 Je pense que c'est parce que si on ne craint pas le landscape, on va savoir ce qu'il faut faire. Et si on ne craint pas le landscape, parce que tout le monde est vivant dans le landscape, on va avoir un problème sérieux, en termes de 20 ou 30 ans, où on va vivre quand le landscape sera déplétenu. Nous avons commencé cette recherche sur le landscape C4. Nous voulions vraiment revenir, et nous avons commencé avec quelque chose qui s'appelle l'assessment multidisciplinaire. Nous avons fondamentally tried to answer a very simple question. What matters in the landscape for local people? And then when you start to ask this question, then you are surprised by the answer. And the complexity and how much people are using in the landscape, how much they are depending on things that are in fact exist and are not substitutable. And that's what C4 is bringing is trying to develop a framework for people to understand what it means, managing the landscape level. And also trying to operationalise that. Well, the research C4 made about indigenous groups or local communities and in fact started with the whole idea, basic idea, that if people don't have control of their own land, they have no interest whatsoever to preserve it in the long term. So it becomes what everybody has been calling the tragedy of the common photo. If I don't harvest this resource, someone else and eventually not from the community will harvest it and it will be lost. So I rather take it for myself and eventually use the income to invest in something else. Indigenous people and then we are going to sign an MOU with the group this afternoon and that's basically because I think that we need to bring them at the table. As Roberto said yesterday, I like the court. If you don't sit at the table, you end up on the menu. So I quite like this court and I think it's true for everybody. So that was the beginning and that involved also in other issues like, okay, is it the case that something that is managed by local people is always better managed than it's managed by the states? And the answer is complex. It's not the same thing in Latin America, in Africa, but overall what seems to appear as a sort of a general pattern is that a mixed system with a state creating an enabling environment and a local community having rights on some of the resources and being able to access the right is the best combination. The way the youth community has been involved in the global anti-emporeur, I think it's evolving from volunteers that will come and work with us because they are interested by the topi. The real involvement, the real seat on the table together with the indigenous group and the scientists and the policy makers and the voice. So that's where we are moving. We have made a lot of progress and I hope that we are going to go further. In a sense it's the same way that you want to give the indigenous people the rights on their land. You want to give to the youth control on their future. First really if you see if we can create a movement around this idea of the sustainable landscape management. If we want to have some action on the ground that we can say have been the result of the landscape forum if we want to see a new partnership that will be the result of people participating in these conferences. If you want to see if we can see more youth interested in pursuing this type of work when they grow up instead of trying to be a banker in the city. I think that will be that. Ultimately we will be judged on if something happened on the ground. We need to address the problem of restoration now but also we need to ask why is it degraded in the first instance because if we don't stop the degradation we will be running till the end of the time after the degradation and the restoration. I guess that will be a huge success for the global landscape forum. If thanks to these collaborations, thanks to these discussions people really managed to tackle at the same time let's stop degradation and let's restore what is degraded. That's one example. How is it going to be done? Is it going to be thousands of initiatives are in there? One globe I have no idea. So that's not for me to decide. It's for the people that participate to the landscape forum. Why do we need science to inform the debate? Because that's the purpose of science. The purpose of science is discovery. But then it's not enough. What do you do with this discovery so that in fact the whole idea is that progress. And you can translate progress in terms of technological progress or progress in terms of people are better. They have a better life. They live in a more friendly environment. And in the end we are living on one planet and we keep this planet healthy. Why science matters? Because knowledge matters. Without knowledge there is ignorance. With ignorance there is intolerance. With intolerance we have all the fanatism you want in the world.