 And I would like to start with what is in a way still the foundation for sustainability thinking in that sustainable development is defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs, which comes from the Brundtland report from 1987. So it's about the future. It's about leaving at least the same opportunities for the future than we ourselves enjoy. So that led rise to the Millennium Development Goals, which ran from 2000 to 2015, mainly focusing on social and economic parameters, on gender, on child nutrition, on maternal health, on education, and other social goals. And back in 2015, by a resolution of the UN General Assembly, we are now moving into the sustainability, into the Sustainable Development Goals, which we spend some of you remember most of our meeting in Panama, the Sixth Multi-State Goal to Meeting of Sustainable Livestock on that. And the famous Pizzagame, which has been emulated by others, has been or was created at that point. I want to just make a little excursion into game theory and the statement that over-exploitation of renewable resources has a high cost on the welfare of future generations, and an experiment has been conducted using game theory where you have five players and there's a common pool of resources of 100 units, and each player, each of these five players can extract anything from five to 20 units with the assumption that anything you do not take is left for the future. Now, game theory usually has the feature that it is inter- within the generation that you distribute resources. Now, the problem with future generations is that they don't have a voice and they can't actually participate. So this game created, like you can extract less or more, you can extract less than what can be replenished, in which case the game continues. If the participants extract more than half of the resources, then the game stops because there's nothing that can be passed on to the next generation. Now, the good news is that humanity is organized in a way that actually most of us are what they call conditional collaborators or cooperators, and there's a minority of people who are defectors. They want to grab everything and don't share. So if you introduce a system by which you do voting on what are appropriate levels of resource use, then actually you come to a result that if there is full voting, like establishing a reasonable amount of resource extraction, then the game actually continues rather long. If there is no discipline, then that means that some defectors as they are called take so much that the game does not continue. So that's what has been published in an article called, Collaborating with the Future, which is something that maybe you want to look at. It's freely available on the Internet. Another expression of what sustainability may mean has come around this year, 2017, as the so-called doughnut, the doughnut where we have the planet, the Earth, which receives a net radiation, net energy in the form of solar radiation every year. That is turned into energy. Together, it creates living matter and materials that is turned into energy. It serves the economy. Within the economy, you have households, you have the market, you have the state, and you have commons. And then again, as a result, you have waste and heat and wasted matter flowing back and then heat coming out of the system. So that's the doughnut model, which is a quite simplistic way but still very illuminating illustration of what sustainability may mean. Now using this, they've taken this forward in sort of looking at what are the ecologically safe and socially just space, as I called it. And as you can see here, in the areas of climate change, nitrogen and phosphorus loading, as well as land conversion and biodiversity losses, it is estimated that humanity has actually exceeded the acceptable threshold, what is also called planetary boundaries in the literature. And then if you look at what is in the inner circle, it may not be easy for you to read, but even there, we have areas like health, we have areas like peace and justice, political voice, social equity, and gender equity, where clearly the present situation is not sustainable. I want to come back to something that I already presented in Ottawa about maybe a way of how this can be looked at by looking at the interplay between the resource pool or the biophysical dimensions of agriculture and livestock in particular and the human benefits. And as an intermediary between the resource pool and the human benefits, we have livestock, the specific case that we are dealing with here in the partnership. And we're having a number of natural resources that are engaged in the livestock production process and processing, which are land and water, genetic resources, nutrients, and energy. And we're using these resources through livestock, we are transforming these resources through livestock into a number of commodities, food, manure, fuel, draft power, leather and fiber, and many more products are being generated by this type of resource transformation through livestock. But that picture is not really quite complete because on the natural resource side, we also have a number of environmental services that come into play, including climate, nutrient cycling, biodiversity conservation, water cycles, and environmental health. And then greedy as we are on the human side, we are not even content with those commodities. We also want all kinds of other things. We want economic growth. We want poverty reduction. We want employment. We want health and nutrition equity, including gender. We want landscape maintenance. And we even want political stability, everything we want from livestock. Now this system, as it works right now at the global, local, country level, is being challenged by a number of important drivers, including climate change that affects the resource space, the demand growth that has to do with urbanization, growing incomes and growing populations, and then competition and scarcity that not only comes from megaculture demands but also from industry, urban development, and other forces that come and make natural resources more scarce and increase the competition and prices of the resources that are engaged. So if you just quickly go through that, the biophysical dimension, we say that out of the total of 60,000 terawatt that reaches the planet, plants actually are only able to convert about 1% into net primary production. The food sector currently uses about 30% of the world's total energy, and the livestock energy conversion typically ranges from 1 to 4.3 megajoule of fossil fuel for about 4.1 megajoule in the animal product. In terms of land use, we're having about 29%, almost 30% of the global surface that serves in one way or another, the livestock sector. This is about 3.3 billion hectares of rangelands, which makes up about one quarter of the total land area, and half a billion of hectares, where it's about one third of the total arable land is being used for feed production. In developing countries, this is typically more than 50% of the total arable land that is dedicated to producing feed. On biodiversity, we are very much dependent on just a very few species of 12 plants and 5 animal species that generate 75% of the total food supply. And livestock have direct impacts on biodiversity through their physical interaction with the grazing resources, but there's also a large indirect impact through deforestation, greener muskars emissions, feed trading, and water pollution. Water, about 70% of the total water used, fresh water used, is used for agriculture, and about 31% of that is for livestock. To nutrients, livestock is an important source of nutrients, which we all know when we look at mixed farming systems, particularly in Africa, and the nutrient use efficiency for nitrogen is ranging from 27% to 48%, and actually maybe higher in crop livestock systems because of the recycling. We've estimated that livestock supply chains emit about 8.1 gigatons of CO2 equivalent, according to our calculations, the emission intensity, which is a measure of how much greener muskars emissions, or many greener muskars emissions, are emitted per kilogram of product in Ethiopia ranges from, is on average, 24 kilograms of CO2. That compares to a global average, which is between 2 and 3. So there's a huge scope, for example, in countries like Ethiopia, to improve on emission intensity. In some countries, like Uruguay, New Zealand, and other places, livestock are actually the largest source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Diseases are the current emerging infectious diseases, the latest big example was Ebola is clearly associated with human modification of the environment, and again the clearing of forests, and the modification of the, not only rural or natural habitats, but also urban environments, is a main driver in the emergence of infectious diseases. Animal diseases generate a wide range of biophysical and socioeconomic impacts, and some of them are direct, some of them are indirect, and they have everything from local to global impacts. So we're coming back to energy. It's quite striking that humans appropriate about 25% of the total net primary production. That is the total vegetative growth that occurs every year. That percentage has doubled in the last 100 years. At the same time, net primary biomass production has actually declined because of human intervention. So there's less biomass produced on pastures and arable land compared to the natural vegetation. Agriculture is by far the largest use of human-appropriated net primary production, and livestock accounts for the bulk of that appropriation. In Africa, it's about 18%. On the socioeconomic dimension, agriculture has been very successful in feeding the current population of 7.4 billion, even though there are still almost 800 million people that are undernourished. But on the flip side, we have 1.9 billion people including myself who are overweight and about 600 million who are obese. So there's a huge dichotomy in terms of how the world is fed and how diets have been developing over the last couple of decades. Lifestyle contributes 17% of the global calorie consumption, but it's particularly important for protein where it contributes about 1 third. Again, in developed countries, this figure is around 60% on average. In sub-Saharan Africa, it's about 23% that is undernourished. In Ethiopia, this country, 32% are undernourished, but already almost 70% are in the category of overweight. So this is what agriculture does, but agriculture does actually much more in terms of that it provides value, income and employment. And it contributes about 5.2 trillion or 6% of GDP. That is primary production only if you include processing, trading, food in a generic sense. That figure is more like 12% to 15% of global GDP. Livestock is actually the preferred form of capital in many small holder, but also large scale operations, and it is valued at 3.1 trillion dollars that is capital embedded in animals. There's a huge number of people who are engaged in the livestock supply chain, estimated in one form or another, directly and indirectly involved at 1.3 billion people and about 600 million poor, small holder farmers. In Ethiopia, again, this country, the dairy sector represents 40% of agriculture GDP and 12% to 60% of the total GDP and about 11 million households producing livestock. Moving on to rural growth, there is an abundance of studies also conducted by Hilary that agriculture growth has a number of multiplier impacts or effects and investment in agriculture creates multiplier effects. We can raise income by factor 1.7 to 2.7 in this particular study. So it's a growth engine, particularly in areas where there's no alternative sources of growth. And livestock, FIO is also discovering this, it's an element of stability, of political stability, and if you look at it historically, civil unrest and conflict very often have to do with shortage or high prices of food. And then there are all kinds of less tangible services that food and agriculture and livestock produce, including tourism, landscape, aesthetics. But also keeping in mind that food is a central part of our cultures. In some places of this world, a household is defined as a group of people who share one meal per day. So that's how you define a household. So it's defined as consuming food together. And for anyone who's having a date with someone, a date usually means sharing food. So a lot of social interaction is constructed around food and it is an important, perhaps the most important part of local and national and global cultures. The outside pressures, the things that should concern us most when we look at how dynamically the livestock sector and the agriculture sector is developing. We are moving from 7.3 to 9.7 billion people. So we're having a 32% growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for more than half of the total growth globally. And they will see more than a doubling of the population in the next 35 years. And Ethiopia will move from 99 to 188 million people over that period. We're having changing diets where meat products, milk, but also oils and sugar on the rice and the traditional staples are stagnant or in decline. And we're having as another driver of demand urbanization where the world as a whole will move from 54% now to 65% in 2050. And for sub-Saharan Africa, this will go from 37% to 53% Ethiopia from 19 to 37%. Climate change, another big driver. We are observing, already observing an increase in temperature and see two levels. Climate variability is probably the biggest concern as the effects are totally unpredictable and we're having an increase in extreme events, droughts and floods. We are seeing new diseases or emerging or re-emerging diseases depending on the ecology and there's probably no other sector that is so much exposed to the impact of climate change than lifestyle. Competition in scarcity, there's competition for land, water, energy, but also nutrients and there is a growing scarcity in terms of land, water, phosphorus and energy, all of which the livestock sector has to deal with. So if we go back to this original diagram that shows the interplay between the straws pool and human benefits and the drivers that put a dynamic development into this, there are ways of describing this interplay which involve various disciplines. So we may want to look at this from a life cycle analysis and look at how resources are transformed through primary production and processing into food items that we all consume. Or we may look at how value is generated through the transformation as we go from the resource to production to processing to consumption and final use. Or the veterinarians and human health experts around would say, well, we may want to look at how diseases and pathogens are traveling through the system from the resource, from the environment to production and processing and then into our food that may make us unhealthy or have some other effect on our well-being. And these different flows that we can describe in scientific and technical terms actually have a space and time dimension. And very quickly, I want to give you some examples of how this could be done. So we're having the life cycle analysis, this is a complicated diagram. But it's just to show that we're looking at the resources that go into crop and pasture production, then into the animal, then into primary production of livestock, then into processing, and then into final use. At each of these stages, we're having losses of these nutrients. We are not able to capture everything. And typically a large part, the majority of the resources that we are putting into the production, we are not harvesting in the form of food. So they constitute losses into the atmosphere, into water, into soil, each of which we are not able to fully capture. So this is a life cycle, a typical life cycle approach, which allows us to track the fate of resources and inputs through the production process. And we can do this for nutrients, for nitrogen and phosphorus. We can do this for water. We can also do this for the different forms of greenhouse gas emissions. Then we may look at the same transformation by looking at value chains. So at each of the stage of transformation, we're having value that is generated, monetary value that is generated. And that is distributed by different access in the value chain. So here, a simple model on the left side, Bangladesh, where a lot of the food chain, where the food chain is rather short, and where most of it is informal. And on the other side, a New Zealand dairy value chain, where things are more complicated, more integrated, it goes through more processes. There's a whole variety of actors that are involved. And it has different distribution of benefits, and the different values are captured by different people, depending on what you want. Now, of course, this is important, because if you are interested in equitable development of livestock, you're looking at, you're trying to involve as many actors as possible in the value chain so that the value is generated as equitably as possible. Now, this is another way of presenting it. Now, this is looking at the AMR, the antimicrobial resistance. And this is much more complicated and maybe less structured as a diagram. But it is clear that there is an aspect of environmental health, where you have soil and water, then there is the livestock part. And you may know that the majority of antimicrobials is applied in the livestock sector, and that through direct linkages through the products, but also through the people who are involved in production, but also through the environment affects humans. So it's another form of a flow process where you can see that these things are quite interconnected, and we need to think about all these three dimensions of the environmental health, of the animal health, and of the human health in conjunction. And the antimicrobial agent has a number of ways to deal with that. That's how resistance is created. It can do this through resistance. Again, a plea to look at integrated analysis to deal with the issue of antimicrobial resistance. So these are just three examples of how an integrated analysis may help. Here I'm just going to show the spatial dimension, and Ren may not be happy about this, but it shows that Brazil produced 95.9 billion tons of soybeans in 2015 and 2016. And out of that total harvest, Brazil imported almost half, 45% of the total Brazilian soybean production went to China. This is a form of tele-coupling. So this is how you trade environmental impact. So the land and water and other natural resources that are engaged in producing soybean production in Brazil moves to China, and that movement, that these imports represent actually 16.4 billion US dollars, the staggering amount, the equivalent of 10 million hectares and in both deforestation of 866,000 hectares that are being cut down to make space for soybean that is exported to China. So it demonstrates what we call a spatial externality so that the environmental impact is traded with the product. There's also a temporal dimension, the fact that these impacts occur over time and sometimes with a remarkable or substantial time lag. And the example of nitrogen in groundwater, where it takes about 30 years to reach for this pollution to become obvious in groundwater. And another 30 years, if you want to reduce the impact or you want to put a ban on fertilization through, for example, manure, it takes about 30 years for the levels of nitrating groundwater to come back to where they were before. And of course we all know for climate change it's very similar. The impact of burning fossil fuel today means that these cars would stay in the atmosphere for about 50 to 200 years, so nothing that we can do in terms of reducing combustion or use of fossil fuel today, probably none of us will see these impacts in the lifetime. For methane, methane is called a short-lived climate pollutants. That is only 12 percent, but I would also remind you that actually livestock are a large source of emissions for what concerns methane and it could be used in a more active climate change policy. So coming back to this original graph of ours, we at FAO back in 2014 we derived five principles out of this. We said that it is important to look at resource use efficiency for looking at how natural resources are transformed into livestock. We said we need to have an extra effort to protect and enhance critical resources like forests, like oceans, glaciers, or habitats that are particularly important for biodiversity. We also said there's a need to look at human needs to come to a better distribution and enhancement of human needs for what concerns food and agriculture and that this needs to be underpinned by a managing of risks and building resilience and institutions and governance that give support to the entire system. So these are the five principles again as we have them and we thought that this is not quite doing it. We need a more disaggregate picture of how we do apply these principles and we've just started some sort of analysis that looks at how we can categorize systems. Alan mentioned the production systems work that we've done about 20 years ago. We wanted to use the basic production factors that are engaged in livestock production but also agriculture production as a whole which are land, labor, and capital. And somehow in traditional agriculture we used a lot of land and very little capital and very little labor. And then what usually happened historically that this land was intensified by using more labor. So there was a move from here to there. And some countries are still there whereas the developed countries they managed to inject capital into the agriculture so they intensified through the use of capital. Now so these give us three situations. One where land is abundant and used extensively. One where smallholder farming prevails and where there is a surplus of labor. And one where there is a capital intensive form of agriculture. So with the help of Tim Robinson who was poached from Illry, we developed a first map of how this could play out and you see that capital intensive forms of agriculture prevailing in North America and Europe, Russia, some other places in East Asia. We have land abundant systems in very much of South America but still parts of tropical Africa like the humid tropical area. But there are other areas like if you look here where smallholder systems really put a lot of pressure on the system in India, Bangladesh, East Africa, part of West Africa where these systems are highly labor intensive and where you may say there is a surplus of labor. So resource efficiency and these other characteristics or imperatives as you may call them, they mean different things in different systems. So for what concerns the extensive systems and efficiency, the efficiency lies really in providing the multiple benefits and to focus on ecosystem services. And often if you think of partial systems, this is done through mobility. For what concerns the labor intensive, here because land is the scarcest production factor, we must really look at trying to make land use as efficient as possible and think about the non-tradables manure and draft and others that play a role also that must be considered. And very often efficiency in these systems is achieved through diversification. For the capital intensive systems, the efficiency really needs to be sought in the use of external inputs and integration with other sectors and with other forms of agriculture usually comes in the form of commercial linkages. For what concerns the protection and enhancement of critical resources, the extensive systems, of course, have a very rich natural resources. So we must focus on resource integrity of those landscapes which are unmanaged or only lightly managed. And again, partial systems may be a good example. In labor intensive systems, it's about maintaining the resource productivity, which is very often threatened by degradation and depletion. And we may want to look at a circular economy on farm where we integrate the different activities so that we have the complementarities of crop and livestock in other forms of agriculture activities. The protection of critical resources and capital intensive systems really is about preventing pollution and preventing over-exploitation. And because it is difficult to get a circular economy at farm level, that circular economy, that integration with crops and livestock, for example, may be more easily achieved in a landscape context. Balance human needs. So in extensive systems, we have a lot of indigenous and traditional users. And these people need to be able to maintain their rights. And where there is not enough of resources, then alternatives will need to be provided. Labor intensive, here, we need to look at optimizing food security, to create employment, income, and reduce losses and disease pressure. Capital intensive systems, well, here, we are looking at urban markets. We are looking at avoiding over-consumption and food waste. And food safety also comes in as a major concern. The management of risk and enhancing resilience is important here to focus on exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. And the extensive system is, of course, very much exposed to natural risk and climate variations. And the adaptation occurs through mobility and accidents. In the labor intensive systems, they are very much exposed to disease risks and climate change. And as I said before, diversification may be the most appropriate way to adapt. They are also exposed to over-exploitation and resource pressure and need to restore these resources, and where this is not possible through exits. Collective action may be another way of dealing with these pressures. The capital intensive, they really focus most of their risk in the form of market risks, of price variations, but also disease, as we have seen in the case of avian flu. And they need to adapt through insurance schemes and maybe changes in their business models. Governance and institutions, while we are having one form of institution here, which is the multi-stakeholder platform, so it is through policy dialogue and consultation and regular frameworks that we provide enhanced governance to the livestock sector as a whole. Again, each of these systems face different challenges. And for the extensive systems, it's about becoming property resources, land water by diversity, payment for environmental services, and social protection. Labor intensive, we need to encourage collective action to address the high transaction costs, look at access to critical natural resources, and including water and grazing land. Capital intensive, here we need to address the negative environmental health externalities through regulations and fees. So the basic message that I want to pass on is that there are multiple gains or multiple benefits to be gained from integration. And we are integrating at various levels. We are integrating stakeholders in decision making through the global dialogue, through the global agenda. This may take different forms in different contexts in different countries, as we have already seen. But the promise is that through dialogue, we can come to a consensus, to sometimes a minimal consensus, but some sort of consensus. And that will help us to go into joint action and do things together, which has the promise of being much more robust than anything that is just imposed. There is also integration of objectives because different stakeholders carry with them different objectives. So an integrated approach, we may be able to get to multiple benefits, to enhance them, to reduce trade-offs, and as a community, to come with a narrative that is more acceptable to the public and to policy makers. And importantly, we also want to integrate technical domains and scientific approaches. So we can do this by identifying nodes and connectors where these different strands of technical and scientific analysis connect, which I tried to show in three different ways. We may want to look at the livestock sector and the biophysical transformation that it usually goes through, that it represents, and here the preferred tool is the life cycle analysis. We may look at the same transformation process by focusing on money, on value generation distribution, and the value chain analysis is an appropriate tool to do that, and connecting the biophysical, the life cycle analysis with a monetary value chain analysis actually has benefits that will inform both sides more complete. So that again can be connected to an analysis of the different flows of organisms that we have involved. After all, livestock production is a biological activity. So the human health, animal health, animal health aspects are combined into a one health perspective, and if we are able to combine life cycle analysis, value chain analysis with a one health analysis, we'll be capturing the most important aspects that we need to look at when we want to optimize livestock production. So the focus needs to shift very much away from maximizing production or maximizing productivity to getting multiple gains, multiple benefits which is encapsulated in the world optimization. So to conclude, the livestock sector is a major driver of environmental change, and that really has to do with the large interface that livestock have with common property resources. Livestock is also more than just GDP. It provides income, employment, culture, social life and cohesion, all the less tangible benefits that are derived from livestock. I think we need to really put this into different contexts all the time. We need to look at the diversity of systems and interactions and keep in mind that there is this sometimes clash between private goods and common resources. So sustainability in this context is something that we need to look at as a multi-objective process which is changing over time, is different in different locations, and the only way to capture those multiple benefits is to integrate tools. And that actually, the integration of tools needs to have the perspective of how do we create at least the same opportunity for the next generation as we ourselves are able to enjoy. Thank you very much.