 Welcome everybody to today's webinar organized by the Green European Foundation together with the Greek Green Institute and with Freda, our Austrian foundation. My name is Adrian thought I'm the project coordinator here at Jeff, the Green European Foundation is a European level of political foundation. We are funded by the European Parliament and we are affiliated to the European Green Party and to the members from the Green Group in the European Parliament. And we try to be a platform for cooperation and exchange for greens across Europe. We work a lot with activists are members partners and General Assembly members are predominantly green foundations and think tanks from all over Europe. And what we try to do is encourage them to cooperate with each other and come up with new ideas create space for debate on some of the pressing issues of today. And this event is embedded into the broader transnational project, which is entitled deforestation and climate change. In 2020 we had a kickoff of with our Austrian partners Freda focusing on the challenges of deforestation, in particular on the last remaining ancient forest in Romania, which are very much threatened due to illegal logging practices. I'm personally very much interested in this topic as an ecologist I was lucky enough to spend several months in 2015 in the rainforest of Borneo and witnessing firsthand the deforestation activities mainly due to palm work plantation expansions. I'm sharing some of the field work images here as you can see the soil completely degraded and biodiversity is almost on zero. In 2021, in the months of March and May, our Greek colleagues have gathered a lots of new knowledge and information about how to mix the sustainable forest management with good small scale agricultural practices. The outputs of these three webinars as you can see on the right side will be presented shortly by our Greek partners in the booklet that was published few weeks ago, and it will be also sent with the download link in the follow up email. Before we start with the event, some important technicalities. If you're not speaking please move to your microphone and wait for the moderator to give you the floor. It would be great if you could indicate your name and organization down below. And of course we do encourage the use of camera. This webinar is being recorded and will be shared at the Green European Foundation's YouTube channel later on. Today's topic of this webinar is about reforestation priorities for climate change mitigation with a particular focus on the recovery and resilience funds and our speakers will cover various topics from soil protection, land use and land use change, the common agricultural policy restoration interventions, etc. So I'm very much looking forward to this webinar also to hear and learn from our panelists of policymakers, experts, academics and NGO representatives. And I leave you in the very capable hands of our moderator bullet said to you, who is since 2004, the Secretary General of the Greens Eva group in the European Parliament, and she was elected to the committee of the European Greens in November 2019. Eva, the screen is yours. I think you're muted. Yes. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be with you today, even if we are not able to have physical meetings but let's hope that it will be over of this difficult period and that we will be able also to meet and to talk and to have more human relationships because of course with all these webinars the last one and a half year, we lost this dimension and I really hope strongly that we will be able to come back to a new normality. So as Adrian mentioned, I am the Secretary General of the Greens in the European Parliament and the member also of the Committee of the European Green Party, and as a background, I'm an urban and regional planner, even if I have never really seen that part of my career, that job, but as a Secretary General of the group, of course, all these years I follow very, very closely the main topics of the Paris Agreement, of the climate changes, everything that it is related to the Green Deal was obviously for my group in the European Parliament in 2019, the Green Deal was a top priority and we really insisted a lot when it comes to the new Commission to put it in the centre of the attention. Of course, I cannot only say that this is a success of the Greens because the Greens could have never been so successful without grass root mobilisation, without people really, movements and the young people, the Fridays for future, and a lot of other people that they went to the streets, asking for a different future and for more sustainable future. And as I said before, the Green Deal was in the centre of our political agenda and also when it comes to the negotiations for the follow up of the Paris Agreement when it comes to the climate protection. And the last two years, we just follow a series of issues which they are part of the debate today, because of course recently we voted a climate role or law. Just a few days ago we finished the trial logs when it comes to the cap reform. In both files we have been, as Greens, extremely critical and of course now we are waiting in the coming days a new package that the Commission will present for the fit for 2030 package with a series of legislations which we hope that they will go to the right direction when it comes to the climate protection and the fight against the climate change and the protection of the biodiversity. We are looking with a lot of attention these new packages because we really hope that they will go to the right direction. There is not so much time in front of us to save our planet and also to save the future generations. So everything that it comes on the table as legislation has to go to the right direction, has to keep one line, a consistent line when it comes to sustainability but also when it comes to the ecological justice which very often goes together with the social justice. And we are looking very much forward to see what the Commission will propose to us and how we can somehow correct some mistakes that we saw in the last month's happening. I would like also to say before I present the different colleagues on this event that obviously the COVID crisis have been a big tragic moment which bring us back to the reality because we show what does it mean losing biodiversity, what does it mean not respecting the natural borders of the humans with the rest of the ecosystem and beyond the tragic loss of human lives and the tragic loss that we saw all this last year but which is we are not completely over. We also see that we need to have a change of the paradigm, the change on the way we are living. The European Union is giving quite big amounts via the recovery resilience funds. We would like to see all of us if these big amounts which this time are equally loans but also equally grants, they go to the right direction when it comes to the sustainability. If you follow probably in the last months the negotiations with the European Parliament to see which kind of regulation we will put on the table, if this regulation respects the environment, if this regulations respect the biodiversity, if there is a new way of creating employment there are new ways of development and of course this is also a stress test because if we will lose this opportunity to use these billions in the right direction then we have an additional problem because we are losing a unique opportunity to make and to promote more quality projects and projects which they go to the right direction when it comes to our sustainability and all this framework and exactly that framework. I would like to present our speakers today because I believe that all of them, they have something to add, something very important to add in this discussion, and I would like to start with Riga, which is a forest scientific and ecologist from the scientific committee of the Green Institute from Greece, and we have a common point not only we are greens but also we are coming from the same small city in the mountains of Greece so I'm very very pleased to be today with you and to moderate this session to present the work that you have done. We have with us Dr Panagiotis Panagos, he is also a scientific research officer from the European Commission from the Joint Research Centre and also he is with us to present his work around the priorities for the soil protection, the policies of the EU but also to present as a whole what he is doing with his research from the side of the European Commission and I really hope that also he will take a healthy distance so we will be able also to understand what is the dynamic and what are the expectations. Together with us we have Kelsey Perlman, she is from the forest and climate campaign at Fern, so very very happy to have you here, not only because you are a campaigner and for your issues but also because you are a woman and I think that in this kind of panels is extremely important also to protect this gender identity and with your work you will present us the land use, land use change and forestry and of course your experience when it comes to the campaign that you are doing. We will have a video from Tanasis Kizos, unfortunately he is not able to be connected for technical reasons but he is a professor in the Department of Geography in the University of the Aegean and he with his presentation he will show us the cap payments and economic viability of traditional agro forestry system in the EU and we have one person who is missing, unfortunately Matthias Sinkhofer was not able to join but I really hope that even without him we will be able to have a good discussion after the presentations we will open some time for questions, answers for our guests and at the end Riga's will conclude this webinar. So Riga's the floor is yours, thank you. You have to unmute yourself that's. Thank you very much, it's a great honor to have you all and I am very pleased that you joined this discussion which is as Andrian said the consequence of the book that we had we made and we just release it, it's free to download it from the Jeff website and the Greek institute, I am a forest ecologist and I am coordinating this small project from the scientific point of view. The general idea of what we have as a priority to do with the new resilient recovery fund came out when we found that one of the main points one of the main goals is a huge amount of money to be used for a forestation. And European Union said representatives said that our goal is to plant 3 billion trees, which doesn't seem very bad. And actually we don't oppose it, but what kind of trees for where we will plant these trees. What kind of trees and what are the criteria for planting the huge amount of trees, there are places of course that they are heavily forested. I am coming from an area in the mountain of Pindos nearby Albanian borders, which is I could say 80% forest Mediterranean alpine and broadleaves but also temperate forest but also Mediterranean forest so there is no place actually to a forest date it's everything is forest already because land and but there are also many places in Greece for them that they are in they are deserted several places have lost the forest cover so there should be some priorities and especially I have to point out that we think that we don't we don't like to see again forest monoculture of alien species like it has been done in some decades before with Fkalipus trees for example which I don't think that the practice has shown in the science that this is not a good action is not restoring ecosystems is not restoring biodiversity is not giving jobs and it creates actually many problems the years to come because these are flammable areas or they are desert they could be characterized as green deserts and we have problems of pathogens and etc etc so just planting trees is not that good news we have to set up criteria and these forested areas should and actions should be in accordance to other strategies like for example the strategy the European strategy for the preservation of biodiversity but also this huge amount of money could also create new jobs so we ask the scientific community of Greece about their ideas about this value for money actions and how it could be done that this project this opportunity is not lost again and what are their proposals so we made a setup three events and the proceedings of these events are presented in the book we just that just came out and I will present this book to you and there is also for chapter which are our proposals and our conclusions are written there so I share my screen now and you will see the book which is this is front page entitled the book Productive Reforestation for Living Rural Landscapes in jobs and reviving agroforestry systems for livestock farming agriculture beekeeping and biodiversity while tackling the certification erosion and mitigating the effects of climate change and we call about in this proceedings you will find the presentations of at least 20 invited speakers coming from different disciplines foresters agricultural trees and also people from NGOs and from universities etc the president of the institute and has a forward here and I made a small introduction the book is the design is to to to see the book in two pages so each page and for example here we see the invitation card for the first event which was about these productive purposes the reforestation for productive purposes for pasture land for be hiving for recreation and you see here the invited speakers so the first of all of them costa didham adhanas explained what is the agroforestry systems and why they are important and how we can revive these asian landscapes creating also new jobs so today panagiotzana to this who has the largest seed exchange event in the world the peliti seed festival so how is important to collecting preserving and spreading traditional seed varieties and finding out also people in the mountains areas especially an island they preserved local varieties that are adapted to the specific environmental conditions of every place then sofi agunari said a lot of things about big honey bees and beekeeping and how forest is a forest and mainly a forest product and how we can restore ecosystems and make good value of this money planting more trees that are valuable for honey bees and are within forest ecosystems and of course here again Nikos Nikishanis show us the value of local traditional varieties of fruit trees and the big project that he was leading and focusing on preserving these asian varieties finding them and use them and many universities join on this project which eleni malupa show us how this small native fruit trees and shrubs can be reproduced and can play a very important role commercial role and how people can use them reuse them and make quality products which are the best solution for the deserted landscapes and non-productive agricultural land and how we can revive these areas the second event was focused on the certification issues and erosion and our invited speakers spoke about these big issues which is not only in Greece but also in the Mediterranean and other places as a consequence of the certification of land use we had the honor to have with us Nikolaus Yasoglu which was one of the main players for the action plan of the national commission and he played a great role in the UN in creating the certification against the certification action plan and also Mr Panagiotes Panagos who said about the conclusion of the European Court of Auditors about the certification issues he is with us so I don't say anything else he will present us the whole issue also we had Mr Tsadilas and he showed us the issue, the case of Greece, how the intensification of land use made a big harm in agriculture areas and how the topsoil has been lost and the productivity of land and how we can restore this also Yonis Kalliva said us about the technologies and geospatial technologies and how they can be used in creating priority maps and locating money in areas that they are needed more Dr Papanastasis who is a forest ecologist also but a rangeland ecologist and a very well known in the European level about his work in Midos and Rangeland and how these ecosystems could be sustainably used if we prevent soil erosion and if we are focusing in multifunctional landscapes, this agroforestry and agroforestry ecosystems and also Yonis Kazoglu said about autochthonous farm land animals and local breeds and how they can be used because they are not they can preserve the landscape because they don't need so much attention, they don't need so much intervention so they are the best to local adapted races of animals, they are especially valuable for the presentation of landscapes and for biodiversity and Thodorapetanidu had a very impressive presentation about her work done in the islands of the region especially and she explained to us how we can value these terraces in huge areas that are abundant and because of top payments they are deserted and flocks of goats destroy this asian anthropogenic ecosystem and how we can see this as a green infrastructure which can be reforested and it can be again revived and he presented some results of the life project that she is coordinating life, there are caves and good examples of the implication of several action plans about the recovery of these ecosystems and the next event had the topic was about climate change and the resilient recovery found and again here we have Thanasius Kizos who will present some of these things today, he sent us a video and he spoke about cap payments and what was the problem that intensification or the abandonment of these asian landscapes have been created by these payments, Ioannis had your view set about the necessity of restoration of great land areas and how management measures aiming for sustainability could increase the income from areas that they are abandoned and also Dr Dalesios said about the importance of agriplomatic zones and for the prioritization of the protection of agriforestation systems and how we can use this tool in order to focus our interest in areas that they are more needed and also the Spina Paitaridu said about the forest genetics and resources and forest nurseries and what is the seed that we would like to have in order to restore this ecosystem, we have to preserve the local varieties and to use local genetic material in order to have the better success and Dr Dalesios said about a new forest national forest strategy which is in accordance to european forest strategy, financial opportunities how we say we see the things of the next 20 years adapted as a Mediterranean clever, climatic clever forestry actions and how this Mediterranean forestry should be adapted in the new era of climate change, also Petros Kakouros focused on this sector again and said many paradigms of restoration etc. And Emily Drugas who focus on agriculture heritage systems and how they are designate how the new agricultural policy is focusing on these ecosystems as the examples of sustainability. I have to say that in each of these presentation summaries, there is a link here in the top right, so this opens when you click here it is opening the PowerPoint presentation, I will stop sharing and I will show you the presentation an example of this and let me see for example here we have one of Malupa and clicking the summary, it comes out the page of her presentation so it is about the genetic material that the project have selected from all these different species, carot trees and mulberries etc and here you can see all the presentations of each of the invited speaker. And for ending my presentation I will show you only the last bit which is about the conclusions and the conclusions of our book are in a different chapter and the summary here and these are actually the main topics written here which were also combined in a letter that has been sent by us to the Ministry of Environment and Energy in Greece as also in Europe, in the EU. So we say actually all these things that I already said, we compile them as a result and we send them to those that take decisions and should focus more on resilience and not just giving money for this forestations or a forestation or sharing what kind of trees and how this can create jobs. This is the main topic that this amount of money should not be lost again, we have seen this again in Greece, we have seen that in European level, scientific evidence is there, cap payments and other payments did not make good for environment, did not make good for the agricultural communities, social collapse, especially in mountain areas and island areas, unique areas for the biodiversity, areas that produce huge amount of high quality products have been deserted. We don't want to see that again, we want this money to be given in this direction, not to do the same mistakes of the past, we want this and our proposal is this productive forestation issue which is combining deforestation, afforestation and planting. And this comes together with the preservation of asian woodlands and natural ecosystems. This is very important, we like to revive this multifunctional landscapes using multifunctional trees. And this is our main topic, so I give floor to the next, thank you very much Vula and I'm open for answering your questions in any detail. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for this very interesting presentation and research. I will suggest that we go on with the speakers and after we open the floor I have some questions also to raise but let's continue with panels and then we will come back to the questions later. Thank you. Panos, the floor is yours. Good afternoon everybody. I shared my screen, I don't know if you see my presentation. I'm Panos Panados, I'm working in the joint research center, the GSE of European Commission, which has also objected to provide science and knowledge, it's a science and knowledge service for the European Commission meaning that we provide policy advice to our colleagues who make legislation. So, my talk will just a summary of my talk, we'll speak about the general framework for soil legislation in EU. The topic is quite, I can say, maybe not interesting for you because many people like to hear about water, to hear about biodiversity, to hear about air, climate change, so soil is not so appealing, but really I will try in 10 minutes to show you that it's quite interesting and worth to be in. So, we'll speak about the soil thematic strategy, the European Green Bill and soil, how we established here in the EU, the EU soil observatory, how soils now are part of the horizon Europe in emissions, two words about climate change and soil organic carbon, how do we come up with an agricultural policy, standard development goals, and there is a report of the European Court of Justice regarding this application. So, the soil thematic strategy was proposed in 2006, is in place in 2006. And there we see that six main trees have been identified, erosion, organic matter loss, contamination by the U.S. Loss, compaction, salamization, landslides, and soil seed. So, those are the main trees that have been in the soil thematic strategy, but we should not focus only on the trees, we should see also what are the main factors of soil provided to humans and the rest. So, soil is producing biomass, I mean, agriculture, the food that we eat, 95% of the food that we eat is chemical soil, it stores and filters the nutrients, it's a biodiversity pool, it's a physical cultural environment where we live, it's a source of raw materials, it's a carbon pool, and of course it's a kind of geological and archaeological heritage. I say all this because this connected somehow to the legislation because member states, countries tend to say that, okay, soil is our issue, we don't care about having an e-user legislation regarding soil, but somehow having seen these seven functions of soil, you can see that this transversal problem does not affect only local or regional conditions because if you don't have very good food to eat, I mean, this can be a continental issue, or if soils are not managed well to be as a carbon pool then it's a problem. So, I said, I make an example here of how, during the last 50, 60 years, the humans within appropriate management practices, they managed to destroy most of the soils in the EU, and 70% of the soils in the EU are under free time. So here, this picture coming from close to my hometown in Larissa, where you can see that the farmer within appropriate activation during the last 50 years, he provoked so much loss, you see the difference here, 1.5% in the two fields. And of course, when we speak about soil erosion, which is an example, we don't speak only about the losses. But the farmer has his agricultural production in the plantations, and of course his farm has less value, but there are side effects coming to the society, I mean, this is going to sediment various areas to create floods, landslides, water refrification, to seal the dams, we lose biodiversity, we lose carbon, of course, as Viga said, land environment, because the areas are not anymore appealing, and the destruction of public infrastructure. And this is the bill for the public, I mean, the society pays this bill. In the proposal of the soil thematic strategy, there were 14, there was raising the recess integration in other policies and the legislation. Unfortunately, we managed to progress in three of the pillars, but we don't have a litigation. Regarding what I was raising, there were many public events regarding soils from 2006, and then many enterprises, many, many started raise their voice on soil. Regarding the search, we have seen many projects on the seventh program and the horizon, integration, soils has been integrated with the common agricultural policy, but unfortunately we don't have a litigation. Five member states were able to block the legislation that directed for soil protection in 2007, and those five member states, United Kingdom, we know that they didn't like so much the European relations. Germany and France for issues regard mainly pressed by their farmers, Austria and the Netherlands, so those five member states were able to block this legislation in the council. So, here I present this diagram just to show that in the last 20 years, what happened with this relation regarding soils, we have some me some first notions in 2003 in the common agricultural policy with the educational environmental conditions, then we had a proposal for the strategy. In the capital 2013 we have seen some advancement, few indicators that how soils, then the Sustainable Development Goals, and the upcoming proposal for the Common Agricultural Policy which has been proposed by the Commission in 2018, we have seen some notion about soils. So this is not so much happened in the last three years, but then we see the last December that the Commission comes, of course the EU. Fortunately, soils is in five out of the eight objectives of the EU, and specifically the ones back with the grey color, increasing the EU climate ambition for 2015, mobilized the industry for a clean circular economy, a zero pollution ambition for a toxic green farm, preserving historical systems from far to far. So it seems to be a cross cut within this EU. And we have seen quite nice ambition goals, as Riga said, one of them was the how to plant three billion, I mean it was about three billion trees. We have seen some nice ambition in this EU green deal. The task, the difficult task is somehow to translate those nice ambitions, those nice goals in actions. So among them in the ambitions of the EU, 30% of land in Europe should be protected area to plant three billion trees, to increase organic farming by diversity, to reduce the risk of pesticides, to increase the organic farming at the levels of 35%, to reduce by 50% the use of more hazardous pesticides, to reduce the losses. And of course the climate, the climate law. Some, some numbers about soils, we lose more than two times. So it's done, it's formative so we have a problem sustainability on solid erosion, the carbon stocks are reduced, are reducing with a high rate so we may lose by 13% to 36% difference in the soil organic carbon, the very low. The earthworms affected by land use intensity, we see, regarding soil contamination, carbon, fertilizer, carbon rain, and 33% of soils have critical density, in addition we have the problems of soils in urban expansion. So the EU, propose the EU soil observatory, which has, which costs here in just in the sense of time working, and this European soil observatory has a subjective to create a EU wide monitoring system to support research innovation to have a strong European soil data center to monitor the soil related policies and of course to provide, I mean, like we do here, to have an interaction with citizens, with NGOs, with member states on how we can protect better our soils. So in this, one of the goals in this European soil observatory of course is to go from monitoring towards a better monitoring system and you can see here some nice maps of what we're doing here, we estimate the pH in the European soil, the organic carbon, the natural nitrogen, the phosphorus content, heavy metals, the frugicides distribution, the pesticides, the soil biodiversity. So we do this kind of modeling based on some monitoring system that we have. Regarding the mission, the missions are five areas that the Commission made this commission has proposed for the new commission, where specific attention will be paid for research. So among the five areas, unfortunately, there is the soil health input, and you see the rest of them, the cancer, the adaptation to climate change, including the system transformation, the healthy oceans, and the climate, and the other smart secrets. And the work here that we do is to see, to monitor that our soils are unfortunately at 75% are not healthy conditions, and we should put more research on this, on how we can reach a better healthy condition for soils and how we can reduce this percentage in the minimum numbers. Regarding the Sustainable Development Goals, in 2015, after the part, in the past two minutes, we have seen that the United Nations proposed these ambitious horizontal with 17 Sustainable Development Goals, and here the commission is a front runner. The reason is that it has added some indicators that the European Commission has proposed some indicators, and those indicators are currently monitored at EU level, and they're proud of the soil erosion, soil erosion kind of among the 169 indicators that we try somehow to monitor and to see what is the progress of those indicators. We see, for example, the severe erosion, for example, in the EU is reduced from 6% to 55.2%, mainly due to some very small, I can say, provisions in the EU. To give an example about climate change, because this is also a topic affected by tonight's discussion, on the right, you can see how we speak about climate change, but climate change, I mean climate change is somehow this budget of how CO emissions are coming from the industry, how many emissions are coming from land use change, and then the sinks, the sinks are two sinks, we can say, the oceans and the land, I mean the forest, our land, our agriculture. So, in practice, we try to see this budget, we see that, unfortunately, we have this negative, which is mentioned, the EU has 17.3 giga, 17.3 giga tons of carbon emissions, which is very high, and our objective to create a climate neutral is somehow to reach a zero balance, and how we can reach the zero balance, by reducing the emissions from the fossil fuel industry, or also by increasing the oceans, but certain management practices, like forestation, but as Riga said, in certain areas and with care, or land use management practices regarding soils, I mean, if you cultivate in a proper way, you can absorb carbon in that, and here you can see a modern activity that we do here in GLC to estimate the carbon, the soil of the carbon that exists in our soils. In addition, we run various scenarios, we see how we can reach in 2050 a certain carbon balance in European soils, and we can see which are the potential and best practices, and we can see that we conclude that the conversion from iron to grass is an important management practice that permits us to have an increased carbon sink in soils, the crop or residual management, the reduced tillage scenario, the combined residual incorporation with reduced tillage, lay rotation and private crops. So these are some proposed management practices to reduce carbon from the atmosphere. I go very fast to the Common Agricultural Policy, which has been somehow agreed last Friday, and say some words about what we're doing here in GLC in relation to soils as well. So, of course, in the Common Agricultural Policy, things could be better, but compared to the previous Common Agricultural Policy 14-20, the new one has a stronger environmental component. It's not the one that we bought as well, but it's much better than the previous one. And here you can see that the new delivery model, we have some specific objectives at EU level, some indicators to monitor, and some broad types of intervention. Then the member states, the countries, will propose some strategic plans, will tell you the interventions according to their needs because you cannot apply anything or any practice everywhere, because of the member states, because of the country, the conditions, climate, etc. And then we monitor the progress of those interventions. And among the objectives was to have to foster on sustainable development efficient management of natural resources to contribute to climate change mitigation. And here we managed to have two indicators regarding soils, to reduce the soil erosion by percentage of land, severe erosion, and to enhance carbon sequestration as I've shown you before. And in the proposed new cloud, we see some good agricultural environmental conditions that come in place, like the protection of carbon with soils, for example, the protection of wetlands and treatments will be an issue that will be raised. The maintenance of soil organic carbon, you cannot burn arabystables, I'm coming from Tesla in Tesla, it was a practice to burn arabystables in June, now this will not be permitted. And comparsely use of tool to monitor the nutrients which could contribute to reduce of the excess fertilization. And the minimum land management here we have to do with the tillage management and that and not to reduce the risk of erosion and the protection of soil during during. I'm coming towards the end of the year, I should say that in 2018 we had a nice mission from the court of auditors that monitors how the member states how the EU bodies are doing in various policies. One of the issues that raised the court of auditors was how the EU is combating this issue, climate change, we see the more trying periods, right, prolonged periods, followed by intensive and intense rainfalls that create quite strong problems. So we have this increase of droughts we monitor these cities without data, and, of course, areas with higher reading less precipitation south of Europe, it affects of course, you can say that affects southern Europe but we've seen also countries like Romania or other central European countries being affected by this application. And by, I mean the conclusion that was raised after this report, after this report of the court of auditors that the commission and the member state. They have limited coherence in combating the certification and the court of auditors we committed an EU like a framework for soil, and some concrete steps towards land degradation on track. Of course, you can reach this, this, this to prevent the certification to restore land by sustainable management by protect the recovery and the great land and water management, diversify your crops in each soil with organic carbon, forest control erosion. In my conclusions, I would say that the new common agricultural policy will have a stronger environmental company, including soil protection. But as I said, it's not the idea alone or the one we wanted. The agricultural management practices is a key driver for a better presentation so the farm is in the center of this process and should be taken care is not just we deliver money but we should deliver money based specific conditions that the farm should follow. The user is the European Union is a front-runner in the system of development. So you like because a part of this EU indicator monitoring the EU green deal has some objective to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase carbon sequestration to have diversity loss to reduce the losses and minimize this from pesticides. Now, in the next quarter, I mean, we'll have around September, October, we'll have a new soil protection. New proposal for soil thematic strategy will be built by the Commission and in this soil protection strategy, one of the main objectives is how to achieve land degradation by 2030 in line with SDGs. So, conclusively, I would say that, okay, all these are nice but would be much better if we had a legal framework to protect ourselves. Thank you very much for the invitation, giving me the opportunity to make this presentation here on my contact details for father. Thank you. Thank you very much. And, again, I will suggest that maybe when it comes to some questions around your presentation, as for example, the very positive evaluation that you gave when it comes to the deal when it comes to the common agriculture policy. Maybe that will be a good opportunity to put some questions because they are different ways of seeing this result of the negotiations, of course, dependent dependent on the urgency of how things have to change also in the light of the climate change. There are different ways of thinking of evaluating things, but I fully respect also the fact that that being in the European Commission, and it's clear that the European Commission strongly tries to change things. I mean, not everything is possible because the big business of the agri-agro business, they are always there and I have no expertize when it comes to the file, but I can only say that when it comes to the negotiations, the lobbies and the presence of a lot of businesses, lobbies have been very, very present because we are talking about a very important amount of the budget of the European Union, and of course not everything can change from one day to another. So I would like maybe during the discussion put one or two questions also in the interest also of our audience because it is important to get the different perspectives on the question. So, Kelsey, the floor is yours. So please. Great. Thank you. Just share my screen. Great. So thanks a lot for the invitation to come and speak. There are a lot of things that I want to rebound off of, but maybe if we can just hold a couple of things in mind that has been said by Riga, it's been said by Panos. But the importance here is that we are looking at land use practices. And I think there are a lot of big initiatives that have come up under the European Green Deal that need to be thought of in the perspective of what does it mean for changing forestry practices and how do we do it in a way that we ensure quality. So we've heard a lot of statements come forward. A strong one from Ursula von der Lea and the president of the European Commission. When we lose forest we don't just lose green space or natural habitat we're losing a key ally in our fight against climate change. So the three billion tree initiative is just one of many. And, you know, to reflect on what Panos said I do think a working EU framework for forests is definitely something that is needed. So I want to quickly do a tour of the problem that we're facing now and the role of various EU policies in turning around the situation that we currently have in EU forests. So as I mentioned, I hope you can see my mouse. You have the three billion tree initiative that's underneath the forest strategy but more than that you also have new initiatives for better monitoring of forests, new initiatives on trying to establish ecological forestry indicators to push out the environmental side of forest management, which is definitely a new step in EU policy that is very welcome. But in addition to that we have an entire framework of other EU policies. So as was mentioned by bullet in the beginning we have the fit for 55 package that's coming forward, and two of these legislations have a direct impact on forest which I'll get into in a little bit more detail. So this one is the land use land use change and forestry regulation. This is what establishes targets for carbon sequestration and land and forests are largest carbon sink. We have the renewable energy directive which is currently giving financial incentives to burn wood is energy, which is the least efficient way to use wood, and the revision of these two files will go a long way to see how forests are managed and if we can move towards further production and away from business as usual practices. And finally it was also mentioned we have the nature restoration targets that are coming up. The mandate is underneath the biodiversity strategy, and we hope to see the draft of this new law coming out at the end of the year. So, these are the core policies that are affecting forests across the European Union, and it is through the these policies that we will see how how close we can approach to a three billion tree initiative that is done sustainably. But first maybe it's important to take a tour of what we know already in about the state of European forests. So, this is a snapshot from the state of the environment report that came out in 2020 of the forest that are in protected areas. So this is 25% of all you forests that are underneath natural 2000 only 15% of these forests have a favorable conservation status. What does that mean for the 75% of other forests that we know are managed significantly more intensively. It's an important fact to keep in mind, but there are further facts. The first one is quite important to the initiative of planting trees planting trees is a very catchy claim that we're hearing across different countries and globally to be able to fight the crisis. We've seen a report that came out in nature about two years ago that analyzed promise new forest pledges, and a shocking figure at least for me is that 45% of these new pledges will be monoculture plantations. It's really looking at profit we are not looking at biodiversity and restoration at large. At the same time, we know from one of the most recent Euro barometers that many Europeans say protecting nature is a key responsibility of Europe and key for fighting climate change. So acting is important but the way we do it is even more important. And finally a figure that I'm sure many of you have seen less than 2% of primary old growth forests are left in Europe, and even some of those are not protected. So we're seeing a lot about the quality of the remaining forests that we have, as well as the urgent need for action. So this is a figure that shows the greenhouse gases that are currently being absorbed by European Union forests only. Basically the lower that the bar is the more carbon that is being absorbed by forests, and given the current policies that we have right now in the European Union to protect forests. We are seeing that there is an over 30% reduction in the carbon that is stored in European forests out until 2030. This is what is allowed under the current laws of the European Union. We're able to get close to this 3 billion trees restored that we would like to see. We definitely need to reverse that curve that we see. So what are the existing pressures. Now this is back to information around the 25% of protected forests in Europe. You can see the most relevant forestry pressures on forest habitats and you can see that it is not a lack of planting of trees. This is the removal of dead and dying trees. Deadwood that has a lot of impact and biodiversity they are homes to lots of insects and fungi and whatnot. Clear cutting the removal of all of the trees in a specific area that raises to the ground all of the trees and removes all biodiversity, as well as the removal of older trees. So I think that we can go through the list but suffice it to say that forestry practices when we are not looking at sustainable management are going to have significant impacts on biodiversity. So when we think about management that's done in the right way and reforestation on previously forested areas. I think the differences in these two images, give a very strong impact emotionally that will do much more than sort of a scientific analysis between proper planting of trees and improper planting of trees on the left are German beach trees that have been affected by the droughts that hit Germany a few years ago. And on the right you can see Swedish forest with it with a much different management practice applied to it. So much as regus has shown the positive side of restoration, I will show a couple of other negative examples that have come from some member states where we've investigated the situation on the ground. So of course there is a local movement against the plantation of sitka spruce's, which has done a lot of damage across the area, this is quote from save leach room, which is a local group that is protesting against monoculture plantations in the area. In the Czech Republic, we can see that there was a large plantation of coniferous trees replacing a lot of broadleaf trees, and these were heavily affected by wind throw and also the bark beetle outbreaks that was that we're seeing a lot of central European forests. So we can really see that when we plant trees and it's done improperly, the adaptation of these environments are incredibly low. Now I should mention because I think it's important this has economic impacts as well as environmental impacts. So managing sustainably is also good for for the industry it's good for employment and it's good for the overall resilience of forests. I just want to make sure that we are, you know, not separating ecology and economy, because these both go hand in hand with the forests. So what is the opportunity underneath the European Green Deal I think it's important to keep in mind that it's not just about planting trees it's about improving policies. So all of the ones that I mentioned earlier in the presentation these are up for review or they're coming forward this year, and we will go a long way in promoting our forest if we do proper revisions by getting targets for absorbing carbon that are higher, so prevent that declining trend of our carbon sink that I showed earlier, as well as biodiversity protection so that we can have quality as well as quantity of trees. This is accompanied by having guidelines for better management and these are things that have been pushed forward in the draft of the EU forest strategy that some of you may have seen over the last couple of days. This goes hand in hand with a just transition for forests and pushing forward a narrative that avoids financing for the least efficient way of using and producing wood and increasing aid for ecological practices where we're really looking at improving management and not driving for a specific wood use type. At the end of the chain. So I wanted to end coming back to a point that had mentioned in the beginning about the fact that there is a lot of lobby pressure to make sure that we do not move away from the status quo. One thing we can do is promote a strong EU forest strategy. So we've seen a lot of lobbying from industry that does not want to see anything change in terms of what we've been promoting. So they want to make sure that the money that has not been effectively used well there aren't new policies that are going to change the way that that's being used. So we've released we actually sent a letter to the European Commission two days ago, basically challenging some of the industry letters we have seen trying to undermine undermine the forest strategy, and we've asked for a strong strategy that emphasizes a lot of the points that I've put forward in this presentation so look forward to answering any questions and thanks a lot for the very interesting discussion. Thank you very much. Kelsey, then now we will have the possibility to see the video of analysis. Kizos. So maybe Adriana if we are able to be connected just to follow as I said before the cut payments in economic viability of traditional agroforestry system in EU. One second. Thank you. I am the last is Kizos and my presentation will be on cut payments and economic viability of traditional agroforestry systems in the European Union. I will first start with a very, very short introduction about agroforestry systems about what they are and what are their uses and functions. We typically define them along three times agro silvery cultural systems systems that combine trees and cultivations of the understory of the trees. Silver pastoral systems that combine trees and pastures, including grazing lands or grazing lands and their animals that graze them and agro silvery pastoral systems that combine both cultivations and grazing of the understory. You will find them in many and very different areas of the world. Often we find them in semi arid areas or areas of lower soil fertility and productivity or in high inclination areas, wherever trees and other forms of land use can be used and utilized. They are very popular in the Mediterranean. They have included many and very different tree species uses and practices. Oaks, either the seed use or evergreen oaks or a combination of the two are the most popular system. They're widely found in Greece, what I will be talking mostly about and all over the Mediterranean, especially the eastern one, but also in the western one in more dense plantations. Also carrot trees, mostly in African and eastern Mediterranean countries, quite rare in the European Mediterranean. Chestnuts, very popular in the European Mediterranean. In Altitude it's over 600 meters in Greece, but overall a very popular system. Olive trees, probably the most popular one, although as we will see later on, not olive tree plantations can be considered as agroforestry systems. Mostly what I will refer to as agroforestry systems are related to older and more extensive ones. Also many different species that are used for timber. They're more recent ones introduced in the 19th or 20th century, where the previous systems have been documented from the ancient Mediterranean. These timber species are mostly found in wet and upland or mountainous areas. We also have many isolated trees within agroforestry systems of other species or really isolated among cultivations. And there are other useful fruit like pears and walnuts, etc. There's a very big variety, but also used, they can be used also for timber. Why are these important? They are really, really important. Very, very important for biodiversity and nutrient recycling, especially as we have seen many of them are found in areas that are not considered very favorable for other types of land use. Plus they are corridors for many, many and many different types of species or refugia for some kind of species. They're also, and in terms of climate change in the effort that we do to mitigate climate change, they're also carbon sinks. And they contribute to mitigating climate change impacts. Plus on top of all that, there are also unique landscapes with a lot of aesthetic, symbolic and spiritual even functions. Many of them are considered as sacred landscapes. Many of them are part of the identities of the species. But with the industrialization and mechanization of farming in the globe, many are abandoned or intensified. And as a result, all these functions and many more are downgraded. And they are slowly, these systems, they feel like they are disappearing or rapidly transforming in forms that are not as valuable as these systems. Why are they important? Because they combine two different layers, the tree layer and the understory layer. The understory layer is really, really important in terms of deciding these functions. In my opinion, it's the most important layer. Why? Because there you have a lot of semi-natural vegetation and very high floristic diversity, which leads and guides to overall biodiversity to very high degrees of biodiversity overall. But they also have special features. And here we have a depiction of why many of these systems can and should be considered as land of very high natural vegetation. I will very now try to go through the Common Agricultural Policy. I have here a very brief timeline about how the Common Agricultural Policy was the first European policy, the most important European policy until quite recently. And a European policy that, in my opinion, we should be proud of as European. It had faults, of course, indeed. But when I started going into the cap and it was in the 1990s, if someone would say to me that we would have this cap in 20 years or in 30 years, I would say, where do I sign? It's a much improved version of the Common Agricultural Policy that we used to have in the 1970s, in the 1980s, even in the 1990s. But a room for improvement. There are two main foundations, as we call them today, of the cap. The so-called agricultural policies that are more sectoral, they're referred to the sector, to farms and their attractiveness, to their combativeness. And spatial policies, typified and introduced in more depth after the major reform of the early 2000s, about rural development. We used to call them structural companies. They typify, they also mark a shift towards a spatial policy, a shift from a sectoral policy to a spatial policy. It hasn't been completed yet. I'm not sure whether we should complete it altogether, but it really marks the shift towards this spatial policy. Why is it important? Because it includes environmental issues and introduces for the first time in agriculture the issue of public resources, of the things that we should try to conserve while we cultivate, while we produce food. Agriculture is now, and animal husbandry, is still the major land user in Europe. But also because we now realize that more and more rural areas change and agriculture is not the only, perhaps even not the most important user of land in this type of area. We also have a lot of changes in the rural areas of Europe, population changes. Fewer and fewer of us live in the countryside, not counting suburbs. Fewer and fewer of us work in agriculture as a living, as a livelihood. Plus, there is an ongoing polarization of production space. On one hand, we have the hotspots of very intensive production. On the other hand, we had the cold spots of abandonment and rewilding. And we have the post-production spaces of services, housing, the post-productive countryside. We also have a lot of differences in the perception of and expectations from the rural in the increasing urban populations of Europe. Here, I have a depiction of the different types of hot and cold spots for different types of cultivations. They are from a very recent paper by some colleagues. And here, there is a hot and cold spots of intensity, which is the key word in understanding agroforestry systems and their importance to conserving biodiversity and mitigating climate change. Really, really important depiction which can guide us towards a better integration of the sectoral and the spatial types of policies that I was referring to before. I will now, very briefly, over the next five minutes or so, try to present an example why the olive plantations, a landmark species of the Mediterranean, can be considered as an agroforestry system but also as a cultivation. And I will try to do this by comparing an extensive agroforestry olive plantation systems on Lesvos Island, where I live also, and intensive ones, where you were fighting in Greece, in Crete, in Andalusia, in Morocco, in many places of the Mediterranean. The differences are referring to pruning, to understory management, to fertilization, to plant protection and irrigation. There are huge differences concerning the intensity between the extensive and the intensive crops. We are basically discussing two very, very different systems. The one, the extensive one, can be practically considered a semi-natural forest. It can be considered a very valuable and contributing land use to climate change mitigation and biodiversity preservation. Why intensive ones have to be considered as another cultivation that we will have to try to reduce their intensity. And this is a major point I'm going to make later about what the cup can do. Should we, in the light of the policies I will discuss later, give the same amounts of money to all olive producers? No. And this is, in my opinion, a difference between a sectoral and a spatial policy. A spatial policy will have to provide some distance to farmers who want to do more, who want to be more extensive. Here is a very intensive cultivation in Chaliliki. And here is the extensive one in Lesvos. This is a very nice terrace as well. And you can notice the difference in the understory and the trees here. And these are some pictures of orchids. I took this story of four lives in Lesvos. And here is the mosaic that you can see them in the landscape. At the same time, we have a cup that is standing in a crossroads. I think that with my very, very brief example, I try to demonstrate the spatial diversity of agricultural structures and geographical features of Europe. Even within the same cultivation, not just among different types of crops, but even within the same crop, for the same crop in different areas with different intensities. We also have to deal with the ongoing shrink of rural populations and farmers. This is something that we should always keep in mind. Our countryside has been managed for millennia. It's now been abandoned at increasing rates. We should also take into account the shift of expectations, like I said, of and towards the rural by the increasing urban populations in Europe. What do urban people want to see in the countryside? They want to see, of course, nice landscapes and services and quality products. We must also try to establish a more environmental and quality oriented agricultural production. Yes, all farmers should be eligible to some kind of support, but most of the support should go to farmers who want to do more, who are willing to do the extra mile concerning environmental and quality. And also meet our international agreements. What can we do? Two types of approaches. One is go for products again. But what products? We can't say that. Different systems, different countries, different areas, different types of actors there, perhaps different products. We want to try to make the systems again functional and more farmers adopting practices that result in these products and quality products. And quality and climate change. Combine these two. Yes, but which policies? How can we combine this? First, I will start with products. Very much related with the second policy. Why? Because it is related with quality and how we certify quality so that not only we have a quality product, but we have a quality system that is related to certain practices, but we certify this system, we certify this practice. The other is the environmental benefits that are resolved from these cultivation practices and their certification. And the linkages of course with visitor and the services and products they seek. And of course we have to use new types of technologies for certification. This is something that is more and more related to new types of technologies. Of course, let me make this clear. A good tool is a very nice thing, but it is as good as the people who use it. So we shouldn't idolize new technologies. We should make them fit to what we want to do. Not fit to what we want to do, to new technologies. I think that some types of agreements between producers and different actors within the areas, that's why I was referring to a spatial and sectoral approach, is necessary. Trust is a key. Of course that's easier said than done, because development equals people. And I think that my next slide will demonstrate how can the common agricultural policy help. I think that the new type of approach, a farm to fork approach. So not just stop what we want to support in the farm, but also try to move down here, downstream the supply chain. And we should provide more farm to fork initiatives, because these can strengthen networks and cooperation. We also should try to finance certifications, provide financial incentives for those who want to do certifications related to biodiversity and climate change mitigation. We are now on the alimnos in the process of certifying practices that lead to biodiversity friendly products. This is not financed at the moment from the common agricultural to agricultural policy, it should. And introduce new agri-environmental policies that support this, not at the European scale, not at the member state scale, but at the local scale, at the area scale. So we need to diversify more, we need to adapt a new spatial approach. I think my time is done now. Thank you very much for your attention. Unfortunately, I cannot be with you to respond to the questions you may have. I would be very much happy to reply to as many questions and remarks and anything you want to say afterwards in another meeting or via email. Thank you very much again. And with that, I will leave you. Thank you very much. So I think that the presentation was so much alive that we didn't even feel that it was recorded. So that's the good news also of the technology. I did not see for the moment questions, but if you allow me in the very short time we have because I think that in 10, 15 minutes, we will give back the floor to regards to conclude this webinar. I would like myself to put a few questions if you allow me, because I think that we, we, we receive some, I will say, messages which for me are not going all to the same line, especially from panels. So maybe Panos, I will start with you because I can understand that in the perspective of the commission this agreement in the common agriculture policies is going a little bit better than in the past. But my question to you is, if you really believe that taking into account the climate urgency, the loss of the biodiversity, the need to promote also small farmers, and not only the big agree business. The fact that we have in front of us more than 387 billion of euros, which are huge amounts, let's say for the coming years to to finance the agriculture policies going to the right direction. Also taking also a little bit account the last presentation, the farm to fork how much we have really to promote smaller scale organic farming, promoting more the biodiversity side. So if you really believe that this agreement we have on the table is enough in front of the urgency. This is my first question. And the second one is also from the side of the commission because now we know the common agricultural policy has been agreed and now we have to go to the final stage but it will be very difficult to come back. I would like to know from you. What do you think it will be really the main instrument that the European Commission needs to use in the coming months and in the coming years in order to achieve this green deal, because we know that the green deal is a recipient of a lot of proposals, but at the same moment we know that this principle of the do not harm, which is a very important principle that has been introduced and also in the recovery resilience that it is not always so easy to detect, to evaluate, but also to block if you want. When we have contradictory policies, just to make sure that the things are going to the right direction. So two questions starting from you, maybe because you were a little bit the most going more far to the rest of the interventions and then I have some other questions that I would like to put together and also to leave us. Thank you very much, Panos. Thank you very much. So, no, I didn't say that everything is right. I didn't say that everything is so nice and the cap is so nice. On the contrary, I say that we would like to have something more green as much better as stronger environmental component but unfortunately we have what we have. And this, you know, very well how it happens, it's a matter of compromise. I say, you commission, you see the text of 2008, it was much more ambitious. It's much more greener but unfortunately, you know the process that has to go through the European Parliament, to account the issues for the member states, all this kind of process in order to reach a deal. And this is not an easy process to know how difficult it is. That's why it took six presidencies, I mean, almost three years to reach this agreement. We expected something better. It's much better than the previous one. In the previous one, I mean, I compare with six years ago nobody spoke about those things. There are some notions about many various cities, some about follow areas, et cetera. But now, really, we see some provisions which are on the topic and are very, very important. We hope that we could have much better. The key topic and the key issue now is to reach, if I go to the second question, to have a coherence with all the rest of the policies. We saw from the EU Green Deal, some very ambitious objectives. The key issue, how to reach these very ambitious objectives. For example, the 25% of organic farming. It's very ambitious, now we have 7%. For the first time, the commission takes place and it takes a position and says we can reach this 25%. The key issue, how can we reach this 25%. How can we reduce fertilizer and how this can be secure, taking into account the frame of the EU community. And another key point in the EU community policy is the conditionality. I take from the last presentation, some ideas. Not best achieve the clinic of the EU community policy. The key issues, the conditionality, how the farmer, the good farmer who respects the environment, who does, applies the practices to reduce greenhouse gases. It has his soil to keep his water to apply less fertilizer and less pesticides will be financed much more than the other farmer does not care at all. So I know that the proportion that we expected money given to the good farmer and the bad farmer, should be different, in a different way, should be balanced in a different way. But you know very well, but the interest of the governments also to keep happy the farmers. So it's a kind of compromise. But as I told you, the, the, the companies, the coherence of the common parts of policy with the other other points. Thank you. I don't know if you want to add something on this debate about the new deal now on the cap reform, because of course it is not completely disconnected of what you are doing. In addition to that, I would like to ask you, when it comes to this strategy on the forestry, the, the, the new strategy that the commission will present. As far as I know, around the biofuels and the use of the biofuels, there are some, let's say, again lobbies from the north and from the south, which they contradict each other, knowing that that the biofuels is not something that is easy and that it's something which I will say go very much against also the fight on the climate change because produces quite a lot of CO2 emissions. So it creates more trouble than solutions very often. So I would like a little bit to understand from you if you have a strategy on that. You see this, this fight between north, especially Finland, Sweden and the rest of the European Union. And yes, what, what are you proposing in terms of strategy and, and support, let's say, to advancing the right direction. Thank you. Wow, thanks for those very big questions. I have a short response we don't follow the cap specifically but we have looked into the way that the funds are being spent, and they're quite under spent on biodiversity actions related to forest specifically. So the money that is channeled towards forest is quite focused on afforestation measures, so putting down trees and areas that were previously forested. So there is an underutilization of money that is already there and is available for member states to dedicate towards biodiversity practices so there are definitely better ways that the money can be spent. That money needs to be channeled properly. As it relates to the forest strategy I mean I think the fact that some of the initiatives that I mentioned about tightening up the rules about how we manage forests the fact that that's being presented has really got some member states and also some of the industry on their toes and quite worried about what's coming forward. I think in terms of the strategy to combat that a lot of the information that we're hearing is that the models that are promoted in the north or the perfect forestry model, which I think for the other scientists that we have you know have around the table here, comparing you know finish or Swedish forestry to forestry in the Mediterranean, you can't compare those. And so I think it's actually kind of challenging some of the forest industry science that is coming forward and basically showing all of the opportunities that we've just outlined at this event. What does it actually mean to restore what does that offer in terms of diversification of what you can actually do in the forest to be able to talk about those alternatives and show that it's not just about healthy forest it's about resilience over the long term it's about the transformation of the sector over the long term. We need to start talking about a just transition for forest where we're moving away from a mechanized model that definitely is parallel to what we're seeing in the agriculture industry. We need to show that there is a transition for all actors in that space, and that tackling some of these unfortunate subsidies, like the bio energy subsidy and promoting ecological management practices and rewarding those practices and not just planting trees and rose is a strategy to tackle the sort of industry knows what's best narrative, so I think more of these discussions for sure, sharing this expertise and bringing in the sort of new forestry expert that has, you know, these booklets and whatnot is going to be very important for changing the dialogue going forward. I would like to put the last question to Riga's and maybe after pass the floor directly to you also to make the conclusions of our webinar. So my question to you is a little bit basic because we started to discuss the recovery resilience plans together with exactly the content of your search. And I would like to ask you how do you evaluate let's say the Greek plan because I mean we are coming from the country we are three in this in this panel. If you can tell us a little bit more on that it means if you believe that it goes to the right direction or if it goes completely wrong. And yes, how do you believe that we can steal, let's say some convince some old fashioned governments that making the sustainability in the center of our policies. And it is also a very sustainable way, a financial way to create jobs and also to, to create a different way of development and, and we know of what we are talking coming. We know that our country very often suffers from old fashioned models of development, and we are losing unique opportunities to show that we can create quality tourism we can create quality jobs and different kinds of jobs, and give perspectives to a lot of people that they are living the country just because of unemployment young people and not only. So I would like maybe to give you exactly the floor to say if you think so that and of course after to make the conclusions of of your work. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we playing for the first question answering this is not very easy, because we have seen the Greek government and replacing the national strategy for the forest for the next 20 years with the action of free for a forest station of 5,000 5500 thousand trees, which is in parallel with the general idea of planting trees. But we don't know where will be these trees planted exactly why, or if it's needed. What kind of juice. So, although we had a 20 year plan, a forest strategy, a Mediterranean forest strategy, a very diverse strategy with a huge amount of different actions that tackle many different things. Employment, climate change, natural generation, natural management of forest, biofuels, resilience, forest fires, several things. The new government replace this a wide new with only one thing for stations for stations for stations. We are, we are very, very, let's say, we are afraid of this, because we know that many, many times in Mediterranean countries of forest stations are coming together with bulldozing landscapes. Bulldozing landscapes means that we want to plant trees. And now we put the bulldozing front and then we plant trees and then we have a nice pine plantation with no meaning at all. And we have seen destruction of natural habitats of high important nature value ecosystem that has been destroyed by a forest station. And also the same has happened with alien tree species, like the example that Kelsey said in Ireland. We have many times seen also European level, the destruction of natural habitat because of monoculture of industrial scale of forestation of alien species etc. So we don't want to see this again, either Greece or in Europe. This is the one part. The other part is that we want to have a resilient forest strategy. We want the store as a forest that I can understand this very easy, because I have to think for 2040 100 years when I'm planning something today, I have to think for the future. This is not the way that the politician thinks. He has the elections and he want to gain more votes. And it's nice and easy to say nice and ambitious goals. But we really want to see action and action is not the same everywhere. We don't do the same in the Mediterranean Eastern Mediterranean or in the Western Mediterranean. I think, and I'm coming now to the conclusion, if I'm allowed to. I want to point and I want to to bold this that the proposal as a case of said the proposals and the dilemmas that we have in front of us. And especially for example the farm and fork strategy, we have to have different approaches that are locally adapted. We don't, we don't need to have only these broad policies that easy the industrial sector can lobby. I want very specific actions and very specific criteria that this coherence that Mr Panago said is very important to have all strategies working together very defined goals. If we say, ah, yes, 30% of the land is protected, but it is protected as paper parks, we don't do nothing inside there. We want to have criteria in order to judge every five years, the development, how it goes on, not sending ambitious goals, and then 10 years later saying we haven't achieved the biodiversity decrease. We don't see differences in the common agricultural farmland beds. We don't see any difference. We don't see difference in emissions. We don't see difference in the forest sector. We see intensification of forest production. We see the Amazon of Europe. We see the Romanian forest that we saw and can comment on this if she likes clear cuts, clear cuts increasing the last five years. So what is this? This is just saying lies. And we don't want to hear more lies. I think the main conclusion, and I am surprised, really surprised by the statement that Dr. Panago said about that we achieve all other four goals, but we have no soil legislation. My goodness, how can this be? This is the foundation of life. This is foundation of food. This is the foundation of sustainability. One small piece of land of soil has the million of trillion of microorganisms. This is the most productive and this is the most valuable part of our land. This small part of the surface and we do nothing. So I don't see easy the target to be succeeded. And we want more now because we have the green deal. We want the politicians to lobby, but we want also the scientists to stay in front of, you know, these very well known things. Nobody in the forest sector says cut now after many years cut the old growth trees, remove the dead trees, which is super important for the biodiversity. Everybody knows that this should be horizontally applied in all forests all over Europe and not only and give a good example of natural forest management. This should be a rule. This is not to be discussed. We have, we are full of discussion, 20 years of discussion. And why is this important and why is this important and producing more papers producing more policy agreements and agreements, but nothing in apply. I know from the environmental sector in Greece, the protection of valuable forest wetlands, agricultural areas, I see a failure. And I'm very, very unhappy to discuss about things that should be ruled with laws with legislation of and very clear goals. And I think this is a common, a common statement of all our invited speakers, probably I exaggerate a little bit their point. But I think that the very interesting thing, the very interesting point made by Kizos is that we have to move and to spot this key, this key policies for the sustainable development goals and for the approaches. The finance, the finance of the certification. These agree environmental policies in local scale. This cooperation networks. This should be the focus point I think for the future involving people. If someone is happy to plant a tree and to have some income, why not to do that. And he's not by rule someone in the in the in the rural area could also be a someone who has a small plot of olive trees. And in the in the countryside, and once in the year goes and has some small amount of oil or olives to eat. This is a nice super example of the olive plantations, the intensification and the extensive in accordance to the new policies and the semi natural forest olive trees that we know, especially in Greece, Spain also have been intensified, but they are some million years trees there to 200,000 to 2000 years trees, huge trees that they are so they are very important to be preserved. And this is a nice example involving people, involving people, making them be part of the solution. This is my comment. That's why it's very interesting to have different positions, and I'm convinced that if we will continue the discussion with panels we will find many more points, common points, of course, each of us have a different also position and it is not always so easy to to to express completely our views but nevertheless I think that it was a very very good webinar. I really thank you very very much for the time you took to debate. So this is also the purpose of this debate to open debates to put questions and also to be able to show that they are other ways to to develop and to create sustainability and in our days we have really to look forward and we have also to look for the future generations because this is a big big big responsibility that no one of us whatever position we have can should escape for. Adrian, I pass the floor to you for the final conclusions. Yes, thank you very much. This was an amazing debate as as we often have with our events at the Green European Foundation, thank you very much for all the speakers for all the contributions and for the attendees to sticking with us all the way to the end. Small announcement that the last part of our deforestation and climate change project will happen in September, October this year with our Austrian partners Freda, and they will hopefully depending on the COVID situation organize an in person event with wood shop where they will try to show also best practice examples from the forestry sector there as well. Thank you. Thank you very much.