 And a lot of the people who are on the FAO map and in terms of end-of-the-nourage, you have enough resources of people, farmers, who cannot leave out of their land, out of what they are going to generate out of their land. This is something that we have to address when I say meaning, this is, all the people who are working in the Domino Republic. Through finding out how to be able to give those resourceful farmers the means to be able to develop their activity so that they will be able to leave out of their farm. And this is going through training and education to make sure that they know how best to optimize their farm. But this is also about making them access to micro-head credits that will allow them to make the first investment that will create at least some positive cycle. I'm looking at investment. I'm going to generate more out of my land. My profit is going to raise. I'll be able to send my children to school, but also I'll be able to reinvest in my farm and so on and so forth. And for this, I mean everybody has to pay its part. In the industry, we are doing our training. Micro credit, we need to find the proper organisms to do so, and so on. I hope I can say a word. I just addressed your question about the concern about consolidation. And I think that if you look at India, you'll see that consolidation isn't as large a threat as people fear that it is. Because it's actually an economic decision on the part of the large corporations that hold these technologies. It's actually better for them to license the technologies to the smaller companies that have different job hires and have different market share and different reputations. And that's what's been happening in India. Because as well as the United States, many of us have been thinking about actually turning it off. So I don't think that's really the problem that it is. Okay, next question. I'm Ajay Oli from IRI, the rest of the first two. I just have a small question for Dr. Riadu. In excluding out the three to four intermediaries from farm to market, how much of the profit is actually going back to the farmers? That's one part of it. And the other is, does your study have any comment on what those intermediaries are doing after losing their jobs of being intermediaries? No response. One is that in general, in the case of rice, it doesn't seem that the consolidation in the post-farm gate really brings larger profits to farmers, I would say. I think that it creates value-added opportunities and quality differentiation. So controlling for what they're doing, if they're doing commodity rice, they might have a larger market or a more stable market. But if they're trying to move into quality differentiated products, the modernizing market allows them to capture the value through a brand that would be in the case of the mill. But in the case of the farm, the farmer's not branding, the farmer's not packing. And so I think that most of the gain is occurring at the level of the mills in the produce sector. It's the cold stores, in the wholesale and in the retail. And for the farmers, it might be a slightly higher price through the quality differentiation that's available, and then you have to make the investment for that. So I would say that they can gain, but it's not really a share of a commodity market where they gain. They gain through the quality differentiation. And secondly, what are those people doing that are, you know, losing their rural broker jobs? That's a good question. I don't know the answer. We should tag them and see where they migrate to, but they probably go to the city. A trend that we see as well. We don't always see it in the nation. We see it in Africa. But in pre-farm gate, there's an important step that has to be taken, which has to do with making the small holder that's grown to prop a reliable supplier. And it's that they have to learn not only to have the quality that is required, but also if they are contracted for a certain quantity that they have to be able to supply that. We in Africa are against that issue of working with the rural food program and we call it P4P Purchase of Progress, of where the rural food program contracts with the small holders for their local production and supply. And that's where we're trying to work with the farmers to give them the action to become a reliable supplier. And here are the questions. We still have seven, eight minutes left. Okay, one in the back. Then please introduce yourself. Okay, thank you. I'm Janet Coddow from the Greenpeace Science Unit. And we just want to clarify this confusion over biotechnology and also genetic modification. And I think you did quite well in sort of explaining the differences between it. But we really want to clarify that biotechnology is really very applied to a broad definition. And there are many techniques in there. And the only one really that Greenpeace is opposed to is the release of genetically modified crops. And I think that's an important distinction that we're not attacking biotechnology as widely said. In fact, we've quoted one of the examples of market-assisted selection in our response as really as an alternative to geotechnology. So when we talk about biotechnology and what's below, how well we already have rice varieties from market-assisted selection actually in farm fields. And I think I would count those as being really from biotechnology rather than sort of simply focusing on GM varieties of rice which may or may not be commercialized. But in fact, I do have a question for the panel. And I really want to get on to post-harvest losses because we hear a lot about how we've got to feed 9 billion people in 2050. And I wonder if they have any thoughts on really on what is the relative contribution to increased productivity versus post-harvest losses that we can make to feed this 9 billion people. Okay, thank you very much for your comments and for your question. I will try to first address your first point regarding the biotechnology and amongst all the different technologies that are available in order to bring new varieties, to bring new ways of cropping. And the difference of approach between green peace and between a company like ours and in biotechnology is the way that you're considering it as an alternative solution like market existing green could replace biotechnology or change of engineer. In our case, we are seeing it as something which is extremely complementary. We do believe that we will need all the different technologies that are available in order to produce the best varieties, the most world adaptive varieties, the varieties that are going to be able to withstand the environmental challenge in which our entity. So this is why we are working on those technologies and this is why we are talking about them, we are introducing them, we are showing them to the people so that people can really feel and perceive what this is all about and how those type of products are going to help them finding solutions to the problems that they are facing. So that's two different approaches. This is where we are standing. Regarding your second question, the word of reality to gain and to retrieve is post-hours loss. I don't think that I would be able to quantify it. What I know for sure is that post-hours loss at the global scale is enormous and this is something which is outrageous if you are considering the amount of food that is being lost, post-hours. This is also an area in which we have to find a solution, not only to find solutions because a lot of solutions are already there, available, but they have to be promoted and extend to a global, especially in countries who are lacking the infrastructure in order to be able to implement that. And I'm talking here again about Africa which is just an eventually lack of electricity in order to be able to cool down the grid or having access to a chemical that will protect them in 60 hours or in 10-year-old months and so on. I thought that just take a shot at this question on the relative importance of productivity improvement versus post-hours loss. That's actually a very difficult question and I'm not quite sure that there's enough data to answer it effectively. However, I can't say it as either or, but let's say that there are significant gains that can be made from post-hours, reducing post-hours losses. Part of those gains are going to come from what Tom just described, the whole structural change in the industry itself. And part of the change is going to come from changes in the way one does post-hours processing, storage and transport. And I think there the challenge for smallholder agriculture is quite significant because in the same way as you would need new technologies for increasing productivity, you would need new technologies and new management practices for post-hours processing, transport and storage if you want to reduce losses significantly. And I think the dissemination of those technologies at smallholder level has always been a big challenge and will continue to be a big challenge. And I think putting it as an either or is probably not as helpful as saying we should be looking at both sides of the story and figuring out how we can be better at one creating technologies pre and post-hours that smallholders can use and then figuring out how to deliver these technologies to harvest. So long answer. Just a short footnote, a green, with Prabhu's point I think which is perfect. What I found, we did several studies funded by the Asian Development Bank on rice value chains and we did some very careful literature review and found a lot of claims and debate about post-hours losses both in the vegetable sector and in the rice sector and claims being massive amounts being lost. To me, sort of as a field guy it seemed to possibly large losses were being claimed. In fact, when we did the study and we asked everybody along the way exactly how many kilograms they lost in their transaction, it turned out from, let's say, the 1,300 mile or 1,300 kilometer trip from our northern side of China to Beijing it was 5 to 7% of the product was lost altogether from farm to plate. Okay, from just Shadangburu which is just in central, you know, Badeshi, it's basically 3%. Very low losses. And that underscores the point though that when we did the careful costing of exactly what costs were occurring at the...