be met and also leads to substantial increases in other natural land as farmland that is no longer needed is abandoned and naturally regenerates to either woodlands or short vegetation. And here again, these changes in the sustainable pathway are driven largely by dietary changes through decreased demand for meat and increased demand for vegetables and other products but also through the assumptions around increased agricultural productivity that means that more yields are possible on a smaller area of land. Then if we look in more detail at one aspect of that land use change, particularly looking at what's happening to global forest cover change. And here we have the global target of meeting zero net deforestation by 2030. Again, if you look at the graphic, the red dots illustrate the current trends pathway. So you can see that under this scenario we still have net forest loss by quite significant amount. So that by 2030, the timescale of the target we're still seeing net forest losses of around 20 million hectares per year. This does decrease gradually up to 2050 but we're still seeing net forest loss globally of around 15 million hectares per year. Now we can compare that with our global aggregate sustainable pathways which are shown as the average in the black dots with the balance of net forest gain and net forest loss in the bars beneath those black dots. And here we can see that it is possible to move to zero net deforestation by 2030 and the target is achieved. And we see that by 2030 we're ending up with about a net gain of around 15 million hectares per year in forests. And that is principally due to significant actions in a number of countries to stop deforestation but also to have ambitious forestation targets, particularly in Brazil and Indonesia and the US, India, Australia and Ethiopia. So if we, sorry, look at one other aspect of that land use change where Alison introduced the target that we have that is related to biodiversity. And again, this is always a difficult one to relate in a way to each individual country because it has to be applicable across all of the countries in the consortium. So we're using this aggregate indicator of land where natural processes dominate and we have the two targets of no net loss by 2030 and an increase of at least 20% by 2050. And at the global scale, we are able to achieve that first target of no net loss under both the current trends and the sustainable pathway with the current trends pathways leading to a 1% increase in land where natural processes dominate by 2050 and the sustainable pathway leading to an 8% increase. Again, largely driven by changes in a few countries, particularly those countries that are driving down deforestation and increasing deforestation such as Brazil, the US and China. If we look at the UK and the graph on the right shows the results for the UK. Here again, we see under the current trends a very slight decrease in land where natural processes dominate and that is related to the land use changes that we simulate under this scenario where we see large increases in urban area and in a whole range of farmland and a complete squeeze on forest areas in part and particularly on other natural land. Whereas under the two sustainable pathways we see the area of land where natural processes dominate significantly increase. And again, this is due to the reductions that we see in farmland and the increases that we see in deforestation and other natural land. If I move on to look, sorry, at greenhouse gas emissions, first again, looking globally. And here we have two targets, as Alison explained, greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, so from crops and livestock and that threshold of less than four gigatons of CO2 equivalent per year is based on scientific evidence from the literature to be consistent with the Paris Agreement targets of two degrees of 1.5 degrees. And the second target is that greenhouse gas emissions from Lulu CF should be below net zero. And if we look at the current trend scenario, here we see certainly that emissions from agriculture miss by a very wide margin the target. In fact, they're 80% greater than the target, showing that countries really need to substantially increase their current efforts to get anywhere near the Paris Agreement target. But if we look at the sustainable pathway and what that looks like globally, we see that actually target can be met and actually both targets are met from agriculture and from Lulu CF. And particularly the graph on the right shows the main contributors to achieving the greenhouse gas reductions from agriculture. And that's particularly dominated by reductions due to changes in deforestation and livestock emissions with India particularly being key to this, but also Brazil, the US, China and Indonesia. And if we look at the role that the UK plays in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, again, here in this slide, we can see in the black solid line here, the projection of changes in greenhouse gas emissions under the current trend scenario. And here we see a slight reductions to 2050. Again, this is reflecting the fact that some farmland is being converted to urban areas or being a forested. But by contrast, if we look under the two sustainable scenario under the medium ambition, we see a 36% reduction in comparison to current trends. And under the high ambition, we see a 123% reduction in comparison to the current trends. So in this high ambition scenario, we're turning what was a net emission into a net sink. And again, if we look at sort of the sources in this, the right hand side, we can see the general sources under the current trends. And we can see that most sources of those emissions are still coming from livestock and also from cropland. Again, if you look at the graph on the right hand side, again, if you look at the scale, which is looking at, which has negative values, you can see that most of the contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions comes from reductions in livestock and also increases in sequestration through increasing forested lands through the forestation targets, but also through land abandonment from farmland, meaning that those greenhouse gas emissions are lost through land use change. Whoops, sorry. So my last indicator I was going to look was focusing on food security and dietary change. I guess here's, as Alison mentioned here, the global target is related to calorie consumption being greater than a minimum daily energy requirement. And for some countries here, the requirement was to reduce calorific consumption, so particularly for those countries that have more dietary risks due to obesity or overweight issues, such as in developing nations, such as the UK and the US. And in other countries, such as in Rwanda and Ethiopia, it was to increase calorific values, calorific consumption to address food security issues. So each country addressed this in different ways, but overall, what we saw was that we see under the current trends pathway, a overall slight increase in the average calorie consumption per capita per day at the global level by 8%, but in the sustainable pathway, we see a decrease in overall calorific consumption of 3%. And this puts less pressure on the land use system, and particularly we see in the sustainable pathway a strong reduction in the consumption of red meat and sugar. So if we look at what does that mean in terms of UK diets, here again, I'm just showing two scenarios, the current trends, which assumes the current UK diet and the sustainable high-ambition scenario, which assumes the eat well diet. Here we look at the consumption of different food groups relative to the recommendations from the Eat Lancet report. So the minimum calorific consumption is the inner ring, the maximum is the outer ring. So looking at this under our current diets in the current trend scenarios, we are over-consuming red meat, sugar and roots, and also eggs and milk. So under the Eat Well diet, if we look at how that changes, we can see that we are able to move the consumption of all groups within the recommended levels, some still at the maximum and edge of those recommended levels, but we are still over-consuming in roots, and particularly this is a relation to over-consumption and over-production of potatoes. And again, if we look at what does that mean overall, under the current pathways, we basically see that we are 32% higher than the minimum daily dietary energy requirement at the national level, and this corresponds with approximately 30% of adults still being classified as obese and about 60% being overweight, but in moving to the Eat Well diet means that our computed average calorific intakes decreases to only being 4% above the minimum daily energy requirement. So just to finish with some conclusions. Yeah, so at the global scale, we have shown that current trends pathways lead most countries towards unsustainable land and food systems, both within those countries and at the global level, and that sustainable pathways are able to both meet targets related to food security, greenhouse gas emissions, water use and biodiversity. And out of the seven global targets that each country team was aiming to achieve, we were able to meet six of those concurrently. Looking at the UK again, we saw a very extreme case in the current trend scenario where basically through the expansion of urban area and farmland, all unprotected land was lost and tree planting targets could not be met. And again, as Alison said, this is looking at those lands in the more of a land sparing look, it's rather in the land sharing and we're looking to improve the calculator to bring those issues into it in the future. But it still shows that the standard pathways do illustrate the importance of things like dietary change and productivity improvements for freeing up land for biodiversity and carbon storage and enabling that transition to both a healthy and sustainable food and land use system. So overall, I think that what we're trying to show in Fable is that through integrated and deciphered decisive action, there is things that governments and other stakeholders can do to try and meet the relevant targets and objectives of international agreements such as the Paris Agreement, CBD and the SDGs. But the results do highlight different trade offs and synergies and strong dependence between climate, food and biodiversity targets that are important to consider in the different countries when they're developing existing and emerging policies. And I'll come back to next steps after because I want to open it up for a discussion but the tools are openly available from the Fable website. People can download both the global calculator, the Fable calculator and the global dashboard and we're aware that there are ways we want to improve our pathways and the modeling tools. For example, including Peatlands in a better way, improving the representation of grasslands and forest types, being able to represent land sharing management practices in a better way and also then moving down to look at subnational versions of the Fable calculator for UK nations and eventually to spatial explicit modeling. And then just finally just to finish with that we do have funding from the SCDO over three years for the Fable secretariat to develop a food environment, land and development policy action tracker, which is a synergist to the climate action tracker that is used to track progress of different countries towards Paris agreements. The idea of the failed policy action tracker is really to focus on policies in different countries that are related to food and land use systems. And the UK will be a pilot country in this so we will work closely with the Fable secretariat in pushing this forwards. And I will leave it there, thank you. Thank you very much.