 OK, thanks. So we titled this Geographically Appropriate Integrated Agriculture Focus, I think, on the integrated part, especially. How do we pull together not just crop production, but the production of a whole range of other services and products from agro-ecosystems? And how do we do that in a way that's globally appropriate in terms of the site conditions that are there now, and also the ones that are changing? This is partly part of a project called the Economics of Land Decreditions, funded ultimately by the UN, and through some German colleagues. And I'll point out my colleagues also working on this project. I had a kubeschefsky and a cat term that we're here today. We live in a different world these days. We live in a whole, what's been called a whole new geologic era, the Anthropocene, as it's called. You've heard that term, Anthropocene, to see how white it's getting around there, OK? Just because of the magnitude of human influence on the planet, we don't live in a world that has a lot of natural capital any longer. It's full of humans and their artifacts. I think this changes a lot of things about how we think about the world, how we think about humans' place in the world. And I think it forces us to do a lot more conscious management if we really want to have a sustainable and desirable future. And part of the reason for that is the intensification of land use and the transition from a world which was largely natural ecosystems to frontier clearing and then subsistence agriculture in small-scale farms and onto more intensive agriculture and urbanization in combination with protected areas and some remaining natural areas. And I think the challenge here is what's the appropriate balance? What is the geographically appropriate balance of these activities? They're going to maximize both the quality of life for people now and the sustainability of that quality of life into the future. This is from a paper by John Foley in Collins probably years ago, just looking at the extents globally of crop lands and pasture and rangelands and comparing that with the natural vegetation pattern across the plant. You probably all see versions of this just to show you where things are. But we also know that we are bumping up against and probably have already exceeded the safe operating space for new elements on the planet. This paper you probably seen was an attempt to identify what the planetary values were in terms of these nine variables. And we concluded that we're probably already outside the safe operating space on at least three of those. Climate change, obviously, biodiversity loss and the nitrogen cycle. Several others are rapidly approaching the safe operating space. So we're changing the world in very significant ways and that's having an effect on the provision of ecosystem services, the benefits that people derive from functioning ecosystems. This is from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment from a few years ago. Who's heard the term ecosystem services in this room? Even more than some folks, that's good. So you know what I'm talking about here that the Millennium Assessment categorizes these four broad groups of provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. Obviously, food is a major one there. And there are effects on various aspects of human well-being. So it's not just marketed prep non-production, but a whole range of other services that affect human well-being. One thing that's missing from this diagram, I would say, is the fact that these services don't just flow from nature into human well-being. There's an interaction between the built infrastructure, human capital and social capital. It's all required in order to make this transition from a functioning natural system, the natural capital, into well-being. So there's not a direct flow there, but there's a required interaction. It makes studying ecosystem services, it makes actually studying the economy really an inherent and transdisciplinary kind of activity. We have to change our fundamental paradigm of how we can fit with the rest of nature and stop conceiving of the economy as something separate from the rest of nature, but something that's integrated together with all the rest of the system. It's a much broader view. And recognizes that the economy is embedded in, it's embedded within society, which is embedded in the rest of nature. So we've got to think of this as an interconnected, as an integrated system. And certainly agriculture within that system. So here's a little more complicated picture of how that might work. That we have to first of all recognize we live in a materially closed earth system. There are fundamental ecological constraints and planetary boundaries. We have to recognize that these four basic types of capital or assets are all required to produce any sort of human well-being. And it extends beyond our built capital and our human capital of individual people, but that includes their education, their health. But it also includes our social capital, all of the interactions among people, both formal and informal networks and institutions and the market itself is a form of social capital. And that's all embedded within our natural capital infrastructure, the rest of the nature of all of our natural ecosystems. They affect how goods and services are produced, marketed goods and services, but they also affect human well-being more directly. So it also involves recognizing that human well-being is a much more complex function than simply the more we consume the better off we are. It has to do with our natural capital and our social capital as well. So we're beginning to be able to do a much better job of both understanding those connections and mapping those assets. And I think going forward, we need to look at how human natural built and social capital are all distributed around the planet and how they interact to affect sustainable well-being. And when it comes to agriculture, it's a question of moving perhaps from natural ecosystems which produced a large range of ecosystem services and in very small amounts of crop, if you wanna call it that, to more intensive crop land where those ecosystem services have been sacrificed in the name of increasing crop production. There may be more diverse systems where we're optimizing the joint production of all of those kinds of outputs. So we think of agriculture not as just producing crops, but agriculture and agro ecosystems as producing this whole range of goods and services. And this is really a design problem, highly designed systems that can give us a more optimal production processes. I'll just plug this recent book that we have coming out on ecosystem services from agriculture on urban landscapes. I think that part of the ecosystem services agenda has not been emphasized up until recently. So most of the previous work on ecosystem services has been about, quote unquote, natural ecosystems, the ones with fairly small amounts of human intervention. But I think that's rapidly changing as some of the issues that we've talked about today become more important, how do we actually live sustainably and well in the Anthropocene. And I'll give one example of a very interesting study. I think that was done by Ian Bateman and colleagues out of the UK. That was part of a large ecosystem services assessment that they did there. And they looked at a range of outputs. I think they basically concluded that, well, the UK is largely going to be a farm. So when you talk about scenarios for the future, it's what do they do, how do they manage that farm? And they looked at both traditional agricultural production, the sequestering of greenhouse gases, recreational amenities, and urban green space amenities. They also looked at biodiversity as measured by wild bird species diversity. Small subset, I would say, of all of the ecosystem services involved, but enough to give you quite a different picture of some of the future of the UK than you might otherwise get. They looked at these six different scenarios going forward that had to do with different types of environmental regulation and planning policy relative to the current situation and the spatial focusing of the changes. And you can see from the names of these and the combination of the environmental regulation and spatial patterns, what kinds of things they're talking about. The two that I'll talk more about are the world markets scenario where they have weak environmental regulation and it's focused on losses of green belt to the development versus the nature at work. They have strong environmental regulation and greening of urban and peri-urban areas to enhance recreation values, but the paper gets into a lot of detail on several of these. Those two scenarios, for example, what they end up doing is looking at what happens to the market values in the future, the value of agricultural products in terms of pounds per hectare of the year, but then also what happens to the non-market values, the greenhouse gas emissions, the recreation and the urban amenities in this case, and finally what happens to their biodiversity index. You can see the world market scenario increases agricultural production largely, but it was negative in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, largely negative in terms of recreation except the red one into urban areas and largely negative in terms of urban green space while it reverses true of the nature at work in many cases. The bottom line was this, I think, quite dramatic result, that if they look at the changes in value from the present day to 2020-60, achieved by targeting these different policies, if you aim to maximize just the market value of these systems, then there's a net increase in that value, but several of the other things go down significantly. This is the net effect. If you maximize all the monetary values that they included there, greenhouse gas emissions, recreational amenities, carbon sequestration, you get a reduction in the agricultural value but a large increase in the other values. You get a major, almost a more than order of magnitude increase in the total value of the landscape. I don't think it goes that way. It said, well, what happens if you did the same thing but you constrained it with the biodiversity constraints? You want to minimize the loss of biodiversity? Basically they found that that didn't change things very much. You could get this without losing very much in terms of biodiversity. So quite an interesting result, and it just goes to show the magnitude of the difference in conclusions that you might get by focusing only on the ag production versus focusing on a broader spectrum of products and services. This idea of scenario planning, I think in general, is a good way to try to integrate many of the factors that we've been talking about here today and also to communicate with a much broader audience. We did a project in Iowa a few years ago that tried to do that for agriculture in Iowa and generated a series of scenarios which had very different spatial patterns. They had very different sort of views of the landscape. And I think they're also very differently perceived by the various stakeholders. We hadn't taken this to the same level of analyzing the value of those services as the UK study did, but I think if you do that, you get some fairly similar results. It's also possible to do this. This is just an example from Australia I thought you might be interested in. We did something similar for the Great Barrier Reef and its catchment, looking at a range of different scenarios, what impacts that would have, not only on the terrestrial system, but also on the marine system and the marine itself and how different, changing different patterns, both management on the landscape and of sort of global climate change, how that would affect the future of the Great Barrier Reef. So, we know also, this is from, also from the Millennium Assessment, that many of the transitions these days from intact natural systems to more agro systems, it's done in the conventional way, leads to a net decrease in the value of those systems. If you include the value of the ecosystem services we've been talking about. So the private benefits may increase, but the social benefits generally decrease by quite a large margin. We did a study at the global scale to try to estimate what's the benefit-cost ratio of preserving, conserving or restoring our natural-capital assets globally. And that was based on a scenario of increasing the global terrestrial reserve network to cover 15% of the terrestrial biosphere and 30% of the marine biosphere that would cost about $45 billion a year to implement and maintain. But the net benefits, the difference between the intact system and what it most likely would be converted to was under over $4 to $5 trillion each. So, a benefit-cost ratio of over 100 to one. So, it's an amazingly good investment in any market. But these are largely social benefits and private costs. It's also possible to look at the range of benefits from these ecosystem services across different ecosystems. And this is a recent study that's been updated with well over a thousand different individual studies. It's kind of a meta-analysis of the estimates of the value of ecosystem services from these different systems. And you can see that there's quite a large range, but also quite large means and average values to coral reefs, which are more than $100,000 per hectare per year in terms of the total value of the services that they provide. We did a study back in 1997 that looks at aggregating all of these values globally and came up with an estimate in current dollars. This is around $2,007 that came out to be $45 trillion a year. And then we looked at the changes in land use between 2011 and 1997. And many of the high-valued systems have been lost. Coral reefs, for example, at the expense of some lower-valued systems. If you look at the overall net change, I won't go into the details here, but if you look at the change in value between those two years, because largely of land use change, also from having better estimates of the unit values of the systems, it ends up being somewhere in the range of four to $20 trillion a year, in terms of the loss of value. So we're converting these systems into less valuable from a social point of view ecosystems or agro-ecosystems. How do we go about changing that? How about, I think we need a better systems-level understanding of these interactions. We need to do better integrated modeling of humans embedded in ecological systems. And that's gonna involve, there's no one right way to do this. I think it's gonna involve a intelligent pluralism, as they call it. A lot of different approaches with a lot of comparing the results and testing, so we can't go down one particular route. It's gonna have to be multiple scales in time and space and complexity. So we can't solve this problem by just looking at individual farms or global scale phenomena. We've gotta have a way to do these things with multiple scales. It also needs to involve stakeholders in a more open consensus-built kind of process. So it's not just scientists producing models, it's scientists involving stakeholders from the beginning of the process, from the stage of conceptualizing the models and developing them all the way through. Acknowledging uncertainty and limits of predictability, the values of stakeholders' maintenance process, and also recognizing that these things occur over long historical periods and you have to incorporate that and the evolutionary, the co-evolutionary processes that occur between humans and the rest of nature. One example, point two, is a model that we did at the global scale but differentiated by these 11 biomes that looked at the dynamics of ecosystem services over the time period from 1900 to 2100 and how they all interacted in a more integrated way. So I would call this an integrated dynamic model of the system. It also, I think, can be and needs to be done for in a spatially explicit way at the landscape scale. So there's been a lot of landscape-level modeling that combines the ecological and the natural system components of these systems. And ultimately, I think we need to build more multi-scale integrated models that can get at ecosystem services and how they change as a result of these complex factors that we've all been talking about. One interesting example I thought it shows that I think this one's really cool is this model of the collapse of the Maya civilization that we've done recently. That's in this general mode. The advantage of looking historically is you can get much longer time periods, you can look at civilizations that grew and then eventually we're not sustainable. So if you want to study sustainability, it's good to know what doesn't work as well as what might work. And so this is kind of an integrated systems dynamics and agent-based model that covers this whole range of variables, including the human population, human capital, the natural capital and ecosystem services, some of the economics and the trade networks, and we're able to reproduce the collapse of the Maya civilization back and ask questions like what could they have done differently? Could they have managed their natural capital and their trade network better or managed their population? They've stabilized that system. So finally, what we're working on now is actually adding some engaging sort of game interface onto these kinds of complex landscape scale models that will allow us to do, I think, a range of new kinds of research and also to better educate the general public about how these complex systems work. So we want to build games that combine entertainment, education and research. An interesting statistic I've heard recently is that we now spend over $3 billion per week, people do, playing computer games. That's a lot of time and effort. We can engage at least some small fraction of that effort in useful kinds of games, as they're called, that are also educational. I think we can do a lot better and more kinds of research about both how people understand these complex systems, we can be educated about them. We can also observe how they value different components of the system, how they make trade-offs in these systems, how that behavior changes over time. In these game environments, you can keep track of every decision that every player makes and you can use that in a lot of interesting ways. So our next step is we have a workshop coming up next week in New Zealand, I think, in the university that we'll work on developing some of these ideas about mapping modern data acquisition for large-scale sustainable management analysis that feeds into this economics of land degradation project. But that will also help us to develop better or more geographically appropriate and integrated agriculture. And finally, I'll point to a journal that we produced as one of the outfits from this meeting, perhaps might be an article that synthesizes or summarizes what we've all come up with. And we have a journal called Solutions that is a hybrid academic and popular magazine that tries to reach across academic disciplines also out to the policy community but in a way that's, we call it, seriously creative. More than a third of our articles can be about describing the problem and two thirds have to be about describing the solution. So I encourage you to take a look at this and maybe think about publishing some of your solutions here. Okay, thanks.