 Ladies and gentlemen, live from New York and with hundreds of people online, we would like to start this side event on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly to look at agroecology and the right to food. Now, this has been organized by the transformative partnership platform on agroecology together with the Swiss government, and the agroecology coalition, and only yesterday, the Secretary General was reminding us that we're nearing the point of no return, getting to a tipping point in terms of climate and the interrelated challenges of broken food systems, biodiversity loss, land and water degradation are all needing to be addressed by systemic responses, which is what agroecology is with the 13 principles that incorporate the 10 FAO elements articulated in the Committee on Food's World Food Security high level panel of experts report. So that's what we mean by agroecology. And at UNFSS a few months ago, end of last year, the agro coalition was born as a result of member states asking for agroecology to be put on the agenda. Eventually it was in the pre summit at the last minute in the sort of graveyard lunchtime slot. It was one of the best attended sessions, and it led to the formation of the coalition. And the great thing about the coalition which now has 40 countries including three regional bodies, echo us the European Union, and the African Union, and about 80 organizations. A coalition of the willing. And that's really important because if we look at how the recommendations in the HLPE report got watered down through the policy convergence process at CFS, you ended up with something rather less powerful at the end of the day because everybody has to agree so you go to the lowest common denominator. Here we've got people who are willing to make agroecological transitions happen. And so we're hoping that they will blaze a trail and lead the way that others can follow. They're governed by a group of people who are representative from across civil society, different countries in different regions, and different types of organizations, Indigenous peoples research organizations so on, and so forth. So, somewhat different from the process within UNFSS itself. So, with that, I'd like to start our program and invite Olivier Deschutes, the rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, who was previously the special rapporteur on the right to food, who's going to open and look at constraints on the food crisis with insights from the recent reports from both his own mandate and Michael Fakri's right to food mandate. Olivier, please. Many thanks to Fergus for his introduction and many thanks to you all for attending this event, both online and in live. We are in a world in which 821 million people are food insecure in which 3.1 billion people have unhealthy diets to feed themselves. We are in a world in which biodiversity loss is extremely important with 1 million species at risk of extinction and, since 20 years, 100 million hectares of forests that have been lost, which is equivalent of about twice the surface of France. We are also in a world in which greenhouse gas emissions despite all the international summits and pledges continue to rise in 2021 greenhouse gas emissions increased by 6% reaching a record 36.3 billion metric tons and all time high. We have therefore a food crisis we have a poverty crisis. We have an ecological crisis. These are driven by conflicts by climate disruptions by the absence of social protection magnified by the vulnerability of net food importing countries that have under invested in producing food to meet to meet the needs of their own local communities. So we are in a world of agroecology, increasingly seen as one tool to address these crisis. And indeed, agroecology has, first of all, the virtue of providing an answer to the important impact on food systems on both biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions. So agroecology is a way to improve soil health, allowing soils to function as carbon sinks. It reduces the use of nitrogen based fertilizers and thus associated greenhouse gas emissions. It enhances agro by diversity by relying on mixed cropping schemes and putting diversity and resilience above uniformity and increased volumes. And therefore one response to the ecological crisis. It is also a response to the poverty crisis because agroecology is labor intensive and therefore creates rural employment and allows rural development as a result. It lowers the costs of producing food and makes farming affordable for low income farmers. And finally, it feeds local communities making healthy food, an affordable item that they may have access to. And for all these reasons, more and more governments and organizations recognize that we must move towards an agroecological transformation. This is true for the agroecology coalition mentioned by Fergus Sinclair, bringing 40 countries, the EU, the African Union and ECOAS, the economic community of West African states, as well as 80 organizations worldwide. It is also the conclusion the high level panel of experts of the Committee on World Food Security arrived at in the report that Fergus led on. And it is what many other processors have been acknowledging the Alliance for Agroecology in West Africa, 3AO launched in 2018 with the support of IPES food, the Farm to Fork Strategy of the EU launched in May 2020. Agra just recently decided to rebrand itself to drop the green revolution wording of its name and to rename its flagship event that was the green revolution forum into African food systems forum, acknowledging the limitations of a classic green revolution like approach. There is in general a growth of nature based solutions to food systems, leading IPES food today to present a report called Smoke and Mirror, released to show the risks of co-optation of labels, regenerative agriculture, doubly green agriculture, nature based solutions and so on, emphasizing that Agroecology presents a number of specificities that should not be ignored. It connects the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability. It addresses the whole food system and not only the production part, it is attentive to power imbalances, and finally it draws from a plurality of basing itself on the knowledge developed by the farmers themselves. Nevertheless, there are major obstacles to the agroecological transformation, and I would like to very briefly mention five of them, many of which have been identified by the special reporter on the right to food, Michael Fakri in his report presented tomorrow to the third committee of the General Assembly of the UN. The first obstacle is the public debt that many developing countries are facing. Today the total debt of developing countries is 11 trillion US dollars, and in 2020 these countries spent 372 billion US dollars servicing debt. In 14 African countries they spend more on servicing debt than they do on health, education and social protection combined. Why is this important? It's important because it results in a situation in which these countries have to invest in export led agriculture to have access to heart currencies in order to reimburse the debt. As a result, they cultivate what markets demand and particularly high value OECD markets, not what ecological logic would command. And that is one first I believe major obstacle to the dissemination of agroecology. Secondly, we still do not have a true accounting of food. The negative externalities from industrial farming are not reflected in the production costs, and conversely, the positive contribution of agroecology is not rewarded. We have grown a low cost food economy, but that low cost model comes at a high cost to the environment, to health, and to livelihood opportunities in rural areas that are not accounted for. The third obstacle is trade liberalization, particularly since 1995 and the entry into force of the agreement on agriculture within the WTO. The result has been to simulate a global competition between food producers, forcing them either to expand, to turn into large economic units controlling larger areas of land, or to exit from agriculture or to be relegated to subsistence agriculture in a form of self exploitation. That is I believe a third obstacle to the agroecological transformation, this global competition that has been organized in the name of efficiency gains. The fourth obstacle is that we still measure progress in how we invest in agriculture by looking at the yields per hectare of one single main crop. Rather than looking at the total output produced in mixed cropping schemes or resource efficiency or the contribution to livelihoods and to the preservation and enhancement of agro biodiversity and of soil health. And finally, we should be attentive to the political economy considerations that may also indicate obstacles to the agroecological transformation. We have this food together with Biovision and the Institute for Development Studies published in June 2020 a report called Money Flows, showing that only a small fraction of agricultural research funding goes to transformative solutions based on agroecology. In other terms, we do not support agroecology as much as it should despite the positive contributions it makes and governments supporting their farmers, typically support them with packages that includes seeds fertilizers and pesticides as a means to boost production in the short time period and to buy loyalty of the farmers for the government in place. Knowledge intensive solutions do not allow to buy loyalty in the same way, and they are not the priority that many governments pursue. And this is one of the reasons why despite the recognition by a growing number of governments, international organizations and networks of the need to revert to agroecological solutions and to effectuate this transformation, we still are not succeeding to follow this this pathway. I look forward to our discussion and I would like to thank you again for inviting me in this in this panel discussion. Thank you. Thanks so much, Olivier and you'll be coming back at the end to give some closing remarks so still more to come. I'd now like to move to Jemima and Juki the chief of economic empowerment at UN woman, who's going to give us a gender perspective in relation to these critical issues. Thank you so much and for inviting me to participate in this side event. The agroecology coalition is one that I have followed extremely closely because I am part of the coalition on making food systems work for women and girls. And I see such a convergence between those two coalitions in terms of getting our food systems to where they need to be to a place where they are they are just, they are equitable, where they do not leave anyone behind and especially our small holder producers. So thank you so much for having me here. Now, Olivier has talked about multiple crisis and it is really critical that we are having this conversation at a time when we are actually facing multiple crisis. And what we see from where we sit at UN women is the disproportionate impact of this crisis on women and girls. And we know even in times of peace, in times of no crisis, which we haven't seen much of lately, that women and girls around the world are much more food insecure than the rest of the population. We've seen gender gaps in food insecurity growing over the last couple of years. In 2019, the gender gap in food insecurity was 1.7 percentage points. This has grown to 4 percentage points in 2021. What this means is around the world in 2021, we had 126 million more women that were hungry than men. Now, coupled with that is now a cost of living crisis that of course has been exacerbated by the war in Ukraine. And so that gap has even grown further this year. Now, we also take an intersectional approach because not everybody experiences food insecurity in the same way. We are seeing much more acute food insecurity for older women, for indigenous women, for women in Africa, women of Africa descent. We are seeing a more in gender diverse persons that because of discrimination don't always have the same access to opportunities as everyone else. But we are also seeing it more in persons with disabilities and those living in rural and remote areas. Basically, our food producers are also the most hungry and we need to contend with that. This is not just a crisis of food. It is not just a cost of living crisis for women and girls. The crisis is actually driving so much more. It is driving gender based violence when households of food insecure the likelihood of conflict increases. It is driving transactional sex for food and survival. It is driving sexual exploitation and trafficking. It is driving early and forced marriage when the households are forced into a corner. They will sell their girls for food. And this is a gross violation of human rights. It is endangering women and girls, both physical, mental health, but also their dignity. But what we also see now is an increase in women and girls and paid care and domestic workloads. They are being documented around the world. As climate change becomes worse, access to water, access to fuel that remains a big responsibility for women and girls, especially in rural areas. The amount of time women and girls are spending to do that is increasing. Now, one of the things that the secretary general did last year was put together a global crisis response group. And you would have thought that when there is a global crisis response group that women and girls would be at the center of those deliberations. And for some time, it wasn't. And so part of what we've done with the global crisis response group is do an analysis of the impacts of the crisis on women and girls. We have launched a report on that that synthesizes the available data and evidence and makes key recommendations. And the reason why I'm highlighting this is part of those key recommendations actually center on agroecology and what we need to do around agroecology. But most importantly, what the report highlights is that systemic gendered crisis like we see today whether it's the ecological crisis that Olivier was talking about whether it's the climate change crisis, the food crisis, the cost of living crisis. These are systemic gendered crisis, and they require systemic gendered solutions. And while we have loaded governments, international organizations in terms of the short term support that that has to happen. We are also asking for more longer term investments, including in farming systems, food systems that are gender responsive. So, I will talk about five of the recommendations that that are contained in in this report. Yes, very, very quickly, very quickly. One is that we need to prioritize women and girls voice agency participation and leadership. We are affected. We also know they are major players they are organizing communities around the world to make sure that that our farming systems deliver. The second is to have more and better gender statistics and sex desegregated data so that we can build the evidence base for gender responsive policy planning and reconstruction measures, but to also track gender related impacts of food insecurity on women and girls. And third is the promotion and protection of the right to food, which is why, as you and women, we really have been discussing with my co factory the special report tour on how we can support the right to food of women and girls and other gender diverse groups. The fourth is accelerating the transformation towards more equitable gender responsive and sustainable food systems, including phasing out harmful fossil fuel as agricultural subsidies, investing in women's access to inputs technologies and markets and strengthening local food systems and crop diversification to achieve not just food security but better nutrition as well. And the last is to promote and implement gender responsive agroecological and climate resilient agricultural policies practices and programs and I think that's where we have such an interface with the with the agroecology coalition we need to reduce the dependence on fossil fuel based fertilizers and other inputs, and particularly in the cost in the context of war affected shortages and the price spikes that that we see. And we really do study the radius we you and women to make sure that all these processes that we really are putting the needs and priorities of women and girls at the center. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. And you've really pointed to the need for the coalitions to be working together. And I think that helps countries actually to be able to know how to to interact. Let us move now to jahi chapel, the incoming director of the center of regional food systems at Michigan State University who joins us online. Most erudite and influential scholars around agroecology, who always has an on an uncompromising stance. Jahi, are you ready. I am. Thank you for that generous introduction and the invitation to join this esteemed group of colleagues. So, I want to talk a little bit about the imperative to address inequality and empower in our food systems and some alternatives that can help us effectively do that. The forthcoming interim report from the special repertoire on the right to food from from Michael Fockery is a really concise, yet deep continuation of the office of the special repertoires work, pointing out the ways that our current food systems constrain our ability to provide the right to food for everybody, and the ways that agroecology and food sovereignty provide solutions coming from communities themselves and scholars around the world. A very crucial item that is pointed out by by Fockery in this latest report is the ongoing concentration in corporations who occupy so much of the space and power control of our foods food and agricultural systems. And we really have to recognize the obstacles that this concentrated power represents, and how they will continue to thwart the solutions coming from communities themselves solutions that we know are not just possible but necessary. There's a lot of literature on the current concentration, including by my colleague bill Howard here at Michigan State. So without going over all of that we know that a small number of corporations occupy, you know, supermarkets, grain and seed production meat processing across various industries. And not only does this cause problems in terms of just basic justice and representation but it's even from a classic economic viewpoint, inefficient there's a lack of competition, meaning that you won't get the best results much less than most just results from the market. It breeds injustice, not just in terms of what the United States. We've come to the side, rather arbitrarily over concentrated markets are which means that there's a higher price of the consumers. But that's not the only way concentration damages our environment and our people. There are lower wages to laborers lower prices given to producers to farmers and other primary producers, howling out of local communities. So we tend to call Main Street United States and poverty redirected to corporate board rooms, which leads to the kinds of decisions that generate pandemics like COVID-19 as my friend and colleague Rob Wallace has pointed out in his work. And we seem in many ways close to a point of no return. Olivier pointed out some of the some of these around environmental sustainability and food security but also in terms of our democracy you know we have people or democracies. We have people who can't afford many basic goods hunger has gone up while productivity has continued to increase and profits yet at the same time continue to rise. We have a lack of trust we have asymmetric information and a lack of participation. And so there's a real domination of the forums that are necessary to consider and ratify the kind of binding treaty, for example that Bakery suggests to limit corporate power. Corporations themselves are not going to agree to this and their influence with many governments around the world is not going to allow for it. So, one thing that my colleagues and I point to including in our recent book, Agriculture now, we're with colleagues from Coventry University is how equity justice participation are key parts of agriculture and food sovereignty and unnecessary. If we want to provide the right to food for for everyone. And one of the areas that I like to point to is the practices of deliberative democracy or deep democracy. And I really feel like we are, if we look at the situation that our political systems in many different countries around the world. We're really at a turning point where I think fundamental changes needed not just cosmetic change we're at a turning point like the independence movements and revolutions of the past several centuries we need to go the next step beyond that. And that's empowering people directly. There's examples like participatory budgeting originating from Brazil where people organize starting at the community level at your local streets and you organize and you vote on people to represent you at a city wide level. Coming from that group and this differs from normal representative democracy in that everyone is invited to this community organizing event. And you vote for someone who represents you but it's someone you've worked with it's someone who has caucused with you directly it's not voting for someone who is running purely to get your vote. And this is just one example of many where voices enter into governance in a lot of different ways. There are food policy councils such as the defunct consea of Brazil where you had one third government ministries but two thirds civil society represented. You have citizens juries that have been used around the world. I'm most familiar with examples from India, United Kingdom and United States and for example the Center for new democratic processes. And you also have very importantly this the civil society and indigenous peoples mechanism of the United Nations, and, or the World Food Council and that mechanism as many people explored is vital and needs not to just not be sidelined but really expanded and used as a center point for these conversations. I just think of with the recent UN food system summit, and all the controversy and contestation around that and the representation of corporations into a lesser degree scholars and others who I would say could be considered elites. Instead of that whole space it had been a space building and organized with the civil society mechanism and it just people's mechanism with other groups to bring in people from constituencies around the world from farmers from indigenous nations from peasants fisher folk, laborers, eaters, if they were representing themselves in a space like that, what would have been like if people in New York City were able to, in their communities and community organizations, share around farmers and laborers from other countries to show them the food system in New York City and in the farming system in New York and exchange their own solutions and ideas directly. I really think it could have been an amazing opportunity, one that would have been quite different and quite a lot of work but imagine the kind of energy would be if you knew whatever country you're coming from, you could be part of this international delegation, you could represent your country and be someone listening and deciding in the best case on the binding trees that Michael Bakery is called for. This of course can seem really utopian, but you know we have seen many examples around the world of these kinds of innovations, including again in the civil society and people's mechanism. And I really think that without calling on the power and the knowledge of the populace themselves in that kind of mechanism expanding on it, then we really aren't going to be able to address these problems because the people who are have the votes in the marketplace in the powerful sectors are those who already control over 50% of the wealth and represent less than 12% of the people, and they are not going to make the decisions that are necessary to lose profits but improve the environment, improve the well being improve the right to food for everyone. Thank you. Thank you. We have a space now for some some questions. We've already got a lot coming in on the internet if anybody in the room wishes to make a question please brace your hand and we'll bring it to you. I have questions for all of the panelists from the internet, starting with, with Olivier, you mentioned loyalty that is gained by governments providing subsidies for inputs. These are the lock ins that you mentioned. But what's asked here is can't cash payments be made rather than input subsidies so people can decide what to invest in. And of course those cash payments might be conditional on certain environmental services or something like that. Thank you very much for this for relaying this question. I think the main problem is that private goods are given priority above public goods in the way agricultural development is being supported and in a way farmers are supported to a large extent. The support governments provide to farmers is used as a tool to to buy their popularity and to influence the voters. So what do ecology is about empowering farmers to design solutions themselves. It is about knowledge being transferred horizontally from farmers from farmer to farmer. It is about working with nature by being inventive in in how to work with a minimal use of external inputs. In other terms it is neither about pesticides fertilizers or seeds. Nor is it just about money. And I think it is a different approach that requires from governments that they be modest but that they organize this knowledge intensive way of producing food by allowing farmers to produce food as better. So I'm not, I'm not saying it's a bad idea to provide cash to farmers. I'm just saying that if we want to promote the agricultural transformation, the key objective should be to disseminate this knowledge in ways that are very contextual because agriculture is not about one single recipe developed in one laboratory or one ministry of agriculture, and then, you know, spread uniformly across large regions. It is about designing solutions that are local, and that are that make the best use of local resources. So it's a very different philosophy. It's a very different type of policy that we need from from governments in order for agriculture to make progress. But I do think that in a very opportunistic way, when governments receive subsidies from donors, when they want to buy loyalty from local constituencies, they will be tempted to rely on the usual package of seeds fertilizers pesticides as a means to support farmers. And that's unfortunately may boost production in the short term, but it's not a long term viable solution. Thank you so much. So that's all about co creation of knowledge. The one of the key principles in agroecology and options by context approach where you're supporting local innovation, rather than sort of silver bullet type. That is fantastic. Now, Jemima, the is a question here from help me run by, and she says madam, your speech is very clear. The populace, especially women and girls have little or no knowledge about climate change in rural areas. How can this be improved. And I think I would like to actually flip, flip that because what I believe is that women and girls do know a lot about the impacts of climate change, because they're dealing with those impacts on a day to day basis. When they have water shortages, when crops fail because rains have failed. If you go to the Horn of Africa today, or other regions that have drought, if you go to Asia where there is experiences of, of, of learning to Nigeria. Women and girls are dealing with those impacts on a day to day basis. I think what the biggest challenge is, is the information on how do they address what are some of the adaptation mechanisms that actually work to cope with climate change. The second one is how can we make sure that climate financing is actually going to those that need it most, because we are seeing those that are bearing the impact of climate change, that is not where major investments are going. So we really have to, to, to flip that and say it is not a lack of information on climate change by women and girls. We are having a system failure where those that are most impacted are not getting the resources to actually address those, address those impacts. And those resources could be in terms of knowledge of how to adapt to climate change. It could be resources around financing because once the technologies, the innovations are there, they need access to those innovations. There's already a lot of sharing amongst farmers that's, that's happening but much more needs to be, much more needs to be done. Fantastic. And Jahi, there's a question here from an anonymous participant. The facts and figures being highlighted right now are indeed critical and should be shared to as wide a spectrum of stakeholders as possible. How are these being promoted globally have advocacy programs on agroecology been initiated. How is the political economy of agroecology, making its way into the public discourse education curricula, the academe. Jahi. Alright, I'll try to answer that concisely. But I mean, I think one important example is this meeting and webinar right now, as well as specifically the work that Olivier did as special repertoire for the right to food, as well as now. And, unfortunately, I forget the name of the special repertoire between the two of them, but the work for from the special repertoire of the United Nations on the right to food has been, I think, crucial in expanding the knowledge and discourse around this, especially within governmental circles and to a large extent in academia as well. And also, of course, the agroecology coalition that, you know, brought us together today. There's the Center for Agroecology, Water and Resilience at Coventry University, which is the first academic center of its kind. And there are the movements around the world advocating for this themselves, very notably via capesina, and as many members throughout the world. The main thing to remember is that even though this is a growing movement in terms of one of the measures of power and influence money, we still know that agroecology is getting a couple of percent compared to the scale of funding and backing and there's nothing of advertising and education that other, the conventional industrial sector is getting. And there's a growing space, I would say, of agroecology in academia, but it's still, you know, arguably backwards, you know, the way industrial agriculture is the focus is sort of like if you were taught primarily about nutrition in terms of processed food and junk food and fast food industries, and then there's a specialty side thing you could focus on was actual nutrition for fruits and vegetables. That's the way agroecology is often treated right now, but there is a change and a change that is being pioneered by movements and by figures like the attendees we have here today. Thank you, Jahi, and that brings us as you mentioned, La Via Campesina, and we want to swap now to get some perspectives from farmers from civil society and from consumers. And first up is Zainal Arafin Fuat from La Via Campesina. He's based in Indonesia. Zainal. Thank you very much. I am from Indonesia Mission Union. So in Bahasa, we call Selikat Potani Indonesia in SPI. So we, I'm also part of La Via Campesina in promoting agroecology in fail. So it'll start in 2014. There is a symposium of agroecology and then the symposium of at regional level in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America, and then on the second symposium of agroecology in 2017. So fail promoting the 10 element of agroecology as you mentioned in the screen. So for La Via Campesina, so we are glad to get a report from Michael Fahri and we also many, many times discussed with him, especially in the report of trade there, so we get giving input to him. So one is the Michael Fahri is good summarize the problem very well. So the lack of concerted action by government all over the globe. So I remember speak of Michael Fahri in the CFS that he said that there are two stories one national government and what government doing nothing. That means that the number of hunger people in 2005 and in 2021 is almost the same 800. So there is a terrible problem in the food system so I was concerned with Mr. Oliver, we met in Geneva, Oliver Sikudar about the political economy and also trade decision. And then second, the exact better situation done by corporation in putting profits first before humanity. They get they use crisis to get profit. So this isn't in Michael Fahri. And then there's been a special effort goes further by showing the fragility of our general food system in this pandemic times, highlighting that pandemic has underlined the value of sharing and solidarity and the importance of the application of traditional local knowledge in time of extreme hardship. Community pursued when they were not exclusively dependent on food value chain operation for the food security. The solution included localized market public food and associated public food distribution system, mutual assistance and the sharing of food as well as as just transition to ecology as mean for adapting to climate change. These are also some of our, our main argument when we present and recommend communities or all the group combined for the establishment of UN drop. Adopted in, in United, you know, it's gonna be December 2019. So the end drop of course is based on the concept of food sovereignty as also mentioned by Mr. Jai. And then from decades ago, patient and people working in the area wanted their care for mother earth way of producing food, they're nice, precise, and even promoted, promoted, promoted by government. We always demand the public policy policies that promote the technology with sovereignty right to see right to be digital diversity and the right to clean and safe environment among others. When we proposed the end drop decades ago, we are not talking only, not only talking about ourselves, but we are thinking of mother earth, the planet and our future generation. What we know the end drop and knowledge to is that is that patient needs support for sustainable agriculture production through rights principle and state obligation. Here comes the point where government needs to support agricultural practices of the people and government from all of the group of the all of the group need to work and in hand. If we still want to see people and have a future generation live with dignity and with healthy nutrition food for example government needs to support. Financial means to obtain what is necessary for agricultural food production like credit insurance. States must take sure the woman in particular woman play major part in food production, have equal access to land, financial services such as agricultural credit and loans. The right to seek and develop information such as timely market information and the right to a liquid training or to use the that information and appropriate and affordable technology. So we are already protecting and influencing our land, water and territory through business ecology and you and your provide us with the tool of demand that states commit to supporting our effort. Development agriculture environment trade and investment policies and program need to align with transition to the sustainable mode of agricultural production as shown through our ecology. So I will give an example in Indonesia in my organization. We, we, we bought a product for our member during coffee and then we give and also sell low price to the, to the vulnerable people. That's what our action during the pandemic and, and also we established our food sovereignty areas. And that means we, we want to establish food sovereignty in, in, in our, in our territory. So this our, our comment on the report of the Michael faculty and then actually Lafayette can be seen a reject. So we have a summit in terms of the technology and also involving many corporations that is also part of the problem, as mentioned by Jahi Capel about this. So that's why we, we want the, we don't want our agriculture become our base on the corporation. So that means based on will depend on, depend on again on the bio biobastic side bio fertilizer and also sit from from industry. So, even though this is a sort of, so this is a problem if our ecology is dominated by corporation not by us. Thank you very much. Thank you very much and I think the fact that many civil society organizations boycotted the UN FSS was part of the pressure together with Member States asking for agriculture to get on to the agenda. It was that that sort of pivotal to pincid approach that actually resulted in some movement. And as Olivia mentioned, we can see that this this movement is progressing. That it will continue to do so. And when better to shift to look at a civil society perspective from million ballet, who is from the Alliance for food sovereignty in Africa million. Good evening, everyone. Good evening for guests. Thank you very much for inviting me. Thanks also for the speakers. I think, by the way, the Alliance for food sovereignty in Africa is the biggest civil society network in Africa. With more than 40 networks in Africa, broad based networks, farmers, visual folks, pastoralists and so on. We work also in 50 of the 55 African countries, so it's the biggest. We are explaining exploring the international processes international spaces I'll come to the UN FSS a little bit later. But first, I think in terms of exploring the transition to agroecology we are exploring different spaces. One is entrepreneurship an area of entrepreneurship. And the farmers should get income, obviously, and how can they produce agroecological products and get income how do we link farmers with consumers what kind of entrepreneurs do we need to help us in transition so we have one program which we are doing with international countries to explore the space. The second space that we're exploring in transition to agroecology is a climate space is a very, very critical space as you know. There is a discussion around adaptation now adaptation is one of the agenda which are very high in copper and agriculture is also considered this year as one of the main agenda. There is a number of international actors, including a piece food, we are exploring the policy space in the climate to promote agroecology. We use a piece food also we've started the program, which is called developing an African food policy. We've been working for the last few years on African Union level and also in 27 African countries. Now we have started a campaign which is called my food is African a number of international organizations joining this movement on seed arena also. So we are exploring the area of farmers money system. It's very, very much important because the international corporate actors are trying to appropriate African seeds through those legislations and different frameworks. We are fighting on that space. So what is the importance of these international processes international spaces. One is our knowledge mobilization. We need to mobilize knowledge around agroecology, even if the UNF is has a lot of criticisms and deservedly. One thing that we have seen during these processes is a amount of knowledge which was mobilized for and against the appropriation of, of the space by by the global access you know. So it was a very, very important space. The agroecology coalition creation would have been better if it didn't come out of that space to be honest from your name faces that has given it. Somehow a negative. What do you call it a negative cover. Even though I know some of our doctors who are in there and also the countries, including 14 countries is really fantastic. But the process was was marked with controversy so. But, you know, you and if it's as resulted in this agroecology coalition, and we need to see how we can work together. The collaboration is a lot of collaborative efforts could come out from international processes. We are part of the TPP, which is very much important. As I said, also we also collaborate with with a place food on on the different spaces. So, so this collaboration is very, very much important international spaces. But before I finish, I want to say word of caution. This space are very much important international collaboration is very much important, but we need also you know, as a civil society as social movement to strengthen ourselves. Otherwise, we can also perpetuate this power imbalance in international processes, wherever they are. It's not only with corporations or corporate actors, this power imbalance is present. There are, according balances also when there are relationships created. So we need to be aware of that. Otherwise, international process are very, very much important for advocacy for collaboration and for knowledge mobilization. Thank you very much. Thank you, million and pointing to the polarization. That often exists in the debates around agroecology I think it's, it's really significant. And that exists as much from the scientific end as it does from, you know, the civil society and can often be really difficult to get things published in journals and so on because of the way in which people are thinking about agroecology. And let's hope for more coming together as we go on, but without compromising on key principles. Let's move now to a consumer perspective and we're delighted to welcome a thought leader on youth food culture and executive director of food for the Food for Climate League, Eve, Taro Paul Eve. Thank you so much for including me in this conversation. I have been taking notes vigorously, and thank you to everyone who has taken their time to share their thoughts today I'm going to be following up with probably each of you to learn more. My name is Eve Taro Paul, I'm the founder and executive director of an organization called Food for Climate League, and we're working to make climate smart eating the norm. And the reason why I became so interested in food trends is because I can see how millennial money has shifted the marketplace. And today I'll be talking about the impact of consumer trends really why, and thank you also for including me in this conversation but also why it is so important that we are considering how money is being spent in order to drive change amongst companies amongst politicians. And beyond. And the question that was posed to me for this panel is our food consumers shifting their preferences to more equitably and sustainably produced food. And my answer to that is yes and no. People care, but all too often they're not taking action. And this is not. This is not really a fault of their own. It's really important to keep in mind that today, the world is facing record high rates of anxiety, depression, loneliness and stress. And most people don't want to think about the apocalypse. They don't want to think about really difficult ideas while they're eating food is comfort and food is identity and food is celebration. And so we need to keep in mind that it's not that people don't care and it's not that they don't know it's that this is a lot to be considering for people. Our minds as human beings didn't actually evolve to think about something as future focused and as intangible as the climate crisis. And so we need to be thinking strategically as those working within this space on how to frame this to the end eater so that we can be driving demand for agroecological foods to shift consumer behavior to support a food system that is really going to be hopefully renewed. So, all of us maintain core human needs. And if you look at all different theories of human well being you'll see that there's really three pillars that philosophers psychologists neurobiologists align on, which is that each and every one of us has a need for a sense of control and safety in our lives. We have a desire for community and belonging, and we have a desire for purpose and meaning. And all we have so many people on this earth, who are going hungry who don't know where their next meal is coming from who are dealing with record high rates of anxiety and stress. Most people are not going to be making decisions based on their desire for purpose and meaning. They're going to be making decisions based on their desire for control safety community. When you look at most sustainable goods on the market. What are they telling people they're saying buy this, because it's going to do something good for the world. Do something altruistic. Give up your meat give up your straws give up food that's packed with flavor that aligns with your cultural identity because the world needs you to do it. And that message is really only going to work with about 1% of the human population right now. So what the organization that I run does is we work to make sure that climate smart food culture is positioned in a way to be culturally relevant to the individuals who we're speaking to, and that we're framing this in a way that is exciting and enticing. We have to make this popular. We know that food is the greatest leverage to improving human human and planetary health, but we also know that farmers can't make the changes that are required of them if there isn't a market to reward them. You know that businesses are not going to make these changes unless there is a market to reward them. I've also found it very interesting just looking through the Q&A questions coming through there are a number of questions also about how to inspire new farmers. How are we going to inspire young people to become farmers who are utilizing agro ecology. If we're not making this cool. At the end of the day this needs to be entering the cultural zeitgeist and becoming something that people aspire to. Ultimately, we say that climate smart eating is plant forward, regenerative and respectful of resources, meaning waste lists that it celebrates diversity improves human nutrition connects community and preserves our shared planet. And we work to connect the dots between sustainable food culture and people's unique needs values and cultures. And we're going to bring companies into this conversation, which has been mentioned by jahi. And the way that we I think need to be doing this is by reframing the conversation to say that a sustainable food food future is made up of diverse ingredients and diverse cultures. Another wonderful thing is that food culture is already heading in this direction. The latest consumer reports here in the US specifically is showing a rising demand, not just for plant based foods but for whole and less processed plant based foods. There is a lot of energy right now around impossible burger beyond burger these really unequitable forms of highly processed expensive plant based foods. Another thing is that people are really hungry for more shelf stable more affordable more culturally relevant foods, like rice and beans, tacos in a palace, things that simply meet them again, where they are. There is also an interest in heritage foods and indigenous crops, and there is an amazing food sovereignty movement here in the United States and in other places around the world. This is not gaining the attraction that it needs in the cultural zeitgeist. I was, I'm just coming from a major conference of food leaders in the United States, and through Europe, talking about plant based foods. There were not diverse voices that were being represented. There is a fact with this audience that in the United States African Americans are three times more likely to be eating a plant based diet than the average American. And I was met with mouths of jar of corporate executives of food companies that have no idea that this is not something that's being pushed forward by white culture. This is a movement that is happening all around the world and that we need to be paying attention to communities on the ground of diverse backgrounds who really are the leaders of this movement. This can link into issues around food sovereignty. We simply need to be guiding the conversation in that direction. Education is simply not enough though, we can't just tell people what they do we as human beings don't make food decisions based on information. And I think the movement around healthy foods can tell you that right you can have somebody tell you you shouldn't be eating that cheeseburger. You need to be losing weight you your heart really needs to you to be changing your diet but we need more than information to change our diet. We don't make decisions out of rational of rational thought when it comes to food to drive the consumer cycle, all around the world where foodie centers drive dollars. We need to acknowledge that we need to make agroecology not just an issue of justice and sustainability but one of deliciousness, one of Instagram ability, one of cultural of culinary exploration. And that really means that we need to meet people where they are it's really hard as someone personally who's deeply passionate about this issue to sometimes take climate take justice out of the conversation. And it's about really respecting the emotional capacity that people have today, and continuing to make this way of eating fun, delicious and exciting to again drive dollars that will then support farmers and reward the companies who are then supporting the farmers to create this agroecological future. Thank you. Thank you. That's fantastic. I'm learning new words. Instagram ability is a new one for me. So I'm going to need some advice from you to make sure that we are meeting that that requirement. I'm realizing I need to make sure I look up. Are there any, we've got another few questions before I'm going to ask for some summing up from Switzerland and then from Olivier. But we do have, we have two questions from from the floor here. Hello. Yep, you're on. Thank you so much for the panel members and for those who were, please, please let us know who you are. I'm Harvey Garcia. I'm a senior evaluation specialist with UNDP formerly I was working as an evaluation specialist for FAO in Rome. So this topic is really close to my heart in terms of, you know, my profession. Thank you again for the panelists for a very enlightening discussion. Just a quick question for Olivier. You mentioned one of the challenges is political economy and it has been repeated over and over in the discussions in the presentations with other colleagues. Seemingly this is a big factor and when we evaluate development projects on the ground. This is something we really consider when we want to understand the context of that situation. And we all know that not all government would make the right choices. And these are based on their political economy too. How do you think the coalition would influence this political economy surrounding agroecology. Thank you for your intervention. Similar question in the area of political economy. How do you see women and girls in organization working with women and girls affecting the big hurdle of political economy in moving agroecology forward. And for Jahi. Thank you for your intervention too. I was wondering also this is the same question I've been asking myself in Rome. Can agroecology produce at scale. And what would be the bridge between, you know, what's happening now and that bright future of where everyone is doing agroecology, what would be that bridge that you see and what can the private sector be part of in that sort of like bridge. Thank you. Super. Olivia, do you want to start. Great. Many thanks for these very interesting questions. And I think to answer directly the question addressed to me that the agroecology coalition can contribute significantly to make agroecology part of a desirable future. Let me explain. I think one of the reasons why we are not moving towards this transformation fast enough is because many governments still see modernization of agriculture as equivalent to its further industrialization. One of the reasons why governments spend so much in fossil fuel subsidies, for example, they believe this is the direction wish to go. And the agroecology unfortunately sometimes even as a result of the vocabulary chosen by its promoters is seen as something of the past, right. It's seen as traditional, low input, low productivity agriculture, when actually it is the type of food production system that is based on 21st century science, much more resource efficient, and much more aware of the planetary boundaries. And I believe the agroecology coalition can do a lot to make agroecology something, if not, instagramable, at least something much desirable for governments, who otherwise may confuse modernization of agriculture with further dependencies on fossil fuel and further industrialization. Let me just add one word to this which is reflecting on what was added by you in your question to Jai Chapelle. I think it is really important that in the fight for agroecology, we take into account the fact that consumers will not by themselves make the transformation required as I think quite rightly noted by Eva Thoreau-Paul. I think we need governments to take the lead, and we need governments to take the lead by being protected from undue corporate influence on their decision making. I will return to this later on if I can, but I think it's a really key part of our discussion. Very quickly, so what we have been saying, and it's something that's happened over the last couple of years, is there's recognition of the links between gender inequality and food insecurity, right, that we see countries with high gender inequality are also more likely to be food insecure, right. And so over these last couple of years we've had a lot of governments then talk about gender inequality in the context of food insecurity and agriculture transformation in ways that we didn't see many years ago. But what has then happened is it's become this politically correct thing to say, right, and because the evidence is there. But what we then are not seeing is investments in addressing gender inequality. And so what I keep saying is it's not enough to to recognize this connection. What I mean is, we have to look at how then, are we prioritizing investments in addressing gender inequalities. And to do that, we can just look at government statements so we were, I was at the UN food system summit, leading the gender lever of change and we saw and analyzed which are the member states that actually made some commitments towards addressing gender inequalities. But it is equally important that we look at where is the money going, where are allocations being made in terms of prioritizing. So if we say gender inequality is driving food insecurity. So the whole budget is around fertilizer subsidies and input subsidies, and so on without any attention to how do we even make sure, at least at the minimum that these inputs are reaching women's more older, and that's even just the basic without addressing issues, deeper issues around land tenure systems and women's access and ownership of land without addressing some of those structural issues that we know are driving inequalities in the food system. Some of it is also just basic as leadership, how many times do we hear governments even the corporates talk about we need women's leadership. We just launched a report to weeks about a weekend and a half ago. We call global food 5050 looking at women's leadership but also policies and outcomes of food systems organizations. So of the whole sample, only 2% of both seats in those organizations are held by women from low and middle income countries. So every time I hear people talk about gender inequality gender equality, centering women it's good that these conversations are being hard, but we really have to look at what is being prioritized, where are investments going and really calling on people that this is not just a fashionable thing to be saying we have to make the right, the right in investments. Thank you and that's obviously a really significant point. Charles. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening. My name is Charles McNeil and with unified. I focus on forest and climate policy. I've been really intrigued inspired uplifted by this event. I'm so glad to hear about this. I recall coalition I you've made such a compelling case for why this coalition can address simultaneously the issues of poverty inequality, the crisis of biodiversity and climate and the gender crisis, as well as many other things my, my question has to do with, and this broad coalition I think is the way to deal with what have been sort of false dichotomies in the past between development or environment. These opposing issues which are inter interrelated interlinked is so important my question has to do with who else needs to be part of this coalition to crack this not to have this work are there sectors are their organizations are there others that we should be working to bring into this coalition to to further make it effective. But thank you so much every speaker was was was very stimulating and important and interesting so thank you for this event. But can I ask million to to have a go at answering Charles's question first and then maybe we'll take a few other perspectives from from jahi perhaps and then from the room million. Are you still with us. He just sent a message that he had to hop off because it was too late. Sorry about that in that in that case, jahi, can you. Would you like to say anything on that. You're looking quizzical there, but from what you were saying from the power in balance issues and so on is a coalition, you know, of 40 countries and 80 organizations, most of which are international. Is that an appropriate vehicle for addressing some of the key aspects that you were mentioning or does it need to expand. I mean it's certainly an important start. And I would say that it is not. I only have familiarity so far with a lot of the people participating, certainly the air ecology coalition as a body before recently but it doesn't seem to be taking space away from autonomous movements that have organized which are super important to be a capacity and as members. Other organizations around the world as well that support. I think we need a big tent, but a big tent that has the most prominent place for people's voices. One of the innovations from different participatory methods around the world, sometimes has been over representation of groups that have less political power so, you know, fine have some corporations in the room but have more organizations that are people's voices have the government but also have people from citizens movements and communities themselves and consumers groups and farmers groups. So, the coalition has an interesting mixture of groups and I think that it's an important step in the right direction that builds on the efforts by others including the civil society mechanism. So, I think, yeah, all that that's very important and great and I think to the question earlier. We're talking seriously about this rather than the question of where can private industry be included or how can they can, how can we bring them in. If they're serious, they need to ask themselves how they can contribute to these efforts, and what they need to do, and what they need to sacrifice we're going to have to have on the part of those who have much some mutual sacrifice, and that's going to be called by their fellow citizens and they can either await for people to come with anger or they can join people in with genuine listening and willingness to really change and be limited in or in exchange for a system that might allow some profit but allows much more sustainability and thriving. Thank you so much. I'm going to sum up in a moment, Olivier so I'm going to hope that you can bring that into that. I want to move now to the concluding part, and we're very privileged to have marry law. The lead of the global program on food security in the Swiss Agency for Development and cooperation. Murray law. Can you say something on international and national perspectives. Yes, thanks a lot. And I would like also to explain in a few words where we were very keen on co hosting the side event and what is Switzerland view on the different topic we have discussed and I guess it will answer some of the question also in the chat. In the current context of overlapping crisis Switzerland is convinced of the need to engage in food system transformation towards more sustainability, resilience, inclusivity and locality. As recognized during the food system summit, this must apply to every step of the value chain, as well as to all elements that influence food system, such as biodiversity and climate governance and policy. Furthering the transformation to sustainable food system in Switzerland and abroad is actually one of the main objective of our 2030 sustainable development strategy at home. So we've heard from the previous speaker that the alarming current food crisis is caused by a series of multiple interconnected and mutually aggravating sources. But I think it's quite clear that the root cause of hunger is not scarcity of food but as we've heard now many times, rather the power imbalances all along the food system. Under this recognition, Switzerland has been supporting now for many years the special reporter on the right to food team and work. The injustices and discrimination affect primarily small scale farmers, women and youth, peasants, indigenous people and pastoralists, but also vulnerable urban and peri urban consumers. Most of the time these marginalized communities, as it was mentioned by Jahi previously, they cannot contribute to the decision about food production or consumption, nor can they participate to policy processes shaping their food systems. So we're convinced that one of the way to empower individuals and communities is to use the transformative elements of agroecology. Actually indeed it's an approach to provide people with more agency. This is a new essential dimension to add to the definition of food security. And as we heard often agroecology is at the same time a practice, a movement and a science and we try to support the three approaches and I think that was one of the questions in the chat. What can the development partner do and how can we address agroecology? So first, talking about the practice with our Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and our partners we implement agroecological projects to diversify the food system and improve resilience. Project and activities contributing to a lot of different issues from diversification of seeds, of farming practices, but also of diets, financial instruments, market access and voices in the governance. One of our partners is AFSA, but since million has left already, I will not enter into more details. The second option or way to engage is the movement. So we've been, we have a long tradition actually of supporting civil society movement and contributing to their engagement in multi-stakeholder networks and platform. For example, sorry, in the current program on human rights in food system, we support local communities ensure that they are empowered to claim their rights and in particular women, right to land, right to water in 14 countries, but at the same time we work with duty bearers and capacitate them to protect, respect and fulfill these rights. We've been strongly engaged at also at the global level within the Committee on Water Food Security and also as an active member of the Agroecology Coalition, that's why also we're here today. And we'd like to add also a different approach which has been a peer-to-peer exchanges between policy makers and this has been very successful so far. We started with five countries, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Nepal and Madagascar, but actually we managed to engage more than 30, 350, sorry, policymakers from more than 80 countries. So where we were talking about knowledge and way to increase the co-creation, this is also an interesting way to go forward. Finally the science, we haven't mentioned that so much so far, but I think we are also very committed to support the scientific dimension and to get evidence and data from multiple sources to back up policy decision. For this shift in the food systems. So with other countries we have pressed for the creation of a new program within the CGIR and there is now a program dedicated to Agroecology. We're very much looking forward to see the first results of that in order to demonstrate that Agroecology works. So as we look at the current situation, we might think actually that there are faster approaches to transfer food system because Agroecology is probably not the quick fix solution. At the same time, we have always advocated to respond to crisis with a combination of short term emergency and humanitarian support together with a firm commitment to long term development and perspectives. So in conclusion, as we look back, I think a lot has been achieved in the last years. There is a successful implementation of Agroecological practices across dozens of countries and we see an increased positioning of Agroecology in the global policy agenda. And as we look ahead, we must recognize that the complexity of global challenges which no stakeholder can tackle alone will require definitely further collaboration. And we call for solidarity with the international community and strengthening multilateral action. We are tonight in New York but the link between New York, Rome and Geneva is very important. What is even more important is definitely the commitment to support the most affected countries. And maybe a final word, very happy to have Eve with us and the youth constituency. And I think for Switzerland, we welcome and definitely support the role youth plays already in the transformation of food system. And we just are back from the CFS 50 in Rome where policy recommendation on the role of youth in the food system were approved. And I think Switzerland facilitated this process in an inclusive manner, innovative as well, trying to have in parallel to the formal negotiation, engaging youth in different parallel processes. So we are convinced that these are essential requirements to foster a more diverse, equitable and sustainable food system. Thank you, Fergus, back to you. Thank you, Mary line. Of course, Switzerland is the exception in the money flows report that Olivier mentioned in terms of having a really strong track record of investing in agroecology in research and the evidence base. So it's really great to hear those priorities coming through and the one CIG one CGR, Agroecology Initiative that you mentioned is actually meeting now in Nairobi, having a pause and reflect workshop on its initial workings. So let me hand over the huge task of bringing all this together in a pithy statement. Olivier. Well, thank you very much indeed, Fergus and I think my little criticism words, recalling that Agroecology is a social movement to practice science. Agroecology is a very good summary of the challenges ahead, but also of the very important progress made so far I would like to to thank Marilor for those, those remarks which I think are really important. I would like to conclude with maybe three remarks one minute each at most first. Any arguments in favor of Agroecology that we have been rehearsing over the past 90 minutes. There is always one lurking doubt, can Agroecology feed the world. And I think that question that our colleague from UNDP formerly FAO did raise is both extremely important and in the way it's formulated sometimes misleading the purpose indeed should not be to feed the world but for communities to feed themselves. It's important to note that Agroecology, a set of agronomic techniques in terraria, including mixed cropping schemes biological control, the use of leguminous plants to fertilize the soils, agroforestry, the capture rainwater etc. These techniques can significantly enhance productivity in regions where productivity of agriculture is very low because these techniques are not used. So in many developing country contexts, Agroecology is a way to do things better and to increase productivity in countries regions, such as, you know, Europe, Northern America, where, or many parts of Latin America where agriculture is heavily industrialized. Agroecology there is a way to maximize resource efficiency by producing better with less energy with the more sound use of the scarce resources we have and to create employment in rural areas to stimulate rural development. So increased productivity is not the objective there. The objective there is to have a much more sustainable way of producing food and to have more diverse diets and to create rural development so that it is not only the objective to increase the amount of food produced. So I think your question, your colleague calls for nuanced answer depending on the pathways we have to follow to move towards agroecological solutions, but I think in different contexts. It can be defended on different grounds. Secondly, we had a very important question raised by our colleague from UNEP chance about the alliances that should be built in the future. It's important to acknowledge that Agroecology until now was primarily promoted by the Via Compensina and networks of small-scale farmers and by those who promote agroecology as a way to reduce the ecological footprint of how we produce food. But actually, many more alliances can be imagined with public health specialists, with development NGOs, with anti-poverty groups, with groups that work on climate change. In other terms, Agroecology, because of its benefits at multiple levels, raises the possibility of having broad alliances formed beyond the usual division between constituencies that we have. And I think it is one of the reasons why it is such a broad movement, so diverse in its composition. My third remark is that Zainal from the Via Compensina linked Agroecology to the United Nations declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working rural areas adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2018 that also refers to food sovereignty. Now, food sovereignty is not only about giving priority to satisfying local community's needs above the exigencies of global markets, it is also about food democracy. And food democracy was very much at the heart of what Jair Chapelle mentioned in his own intervention, referring to the need to challenge the concentration of power within certain major agri-food companies. And I do believe this is a key part of the fight for the agroecological transformation. One important provision of the draft legally binding instruments on business and human rights that is currently in discussion in the Human Rights Council is about avoiding corporations influencing the political agenda in a way that is disproportionate. In other terms, it's about avoiding companies that occupy a dominant position in the economy to translate this into disproportionate influence in the political system. I think this is extremely important. This is why the African food policy developed with the African Union by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa. That is represented here by Milion Belay is so important. When we have the EU adopting a food policy, a food strategy, when we have a food policy developed in Canada, when we have in Africa for the continent a food policy developed, it means that governments claim the right and the duty to lead the transformation of food systems rather than leaving this to be dictated by the blind mechanisms of the market and by the influence of major corporations that dominate markets. And I think that is why there is a link between the agroecological transformation and the idea of food sovereignty as one way to express the exigency of food, of food democracy. Food sovereignty is about the ability for governments and actors of food systems to reclaim control over the way food systems shall be developed. And I think it is extremely important that we keep this in mind and that we do not allow the choices to be made in the future to depend only on what the markets demand. But in this regard, I think local governments have a major role to play. We have been promoting the Glasgow Food and Climate Declaration that hundreds of local governments have adhered to until now. And I think it is perhaps there also that we should be attentive the need to rebuild territorial food systems local food systems in order to make the shift to agroecology possible. Many thanks indeed and I look forward to the continuation of our conversation. Fantastic. Thank you so much, Olivier, for summing things up so pithily and your call for a broad and broader coalition is really playing out. I noticed, for example, that it was the Ministry of Health in Ghana that joined the coalition, not the Ministry of Agriculture, so I think, you know, what you're saying is being born out. So this, you mentioned, you know, can agroecology feed the world. I think that was what you've called the paper way back in 2011. And what is really nice to see, and it was mentioned in Michael Fakri's report that'll go tomorrow, paper in nature by Chloe McLaren and her colleagues, showing across 30 trials in Africa and Europe. At least 1000 data points, all the trials are at least nine years long that crop diversification with legumes added can be more productive or substitute for the use of industrial produced nitrogen fertilizer so that there really is a sea change going on in terms of the evidence that's available. I'd like to thank everybody who's participated. I think it was a really stimulating event. There are 30 questions or so that have not been answered on the internet, but we will follow up with panelists to make sure that over the next few days. I think we get answers to all of those, and there will be a lot of post event material and promotion going out. So please look for that and continue to be engaged. If you're not already part of the coalition or your institution isn't then please think about becoming part of it. If you're on the more knowledge and an implementation gap side, then get involved with the transformative partnership platform on agriculture ecology that has a community of practice that you can join individually. Thank you and goodbye.