 Hi, thank you, Joanne. And first of all, I'd like to really apologize for not being able to attend the panel because of a travel glitch I had. I work with the International Livestock Research Institute and we have several, a large number of programs where I'm involved, especially in policy interventions and working at the grass root level stakeholders on eco health, especially in Asia, but also in Africa. And with that perspective and with that experience, my interpretation of complexity in eco health communication is a bit different. Eco health, I see as an approach, a concept, a philosophy that can only be successful if we are able to reach out to a cross-section of stakeholders representing cross-section of disciplines. So a very, very critical success factor or an important impact pathway for eco health is reaching out or communicating to a large number of different types of stakeholders at different levels, spanning policymakers to communities, all stakeholders being equally important in this whole process. This, to me, is a complexity. I'd like to flag five points that the panel perhaps can discuss later. One is, my first point would be, eco health is a means to solve complexities and getting different disciplines together. So it should be seen as a solution to complexity. It should not become a cause of complexity. Number two is communication in eco health is about packaging the right information in a right way. It could be the same message. Say for example, in case of Ebola virus, it could be the same message, but the way we package it and communicate with different stakeholders must be different. The policymaker wants to see it from a different angle. The private sector wants to see it from a trade implication point of view, community from a different view, so forth. So how do we package the same message in a way to respond to different priorities of different stakeholders, I think is very, very critical in communicating eco health. My third point is communication is more complex and this is our experience throughout. Communication is more complex when it is top down. The moment you involve the people at the grass root level, the people at the local level, regional level, the complexity of that communication message actually dissolves and therefore, we've been advocating the need for creating a pool of regional champions who can act as our communicators, act as our local ambassadors. It plays an extremely important role. My fourth point is communication is definitely a two-way arrow. We often think that communication means a message going from people like us to the grass root level. As much as speaking to them and talking to them is important, listening to them and getting a sense of their priorities at the grass root level is extremely important. So communication can be successful only if it is done as a two-way arrow. My last point is communication may be a very, very complex issue, but communication is inevitable. The only way eco health approach can be successful, the only way we can reach out with that, with this concept to a large number of people and make that impact is by effective communication and therefore, even if it sounds complex, you know, often because of its complexity, a lot of projects and a lot of people sort of avoid communicating with certain stakeholders. So even if it is complex, I think it is very important to communicate. So finally, I really strongly believe that complexity is a good thing. In case of eco health, it should be seen as an opportunity. It should not be seen as a challenge. Thank you very much. It's David Woltner-Tapes from Veteran Health Frontier Canada. I have a question. You talked about communicating different packages to different stakeholders. What if those stakeholders have fundamentally different value perspectives on the same situation? So for one group, deforestation in Brazil to grow soybeans is a solution. It brings in foreign exchange, increased agricultural production and so on. For other groups, the groups that are displaced, for those of us that care about global environmental services, this is not a solution, this is a problem. How do, what's our role as eco health communicators within that? Other than to simply say, here's the situation which we can describe scientifically from different backgrounds. Do we make a value decision to say, we're gonna side with this group or that other group? And if so, how do we do that? Yeah, thank you very much, David. By communication packages, I mean, you know, tailor making the messages so that it kind of responds to different priorities and it makes sense to different stakeholders, right? For example, a classic example often is in, you know, where, you know, a policymaker is brought to a scientific meeting. We keep showing them a lot of scientific data and things like that. They, you know, there is a very little impact and influence that they have on that. Research papers, no matter how great they are and I'm really sorry for all those people who really believe in publishing a lot. It's a great thing. It's a great way of communicating but then that impact has on a very niche audience. How do we, how do we, you know, so how do we bring out or extract some of the key messages from that research papers so that that then responds to the policymaker's five bullet points on this is the problem and this is what, you know, this could be the solution. I think it's, you know, that kind of tailor making is very important. The other thing, David, I very strongly feel is that, you know, eco-health should be, you know, rather than pushing eco-health, we should create a pool for eco-health and that's extremely, extremely important component. So that, you know, we are sort of promoting eco-health but we are promoting eco-health not as the only tool and often we think of it as the only solution for all sorts of problems around the world, the diverse problems you spoke about. I think eco-health is an important tool but it is one of the tools in the toolboxes and that is a message that we need to be, we must really not, no matter how convinced we are, we must not overdo on showcasing eco-health as the only, as a silver bullet or something like that.