 Very nice. So what's on our agenda today? After this in a moment after I've introduced the agenda, Bonnie Moyer from Illry is going to welcome us all and get set the scene. We'll do a small introductions exercise and then Cynthia Mugo from Illry will introduce why we're here in a sense and then Michael will give the big picture what is the project and what are we trying to do and then we're going to go break into some working groups to dig a bit deeper some of the issues we're working on. Then a quick feedback session and Michael will wrap everything up. So I think Michael we need to turn over now to Bonnie to see Bonnie Moyer and you can stop sharing I think. Bonnie is the deputy director general at Illry responsible for biosciences I believe. Bonnie over to you, welcome. Thank you so much Peter and good afternoon colleagues and good morning wherever you are connecting from. It is indeed my honor and privilege this afternoon to welcome you all to this consultation. I'm pleased to note that we have or we are expecting participants from more than 10 organizations so I'm hoping that more will join in the coming minutes. Colleagues today we're meeting to reflect on an important topic that is livestock. In developing countries we know that livestock plays a multiple problem solving role in the areas of nutrition, food security, employment creation, gender equality and poverty alleviation. Globally it is a major contributor to economic growth and prosperity. So balancing these positives livestock production also has a challenge where it also emits significant greenhouse gases and therefore can cause environmental damages. Domestic animals may transmit diseases to people and over consumption of animal source foods may cause various issues. However without significant investment in the livestock sector both to grow this sector it's many benefits and also its ability to mitigate the harms it can cause we risk failing to meet many of our 2030 agenda objectives. Colleagues if you look at ODA figures from 2019 the agriculture sector received very little only 3.9 percent out of which the livestock sector received 0.17 percent and if you look at the budgets of many national governments the figures would not be any different at all livestock continues to receive very little budget allocation even though livestock accounts for almost 40 percent of agriculture GDP but sometimes this figure is even higher in some of the low and middle income countries. So in order to bring increased attention to this sector and this scenario and funding for livestock priorities the Gates Foundation invested in an ill-relate program called the Global Sustainable Livestock Advocacy for Development a mouthful but it's glad in short. So the issue there is about sustainable livestock advocacy for development. So some of you in this meeting today are familiar with cloud however for the purposes of others I'll just give a brief introduction. Cloud seeks to ensure there's a nuanced evidence driven debate around how livestock contributes to sustainable development in low and middle income countries. Cloud highlights the important role that livestock can play in achieving multiple development goals in low and middle income countries whilst recognizing that livestock systems must change to be more sustainable affordable and equitable. So in 2016 that's when the cloud program began and is currently finishing its second phase. The project has evolved over time and the team has been working very hard at developing a new phase where we will be prioritizing working with partners like you so we are excited to share with you our initial ideas for the third phase of cloud program. Our focus today therefore is to get feedback and inputs from this group which is gathered today but most importantly identify actions and collaborations that can help us to continue to contribute to addressing the global challenges some of which include our aspiration to contribute to ending hunger, improve nutrition, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase climate adaptation but also enhance the livelihoods of small holder farmers in low and middle income countries. So with those few words colleagues who would like to position GLAD to also support you you and your organization agenda in the livestock sector. This is our partnership agenda and after today's discussions I hope that the GLAD program will be the vehicle where we all work together as we envisage better lives through livestock. With that I would like to again thank you for joining us today and now would like to hand it back to you Peter. Thank you very much. Thank you Bonnie for setting the scene and explaining why we're here on a large scale and Michael will go into some of the details a bit later. What I'd like to do now really is just a quick introductions exercise and we're going to go over to Menti and I just put in the chat a link for you and a code for you. So what we're going to do really is just to spend five minutes talking around livestock, talking around why livestock are important, talking around why we think livestock might be important or not important and then just do a quick exercise. So you should be able to go to the link in the chat otherwise go to menti.com and enter a code 3459 and then 0426 and then Michael I'd like to share my screen if possible so that we can see the we can see the result. So I'm going to just go ahead and do that if that's okay with you. Could you tell me what the acronym LMIC stands for? Income Countries. Oh well thank you that was obvious. Sorry, yeah. So thank you John. Yeah so basically you should be able to just, there's a bunch of statements here and this is more of a fun, it's not like it's a serious test for your personality or character. We just take a few boots on some of the posts just to get us a feeling of who we are and why we are and what we think about livestock. I'm hoping everybody's there, I don't know whether everybody has made it. I'm not seeing anybody having done the first screen yet. Is anybody struggling to find their way? Maybe the questions are very complicated. I can see two people have done so let me, I don't know whether I should share the results for Ray. Okay I can see five people are there and it's more for the fun of it. So what I'm seeing in the results, let me just see the message in the chat that somebody's struggling to find. Complicated questions, yeah sorry Isabel, it's a it's a Wednesday afternoon so we need to be here. So I'm trying to think we see some optimists, we're nine so I'm hoping to get 17 or 18 people to take the survey, the fun survey. You should be able to see the results of my screen for each of the different priorities, the different priorities, each of the different legs of the spider, the webs of the spider. So we're seeing and hang on a moment I think to wait till we get 15 people, up to 12. That's not a surprise but let's see what we're seeing. I'm looking for three more people to take the survey, that's number that's 13, so two more and then maybe we'll have a look to see what's on the screen. So I'm showing the results on my screen, you should be able to see the results on my screen on the zoom if you're also back on backwards and forwards with the mentee. Good we're up to 17, okay that must be almost everybody or not maybe close to everybody. This is not a very scientific method, I know there's a lot of scientists here, always very scared to show something like this. So what are we beginning to see? I don't know, if I ask Isabel, Isabel, you're an economist right, so you know a lot about numbers, do we see a trend of any kind if I look at this diagram Isabel, are you seeing a trend or something we should be curious about? Are you able to see the screen Isabel? Yes I am, yes I think there's definitely, we are here between friends of livestock, isn't it? People who are optimistic, I think it's about livestock offering many many positives. Yes definitely and then the one, the antagonisms I think as well, showing as well that people don't agree with that, with that statement and therefore being very quite low. And then yeah I think very differently, we are amongst friends which is nice but as well we need to be challenged, yeah thank you. Thanks Rizabel, so we also have some boosters and some people there's a bit of 2.5, yeah there's some there's some there's some pessimism and some pessimism in the room as well. Okay you should be able now, I'm going to pass you to the next, you should be here to a second question, so basically it's just the building on that first question, if you can give us your name and I'm hoping you can see the screen, if you're back on the mentee you should see a second screen now. And what I'd like you to do is to add your name and choose one of the traits where you are pessimist, a pragmatist, an antagonist, a booster, an optimist, what's your livestock trait if you think about investing in livestock. I don't know whether anyone's, have you found your way to that screen? Yes George, great, thank you. George, an optimist from Vasafiri, great, so we are on the right screen, if you go back to the mentee and don't a pragmatist or a realist, okay, that's good. Michael's a pragmatist, an anonymous optimist, that's good. I hope you give us your name just to get a sense of who we are and you should be able to just put your name, Marianne, thank you. An optimist and a booster even, okay, yes. Rupesh is an optimist, optimist, realist, okay, so we're an interesting bunch. John, maybe you can elaborate a bit, pragmatist or realist, is there a difference there or what's your thinking there? Well, you've taken down the explanations from the screen so I couldn't remember what a pragmatist, what the example was, but I mean, for me, putting realist there is, you know, it's not about what I want to see, whether I'm an optimist and because I'd love to see more, you know, livestock or pessimists because I'm afraid there'll be less livestock. It's not a question of the realities, you know, the need for livestock in certain places, the inevitability of livestock production, but also the inevitability of change and the need to understand and foresee the changes and reacts to them. Okay, thank you, thank you. Marianne, you're an optimist, so what is boosting, where are you boosting, Marianne? Well, we're working quite strongly through the recently designated International Year for Rangelands and Pastoralists to raise awareness and change narratives. We think that a lot of what's happening here is a mismatched narrative between what is reality and what can be done and what people think livestock are doing to this planet. Okay, thank you. I'm seeing other people that quite a lot of pragmatists optimists, but I see Ian is here from Pasteur, Ian, an optimist. Is that an optimistic pragmatist or a pragmatic optimist? Ian, where are you sitting on all of this? Then we'll go back to the agenda. I think I'm sitting in between, yes. I think we have to have an optimistic outlook, but let's go forward with a pragmatic approach, rather like Marianne in that front, seeing new narratives available, but we need to think about how to situate them within the wider political economy of the policy debate. Okay, thanks. I think most people have heard a few people less this time. I see a lot of optimists and a lot of pragmatists here, so good Michael. I'm going to stop sharing my slide, and I think I'm going to hand back to you, and I just wanted to say we have a nice bunch. If anybody hasn't had a chance, if you want to stick your name in the chat, if you want to put your name there, tell us who you are and what you work for, that would be good. Sorry, Sylvina, the code didn't quite work. I don't know why not. Great, so Michael, you need to go back, and I think we're handing over to Cynthia. Please stay over to Cynthia. Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Can you hear me well? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, thank you, everyone, and welcome again. And as Bonnie said in her opening, we have been hard at work conceptualizing this third phase of GLAAD, and in the process, we've talked to a lot of individuals within Ilri, outside of Ilri, and some are even in this meeting today. So what we really want to do today with this meeting is to present to you this project that we're calling GLAAD, the third phase of it, for you to confirm by the date and improve our ideas. We want to also explore collaboration, potential, and synergies. We'd really, really like GLAAD to be another avenue or vehicle where you too, in your own institutions, can amplify your work. So we'd like to work with you to amplify also to also further your own agendas. So we really are looking forward to this meeting to be the space where we open communication channels and start working together. So let's see if we can get there by the end of this one and a half hours. Michael can take us through, give us an overview of GLAAD now. You are muted, Michael. Thank you, Isabel. Thank you so much, yeah. I thought I was, I could have talked for a couple of minutes without realizing. Thanks, everybody, and thanks, Bonnie, and Peter and Cynthia for the introductions. I'm just going to take you through an overview of GLAAD and assessment of what has been done in the last six years and kind of a reflection and then how we've organized the third phase based on lessons learned and discussions with partners and stakeholders, as Cynthia mentioned. So our starting points, and I think, again, Bonnie probably mentioned this really well in her own, in her backgrounds. I don't have to say too much, but some of the background and the challenges of livestock are we know well. And overall, there's a strong evidence base that the sector can deliver a range of development outcomes focused on better nutrition, nutrition for women and children, job opportunities, greater empowerment for women, and enhanced resilience and adaptation. We also recognize that what we mean by the multi-solving power of sustainable livestock systems is that it can solve multiple problems at the same time. For instance, we know that for improved production can mitigate the negative effects of livestock. It can help with animal welfare and animal health. And it can also kind of mitigate greenhouse gas emissions or environmental damage. So there's these co-benefits that we see and it can solve multiple problems at multiple times. On the other hand, we also see the impacts of the anti-lifestock and rightly so, some of the concerns they have about livestock and how livestock has been done, particularly in industrialized situations. And we recognize that also kind of in sustainable livestock in low and middle income countries, it doesn't really match the potential that it deserves in a sense. And as we heard from Bunny, we see that there's greater investments in agriculture and some of the other commodities while livestock is one of the fastest growing commodities in low and middle income countries. So we're dealing with this kind of issue of how do we kind of increase investments with all these concerns about livestock as well. So for GLAAD, we really want to be able to grow the intellectual, so it's looking at the discourses, the financial and policy support for the sustainable livestock agenda. And really to show we're not trying to promote or advocate livestock in that sense, as Ilry as particularly as an evidence-based organization, we want to provide a more nuanced view. We want to provide evidence-based advocacy in that sense for bringing the nuance, bringing sides together, bringing groups together and really discussing how do we make livestock better, more sustainable, so it can contribute to different development outcomes, whether that sustainable transformation of food systems or nutrition or health. So again, recognizing that we need to change, but how do we do that and how do we make sure that the livestock is delivering the benefits that it has? So just really briefly, in terms of GLAAD and its evolution, we've been going for six years since 2016. And I think in Ilry, we've really learned ourselves and it's really been a learning-based approach to how we go about advocacy and engaging in all these different kind of processes at the global, national and regional levels. So in the beginning in GLAAD 1, we were really focused on, you know, GLAAD advocacy for development, really focused on evidence generation. So we spent a lot of time looking at the evidence, developing messages and kind of testing out comms and media. And then in 2019, we went to the second phase and this was really about focusing on how do we advance investments in sustainable and equitable livestock systems. And here, we were much more focused on innovative campaigns and communication products, which will take you through, proactive media engagement, and then working with and through ambassadors. I think most of you are on the GLAAD, the GLAAD community network, and we've been able to do a lot more proactive media engagement with a range of people. And again, working with and through ambassadors. So it's better often for us to not just as livestock organizations advocate livestock on our own, but work with and through those who see livestock as a real development solution. And then, again, more conservative influencing, particularly at the number of events, particularly the UNFFS, CFS, and then livestock master plans for people who might not know that acronym. And then particularly in one health because of the pandemic. And as we move into phase three, as you'll see, we're really focusing on three big changes, more strategic interventions, moving from kind of a discourse on the lack of investment in livestock to how do we broker investable solutions, and then more targeted engagement and communications to support these strategic interventions. And really to build alliances with partners like yourselves who are here and strengthen the partnerships that are already there. So just really quickly, some of the self assessment. So as Cynthia said, we've been going through kind of an assessment period and diagnostic and design phase for the last couple of months. And some of the strengths that we've seen is that, like we've mentioned in this phase, we've really had a lot more strategic engagement and partnerships, particularly, I would say at the UNFFS, which really kind of showed the issues that we see within livestock, both the benefits that we see that a lot of groups saw the benefits of livestock, but then a lot of contention even within the livestock sector. We're able to reach out. And that's one of the things with Glad is what we want to reach beyond just livestock related programs or processes and really focus on others. So for nutrition and growth, we've worked with EAT, working with the CFS and the high level panels in the global landscape form. So really reaching beyond just the livestock world and trying to show frame livestock as a sustainable development solution. We've had a lot more diversity of products as you can see that we show here in campaigns. So really kind of trying to hit a little bit more heavy using what we call an evidence-based approach campaigns, but also having more human-based messaging. So using the evidence combined with some of the messaging. We've also mobilized, like we've said, of more diverse champions and ambassadors. And we started to focus on some key narratives that have come up, particularly nutrition, one health and climate adaptation and resilience. We spent a lot of time looking at gender issues and that will be another focus within phase three of how do we mainstream gender and livestock and the development of nexus where we see a lot of benefits. As livestock is a real kind of gender tool to empower gender issues. And then linkages to the national level through livestock master plans and through product development processes where we've had some gains in being able to put some livestock indicators into the product processes. Again, some of the improvements and implications for what we've seen is we've done a lot and we've worked upon a lot of issues. We've identified in our kind of assessment of different narratives and issues and topics more than 10 of them. So we really realize that we need to do better targeting and focus and more explicitly identify priority topics. We need to engage better with partners and collaborators. We really and this is part of this meeting today is to really improve the process of co-creation and be more deliberate about partnerships and make sure that there's complementarity. So making sure that the GLAD agenda can really support your agendas out there as well. And then again this move from kind of just developing a group of livestock champions and a network to really kind of linking livestock champions to investors in brokering solutions. We want to produce communication products as always more smarter and then use metrics as a way to really understand how we're working. So with that, I'll just go over quickly how we've designed GLAD 3 and again we're hoping in the working groups to get a lot of inputs from everybody. If you do have questions or comments put them into the chat and we'll be dealing with them there. I think Peter's looking at those right now as well. So GLAD 3 will be about three years. It's about three million dollars for those three years as well and we're still working out the final steps within the proposal process with the Gates Foundation. So it's not 100% but we feel very confident and hope we will continue on. So the initial value proposition, I think one of the main features of GLAD is the use of the four intervention areas that we've had, which is evidence generation, really synthesizing the evidence and making sure that's our foundation. Targeted communications and then this idea now of brokerage bringing together investors and livestock solutions and champions and then influencing an engagement at different levels. And those are kind of like our four pillars that form the basis of GLAD and it's through this multi-pronged approach that we see increased understanding of livestock role and sustainable development and increased investment and positive policy outcomes hopefully. And we do this by really helping to amplify and elevate the evidence. We're not just advocating blindly but really using the evidence in a nuanced way and looking for issues particularly beyond the livestock sector. So how do we frame livestock again as a sustainable development solution? We want to focus this phase particularly on investable solutions and their uptake and again working with multiple partners beyond research and we want to foster this community of livestock champions as well as take more strategic and impactful engagement approaches. So really focusing on not trying to do so much but really focusing on key areas where we can have bigger impact. Of course. So one of the things that one of the major changes as I mentioned in GLAD 3 is this focus on three core themes plus a global theme. And we went through we've developed we went through and identified about eight to nine narratives or topics that we saw as key and then through kind of a process of discussion with a group you know with everybody. We based it on kind of a couple criteria for how we chose these three areas plus the global area. One is critical for low and middle income countries that it was relevant at global to national levels. Strong potential for investment that we have strong champions in these areas. We have robust evidence as well and that we likelihood that we can actually have some impacts in and make progress in a short time frame. And we want to be nuanced to not just show positive aspects but show some of the trade offs as well. So we came up with these four areas. We have kind of a global area and again we'll be going into working groups to discuss these more about livestock in context with its multiple roles and goals and how do we kind of link it to some of these wider global processes. Looking another sorry another acronym looking at livestock derived foods and safe nutrition and healthy diets and we've done a lot there and I think a lot of you have done a lot of great work there as well so how do we kind of continue that. Something that's coming up a lot is particularly livestock not as a climate problem but really is one of the main climate solutions. So climate change and adaptation and resilience and the role that livestock can play. And then not just looking at rangelands for rangelands sake but again rangelands as one of the key aspects for land restoration looking at land use issues and then biodiversity and looking at how with the role that rangelands can play in biodiversity conservation or even carbon storage and things like that. So these are the four priority areas and these will be addressed again at different levels of intensity in those four intervention approaches that we'll go through. And then from this we developed kind of four work packages and four outcome statements and I'm not going to go through all of these but you'll have these in your working groups as well but it's really most of it's really about targeting investors and donors to grow and share their you know kind of investments and grant portfolios in these different target areas. So we have four kind of work packages again using these these four areas and I'll show you how that kind of plays out in a matrix approach. And again we want to embed gender and gender issues within each of these outcome areas. So to see how this fits together we have again these four interventions approaches just to show you really quickly. Again we have the evidence and you know evidence of the results and the potential returns looking at trade-offs and you know really synthesized evidence bringing together not only ill re-evidence but evidence from around the livestock sector. We want to have powerful communications and again this idea of broker solutions which I'll go over in a bit and then targeted engagement and targeted engagement at different international regional and national levels. And again we're going to apply that at different levels and I'll kind of show you how that works in a second right here. So we have these intervention intensities and our priority issues. So this is just an example but kind of has how we are starting to see that and we want to go over that with you in the working groups but looking something let's say for for land biodiversity and nature in terms of the range lands we really need to build the evidence base and we've discussed that a lot with Fiona and even Ian I think mentioned this on a recent discussion. So you know that will be the focus of a lot of the work is more on the evidence kind of pillar and then maybe in the year in kind of a year or two years time we'll start focusing more on communication whereas with the nutrition we've seen a lot of the great work from the UN nutrition reports and we've seen all the great work from gain as to you know a lot we have a lot of the evidence so it's really more about how do we do the communication focus a little bit more on the brokerage and the influencing. So again just and that's something that we want to go over with everybody to kind of read confirm and get inputs to see how we are seeing you know what we need to focus on in each of these different areas. And then finally I'm just going to go quickly through the brokerage function which for us is something really new and it's really something yeah experimental and we would like to get a lot of input into that. So you know another key functional area is a way to move away from this idea there was this discourse that there's a lack of investment and really understanding how do we connect and better connect you know the livestock champions and solutions to to court you know investors corporate investors entrant to yours and even policy makers. We've seen that there's a disconnect and we've also seen that solutions and livestock are also maybe not framed so greatly for other development purposes. We saw this for example in the last cop where we were working with SEBI and the livestock data for development group where we kind of collated a lot of great solutions for resilience and adaptation but they really weren't framed so appropriately. So you know again it's about connecting but also framing and how do we improve the framing of livestock to show that it's a really interesting solution. And so in this phase we really want to test out this approach for more purposeful interactive and productive matchmaking. How will we do this? We'll do this through kind of a real purposeful approach that focuses on the process in linking people to matchmaking or linking them to different processes or to different groups of people and really trying to focus on that rather than trying to collect all the different solutions that we have in presenting that. So really kind of tailor made matchmaking for different situations in different areas. And we're looking at not just the research innovations but also development innovations that might come from like Heffer or venture 37 from development partners as well and then linking to the private sector and policymakers and investors. And again what we're trying to do we won't try to create our own space but really go to the spaces that are already there. So for instance we know that AGRF has a deal room. How can we work with them to create a really meaningful interaction between livestock solutions and champions and some of the donors going there? We might go to trade fairs or expos. There's also again specific issue processes like COP 27, GLF that we could kind of insert ourselves into or with the UNFFS and National Food System Transformation Pathways. So really trying to find places that we can go to rather than building the field of dreams ourselves. And so again to sum it up in GLAD 3 we're going to be really moving to more of a targeted approach in three areas in the nutrition and food security adaptation and resilience and land and biodiversity. We really want to move from a lack of investment to this matchmaking and to brokerage or an accelerator function with linking livestock champions to investors. And then third really strengthening our alliances with like-minded organizations to really influence and engage in different areas. So thank you. That's it from me. Peter is there any key questions or comments that we have to address at this stage or clarifications? I'm not seeing any. I think we can just go ahead Michael with the next things. I'm not seeing any questions. There were a couple of questions about what is LDF and the difference between LDF and ASF, but that's been covered. So we can go ahead I think. Great. I do. Are you just to introduce the exercise then? So I can do that if you like. So I think you have, is this the slide or is there? Yes. So this is the next slide. So what we're going to do is we're going to break up, Michael's giving us a big picture. So our idea is we would like to break into four groups and we're going to have around 30 minutes and we're going to, I'm just going to post to the link. Yep. Here we go. So we're going to break into 30 minutes and we're going to go to four groups. One group is with kind of looking at the global, the global piece of these are organized around those four outcomes or the four work packages that we talked about. So one group is the global group at Cynthia. We'd like to have a conversation around livestock and that nutrition and food security piece. We'd like to have another group looking at the livestock and climate adaptation, a resilient one around that range lands, the piece of our land and biodiversity. So in each case we have people and we have myself, Michael, Isabel and Cynthia will be kind of combining facilitation, reporturing and we have a few specific questions. I saw a message, Michael, from Isabel saying that someone of the colleagues has a hand up. I don't see that myself, but yeah, so that so let me then either why don't you finish up and then you can, we can break, you know, we're gonna, Mariam can ask her question and then we can break the group. Okay, so let me then introduce it to go to the next slide. So that we got basically what we want to do in the group. So if you go to the next slide, Michael, that's the four groups. Okay, so the group one, this is Cynthia's group and you will discover who you are when you turn up. Here we're really trying to, we have some specific questions for the global group and that's more about around the kind of the approach. How do we best engage with donors with investors? Which topics are we needing to do more leadership effort into? What are some of the key ingredients for this acceleration brokerage and other somatic values that Vlad would bring? So this is specific questions for that group. Maybe the next slide, Michael, for the other three groups. So for the other three groups, we have, these are more kind of topical groups. We're also trying to identify basically if we're working looking for food security, for example, who are the movers and shakers beyond the livestock sector per se, who do we really need to engage with to really leverage greater investment. We like to look at the balance between those different interventions. We talked about the evidence, the communication, the brokerage, the influencing. What's the right balance? Should we be, you know, we kind of hypothesize that all the evidence is there for nutrition? We just have to communicate it. Whereas for rangelands, there's missing evidence. So let's just double check that. Are there any critical upcoming events or processes where we must engage in the coming year or two or three years? And then same question about added values. So that's what we'd like to do. We'd like to go away for half an hour. And Michael's going to break this in. So Michael, you can go, yeah. Over to you. We have a question, I think, Michael, right, from somebody. Yeah. So, Mariam, do you have a quick question that you wanted to ask? Yeah, it's a little bit of a clarifying question or two before we break up. And I'm sorry if I'm a bit slow in the chat. I should have put it into the chat. I do apologize. Let me turn on my video as well. Look, first of all, Michael, thank you so much. It's always great to hear you. You are a great communicator and very much appreciate your speech. And having read the draft concept note as well. So I'm putting those two together with a document that was circulated and your presentation. It leaves me with two key questions. One is that I'm struggling to understand what are we really talking? Who are we talking about? Who are we advocating for? You keep saying livestock. Okay, fine. But you know, you really do have to make this more people-centered. So who are we talking about? Are we talking about small holders? Are we talking about mid-level entrepreneurs who have very different conditions and processes? Are we talking about corporations? And I'm not talking about the investor part yet. That's my second question. I'm talking about who are we trying to help here? I'm sorry, but that just doesn't come out through this. Maybe because I haven't been so so closely focused on GLAD in the past. I do know that the efforts that you led to help the IYRP process were very much small holder focused. Thank you for that and the past realists and so on. But is GLAD 3 going beyond that or what? And I think this is relevant to all three working, all four working groups. We need to know who it is that you still want to advocate for. And that brings me to the question, who are the innovators? What are we talking about? Are these small holder, traditional knowledge innovators who are using modern tools like digital economy and so on to innovate? Or are we talking about a techno-driven kind of innovation in order to multiply production and meet some global presumed goal? Right? So please, if you could give us a few bits of guidance as to how Ilry and Gates Foundation are looking at this. And then my second question very much related is, yeah, you keep talking about investable solutions and the investors. Well, it's quite clear who the donors are. That's usually very clear. But what are we talking about when we say investors? In some parts of the world, large scale investors are very difficult for small holders to work with. In some parts of the world, they have a monopoly over pricing and so on. That's very difficult for small holders. In some parts of the world, for example, in Kenya, in Morocco, in Norway, there are lawsuits against investors putting in renewable energy onto rangelands, for example. So again, what do you have in your mind? What do you envisage when you're saying investors? That would I think help us very much also to do this. I think, and maybe coming back to my first question about who, are we talking about extensive production systems or are we talking about intensive production systems or something in between the mixed systems? So please, it would really help me not sort of coming in cold to better understand your scope. Okay. Thanks. Great. No, those are great questions. And I mean, I think there's two points. I want not to take it away from it, but I think this is something that we could also go into the group. And I think in the groups, you can discuss this, particularly when you talk about who are we advocating for. I think that is going to be different in different situations, but it's really a focus on low and middle income countries. It's a focus on small holders, of course. I think that's something that we all look at. But it could be looking at different aspects of the value chain of where you want to intervene or in the food system itself. There's a lot more talk about that. So who are we advocating for? I would say, of course, it's not for industrial corporations, but it's looking for invest. I think the key words that we have are sustainable livestock systems in all its diversity. And we know that's a huge encompassing term. And that too is that it's equitable and sustainable. So we're looking at equitable investments, as well as targeting equitable solutions and interventions. And I think who are we advocating for? I think it is, I mean, unless Isabel or Cynthia or Peter could correct me if I'm wrong, we're a bunny. But really, at the end of the day, it is for small holders. And it's for the rural or maybe even peri-urban people who are working small holder systems in low and middle income countries. We're not talking about how we're going to change American or Western or European systems. With the rangelands is a good example of a movement that crosses time scales and geographies in terms of like it's not just low and middle income countries, but there's a lot of pastoralists in other countries, but supporting that type of effort. So I think that's, you know, I think you all will have to define that. All of us will define that in these kind of work packages as well. So I think that's a great issue. Investable solutions. And I would say, again, it's like, who are we trying to target? We're trying to target kind of like kind of traditional donors, but new donors. We're looking at, you know, kind of other funds that we could leverage, whether it's kind of green climate funds or whether it's, you know, again, like a private sector that does have corporate social responsibility. I don't think we want to go to OLOM necessarily sometimes or, you know, where there are problems, but we're going to investors private sector that might be looking for sustainable solutions. And again, that has to match up with the advocacy as well. So and also looking at other other sectors where there might be opportunities to unlock funding for livestock, whether that's in the health or nutrition sectors as well. I don't know if Peter or Cynthia or Isabel want to or even Bundy want to add on to that. But I would like to get into the groups that I think you can also work on. These are great questions also for the groups to work on. Anyone else have anything to add? No? I hope that kind of starts to answer your questions, Mariam. And again, I think these are good questions. Isabel, did you want to say something? I see your light on now. Okay. Great. Mariam. And again, we can talk about thank you. I see your thumbs up. So let's break into the groups and really like start to talk together. Thank you. And we'll move into the groups and see you back in about 35 minutes. So what I'd like to do, everybody, before we wrap up is just to reflect a little bit on the conversations we had out in our group. They were quite unlike what I had expected, but very, very rich. So what I'd like to do is just like going to post into the chat one question, a surprising insight. If you can take 10, 20 seconds to think about what your surprising insight is, if you could then post, wait a second, I'll tell you when. If you can type it in the chat, but don't post it yet. Just type it in the chat. What surprising insight came out from your conversation? It might just be an insight. Maybe there wasn't a surprise. I'm going to give you a countdown five, four, three, two, one. If you can now post your surprising insights or insights, perhaps that would be also be fine. Go ahead and post them. I'm not seeing any at the moment. So maybe there were no insights in our groups. We post them now. Just please post your insights. Okay. What are we seeing? Posting the insights. There's quite a range. Cynthia, can you give me a hand? Tell me what we're seeing in these insights. We're getting a whole bunch of them, actually, right? What are we seeing from the insights? Cynthia, can you help me? What are we doing? We are hearing. Marie, I'm saying how to break into the WTO. We are hearing Alex talking about the need to clarify more family, the donor, investor targets, group share, talks about institutions continue to remain important in Rangeland's Saseca. I think I said that. I hope I said that. We need to work with in-country partners, including national government. Karen Smith would say it was great to hear about luxury and it's hard working with us. And has exited pushes another meeting. Namcollo, I can see her comment here. I've lost it again. Isabel is in national policies, a key toward Afghan group of negotiators. Really important, Ali. Okay. I'm going to very quickly post one more very quickly for you. Next second one, this is the last one. Is there a critical gap in our thinking that you've identified or heard or picked up? Is there a critical gap? And Isabel, if you can help me to make sense of this one, a critical gap, if you can take 20 seconds, what's a critical gap that you've identified? Have we missed something completely critical? I'm going to give you another 10 seconds. Thank you very much. Be more people-centered and go ahead. If you can post now and then Isabel will help me to make sense of the critical gaps I'm hoping. Thank you, Mariam. Be more people-centered, okay. Critical gaps. If you could post them now, would be good. Isabel, can you help me with the, okay, now you've posted yours. I was typing, yes. Yeah, so I was focused on, yes, on people. And oh yeah, we did forget a bit of the youth, possibly as well, yeah, how we target them, what kind of evidence they want to see. They changed in habits. The interest is quite different. My kids are all about animal welfare, so I'm sure other youths as well like that. And the evidence, yeah, a lot of, sometimes we have evidence, but not sufficient. And in my group, it was the same as well. We know what people eat in general, but not in specifics. And they are biased transitions. People are changing the way they eat, what they eat, how they eat. And therefore, if you want to provide advice, then you have to think about that, not only what they eat right now, but what other diets, tangential diets. And then, yes, we seem to always be stuck to the same species, milk, eggs, and red meat, but there's also other lifestyle-derived food, and rabbits, and guinea pigs, and things like that. So we should not forget those as well. Okay. Yes. And on the rage lines, highlighting, I think, more positive cases and not only the negative ones, I guess, from what I see here. Thanks, Marianne. I see you saying bye. Oh, you want to speak? No, you want to say bye, yes. And food safety is as well quite important. And then the challenge that Antonio reminded us is, and what do you do when people don't think that livestock is a solution for climate change? Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Antonio. I think that's a challenge. Okay. I think that was the end of that quick wrap. Michael, do I hand over to you to summarize the meeting and to tell us what happens next? Yeah. I mean, I'm not going to do a big summary. I'm just going to thank everybody for really taking the time to meet with us and kind of give us some inputs into this. We're moving very quickly ahead with the proposal, and we are going to use what we've come up with here to continue to refine and iterate on our kind of concept. And we expect, if everything goes to fruition, that we'll start Glad 3 in July. So we have a couple of months now. If there's things that you feel that you would like to get more in or learn more about, just contact us and we can continue to discuss. I think once we get a better idea of where we are, maybe sometime in May or June, we'd probably start to contact people and start to kind of figure out kind of startups. Again, we'd like to have, you were in a group and part of that work package to continue to have conversations with you to further develop the kind of approach and what we want to do in these different work packages. So I think this is just really the start to the conversation rather than getting inputs and then see you in three years or something. Yeah, we really see this as the start and we'll continue this over the course. I think everybody, if everybody's on, just wanted to, you know, the Glad livestock degroup. I hope everyone's on there. I think everybody is, if I see the leftovers we have here, but if not, let us know and maybe we'll send out an email on that. We'll also send maybe the final proposal or any kind of comments once we have that kind of officialized with the gates. And with that, I think again, thank you a lot. It's always great to have these conversations and hopefully we can see everybody in person at some point in the near future as well. Thank you very much.