 Okay, Christine, you have the floor? Well, thank you very much and good afternoon. I'm Christine Paddock and I direct C4's research on forests and livelihoods. And I together with you heard six really exciting presentations from each of our six panelists. I do need to say that John Holdren needed to leave us because of urgent business, I assume, more urgent than sitting on our panel. But we have heard, I think, all six of these talks, I think you all found very informative, very exciting, each from a different viewpoint, each based on distinct experiences, using different tools, different approaches. And I think that that would be enough. I think that was very enriching to all of us. And if we were to end there, it would be enough for all of us. But as many of our speakers have actually pointed out, we can't afford in trying to really affect policy on something as complex, as sustainable development, as improving livelihoods, as contributing to the health of landscapes that include forests. We can't afford to be just a single voice. We can't afford to use one viewpoint. We can't afford to base our work on just one set of experiences. And actually many of our speakers here are those who have already done that, who have learned to integrate many experiences, have learned to integrate many people in their science and in the policy-relevant science that they do and in the recommendations that they can make. So let's just continue this a little bit now and join in a conversation and not only a conversation between among our panelists, but also a conversation with you. So I expect that pretty soon we'll get the questions that we're going to pose to our panel and that we're going to discuss among ourselves as a panel. But first, I'd like to give each one of our panelists a very short time, maybe two to three minutes to give us a little bit of their reflections on what their other and what their colleagues have said and what has actually come out from the integration of the various things that we heard. So I guess maybe beginning with Carlos, since you've been sitting here and hearing most of them for the longest, please, we would appreciate. But very brief, two to three minutes because we are running a bit over time. Yes, thanks a lot. Yes, it was illuminating to hear different perspectives. Let me just say I've known some of the people here then and Eduardo for many decades actually to tell the truth. And it's interesting because I guess if I put together their two talks, it shows really the dilemmas that we are facing in Brazil. On one hand, yes, innovation is central. In fact, the ministry work in 2011 put the eye, it's now Minister of Science, Technology, innovation is recognized to be a very important element of this development strategy. And I could not disagree with one thing that Dan mentioned about ways of constructing a sustainable future for the Amazon. Yes, those good success stories can be translated to other tropical countries. Intestification, yes, Cheryl, this is the way to go about tropical agriculture. On the other hand, if you listen to Eduardo, then you saw that there are a lot of mismatches. This only innovation driven development and intensification, agricultural productivity, more profits to farmers does not lead automatically to reducing poverty and inequality. And this is a major challenge for developing countries. It's a major challenge for Brazil. Inequality was being reduced slowly, but too slow. So the equation is not the simple one. And I guess Eduardo very well put that question that even the well-known success story of the acai palm fruit, which is bringing two, three billion dollars into the Amazon economy, not necessarily is causing a tremendous change in equality and the income. And that has all to do with human capital. And that's why I said in my third point, it's the education revolution. If we fail tropical countries, and even within tropical countries, poorer regions of tropical countries, if we fail in the education revolution, I'm pretty sure we are not going to reach development in the Amazon under tropical countries. So though I will stop my comments saying, I really liked all those elements, but putting them together, we need to reduce inequality and poverty. And this is perhaps much more difficult than we might anticipate. Thank you very much. Perhaps another comment from our next panelist. Again, very brief. Sorry, such an enforcer. I also enjoyed the talks a lot. And I must say I was encouraged by the amount of discussion around agriculture and not from such a negative perspective. So we are moving forward. I think this discussion would have been very different 10 years ago. So there is progress and we need to bring more and more people into these discussions. And I think it does have to be not so much at the global level, although we need to recognize that. But it's really these local regional conversations and policies and governance issues that I think will really move us forward in the right direction. Thank you. Pushpal? Any reflections? Three things, basically. I mean, I liked all the presentation that was very rich. One thing which clearly emerges and that also gives me a strength to see that we really need integration of conservation, whether it is change in the forest stock or biomass or emission of the greenhouse gases. We need to bring them, these biogeophysical changes into our social and economic planet. So that is one. So integration is needed. Secondly, from my own presentation, what I said I wanted to reiterate that there are some estimates and economic values but there has been serious effort in last 20 years or so, starting from, you know, Eastern report or the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity. But economic estimate must be socially credible. If they are not socially credible, they become another video games and nobody is going to pay attention to. Third, we talked about changing the basic compass of the progress, that is the GDP or national income. It is not going to happen in one day because it is nicely institutionalized and the first step should be that we have to improve them. But in the long run, we have to think about a really better indicator which has a strong scientific basis. At the same time, they are easy and easy to comprehend by the policymakers. So I will stop here and I will wait for some more questions before I go into further discussion. Thank you. Thank you. There are many entry points here that I would like to talk about. We will pick on Dan's push for what we call a polycentric approach. I mean, several initiatives that in themselves would sort of help to emerge larger solutions. There are limits to that too and I think that is the balance that we need to look for. What are the structural and large scale adjustments that need to facilitate the integration of these local scale solutions? I will use my example of the poverty of municipalities as one example where important structural adjustments done at the national level could go a long way. So there are no incentives nowadays for the transformation of resources at the local level in which the fiscal and the taxing results of that would revert into urban infrastructure. And I'll bring with that the piece that I see indirectly or directly was discussed here which is employment. One of the biggest transformations that we see in rural areas, you go in Amazon, you go in Japan, you go in Sweden, you go here, is a significant intergenerational change. And the way they use engages with agriculture and engages with economic activities. And the lack of opportunities, the lack of creative industries that offer a perspective to the use, to stay in rural areas, to engage with production systems and not live for cities. It's one of the key problems that we have to deal with. And that has a lot to do with, I think, with reforms that are needs to promote value aggregation in forest areas around the world where employment and other things would come forward and will offer different perspectives to the use population that now sees very little future into that. Yeah, I love the Acai story. If you fly into Belling, the islands around Belling are all forested and they've been managed for Acai for decades. And I've always wondered, how could Brazil have been jumped out in front of Acai, done the marketing, done the entrepreneurial agents so more of that value could have come to Brazilian companies and Brazilian producers. I think there's really fantastic examples of policies that are getting it wrong today that could be easily changed. And since so many of us are talking about Brazil, I'll just cite a few examples. For example, there's a ceiling on the price of gasoline in Brazil that has basically knocked the wind out of the sugarcane ethanol business. And so it's a retracting industry that should be expanding ethanol production. It's one of the most efficient types of biofuel. Yes, I said the controversial word biofuel. It's one of the most efficient ways to get fuel off the land. And Brazil's fleet is almost all flex fuel or moving toward in that direction. But this policy for containing inflation basically has gutted that industry. Another is, and this gets to your point on poor counties. Most counties, their budgets come from an allocation of the ICMS tax. And that tax is there on circulating merchandise and it has killed the soy crushing industry in Brazil. So that has migrated to Argentina. So raw beans go from Brazil to China. The downside of that is that Brazil has not vertically integrated to do more poultry and pork. And so it's sort of these missed opportunities, huge missed opportunities that with a little bit of policy tweaking we could fix. And Carlos, I share your dream of really exploiting commercially and sustainably the biodiversity. And Pushmom, I think the challenge with GDP is enormous. I still don't know the answer, but it seems like it needs to be sort of a Manhattan, maybe the wrong example to use here. But a massive influx of incentives and ingenuity and entrepreneurship. But we've been talking about it for decades and it hasn't happened. That's great. Thank you very, very much. Actually quite a number of our questions that we got were related to these ideas of how to increase the value, the value aggregation in these areas. And I think that perhaps we've already dealt with these since we need to deal with all the questions quite quickly. One specific addition to that might be to talk about actually local rights and indigenous rights in the context of value aggregation and international trade. I don't know, perhaps Eduardo would like to speak a little more about that briefly again. Well I would start to highlight the diversity of indigenous situations that you find throughout the world and how that relationship needs to be attention to the context. And to that I would say that there is not a single solution to that because the relationship between local communities and these communities and different kinds of markets is very context specific. So it would be a mistake I think to think about magical bullets that cut across that. So that's the first thing. The other thing is that there has been too little attention I think to investments and intensification of local production systems and to limit the bottlenecks in which those production system works. And a lot of the problems in economic return that local communities have have to do with very basic infrastructure in which the cost of transportation and other things eat the labor of the sweat of their laborers. So I mean the two points is the context is specific nature of that. The other one is that a lot of the issues have to do with space infrastructure needs that allow them to reap the benefits at different scales. And the question goes on to ask and how does that actually, how does that affect the idea that has been quite powerful of local people or indigenous people being stewards of the forest if what we're promoting is more communication, more international trade. And would anyone care to comment on that? I don't think it's not, it's compatible. I mean I don't think why we should not think of, as those indigenous populations which wish to join in. Because some populations they prefer to be isolated and we should respect of course that. But most, at least in Brazil and Amazonia they want to join in. And I don't see any barrier for them to be integrated through information highways through trade into producing goods that they feel opportunities to produce. They will be their goods, their services, not necessarily different than what they've been doing. But with value added, at least in my context, I'm not an anthropologist. I don't deal directly in my work with indigenous population. But in my context I see tremendous willingness for them to join in this new world but keeping their culture. They are very strong in keeping their culture. And a very important element and all of us know of their culture is the forest. So I think you can put those two things together. I don't see they are not, they are compatible. They are not, it's a myth to think they are incompatible in my opinion. Thank you. We also have a number of questions that address the green economy and also what kind of research may be needed in order to inform this process of moving towards the green economy and what actually might motivate, might move governments to move in that direction. It's, I think largely a question for you, Pushpa. Yeah, I mean we have been able to identify the research gaps and needs in order to use the tools and approaches of the green economy. But as a researcher myself, I would like to highlight two, three major research gaps. When we talk about valuation, economic valuations or accounting, valuations are used for various purposes. One is a typical cost benefit. Sometimes people use it to design a payment between the beneficiary and the providers, what is known as the payment for ecosystem services. And many of the red plus schemes are based on the spirit and the theory of PES. Or there are many other tools like biodiversity offset or wetland banking, you need valuations. So they come from microeconomic theory. While the question at the national or global level are purely macroeconomic in nature. Like, and as one can see, those of you who are from economic science that valuations done on an experimental plot or site specific values is probably no good for the macro questions, which is for example, national income accounting or asset pricing in the economy or aggregation of natural capital with the mainstream accounts, existing accounts at the national or the regional level. So valuation in macro setting is probably the first research agenda wants to think of. Somehow we have done a lot, we in the sense not only the UNEP, but all UN agencies and the research institutions on valuation in microeconomic setting. But the macroeconomic setting, even in the university research departments, the research is very, very basic. And that is, there are few good macroeconomists, but they know macro variable, they know macro, they don't know natural capital well. And there are some good ecologists, they know ecosystem or nature, but their understanding of macroeconomics, a structural model is probably very, very basic. So that is one area. Second is something which, how to make the valuation a social process. And whenever we talk about economic value, it looks like you use market-based or constructed market-based or those kind of methods. But sometimes it has been found that they become a statistical jugglery and to go to the policymakers, politicians, the prime ministers, the ministers with those numbers who know public pulse probably better than anybody else, they find it reluctant to accept them. The reason is not that the valuation is wrong, but we lack confidence, we lack clarity. I'm talking about the economists. How to make our valuation clear and how we should be confident where you have a 10-minute time with the president. And if you say that, oh, this happened, then that happened, then this happens, there are interlinked, there are social, you know, this system, that system, they are very good discourse, do it in the classroom. But to make it, to take it to the policymakers who have the discretion and clout to influence the public at large, you have to be very clear. And there are not many good valuation experts who are clear in their message. A lot of research has to go into that. There are many more, but I will stop here. Thank you very much. I think Dan wanted to add something to that. I think it's such a fascinating question and I think we have to be extremely pragmatic to make these transitions towards green. And I think that we need to take it down to the ground. I agree with you that there's a huge issue with how you measure ecosystem services and the valuation piece. But there are some things that everyone can agree on and quite quickly. And as you said, socialize it and we need to grab those opportunities. I think forest is particularly amenable to that sort of convergence and consensus and let's just figure that out for forest. We can measure it. And if we can measure it in a way that it's going to reduce risk for investment, maybe that's as good as we can do right now to really take ecosystem services to scale. Edward, are you? We just want to make up, I'm not an economist so I use the voice of a friend of many of ours here, Shikito Costa. So the missing link is the mass of economics. There has very little value in the academics sets between the micro and the massive but that's where the regional economic has to play a role and has to be value, I think to understand the interconnections between this global chains and local process. Maybe one more thing, just a quick point. One thing, upscaling the values from the micro to the macro. There are a large number of caveats. How to make those caveats and assumptions plausible and practical. Again, I repeat, in upscaling the values from the local to the regional or the national scale, what are the assumptions and how to make those assumptions more practical and defensible. That is another research thing which we should be thinking of. Actually, Dan, there's another question that's sort of along those lines but does talk about your reference to commodification of tropical landscapes as a vehicle for poverty alleviation and ask the question whether this really is desirable but also whether this is actually conducive to increased food production. And I would like to add a little bit to that a bit based on what Lou said as his last comment. Referring to the real enthusiasm that people had, especially hearing yesterday that so many companies had pledged, as you said, to take deforestation out of their value chains. But several months ago, I believe it was the vice that the assistant director for sustainability of Unilever said that they indeed, they're one of the early pledgers and a real pioneer. But said that in order to do that and in order to guarantee traceability of that value chain and to the guarantee that there was no deforestation, they would actually have to sort of slough off 80% of their smallholder producers because it's just too difficult, just impossible to do. So again, would you care to comment and I can see that more than one person wants to comment on that. And exactly what is the future for smallholders under this new regime of no deforestation Yeah, that's a great question. I think smallholders are the vulnerable element of society as you know, first of all, I think it's inevitable. I think the expansion of commodities into the tropics, it's gonna happen and we have to deal with that. It's not every country, it doesn't dominate most tropical landscapes. Most tropical landscapes have a much greater diversity, other types of crops. But I think we're seeing a lot of movement on this because this is where you get the leverage when a few big companies can influence supply chains on palm, on soy, on beef. That's where you get action and that's been where a lot of the focus has been. With smallholders, I think they run the risk because it's so expensive to do farm-by-farm auditing to see if they're deforestation in that. The direct farmers of Kalimantan would love to have a patch of palm but they do not wanna abandon their swiddens. So when a big company like a Willmar announces a zero deforestation that it's not far enough into the future to allow the systems to adjust or something less than perfect but probably very good, which is a reduced deforestation target and not to take anything away from Willmar's very sort of courageous announcement. But there is the risk that there's gonna be increased poverty and exclusion of communities through this sort of initiative. And I think we come back to, you have to increase the scale. Look at the entire landscape, as Peter was talking about, look at the entire district, the entire province. That's where we should be measuring success and make sure that smallholders are not being excluded. Yeah, I just wanted to also reiterate the issue of smallholder farmers. I think it's similar to the whole issue about indigenous peoples of the Amazon or smallholder farmers. And I refer to Africa where average farm size is less than five hectares. And so it's a very different situation from the Amazon. But it is a similar situation. How do you aggregate those farmers? How do you link them into any market system? And I think that's going to be the key as you see people are still looking at Africa. There have been very few large investments. I think Unilever's been one of the first. But how is that going to happen? Or is there a way to leapfrog? Are there lessons? And I think some of these South-South lessons could be very, very important. How to aggregate. As a smallholder, it's the whole poverty livelihoods at the forest agriculture transition. The topic is very dear to me, I think. In part, that's one of the topics that will get stuck in a polarizing discussion. Very often. Small farmers, they have a double exposure kind of scenario, a double pressure kind of scenario, which is very general. One is internal. The lack of the long lack of infrastructure, service, recognition has created a situation where you have very good expectations among young farmers to continue on that route. And on the other hand, you have openly in Brazil and elsewhere a criminalization of small farmer activities in such as Sweden cultivation and others in ways that are very unfair and very simplistic. So you have the sort of dilemma in which they leave. Now, on the other hand, I think it's very difficult to imagine a future, in a urban future, without a very active small farming economy being localized or not. But if we do not think about the small farming in the context of the employment need and in the context in which you can absorb a enormous amount of contingency that is now moving to the city, it's not a problem that will be solved with in this vacation of other things. I'm afraid that I've been given a symbol that we need to end our discussion. And it's not just because Eduardo is an anthropologist and I'm an anthropologist and I'm giving him the last word, but we're under a considerable amount of pressure. In any case, I'd like to thank every one of you and I'd like to thank all of you who contributed. And I'd also like to apologize to those of you who didn't get your questions in. We have many more questions. I'll be happy to both distribute them to the panelists and also please feel free to grab these panelists as they come off the stage and ask the questions. And there are a number of very, very interesting questions here, so again, thank you very much. Or through email, yes, we'll make. And now I think we can all stay here and we'll have the closing of the,