 i'w ddwylo'r cyfrwyng, roedd yn ysgolwch nawr yn ymgyrch i'w rhaid i'w ddysgu'r ymddangos. Yn ymddych chi'n rhaid i gyd yn ffraeg y bwyr eich rhaid, sy'n bwysig i'w ddweud, yn llwyddiadau i'r arwm, yn ddweud nad oedd yn ddweud, ond rydyn ni'n bwysig i'w ddweud, mae'n oed yn ddiwedd yn ddweud, pan oedd ymddo ddechrau, i'w ddweud i'w ddweud i'w ddweud i'w ddweud. a yna yma? Mae yna, yn y gynllun jwysig o'r hyn o'r hyn o'r cyflwyno'r hyn. Mae'n hyn o'r hyn o'r hyn o'r hyn o'r cyflwyno, mae wedi'u gwahodd y mlynedd. Mae'n gyflwyno'r cyflwyno, mae'n gyflwyno'r isag, mae'r gwyloedd, mae'n gweithio'r mewn cyflwyno, mae'n gwylltio'r mewn cyflwyno a'w cyflwyno'r cyflwyno'n gweithio'r dynosares five times and we've had a real challenge of life on earth. The intriguing thing is that those who are studying the science of what is going on in the planet are suggesting that we might be facing the sixth great extinction right now in our lifetimes. There's some absolutely stunning analysis that came out during 2016 from WWF, Mae'r ddinllunio'r ddechrau, mewn sy'n lleodiadu iawn, byddwch ar hynny wedi dweud yn ymlaen o'r marco, ac maen nhw'n hoffi ar y lleifanau sy'n cyfeieinol ar gyfer gefnodaeth ymlaen i'r Rhaid, a mae'n hoffi ar y dyma'r cyffredin, fod yn bobl. felly'r comment yma'r diwedd y Marco Lambertini'r awdbôn newydd, rhaid i sut i'w wneud ei gyrddio, ac rhaid i chi'n cael ei gydain? First of all, we definitely can say we are entering, we have entered something similar to one of the mass distinctions of the previous 100 million years. The science is telling us that the rate of distinction today is about 100 to 1000 times higher than natural rates. Specials are distinguishing very quickly and the interesting depressing tragic scary dimension is that we don't even know many of the species that go extinct because they go extinct even before they're described by science. That particularly driven by tropical forest disappearance. So that's one dimension, extinction of species, and we are facing clearly a mass wave of extinction. Second dimension, which is less talked about and is about our report, Living Planet report launched in September, is about the actual decline in populations of wildlife, numbers of actual animals and plants. The assessment that we did across the world is about the decline of wildlife populations of 60% in the last four tiers, less than a generation and blink of an eye compared to the history of life on earth. A predicted at this rate of decline, a predicted two-third decline by 2020. At the same time when a global convention, the Convention on Biological Diversity, has a 2020 target to hold extinction and reverse the trend of loss of biodiversity. Clearly we are not on the right track, clearly we are facing a big challenge and the importance of this is to fold. One is because biodiversity is a difficult term, a bit grey and perhaps too technical. It means life, it means diversity of life, and it means that we have clearly a moral obligation to preserve life on earth that has evolved alongside us. But the second dimension is that biodiversity is not just something beautiful, inspirational, nice, morally obliged to conserve, but it's actually the foundation of the functioning of ecosystems. When you look at the forest, it's not a patch of green, it's actually a multitude of species, millions and millions of individuals, plants and animals, interacting and making the forest a living ecosystem and a productive ecosystem. If you're losing biodiversity and species are a little bit the brakes of the world of life, imagine the life on earth, diversity of life on earth as a beautiful huge wall made of so many species, about a million and a half described perhaps up to 10 million, and if you begin to take brakes away from the walls, species by species, the whole world will collapse and some species perhaps will be more important than others in their role. And so our message is, extinction is rampant, decline is equally, or populations numbers of animals is equally concerning, and this is something that is important morally, is a moral imperative for us, but equally is a business imperative, because we are wrecking nature, Inc, the enterprise that actually defined life on earth and supports our well-being and economy too. Marco, thank you. So just to pause on that, you're probably used to these incredible statistics, because this is the area that you work in and lead so successfully all the time, but if we hear this correctly, you're saying that between 1970 and 2012, so it's about 42 years, close to 60% of all wild animals that have a backbone of vertebrae went. Yeah, I mean this is based on very thorough studies on the field, field studies across about 3,000, I think if I remember correctly, samples around the world, all over the world, tropics, non-tropics, et cetera, and they've been monitoring populations, and populations have been crashing. But that's incredible. It is incredible, and it is very scary, and it is equally worrying than the extinction rate, because these are the individuals that I said before actually supporting the functioning of ecosystems. And in your perspective, there was this large meeting in Hawaii that the IUCN, the conservation organisation held in September I think of 2016. In your perspective, what is stopping the world community or others not just being aghast by that statistic? I don't think many people would know that. No, I think many people know and we are receiving a lot of support. I mean the living plant report was actually covered globally by media locally and globally in a huge way. Many people are really concerned about that. However, the problem is that while we are able, for example, to take climate change, we're finally able to make a compelling case for a determined action against climate change, because it's obvious that climate change is impacting our life, our businesses. The cost is beginning to be material and evident. On biodiversity, something a little bit a step more distant. So we don't still yet completely feel the impact of the loss of biodiversity. And I think that doesn't help us to respond as fiercely as we are beginning to respond to climate change. And climate change on one hand and loss of nature, biodiversity in natural places, are the two sides, I think, of the huge ecological crisis of our time. They are equally important, they are connected and we should pay attention to both. In 42 years, close to 60% of all the wild animals who have a vertebrary backbone on the planet went. If that's not a kind of meme or something that should go viral from this annual meeting on the back of all the great work of the one planet report, I don't know what should. When you look at geological time and the billions and millions of years, we're talking in 42 years. And the reason is that there was a beautiful article, I think it was the Guardian. The title was, Another Frog gone extinct in Central America. The press or the business, I don't remember, yawns. Meaning people appreciate the tragedy and the importance. What that means in the longer term, actually in the medium term for us. And that's the problem. Psychologically, the link is still not there. A lot of people are outraged mostly on ethical and conservation reasons. The business case for biodiversity to be preserved is still not there. We'll come on to Ada and Patrick in a second, but just to pursue this, you were just saying outside. I think actually, Pat, you mentioned this as well. For those who perhaps are not as close to these statistics, it was quite important to use the world word wild animals in that because that sounds like something else is happening. It's not like we're losing loads of cows and sheep. So what's happening with... Well, in fact, I don't know how accurate it is, but I came across recently a calculation that tried to estimate the biomass of vertebrates, wildlife, versus domesticated animals and people. And we are reaching a point where the weight of people and cattle and chicken and ports and everything else with domesticated is far, far bigger than the combined weight biomass of wild animals. So we are anthropomorphising whatever the word is, our planet with a strong footprint in terms of altering natural systems. I suppose by your explanation at the beginning, the whole point of biodiversity is the diversity of all of these animals provides resilience and multiple species and such, whereas if we just have lots and lots and lots of cows and sheep, that's not very diverse. Who's going to give us the fresh water and the clean air and the food from the sea and the ecosystems are providing services which are absolutely critical to life on earth. Let's remember the atmosphere was poisoned with CO2 only three billion years ago, a long time, but the plants and the forest pumped oxygen into the atmosphere and now it's livable for all of us and our fellow species. So this is serious stuff. I do have to say it again because when I read the report, I couldn't myself believe it, I work in the space of 1970 to 2012, 42 years, 58 I think is the exact figure, but close to 60% of all the wild animals which have a vertebrae went on this planet. Ada Greenbury, Managing Director of Sustainability and Stakeholder Engagement of Asia Pulp and Paper. Your company is based in Indonesia. I guess there's two lines of questioning I'd be interested to explore with you. Number one is generally from your part of the world, ASEAN, a key emerging group of economies growing the world's economy, the growth center. Do you sense that the topic of biodiversity and such is high on people's agenda or is it quite rightly that we need to consume resources to grow? So that's the first question. And then secondly, within that context, how does a company like yours find room to innovate and provide some sort of solution to this astonishing statistic? Thanks Dominic. So my company, Asia Pulp and Paper Group is one of the largest integrated forestry pulp and paper company in the world. In the past we used to use natural forest fiber to feed our pulp mills. And four years ago we launched our zero deforestation policy and we've been implementing it ever since 2013. So is this agenda in the people's mind? I think so Dominic. So because when we launch our zero deforestation policy there are a lot of other companies who also follow our steps and also adopting similar policy. Innovation is one thing, but I would just want to share my experience that probably provide a glimpse of hope Marco. My own experience, I don't read it from books, I've seen it in my own eyes. So in the past when my company used to process and cut natural forest fiber from the forest, I used to receive a lot of reports about wildlife and human conflicts. Namely between Sumat and Tigers and Human. And the moment we stopped that bulldozer, the moment we stopped that chainsaw in February 2013 until now, I never received any Sumat and Tiger and Human conflicts again in my life. And not only that, not only that, if you go visit our suppliers concession in South Sumatra for example, you could see our forest workers driving a car and then they stop and let Tigers, cross the road and then they go again, you know, doing their job. So call me naive, but I really believe that wildlife and people can actually live side by side. So that's just a little bit of hope that I've seen with my own eyes. But talking about biodiversity or the ecosystem are basically where this wildlife actually will thrive. It's quite a challenge because even though our company has been committed to zero deforestation for four years, but we saw that deforestation is still happening in the tropics in Indonesia. So we have a look at what actually causes deforestation, encroachment, forest fire and everything else, and the core of it is actually about people. So in the last two years, I've been trying to develop programmes, innovative programmes to bring people, to embrace people, to help us save the biodiversity instead of destroying it. I believe that people can be part of solution, not just part of the problems in the sixth extension or reverse the sixth extension. So the innovation that we've been trying to develop is basically developing a community-based, landscape-based agroecology programmes where we can actually increase the income of the people so they don't have to continue encroaching the forest anymore. They can have a weekly, monthly, yearly income, and also the type of crops that their plants need to be designed in a way that it will also protect the environment, such as the peatland for example, so it will protect the ecological values of the areas that they're living in. So it's a win-win. We can support the communities to have a more sustainable livelihood agroecology programme, and at the same time, this programme will see that it will help the community not to further continue with deforestation, but also have their agroecology programmes protect the environment. That's what the innovative approach that we're trying to do. Ada, thank you, and it has to be acknowledged that Asia, Paper and Pulp have received many accolades for the innovation in this space to both produce the resource that you want and it seems to protect the environment at the same time, that win-win. How difficult is that to do? I mean, I guess it must be hard to be a leader in the space and say this is what we want to achieve or work with communities to do this. This can't be an easy task. No, it's very far away from easy. I mean, we've been doing it for four years, so it's not as if we just come up with a commitment yesterday or a year ago. So we've been actually for four years trying very hard to implement it, and we're not trying to be a leader. We're just trying to learn and how to improve our practice by implementing this zero deforestation policy, protecting biodiversity, implementing landscape approach. The biggest challenges for us is still making sure that the threats, the risk for the forest disappear or can be reduced. And to achieve that, there are a lot of innovative approach. For the forest fire, for example, we are implementing the latest technology for fire detection, for example. For the community, we come up with so many different programs for the community. But even designing programs for communities is not that easy because we have to map communities. There are probably 1,000 villages across our supply chain. So we have to map them out. We have to define the typology of its village, how many people are living there, and all the programs need to be based on participatory planning. Not a program that we force them to implement. So it's very, very hard work, Dominic, and I really hope that the global community could help us deliver this. And if I may add, I know one of your other big areas of interest is education. And just going back to that rather startling statistic that the WWF had created in 2016, do you sense that more needs to be done on the awareness raising or education around the challenge that we face on biodiversity and the sort of impact on the environment of growth? In my part of the world, yes, education is important. But the more important is basically combating poverty. Because these people, this community who continue encouragement, continue with poaching, they just do it to try to provide food on the table at the end of the day. So fighting poverty is very important. And in parallel, we have to basically also provide education and technology transfer to enable them to come up with a more sustainable livelihood or earning. And then just a kind of final thought before moving to Patrick Brown. In the broader context, do you feel that government, I mean you mentioned about the international community and looking for support. Do you feel that governments are also as concerned about this topic as you and other companies are? Yes, I mean with the current government right now, they have announced moratorium of natural forest conversion and expansion for palm oil. So they have tried very hard. They also announced the COVID into one map and everything else. But collaboration is key here because we cannot work in silo. So collaboration between private sector, civil society and government is very key to achieve what we want to achieve. I just want to emphasise that Indonesian forests do not just belong to Indonesia. Indonesian forests belong to the planet. So we all stakeholders globally need to work together to achieve what we want to achieve in saving the forests. Thank you. Mark, I might return to you a little bit later with some sort of thoughts on that and to how far this is going to help solve the challenge that you set out. But Patrick Brown, if I can turn to you, the chief executive officer and founder of Impossible Foods, I know this is an area that's quite close to your heart and you're very interested in it. But very much interested in your thoughts on what you hear because I know you're very knowledgeable about this space. But also I think we're all quite intrigued as to what Impossible Foods is and how that relates to this agenda if at all it does. Sure, yeah. Happy to answer that. Well, so I think we're all right to be very concerned about what Marco was reporting in this threat to wildlife on Earth. And it's easy to just kind of get depressed about it. But if you, the approach is let's understand what's causing it and then see if we can find a solution. And it turns out, and I'd be interested in Marco's view on this, but I think he hinted at that by a huge margin the driver of the meltdown in wildlife populations and biodiversity losses and species extinction is the use of animals in the food system, animal agriculture and the global fishing industry. Nothing else even comes close. And that's actually quite evident from the World Wildlife Fund report although it wasn't an explicit headline but reading between the lines it's extremely clear in their data. And recognizing that actually creates an opportunity. Why do I say this? Earth has a finite ability to support life. There's a fine amount of land, water, photosynthetic capacity that every living thing on Earth depends on. And effectively it's finite, which means that they're effectively competing for these resources. And the huge scale of animal agriculture and fishing is, it's so huge that it accounts, you know for, I mean for example the livestock population, it accounts for the majority of total biomass, animal biomass on Earth. At the expense of, it's kind of like a zero sum game, at the expense of all the other species that depend on the same resources. I'll just give you one illustration of this. The International Livestock Research Institute, which is an NGO, very pro livestock, better livestock is their motto, reported in 2011 that 45% of every square meter of land on Earth was actively in use in 2011 for animal agriculture. That's land that would otherwise be providing habitat for wild species. Okay, so that's identifying the problem. And beyond just the effect on biodiversity and wildlife, these same factors, the use of animals as technology for food production are huge environmental issues. This animal agriculture is by far the biggest user and polluter of water, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. And it's a huge contributor to greenhouse gases and global warming. And in fact the biomass losses on the land that's used for animal agriculture historically and ongoing represent a huge kind of unaccounted cost because of their lower photosynthetic productivity, meaning less carbon being fixed on those lands and that doesn't even get counted in it. Okay, so, and actually among scientists who study these problems, this is all well recognized, it's not really a topic of debate. And yet, here we are at Davos where there's a lot of discussion about big global problems including big environmental problems. And the same was true at COP21. Virtually the impact of the use of animals for food production on the environment is barely talked about. And in fact it's kind of ironic if you do, as I do, want to avoid supporting that system by avoiding animal products in your diet, you could potentially starve to death in Davos. And in Paris I literally had to walk a mile outside of the conference center to be able to find any food that didn't have meat or fish or dairy in it. So there's this weird disconnect where it's a horrible problem. It's kind of recognized by people or experts but nobody wants to talk about it and confront it. And why is that? I think it's because the foods that we get from animals have such importance to billions of people around the world. It's a central part of their daily lives and the pleasure of eating those foods is a big part of the pleasure of living for, again, billions of people. And I would guess probably, if you took a poll, the favorite foods of most of those people are foods that we get from animals. So the sacrifice of giving up those foods is huge. And it's completely unrealistic to ask people to make such a huge sacrifice. You could try, it's not going to work. But there's a solution to the problem and that is that the problem isn't that people love these foods and depend on them. The problem is that we're producing them using this ancient, obsolescent technology, namely animals, to convert plant biomass, photosynthetic productivity into meat and fish and dairy foods. And that's something that I would say most people just feel like, well those things are completely inseparable. But actually if you look at, if you say, we've historically used this particular system to produce these foods we love, is there a better way that's more sustainable but can deliver everything that we value from those foods? And actually there is. It's completely feasible. And that's where kind of impossible foods comes in. So it's possible to produce meats and the other foods, but meats that satisfy uncompromising meat lovers provide the deliciousness, the entire sensory experience that they value, the nutrition they value, the affordability. By making those foods directly from plant ingredients, cow makes meat from plant ingredients, turns them into meat. It does an abysmal job of it because it didn't evolve for that purpose. It's possible to do it another way. And that's the impossible foods was founded to develop a practical scalable system for doing that. We've been working on for the past five years. I won't take you through the whole thing, but we spent a lot of time really trying to get a fundamental understanding of what underlies the properties in these foods that people value so much, the deliciousness, the entire sensory experience and so forth. It turns out if you look at it as a scientific problem, there are answers to that question. And once you understand it, you can take ingredients from plants directly and produce foods that deliver their experience. And can you produce foods that really satisfy what drives people to buy these foods? Yes, you can. And in fact, the evidence is that we now have our first product, which we just launched a few months ago, is being served by some of the best chefs in the best restaurants. In the world, people who are not just hardcore uncompromising chefs who will never compromise on this pleasure of eating with their customers, but they're meat chefs known for their meat. And they would not put something bad on the menu. Okay Patrick, so that's fantastic. It sounds like there's a technological solution which you've kind of been working on, which is now marketable as a sort of viable substitution product which has much less of the food quality. Much less of the footprint of any footprint. Far lower. Far lower. An eighth degree greenhouse gas, a quarter of the water usage and one twentieth the land requirement. So one twentieth the habitat. So you've got to ask about the price point. What's that? Is it expensive? Right now it is served in, so you could buy it in New York City a burger with fries on the side for I believe 12.99. One of the best restaurants in New York City run by David Chang, one of the best known and best chefs. And for that restaurant, I think it's the lowest price thing on the menu. Fabulous. When we're at scale. Can I ask you, what's the sort of the, do you call it a special kind of product? Is it like, what's the name for this meat variation that you've created? Is it impossible meat? What's it called? Yeah, well we have so far only one product, which is functionally equivalent to raw ground beef. You can, it's been served by the chef, it says tartar, it's been cooked. We want to look it up, what do we look up? Impossible burger we call it. Impossible burger. And there are a lot of reasons why we use that term. It sounds like one of the superheroes, you know. Impossible burger. So this is interesting. Many of you have been here at the forum. You've seen this idea of the fourth industrial revolution of new technologies, new innovations that can help perhaps to accelerate problem-solving. It sounds pretty exciting, but not only is this kind of an R&D thing, but it's already being sold in restaurants. The footprint of meat, and as you rightly say, of the livestock industry is huge. And it's something again, I think it goes back to this awareness raising. Many people don't realise these things. There was some analysis, 16,000 litres of water to make a kilo of meat. Marco, if I can come back to you. We've heard some pretty impressive innovations from industry on the ground dealing with small holders and livelihoods, and some pretty interesting innovations from technology. Given the fact that your organisation produced such a startling statistic that we'd lost 60% of all wild animals by backbone in those 42 years, is this offering hope, a speed and scale that is satisfying, or are we still kind of glass half-empty on this one, do you think? So, let me give you an opportunity now to spread some hope as well, because like I said, there are plenty of good news as well. They're not a scale yet, but there are plenty of good news. I mean, the media must have followed the story of the pandas now, not endangered any longer, the tiger numbers going up in the world. I mean, when we want, we can actually make a difference. This is definitely the direction. I would support completely what has been said just now, with the exception that beef is definitely one of the top commodities driving, and nature loss, the forestation as well as biodiversity loss, together with the other three, soy, which is actually connected to beef a lot, because a lot of what the cattle eat is soy-based. We don't realise how much soy we eat, but just eating a chicken and beef. The second one is palm oil, and we have to highlight that, because that's a bit different, and it's still a big driver in many regions of the world. The third one is timber, that continues to be when unsustainably managed. Timber, soy, beef and palm oil are the four key commodities that are really driving 80% per us of the forestation today. Now, the question is, technology is an answer. We call it sustainable in the intensification of the culture. Very often we're using a lot of land, a lot of water, a lot of resources to grow, while we could apply the right methods, not necessarily by technology, but perhaps by technology in some cases can also be helpful, we could save a lot of land. Together with a good regulation on the local level, this could be really dramatically reduced the footprint. And so basically we are talking about looking at our food system, primarily, and how we produce food with less land, with less water, with less resources in general. And then the energy dimension, of course. So moving into renewable, moving away from greenhouse gases, the fossil food that produces green and gases, the global warming, that's the second side of the story. So I have to say we're moving in that direction. I mean here in Davos we were together actually with Dominique, at a meeting with big businesses embracing sustainable commodities. Produced in a sustainable way. Smart way. The movement is there. Acceleration is what we need to see. And that's where we need to work together. So thank you, panellists. Let's see if there's any questions or comments from our audience here to any of the panellists on any of these topics, please. And remind us who you are so that the people watching at home can know who you are. My name is Faiza Nakvi. I'm from Amman Foundation in Pakistan. We focus on health care and education. So you actually answered some of the questions that I had been writing down earlier, which was what is the biggest contributing factor towards extinction. But I wanted to know that what are the factors that you feel we can easily mobilize because a lot of these things take time. So what is it that one can kind of tell people that, okay, if this is what you do, it's going to have this impact and have that exponential impact? And then there was one other question. And that was really more about, let's say, natural paper because a lot of timber is used for paper and pulp and things. So if you're going to be using man-made materials instead, what's going to be the effect of those in terms of being able to recycle and the effect on the world from that? Let's take a question before we go back to panel. Any other comments from the floor? One over here. I think you've laid out a really exciting case of how biodiversity conservation slowing a six extinction can often be very profitable. Win-win is Dominic referred to it. What do we do in situations where, and perhaps the rare, what do we do in situations where slowing a six extinction or preserving biodiversity is unprofitable? Perhaps a view of how common those situations are that we may face. I want to remind us who you are. I'm a professor at University of California, Santa Barbara. Rapid, any thoughts from our panel on the three things? Where can we inspire people to get involved in the movement? I understand what I'm doing and I can understand the outcome on this. Perhaps on the substitution side, into other materials, does that have other impacts for the downstream and recycling and such? What about when there isn't a win-win, as Pat has said, where we just can't find that economic case for the challenge? Maybe if we start with you, Pat, if that's okay, and kind of work that way? Sure. Can pick any or all of those topics? I think that one of the first questions was, you know, these so-called technology-based solutions will take a long time. But actually, I'll just say, in possible foods, we are building a plan where we have every intention and we're committed to it to scale to the point where we can replace the majority of the food that comes from animals with food that's produced by the technology that we've developed. It's fundamentally feasible. And the strategy that we're using for it to work has to be market-based. We have to deliver something that consumers prefer to the products that they get from the incumbent industries, or we won't achieve our mission. But it's clear that it's completely doable. And because the fundamental economics are so much better. If you're more resource-efficient, you're more dollar-efficient. And because all those resources have a cost associated with that. So what are your scale targets? I mean, in the next five years, what are your aspirations for growth on this? Well, the simple answer is as fast as possible. Wonderful. And we are, you know, internally... I mean, we'd like to have... We're starting with one product. We have a bunch of others in the pipeline. We'd like to have the approaching double-digit fraction of the U.S. market within five years. It requires a lot of scaling because, well, I should, you know, unfortunately for the environment, but Americans consume an unbelievable amount of meat. Just the amount of ground beef consumed alone is 10 billion pounds a year in the U.S. So it's a scaling issue, but it's completely doable. And I think that it would be great if there were non-market-based solutions to the problem that were realistic. But I think on the time scale that we need to solve this problem, the only thing that can work fast enough is to leverage the power of the free market, basically, by making a product that consumers prefer. Got it. Well, we wish impossible foods all the very best that sounds like a fabulous kind of innovation. Ada, to any or all of those questions that you heard. Any thoughts? Well, we can prevent extinction of species by providing them the ecosystem and habitat to live in. So the quickest way to actually make things happen very quickly is basically to encourage as many companies and countries as possible to adopt zero deforestation policy. That's one thing that I would like to stress. And of course, the companies should implement recycling also, circular economy. That's basically the basis of what my company is implementing, their sustainability policy, zero deforestation, SDGs, landscape approach, circular economy. That's the basis and the metrics where we measure ourselves against. And recycling products, that's one thing. Yes, we produce recycled products, but the recycled products can only process fiber for power five times and cannot do more than that. So we do still need virgin fiber for power protection, but the key is we have to make sure that the virgin fiber that we use for our power and paper production must come from zero deforestation sources and responsibly manage. I think that's very key. Ada, thank you very much. And thank you for the leadership that you're showing in the paper and power industry in Indonesia. Marco, you kicked us off with some rather startling specifically provoked quite an interesting conversation. And we've heard from industry innovation and technological innovation to the marketplace. The last word is yours, sir. Thank you. On your question about what can we do, basically, I mean, obviously it depends very much on the country and the circumstances, but broadly speaking, two things. In our daily life, we cannot really do anything. Based on what we eat, what we choose to eat, based on how we choose to use the energy, the power of our life. There's so many behaviors to avoid waste and to choose the right things sustainably grown or renewable energy when available and, of course, is increasingly available. So a lot of stuff that we can do individually. Food, energy, I would say, and the last 20 finances. Even our little deposits. Let's make sure that they are not invested into things that damage the environment. We can talk to our asset managers and say, I want my money to be invested in green activities, not in activities that I don't agree with. Three dimensions there. On your interesting question, that's a tricky one, but I would say it's difficult to answer to the general question you posed. It's not a question of perspective and timeframe. I'll give you an example. If you are a grower or palm oil, conserving orangutans in Indonesia or in Borneo, it's a problem. It's not a profitable proposition. But like it's happening now in Sabah, Malaysia, where the tourism industry is so strong and based on forest experience, tropical rainforest experience, and there is such a strong sector now basing Malaysia, Sabah in particular, where the government, by the way, has invested a lot. They are now beginning to see that conservation orangutan is super profitable and they are beginning to be a force of opposition towards further, against further clearing. So it's a question of perspective, timeframe. But I think the timeframe is quite interesting because increasingly we are beginning to realise the profitability of nature conservation. And that, for some sectors particularly, is quite now beginning to be a strong innovation. Wonderful. So thank you very much to our panel and thank you for listening both here in Davos and across the internet. That was a brief introduction to the scale of the challenge of the sixth great extinction and some pretty interesting innovations from across civil society business and new arrivals in the, I want to say kind of food industry, if I may, because it sounds like this could be fascinating if we get to double digit growth in the US market for impossible food. So to Asia, paper and pulp, WWF, and impossible foods, thank you very much and have a great day. Thank you.