 Thank you very much, Peter. Good morning to discuss in a way a new approach in water management. What is behind that? There are a few issues behind this debate. The first issue is that in the preparation of the Rio Blas 20 event, water people played only a marginal role. This process was primarily driven by the international colleagues in our ministries and in our international organizations, but water was more or less marginalized in this process. This was totally different from Choburg. In Choburg we had the sanitation goal and had the safe drinking water goal and the river basin plan goal. These two things changed a lot in the meantime. The second thing we thought about in this debate was when we started in the preparation of Rio, we asked ourselves about the success stories of integrated water resources management. It became very clear that integrated water resources management is an interesting concept, but outside the water community you have no buy-in into this concept because the integrated water resources management concept is primarily driven by water people and this is a kind of attitude that water people tell the energy, the food and the other water related sectors what to do. But in the integrated water resources management approach, we never asked, is there original knowledge of water management in the various sectors? This led us to the nexus approach and we started to discuss this in the framework of the Bonn Conference, taking up food security and energy security. There are, as you can see, much more other things. There is biodiversity, ecosystems. There is a whole field of energy crops. There are other energy for example is a quite diverse point. It was also clear that we have outside drivers in this process. If it comes to urbanization, if it comes to population growth and it comes to adaptation to climate change and we thought we put this triangle of water supply security, food security and energy security in a focus and see how we can work with that. We also have governments and I don't forget economics in this context but I think this was how we discussed it. And the interesting thing for the whole debate was that in the preparation phase, we had a close link, I have to say by accident, but fortunately by accident, with the World Economic Forum and we identified very clearly that the last report of the World Economic Forum was a report on the water, energy and food security nexus. We didn't know that when we started this debate. And it became risk-revealed and their economics comes in that the big companies identified the water resources issue as one of the most risky elements in the development of the industries. So this was something where we thought we cannot be on the wrong track if we are talking about the nexus and we have to see the economic community, the business community was ahead of us in debating this issue. The diversity of this issue became also clear when we mirrored it with the sustainability elements. There is the social dimension, this is still something we have to deal with. This applies for the bottom billion still and this applies for water, energy and for food security. And there is an economic issue in the social dimension because if you see the process of land grabbing in Africa, then in essence land grabbing is a water grabbing issue because land without water has no value. So this is something what is very difficult in the social context because the subsistence agricultural which is done on a lower level in the community there is endangered by such development. The economic dimension, this is an issue of perverse subsidies creating more wells while using less resource input. If it comes to food security it became very clear that there is a figure we have to think about. This is the figure that 40% of all produced agricultural products from the field to the fog never reach the fog. And this is something where we have to think about. And this means also if we waste food, we waste water and we waste human resources they had been put in such a production. And there was also clear that the ecological dimension cannot be ignored in this context. And so far it became clear that this triangle is the most pressing triangle we have to deal with. Water resources in the middle and you can on one hand side see this is something of developing countries. But if you go to Europe or if you go to the US or if you go to other developed countries you can clearly identify that this is not a simple development issue. This is also an issue which is burning for us in Europe. And therefore we decided to take this nexus perspective in helping to identify the interdependencies in this triangle. And I come back to the integrated water resources management issue. The integrated water resources management approach is a one-way approach. Get it or leave it is the message from the water side. This is a bit overdone probably but I think this is the way we are dealing with this issue since a long time and the water community is still surprised why is agricultural not accepting that integrated water resources management is so important. Because the agricultural community does not like to be told by the water community how to manage water. They like to get also on board and have it as a dialogue as a street which goes in two directions. Yesterday I saw this was quite interesting. You can put a lot of issues in this system and you always see that all three components can are not independent from each other. What I had been not able to do this would be also an easy presentation for the implementation of the water framework directive of EU water policy. You can put also the common agricultural policy in one corner and you can do the renewable energy policy sale. And you will really see energy crops are a very good issue in this context. If you are producing bio energy in having energy crops then you have on one hand side a CO2 reduction if you have the CO2 tunnel fuel on climate. But at the same time there is harm for soil and there is pollution for water. And at the same time I will not over stress that you have also a food component in this issue less in Europe than more outside. So this is from our point of view the way we should think also when we are first developing our implementation strategies for the water policy in the EU but the same applies on the national level. This has direct consequences ongoing process on formulating sustainable development goals not simply water goals, not simply energy goals, not simply food security goals. It's important to see the interdependencies if you are formulating those targets and in this process I personally think we need also the engagement of the water people. We cannot leave this issue simple to the climate people because climate has a focus on CO2 and other harmful emissions. But if you have only a CO2 perspective you do a simple thing which cannot be in the framework of sustainability. You reduce CO2 on one hand side but on the other hand side you move pollution to soil and to water and this cannot be a sensible concept to say the reduction of CO2 is in the focus but we ignore what's going on the left and the right side. This I call the collateral damages of too much focused CO2 climate policy. This is once more the issue we have to go to and thank you for your attention. My last sentence is integrated water resources management is an approach we should further use until we have not operationalized this nexus issue but I think what is important to be clear that if we like to survive with such a concept there is a need to involve the other sectors. The interesting thing is that the World Bank defined the leading project some weeks ago on economic tradeoffs of the water and energy nexus and they are doing not the way we intend normally to do. They picked up the energy models the energy sector in the bank is dealing with and asked where are the gaps in these energy models where we have to put in water and this started a debate which goes the other way around and where you get more acceptance from the energy side in discussing this issue. Thank you very much for your attention.