 ben mets yw ben, a dyna yw'n ysgrifennu i'r bwysig o'r plenariadau a'r cyfnodau o'r cyfnodau a'r cyfnodau. Rhywbeth, mae'n cyfnodau o'r ffordd ydym ni wedi bod yn gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio yma a'r cyfnodau ffócwrs. Rydyn ni'n gwneud gwneud o'r gweithio'n cyfnodau a'r byd, a'r unrhyw i'r cwestiwn cyfeithio'n gyfer ymdweithio'n cyfnodau rhaid iddynt yn cael ei ddweithio i'r ben i'r unigwyr ddaeth ymddangos yn ôl yn ei cyfnod gyda'r hyffredinol, ac ymddangos i'r unrhyw yng ngrychiadau hynny yn ei wneud. Yn ysgrifennu yn ysgrifennu am gyflogwadau hyffredinol, ac ymddangos i'r hynny yn ysgrifennu am gyflogwadau hyffredinol. Yn ysgrifennu am gyflogwadau hyffredinol, mae'n gweld ysgrifennu sylwyd i gwaelio am gwell o thymau Siad o stil maes i'n gwiriau bod yn effordeb yn glas gweithgaf rywfodaeth gwaith Felly, today I'd like to introduce you to two friends who will be taking us through this afternoon Frances and Alejandro. Alejandro Litowsky is the founder and director of the Earth Security Initiative. Alejandro created ESI to advance practical ideas to bring financial markets, industry, government and civil society to collaborate to keep the global economy within ecological limits. He's a very cool guy and a multi-award winner, so I don't need to waste my time explaining all the awards he's picked up. Francis Wesley is a renowned scholar and consultant in the areas of social innovation and sustainable development. Francis is the J.W. McConnell Chair at the University of Waterloo in Canada and is on the board of the Stockholm Resilience Centre where she joins us Fleet of Foot. In her capacity at the University of Waterloo, she's one of the principal leads in a Canada-wide initiative in social innovation, social innovation generation, or SIG for short. We'll hear from both Alejandro and Francis briefly before opening up to the floor, and of course we'd like your questions, but we'd also like your comments succinctly please from your experience to make this a rich and rewarding session. So without further ado, I'll hand over to Alejandro to kick things off. Thanks Ben. Hello everyone. This, hello, like this. Well following a bit, following with the thread I think that we've heard throughout the day, I want to talk about how many of the things that we've considered sustainability and environmental over the last decades are today critical risks to human security and to our global economy and to local economies as well. And I want to begin, let me see how this works. I want to begin by sharing this video produced by the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in the US, and it basically shows humidity, how humidity circulates around the earth. What you're seeing there in white is water vapor, that's humidity. And what you see in orange is where that humidity is falling as rain, where it's precipitating. So what you begin to see is that first of all, what's this conveyor belt around the equator? You begin to see, let's see if this works, you begin to see the Amazon there, the Congo basin and the Southeast Asian forest. You see how they're pumping, how they're beating with rainfall and pumping it back into the atmosphere. So in practice these are water pumps, they keep the system going. And look where the rain is actually falling, it's falling everywhere. See how it's falling in the US grain hub, how it's falling China. And this water is powering our hydro power plants, this water is creating our electricity. This water is irrigating our fields, it's growing the food that we eat. And this water is the water we drink. And so if we fail on this, we fail on everything. This is such an essential system to the running of our countries, to the political stability, to human security ultimately. And so why don't we take one moment and try to take this in? And to do this I spend a bit of time trying to select a good piece of music. Let's see if it works. That was a musical moment. And so what does it all mean to impact investment? What does it mean to you, to those investors that are looking for pipeline, for good projects, for returns? Well, the first thing it means obviously is that you have to get a bit passionate about investing in forests. And many of you are, and so you are already involved in the typical red projects. This is reducing emissions from avoided deforestation. This is a community project that is getting funded to preserve the forest. You are supporting projects that are doing biomass in order to avoid deforestation of charcoal. That sort of deforestation that burns the trees to produce a charcoal. Many people, particularly in Africa, used to cook. But the interesting thing is let's move to a different scientific domain. And let's look at one of those systems just to get a sense about what impact investors are up against. And this is satellite information about what's going on in the Amazon. One of those three vital pieces of this machinery. And so you begin to see in red current deforestation levels. And this is very much driven by cattle ranching in Brazil. You see what's happening with fires. And this is again connected to that economy, but also very much linked to the property rights. So many people burn the forest in order to claim property of it. You begin to see what's happening underneath the rainforest. Of course it's full of minerals. This is a very rich organic area and a mineral area. For billions of years these have been developing. But now you have copper, you have all sorts of things underneath there. Look what's happening in the northern part and around here. And then what's happening with oil and gas, all these blocks. You've probably heard about those projects in Ecuador and the Texaco lawsuit. But it's everywhere, right? And so you begin to see basically what we're doing with this area. And you begin to see what's happening with the roads. And roads are essential because you're able to transport the things you're taking out. You transport the minerals, the metals. You can transport the cattle. But actually once you build a road then you're basically opening a new frontier. All sorts of things happen behind that. And hydropower. 160 dams being planned or being constructed in the Amazon at the moment. Partly because Brazil's electricity, 70% of electricity that powers the Brazilian economy comes from hydropower. But as we build the hydropower plants and as we flood the area and we lose this vital resource, we're also losing the rain that powers the hydropower plants. And so this is an essential dilemma that hasn't yet seeped into the mindset of the shareholders of these massive billion-dollar projects. But we're trying to accomplish that. And this is the combined pressures. And this is now, right? It's not a projection to 2050. And so you can begin to see even for those impact investors that are rightly excited about particular projects that will save a few tens of hectares, what the real drivers are and what the implications are of losing these vital systems. And I think one of the main problems when we look at this from this perspective is that we are here and we are at a point of acceleration. Where this scarcity has been driving commodity prices up. And so many of these trends are actually accelerating because everything is more profitable. And so many of the red projects, many of the forestry small investments in Colombia are now up against a much harder pressure from international mining companies. Many organic agriculture projects in Africa are up against massive interest to invest in tens of millions of hectares in the region. And so if we combine this with the reality of soil erosion is that we're losing the fertility of the land. We're losing the top soil, it's just eroding. It's completely below the radar and you begin to see this is by the year 2000, right? Very degraded isn't red. And then you combine this with the projected losses in food production that are attributed to climate change. Look at the areas, right? So you begin to see sub-Saharan Africa, see what's happening in Asia, see what's happening in the US, right? This is not an African problem. And then we look again, see? What's happening here? US, India, South Africa, Australia, right? Up to 50% loss in food outputs. This is massive. And so my worry is that this combination is basically giving way to a new scramble for natural resources where land is essentially at the nexus of all of these risks. Whether we will lose the rainforest because we need to plant crops for food production or actually plant palm oil or put cattle to feed different commodity markets is really at the essence of the challenge. And so for me, what this means for impact investing is basically two things. One is the scale of the problem. And this is not something where we say, OK, we understand the problem, but this is my contribution is working with this particular community. Of course we can say that, but actually there's something about the scale of the problem that has to do with an urgency and with the consequences that are already playing out. I mean, this is not sort of scary projection. This is the state of the world. And so there's something about the scale of the problem that we collectively need to acknowledge. The second is the complexity of drivers and of assets of the biodiversity of the water of the topsoil of the climate change. I mean, it's too complicated, but we need to start simplifying that. My personal sense and where I'm orienting my work is finding that land is actually a very practical nexus and actually is an asset, so someone owns it. We can start working out the politics out of that. And so we started an initiative. I've called it the land security agenda and basically said that many of those risks, many of those issues that we thought were sustainability, soil erosion, water scarcity or water limits, climate change and so on, are actually risks to the portfolio of investors, whether you are an impact investor and actually you're holding your assets in other sorts of funds, or whether you are a very large investment fund, or if you're an insurance company obviously. I mean, this will affect your bottom line. And at the basis of the new vision we need is the new understanding of what is long-term value. What will drive that long-term value in a particular portfolio? My take is that long-term value needs to be redefined and needs to include at least three things when we talk about this agenda. One is the resilience of the soil and its issues of stewarding that the land doesn't get degraded because this is the finest asset we have. If we lose that we're in trouble. The second has to do with ecological limits more broadly, but in particular water scarcity. It gets very, very concrete. And then thirdly it's not just about the environment, it's also about human rights. And human rights then is quite specific and in Sub-Saharan Africa in particular it's about the land titles. And who holds the titling of the land. And that is very political and complicated, but it needs to be grappled with. And so one of the things that I think is needed and that we are actively engaged in is actually in beginning to understand what is the information framework we need on the status of some of these resources in order to do two things. First is to enable impact investors and the projects that are trying to build a viable business model to build a business case. And we can talk about examples later, but essentially this is one of the things we produce as part of that report. We're basically asking how much water is left in a country. Even though there's a lot of discussion about valuing nature and valuing ecosystems and we're losing a few trillion because of deforestation. I mean who's losing those trillions? We need to get much more specific on the political economy of these problems. And that is basically a discussion not on value, but on quantities. So this is, I think, one of the first explorations. What do these information frameworks actually look like? How can we visualise them better? And this is another one, right? Well, we've started to ask in dark brown how much fertile land is available in a country. And then all of you have probably heard about this land grabbing. You saw the map before of massive acquisitions of sovereign wealth funds snapping out half of South Sudan basically to import commodities back. So the Arabia, China, they're running out of water so they need to still sustain the production of commodities. And so in orange is what is the percentage of foreign investment in that country for food production as a percentage of the land available. And then we started to ask, what else do we need to know? And so we started to bring in issues of population growth. How much people is in the country? How fast is population growing? And how many of those actually hungry? And for me, this is the future of the risk management dashboards that we need to understand basically that if foreign investment in food production in Liberia is exceeding the amount of fertile land, probably there's something, might be a problem with the data, because the data is also very sketchy, but also it might mean that there's a lot of deforestation driving that available land. And so I think I will just finish here so we can move on quickly. But the bottom line of this is, A, we need to grapple with a new level of complexity and scale and we can do that. It's complicated. It's just that needs to be done. The second thing is that in order for these ecological limits to become more present in the way we think about investment, we need new information frameworks that are based on data and that can begin to connect that data to decision making. The two things that I personally would like to see happen is first that going forward, the impact investing projects that you see are sort of connected to the pragmatic reality of a region where you're looking at organic farming and so on. And the second is that some of this information begins to be taken up by the financial sector, by investment funds, by insurance companies and so on. And so I leave you with three ideas of practically what could this mean for impact investors. I think the three things that I find interesting are first of all that much of this debate will translate onto real estate investment opportunities. It's not just about the community project. There needs to be a much more developed, I think, area of investment that has to do with real estate. Many real estate deals that are already happening and we need to understand how those deals basically are keeping the ecological cycles going. How will you guarantee that that happens at the same time as you're creating jobs or providing new opportunities for human realisation and human development? The second is organic agriculture in general and many of you are already involved in agricultural projects. But the important thing here is two things. One is that trying, beginning to advance agricultural models that build resilience considerations into it. So the whole eco agriculture movement, you know, agricultural practices that conserve the soil in natural ways and so on is very important. But then second is trying to work with local farmers in a way that it's not only building their access to market, which is so in vogue in this particular sector, but also helping farmers agglutinate, create scale in their capacity to organise and to basically become asset owners rather than just small scattered suppliers. And that I think is a very important agenda in beginning to think about agriculture in terms of scale. And then thirdly is forest. We saw it at the beginning. There needs to be a new sort of ambition in how we're investing in forests. We need to be thinking about investment deals in preserving forests in the order of 100,000 hectares and above. And for that we might need to create new investment vehicles, new investment funds that have the capacity to acquire lease or whatever way it is. Forest land on a large scale in a way, again, that has ecological and social job human security considerations. So I'll just stop there and over to you. A very big framework in which to think. Why not? Francis, can you add some colour onto our framework? I can try. I approach these things from a very different angle. I'm a social scientist and I've been working in the arena of complex adaptive systems for most of my career. Somewhere about 20 years ago I ran into Buzz Hauling and the resilience group who were working around trying to understand linked social ecological systems. It was introduced to a whole set of tools and frameworks that go along with understanding resilience and they were all part of a complex adaptive system approach. And then became very interested in how to take those ideas back into the social domain. The result of that work has been the last five or six years I've been working in the area of social innovation. Social innovation is different than technical innovation. It may be linked to it when you have technical innovations that have social purposes. But we are trying to isolate, in a sense, an arena of innovation which have to do with programs and processes and how human beings organise to try to affect certain ends. And so what we're looking for are new ideas of human organising that actually ultimately, although they may start locally, have a fundamental impact on how resources flow at a broad institutional scale, how societal values affect what people are doing and how those change, how the basic legal frameworks that govern us at global and national and local levels can change to reflect a really fundamentally new way of doing things. So ultimately we're arguing that if something is truly to make a difference, whether it's a technological innovation or a new idea about how to work, it has to, wherever it starts, it has to have that ripple effect so that fundamentally people change how they view things now and how they behave, what kind of rules and regulations govern it, and certainly very importantly how resources flow and what are the rules and meanings that understand to control how those resources flow. So when we come to try to look at a problem that way, we begin to see certain kinds of pathologies in the way in which we approach these problems, even when we're imbued with a sense of urgency, when we feel that the problem is huge and attractable and messy like most environmental problems are, we still tend to make some classic errors on how we look at it. So this is this diagram, most of you will have seen, I'm not going to go into it, I'm not a necologist, comes from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, I'm on that board and have worked with those people for many years, but it's basically looking at nine different vectors around the outside and the notion of planetary boundaries, the notion that each of those can be pushed outside of the biosphere's tolerance and it can happen while we're not looking and that the danger zone, the red zone, is the important message as opposed to looking at any one of those things. Now, again, when you go around that cycle, you notice how disciplinary expertise, UN agencies, NGOs, corporations, they're quite siloed around those and for me the important thing is the fact that they all meet in the middle. So the fact that one of the reasons you get shocks and surprises at these levels is that you're not thinking systemically, you're thinking in terms of silos, and one of the pathologies of our age and our high level of expertise is that we're organized that way. We think that way, we're governed that way, our organizations are that way, we're not actually being trained or pushed to start to think about the fact as Alejandro was talking about that you get any change in land use such as greater industrialization is going to change global freshwater use, any of those are going to be impacted by climate change and contribute to climate change and so the shocks come, the possibility of real collapse at a biosphere level or a political level come from our failure to recognize how those things interact. So we often take on what we think of as a policy approach, we just change policies at global levels, we create compacts for innovation. This is in Vietnam and there's a study done by Eric Lambden in 2011 where he went in and looked at countries including Vietnam, Nepal, Brazil, that actually had tried to sign on to these UN conventions about reforestation and the good news was they were reforesting. Sounds great, right? The area that's covered by forest is growing. Good news. So he went in to try to look very closely what was going on there and he discovered his dismay that if you actually back further away and you look at the adjoining or adjacent countries, their deforestation rates were going up almost as fast. Why? Because in fact the countries who were reforestering were importing timber from adjacent countries and he began to feel like, well unless we actually change our trade rules and WTO gets involved in this as a driver, these conventions which say, okay, against biodiversity people start to focus in one area. If we haven't changed the way we're using forest products, what we're thinking about it, how that's being financed, what kind of governance is going on there, in the end it makes no difference. People are not looking at interconnections in the same kind of way. So we often look to innovation saying we can change these socially or technically, but we also know that those can do as much harm as good. We've talked a bit about biomass technology. It's an interesting group called the Assetter Group, which some of you may be familiar with. They're kind of global watchdogs funded in part by SweetBio. The biomass industry is revving up because of the fact that at larger policy levels has been this concern with fossil-based fuels and petroleum-based products and what that's doing, what the appetite for that is doing to our biosphere. But if that trillion-dollar industry roars ahead in the way we think it's going to roar ahead, things like land use is going to change radically. So when we're talking, I was looking at Alejandro's slide about food scarcity, it's a concern with a lot of people. Well, the marginal lands are going to be the ones that are most likely used for growing the kind of biomass that you need. And that's going in fact to put marginal farming, subsistence agriculture out of business, if you could call it a business in the first place. You're going to get greater food scarcity, even of the kind of famine foods, greater poverty. In the meantime, some of you were mentioning about the trillions of dollars. You know, who's losing trillions? Who's gaining trillions? Because at the same time, you're going to have an industry that's going to gain trillions from that. But essentially, nobody's looking at that, they're not looking at it systemically. Well, not nobody. But the discourse is not as systemic as it needs to be. One of the things that it says is, you know, there should be technological governance recognizing new tools for biomass transformation such as synthetic biology, just part of a suite of powerful new technologies. This is an observation that Barry Commoner made 40 years ago, that in fact, we only try to regulate technologies after technological innovations, after we're complaining about their negative impact. What about thinking about them beforehand so that we actually had a discussion about what could be the adjacent kinds of effects? So when we're looking at social innovation, what needs to change, there's a whole suite of people working in this area. We argue that you have to A, have that systemic focus, but you also have to have this cross-scale focus. So novelty comes in small pockets. It does or does not mean that a problem regime starts to change the way it governs itself, starts to change those kinds of organizations, and that ultimately you get shifts in this broader institutional landscape, including flows of resources and financial capital, or in fact they can stay locked at much lower levels, in which case it has a short shelf life and doesn't change very much. So, you know, we need to be looking across scale all the time whether or not the opening comes above or below. So, you know, impact investing, which I think there's a very rich and wonderful conversation going on here, and I think much of it has gone on here. I haven't been able to be privy to a lot of it, but this slide comes from Alex Nichols and Kathy Farrow and basically the notion that, you know, there's a lot of conversation about higher risk, more patient capital, and, you know, maybe lower return on investments, and there's meetings all over the world about this, and about social banks and funds for give-a-belones, equity-equity-like, social venture funds, strategic engaged grant making, and that sounds very exciting. It really is talking about trying to create opportunities at that very high institutional level, kind of rules that govern our financial institutions, the values trying to shift them to create opportunities, so that's at a higher level, but when you actually get down to the ground where, you know, many social entrepreneurs are working, it's still very puzzling about how you ever get hold of any of that money. Very, very puzzling, because governments, corporations, individuals, foundations, these are places where we're getting our funds, and first of all, they are governed by certain kinds of values themselves, certain rules of accountability, certain legal frameworks, both in countries and even at global levels, and part of the problem is that they're not geared to finance system change. They're rarely geared to finance social innovation. It's too ephemeral. The risk measurements and the accountability measures are too difficult to get at. Of that particular group, and I'm not going to go through them all because of time, I mean they change over time, but even when you look at the column over on the far left, you see that there's a whole set of frameworks which means that only certain kinds of things can move through that. So, for example, some social banks like Van City in Canada is trying to gear up to put social finance pools together. When you look closely at what's happening, they're financing community housing projects and green tech. Nothing wrong with those things, but the fact is that it looks like you're changing the rules around risk and patient capital. You can measure social impact and financial impact, but actually they're not very risky, are they? Because in fact you can still get your investment back. They're hard things, and when you look at foundations, I work a lot with foundations. I think they're the groups that have the greatest opportunity to do highly innovative things. Rockefeller, who I work with, their new funding cycle is three years. You talk about long-term value. How do you get an investment in something that's going to show the kind of returns that we're talking about if you've got a three-year cycle? Gates? Very hierarchical, very siloed in what they do. Enough money, I think, to change all kinds of political economies, but in fact their own internal accountability and value systems are still kind of capturing this. So I'll just close with this. I've come to feel in terms of social innovation, and I really would implore you with the wonderful minds that are in this room to think about this, that the place we really need innovation is not so much in things, social impact bonds or new green technology. We've got a lot of that going on. It's actually in trying to find ways to create opportunities or disturbances at this level of how we're thinking about investing and the rules for accountability, the tax laws, the ways in which even foundations have to invest in individual organisations, not in systems, but to start to think really innovatively and creatively about how do you fund a system? How do you fund system change? Because ultimately it's actors and individuals, but they're not acting like organisations or silos. So how, in fact, do we change the awareness of that so that these funds, these well-meaning funds, can start to be invested at the level that we're trying to change? Not at the level of single organisations or single silos. So I'll stop there. Wow. Comments and thoughts. Is Xavier here? Xavier, who's surname I can't pronounce. He was here earlier. Maybe I'll just start. I'll take moderator's privilege. So Xavier is the founder of Better World Books. He's looking at setting up a photovoltaic solar lighting business. Initially he was looking at India and realised the subsidies that the Indian government provides into kerosene just made it an uphill struggle, a huge uphill struggle. So he moved to Tanzania and he's a social entrepreneur, so he's flexible and he adapts. But now he's got the ear of people who are writing the renewable energy policy in Burma. So what does he do? Does he stay in Tanzania? Does he try and effect change in India? Or does he move to Burma? What are the governing principles that would allow us to think? One of the things that I think is real, what we call institutional entrepreneurs, is that they need to move exactly between all those things and that when you watch them, remember many years ago George Francis, who was a resilience scholar once said to me, they were talking about the resilience of the great lake ecosystem. And I said, well, where are the individuals? Because they're always on these rather broad scales that they're looking at. He said, well, if you think of all the organisations involved, as being like on a lighting board, as each being a pinprick of light, and you watch over a period of 30 years, which one is taking the lead around innovative thinking? They light up on the board, imagine a huge board like that. He said, actually if he got in real close, it would be tracking individuals who actually switch, move, from creating the thing itself, to trying to create a financial opportunity, to working over here in a policy opportunity. If you're working on a global scale, that's where you have to go. It's a piece that I'd add to that, which is that the funds may be there and the ideas may be there, but what tracks it across scale is individual agency, is strategy. It has to be a very strategic long-term effort to connect across all those scales. It sounds like he's doing it. It sounds like he's doing it. David's opening address. Questions, thoughts, comments, hands. We've got one here. Maybe we can get the house lights up and the front lights down. I'd have a conversation when you can't see people. You can say who you are. Thank you. Josh Arno. I guess this is directed to Francis. I've been on the periphery of the impact investing world for a little while, for quite a while. But I guess I'm waiting for an opportunity to fund at the system level, but everything is a series of... The best you can seem to do is build a portfolio of unrelated parts. I think there was a fellow here in one of the sessions. He sold a $150 million company. What was his name? I can't remember it. But Jacobson? Hamplos, yes. He asked about cross-pollination. Are you doing anything to create cross-pollination between the impact investments that you're making? He mentioned to one of the other panelists. I've been very interested in trying to see if you could create a portfolio that actually functions as a self-reinforcing system as opposed to an unrelated collection of parts, albeit under a theme. I'm wondering if there's anyone who's experimented with or tried to move the ball forward in trying to invest in a systems-oriented portfolio. Just before you answer, hands up for future questions so I can learn if you're up. Josh, can I have the mic? Do you want to say anything about that? You only see the pieces that you're quite close to, but I think foundations, if anyone's experimenting with that, it is the big foundations. But it's tricky. Everybody goes into a portfolio, but you have to ask yourself why. It actually is because legal frameworks demand that even foundations do that. The money has to be invested in one organization by time. Rockfell or McConnell Foundation, they'll create system maps and try to think, if we could put our money here, we might get system leverage. But then they have to resort to a call. They say we want to look at food sustainability. What are the grant applications that come in the door? And they can strategically try to invest in them, like a portfolio, so that they're covering points, but they'll be big blank spaces. Shokha change makers have tried to address that a little by creating these grids for their competitions. You can actually see on what, here's system drivers and types, and you can kind of see, we have a grant over here and a grant over there, and all those things at least make people think, what are we missing? There are also efforts to bring people together, I think. I've worked on them, I'm currently working with people at Stockholm on putting together a global program, a fellows program on social innovation for resilience, which is precisely designed to take key grantees in countries and try to bring them together to bump their thinking up to a system level. And then if projects emerge that were collaborative projects at a system level, they could fund those, but they need something to bring them together and put those frames together for them. So it does require some creative thinking. I think it's a, if we could get there, and we could find the right loophole so that funds could flow that way within frameworks for accountability and accounting, et cetera, it would be a huge step forward. I think there's a fair amount of work going on in corporates around value chains, but Grameen Dunon being an example where they're looking at land amelioration and cattle management, but that's very vertically siloed or value chain siloed. I think we're going to finish with one question, sorry, but we're over time, finishing where we started with David McConville. David, question or comment. So my name is David, I'm with the Buckminster Fuller Institute and we do a lot of work around trying to understand these systemic types of approaches to things. And I'm curious in terms of your last response, in terms of the kind of vetting processes that are in place, if a lot of times they're bringing in people that is a food specialist or a water specialist, do these foundations actually have people coming at it from a whole systems perspective to try to understand synergistic interactions and if they don't, how would they ever expect to actually invest systemically? Well, you're right. But I think, for example, one of the things that Rockfell is trying to put, it's just, you know, looked at from internally, from a government, I don't want to point a finger at the foundations because I think they're trying more than most, but they're also thinking they have these different granting streams on things like ecosystem services and transforming health systems. When you go to the planetary boundary level, you of course see those things are interacting. They're funding in a solid way because that's the way everything's organized, but they are actually talking about, sort of a global forum of this where you brought, at even higher level, those themes together and tried to look at their interactions and what kind of projects would come out of that. So it's still a challenge. If you get projects at that level, a three-year window of funding is, you know, it's not even time to get organized, right? I mean, in a sense. You can certainly make, but that cycle is being covered by expectations of accountability of boards and things like that. So there's numerous places we have to push back on the system to change that. And, you know, I don't purport to have really the answers to that, just the questions. So I'm hoping you guys have the answers. Thank you. Horrible short of time for a huge subject. Let's just say thanks very much to Alejandro and Francis for joining us today.