 Hi, everyone. This is Tom Randolph, sitting in Nairobi. I want to welcome you on behalf of the livestock and fish CRP management team to our virtual review and planning meeting. We're as disappointed as you are to have had to cancel the face-to-face meeting in Naivasha this week. But let's view it as an opportunity. Let's see if this is as effective virtually, and perhaps we can reduce the transaction costs that we all complain about. We certainly still have to have a meeting. We're at a critical crossroads within the program. We've just completed the first three years, and we've been given an extra two years to continue some of those activities, and so we need to finish them off well. At the same time, we have to start thinking about what do we want to be doing in the next phase that begins in 2017. As we prepare for our discussions, let's remind ourselves the ambitious agenda we had set for our program. The livestock and fish CRP was designed as a three-year program, but within horizon of 12 years. The overarching objective is the main question of food security in 2050. Will the poor still have animal-sourced food on their plate in 2050? This is not a trivial question. We know that on the cost side, there will be increasing pressure on food resources, which will increase prices. On the demand side, rapidly increasing middle classes and rising incomes will translate into higher prices. Will this crowd out the ability of the poor to be able to have access to animal-sourced food for a nutritious diet? At the same time, we said that this was a win-win, that if we could harness the production and increased productivity in low-income farm families and value-chain actors, they would be able to contribute to that increased supply and in the process gain from it. So we said that we were going to generate good science and show how smallholder and small-scale-based systems and value-chains could be more productive, could be more efficient and more profitable and be sustainable and inclusive in the process. As part of our pitch, we said that we were going to do business unusual, that learning from lessons that the CG has gained over the years, we would focus on value chains and on a few selected value chains so that we could demonstrate impact. We would work more effectively with development partners and we would translate our science into successful, integrated interventions at scale. We would start right from the beginning with that in mind. We were dedicated to designing practical, inclusive options for sustainable intensification. Have we delivered on that agenda? We have to acknowledge there's been solid progress in some areas and little or no progress in others. So far, the feedback we've had on various evaluations that are ongoing or just completed, especially the CRP Commission external evaluation on our value chain approach, have been generally positive and certainly constructive. We need to take advantage of those now and internalize them to optimize our work during these final two years of this phase. Then looking to the future to 2017 and beyond, we need to start taking into account what has changed, not only in terms of the external environment and all the trends that are going on outside there, but also, as we all know, the changing, ever-changing context and expectations within the CGIR. Are there new directions that we want to begin to promote and to propose from our supply side perspective? Let's use that to shape some proposals that we can start sharing with our stakeholders during the consultations that we expect to organize over the rest of this year. And that way we'll get their demand side input as well. So please, I encourage you to participate and more especially to really engage. We really need your input to be able to shape this so that we all own the program. Please, let's be good scientists. Let's challenge our assumptions and let's look for opportunities to innovate. I hope you enjoy this format. Good luck and I'm looking forward to the discussions.