 Thank you very much. Look at those figures that we just presented to you, how confronting are those numbers? They are stuck, they are confronting, we must do something about it. So I commend everybody involved in this report, it's an excellent product and we need to use this for advocacy. You would be aware of what some of the main themes of this conference have been. People from the Global Fund, Mark Dible, a lot of the people from the World Bank, myself and others have been advocating for the way we need to end this epidemic is by focusing our resources much more focused. You focus on resources where the epidemic lies or the most cost effective approaches. The only region of the world where there has an increasing epidemic is Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The epidemic there is being driven by unsafe injections. They do not have the harm reduction required to minimize their harm. I'm going to provide some just some complimentary data about the situation around the world. Why do we care about harm reduction? Well, we need to put it into context. Should harm reduction take preference over ART? Should it take preference over condom use among pregnant women? Should it take preference over other prevention programs? Look at the data. This is the global data here. The relative risk of HIV compared to the general population is of course higher among the key affected populations. Sex workers, MSM and people who inject drugs. Among sex workers, the 13-fold higher risk of getting HIV than the general population. MSM, 13.5-fold greater risk. People who inject drugs though, 20-fold greater risk. They're the population group with the greatest risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV. Clearly a key population where the majority funding ought to go. If you want to stop HIV, you need to stop HIV in this key group. Well, what harm reduction programs work? We've got evidence for this. In regard to treatment, the WHO has treatment guidelines that the world now follows. We've now got other guidelines. Here we've got the WHO, UNODC, UNAIDS, together put together a nine component comprehensive package. This package outlined three priority programs. These programs have evidence for working. What works is needle and syringe programs, opioid substitution therapy and antiretroviral therapy. These are the key things that work. There was a session a few days ago I presented there on an overview of the cost effectiveness of harm reduction programs. What I showed there, this is just a broad summary, is that harm reduction interventions are good value for money. Indeed, I'm a health economist, I'm a professor at the University of New South Wales. I do a lot of work with the World Bank and I'm probably the key person who does cost effectiveness of harm reduction and these focus prevention programs for governments around the world. I don't just focus on harm reduction because it's not the priority just to focus on one particular program but you need to put that in context. Put it relative to every other program. Should harm reduction be funded versus other things? What I find country after country is that harm reduction is the most cost effective. It's more cost effective than other prevention programs, more cost effective than treatment. What I tend to find is that the most important program to fund first if you want to stop your epidemic is needle and syringe programs for people who inject drugs. After that it's open substitution therapy followed by ART and other prevention. The highest importance is harm reduction but unfortunately it is one of the programs that is least funded. $100 to $1000 invested in harm reduction can save an infection, save somebody from ever getting HIV. It's hugely cost effective. Needle and syringe programs are strongly cost effective and they've got they're sorry cost effective. Sometimes they're highly even cost saving. That means you invest in that and that program because you save people from getting infected it means the government does not have to pay for the treatment of that person down the line. What that effectively means is they save money in the end. It's though they're investing money to get money back that they don't have to spend later. They had that cost effective. Opioid substitution therapy very strong evidence for its effectiveness and cost effective when combined with needle and syringe programs. We just heard that the global coverage of these programs are extremely low. Only 10% of people who inject drugs around the world access needle and syringe programs. 8% always see. About 14% access intervention by therapy of those with HIV. That leaves just a very small overlap of people who have the combination of prevention that's really required across these three priority interventions. Well how much is spent? We've just heard that about 160 million dollars is spent per three years in low million income countries on harm reduction. That's three cents per person per day. That's all. That's all that we think the prevention is worth in this population. That's what the global community is saying. Well how much is needed? We heard from the investment framework previously. Here I have conducted some analysis with the World Bank. This is what we've come up with. Well the World Health Organization has said that we've got a mid target and a high target. For a high target just getting 60% coverage of needle and syringe programs. That's not that high but that's what we're doing is high target. To get to that this is how much money we would require by a different region of the world. What you can see is that we're going to need about 2.7 billion dollars. We just heard previously about 160 million dollars is spent. We're far from even this mid target level of coverage. We are so far from the needed levels. There's a large variation in funding across the world. Upper middle income countries are funding the majority so about 90% of their funding is coming from domestic sources. They're funding it well. Low income countries are reliant on the global fund. Middle income countries, the lower middle income countries, they're in a gap and they're having to transition and they're not able to do it. It's in these lower middle income countries that's where we predominantly see them affected by injecting drug use and that's where most of the infections are occurring and that's where the funding is going to be of most concern. Harm reduction resources, it does have a major impact. There's evidence of evidence, study after study showing exactly the same thing. For example, here in Vietnam we showed that with the spending on needle and syringe programs over time that the epidemic declined. Without that scale up, the entire epidemic would have had this type of trajectory. This is an analysis, a report that came out earlier this year, very different and the world bank and I had some involvement in that study. Huge impact due to harm reduction programs. Here again for Indonesia. You can see that currently this is what the trajectory is likely to be. We're estimating that over the next 10 years, incidence is on the rise but Indonesia is very much struggling at the moment because the global fund is withdrawing. Bilateral funders are withdrawing from Indonesia. We know the epidemic is being driven by injecting drug use. Without the investment, as funds are starting to withdraw, we can expect this type of incidence, a very large increase on the increasing epidemic. The priority in Indonesia has been harm reduction. We know that, we've got very strong evidence for that, but the government itself is not willing to fund harm reduction in Indonesia. It has only been funded by international donors. So this is an example of a situation we could see in many middle income countries. I'll just skip over this. One final argument I'd like to make is an economic one. Economics drive ministers of finance. Ministers of finance are the ones we need to talk to here because they're the ones that need to increase some of the investments. We don't need to lobby just for harm reduction because it's competing against other other programs within HIV and HIV programs are competing against other health priorities. Health priorities are competing against infrastructure, education, other priorities in the country. Put it into context. We need to fund, we need to reduce our HIV epidemic. How do we do that across all of our programs? Well, I can tell you quite clearly the most important program for any HIV response where there is injecting drug use is that harm reduction is always the most cost effective. I've done systematic reviews, others have done reviews and have always found that to be the case. They're cheap, they're effective, they're cost effective. Put it into context of broader HIV responses, they're the most cost effective. HIV, funding HIV programs, if you invest now, you'll save more money later on. This is an argument that ministers need to hear. Here this is showing that this is across all of Asia. An analysis done with a high level panel across Asia and the Pacific with the UNAIDS, RST. What we've found is that if we do nothing now, we continue the status quo, the overall HIV burden year by year is going to continue to increase as you get more people with HIV. However, if we invest earlier and quicker and more impactful now, we increase our investment in HIV, we can stem the epidemic. So a higher investment right now, what we'll see is that that will pay off. We then do not have to pay for as much treatment down the line because we'll start to decline. Before too long, we're going to end up saving money. The governments will not have to spend as much money into the future. And that's a powerful argument that governments can really respond to. So I just finished there and just I can highlight. I decided to come to this because I've seen study after study, I've been investigating this for years and I do not just evaluate harm reduction programs, but evaluate all HIV programs. Time after time, I always find harm reduction programs are always the most cost-effective and where the money should go first. But unfortunately, harm reduction programs are very much underfunded with extremely low coverage. So do take this report and advocate with it.