 Good afternoon, everyone. It's great to be back here. It's the first time I speak from here, not representing FAO, and it will be a different experience. I now work for an organization called CIFOR. CIFOR is headquartered in Bogor, Indonesia, but we work across the tropics with forestry research, and our mission is that policy decisions on forests and forestry should be supported by solid science and principles of good governance. CIFOR also turns 20 years this year. So we are also having a little bit of an anniversary coming out of the teenagers and ready to make a big difference. It's also great to be here to see the connection between forests and food security. This is really, really important, and it has actually been important for some time. It's quite interesting to note that the theme of the International Year of Forest in 1985 was food security. So we are on track. That's good. I'm going to talk about ecosystem services and how we can increase those through how we can increase food security and nutrition through these ecosystem services. And I'm going to do that a little bit backwards. I'll start with ecosystem services. What do we mean? What are we after? And then I'll talk a little bit about food security and nutrition, which parts are really relevant for the discussion. And then finally talk about how do we possibly increase the food security and nutrition. So ecosystem services, another of these fuzzy concepts. I've been standing here trying to defend the definition of forests that FAO has several times. And now I'm faced with ecosystem services. What's that? The only real source of this is the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. And as you know, they divide this into provisioning services, into regulating services, into supporting services, and into cultural services. But this is not a straightforward or uncontroversial definition. In particular, there is a discussion about the cultural services. Do they really count? And sometimes you get the feeling that this is really driven by environment interests. Nothing wrong with that, but it maybe doesn't cover the full spectrum of the things that we are after. And it is obvious, however, that there's more than one ecosystem service that we're after. But very often we find ourselves discussing each of these ecosystem services one by one. Red Plus is a good example. We talk about the carbon, which is one of the ecosystem services in this graph. But we tend to not talk about the other ones. So my first kind of message here is that, sorry, these are the three I will talk about more in detail later. But my first message here today is really we should approach ecosystem services as a whole. We can't take them one by one because there are clear interdependencies between them. This means that we are standing in front of a classical multiple-objective problem. And we need approaches where we can weigh different actions and we can seek combined solutions. And here I must apologize because my editor has entered the word, I didn't see it until just before the session, the word optimum, that should not be there. We're not looking for optimum solutions because that's not really possible. I'll tell my editor that. But really we need approaches that look at all these services together. We're seeking to maximize something. That's something we can call the utility in economists' language. And that utility is the total of all the different ecosystem services, for example. And therefore if we now look at, as we do in this conference, at food security and nutrition as the utility, that's the utility we seek. We want to maximize it. Then I have some observations. First of all, food security is only partly related to food production and therefore to ecosystem services. And likewise, nutrition is only partly related to the availability of quality food. And this means that we can't really talk about increasing food security and nutrition by ecosystem services just like that. We can only talk about it in the terms by which they relate to ecosystem services. And this is not trivial. These are very complex relationships. And we need to be careful before we speak out and say that increasing one particular ecosystem services make people less hungry. There are other significant parts that contribute to food security and nutrition that are not ecosystem services. At least not the definition we have today. Poverty, obviously. Social protection, obviously. How well the markets and the distribution functions. Not least the awareness and knowledge sharing, especially if we talk about nutrition. And finally, obviously, waste and losses. So my first observation is really that we need to take a complete picture about this before we declare victory in ecosystem services. And to underscore that even more, I want to show a few developments over the past 50 years. It's been really incredible last 50 years. Unfortunately, the number of food insecure people have stayed the same or more or less the same over this period. And then I'm actually a little bit flattering because some figures say that there were less food insecure in the beginning of the 60s. But anyway, we have a fairly stable, if that expression is allowed, situation when it comes to the number of food insecure people. But the not food insecure people have tripled. And further food production has tripled. And further the GDP per capita on average has tripled. And finally the CO2 emissions have tripled. So what does this tell us? Well, it tells us that there are things that have happened over the past 50 years that are not particularly correlated to food security. And that's maybe something to keep in mind as we look for increasing the food security and nutrition. Let me now move on and talk a little bit about broadening the picture. Because we can always say that food security and nutrition is the thing to deal with. That's what we are concerned with and we are going to use all our political powers and careers to solve that. That's fine, admirable. However, there are some other goals out there that I think we can't forget about. And I would like to talk about the big four. Poverty, the political champion process here is the Millennium Development Goals at the moment. Food insecurity, obviously. We have the World Food Summits that are prominent political processes. We have the climate change with the Climate Change Convention. And then we have green growth with equity, which is the new kid on the block coming out of the Rio Plus 20 process. And Indonesia has expressed this well, I think, by saying green growth with equity. Again, we're talking about four different goals that are clear in the dependencies. There are synergies. There are trade-offs. Can we really deal with one of these at a time? Or would that respect our solutions too much? And we seem to end up in a multiple-objective situation again. And what this, to me, all leads to is that we must not, neither at the ecosystem services level nor at the broader development goals level, get stuck in any particular box. And therefore we need some form of new development narrative to sort this out that looks at the broader political solutions. And David Navarro put this very well this morning. He said that we need political solutions, not technical solutions. We need them too, but first we need political solutions. And one way that we are working on this is to talk about sustainable landscapes. We're working with many partners on this, including with ICRAF and Tony Simons, who we listened to this morning, including other parts of the CG system, particularly the Climate Change and Food Security Program. And some of you may know that we are looking forward to combine the earlier forest day and landscape, sorry, forest day and agriculture day at the UNFCCC COPS into one event, which we call the Landscape Forum. Because we believe that if we start talking about landscapes, if we don't pronounce the sector boundaries, or for that matter the development objective boundaries, then we have a chance to find better solutions. This does not mean that we ignore the sectors. On the contrary, and this is, the reason I'm saying this is that some reactions we've had, and this is mainly a forestry audience, some reactions we've had is that, but then you're giving up forestry. Why are you doing that? And I'm saying that's not at all what we're doing. We are putting forestry that makes it relevant, much more relevant than if we deal with forestry in isolation. So that's the way to look at it. And we're moving forward on this and we are thinking about what would a sustainable landscape framework look like? What would be the objectives that would be valid across development objectives, across geographies? And are there ways to formulate a political agenda around this with performance measures? And we think we're on to something. I'm going to talk about this in detail, but we're on to looking at four different objectives in the landscape. And the important thing to note here for this session is that one of those objectives is sustained ecosystem services. So we are kind of still in the same boat, if you like. Now, I want to move from here. Four minutes, that's okay. To zoom in on three particular ecosystem services from forests. Safe drinking water, energy security, and regional climate regulation. First one is an example from where I live now. This is the greater Jakarta region. Jakarta is by the sea. And if you look carefully, you will see Bogor at the bottom of this circle and the sea for headquarters. There are 15 million people living in this circle. And it's not a particularly rich part of the world, but it's getting richer very quickly. If you look also carefully, you will see that we have, just outside the circle, a fairly large volcano. Gunungede. It rains a lot here. It rains 5,000 millimeters per year in Bogor. And as you can see, this volcano is covered by forest. In fact, so much forest that the water, the purified water that comes down the slopes of this volcano provides enough safe drinking water for all of Jakarta. And you see them every day traveling in these bottles up and down the highway between Jakarta and Bogor. So 15 million people getting safe drinking water. Incredible benefits from ecosystem, sorry, from a nutrition perspective. And I talked to my house staff about this before I came here. They confirmed that, yes, everybody is buying this water. We can afford it now. And she said, one more very interesting thing. She said, and also, because I said it costs money, but she said it's more expensive to boil the water. That's something to think about. So that's the first one. Second one, briefly, food security requires energy security. I think several people have mentioned this in this conference already. The case of charcoal is particularly interesting. Supposedly employ 7 million people only in Africa. Obviously, this is a service from the forest that we need to somehow maintain in a sustainable way. And there are a lot of things to say about that from running out of time and much more to say. The third one I wanted to mention is climate regulation. Here we're in a situation where science is not clear. We don't really have the knowledge to say that forests can regulate, determine regional rainfall. And there is a bit of a forest, and this is strange. I thought that was the case. But apparently this is a controversial theory among atmospheric scientists. Reveals a gap in knowledge, and it reveals that without the sufficient evidence base we can't really go forward with the policies that we would like to. And therefore, one of the work areas that CIFOR is picking up with partners is what we call evidence-based forestry. Picking up the wisdom and the experience from other sectors like medicine and social sectors of how to systematize our knowledge, how to know what we know. This is an established methodology. I will only say here that one of the systematic reviews that we are just now starting up is exactly on the question of how do forest-based ecosystem contribute services to agriculture production. So we're on to this, and hopefully we will have more soon. So we come to the increase. I will not spend much time on the policy options. I know that tomorrow would be a day with much more discussion on this, but just concluding that there is a range of options. We can simply regulate and enforce that regulation. We can work with subsidies and investments from public money, taxpayers' money, including ODA. And there I note that there is money, but we seem to use 1.6 trillion in subsidies on fossil fuels and another half trillion every year on agriculture subsidies. So there seems to be some maneuvering space here politically. We have PIS approaches we heard in the previous session. They are very difficult to calibrate, difficult to bundle. We can look into scaling up private sector investment. That's something I believe very much in myself. And at the end, a rhetorical question, will neoclassical economics alone be enough? And I think the answer on that is clearly no. So my final slide. Take our messages. First, ecosystem services from forests are crucial for humankind. I think we can agree. Secondly, we can't continue to isolate issues. We have to embrace multiple objectives. Thirdly, sustainable landscape can be part of our new development narrative. And finally, our plans for the future must be evidence-based. Thank you very much.