 The main feature of those days was the fact that the millennium development goals were sort of central to the discussion. So Ilri had already started looking more at poverty, but during my tenure, we revised the strategy and put a strong emphasis on livestock as a pathway out of poverty. And I think that was one of the major emphasis of the day, very logical with insight. I think the real surprise event for us was avian flu in those days. This we never had in a strategic plan or so, but suddenly avian flu appeared and became a huge challenge to developing countries. And suddenly we got more and more involved in research on avian flu and more broadly on zoonosis. That was, as I say, a complete outlier, which I think at one point probably was about a third of our budget. So it became really important. I think the other thing which was part of the shift during my tenure, I really was very keen to encourage the CGR to think in terms of innovation and innovation systems. And so we established a theme around innovation and hired Jerome Deitman in those days as head of that theme. We had a huge amount of discussion, which I think reflected the science concept of the day. This was seen as too far down the development path, and it was seen as not really core science, which the CGR should be undertaking. So we were I think the first CG center to put it explicitly on the program with a lot of difficulty and also difficulty to fund it. And I mean, I'm pleased to see now that innovation is sort of standard jargon in the CGR system. One of the central tenets of the CG system is that you want to produce global public goods, sort of technology which has broad spillovers widely in the developing world. And sort of the global mandate of Illry helps in that sense to sort of share experiences and knowledge across different parts of the world. But the downside of that is that in reality, agriculture and livestock within agriculture is quite location specific. And that means that you can as a global institute, not be present and actively engaged everywhere. And thus the central issue becomes your partnerships and how you engage NARS, NGOs, ARRIs, advanced research institutes, and also the private sector. And that has always been a challenge for the CG in general, I think, and particularly also for Illry. Livestock is basically private sector and we need a lot more interaction. And in all fairness also the private sector is these days much more interested in investing and involving getting involved in developing country. I think that timing is much more appropriate right now than it was some years back. We have I think learned that the science is just one piece of the process of change of social change and that these are political processes. Winners and losers about every technology, every innovation, every change. And you need to be a much more considerate about the limited role of science in the totality of change. I thought that one of the things which was most interesting therefore many reasons was Iblee, the index based livestock insurance. I think the concept had been around for quite some time. But Illry and with the partnership with Cornell, with Chris Barrett, and other people really put enormous effort over a long period of time into this. I must say I'm impressed that this is one of the innovations which has been most seriously analyzed from a socio-economic and impact point of view. And I think that shows sort of the type of effort it takes to bring about these complex innovation. Another interesting Illry innovation I thought and described in that publication is the issue of master plans for livestock development. I think we tend to think generally as researchers in terms of very specific intervention points. And yes, it's our dream to find a tipping point you can push with one innovation and suddenly create the whole change. The reality is that you need to make many different changes at the same time. I think particularly the present issues like climate change show the complexity of addressing things. These master plans are, as far as I know, a first very serious effort to bring together all range of actors, dimensions which have to be brought in with the leadership of the government in driving this. Large scale innovation like the way crop centers think about it clearly in the livestock sector. The biggest success story is the African brachiaria grasses being developed by Seat in Colombia with very close interaction with Embrapa in Brazil. Basically now covering hundreds of millions of hectares in Latin America and also in other parts of the world. I think that is really the biggest story of also very long term persistent effort very much linked in a way to crop breeding. Now after many years I understand Ilri and Beka are actively promoting these forages in East Africa. The world has changed a lot over this last decade and in many ways livestock has moved from a very peripheral part of the development debate into a very central part of the discussion, particularly around the issues of climate change but also pandemics about nutrition. In many many aspects livestock now is seen as very important dimension to tackle. So I think that the climate change one captures this whole complexity very nicely. If you think of it we now more and more think that you do need to bring down the consumption of red meat in developed countries. There you bring in the whole issue of demand of influencing consumers of nudging them. It's a huge area we see a lot more interest in the developed world in tackling these issues and also in the private sector in investing in addressing this because livestock is big business. So clearly there's a lot more investment there's a lot more activity. And I think the challenge is for the CGR to identify where its contribution at this point in time is. And I think that's a real challenge to figure out in this new world where people really care about climate change about nutrition about food systems. What are the things which international organization of the type of the CGR can really add most value.