 I will introduce our speakers. Then I will spend a few minutes giving some background to the discussion. And then I will refer back to the speakers, and we will open with interventions of around five, six minutes from each. And then with that, we will open to the floor for questions and comments. And hopefully, we can have some debate about the topics. Well, from my close left, I want to introduce to Christian Del Valle. Christian is founder and managing partner of Altilia Equisphere and Altilia Climate Fund. Before, he has served as director of environmental markets and forestry at BNP Paribas. Then we have to Richard, Richard McNally. Richard is a global coordinator for climate change, SNB. And he has been working as environmental economists leading several global projects, including red projects. Then we have to Agus Sari. Agus is the CEO of Belantara Foundation, primarily with work in Indonesia. And before that, he has served in different positions in Indonesia, including the task force for red. And he has been actively leading efforts to design financial mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Indonesia. So he has a really active role in the country. Then we have to Obadia Ngigi. Obadia is a co-founder and CEO of Farmers Life East Africa, which is a company aimed at helping financial institutions and farmers to overcome challenges associated with climate change, mainly in Kenya, if I'm right. Then we have to Silvia Wysniewski. Silvia is managing director of finance in motion, which is an impact investment group. And she oversees the company's financing initiatives for conservation and natural resources. And then we have to Chris Brown. Chris is a vice president and corporate responsibility and sustainability of all international. So it's a quite distinguished group of people. There's lots of knowledge in our panelists. So I will just spend a few minutes to provide some background to the discussion that we want to have. And the questions that we want to explore in this panel are mainly related to three basic questions. One is more related to how to mobilize long-term finance for investments aimed at supporting sustainable agriculture and conservation, but at the same time providing social benefits. And how is that small holders can benefit from those investments? The second is more looking at what kind of investment and business schemes can be more effective for transferring finance and some other services to small holders and SMEs. And what works better in which type of context, et cetera. And the third one has more to do with issues of scaling up. We all know that scaling up initiatives at work is very difficult. And often all these investments, they are very successful in a specific project, in specific cases, in specific geographies. So that's an interesting topic to explore. Well, we all know that there's a need of long-term, large-scale investments for conservation, production, and mainly for small holders and SMEs. Often these actors are disenfranchised. They face a lot of constraints, technical, organizational, financial, et cetera. So there's a need to deliver more funds and investments for these groups. And when they have access to these funds, often the terms and conditions of these resources, they don't necessarily match with the reality of these farmers, of these groups. And often when they have access to informal finance, we know that informal finance is expensive. So also there's a need to mobilize these resources in ways that make sense for these actors. And also in ways that can support upgrade of production systems, adoption of improved practices, and have benefits for them. And also we know that these players are over time engaging in markets that are more demanding, more demanding in terms of quality, compliance with environmental standards. So I think that imposes additional constraints in these players. So this discussion about how to mobilize resources that make sense and can help them to overcome these constraints make a lot of sense. So, and also finance at the same time, shouldn't just be to support initiatives that you have in place, but to create options and to create new economic options for these players, which is important, but we know that's well easy to say, but it's difficult to put in practice. At the same time, there's a lot of initiatives that have been emerging from the finance sector that are more innovative. And I try to link the smallholder needs with these new perspectives of investors to try to get some environmental, positive environmental and social outcomes. And I think there's a lot of finance instruments that are emerging, like I don't know, bundling different types of financial services, blending different types of capital, targeting incentives from governments to facilitate guarantees and capital for smallholders, leveraging the capacity of actors in the value chains and making use of new technologies. So I think there's important set of instruments, tools and technologies that are being used. It's important to reflect how also they can have well-helped to bridge supply with demand of capital. And also, I think at the same time, we know that yeah, finance has to embrace environmental and social goals, but finance is not enough. Also, there's a lot of different conditions that have to be in place for finance and investments to have a positive outcome for the environment, for conservation, for smallholders. And I think, well, the whole debate that now we are having is also how that can be scaled up. There are successful initiatives, how they can be scaled up at the level of the supply chains or putting in place business models that are more inclusive and really can deliver social and environmental outcomes at the same time. And here where we are having this discussion is also on the landscape. So how to leverage the possibility that finance can have a bigger impact at the landscape. And that leads us to have a wider perspective on the possibilities and limits of finance. So with that introduction, I would like to ask some specific questions to our panelists based on these basic considerations. And I would like to start with Sylvia. You, as managing funds as an impact investor, where you are looking for new ways to mobilize resources and to bring those resources that could have a meaningful impact on the environment and also to deliver some social benefits. Now, could you tell us what are the challenges for bringing this capital into this, having in mind those objectives? Yeah, thanks, Pablo, for this question, which I think many of you also share as a concern. I mean, we know definitely there are programs out there, there are government initiatives, we have international initiatives, but I think we're all very cognizant of the fact that this is not enough and that private sector funding needs to be pulled in because of the enormous challenges that are out there. And if private sector money is not being mobilized, probably we're just not gonna make it. And I think there's also a great opportunity actually at this point in time, given the very low interest rate environment that particular Europe is facing. So many of the private investors actually look for alternatives right now and turn also to asset classes where they've never taken a look at before. Simply because they know that the current alternatives that they have, or in that sense, not so interesting anymore or also have their own new challenges. So in that sense, actually, we have a very good opportunity at present to bring more private sector funding in, but how to actually make this work. There's a lot of talk about impact investors today. You know, that there are certain foundations handled with individuals that look at these topics and are willing to basically put millions or even billions behind the development agenda that we're all discussing here. However, I think we all need to be cognizant that though impact investors come with a development agenda, meaning that they have social and environmental benefits in mind, first and foremost, these are investors, which means they look at a risk return equation first. And this is, I think, something where we need to understand to talk that language. Because they come with their metrics, which is not necessarily what we probably have in mind if we talk government program or a CHEF initiative or GCF initiative. And also the terms that we're used to use in our community of landscape restoration, conservation finance, red plaza, and you name it, these are acronyms and concepts that an impact investor is not used to. And finally, the other challenge that we have is this is an untested asset class. There's no track record. You don't have a 10 years or 15 years historic track record of saying, okay, these are the probability of defaults. These are the returns that are being generated. These are the last rates. That doesn't really exist. So there are these challenges for an impact investor, even if that person or that foundation has a strong social mission, where the risk return language you really cannot respond to because we talk a different language than they do. So what can be done to actually address these issues? And what we found is a very interesting tool is structured funds, which actually represent a blended funding concept, where we try to bring together different investors from the public area, but also from the private area and basically respond to their particular needs and to what they're looking for and what they can effectively deliver. It's very clear that for an untested asset class, a private investor first and foremost is interested to protect its principle, to protect its capital. We're not even talking now about returns. We're just about talking about not losing the money, being sure that you're not losing the money and something. So risk protection is a big, big issue. And this is what we're trying to solve through so-called structured funds. And what does this mean, a structured fund? I don't know. Whether any of you has ever eaten a German black forest cake? Hands up. Of those who have this. Oh, great, thank you. I will tell our bakery back home that we finally made it to bring something, you know, also here to Marrakech. So as you know, this is some sort of a layered cake. You have this dark biscuit at the bottom and then you have the double cream and then the cherries and mm, yeah, I see. Sorry, I didn't bring any pieces for you, sorry. Next time. Then there's another double cream layer and then on top again, you know, the biscuit. And on top, you know, you have then the cherries. And normally you eat this from top to down, right? I mean, you start obviously picking the cherry, which is on top. And then you eat from the top to the bottom. How the structured funds work is the other way around. So you have these different slices, these different layers and everyone has a different risk return profile, which means those that are the bottom, you know, these are those that get eaten first if there is a loss. Yeah, so if you use that pool of money that is represented by the, you know, our cake, if you invest that money and you have some losses because some investments don't come back, you know, those that are in the lowest segment of the cake get eaten up first. And if that, you know, slice of the cake is being eaten up, then it moves on to the next layer. If there are further and additional losses. And so hopefully you'll never make it to the top because obviously you want to restrict your losses. But what it means for a private investor is you can choose where you wanna go in. Generally private investors wanna be on top of the cake and benefit then from a 60, 70% risk protection. So this is actually how you can pull in an investor, which in principle is interested, but has no idea about the actual asset class, about performance, about the risk profile. But through that additional protection that it gets through those investors which are below which generally come from the public sector or the semi-public sector, you basically get into those funds. Just to give you an idea of scale and size of what we've been experiencing over the last 10 years in funds that we are managing. Accumulatively we have mobilized more than 500 million euros in private funding. These are largely high net worth individuals, foundations, but also pension funds. And we know from other similarly structured funds that we are in that sense not a unique animal, but that this is really a replicable model. Obviously it also poses certain challenges because you're dealing then really with large scale amounts and you need pipeline for these large scale amounts. So you need to find also business models which respond to this kind of financing. For example, a pension fund, they would never come with funding to you below 25 million at once. So you need to be able to place this. The other challenge obviously is that the investors often talk also a slightly different language when it comes to impact. So you have donors, which perhaps come with their particular agendas. Some which may focus more on the gender aspect, some which focus more on the environmental aspect. While private investors, we found them in that sense more general so that they look more at the bigger themes, not so much at the very specific micro effects. But to bring them together is not so easy always to align them on the development agenda and the impact indicators, et cetera, et cetera. And what is even more challenging at least, we find this more and more, is the timing dimension. If you convince a private investor to come in, that investor wants to put the money tomorrow. With public investors, you can spend two or three years to get the funding in place. We had for example an experience with the Latin American Fund on conservation investments where we had just the German government funding in place and had talks with many other international foreign institutions. But the next one who came in was actually a private investor because that investor was ready to spend immediately the money, though we had not even yet felt completely the cake in terms of the risk layers. But that private investor for example knew us from prior business, had trust in our business capacity and our judgment and therefore was willing to basically do the bad and come in already earlier even than the other semi public investors. So I think that's probably more and more a challenge going forward, that this alignment of timing because public sector, and sorry if I'm stopping here on any toes, but public sector tends to take time. And this is not always what a private investor looks for. A private investor is probably more willing to have a more flexible approach perhaps on the impact metrics, but to be able to place funds while with public investors we find that even before we talk about the actual financing part, we talk long about the impact metrics and the targets and what you wanna actually deliver on et cetera, which I think is a fair point. But if you then have a government change, if you have a resetting of priorities, this can sometimes get very difficult. I'll stop here because I guess we will hear more about how then to place those funds and what are good and interesting business models. So let me stop here at that level of first bringing the money in. Okay, thank you Silvia. And a bit to move ahead with the discussion. Well, I would like to invite Richard because I think you have a lot of experience of probably building that pipeline of projects and what's possible in terms of timing for building the pipeline and also skills and you are working worldwide. So if you can share with your thoughts about how that's possible and to match with this needs of availability of funds. The ground level, SNV of course, we're very much focused on working with smallholder farmers. We work across 20 different commodities across 30 countries, really focused on working with the smallholder and how we can transition working with the smallholder to a more sustainable and inclusive business model. You know, as part of this, we recognize that the smallholder farmer is one of the groups which is having impact, environmental impact in terms of deforestation and forest degradation. So we have set up a program of an SNV called the Red Energy and Agriculture Program to try to see how we can look at agriculture intensification and the impact that has on forestry, on deforestation or land expansion or land intensification as well as energy use. So as part of this work, we've worked, introduced this program across a number of different countries and as part of this, we've identified a number of key factors which we think are critical in terms of making that transition for smallholder farmers and SMEs. And one of those factors, as Pablo mentioned in the introduction, is around finance. What we've found really is that there's not just one factor but there's multiple factors really that we need to work on when we're working with smallholders. These include, for example, things like greater smallholder organization, working very much with the smallholders to work together to strengthen our bargaining power within a value chain with the companies, the mills or other groups along that value chain. Very much trying to also work on the enabling environment, governance issues around land, land tenure, land conflict and so forth. Unless we're looking at these more difficult governance enabling conditions then, it's very difficult for investors to be so interested in such a risky environment to put their finance. A third element that we see as critical in terms of making that transition for smallholders, for sustainable deforestation free production is on providing service provision for better management practices. Really trying to work on those key issues to intensify production, to try to reduce the need to expand production into the forest areas. And then finally, which is a topic of today, is the issue around access to finance, the need to try to mobilize or support smallholder farmers in accessing finance to be able to invest into their more sustainable deforestation free production. As Pablo highlighted, this is a key element and S&V's been working across the world on this, both in terms of trying to access domestic finance, which we think is critical if we're really looking at scaling up impact, but also looking at the more niche international impact investment finance, which potentially in the short term is going to be easier to access to make this transition towards more sustainable deforestation free. Again, focus very much at the smallholder level. From our experience, what we've found really is there's a lot of capital, a lot of potential funds out there, but there's a number of different conditions which is really making it difficult for those funds to actually get down into sustainable practices, which are genuinely deforestation free or different to the business as usual. Some of those factors really, what we're seeing in our work is there's a real lack of bankable pipeline. It's quite hard to find genuine projects to invest into these practices. S&V, we work primarily with small, medium enterprises and smallholders, and these are not so attractive to impact or larger investors, the so-called missing middle. And finally, we see that there's a lot of risks, particularly working on the land use area, the interface between agriculture, smallholder agriculture and deforestation. There's a lot of risks around governance and so forth, which makes it very difficult for investors to be willing to put their money behind it. So the models that we really try to practice, going back to Pablo's question, the models we try and practice really is we see a need for some form of transition finance, public financing, to try to work with these small and medium enterprises and formation of smallholder groups using public finance to try to support them to get to more sustainable and inclusive practices. We, for example, have set up things like challenge funds or work of challenge funds where we provide technical assistance to smallholders for group formation for tracing their supply chains or looking at sustainable practices. As well as mentoring and providing investment into their actual activities. What we've done in a number of cases is we've tried to build the environmental social governance standards of these SMEs and smallholder groups. And then at the end of two or three years, had matchmaking events where we tried to bring the investors to then work with these groups. And at that point, they're far more commercially interesting to be invested in. Another model we use is we set up platforms. Again, we're looking at PPP, public, private funding systems where we provide the training to help the smallholders on meeting environmental social criteria, for example, for certification or for defrostation free practices. And after two or three years, they're out of a position, they no longer need that training. Another issue, just one other issue to highlight from our experience of working is that even when we've seen an increased level of impact investment or domestic investment with higher environmental social governance standards, there's also the issue of how to get the money down to the right groups that you want to work with. And particularly the smallholders, which again is a focus for S&V and the small and medium enterprises, how the finance actually flows down there. These groups are often the ones with the highest risks to the investors. So we're seeing that those companies or groups with better ESG standards are able to access this finance. So it's creating a further division between those groups right at the bottom of the chain, the smallholders and the ones higher up with bigger operations that are able to invest in the environmental and social governance. So what we need or what we've been trying to develop is a number of different models of how to get the finance to the right groups. In one case we have, which we're working closely with a group called Financial Access and C4. And others is trying to develop a model for replanting PAM oil in Jambi in Indonesia. Here we're trying to access impact investors to provide the finance for the replanting, working very much also. We provide technical assistance for looking at credit risk or financial modeling with the smallholders, bundling the smallholders into larger groups to make them more attractive for impact investors and also doing agreements with mills and different groups further up the value chain to be able to source these products. So these are some of the models, which I can go on to others, but I think for time I'll just mention those that SNV is currently working on. Thank you, Richard. You mentioned the Belantara Foundation and models that you are trying to develop in order to reduce the negative environmental impacts that some commodities have and that involve a lot of smallholders, not Indonesia in a specific case. Also smallholders struggling to get access to finance, but at the same time they are struggling now to comply with the standards. And I think, well, you are engaged on those debates and also trying to mobilize finance in order to support more local processes for achieving sustainability. Can you share a bit with your experience, Agus? Yes, thank you, Pablo. My name is Agus Sariam with Belantara Foundation, a new foundation that just was launched last year in Paris. I think I'd like to go back a little bit to why landscape matters. I think landscape, to us, is basically a place where interconnectedness exists. These are interconnectedness among stakeholders, those that use and get benefits from the landscapes. And we need to manage the interconnectedness because lacking which, we will basically destroy the landscape. Having it managed well, we will continue to use the landscape sustainably. So, and that is basically the reason why we're established to do conservation and restoration of forest and peatlands in Indonesia through landscape approach. And we are funded by private sector that reside in the landscapes. It's basically two questions that we ask to the private sector, first is whether you would be willing to co-manage your landscapes, including financially. And then the second question we ask to the private sector would be whether you can afford not to. And usually the second question would be answered, yes, we cannot afford not to co-manage our landscapes and therefore we would be willing to participate, including financially. So through those questions to several private sectors we get our fund. And the first that we obtained was from Asia Popin Paper, which already has its zero deforestation policy. And we actually like to work with, especially companies which have zero deforestation policies. So that's landscape. Now, within the landscape they are, of course in addition to large companies like APP, we have supposedly protected areas, national parks, natural reserves, but also communities, communities that work in many different ways of lives including smallholder farming. And that is the topic of today, is how to basically bring financing to them. We've been in discussion. I think this group is very interesting because these are really a group of friends. I've been in very, very close discussion with Chris and also working very, very closely with SNV in Indonesia. And there are a number of things that probably I'd like to raise as some of the issues that need to be addressed when we talk about financing. First is that usually when we talk about impact investors we are talking about a large amount, large numbers, some millions of dollars. And the bridge between that millions of dollars, two small farmers actually is a big issue. How to basically deliver to the farmers. And that includes the issue of intermediary but also what we call the last mile. How to get to basically the end point of where the money should go. And we need to have innovation there. For example, with finance access and SNV we put together this an up full, yeah? Put together a way to assess the risks because we cannot work with the community using traditional banking mechanisms through collateral or what have you because most of them don't have enough assets to be used for collateral. So we usually use cash flow as a way to assess and manage the risks. And most of them are also already highly indebted. They've been so used to actually using the service of lion sharks with very, very high cost of money. So it is not easy to actually serve them financially. We need to risk assessment very similar with probably insurance companies who do that. Assuming that some of them will default but it won't bring down the entire group. That's basically mostly how things work. The issue of OTANIORIO, we are talking about something that this has not been proven before and work that is very different from investing in a restaurant or a factory. We're talking about the small holders and therefore five years the usual tenure that bankers or investors are looking at really is in quite a lot of cases too short and we need more or longer tenures than five years. Upscaling, how to be able to work in smaller areas but immediately scale it up at the much larger scale because it would be good and easy enough to work in like ten villages. But we need to actually bring this system to reach as many small holders as possible and there are one and a half million of small holders for example in Indonesia. How are we going to reach at least most of them if not all of them? Issues of legality, I mean we're talking about asset for collateral but most of them don't even have legal assets. Their land, they've been using it for probably more than 20, 30 years but they don't have the documentation that they actually own the land. How are we going to deal with that? That's it though. These are usually the factors that scare off a lot of investors and that is why we would like to try to bridge them. How Blantara work is that we have a fund, a substantial amount I think already from time being and then we disperse the fund into at least three windows. The first is grants. We actually provide grants and we are talking about first co-financing partnership grants for example that we do with a number of our partners, IDAs for example from the Netherlands has been our partner. We actually put one to one co-financing for some of our projects and then we also have small grants. We even divide the small grants into mini grants, micro grants and super micro grants. Sometimes you're talking about $500 or $1,000 that would go a long way in some areas when it's put effectively and in the right place. And then the second is investment. We also provide investment. We invest in initiatives that make money and in many cases like even small-hearted development it does make money. The communities actually make more money when they're successful in this program than before and because of that they have increased revenue, they have increased income, they have increased profit and it is actually an investable venture and we are also interested in doing that. But I think what is really interesting I think that we can offer is what we call de-risking facility. What we are doing now is basically to partner with impact investors and quite a lot of investors actually are already excited about coming into Indonesia and invest in some of the landscapes but are still reluctant because of certain risks. And what we're doing basically is to tell them okay let's partner, let's reallocate the risks. We will be willing to take some of your risks if you're not comfortable taking and just take the risks that you are comfortable with. And that would increase their appetite that would basically accelerate their operations in Indonesia. And some of the risks are actually local risk. The ones that I just mentioned earlier that I would say most impact investors would have no clue how to deal with them and we have some good experiences with our NGO partners, how to manage them. And therefore we would be more comfortable taking those risks. Can we stop there? Sure. Okay, all right. Actually I am stopping there. Yes, yes. Because with this very interesting concept of the risk and investments by also taking more concerted efforts of players at the landscape. And that probably is a new way to go. Okay. Sure, okay. Can we move to Abadia because also you are trying to, well working with financial institutions but also dealing with climate change risks and supporting farmers to invest more on soil and land conservation. Can you tell us what sort of mechanisms you put in place that are working? Okay, thank you. Just in addressing these questions, let me briefly to give a highlight of what FTRIF is. Well, in FTRIF we are financial institution and we help financial institutions. Companies, NGOs, and credit providers provide credit which promote sustainable and climate resilience agriculture. We do this by helping credit providers to incorporate climate smart environmental, climate smart and agricultural environmental terms in loan terms and credit scoring. We provide this because angry environmental financial institutions actually are posed by risks. And these risks actually prevent them prevent them from providing credit to small whole of farmers. So what we have come to do is to provide mechanisms that helps financial institutions to provide credit to small whole of farmers. This new initiative we developed it by spending some time negotiating for payment for ecosystem services in Kenya. And from that we learned that contract designs, I mean contract incentives supported by Advice are a very important tool for behavior change by small whole of farmers to embrace climate smart agriculture. And we also realize that direct payments to farmers are not scalable. So we came up with FTRIF system whereby we provide the improved sustainable and climate decisions farming in a way that is more scalable, financial sustainable. And this is where farmers also repay their loans with interest to address his question is how these risks are managed. Is first to understand which risks are we talking about here? From a few perspective where I come from, one of the risks that embrace financial institutions in providing credit to whole of farmers is the investment finance. And as Silver mentioned, a breaded finance which comprise of private finance and public finance is very important because public finance will buffer the private finance such that the private investors will not be hurt in case there's a loss. Secondary, there's a risk of harsh weather conditions. And this can be managed by partnering with weather edict insurance organizations which can question small holder farmers in case there's extreme harsh conditions which are brought about by those weather harsh weather conditions. There's also an issue of low uptake whereby financial institutions and a small holder farmers actually do have a problem of uptaking the new initiatives and that can be managed or mitigated by providing a technical assistance as a value addition to providing the credit to small holder farmers and for financial institutions this helps them to embrace the new initiatives. There's also a problem of a compliance. Compariance in the sense that these new initiatives need to actually fulfill that financial institutions are in compliance with what we call environmental terms in their own terms and small holder farmers are also compliance with what they have agreed in the contract. So that requires some light and tested tools and also processes which are put in place to ensure that compliance is managed. Additionally, these new initiatives which are scaled in different context need to be well designed so that they can fit in different context. Getting back into how these finances can help small holder farmers in mobilizing funds at the same time having soil and water conservation within their agricultural system. It's good to recognize, to realize that small holder farmers globally lack access to finance. They lack access to finance, I mean lack of finance to improve their natural based enterprises. And therefore, because of that problem they are perceived very, very, very risky by credit providers and therefore financial institutions don't provide credit to small holder farmers because of that risk aspect of that. Reason is that they are greatly affected by environment, by climate related shocks which also affect their financial viability. And therefore, finances can be designed in a way that they provide a very strong incentives for behavior change to natural resource management. Specifically here, it is very important to have a design of a finance system that incentivizes these small holder farmers to embrace these natural resource management, especially soil and water management. One is that they provide a very important environmental installation mechanism if they are taken as a condition to access credit. Additionally, these finances which are well designed also helps farmers to finance developmental income generating assets which also help to improve environment and they facilitate provision of ecosystem services. I believe this is a future of environmental finance because it is secure as improved environmental sustainability and also a sustainable financial model where those finances are recycled. So the farmer gets credit. They are provided that credit with an environmental condition so they abide by some environmental conditions. They do ABCD to access incremental credit which helps them to finance their assets at the same time they improve their environment. Just to give an example, we did learn a pilot for a period of three years in Kenya where we are providing credit to small holder farmers and that credit had environmental condition pegged into their own terms such that farmers would access increasing credit at low interest rates and they were required to do some large restoration activities. Once they abide by that they will access incremental credit at lower interest rates. That was successful because in comparison with other conventional agri-environmental projects we had a very high demand for credit. We also had a hundred percent rate of success in comparison with a very low rate of success for these other conventional agri-environmental projects. Thank you, Abadia. We have to move on, I have to cut, I'm sorry. But then I would like to move with Christian and also because you have put in place these schemes that are also trying to deal with providing finance for improving sustainability production systems but also including conservation in ways that involve small holders and may benefit and create opportunities for small holders. Can you elaborate on these schemes and the challenges and what's working well? Thank you everybody. And thank you Pablo. And if I can interpret the question a little bit and sort of distill it down into a simple thing based and also make it relevant to what we've been listening to from the other panelists as well. Okay, we kind of know that we know empirically and scientifically that small holders as so many of them are on the front lines really of climate change and biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, they need to be given access or they need to receive access to the necessary inputs so that their operations can be improved and made more resilient when some of these impacts inevitably start coming their way. So they need that but equally that's information that we have and organizations who are professional who work in the field like S and V and so forth but the millions and millions and millions of small holders out there, there's a sort of a very asymmetrical level of knowledge and even enthusiasm for taking on new business practices. Some of them are very eager and very well informed but equally some of them haven't benefited from some of the knowledge sharing that is so important. So what it really comes down to I think what's the pitch from an impact investor to a group of small holders? What are they gonna get out of it? I mean, we heard from August that yes, absolutely productivity increases can, when project performance is within the sort of target range can really benefit them and create new income streams and so forth and really make their lands more suitable for agriculture over time. That's all great but equally we know as we know as the urban elite, if I can borrow that term from so many politicians now, we know that inertia and cognitive dissonance and so forth are very powerful forces in our own lives, our own societies rather. So getting people to change is a tough one. So I think we better well go in there with a very good proposition for them and that's easy to understand and doesn't require them completing a PhD before they are able to really sit down and have an informed conversation. So going back to my sort of, putting my asset manager's hat back on and some of my sort of citizen's hat, a lot of this comes down to risk and fiduciary responsibility as well. I think that because in so many traditional finance circles, finance is offered by professional financing institution, banks and project financiers, et cetera to organizations that are professional, they have a professional established counterparty set up, they are seeking finance, they know exactly what sort of deal that is good for them and that they and their investors, their shareholders rather are willing to do. So they come to the finance financial services sector and say, this is the deal, here's your opportunity, Mr. Investment Banker, do you wanna take me to the street and get me finance? Maybe it's an IPO, maybe it's just a private placement, what have you. But generally you're dealing with willing and eager counterparties who are seeking that sort of financial support. Occasionally, I'm thinking of like Gordon Gekko and Blue Star Airlines, it's like a corporate radar sort of thing, but that's Hollywood and in any case, normally it is a relationship of equals, okay? So we're going out there and we need to have a pitch to these guys and I wasn't quite sure how to tackle the question, Pablo, to be honest with you, but I'm gonna, because we're not raising capital for out there, the Climate Fund, I can't be accused of making this some sort of attention-grabbing sort of self-pitch of ideally it's not, but I think this year we've released our first annual impact report. And this has been something that investors have been long looking for, understandably, because everyone in the impact investing field, as I'm sure Sylvia, you would agree, is very interested in understanding the relationship between investment and impact and what is that algorithm that sits there? And I'm not sure we have an algorithm, but I think that what we have been able to demonstrate in our first impact report in 2016 is that these are real and understandable products or outcomes as opposed to what we, and inevitably we and everybody else who was trying to build this new sector over the last few years had to rely on and that was simple projections. So the impact, yeah, there's some projections in there, but I think they're real. And to speak to your question, I think that by a quick summary, if I may, of some of the impacts we've achieved along the seven impact reporting themes that we operate with, they're certainly tangible and they are life improving to some of the people that we're happy to work with. So our seven themes, well, I'll walk you through them. The first one is climate. Obviously we know that deforestation and land use change is accounting for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions globally. Give or take XYZ and it has huge impacts on livelihoods and biodiversity and whatnot. So right now across our portfolio, which is about 70% deployed, we are financing the protection of over two million hectares of critical ecosystems. We have been through that protection. We've been pivotal, pivotal, pivotal, in avoiding about 14 million tons of CO2 emissions to date. And this is where I think it gets really interesting from a small holder's perspective. The main sort of strategy we do is to operate in that nexus between production and protection. And we don't really come in with a pure protection offering. We think that's fine and we have nothing against that, but I think when you're talking about food security and the aspiration, which is rightly to be found in people across the world, I think you've got to always reconcile production with protection. And we have over 30,000 hectares of sustainable integrated agroforestry systems that we've financed with our partners in and around the core protected areas in which we're also operating. So these protected, I'm sorry, these buffer areas might separate the protected area from say a paved road. It might separate the protected area from where development patterns are starting to really spiral out of control. And I'll get to the impacts of having those integrated agroforestry systems, but they're real. And in our view, they're one of the big engines, if not the biggest engine for empowering the protection. Moving over to ecosystems, it's, you know, I think that the red crowd who I consider myself amongst the red crowd, if you will, and a lot of friends in the red crowd, and probably you guys do too. But oftentimes we have historically fallen into a trap, particularly those in Europe and America, thinking of red purely through a carbon lens. We all know in our heads, cognitively, that of course forests and other natural ecosystems are far more than just CO2 molecules. But it's, you know, as part of our impact at investment screening and impact measurement, we really go past just the carbon to look at the ecosystems. So I mentioned two million hectares of critical ecosystems. Most of those in our portfolio are actually classed domestically by the authorities as high conservation value. We also have, as part of our deal selection and our strategy of even, you know, kind of stringing deals in one country together, like Peru, for instance, we do try to build corridors of connectivity between important ecosystems. We also make sure that if there are important ecosystems that are nearby, we bring those into the project, even if they might not be absolutely mission critical for the project to succeed from say a financial perspective. So as an example in Multigrosso, we're going ahead and building into the project the protection of 720 hectares of riparian forests in and around the sustainable cattle ranches that we finance. Now in actual fact, that's good because protecting the riverine forests, we know, is very important for the health of the water table and the river and local biodiversity. But equally, one could invest in productivity improvements and pastures without going to the additional efforts and expense of focusing on additional ecosystems. Moving over to species, which is effectively the building block of ecosystems, we know we're in the biggest sort of, you know, sort of the biggest round of extinctions in millions and millions and millions of years. It's called the sixth extinction for a very good reason. And this is brought about by human behavior. This is the Anthropocene era that we have initiated. In our portfolio, we are funding the protection of habitat for 111 species at last count that are endangered or vulnerable according to the IUCN red list. We are receiving reports on this and there's actual project funds that are allocated to activities that foster and enhanced conservation status for these species. Four of those are actually evolutionarily distinct and they are also globally endangered. There's a program called EDGE that documents unique or endemic species with the level of endangerment. And we are actually happy to find out that in Peru we've had a new species of legless lizard named after Althelia, which is nice. I mean, he's quite cute actually. We're also really a big believer in technology as part of this and we think that this, you know, using a technological approach, empowering communities to do a lot of the work themselves is absolutely crucial, not only for effectiveness on the ground, but it's also parlays very nicely into livelihoods because by deploying new technologies that can be used for monitoring of not only carbon but biodiversity, et cetera, you're empowering people to learn new trades that they otherwise wouldn't be doing and that involves funding education programs and so forth and it's quite exciting. I mean, it's keeping it relevant, but it's also keeping it quite exciting and as a potential to generate new forms of income in the form of new jobs. So that brings me to livelihoods. I'm gonna try to pick up the pace here, but thus far we have either created or supported 1,279 jobs across the portfolio. It's actually more than that now because this report was published before our last investment was executed and our sustainable commodity production just in Coco in Peru right now is about 4,000 hectares. Under planting, so we've got about 400 in the ground now and we'll have 1,500 by, I believe, don't hold me to this, but I believe it's Q2 next year, on a pathway to 4,000 around the Tampa Potter National Park. One of our project partners in Guatemala has one of its project aims and it's what we signed off on is to double incomes at the household level across the entire project area. And I think that is something that makes conservation, it makes climate change and it makes this relevant to people in their daily lives, just like the voters in Europe and America are making decisions on what's actually their perception of relevance to them tomorrow. People are the same in the world over and I think sometimes climate change because it's perceived to be long-term horizon, you need to make it relevant today and you need to make sure that your investments are achieving those impacts that August and Richard and others have mentioned are possible. Inclusivity, that's another word for gender really. I mean, we wanna make sure that it's not just the actual guys with the spades and the shovels and who are doing the farming in the fields who are working with us. I mean, we do take an integrated approach to the entire community. Across our portfolio, I think about one third of the jobs that we've created thus far helped create thus far are taken by women, which I think is fantastic and that's a measurable improvement against business as usual. We work with the government on using existing tools like quality of life plans in San Martín around Cordillera Azul and this goes much deeper again away from just climate change. Okay, last thing I'll say, we are currently supporting 51 productive enterprises and businesses in and around the agroforestry space. So that's 51 companies that have either started up or have been fostered, helped, supported, furthered due to the investments that we've made. And I think that sort of is my sort of pitch, I guess, to two small holders who maybe wanna hear something a little bit more tangible than just I'm gonna increase your life. Because I think it's great to hear all the impacts that you have in place. And for me, it's a bit, well, easy to see the same impacts in some sectors. Now, when you have these high value tree crops, cocoa, oil palm, more dynamic markets, that is probably easier to build business models that could deliver benefits to small holders that can be resources that can be invested in conservation. But I think, well, let's move to Olam. And I think the Olam case is quite interesting because also, well, you are not operating with these high value crops, but, well, you have a very large portfolio of crops that you manage and also building these outgrower schemes with small holders. And also, you are able to transfer finance and other technical services to small holders while also ensuring off-take markets. It's an interesting concept. And could you tell us what's the key of this access of this model and how it works across different contexts? Well, it's very much a blueprint that you apply to all the operations that you have. Yeah, if I told you the key, I'd probably get sacked. But I'll give you some background that might give you an idea. So good afternoon, everyone. As you heard, I'm Chris from company called Olam. Some of you may have heard, some of you may not have heard about Olam. We started life in 1989. So we're a young company, we're 26 years old. So compared to the competition who are over a century old, we're a young kid. So we're sort of learning as we go along. But learning from mistakes as well, doing some really good things, we think. So we started life in Nigeria, exporting cashew nuts. So one country, one crop. We're now in 70 countries. We're in about 16 agricultural commodities. We work with farmers. We have our own farms and plantations. We have about 200 processing plants. So we're vertically integrated. If we think about the supply chain, we work with about 4 million smallholder farmers. 20,000 large-scale farmers as well. But let's focus on supply chain and smallholder in particular. The supply chain amounts for about 9.5 million hectares of land as well. It's 92% of our greenhouse gas footprint. It's 98% of our water footprint. It's material to our business. It's material to what we need to do in terms of delivering our contribution to the Paris Climate Agreement, to delivering on why we're here today, delivering action. Of those smallholder farmers that land amounts to about 7.5 million hectares, most of this is through countries in Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, India. These are farmers with probably about 2 hectares of land that we have to work with to get the range of products. The products do include cocos. One in three chocolate bars contains cocoa from Olam. We source enough cotton to make about 5 billion t-shirts a year. And just trying to think now, rice, we can provide everybody in the world with two portions of rice. So again, to give you an idea of scale of the products that we're dealing in as well and the challenges that go with some of those products as well. In terms of working with smallholders, we realized very early on in 1989 that it's not just about agricultural inputs. It's not just about seeds and fertilizer. It's about the farmer. It's about the communities in which they live and work. Our business, our supply chain business is dependent on those farmers. We need to ensure that that dependency isn't a risk. So it's how do we de-risk that dependent value chain? So the farmers are dependent on us as off-takers. We're dependent on the farmers for our business. And that might be because those products feed into our processing plants. They might be outgrowers associated with a nucleus farm, which I'll mention shortly. So we built an organized program called the Olam Livelihood Charter. It's based around eight fairly simple principles looking at things like yield and quality, the obvious ones for a business like us, but then going down to think about traceability, social infrastructure, environmental impact. So building that, enabling environment out from the farm, around the farm, into the community and beyond. So I guess listening to the colleagues here and hearing about bridges, Olam is both a bridge in terms of credit. It's also a bridge in terms of knowledge and support. And I'll say knowledge and support because the teams on the ground are physically on the ground. So our teams in Ghana, in Cote d'Ivoire, in Gabon, in Mozambique, in Indonesia, India, the list goes on. Those people live pretty much in the communities in which they operate. So it's about understanding inherently what's happening on the ground, what is happening with regards to the lives, the livelihoods of our suppliers. And how can we build that long-term, strong relationship as an off-taker and to improve yield and quality? But how do we build that long-term relationship? We've seen, obviously, finance is a key problem in this space. So Olam ourselves have stepped into that space. And this, again, was from day one. We were a trading organization to begin with. So we've got a bunch of traders on the ground who know about money, who know about deals, who know about risks of people who can pay back. So last year, we financed $177 million just through the Olam livelihood charter. So that's about 340, 350,000 farmers that satisfy all of the requirements for that sustainability program. Outside of that program, probably another 650,000 smallholder farmers that we work with that we're financing, providing inputs. So about a million farmers were connected to delivering finance and other services, some of which reach the sort of the gold standard, if you will, and satisfy all of the various requirements that can very quickly be turned into a certified product. But it's about long-term sustainable supply chains that we're looking to deliver. And that finance goes into things like buying oxen, buying players. So the cotton team in Cote d'Ivoire have allowed the financing of 12,000 oxen, 4,000 players. It's things that the farmers need to support the work that they need to do or their communities need as well. And that's where the local knowledge piece comes in. And as I say, those staff are trained to understand about risk of the farmers. What is the risk that those farmers are able to take and how do we support that? So in fact, what we're also doing is building a farmer credit history. So we can then bring in, as we have, so three-way agreements with banks and other input companies to share the risk. We can't shoulder everything. I mean, we've tried to shoulder everything. And it is business risk. So it's how can we de-risk by bringing people in? I've probably forgot to mention as well that that financing is either zero interest or a minimal interest as well. So it's affordable. So this is, again, understanding the capabilities of people to pay back. Of the smallholder volume, about 23% of that smallholder volume is in the OLC. So again, none for a quarter. And then you tag on that with the 650. So we've got reach to a huge proportion of our smallholder value chain in terms of being able to provide finance into them. In terms of funding for other activities that can be delivered, we're able to mobilize some quite significant funding from government, from development, finance institutions. But 80% of that donor funding comes from our customers, our clients. Which I find quite amazing actually, 80% is client-driven. So we're sitting here today talking about the big picture for the last week or so, the big picture, the role of government. 80% is coming from our customers. So again, there's a huge opportunity to say here's the art of what's possible. Now how do we bring in, how do we access even greater finance and funding to deliver into that space? So a bit of an explanation around how we're working with the smallholders. And then I'd also mentioned nuclear operations. And this taps into the fact that we have our own farms, we have our own processing plants. So we're investing in those assets for 20, 30 plus years. We need those supply chains to be around for 20, 30 plus years. It's a fairly common-sense approach really. So this allows us then to go out and build those supply chains, to really invest in those supply chains to understand what those supply chains need for that 20, 30 plus year investment period. So again, it's locking us in to working with the smallholders and those supply chains. Products like Cashew, going back to Cashew is the original product. 57,000 farmers in Ghana, Cote d'Ivoire, Mozambique, all within the OLM livelihood charter. So it's virtually all of the Cashew volume that we do. Then we have sugar farmers in India producing over just under 890,000 tons of sugar. So sizable, sizable operations here working with smallholders that we're able to do and then future smallholder programs in Gabon where we're working in a public-private partnership with the government to really build a rural agricultural economy that doesn't exist at the moment. But in the right way again, how do you develop land, looking at high conservation value, free primary informed consent, ensuring that that land is suitable going forward into the future and we're not just handing land over that's not gonna be sustainable and it's on right in the future and then working in Thailand on rice as part of the Better Rice Initiative and again things like rice, huge greenhouse gas mitigation potential there if we get it right and that can be scalable through Thailand which I think at the moment is probably our largest sourcing origin but then it can be scaled out through the rest of the supply chain and we're the second largest exporter of rice globally. So it's really about unlocking mutual value, finding that value, unlocking it and building those long-term relationships and that's really been the basis of how Olam has developed this whole supply chain. Thank you Chris. Now it's interesting and impressive to listen how you have been really able to overcome constraints and to build these operations through scale on mobilizing the potential of the supply chains to do that which is interesting. But well, we have a few minutes left while we think we didn't manage quite well the time given the large number of speakers but I think we have time for a round of questions that you would like to pose to our panelists and I will take probably two, three questions. I'm gonna try to ask the blockchain question which is the technology that Bitcoin is built on, digital currency. Was that an event where the blockchain question was asked and none of the panel knew what it was but about eight people in the audience were developing solutions on the blockchain. But anyway, I mean for example with Olam, your problems with financing small holders are currency risk and transaction cost whereas if you were to take a massive community of small holders and offer to finance them through mobile devices with a digital currency at such a scale that their community could almost start trading the digital currency, you would wipe out your local currency risk and your transaction cost. I mean, who's thinking of, in two years, 70% of the banking industry as we know it will be gone are unrecognizable because of this technology. Who's thinking of these power dam ships? I've got the mic so I can jump in. If we're gonna answer straight, are you gonna gather a few questions? If there are no more questions that you may ask because there's not too much time left. Yeah. My name is Tim Tendicard from Unique Forestry and Land Use. I would like to ask a question where we stand in terms of performance and performance in how much private sector money we can leverage with public investments and do we make progress on this? And the second kind of performance is in terms of how can we link the small holders to the markets. And Christian started with giving some ideas on his impact but maybe to get an idea where the performance stand and where you think you will be in the next five years on these issues. Is there some more questions? Okay, so let's go back with the question. I think Karisi wanted to. Yeah, I'll say the first because it's work that we are doing. Again, managing information from let's say a million, keep it nice round number, a million small holders is or has become a challenge, obviously. So we've built and many organizations and companies that are doing similar. Utilizing Android app, farmer surveys, getting all the information based on the farm, not on the livelihoods of the farm and looking at the transaction history as well. But the question of the moments that we're speaking with lots of people around is that transaction, is e-money? How do we do that? There are organizations out there that are funding research into this. We've recently gone through a round with the Mastercard Foundation and we've got funding to proceed down this route. So again, we see this as game changer. How do you, we have guys going out and motorbikes handing cash over. And that's the model. That's how it started. That's how it is. And that's how it is in most businesses. How do you make that leap? So it is very much this and again, building on from just a farmer information system that gives you a farm management plan, a bespoke farm management plan for the farmer. That's fine. But it's how do we leverage the technology opportunities that are out there now that's really exciting and really that paradigm shift in terms of banking sector is, I think for the rural community is going to be phenomenal change and change for the good as well. Chris, you may like to address this from Tim. Question on performance. Yeah. I mean, to be very honest and clear, we could leverage, we could get much, much more funding in at this point in time from private sector if you would have basically the pipeline to place it. We actually have at this point in time, pushback. Because of the size, I mean, issues. I mean, we had requests, for example, to take on board 50 million at once, which is far as at present too much to deal with. But also on an aggregated basis, we could do much, much more than what we currently do. So the issue is really more the pipeline issue to place the funds effectively and efficiently. Richard, would you like to add on the question of performance and how you monitor performance and how critical that can be? Sure. Well, in SNV, we have the, probably as you know, we have the inclusive business approach where we work with the companies to then integrate the smallholders into the company supply chain and all the different groups along the supply chain, the value chain, to try to integrate or improve the relationship of all the different groups along that supply chain. And then within that, we have clear monitoring systems and mechanisms to monitor performance. So we have quite a clear approach that we use for any commodity or company we work with. Any more questions? This question is mostly for Chris from along, but I think any could answer that. One thing I've heard about the issue of working with smallholder farmers is aggregation. And you've talked about some high value crops, but when we think about Sub-Saharan Africa, it's a staple crops. And so I've talked to people at, for example, Cargill and how do you get corn, you know, from that many smallholder farmers and do it in a cost effective way. I'm just curious to your thoughts or others, how we can make this reach other commodities. I mean, our approach is fairly transparent. I mean, it's about getting out there, it's getting boots on the ground, it's putting in the hard yards really. And when I go around the business and visit the teams on the ground, it is parachuting people in many cases into the middle of nowhere and building a business in places that some people just haven't heard of and didn't know existed. And it is, it's just hard work, but it's transparent in terms of what we do. Over these last few years, I think we've felt a certain maturity in terms of being able to come out and communicate about it. So it only really started in 2010. We underwent a strategic change, probably eight or so, eight or nine years ago, moving from a trading business into this vertically integrated business. So I think that gives us advantages over a straight sourcing and trading company. But there are other things happening. Mama, or Olam is a member of World Business Council for Sustainable Developments. We're having conversations around trying to develop a soft commodities club that can talk about pre-competitive issues, that how the heck do you work with smallholders? Let's try and figure that out. And then there's also something called the Global Agri Business Alliance that was recently launched, that again is trying to bring in more of the players in the supply side of the business and focus on the challenges there. And at the recent launch, the one theme that was resounding, well two actually, one was smallholders, the second was gender, because the launch panel of, I think it was 12 CEOs on the stage were all men. And it's like, crikey, what's going on? So smallholders and gender. So there are now some collaborative vehicles, hopefully, to start building that conversation and really get into the nub of the problem. So I think it's also something that's demand driven. So what are the customers asking for? How do we create that demand? So we're now in a post-Paris climate agreement world. We're now in an SDG world. So there's been certain changes over this last year or so that are really building that framework within which we can work, not just the supply side, but also on the consumer facing side in civil society and public sector. Thank you, Chris. Well, we are over time. So before to close the session, I would like to ask all the panelists going from my left to my far left. What do you think has been the main innovation in the operation that has worked and you want to keep pursuing? The short answer is I think we've found a way to operate in that missing middle that I believe Richard spoke of. In fact, you robbed me of my phrase there, but that's okay, you set the stage. You know, I think that there's a very short list of organizations out there that understand some of the demands of delivering finance that works for the climate, it works for people on the ground, it works for biodiversity conservation, et cetera. And it takes a different approach, both temporarily and also an understanding of risk. So I think we have found that missing middle and I hope that others continue to join us at a rapid pace because God knows the climate needs it. Yeah, I think I'm probably echoing the words there and in terms of, you know, from our experience really is the risks and the difficulties of meeting climate, social, environmental, deforestation free. I mean, this is all, you know, major costs which need to be overcome and there's no simple solution of financing or impact investment, but quite often there needs to be a lot of investment on enabling conditions and other costs on the ground. So I think as more and more models come through, it'll become easier and more interest to replicate, but certainly, yeah, that's a key issue for us. One thing I'd like to highlight is that of social capital. I think the way things work on the ground is entirely based on the level of trust. The more trusting you are with each other, the easier it is to work together and, you know, be it opening businesses or developing very, you know, developing effective agricultural work, you know, it boils down to the community and boils down to trust upon each other. Yeah, my take is that it's very important to understand the needs of the community or the target group that you want to introduce in a new initiative into and having gotten that understanding, you also design that product that you want to get to the market exactly tailored into the need of the target group and once that is done, then you have the group that you are targeting actually own the initiative and then after owning the initiative at first, it's very good to benefit them and also the uptake will be very high. Additionally, lastly, is to have a very high touch with the group that you are targeting and also impacting. But to make it very brief, I started off with describing the innovation that we did at the level of mobilizing funds, but I think what is probably the even great achievement is that we have a very inclusive approach to find local intermediaries because this is actually critical. You know, if you want to place money effectively, you need those on the ground that can actually do it, you know, like all of them for example, but also financial intermediaries. I mean, these are the shake, actually the cash flows in the country and there I think we have been quite successful in actually incorporating sustainable practice indicators as an element of the risk assessment. I mean, you would wonder that actually most of the bankers we've been talking to at the beginning of the discussions, they were not aware what's going on out there in terms of, you know, certificates in terms of, you know, multinationals committing to deforestation free value chains and those kind of things. You know, they were completely blind on this and I think in our work we have made this a component and increasingly the bankers understood it's essential for them to take these issues on board not because of, you know, social corporate responsibility issues and having a nice image and so on. It's their lifeline. It's their lifeline. They need to incorporate this in their risk assessment to place funds effectively where they do because otherwise there is no business tomorrow. Okay, I'm going to try and find something that hasn't been said. I guess if I look at Olam and if I look at my team, I've just employed an accountant. So I used to work in the coffee team in finance. So the corporate responsibility and sustainability function of employed an accountant and it's to, because now we understand having some years under our belt of doing this to be able to build and communicate in the right language the business case for sustainability. So for me it echoes pretty much what's gone before but very much through my lens it's I think we're confident to talk about the business case for sustainability in a way that our finance teams will understand and will be on a level playing field when we go in. It won't be corporate social responsibility, it will just be corporate responsibility and sustainability. So again, it's about the business. Yeah, it seems that sustainability now probably social inclusion more and more in the future is going to be part of the business case. I really appreciate your thoughts and the different perspectives that you have and perspectives that you are exploring about how to still reach these issues of equity, sustainability, risk and profits. I think there are multiple approaches. You are trying different ways in which we can still scale up experiences that work. Still we have to test this concept of the landscapes. If that's going to work, it's really going to bring different players together. There's still questions about how to move beyond these high value crops or value tree crops in which it probably is easier to reach outcomes but well, still questions of it for future discussions. Well, I appreciate your thoughts and please give a clap of hands to it all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.