 Thank you very much. And thanks for this invitation from UrbanAge to address the initial arguments and findings from a report that I have just recently completed for the International Resource Panel, which is very convened by UNEP. I come from the Global South. I'm based at a center at Stellenbosch University. And I'm a social scientist. And I'm a social scientist who's been involved in governance, informality, urban culture, urban dynamics, particularly on the African continent but globally for the last three decades. But in the last few years, I've become interested in the materiality of cities, and in particular the implications of future urbanization. So the work that I'm going to be talking about is, what's happening here? The work that I'm going to be talking about is is entitled The Resource Requirements of Future Urbanization, compiled by a team of people from various parts of the world that are coordinated over the last three years, including social lattice here in the panel. And it builds on a report published in 2013 called City Level De-Coupling, which Jean-Claude was involved in launching in Nairobi, which essentially attempted to take the basic approach of the International Resource Panel, which is to apply material flow analysis to an understanding of the global economy and how to decouple growth and well-being from resource use over the decades to 2050, and to apply that to cities. And it's an important task for a social scientist to address, because it's very interesting to me that in the literature on urbanization, in particular the literature that addresses the UN projection that the urban population is going to double between 2010 and 2050, the question is, what are, where are the resources for this going to come from? In the three years 2011 to 2013, China used more cement than the US used in the whole of the 20th century. It used more steel in a five-year period at the same time than the US used in the whole of the 20th century. It's still got one or 200 million to go. India's got 400 million to go. Africa's got 800 million to go. Where are the resources for this doubling of the urban population going to come from? And amazingly, in the literature, this question is not addressed. And this is what we attempted to do in this report. And what we apply is urban metabolism, which is just simply thinking of a transition from a linear metabolism, a large quantity of resources into cities to build stocks and then through to waste to a more circular metabolism where through resource efficiency, you require less, you circulate more, you have less waste, etc. The implications of this framework is that we set up a first scenario, which was a business as usual scenario, using DMC, domestic material consumption, which is the standard metric in urban metabolic analysis. And what we show is that in 2010, the total consumption measured in DMC, domestic material consumption of resources in 2010, was 40 billion tons. And that's 60% of the total DMC of the global economy. If we run cities, businesses usual, with the same resource intensive infrastructures and the continuation of de-densification at minus 2% per annum, what we're looking at is more than a doubling of this to 85 billion tons to an average of roughly 13 tons per capita in highly unequal urban environments. The international resource panel proposed in the lead up to the adoption of the SDGs, a target of what a sustainable world would look like equivalent to the IPCC's 2 tonne world, a 2 tonne carbon world of 6 to 8 tons per capita, which is pretty radical stuff given that the average North American, for example, is consuming about 30 to 35 tons per capita on average. But if that target was achieved in cities, it would reduce by half the total resource requirements. And that really sets the framework for the work that we then set out to do. The business as usual scenario takes all regions into a corridor of between 9 and 15 tons per capita. The target needs to be 6 to 8 tons per capita. That's the purpose of this exercise and to see whether we can get there. If you look at the urban land implications, that's already been referred to. De-densification business as usual means going up to 2.5 million square kilometers from the current one. But as you'll see from this diagram, it's Africa and Asia, which are the big drivers, which go up to more than 40% of that on a business as usual basis. Now, there are three challenges that arise from this work. The first is strategic intensification to create a network of high density nodes interconnected with efficient and affordable transit. We don't use the word densification. Secondly, resource efficient urbanism via infrastructure reconfigurations. Basically, how do you do infrastructures differently and entrepreneurial modes of urban governance to foster and promote and replicate and take to scale the extraordinary flowering of urban experimentation that we see happening across the world? In this morning's panel, we've got a few glimpses of that from the great cities of Paris and Barcelona. On the first challenge, the classic picture from work by LSE but also from Sir Sir Lat's work of what happens if you sprawl outwards like Atlanta or go high density like Barcelona without building towers. Sir Sir Lat's work shows that the economic efficiency of higher densities is much greater. The amount of resources in the roads and the pipes and the infrastructures is much higher. So, strategic intensification in Sir Sir Lat's work is if you take high density nodes as your focus, energy efficient buildings, maximum use of energy and behavior change, you can actually sum this up in a multiplicative way rather than in an additive way in order to come to a tenfold reduction in energy use compared to business as usual. And this is the kind of approach that we explore in greater detail in the report. What that means is having the kind of design criteria for limiting sprawl that has already been referred to by Jean Clauss in terms of average densities, not a good idea because it takes you to compact cities rather in strategic intensification around high density nodes. A minimum of 15,000 people because square kilometer, narrow streets, short blocks, not necessarily super blocks and I mean not necessarily towers, 30% coverage of street, yes, 80 to 100 intersections and so on and so forth. If we look at infrastructures, we built a scenario using 84 cities. We looked at energy efficient buildings, bus rapid transit systems, district energy systems and zero waste systems. We subjected them to a life cycle analysis based on the most comprehensive survey of the LCA literature and came to the following conclusion that it is possible even without densification to significantly improve resource consumption of between 24 and 47%. If you make a substantial transition with high penetration levels of these new infrastructure technologies but with densification you can increase that to 36 to 40%, 54% compared to business as usual, if you combine resource efficient infrastructures with densification. So this suggests that it is possible but it's not going to come about through some grand plan, it's going to come about through supporting urban experimentation and this diagram just as a way that we have tried to capture the literally hundreds, thousands of urban experiments around the world on a matrix between focusing on integrated networks through to just focusing on one particular network and focusing on new build or retrofit and these are just some of the examples of these urban experiments, some of them not so great like the elite enclaves on the top left and a corner. But what this all suggests is that what we should be focusing is not grand scenarios but how we build, how we exploit the evolutionary potential of the present rather than this favorite hobby of the chattering classes of constructing scenarios and reverse engineering to the present for the elite few who think they control the world. So for me urban experimentation rarely matters and there is a definition that is useful, an inclusive practice-based challenge-led initiative designed to promote system innovation through social learning and the conditions of deep uncertainty and ambiguity. There is no getting away from that but what kind of governance framework makes that possible and we did a couple of case studies and the overall conclusion building on the work of Mariana Matsukato's book The Entrepreneurial State is that we need to move from corporatist urban governance which gives a privilege place to business in setting the urban agenda to an entrepreneurial mode of urban governance which defines a clear role for the state particularly in R&D and innovation and risk taking during the early phases of the innovation cycle to take these urban experimentations to scale and give them a certain directionality. This is a very different mode of urban governance to the corporatist mode that we've seen during the neoliberal era and the managerialist mode that we've seen during the Keynesian era and the clientelistic mode that we've seen in some of the more corrupted contexts certainly on my continent. For me, this is what it means. This is what hope means. It means making hope possible rather than despair convincing and that's what I see in the emergent experimentations around some of these big global challenges and the research does show that it is possible. There are ways of thinking about this resource challenge in a constructive way. Thanks very much.