 people here, working on Coronavia since we've been working already a long week, but it's actually Saturday, Saturday evening. So I think it's great to see different people here in the room still at this hour in the weekend. So I think that's very nice to see. So thank you all again for being here. Today we have a session here in the Benelux Pavilion hosted by the FAO together with the Netherlands. And the topic will be, of course, the Coronavia Joint Work on Agriculture. I think all of you will know that since you're in this room at this moment. I'm Lukas Dupree. I'm from the Netherlands. And I also do the Coronavia work on behalf of the Netherlands. So it's a pleasure to be here for me as well. It's my first cup working on Coronavia. So a lot of new insights for me and I'm also still learning. So very curious to see also the different interventions that we will have with us tonight. To open this meeting, I would very much like to introduce to all of you our first speaker, which is Mr. Zetuni Uldada, Deputy Director of the Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment at the FAO. Zetuni, can I invite you to stage and the floor is yours. Thanks very much, Lukas. And good evening, everyone. It's nice to see again the Coronavia family. I think we met in various settings. I don't have much to say, except, first of all, to really appreciate what we all been working on on driving this Coronavia agenda forward. Looking at the big picture, what's been happening in the negotiations and also the fact that we are looking to transform agri-food systems to make them more efficient, sustainable and resilient to the climate change. Perhaps in your environment of Coronavia, you may not realize that, but you did actually help raise the profile of agriculture in the UNFCCC. It's the only specific agenda, really, in the climate change. And because of that, it really built that foundation that others came in to actually start talking more about food and agriculture. And what you see today now in COP26 is a huge difference to what happened in previous COPs. It's the first COP, actually, where you see a lot of space for food and agriculture. And the recognition beyond Coronavia that agri-food systems are a critical part of the solution to the climate crisis by diversity loss and sustainable development in general. So really, it's something you should be very proud of, and we definitely appreciate this, especially as we've been with you, of course, all along, providing the space for you to prepare more and to come to the COP. And in this agenda also in FAO, we've been supporting particularly women experts in agriculture and we supported six of them to come in and voice their needs and concerns, particularly from rural areas. But more importantly, to take part in this process and voice their concerns. I think all the workshops and the submissions that were made, obviously, they really helped to raise this agenda as part of the overall objective of ensuring global food security. So the last thing I want to say really is, as I mentioned in the introduction, because we are in this journey of transforming agri-food systems, I see the Coronavia really as an important contributor to designing that transformation and designing this sustainable and climate resilient agriculture as it was captured in the draft conclusions of the Coronavia, and also really try to influence the long-term investment in agriculture. I think all the areas you have in the Coronavia, soil, water management, manure management, livestock, food security, dimensions, all these, of course, they are an important element of this transformation and really would be good, obviously, for this to materialize through the Coronavia. I think in this context, there are a number of constituted bodies, obviously, as you know, within the framework, the UNFCCC framework. And it's important, I think, that the Coronavia also builds those connections with the constituted bodies, including the Finance Committee and others in relation to building capacity, but also loss and damage. They're all interconnected and you cannot have the transformation and you cannot have Coronavia joint work on agriculture being part of that without making those connections. So the creating these interlinkages and the aim is really to help us enhance the action we're looking for and also improving the implementation of the Coronavia. So this is really my last message and I just want to, on behalf of FAO and especially our director is here of the Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment, Edouard Domensor. He's witnessing now the spirit of the Coronavia and how we've been going with you and following you in this. And I'd like to thank Marciel, all of us that you all know him, who's been really working with you on this and the whole team behind. And I really wish you a very good discussion and a good continuation going forward to COP 27 and beyond. But we're here to support you and to be with you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Seydouni. For these opening remarks, it is very great to see how you again mentioned the role also of all of us in raising a profile of agriculture in relation to climate change. So thank you very much. That gives me the opportunity to open the floor to our second speaker, which is Marciel Bernou. Marciel Bernou, all of us know him, I guess, but he's a senior officer of the Natural Resources at FAO and he's been also, of course, leading the work on the Coronavia Joint Work on Agriculture. So Marciel, the floor is yours. OK. Thank you. Thank you. It's fine. OK. I will not be long. It's not if you're short tonight. So I will just be brief to just remember for people that do not are aware of what is Coronavia, what it is. But I can see I recognize a lot of friends of the extended Coronavia family, so most of you are aware, but we have also people that are not aware and we have people online. So really briefly, and perhaps I can use that, OK. So just to remember, what is Coronavia? And I will not read, but just to say this is just one page. But the most important page you ever add in that space in UNFCC allowing to discuss on issues related to agriculture, resilient agriculture and food security dimension. Negotiators have adopted a roadmap. You can see here, here, and basically we are here. Report to COP26 on the progress mail. We have a report. It's not the report of the process. It's the report of the session. This is quite different. The report of that report is postponed a little bit, but it will happen. So we still have plenty of room to discuss. So they see something, perhaps I will be back. Who is involved in the process? So all here, people in the room, mostly a lot of negotiator. I can recognize. So countries, bodies also, the different bodies. And the different bodies, perhaps just to put there. All those bodies. So the only one mentioning some. So there was plenty of bodies, financial mechanism, financial entities, Jeff, GCF. And we have observers that are in the room and we have constituency. So we have a recognized farmer, the constituency, I caress. And we have financial mechanism also in the process. So just to go briefly. But then what next I would say because the process is not ended and depending on the impact the country, the negotiator want to have or the level of ambition they want to have, they will have to address or they can address if they wish so. Or they can activate different building blocks that you have here. So they can discuss, recognize the work done because they did quite a lot of work. Sometime late during the night or early in the morning. They can discuss future topic. They can move more on technical priorities to be addressed on the sub-star. Or move on more the SBIs side on how to implement within the convention agriculture more strongly. So to that, we draft a small paper trying to put the different building blocks that are existing. This is the webpage where you can find a lot of information you are trying to offer to all people interest in the process for them to understand. And perhaps if we can project a small video right now. So this is Odonor that are also supporting why we are here, Odonor because it's not just me. It's a lot of young person very motivated. And now you will see you have some normally. Agriculture are extremely made on one hand. Climate change threatens agriculture, food security and the livelihoods of those who depend on it. But at the same time, it is estimated that our food systems could be responsible for a further global greenhouse gas emissions. Established under the United Nations Framework Prevention and Climate Change in 2017, Colombia joined work on agriculture officially acknowledges a unique role that agriculture can play in tackling climate change. This work has brought UNFF traversing parties from around the world together to discuss a number of areas related to agriculture, climate change and food security. As we approach the end of the program here, Odonor, on the course of the outcomes of this work is deeply resented at the United Nations Climate Change Conference. Although it is difficult to bring it up under the current media discussions, it is possible to identify five categories that could offer various combinations or pathways for action. Parties could identify technical priorities of life where there is consensus or they could determine institutional modalities for their implementation under the convention. They could expand the roadmap to discuss present and new topics. Recognize the work performed so far on Carmillia joint work on how the counter could regain government with no agreement reached. Not all has possibilities demonstrate the same level on which of all efforts. Carmillia would only be a huge success once all these dimensions are referenced and the concrete action is taken. Achieving a more sustainable resilience and food security culture in the face of a worsening climate crisis will take time. However, the end of the Carmillia roadmap provides a new opportunity to take an important step towards meaningful change. So, we have seen the five options. I let you decide where we are. But fortunately, we have the negotiator in the room, so they will say to you, what's next? So, I will thank you so much and I will end my speech here. Thank you for the conclusion. Thank you very much, Marcial. That was a great information again about what we have to do, what we should have done here in Glasgow, what we're going to do moving towards the bond session, which is next year and afterwards the next cup, of course. Thank you very much. That brings us to the second part of the site event and that is actually that we will share some information from the negotiators who have been with us all week negotiating on Coronavia. And it's a pleasure for me to firstly invite Valérie Dermot to the stage. Thank you very much, Valérie. There are two questions, which four panelists, people will address. The first question will be, what are lessons learned from the Coronavia Joint Work on Agriculture in session, from in session workshop and the submissions? And the second question will be, what are the outcomes of Coronavia in Glasgow or what should they be if we look to the future? And what is also missing according to you to the outcomes that we have had so far? Thank you very much and Valérie, the floor is yours. Yes, can you hear me? Yeah, so lessons learned. Yeah, maybe we all have different point of view, but first it may seem very uninteresting, but I think that we learned that the process, the framing of the process is very interesting, is very important because before Coronavia, we had workshop and during Coronavia, we had workshop, but the differences in Coronavia, we also had what we called a consideration phase. So it means when we have a workshop, then we have a report and then we have time dedicated to discuss the workshop report and it allowed us to have some outcomes that we didn't have in the past. So first, the framing, I think it's really important and maybe we could even go further in the future if we go on and have even more structured maybe consideration phase to allow some maybe practical exchanges or, voilà. Then I think lesson learned, we learned that a lot is already done. We knew it, but we all knew part of it and then it allowed constituted bodies, financial entities, parties to have a bit more, the global view, it's not easy to have the global view, but a more global view on what is done and a lot is done and we can see that there are many people that have really a good will to do a lot, but for example, we learned recently that only a very, very small amount of the money that is going to agriculture finance, finance going to climate agriculture is going to small-scale farmers. So maybe it's not really linked to the number of people they represent. So we thought that maybe there could be a need to coordinate the work of the constituted bodies on how it is spent also on the technical content because everybody has its way to monitor the emissions, so the adaptations, the money that goes to adaptation mitigation and everybody has its technical priorities also, so maybe Coornivia or another name for the future could be also a place to have something harmonized, discussed, validated under the UNF Triple C, of course with the FAO and all the technical support that we get and it could be maybe something more coherent and the outcomes of Glasgow I think we can be quite proud because it's the first time we have really technical content, we had some technical content from the consideration phase of the report on the soil and on evaluation of adaptation but it was really one sentence and this time we go really further and what lesson learned also is also that the more we go, the more it looks like the vision is converging the vision between everybody's different parties and the financial entities and even actors outside the UNF Triple C, it seems like the synergies between mitigation and adaptation seem to be, even if the names are not given, mitigation, or it's something during the negotiation, everybody has a position, even if the names are not said, it seems that we are going a bit to that. Also, especially here this year with the nature being really a central topic for the UK, it seems that the convergence between climate and biodiversity is really becoming like a mainstream so that's really important because it leads to different technical priorities also bit by bit and what should or could be the outcome? We have some technical outcome now but they are just, we noted that, we noted that. For example, we have very good things on the optimal use of nutrient, organic fertilizer, we have, of course, many stuff on the vulnerability of agriculture and livestock to climate change, many stuff also on the national circumstances, the context-specified priorities, et cetera. Many things also on mitigation, on the global aiming to reduce emission in livestock, for example, ending hunger, et cetera. So the systematic approach also, inclusive approaches, so many stuff that we could build on and what we could, I don't know, it's always partied river and et cetera, everybody has his view but maybe we could carry on these and, for example, ask to the constituted bodies and financial entities to take them into account in the world program, it could be a way or there could be new ways also to think and it could be viewed a bit like non-regret options or recommendations or a bit even like safeguards, some principles that could be really like the bottom line of each project in the future. So we could do many things and it seems that this week the spirit was really constructive, positive and it was quite fluid, the negotiation, so maybe it can give us hope for the future. One more question. You mentioned a positive spirit we had the last couple of days and also some very nice outcomes we've had. Looking forward to Bon and also to Egypt where the next couple will be hosted. What are your expectations on the progress we will make over there? I think we still need lots of work because we had three Mondays to do this week and we only finished nearly one of them, not totally. But it was constructive, it's better to do only one but do it quite well maybe. So we need some time to discuss the future ways because we learn also that each party has its view. So maybe we can ask the failure to help us and give us space to talk, to exchange on the future, on the reporting back of the whole process and the future, it could be really interesting. So yeah, how to carry this technical content, how to use it the best and what could be useful for the future. And if I may, for example, there is one topic that is always risen up and for now there is not a common view. So I don't speak in the name of European Union but just in the name of France we are quite involved in agroecology and the term has been used many, many times in the workshops, in the workshop reports and we know that there are many parties that have different views. So maybe the FAO could help us to really have a common understanding on the different concepts that there are, there is a regenerative agriculture, nature-based solution, climate-smart agriculture. If we could share at least the same view, maybe at the end we could have the same direction because sometimes we seem to have different direction but it's just that we don't use the same word, so that can happen, so that could maybe help. Thank you very much Valérie. That brings me to the next step and that is for me to invite a second speaker to the floor. It's my pleasure to present to you Mrs. Carla Menazota. Carla is a negotiator on Coronivia from Costa Rica and Carla is also a representative of Placa and Placa is the platform of Latin America and the Caribbean for climate action on agriculture. Thank you very much, Carla. You hear me? Yes, good. Well, thank you very much. It's my pleasure to be here and the Coronivia family. This is great for me and of course for Costa Rica to be part of that great family with a big issue that we have, I think is agriculture need to be in this climate, climate change convention forever. I know it's ambition, but if we obtain the white black to be here, we need to take care. We need to work together. Like my colleague explained a little bit how is that dynamic of that sessions? I don't want to repeat that she said because most of you know, this is interesting. I will share with you my point of view like a Carla Costa Rica because for us was really interesting and I will like to exchange a chair with you our experience. I work with the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock in Costa Rica and we decide to be part of Coronivia like a Minister of Agriculture and Livestock three years ago. I think this is a first lesson learning that I want to share with you. We need to be part of our agriculture and livestock public policy in our countries in order to make sense that the decision that we talk here in order to back to our countries to work in congruent actions because it's so important also that communication in the public policy because it's a big challenge, environmental and agriculture ministers or sectors has a big challenge in our country. Like he explained I'm the co-president of Plaka in Latin American and Caribbean countries and this is a big issue over there. I can't imagine how the issue in the whole world is. So another thing really important of course when we start in Coronivia family like a Minister of Agriculture and Livestock remind me the process in my country. I know it's a small country but we have a big heart in agriculture to improve lessons, to improve knowledge, to improve technology, scientists, data. Costa Rica start with this. Costa Rica is engaged with the agriculture and livestock in sustainable way since many years ago. We work together with our producers in order to be sustainable in many activities. I wish I would mention just five. Livestock coffee is so famous in my country. Rice, sugarcane and bananas. We already start to work with the producer with that in that topics because in the economic way they represent a lot of income and exportation for us. So this is so important to work. The first of all, of course, we have many crops in this tropical country but to start to work with them in the same line that Coronavias is going on. For me when I hear, when I learn about how is Coronavia in the line was so familiar because we are working with them in mitigation, adaptation. Soil, livestock, water, socio-economy dimensions are so important. I always say if we are working in agriculture, we are working with people, farmers, women's and men's, don't forget it. If you are here in that, they can imagine this of course but we need to think how implement that things, how to explain to the producers because at the end it's for them. It's difficult for that reason we need to be together. We need to be here because there are many policy that change a lot and also many set of a culture in our countries need to establish a road. In Costa Rica, we decide to have a national strategy in low-carbon products with that crops that I told you and livestock too in order to try to implement action in soils, in inventory, greenhouse inventory. And another thing really important here is the future of Coronavia. So make me sense to me the future of our national strategy, how to scale, maybe in a big dimension, you know? But I think, I don't know if I can answer the next question, is it right? I think for the future of Coronavia because it's my pump of you and with all my respect, I have some comments that I write for you. We need to scale. Where should we start, right? Do you know most of you, you know, discuss about this, like Marshall explain us to us. So, but we need to scale. We need to think about maybe it's not the world. I hope we are not in a conversation now. This is a big challenge too, how to talk. What kind of work we need to say in order that the different regions in the world can understand the same? This is a big mistake, a big issue because sometimes we can make mistake and it's not, you know, our fault. Maybe sometimes we understand different. And this is a big challenge but it's nice. It's nice to understand this. So, to the next steps, in my pump of you, I repeat it. We need or I think we need to have a plan of implementation like a, maybe we call like a program or work or plan or like to catalyze the implementation of actions. This is so important. I think we know, like my colleague said, we have many things talking about different strategies but now we need to do it. We need to implement awareness to our farmers now. We need to start to work on our farmers in the line of Coronavias. I don't know if every country here in Coronavias family work with the producers in soil matters. In livestock matters like we talk. It's a big issue. It's not easy to start. We have more than 10 years try to work in that line and we are step by step. And also catalyze financial resources to reduce the vulnerability. We need to go address on it now because it's a urgent action. You see, we start to change and talk. We are technique, well, I am techniques and expert in agriculture, but we need to transform the worship results in actions and to finish, of course, we are agreed to promote scientific discussions but based on real situations of experience because this is the essence also of Coronavia. To take decisions based on our experience. I know we need to go in that line. Of course, promoted development, international cooperation, this is so important. You know what is how? We need to decide how and of course to contribute to build resilience and the farm level. My apologies because my hat is extension service. We need to work together with the farmers. We need to work in that resilience with them. With that scientific knowledge to reduce for their language. We need to work in financial resources, catalyze in order to work with directly with the ministers of the culture and livestock because we want to implement directly that funds to them farmers. Sorry, we don't want actors in the middle, you know? Because sometimes the funds pass for many, many institutions and at the end, what is the benefits to the producer? I work with different international corporations but I think the fund that the international cooperation has to work in agriculture need to guarantee go directly to the farmers because when you study the percent of the amount, the big amount, what is in the farm level is a low percentage, I guarantee. So continue in the future. I think we have a big challenge but I need to be, I think we need to scale but with experience, with projects, what we call projects but maybe it's not the international word to say but it's like projects, implementation, work plan. It's like we need to implement the action that we are discussing in our workshops. So Angkoronivia need to be more and more years forever in the climate change convention. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Carla and especially for bringing the Costa Rica perspective to all of us and also showing how the work we are doing here links to what happens in Costa Rica. Thank you very much. And before going to the third speaker I would like to remind all of you that at the end of the session we have a Q&A so I invite all of you already to think of questions for that to one of our speakers and also to our virtual participants of course to raise questions and you can also do that in the chat box. That brings me to the third speaker of tonight. It's a pleasure for me to introduce to you Veronica Ndeitu from Kenya. Veronica, the floor is yours. It's already there, thank you. The experience is from all the lessons that we have learned from the Coronavia process. As the process started and as we come towards the end of this process it is good to acknowledge or we learned that there is quite plenty of information from the presentations that were made by the experts, presentations made by the constituted bodies, presentations made even by the parties themselves on what is happening, the technologies, the innovations and the practices that are happening in different places gave us an impression that if we were to implement all this that is happening in various segregated areas then the dream of the Coronavia would be achieved. So then the question remains, how do we make that happen? So really the kind of experience we have had through ensuring that all the topics of discussion under the Coronavia and joint work on agriculture we had at least experiences happening in one place or another, organizations that have been implementing, our constituted bodies have also have had experiences in different areas and so that tells us that there is plenty that we need to exchange even as we advance the Coronavia towards the other end now of implementation, we have actually plenty that we have to implement, we only need to ensure that we scale it up. A lot of work went into the end of the process into the works and I think it is good to appreciate that much as all of us may differ in opinion, in the way we express ourselves, in the way we define things, but one of the lessons we need to learn here is that a lot of us, all of us had the goodwill and the spirit to advance the issues of agriculture within the UNFCC and we in Kenya are happy to see that really that is the spirit. The other thing that I would say that we learned is that the countries, the parties, the observers express their wishes or even I should call them wishes, but maybe there are perceptions in the way they would want issues of agriculture implemented and those also are contained in the submissions that we all made saying how do we foresee the Coronavia being implemented, how do we foresee the Coronavia program or the Coronavia progress and so there is another wealth of experience from all the submissions that gives us an indication of where we all want to go and I think it is good that we really delve into that and look at what it is and I don't think we really need to bother again to look for what we need to do because it's all there in all the submissions we made or the workshop reports that we have had as has been said looking at yesterday's outcome is that we have had a very detailed kind of discussions, the reports of which are also contained in our or in the Coronavia roadmap and discussions. Then what we would say is that as the Coronavia roadmap gets to its end, of course the push and has been said by the earlier speakers is that to see the implementation take place, the anticipation of all of us, particularly those of us in the developing countries is that all these things that we are saying, all these things that we have been saying in these workshops are better at the farm level, are better off with the farmers and because much as we continue to discuss still the farmers face the impacts of climate change, they continue, their vulnerabilities continue increasing and it may not really be, this is just not the end but the beginning, the discussions and what we need to do, the end of the roadmap now is the beginning of our farmers seeing what it is that we have been discussing, seeing the results of these discussions going to them and so that they can actually benefit from all these discussions that we have been having and even if we say that whichever the outcome that we get because we are going to get an outcome and I believe we are going to get a very variable outcome gulging from the positive indications that all the parties are expressing in the Coronavia family, but these outcomes, the good language that we have been crafting day in, day out and using very long hours, that good language is not useful if it is not experienced by the farmer and if it doesn't transform our farming systems, our food systems into something that is useful to us and to of course us we are included because even if we are not farmers, we are consumers, we are all dependent on the farmer so really these things we need to take into consideration that implementation is key and this is why then we have been talking about since Coronavia is the only program under which agriculture is discussed within the UNFCC, then what we need to be able to acknowledge is that it's good to have a decision, UNFCC decisions, if really we want to look at agriculture, take agriculture seriously as it is within the UNFCC so that then we can be able to ensure that there is implementation, so we require a cop decision that would be able to ensure that there is fast tracking of implementation of the outcomes of the Coronavia work because we need to enhance the resilience of the farmers so that doesn't remain a discussion. We need to ensure that our farming systems are responsive to the impacts of climate change. We need to ensure that agriculture continues doing what it ought to be, providing food security. Agriculture needs to adapt to climate change and agriculture also needs to do that in a slow carbon manner as possible and so all these discussions that we have been had all the approaches that have come into the flow, the agroecology, the CSA and all the other approaches that are really necessary to ensure that there's increased productivity and also we are enhancing the resilience of our production systems that need to be able to get into be implemented. We need to remove the barriers to access of the appropriate climate technologies. These technologies as I've said, we really discussed a lot of things and I know there's a real world of experience but others that were not even discussed in the coronavirus but do farmers access them? What can we do to ensure that the barriers to access to these technologies and innovations are available to the farmers in the different areas because we still need to reduce the poverty that our farmers suffer and we need to be able to empower our farmers to actively engage in climate action so that they are also aware that the climate is changing and whatever they do they ensure that they are responsive to the climate change. We also need to enhance the capacities of the extension providers, knowledge generation also and we also need to ensure that there's proper dissemination of whatever technologies and practices that are existing and that requires scaling up of the best practices that we have been discussing. So this again, just like my colleagues have said requires international cooperation. It requires a lot of capacity building at regional, national and the very local level and again we require technical support because like I've just said that a lot of the discussions like they are happening in some place by being implemented by certain experts being implemented by certain organizations but then they are not all over. So we need to be able to validate these technologies, these practices in the various areas and to be able to scale them up for implementation in the specific areas based on the circumstances of each one of our countries and each one of our local circumstances. Then that of course will not happen when there is no financial support because how do we scale up? How do we move, I mean how do we move the technologies from the documents and make them happen practically at the farm level? We will require financial support that countries also need, the country sorry need also to be able to identify the key areas of the key implementation areas based on their own circumstances, based on their own priorities so that we can be able to then base our requests or our requirements for support on these kind of our needs so that as we move towards implementation it is going to move from a general discussion to specific discussions that include what do countries want to do, what do organizations want to do. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Veronica for this perspective from Kenya and also again mentioning which has been mentioned before, the spirit to advance which we have seen last week and also afterwards mentioning especially bringing what we discussed here to the farmers. That brings me to our last speaker of tonight. It's an honor for me to present to you Mrs. Prijambaraj Joshi from Nepal. The floor is yours again. You hear me? Thank you so much. Thank you Organizer for providing me this opportunity to present my views, my perspectives and to represent Nepal in front of Khorinivya family. So I feel so fortunate that I'm trying to say it. I feel so fortunate that I'm here to represent my country. So how I will present is I would not like to repeat how our negotiations went and what kind of discussions we had and what we learned through all the process. I would just like to present in short, national perspective of Nepal regarding Khorinivya KZWA. So Nepal in Nepal, the weather pattern is drastically changing and the agriculture sector is the first to get hit because our livelihood depends on agriculture. Most of the population, like more than one third of the population is dependent on agriculture and agriculture contribute 27% of our GDP. So it is very important for us to response the climate change related hedges in agriculture. Yeah, and I want to say that climate change is not the challenge for the future, but it's a problem we are currently facing. So it needs urgent and immediate response. So, but agriculture is often overlooked in climate change discussion. That is what I feel. So thankfully, we have KZWA, the KZWA initiative starts from COP 23. So we already have six workshops since then. And back to Nepal, we need to produce more and better. More and better, like we need to have more production with limited available input and limited water available. So for this government and other stakeholders, concerned stakeholders, they are working on it. They are addressing climate change through their policies and program, but the work coverage is so very, very much low, I must say. Some projects are just the piloting kind of projects. So it needs to scale up. And it's not that we haven't identified the technologies that can address climate change hedges. We have been different piloting projects by the government, by other stakeholders. But what we need is, again, we need to scaling up. Scaling up the technologies which have already proven successful in the local scenario. So I want to put forth the idea that we need resources. We need resources so that the maximum farmers, I must say all the farmers can get benefited. So our stake, Nepal's stake regarding KJWA is, yeah, it should be continued and established as a constituted body or committee under the convention so that more bold and transformative interventions can be done. And yeah, we require long-term financial support which are already discussed as any other LDC countries. And yeah, technology development and transfer, capacity enhancement, scaling up the technologies, those are our, these are our priorities. Nepal has, as I said, Nepal has started some initiatives like climate smart agriculture and agro advisory services, LDC. So again, the scaling up is the issue here. So future topic, we want to include like a nature-based solution for the mountain ecosystem. We have that. So these are the, this is the first future topic Nepal recognized. And the second is scaling up the proven technologies, research and development of the technologies. For example, development of the varieties. So the, for example, development of rice varieties, rice is our main food crop. So we face different problems in rice crop, like sometimes submergence during the heavy rainfall or sometimes drought. So the development of the submergence resistant varieties or maybe the drought resistant varieties, those kinds of technologies. And one important issue is the human resource. Experts regard in climate change, both in research and extension. So we need to build a critical mass of the experts in research and extension both. So the, finally I would like to say the work done by SOFSTRA and SPI and KZWE is appreciable, of course. And progress regarding workshop went well. Though Nepal would like to see the results in the ground, in the ground, in the farmers level. So implementing works of outcomes, taking into the consideration of nascent specific circumstances. I must say nascent specific circumstances because like, I think almost all of you were in the negotiation over there the past few days when we were going word by word, like because we all have our own priorities. As LDCs, we were really concerned about the word mitigation, which was, yeah, like they're so, so, so we, the consideration to the nascent specific circumstances is must as agriculture system is varied and Nepal as LDC, we have subsistence level of farmers. So the strategies for adaptation, mitigation and resilience also vary for the varied circumstances in different countries. And the negotiation of COP26 is done. Hopefully in COP27, we will get, we will come up with similar or say same understanding and we will move towards the same direction with the help of other supporting organizers as well. And we will see the action in the ground to the farmers level. That is what we are really waiting for. Otherwise just doing workshop and finding out issues and discussing does not help much. So this is what I like to say from Nepal. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the final intervention. And I think we went a bit over time, but I think we're also here with a group of people who used to sit in the room and talk for hours and hours. So I think we managed quite well to do it within this timing. Thank you very much, everyone. These are wonderful contributions by all of you. Thank you very much. That brings us to the final part, which is the Q&A session. I'm not sure if there are any questions coming in. I see one hand raised over here. So the floor is yours. Can you hear me? Yeah. Okay, that's good. A lot of suspense with my question. Thank you for waiting. So I have a question about the future of Coronivia. And this year we had the food system summer and currently the Coronivia joint work and agriculture is, as the name suggests, focused on agriculture. So I'm wondering whether there's been any consideration of having a more food system focused platform at UNFCCC, whether that is Coronivia or something else that extends beyond agriculture to also include food loss and wastes and diets as considerations at the UNFCCC. So I'm just wondering if this is something that is being considered or discussed or what the negotiators here and others think about such a proposal. Thank you for your question. Is there anyone specific who you would like to ask that question? One of the four speakers, for example. Anybody that would like to answer it. Anybody would like to answer, okay, thank you. Is anybody willing to answer this question? Does anybody has any view on that? Valérie? We can answer jointly with Carla. We have it two times in our SB conclusion. I suppose you have read it and you know it by heart. We have sustainable food production system and food system in our conclusion. So it's really something, yes, that is quite also mainstream now to have a global view because it's quite common now to realize that we need to have the global view. And so in the food system, you have loss and waste, you have the consumption, you have everything. And something I'd like to add is we remark that that is the food system or sustainable food production system like we mentioned in our document is recognizing like a priority. We recognize it like a priority, fundamental priority. And also we recognize that it is urgent to include it our climate change dimension and agriculture. So it's included. It's in our hands, it's in our documents and it's in our responsibility too. And there is also food and nutrition security two times. Yes, yes. Thank you very much. Any addition, Veronica or no? Yes. Thank you. I think the question is also like anything that is not covered within the Coronavirus as you may want to have it, there has been the call as we go into the future topics. If of course observers and parties have been asked to make their recommendations on what they think is not within the topics that have been discussed that they can be included in the future topics. I guess that window is still there. So you can still have a topics that you think are seriously missing in the discussions and then they could be included for future topics. And that then would mean when the decision is finally made in COP 27, the issue of what is the future for Coronavirus means then to include the discussions you need to continue because the topics are not exhaustive. Thank you. Thank you very much. I hope that answers the question. Perfect. If I'm looking only to the online questions and Marcia helped me a bit with that, we saw one question coming in on the fact that some might be afraid that agriculture might not be on the agenda again or that it's a topic which is forgotten if we look to climate change especially. Questions to the speakers we've had today. How do you think that observers for example can advocate that agriculture stays an agenda item if we look to climate change? Do you have any reflections on that? It can be also also negotiators in the room. There are many in the room. How they can make sure that agriculture remains on the agenda here so that we do not lose this topic? They can make submissions at any time and say that it's really a priority and even give their more specific priorities. And they usually express also in the rooms during the informal sessions, during the plenaries. I think they can express easily. Thank you. Thank you for that. I hope that answers the questions. Thank you. I want to just add that, okay, I take the mic. Thank you. Okay. Okay. I just want to add that agriculture should remain on the agenda, but I think there is need to recognize that agriculture happens way back down there on the ground and that how to recognize it at the international process like this requires that there is an organic link there is voices from out there, there are best practices from down there that inform global processes such as this one. My thinking is that it is important that as we think and moving forward, it is necessary that we have that interaction and we get the farmers to play a role in informing this process. And I think it has been made clear by many speakers here that we need to get these ideas tested by farmers and let them respond. And I think this is a challenge that I pushed to particularly FAO was convinced us, how do we try to have this interaction in order to make it relevant and in order to make it easier for the observers and the civil society to appreciate that yes, what we are seeing on the ground is what is being mentioned here. And I think this is the reality of what we want to see coming out of the negotiations and also the stakeholders being part of it and not just negotiators talking about themselves, governments talking about themselves. How do we get the practical reality of these ideas being tested, being provided by lessons from the ground? And my view is that we would like to recognize the national circumstances. They divide between developed country farmers and least developed country farmers. We are arguing about mitigation and adaptation but we are just talking about words but the farmers who are affected and who are causing this are not here. Their voices are not being heard. Their situation is not being projected directly. And I think this is what we need to solve in order to enhance agriculture in the whole negotiation process and see that the clear picture is put forward. Thank you. Steven Moair from Uganda. Thank you. Negotiator. Thank you very much. Looking around, any more questions? Yes, over here. Marcian, two questions still. Super. So partly to what you were saying just there. How do you see Coronavia acting to hold the largest polluters accountable in agriculture through mitigation while not impacting those that are not causing as much emissions or impact on the landscape and more pushing them towards adaptation? How do you draw that boundary? Or how do you not hold someone accountable to mitigate when they're not having that much impact? Thank you. Do you want to respond to that question or someone else? Veronica, go ahead. Thank you. Just like in any of the other negotiations, and I think here every speaker that has spoken has talked about national circumstances. And this is what holds everyone responsible for their actions. So that if you are a major emitter in your agriculture, then your activities, and that's why we don't become so prescriptive to every nation that we have to do this. It is that every nation needs to do the activities in agriculture that ensure that in addition to increasing productivity and resilience to the agriculture systems, you are reducing emissions. Of course, reducing those emissions will be based on how much are you emitting already or how much are you not. So that those of the countries that are not emitting much, then still ensure that they do not increase their emissions as they produce. But again, those countries are also emitting a lot. They ensure also, because they still have to produce for their population, but again, they still also need to address the emissions. So really it's an issue of where are you and where do you want to go? Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much Veronica. We're passing time, but John, I saw you had one more question. Is it, no? Okay, go ahead if you want to. That's a final one. Yeah, my name is Yunmang Narhagan. I'm from Norway. So I was also involved in the negotiations. And I think the reflections from Veronica to the question was relevant. This is not the place for litigation or to hold like the world holds anybody to account. This is not the place for that. So this is a party-driven process where we must try to make our part and take our, as a party, as a country, we must involve with each other and live up to our responsibilities. And that is how it works. When it comes to whether there is a chance that agriculture is left out of the agenda, and that's when I raised my hand, I think there shall be very good arguments to leave it out of the UNFCCC. Actually, it is recognized already in the main objectives of the convention and also in the paragraph two of the convention and also in paragraph two of the Paris Agreement as one of the central objectives that we join forces to control climate change that is actually to maintain food security as an indispensable issue for all humanity. So obviously food security and therefore also agriculture is actually at the core why we are here, that we want to still have our home in agriculture. So that is a response to that. Thank you, John. And I think that's also a very beautiful remark to end with this session. It's already 7.30, so thank you very much all of you for being here and especially a big thanks to all of the speakers we had today. So perhaps one other round of applause for them and then we're all good to go, I would say. Thank you very much.