 Thank you very much. So thank you for inviting us as an aligned project. We just joined and maybe you can put the PowerPoint on. So it's a four-side project to support food system transformation through agroecology. So it has three components. One is a global component which I will focus on and there are two pilot studies, one in India and one in Senegal. What about it's a FAO led project with German funding and Sihard is the scientific partner. It started in 2022 and it will go on in 2023. First thing for you who are in agroecology, you might not be all very familiar with what four-site is. So I think I would just give a little overview of that. Four-site is not about projection. You talked about projection earlier. Four-site is about envisaging several futures, possible futures. So it's not, it's imagining it, creating them so it's being proactive so that the future will not be the business as usual one or just a vision. It will be something where you will identify what are the levels that could make transitions and then transformation. So it's really anticipating one or several futures and it's doing that with a lot of people in order to have debates and to make sure that people are intellectually and emotionally involved in the process and they appropriate the process and that's that if they are, this process is appropriated stakeholders it will lead, it will lead to action. So it's really two, three things, anticipation, appropriation in order to get to action and so it's about anticipating one but also several futures as we will show. So the project, the idea is with four-site it's often there to help policymaking or strategy making. It can be done at different levels that we will show and it's make sure that policy makers make real transformative decisions and they're not presented only with the business as usual position only an alternative one. The project there had three two components as I said, the global component which was a global review of four-site processes that have taken place in the last six to eight years and that were dealt with the transformation of food system and we chose those on the transformation of food system which had an assumption about agroecology and then the other two and there are the two pilot studies, one in Andhra Pradesh with a agrobium model which is both interaction between modeling and narratives and another one in Senegal also with interactions between modeling and narratives. So let me go a bit forward. The first, our first result was to create a corpus of 16 four-site studies that took place in the past and that at least one scenario with agroecology. So these are the ones we chose. We didn't shoot, I mean there are more four-site studies we could have chosen because of the limited time we chosen these ones and we tried to have four-site studies that were done at the global level, at regional level, large regions, national level, territorial level and even farm level. So for example, long food movement, future small-scale agriculture, agrimon, agrimon-terra, these are global level with also regional components. The prospect agrimon-terra was done in Tunisia, so that was on a national level and then there was some at territorial level in Senegal with fatigue and then one at farm level in Burkina Faso on supporting better crop livestock integration on small-scale farm. So really a large variety of four-site processes that were all analyzed in order to compare them and to try to learn from that how it can be improved and then we had a global workshop with all the authors of these four-site studies and some people from the agroecology community. So Fergus was there, or at least online, Pablo de Donel, Molly Anderson was there, so there were quite a few Colleen Anderson, quite a few representatives of the four-site community. What were the some of the results? I won't go through all of them. First of all, that when there are in these four-site studies, some have only one scenario which is really to show like Tifa which is on agroecology for Europe which wants to show that it is possible to feed Europe and with the agroecology scenarios. Others have two scenarios, usually a business as usual and an agroecology scenario. Others have three, four, even nine scenarios. Out of these, when there are several of them, for example in agrimon-terra, we have five scenarios and four scenarios which have agroecological assumptions. So it means there is not only one scenario with agroecology but four scenarios which can, so it shows our different pathways and also only one pathway to go through agroecology and I think that's a very important message of these four-site studies that we shouldn't focus on only one pathway but really open the possibility of getting agroecology true. Because we had these people from the four-site community and agroecology community I'll try to show about a little bit the linkages. This is how the future of agri-food system is represented in the recent FAO report. So it's really the food system which is rather complex but it's a four-site report. So this is kind of how the four-site people see agri-food systems. So let's try to see how we can link it with how the agroecology people see that. The first thing is that we see, we will see that there's a need to connect the two communities. If we want the four-site community to progress in integrating agroecology and if we want to the agroecology community to progress by envisaging several futures with the agroecology not only one. When you look at drivers and principle you see that the drivers and principle that the four-site community used to look at the transformation of food system. Quite a few of them also have linkages with the HAP the 13 principles but they're not quite the same and it's different. These differences are very interesting. For example the four-site community will talk about as a driver the scarcity of natural resources and the agroecology community will talk about land and natural resources governance. The four-site community will talk about economic growth and the agroecology community talks about economic diversification. The four-site community talks about inequalities whereas the agroecology community talks about fairness. There's definitely a need for dialogue between these two communities if they are to understand each other and really progress together. Also it's interesting to see that there are some drivers for the transformation of food systems that the agroecological community doesn't look at all upon which are the ones which are surrounded by the green circle there. Second point there are some blind spots that need communities to look at. These blind spots are what's between production and consumption which is all the storing processing, retaining, disposing. This neither community looks at that or doesn't look at it very carefully. You talk about the missing middle blind spots and also in the questions which are asked the four-site community ask a lot of questions about food security, land use, but it doesn't look at all at wages and profits. It doesn't look so much at social well-being, social stability, so they're really topics that are not looked upon and that are important. Third there are questions of geographical scales which are important for the two communities but may not always looked upon in the same way. There's this missing middle and the meso level which is also often missing. The models, the four-site communities uses the same models to simulate the futures of conventional agriculture and the future of agroecology and whereas the metrics are very different, the crops are very different, so there's a real need for the society community to improve its model if it wants to model agroecology. The participation of stakeholders is important for four-site but very often policymakers are not included in the whole processes and so whereas it is the policymakers who make the decisions, so if they're not included in the four-site process, they cannot appropriate the discussions and there are different postures. So the main recommendations are really that the transformation of agri-forced food systems for agroecology is a political question and it requires important investments. The question was raised the other day is how did the green revolution came upon and why doesn't agroecology comes true and there were apparently two points that were raised. One is that with the green revolution there were massive investments and so it went through very quickly and it was that doesn't happen for agroecology which is still a niche in many of our organization and it's still a niche in research. So if we want to have to help the fact that four-site helps agroecological transition, there should be four-site should be led by representatives of the two communities and the linkages for the moment are quite insufficient. We should involve a variety of actors and policymakers, we should look at the whole food system and not only some of the components as we've seen, we should consider the rapidity and radicality of adoption of innovations in the past and we tend to forget that these may be as rapid in the future but there are also inertia, inertia in innovation but inertia in governance, inertia in different things but we tend to forget that the innovations can be very rapid also in the future. Also we should have appealing narratives, four-site people tend to think that models are enough and if you show figures to policymakers that agroecology is very efficient they will vote for agroecology but that's not enough and that came out during the workshop. Appealing narratives are very important and these narratives when they are developed they should be developed in interactions with the people and with the modeling and not separately and then we should create new models to integrate larger number of drops that are used in agroecology, new practices and principles. What are our projects for 2023? We're going to writing reports on the workshop and our results that will come out soon and that will be sent first to all the people who have attended the workshop then we'll have an article, we'll have knowledge exchange, we started already this knowledge exchange among the four-site processes at different scales because there were people from Europe, Africa, Latin America and representative of Asia at the workshop and we would propose to organize a four-site workshop with some agroecology practitioners and with some four-site practitioners so that also agroecology practitioners understand better what is four-site and four-site people better understand better agroecology. The Andra Pradesh and the Senegalese pilot projects will continue and with policy dialogues in Andra Pradesh and dissemination of results in Senegal. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to present this work. So for just to say that you who is involved in these processes at FAO is Anzati Pwasu Anahimena Gomez who is leading the project. For the state of the art it was St. Mara's Stone and myself and Bruno Doran for India and Anahimini Pradham from Senegal. Thank you.