 So panellists and participants, good morning, good afternoon, good evening for some of you and welcome to this session that covers major topics of humanitarian aid development peace building. My name is Duncan McQueen. I'm the lead on forests and prosperity at the International Institute for Environment and Development, and I'm also representing the forest and farm facility that channels funds directly to local organizations for policy work business climate resilience and social services. Today, however, I'm your moderator for this independent side event to the United Nations Food Systems Summit, aiming at leaving no one behind in dry lands regions. Before we start, I wanted to remind you that this session takes place in webinar mode, and you therefore must raise your hand or preferably write in the chat in order to intervene. This will not be a typical webinar we do want to hear from you. My colleagues from behind the scenes are now pasting a few brainstorming questions in the chat for you to look at. And we'll look at them together in just a second. Please write in the chat your observations and answers to these questions. This session is dedicated to investigating and identifying missing pieces in a participatory manner. So the questions that you'll see in the chat are the recommendations that you'll hear today applicable. What key actions could strengthen the resilience of dry land food systems. Who should the main actors be. What is missing in the puzzle of solutions. Our session today brings regional and global experts and practitioners to provide insights on game changing solutions and transformative actions to build climate resilient dry land regions, while ensuring food and nutritional security. Dry land ecosystems have often been overlooked, but they're important for a wide range of reasons from food security to climate change. For example, they contain 27% of the world's forests. They store 30% of the world's soil organic carbon, and they supply about 60% of the world's food production. However, as important as dry lands are for food security and mitigating climate change. They're also characterized by variable rainfall, increasing temperature and water scarcity. So climate change are exacerbating these conditions. That means longer periods of drought, accelerated desertification and resulting impacts on biodiversity and vegetation cover that reduce soil fertility. And this has negative impacts on food security and nutrition. At the same time we have population growth, coupled with expansion of dry lands due to climate change. Increasing the number of people living in challenging conditions, perhaps by as much as 70% by 2030, affecting as many as 3.8 billion people. So climate change acts as a conflict threat multiplier, whereby already fragile ecosystems and local communities are pushed beyond coping capacity, resulting in increased tensions relating to natural resource use. Many vulnerable groups in dry land ecosystems include pastoralists and farmer households, as well as internally displaced persons, refugees and migrants, resulting from the impacts of climate change and conflict. Women and children are especially vulnerable. But enough from me. Let's kick off this event by inviting Professor Salim al-Haq to speak. I'm the director of the International Center for Climate Change and Development, ICAD in Bangladesh, and is an expert on the links between climate change and sustainable development, particularly from the perspective of developing countries. I'm the chapter on adaptation and sustainable development in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and was the lead author of the chapter on adaptation and mitigation in the IPCC's fourth assessment report. Professor Huck could not be here with us today, but he's kindly shared his opening remarks in a recording. Over to you, Professor, and thank you for making sure you could partake in today's panel. I'm Salim al-Haq. I'm the director of the International Center for Climate Change and Development at the Independent University, Bangladesh. And I'm also the chair of Action Track 5 on Resilience of the UN Food Systems Summit, and it's my privilege to be speaking to you today. I'm going to talk about three things. The first one is the fact that climate change is now a reality. The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sixth assessment report, Working Group One, which is a science group, has made a very clear, unequivocal report for the very first time that climate change is a reality. We have already raised global temperature above one degree centigrade compared to a pre-industrial period, and that is having impacts all over the world. One of the big impacts is on food systems. Without any doubt, we know that food systems are going to be very adversely affected around the world in every country by climate change. And at the same time, a lot of agriculture also contributes to climate change by producing emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly methane as well as carbon dioxide. And so food systems and climate change are very closely linked and have to be taken together. And one of the outcomes of the Action Track 5 in particular of the Food Systems Summit is going to be taking these two issues together. And then the third element of that is at the local level, and particularly in dry lands around the world, which are drought prone. We are seeing impacts in large parts of the world, in South Asia, in Africa, West Africa, in the Sahel region, and other continents as well. Where dry lands are being further affected by the impacts of climate change, particularly high temperatures and longer drought periods. And it is affecting not just food systems, but even people's habitation and forcing people to migrate away from their traditional lands into cities or even across borders. And therefore, this particular area of work that we hope will go forward and we've got a very good alliance of countries and organizations and institutions from all over the world, who are going to be coming together to work on this issue of dry lands in making the food systems in dry lands, and particularly at the local level, are more resilient to climate change as we go forward in the next nine years that are left of this particular decade to 2030. I wish you have a good discussion, and I look forward to working with you over the coming years. Thank you, Professor Huck for those incredible insights and for underlining the threat of climate change to food systems, particularly in these drought prone dry lands, and the need for an alliance necessary to make transformative change. Now, yesterday, the UN General Assembly proclaimed the UN decade on ecosystem restoration, following a proposal for action by over 70 countries. The decade runs from 2021 through 2030 with a focus on halting the degradation of ecosystems and restoring them. To build resilience, reduce vulnerability and increase the ability of systems to adapt to the daily threats and extreme events, such as conflict and the impacts of climate change. On the summit, the UN Secretary General talked yesterday of shock proofing food systems against conflict or climate emergencies, the three fold need to protect human health and well being the planet, and to build prosperity. The aim of this session is two fold to provide strategic directions for regional and global discussions in different dry land regions, and to validate proposed solutions and transformative actions to build climate resilient dry lands. While ensuring food and nutritional security. It also aims to foster a sense of community by bringing together regional actors local stakeholders and dry land experts to build upon game changing solutions and SDGs 1516 to and five. The structure of our session is inspired by a joint paper written by FAO, the CGIR and care that focuses on what can be done to tackle the multi dimensional nature of climate related risks in dry lands. Humanitarian issues development issues and peace building issues. These issues for prioritizing inclusive adaptation to climate change, which is sensitive to conflict that integrates food security and climate mitigation, and is driven by good monitoring systems. And indigenous people and social protection are included as cross cutting issues. And the paper aims to discuss the relevance of promoting integrated programming, including the humanitarian responses, so that they can minimize the threat of the climate, the threat multiplier and climate change. The paper will address the impact of humanitarian activities on the environment, and the effectiveness of dry land ecosystem services. So to not lose track of time let's kick off the panel discussion. The first speaker today is Peter Laderach, the leader of the CGIR climate security. He is also seconded to the United Nations World Food Program, as principal climate scientists. As conflicts grow increasingly protracted and climate related shocks are more intense resources in dry land regions become scarcer. The cycle of fragility vulnerability and the exacerbation of conflict. While humanitarian and peace related interventions are often most urgent longer term investment is needed to provide durable solutions. This means that humanitarian development and peace interventions must take place in a more coordinated manner. How can one ensure that a project will maximize both the short term and the longer term positive impacts, and how in your opinion may one ensure to include conflict sensitivity at the core of project implementation. The floor is yours. Welcome. Excellent question. Also your previous introduction and Salamol's introduction gives me good space to talk here. So of course we're in the week of the food system summit so I'd like to frame my thinking a bit around the food system summit and around food systems and looking at it systematically as you were also referring to in the introduction. So this is a complex issue and we have to look at it in a systems perspective so so let me maybe talk about three aspects first food systems and climate and then secondly the food systems for peace in a climate crisis and then really come to the more programmatic recommendations or thoughts along the humanitarian development peace nexus. So so first of all, just a week ago, we also launched another report that was called climate action to transform food systems, because we saw that the discourses of the cop 26 and the UN food system summit are not very much aligned and really we need to bring the climate and the food systems aspect agenda and dialogues together, because they're so interrelated and and it's part of the same same just to mention a few aspects here. Of course, climate is threatening our food systems right we know about crop failures, floods, crowds, which has the implications of course on food security on famine on many of those aspects but then on the other food systems are also key to tackle the climate crisis because we know that a large part of the emissions comes from expansion of agricultural lands from the forestation from unsustainable management of food systems so so those two issues really have to be tackled jointly otherwise it's impossible to solve so. So I invite you to read that paper also. And then if we think about the food systems for since we agree now, hopefully everybody since this week that food system is kind of the the center of what we do here on the planet and everything links somewhat to the food system. So then what is the what food systems for peace in a climate crisis so if we if we look at them. So we reviewed different. Okay, let me let me first start that that this linkages of of climate security and food system is only being made. Now I mean in the last almost months or years know. So yesterday also the UN Security Council talked about the link of climate and security. Maybe this year, the African African unions put out a communique where they clearly stated that that climate is impacting on security so those linkages are now now being more, more and more recognized. It's not because previously maybe scientists tried to make this direct link so if it if it's too hot and there's more conflict. I mean sometimes they were able to show that but but then still so what right so so we really need to look at it as a kind of causal impact pathway so I guess we would all agree that that climate has an impact on food security and we would all agree that food security has an impact on on conflict so so those kind of drivers and linkages. But then what we see at the policy level so when we reviewed for example the Copenhagen can cool Paris the courts. So so there's there's no link between climate and security. So this is still lacking right there's a lot of work that needs to be done. If we then go and look in the in the field around finance. So we can see that humanitarian development piece adaptation objectives are often not aligned and and actors and agencies they compete for resources while while all all those things could be somewhat aligned know to have a double dividend piece and adaptation and then finally we also see for example that sometimes climate adaptation programming has a negative impact on peace so it can create grievances it can create insecurity and of course that's what that's the least that we want to want to see right So then maybe coming to the third topic to the to the programming along the humanitarian development piece nexus so I must emphasize it's to transform food systems right we don't want to sometimes we say build back okay we say build back better but I mean we really need to transform because food systems broken food systems. I mean they haven't been great to start with right so we need to transform those we don't want to just rebuild them back to to fragile food systems. So in that sense. So maybe some some examples how this could work along the humanitarian development and peace nexus so how we can can bridge that right. So, so many of us of course know about, for example the example of forecast based finance right that is used in the humanitarian programming where climate information is used to anticipate droughts and then pre position food or finance so that when the drought hits, the impact will be less severe less costly less fatalities right, but but we could now think of. Why don't we, of course that I mean that's that's already great right then, rather than responding to pre position and anticipate and act early, but we could also use that now as I was saying before. Trans to transform food system so we could use those kind of schemes to then, for example we could give drought resistant seats to farmers, we could give advice to farmers we could could give maybe fertilizer, maybe insurance my other things to the farmers so that they don't that they don't even end up in need of food or cash right so so these are the kind of things that we're that we're trying to to find out. And I think, as I said in the beginning climate action or climate programming has potential to to transform those food systems and bridge this humanitarian development and peace nexus. And then maybe maybe another point I was talking about that often the objectives are not aligned that that there is competition for resources and and but but there is examples that that show that it that it works I mean the cgr for example we work in in the area on value chains on dairy value chains but also food crop value chains and and there they have common objectives of mitigations or of course tree based systems they by definition capture card but then also adaptation and also also peace building objectives right so so the idea is really to integrate those objectives and and then also have a better use of the the resources available. And then just maybe a last point also again on finance right so of course there's those pledges for the cop 26 in in in Glasgow in a few weeks that we hope that those hundred billion dollars are going to come around that everybody hopes. But but but then also a word of caution right if we get like all that money and it's going to be flooded in those fragile countries. I mean there's a lot of harm that can be done I referred to that previously right so that the climate finance that can also cause harm so so again there we need to build in our piece sensitive and responsive programming into the plan into the adaptation and mitigation programming. So in summary, I mean all those strings need to come together so that we have to double or triple dividend of adaptation mitigation piece development humanitarian. And of course it's complicated that's why we're saying we have to look at the systems that the food systems approach so it's it's nothing, nothing easy but I think that's that's what needs to be done. Yeah, I hope that was clear. That was, that was perfect Peter thank you very much and you've really done a great job of laying out both the complexity of what needs to happen but also the fact that some of these elements are mutually reinforcing so if you, you get it right you're, you're both solving short term issues but also building a secure future for the long term. Thanks very much. And, and now we're going to turn to Carl Deering strategic partnerships lead food and water systems team at care international USA. He's 23 years of experience in developing human development and humanitarian work with a focus on resilience food security and climate change. He's worked in refugee and post conflict and development context in Asia and in East West and Southern Africa. His core interests are in equity and justice in food systems, gender equality and in the livelihood conservation nexus. He's currently strategic partnerships lead in cares food and water systems team. Carl, can you say a little bit about the importance of inclusion of vulnerable groups in nexus programming and perhaps describe cares experience and successful models in this area. And your opinion. Where does the humanitarian development piece nexus and work fit in the wider food system summit discussions and what opportunities do you see that for the future. Over to you. Thanks a lot Duncan. There's quite a lot there but I'll give it a go. It's a pleasure to be here and I hope everybody as well. All of the sessions during the summit yesterday there was one particular statement that struck me and that was a joint statement by the food security, nutrition, health and wash clusters, which, which stated that there are 41 million people at risk of imminent famine in 43 countries and shocking statistics and that's on top of the current 750 odd million that are already chronically hunger, hungry and what I looked at the data looked at the, the countries that were kind of isolated in the climate. The worst case scenarios were all trial and scenarios so this discussion couldn't be more pertinent and timely and urgent and thanks for convening the inclusion of vulnerable groups and vulnerable individuals is is absolutely essential for any kind of success and it's not just for success it's also a question, primarily of rights and justice and I think that's a baseline that's where we should be starting this conversation because participation in human development is a human right. So participation in, in, in, in the inclusion of vulnerable and marginalized groups is obviously for lots of, lots of reasons, capacity strengthening and building of confidence, for example, to be able to engage in decision making and governance processes and to to assume leadership roles in, in their own development and a couple of just a few areas I think that are of interest and of relevance that I feel to this conversation, where we've had some evidence of success based on on the application of different models are. I've got five of them actually and I'll just spin through them quickly, one is analysis and it might sound obvious but unless we include vulnerable people in our analysis of their risks and vulnerabilities, we're not, we're not going anywhere and it's not simply about sitting down with a survey and asking them about their vulnerabilities. It's actually, it's actually doing analysis with them of their capacities as well as their vulnerabilities. So we have a tool called the climate vulnerability and capacity analysis. Which, which essentially does that it's a rural appraisal tool but we sit with communities to understand not just their vulnerabilities, but the capacities that they have and want to develop to manage those vulnerabilities to overcome those vulnerabilities and manage the risks that they're facing but the capacities to, to, to anticipate their capacities to adapt their capacities to diversify. Another is planning. It's possible to include, and it should be mandatory to include vulnerable individuals and groups in the way we plan and manage our interventions and that can be anything from village land use planning to community adaptation planning to community land operations or natural resource committees. I mean these are things that are, are out there the models are there but they're not perhaps as systematically applied as we might, as we might think they are. Another is learning. Participatory learning approaches and learning models are an extremely effective way of, of ensuring the inclusion of vulnerable groups and individuals and I'm thinking about, for example, farmer field and business schools or pastoralist field schools, or savings groups, village savings and loans associations where you're not only building functional capacities and skills but you're also building social capital. And I think that's very, very important and successful, you know, impactful way to include vulnerable groups and finally accountability. This is, this is where we all need to do better citizen led accountability models. We have something called community scorecards which is something that is a community led a citizen led way of holding service providers and authorities to account in a non confrontation way in fact in quite a constructive way and it works where communities have their own objectives, and together with the service providers and authorities and they hold, they hold each other accountable for their own performance and that opens space for dialogue for improved governance and improved inclusion and I think that's something that the humanitarian development and peace nexus could be thinking more of and engaging particularly also with with I think ecosystems, development actors and conservation actors natural resource management actors. We're doing quite a bit of social accountability work with with the war while I found for example on that. The second question is a great one Duncan about the relevance of the food system summit and where this nexus fits in the bigger summit dialogue and I think Peter covered it quite well as well so I'll just compliment what he said, I think, and something that this nexus could be based from my experience and I've worked quite a lot with the action track for an equitable livelihoods during the summit process, and for three or four of the big areas would be taking nature based solutions and biodiversity protection a lot more seriously in the humanitarian development piece next nexus, we kind of assume it's there and it is there and we're doing a lot of I think good work in in the dry lands on ecosystems restoration but I think it can come into the center of the nexus a lot more I think the integration of programming Peter mentioned that and I think more inter ministerial collaboration at national level is is needed, and I think the food system summit. Kind of went a long way to exposing that need human rights I already mentioned rights but I think there's, there's, there's more that the nexus work could do to invoke human rights. And I'm looking outside the box of humanitarian related rights or even natural resource rights but but the wider spectrum of environmental rights the rights of minorities women's rights, the rights to social protection rights to living incomes. These are all issues that I think the nexus could consider. And finally, I would say putting small scale producers at the center the centrality of small scale producers for food security for nutrition for for for resilience for for climate change adaptation. They are the, they are the best people at this so supporting their traditional knowledge networks, supporting their social learning, supporting their adaptive capacities, and I would say particularly supporting efforts to advance gender equality and the development of women in dry lands because that they're huge, huge gaps in in in in in access to resources, as well as the realization of the rights of women. So I'll leave it there don't convert there's just a few reflections from the from the summer process. I mean I think those give us a really, you know, good trajectory and direction, putting nature solutions more seriously integrating programming between ministries, more of a focus on human rights and then your, your point about the centrality of small scale producers and particularly women, I think real, really important points. So thank you. Well let's move on to the next discussion about how we can integrate measures to facilitate facilitate climate change adaptation and food and nutrition security, and towards, obviously ensuring environmental sustainability and overall human security. And for this topic, we have the pleasure to hear from Miss Nadah L. Al-Aghizi, who currently heads the Sustainable Development and International Cooperation Department at the League of Arab States. She joined the league in 1992 and has more than 20 years of experience in economic and social development at the regional and international levels. Miss Nadah unfortunately could not join us today as she's flying back from a forum in Dubai, but she kindly shared a recording of her remarks regarding the importance of establishing a regional advocacy platform and commitments in order to achieve local transformational change. In a region that has witnessed widespread conflicts like the Arab region, conflict affected countries face a range of unique context specific challenges that constrain both capacities and resources and prevent development gains. The situation in many places is stark. If this trend continues, it'll be impossible to meet targets of say the 2030 development agenda, even those relating to basic needs. In the recent regional report published by the League of Arab States and its partners, it highlighted that the links between conflict and development are not linear. The provision of aid is a temporary relief that cannot substitute for long term sustainable solutions. So Nadah, how can development interventions be tailored to the national and subnational context to facilitate the climate change adaptation and food nutritional security towards ensuring environmental sustainability and overall human security. I'll let you answer that by video. Thank you Rufao for inviting me to this important discussion side event. Unfortunately, I was not able to be with you today, but I had to report this message to you because I had another comment. This session will discuss the importance of the complementarity actions between ecosystems and the importance of adaptation efforts to climate change. And I would like to give an example on this very vital issue when it comes to the region, the Arab region, which has which lacks natural resources and suffers from a lot of extreme events and scarcity of water and lands and many other challenges in this regard. So to give you an example of the efforts of the League of Arab States in this regard, I would like to shed some light on the report that we have released recently in the Arab League. It was the joint effort between the League of Arab States and a number of UN partners, SQA and IOM and also the Trust Fund for Human Security in New York. There was also a regional task force which included UN and non-UN partners such as FAO, UNDP and WFP. And also inputs were provided to equal consultations for the government officials, policy makers, UN resident coordinators, civil society, private sector, all relevant stakeholders had some input in this report. This report echoed the five pillars of the 2030 agenda named the Peace, People, Planet, Prosperity and Partnership. It holds for an integrated framework to advance the SDGs in countries faced with complex and recurring challenges related to planning, programming, privatization and resources. So it is an extension here to give the example of the number of countries that were appointed in case of this report, which are eight countries, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Natural resources and environment play various roles across conflict cycles and relevant projections. As a region, Arab countries are naturally affected by difficult climate conditions and high temperatures and scarce groundwater and rainfall. Countries in the Arab region are increasingly vulnerable to climate change and the countries of concern in this report were no exception. For instance, Iraq combines arid and semi-arid conditions with the alluvial ecosystem formed by the Euphrates and Tigris rivers and highland areas. Lebanon has Mediterranean climatic conditions that vary significantly between the mountain and the coastal region of the country. Syria combines Mediterranean conditions with arid and semi-arid areas and is also part of the eco-region formed by the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Libya and Jordan have mostly lost extensions of arid or semi-arid terrains. Somalia, Sudan and Yemen combined arid and semi-arid areas through equatorial and tropical conditions. So despite the distinct features of environmental and climate conditions in the countries of concern, they share common climate change and adaptation challenges. The combination of demographic pressure, increasing water scarcity and climate change has put increasing strain on the ecosystems of all countries. Therefore, the role of healthy ecosystems and adaptation and interlinkages in sustaining peace is recognized in the 2030 general. As conflicts are triggered, accessor vapids are prolonged by competition over scarce resources and climate change will only make the situation worse. So also to give you an idea about the key findings of this report, there were five key recommendations that came out from this report. One, understanding the interconnectedness of the 2030 agenda. Two, addressing the vulnerabilities and eliminating exclusion. It's key to achieving the SDGs in conflict. Three, achieving SDGs should consider a universally yet contextual approach. Four, adopting a common vision to achieve collective outcomes. Overcoming data constraints is key to understanding SDG groups. And now we're planning to implement and mainstream the key findings of this report through a mechanism that we intend to establish by the end of this year with the support of our partners and to benefit from the collective repository of tools and approaches to overcome the obstacles and to have joint analysis and planning and programming, as well as support country-specific privatization and harmonize efforts to localize national development plans and tackle the interrelated challenges between poverty, vulnerability and quality exclusion. So again, the efforts will build on the findings of the report and will pave the way to working together for the benefit of this region. And again, here I would like to stress that the importance of the interlinkages between climate change and peace and how to harmonize them is key to achieve stability in the region. Thank you again for having me and wishing you a successful event. Thank you, Ms. Nara, and drawing out the message that although there are distinct features of these different countries, they're common challenges, needing a common vision that sees the interlinkages between climate change and peacebuilding. Well, now let's move to FAO's Fida Haddad, who has more than 20 years experience in the interface of dry land natural resource management. She has extensive experience in managing projects and initiatives involving public policy development, building local institutions, and the incorporation of social and gender issues into resilience and development. Fida holds an MSc from Darby University on environmental management and climate change. And before joining FAO, Fida was leading the regional dry land and livelihood programs for IUCN West Asia Regional Office. She's now leading the team in developing the Dry Land Restoration Initiative platform DRIP and serves as secretary to the committee on the forestry working group on dry land forests and agro-silver pastoral systems. One of the key recommendations of the paper you co-wrote is the importance of establishing participatory monitoring and procedures at the start of every program. So, Fida, how in your opinion will this, along with an HDP, Humanitarian Development Peace Nexus approach, contribute to achieving the 2030 agenda, as well as other global commitments such as the UN Decade of Action. Over to you. Yeah, thank you Duncan. It's indeed true that most of dry land countries are facing a double headed problem, as you mentioned, so on the one hand it's visible through their climate change vulnerability, whereas on the other side we see conflict as well as either conflict related or environmental crisis. And this puts major stress on achieving these issues. These issues are especially evident in dry land forests and their agro-silver pastoral systems, where and degradation are the ongoing and neglected concerns in many conflict affected and both conflict interventions. And this is the benefit of taking the humanitarian development peace approach for dry land resilience building, which can do two things in one. First, you need the humanitarian actors to respond to emergency needs and the development actions to address the longer term vulnerability and risk reduction measures in this area, particularly in the case of conflict. So to bridge the gap between humanitarian aids, resilience and development activities, there is a need to plan, monitor and track the different intervention and design the do no harm social and environmental interventions. And this needs a fundamental structural shift actually that have implication of how different actors work together and how it is planned and financed. There is no more time to invest in short value chains without environmental lens or on sustaining the environmental peace lens actually. So the monitoring purposes that need to be happened at different level by different actors. So policy makers, when policy makers use the best available evidence to help make policy decision, the real impact can be achieved. At the same time, there is a need to increase the awareness and understanding for different actors on the linkages between short and long term climate trends, land degradation, resources scarcity, and offering more information and access actually to climate information services and early warning system that can be of course a lot of benefits and the same level households can become more empowered and can make investment decision and protect the likelihood while reducing the vulnerability to shop. So this can be seen in the example case of Cox Bazaar for without the privatization of environmental security alongside human security that would not have been sufficient renewable natural resources to meet requirement for energy and cooking. And when we looked into that case we found that the key success factor was the participatory monitoring approach that deployed key technological resources like remote sensing, do you put the analysis to conduct resource assessment to bring the humanitarian needs. Of course, as of course mentioned by by Peter and Carl on the key of building the capacity and awareness of host communities and refugees, different actors are needed to meet food security and nutritional needs as well. So in the joint paper that we're planning to launch that files plan to launch with care and CJI, we found that the key to applying the humanitarian nexus humanitarian development business actually is in thinking about how each of the components mentioned like by by by the respective panelists on in view several monitoring on adaptation to climate change and even monitoring can be combined to strengthen the overall approach and outcome, rather than disagreeing these areas. So for example, most of the cases. We found highlight how the combination of addressing immediate needs in terms of humanitarian, while empowering people to build capacity and addressing new adaptation challenges in terms of development in a way which account for existing and potential tension without within the local context in terms of peace can deliver deliver more effective outcomes of the eight intervention as well as development intervention. And the good opportunity now is with the food summit with the food summit coalition and initiatives. We know that the food summit process has given rise to several multi stakeholders initiatives that actors will be ready to comment after 18 months of a remarkable global engagement. The building resilience to vulnerabilities shocks and stress action areas, provide potential coalition and initiatives, mainly fighting food crisis along the humanitarian development business, which will give more area or arena to explore collaboration with think tanks and local organizations in how to support member states in achieving their 2030 agenda. And of course, one last point that there is a need, an urgent need to promote more innovative integrated approach and the transformational action and share the practices. And this is what we are planning to continue to do with these kinds of collation initiatives. And the next, our next stop will be farther elaboration from the cases on the ground and discusses during the upcoming word for a street Congress, which will be held next in 2020 in Korea, and we need different actors to combine the recommendation and their support to sub to to to reshape how the worst forest trees outside the forest in Thailand can be sustained and part of the conflict intervention and post conflict intervention to sustain the ecosystem services. Thank you. Thank you so much for that and I do urge people to read those very 18 very interesting cases when that report comes out and thank you for you and your colleagues from CGI and and care for co producing that discussion paper that's led us to this event today. Now we're transitioning to our action on the ground segment, illustrating the potential country level application of the humanitarian development piece nexus approach in dry land regions, and concretely we're going to learn about to flagship programs integrated impact global environmental facility. Program on food systems land use and restoration which is commonly known as full or IP. And the second one is the dry land sustainable landscapes DSL IP operating in 27 and 11 countries respectively so these are big new impact programs, although they're not designed specifically to address the. HDP nexus both program structures will facilitate a contribution to the emerging themes that we've heard about today. So I'm pleased to introduce William Sutton global lead for the climate smart agriculture and team leader for the GE, the Jeff seven food systems land use and restoration impact program. So Fritchoff Bursler, who senior natural resources officer and global programs coordinator of the Jeff seven dry land sustainable landscapes impact program from FAO to introduce the speakers will introduce the two programs. The presentation has two parts. Bill will start by providing an overview of full or followed by Fritchoff presenting the DSL while establishing potential linkages to the humanitarian development and peace nexus things. So over to you bill. Thank you, colleagues and welcome to everyone in the audience. I'm excited to be here today representing for and World Bank. We have just a few slides to share with you today if you will. So to start with just a little bit of background on the global environmental challenges that are driven by unsustainable land use that really motivated the development of the the floor impact program. First of all the World Bank, along with our colleagues in an FAO in the different UN agencies in the CGI are we're all working to try to help countries achieve SDG to zero hunger by 2030. At the same time, doing that it's kind of like hitting a moving target because we know that the world population is growing at the same time. It's expected to grow to nearly 10 billion people by 2050. And meanwhile, the middle class is growing people's diets are changing and relying more heavily on animal proteins. So this is causing significant hidden environmental costs or negative environmental externalities that are estimated at up to $12 trillion a year from our food system and from related land use change issues. For one thing agriculture causes about 80% of deforestation in the world. In turn, for us hosts around 80% of global biodiversity and the forest loss is putting that biodiversity at risk. And at the same time food systems, along with the closely related sectors of forestry deforestation and land use change are responsible for approximately a quarter of total greenhouse gas emissions. So increasing production significantly in this context using a business as usual approach is simply going to exacerbate these problems and add to those substantial hidden environmental costs. So as we've heard from other speakers. Something needs to be done about this, and it requires not just incremental changes at the margin by the transformation of the global food system. Next please. In response, I'm excited to talk to you today about a new global program the gf seven financed food systems land use and restoration impact program or for IP. The folder IP is a global program designed for transformative results. The four impact program was designed and is financed by gf and implemented in collaboration with the World Bank and other organizations. The overall goal is to promote sustainable integrated landscapes and efficient food value and supply chains at scale. The impact program consists of two main components. First is the folder global platform which is led by the World Bank. The aim of the global platform is to support transformational shifts in the use of environmentally sustainable practices and policies for priority global value chains is focused on things like capacity strengthening policy engagement with the public and private sectors and strategic knowledge management. Then there are the four country child projects there approximately there are 27 now country child projects that are at different stages of approval and they're implemented by eight different implementing agencies and covering eight commodity value chains. I don't can everyone see the bottom of the slide or and on my screen it's cut off is it is it possible to somehow. Okay, zoom out a little bit for each other. I'm not sure. At any rate, the, the, I have the presentation anyway, the fuller global platform and the country child projects are supported by a total of approximately $300 million in grants from the global environment facility. The global platform is financed by about $29 million grant and the country child projects are financed by approximately $270 million in grants, which works out to an average of about $10 million per country. Together that $300 million in grant resources is expected to leverage an additional $2.7 billion in co financing. That's co financing from the, the countries themselves their governments from agencies like the World Bank from the private sector. This $3 billion program has the following in visit envisioned results. First of all, sustainable food systems promoted second deforestation free supply chains promoted third landscape scale restoration for production and ecosystem services promoted. And fourth reduced negative environmental externalities. Next slide please. So this map has a lot of information. And it's intended to give you kind of an overview of the scope and scale and reach of the floor impact program along with the different agencies involved. As you can see the the program the 27 country projects have very diverse distribution across the globe across regions. So some of the the biggest agricultural producers in the world in each of these regions from China to India to Nigeria to Brazil and Mexico. It also covers eight commodity value chains that are really the most important value chains, both in terms of food security and nutrition for the population, and also in terms of unfortunately those negative environmental externalities and that the commodity value chains are coffee, corn, livestock, palm rice, soy and wheat, and the 27 country projects are implemented by eight different implementing agencies. The overall effort is led by the World Bank, but the implementing agencies also include conservation FAO, EFAD, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO and WWF. So that gives you an overview and we'd be happy to provide additional information. This is a new program. The global platform was just approved last year, and the 27 country projects are still in the process of getting final approval from the GEF. The program is expected to run for a total of seven years. So I'd like to hand it over now to my friend Frithjolf, thank you. Thank you very much, Bill, and greetings to everyone from Rome. FAO Rome, so it's a real pleasure to be part of this important side event and just to add to the full impact program presented now by Bill is one of three impact programs that the GEF has initiated in its seventh replenishment. There's an impact program on sustainable cities and then there's an impact program on sustainable forest management, which includes drylands, sustainable landscapes, and that is a program I will talk about now. All of the programs just to add aim at a more systemic and integrated approach to tackle drivers of environmental degradation more directly and not just symptoms. As you could see in Bill's presentation, the follow is really addressing spatial as well as vertical dimensions of the food chain. So switching over now to the dryland sustainable landscape impact program DSLIP and short for lots of impact programs we need abbreviations. The program's overarching goal is basically, and also the corresponding objective is to achieve land degradation neutrality in poverty stricken and fragile dryland areas. This very much in close alignment with the UN CCD land degradation or tragedy framework. And the program will in particular address the very complex complexes that we heard about earlier of livelihoods and environment in the targeted drylands. This will be achieved by reducing vulnerabilities while improving local livelihoods through sustainable landscape management but also the promotion of selected dryland commodities. So you can see there are a lot of similarities with the FULU program and the IP is of course smaller full is basically the biggest program that the GS launched since the start. We have 104 million US dollars substantial also of GS grant financing combined with 810 million US dollar of co-financing we have a total of 11 countries that directly participate in this program across three different regions dryland regions. We have the Miombo-Mopane ecosystem of southern Africa where we also have the majority of projects located. We have the savannas of east and west Africa included and the temperate grassland savannas and also shrublands of Central Asia. The DSLIP is similar to the FULU program. The DSLIP is also equipped with a global coordination project. That's something that I call it the new generation of just projects for each of the past integrated approaches or impact programs now in just seven are equipped with such a coordination part, which is to increase the overall scale of the impact by providing effective coordination first of all, building capacities, especially around identified that was mentioned before the common management challenges. That's very important because there are many in violence that can be clustered. And of course the very effective knowledge transfer and adaptive learning on evidence based good practices. So it leads to ensure that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. A key partners of the program are speed just implementing agency we have the word bank ICN and WWS. In addition to other partners such as WUKAT, the UNCCD global mechanism and UN environment, besides a range of regions specific partners and also selected knowledge that we will refer to in a minute. Drylands potential to contribute to global environmental benefit global environment environmental benefits is usually underestimated so we can see here, the program's ambitious targets that just to indicate GB's global environmental benefits are included in all the Jeff projects. This is basically all programs are geared towards that. So here we can see the targets of the DSLIP impact program, very ambitious but this is of course a timeframe of the next five to six years that we try to achieve that. The impact will go beyond that 11 countries mentioned as we have the ambition to scale out. We talk about common management challenges that the region specific. We have talked about evidence good practices that can be shared with neighboring countries and regions. And this will be facilitated by the global coordination project and the regional exchange mechanism that we will establish. So as Bill mentioned, similar to the full or the DSLIP global coordination project and majority of country projects with CEO endorsed donor endorsed in June this year so we are still in the starting phase there's not a lot we can present. In terms of the size from the ground but we thought it's important to provide you with information on the overall approach possible synergies so we can look into that right from the beginning to ensure the expected impact at scale. So when we talk about drylands and I mean that was mentioned by Duncan in the opening. There are figures that everyone might be aware about in terms of the extent of dryland ecosystems. But what is often forgotten or not even now and in many cases the fact that drylands contain 44% of the words agricultural land and supply over 60% of the words food production. It's not surprising that the majority of the full or country projects are located in dryland regions as we can see here except for Southeast Asia. So from that perspective we already overlap. There's a clear overlap between the two programs and room to create synergies from a geographic and eco region point of view. The DSLIP countries in red might be difficult to distinguish but we have a total of three countries that actually participate in both programs. So also from a semantic point of view and I'm closing the loop a little bit more towards the humanitarian development peace nexus as much as I can. We have very similar opportunities between the programs to create synergies. So from that point of view to the HDP to both IPs operate at the product this landscape level and follow a programmatic approach, which means that all the national projects in both programs follow the same overall and framework for the interventions. There's many advantages, especially when they talk about common management challenges, which I will illustrate in the following so under component one countries in both programs for an integrated landscape approach. So here we embrace the complexity of the landscapes and both programs, which is also needed to achieve the anticipated results. We heard a lot about integration holistic approaches so the landscape is one of them. This approach comprises of comprehensive and integrated landscape assessment approaches for more informed decision making but also that's very important. An inclusion or inclusive mighty stakeholder collaboration approach to enable joint planning and also joint decision making for a large number of stakeholders that operate in the landscape as we know ranges from private public sectors of the society and also the land users have different interests. They often conflict, of course, the interest in addition landscape planning approaches often do not consider the needs of the most vulnerable in the landscape and also the marginalized and land users, including tenure and access rights. So we as SAO and partners and boys with support country projects by developing so called community of practice on integrated landscape management and inclusive mighty stakeholder approaches. And again this can be applied in both impact programs. There's a lot of room for cross pollination here. And hence also contributing to the HDP nexus. We have two themes here which is inclusion and conflict sensitivity. Component two in terms for both programs will be informed of course by the results of component one the assessment work. And which is in many cases an integrated land use plan and will focus mainly on sustainable production practices and standards. Of course, valley chains and supply chains are also incorporated incorporated but I just want to focus on the production standards standards which have an aim to sustainably and intensify the production as a whole by safeguarding vital ecosystem services in the targeted landscape. And also here as they all in close partnership with Wokat UNCCD and the World Bank will develop a community of practice for the application of evidence based good SLM practices of course region and land use specific but can be widely shared. Perhaps just to add on that because Carl mentioned that in this in his remarks. It's very important to have a vehicle on the ground to apply SLM practices, most of them are cross sectoral. And I will pass through a feed school approach mentioned by Carl is something that we use in many of the countries as part of an evidence based participatory approach. And also in this case the result of the intervention will directly contribute to the other HDP nexus theme which is resilience is climate food security. And lastly, component three will focus on monitoring knowledge management and adaptive learning by basically also informing the other two components, component one and two providing room for adaptive management and reflective learning as part of the comprehensive monitoring tools that we apply that a number of them I mean the integrated landscape assessment is part of it, but you also apply a tool to assess the resilience of farmers and pastoralists at the household level to climate change, hence also contributing to the HDP overall monitoring scene. And those impact programs that's also important we talk about partnerships and alliances. So here we have a package already, you know that we bring along both programs are not operating in silos. They're leveraging on a large consortium of partners. So here we focus on regional specific partners, you know to provide the necessary outreach and platforms to upscale upscale intervention at the regional level. Here again referring to common management challenges region specific so this would make sense. So neighboring countries can benefit from that. And at the same time, we have a suit of knowledge shops that part and parcel of the DSLIP, as you can see here to support the development of community of practices as well as intergovernmental committees just a snapshot on that and this whole approach is the same for the photo impact program is also highlighted by bill. The photo IPA will also leverage on ongoing work with existing mighty stakeholder commodity roundtables is one example, which will allow the program to work on the demand side. Of course, this will also have a positive impact in to incentivize the production side in terms of the sustainable standards that can be introduced. The platforms will also help to upscale to other regions and examples of sustainable sustainable rise landscape initiatives, which is very much interested also to partner with African rise producing countries. And this is with this also extending sustainable rise production practices to other regions. In addition, as mentioned by bill, there's already a consortium of partners that the photo will move along some of it is sort of carrying over from the Jeff six integrated approach pilots. And that will be as a whole of the contribute to the effectiveness of the global support component. Lastly, would like to come. Just one minute. I'm ready. No, it's the last slide but the most important ones. It just indicates that the program is not only contributing to the UN food system summit action area for but also the other three action areas that's very important, as well as the collision of partners that are established. And also to the game changing solutions, you know that that will be developed, hence contributing to global environmental benefits targeted SDGs, as well as other initiatives such as the year and decade on ecosystem restoration. So, thank you Duncan sorry for taking a bit longer and over to you. Thank you very much, Bill and Fritchoff for presenting those two programs and they are big and relatively new and exciting programs. So it's good to hear about them potential not only to contribute to the HTTP nexus approach under the UN food system summit action area for but also the other action areas as you showed on that last slide. So, we had planned for a an intervention session where we've not got as much time as we would thought for that, but I would encourage participants please to focus in on the questions that we asked earlier. Other recommendations just mentioned applicable. What key actions required to strengthen resilience of dry land food systems so where should the priorities be for strengthening the resilience, who should the main actors be and what's the missing piece. So if you want to make a contribution please do write in the chat box and we'll keep and record those and and and get get the panelists to respond to them if if you leave your emails. There were a couple of questions already asked in the in the session. And I'll just turn to one of those and it was, I think it was addressed to feeder. And it was the question of how do you cope with underfunding of humanitarian responses if you're trying to get this longer term vision. This integration of humanitarian development and peace building. What happens if the money is not there to even cope with humanitarian response. It's really very very difficult to question but the point is the complementarity is around the complementarity. Of course, I'm not in a position to explain how the funding options or have the funding flow with the, with the humanitarian aid how it works and of course the shortfall always is there. But the complementarity where the, the, the activities of humanitarian activities if, if have from the beginning the angle of sustainability. This means that you can complement with other activities on the ground. So the examples for example, for example, the impact programs just mentioned by Rachel fans William are a key to explain how this can be happened so it's not just to spread the money you need to, to, to work on the enabling environment, you need to engage with the different actors, partners and put the plan together to move forward so the shortage in humanitarian, even if it's from the global funding for the humanitarian is so difficult, it can be happened by engaging with the communities with the different actors at the ground, while doing such a complementarity. But the point of having like more funds of course that's it's, it's a big issue now. Yeah, thanks. Thanks feeder. And, and we've got a related discussion going on on the, on the chat, just bring that in. It's a question about the focus in the food system summit I think on the, on the chronic hunger and not acute hunger now you'll have to excuse me because I'm not an expert on these areas but it's a question for Carl, which was just he calls responded and he was saying in fact the solutions only identify development solutions within humanitarian context. There's not meeting people's immediate humanitarian needs. So Carl do you want to just respond to that if you might. Thanks. Thanks, don't I think I'm not familiar with the HDB nexus cluster within action track file I think that's where the question is coming from because I haven't been on that cluster that action track so if, indeed, as the question as pat is saying that that it's addressing acute needs in developing context rather than humanitarian context and that is a gap absolutely and that cluster needs to, you know, that needs to be addressed somehow, ideally in that cluster and elsewhere across the action tracks. I think particularly action track one they did talk about acute hunger, but if it's not manifest in any of the cluster solutions, then that that is indeed a gap. Thanks. That's, that's useful feedback. I can't propose it. I think we have Christina or back from the action area five among the audience, maybe, I don't know, if you're still there, maybe we can step in and provide some background on this work if it's so. Yeah, I think. Yeah, she's typing in Christina. Great. So, if you want, Christina, we can give you the mic. Okay, yeah, thank you so much. Nice. Can you hear me. Yes, we can hear you fine. Yes, we've lost you now though. Do you hear me now. Yes. Okay, thank you so much. I was really enjoying every second of this webinar. Thank you so much for your questions to all of you and, of course, we wanted to, to invite you to join the alliance. It's an alliance is a broad alliance that is looking into climate change adaptation and mitigation the nexus. We have a special focus on vulnerable and at risk areas. Some of them are some of them are focused on the areas semi-arid lands also the Sahel. And we have some solutions that are already that were, you know, like button up initiating the way that we are working. And other areas at risk and vulnerable countries are all the seats. We are trying to engage in most of them and least developed countries as well. Having said that, I am excited to see that you are producing this information, because at the IPCC, we have been trying to to include I mean it has closed already. We just passed the flight. He has just closed, but we managed to include the concept of the humanitarian development and peace nexus. Of course, that was a draft. We don't know the final outcome, but the concept is there are what we were missing where more publications, and the way, and we have a paper that will be published soon. And the way that we have been framing the nexus and how we were trying to include it. It was when looking at multi sectorial climate adaptation for food security and nutrition. We were also looking at the feasibility and effectiveness assessments of the adaptation options and several core sectoral enables. All of them they were you have mentioned, I think, all of them, education, women and rights. Yes, I just intervene there. I suppose it's specific or specific point. I said that there is no humanitarian solutions within the nexus their development long term approaches, because they're based on the world. One of the key recommendations of the world humanitarian summit in 2015. The problem is that meeting people's immediate needs. It's clear from earlier on in the interventions. Humanitarian intervention needs to be short term, but it needs that in the ideal situation. When you have an underfunded system, whereas 40 to 60% of humanitarian response plans are not met underfunded. So that's one point. And I think secondly, we think human humanitarian funding, but there's a huge issue with how we, how the interventions are monitored, how we can be more efficient. So the problem is that within the food system summit, we haven't looked at people's immediate needs. So great resilience really good point pattern and one we will register and perhaps make as a main kind of point in taking this forward. I wish we had more time to discuss it and debate it. But unfortunately, our time has run away with us. So I would encourage you to get in contact with feeder and the and the other panelists and follow this up because one of the things we did want was to make sure that people did have a chance to express their views. And I think that there's been some a lot of really useful points from Sylvie and and some others pointing out what they feel to be priorities going forward. So we'll try and capture some of that and include it in the in the feedback from this meeting, but I must move now to the final session of our event here today, excuse me. Louise Baker is the managing director of the global mechanism of the United Nations Convention to combat desertification. She joined the UN CCD secretariat in March 2011 and have been serving as chief of the external relations policy and advocacy unit prior to this appointment. Her previous assignments include work with the European Parliament and the World Health Organization, and she's lived and worked in Central and Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia lucky you. This Louise UN CCD played a crucial role during the food summit, summit dialogues with the aim to accelerate action towards the SDGs. And in particular the UN CCD prepared a series of action guides on priority issues for the UN food system summit. How to make food production systems more inclusive, sustainable and resilient, such as gender equality managing drought and water scarcity, nature positive food production. And we heard today a lot of critical make recommendations on why humanitarian aid and sustainable development and peace efforts are complimentary, some of the challenges that Pat was raising at the end there. How to make food production systems more inclusive, sustainable and resilient, while also meeting humanitarian immediate needs. It'll be great to hear your insights and closing remarks on how these will be addressed to pave the way for land degradation neutrality in dry land fragile ecosystems. Over to you. And Duncan I'm doing that in the next two minutes right. And take away messages from today. Okay, very good. I'm going to do my best. I'm not sure I can hit all of those but I'm going to, I'm going to do what I can. Obviously the UN CCD dry lands are it so we focus very much on dry lands and I think that you see the risks. Increasing from population growth, increasing demand by a physical challenges, shifting cropping patterns lack of technology, you name it, it's all there. But I think it is kind of it. There are some opportunities emerging as well. I think for us I think we're seeing I'm going to maybe take the Great Green Wall as maybe an example of something that we're seeing where the world recognizes that dry lands are a vital part of the kind of the global system, and we need to invest in them to make them work for us. Actually, there will be more dry lands as climate change happens. The level of water scarcity will increase in other regions. And so, you know, getting the kind of dry land food production system right operational optimal is going to be critical for everybody. I'm actually not even sure I'm close to getting all the answers. So my takeaways I think from the discussion today are that in dry land areas, the risks are mounting. We at the UN CCD have quite a lot of work on migration and security related work, because we see that as vulnerable people get pushed off the land, because it's less productive. They are forced to look for alternative places to live. They do come into competition between, say, pastoralists and farmers. So there is this push factor, but the restoration agenda and getting the restoration agenda right can embed a lot more stability, I think, into the system. So, geospatially specific work. So understanding the specific site specific nature of stuff is really important. Land use planning, understanding the trade offs, because there are trade offs within the landscape. So understanding how the farmers and the pastoralists work together, building the sustainability agenda there. Understanding if you put a runway for a new airport on your most productive land you can't grow crops on it. So getting those trade offs managed within the landscape for us, that's the framework of land degradation neutrality, that's conservation, sustainable management and restoration in harmony. The engagement of stakeholders critical. So vulnerable people, yes, small holders absolutely youth are also a really critical stakeholder that can't be forgotten a lot of them, and I don't blame them either I come from a farming community, I wouldn't want to do it. I don't want to work on the land anymore. So kind of ensuring that working on the land and the maintenance of these important terrestrial ecosystems has a perspective, because nobody wants to eke out a living subsistence farming on the land they've got to be given a future where they can build a future for their families for their communities and they've got to see that in the future so so plotting more than just survival. And you're right the humanitarian and long term planning don't offer and humanitarian nexus stuff doesn't often work well, but it can do and I've seen some really I've heard about some really interesting work in northern Cameroon the far north of Cameroon. I think it's called Minoa is a camp for 70,000 people who moved into Cameroon, moving away from Boko Haram, and they're really re greening the area around this camp as we're part of a part of work as a refugee and actually and the same I think you can say in places like Uganda. So that it's it's not impossible to make this mix and to plan reliable food systems and humanitarian interventions that contribute to food security as well. For us, then it would move in the direction of decision support so that targets and our efforts actually really support capacity building for policymakers in dry land areas, bankable projects. I don't I don't know what William and Fritoff would say about this but you know actually sort of developing projects that work in the context of something like the Jeff but also are investable and I think for the private sector. The real key is making the the dry land areas viable for for private investment and for private inflows. That means creating markets for products that are grown in the in the dry land areas as we know they're providing a vast amount of the food for the world. But are we are we growing the right products in dry land areas where they can contribute to the market in that sense I would say infrastructure as well. So a lot of the stuff that's happening is dry land areas are poorly poorly poorly serviced by energy infrastructure. So actually, you grow products they rot on the side of the street. So getting the energy energy into communities so they can store their products and then get it to market also important for private sector. I entirely agree with the enabling environment discussion. So there's governance and conflict is a governance challenge, but at the same time there are governance challenges in terms of tenure security access rights that mean that investment into food production into the restoration of ecosystems doesn't flow as we would want it to do. And I think that touches on touches on women and gender engagement as well. I think I definitely talk for longer than I was supposed to as ever, but it was a fascinating conversation. These two issues really do come together immensely complex. I would argue that both of them rely on each other so security absolutely vital for the development of a healthy ecosystem and a healthy kind of agricultural system and vice versa to size of the same coin. So much we must be working together much more closely. Thank you. Thank you so much Louise, and you did a brilliant job under pressure of drawing together so many interesting strands and thank you for taking the time to do so. I think it's fine. And that we're a little bit over time we've all the attendance participants have stayed blue to your, your wrapping up which is really good news. It remains to me to thank all of the panelists and speakers for their time and expertise. And thank you to the participants who stuck with us over the last hour and a half and I hope we've all learned and enjoyed hearing the expert insights that have been presented here and we've got a bit of a trajectory for this HDP nexus approach going forward. So thank you very much. Thank you for one. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you. By the way, the paper is online now.