 Good afternoon, dear ladies and gentlemen. My name is Elias Grampas, and on behalf of the secretariat of the European Parliament Intergroup on Climate Change by Diversity and Sustainable Development, I am delighted to welcome you to today's event where we will be addressing supporting EU biodiversity targets by bridging the science policy divide. Just to begin then, we all know that a healthy and biodiversity environment is an essential component with regards to many aspects of life of Earth, so we have a common mission there. What is also of paramount importance is building on the science policy nexus, as I'm sure we will be hearing more of in the course of this event. On this note, I'm happy to let you know that this event of the intergroup is co-organized with colleagues from EU, the European Geoscience Union, that I would like to thank very much for their active engagement in all steps of the event organization. This event is of course hosted by MEP's Mr. Luena and Ms. Paulus, European Parliament rapporteur and shadow rapporteur for the Nature Restoration Law. And then right on time before kickstarting the discussion, I'd like to provide our audience some housekeeping rules with regards to the event. So first of all, the event is recorded, and the recording will be made available as of tomorrow at the website of the European Parliament Intergroup. There is also, I think, one PPT that also will be made available on the website of the intergroup following the green light of the speakers. And then as we want to have a discussion that is as interactive as possible, I would like to let our audience know, the one that is connected online, that you can send us your questions through the right-hand side of the platform. There is a Q&A's box specifically for that. So within your choice, just make sure to know that you use the All Panelists option so we can see the questions popping up. And of course, for the audience in the room, when it's the Q&A session, please feel free to raise your hands and we'll take as many questions as time will allow us. So once again, thank you very much for joining us today. And the event's opening remarks were to be provided by MEP Ms. Paulus, but as we're just trying to resolve this issue, I would like to give a fresh plot twist by providing the floor to Ms. Helen Glaves, president for her opening remarks as well. Ms. Glaves is senior data scientist. It is a geological survey with a background in both marine geoscience and geonformatics elected to serve as its new president in the 2019 EU autumn elections. So thank you very much for being with us and the floor is yours. Thank you very much, Ilias. And good afternoon, everybody. I want to take this opportunity to add my welcome to Ilias's at the start of this event, both for everybody who's here in the room, but also everybody who's taken the time to join us online. On behalf of EU, I'd also like to thank our host, MEP's Cesar Luena and Jutta Paulus. But I also want to thank our honoured guests on the panel for taking the time out from their busy schedules to join us today. I think this event is actually extremely timely and relevant as we observe the critical deliberations that are going on this week in Egypt at COP 27. Biodiversity is a critical priority for Europe, which has been highlighted with the launch of the EU's Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and also the European Restoration Law, which are both seeking to address the increasing decline in the natural environment due to human activities. The strategies and actions to mitigate these impacts on our natural world require a sustained collaboration between scientists and those decision makers who are developing the informed actions and policies to address the challenges that are facing both society and our planet. I'd like to start my intervention here with just a few words about the European Geosciences Union. As Ilias mentioned, I'm the current president of EGU. EGU is the largest Earth, Space and Planetary Science organisation in Europe. We have between 18,000 and 19,000 members who come from a variety of scientific disciplines, representing an extensive breadth of knowledge and expertise across the geosciences and beyond EGU's goals. EGU aims to foster fundamental and applied research in the Earth, Space and Planetary Sciences that addresses both key societal and environmental issues. EGU also supports a range of activities including those related to science for policy through its dedicated working group. And it's to them that I offer my thanks for their efforts to organise this event this week. The Science for Policy Working Group within EGU aims to connect geoscience experts with policy makers to support informed decision making. As part of these initiatives in 2022, EGU created the EGU Task Force on Biodiversity that includes selected experts from relevant disciplines including soil sciences, biogeosciences, hydrology and others. This group has come together to provide relevant and impartial information from scientific experts for those who are at the forefront of policy making that will affect the future of society and the planet that we all share. Recently the EGU Task Force on Biodiversity reviewed the forthcoming EU restoration law and actually drafted a set of informed recommendations that have drawn on the latest scientific research and expert opinion. And there is a report available which there are a number of copies I believe available around the room. So if you haven't already had one of these, please do take the time to pick one up. If we don't have enough, it is available to download online as well. Today's discussion will actually focus on how scientists and policy makers can come together to support the EU's targets for biodiversity. But also consider how they can collaborate more effectively for the future. And with this in mind, we will start by having a panel discussion with the guests here on the stage. So I'm actually going to hand the floor back to Ilias I think to kick off the questioning for our panel. We're going to begin with a question for all of the panel. So Ilias over to you. Thank you very much Helen and thanks as well for setting the scene with regards to the importance, but also the timely nature of having this discussion today. As we mentioned here before it looks like the video message of co-hosting MEP Miss Paulus will be played later in the course of this event. So we can move to the panel discussion starting by thanking our excellent set of either being physically in the room or connected online. So thank you very much. We have for the Secretary of the Intergroup for that. And in fact, Helen, I don't know if you want to introduce the speakers. Thank you so much. So our panel of speakers here today. Another plot twist as you described it Ilias a moment ago to my immediate right. We actually have Irene Bonito Rodriguez. Irene is actually replacing our original plan speaker from from Planet. I have to apologize to Irene because I don't actually have a bio for Irene, but I'm sure we will learn about your background during your interventions. To my immediate right is Gregor Dubois. Gregor is at the EU Knowledge Center for Biodiversity which enhances biodiversity knowledge base and facilitates its dissemination by fostering cross sectoral policy dialogue and the challenges we face when integrating science into policy process. To my left, I have here Felicia Akinema. Felicia is actually a Marie Curie research fellow on land system and sustainable land management unit at the Institute of Geography at the University of Bern, Switzerland. But Felicia is also actually a member of the EU's Biodiversity Task Force. So she has a double role here with us today. You've also met Ilias who is here on the panel and beyond Ilias we have Anne DeVol. Anne is a Biodiversity mainstreaming specialist for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Also on the panel today we have Yannicka Borg. Apologies. We have Yannicka Borg who is an expert in biodiversity strategy from the European Environment Agency. We also have Alberto Arroyo-Schnell. I believe Alberto is online with us. He is the Head of Policy and Programme for the European Regional Office of the IUCN. So that is our panel for today. And with that I will hand across to Ilias to start the panel discussion with the first question. Thank you very much Helen and welcome once again to all the panelists. Well, just to set the scene, one first question that I think is worth addressing is, if you were to tweet about this event today on Biodiversity and Nature Restoration, what would be your hashtag for this discussion? This is to serve as the main message, a keyword perhaps that you would be focusing on. So perhaps we can follow this sequence of the panel and then looking into the speakers that are connected online as well. Thank you for having me here and I apologize again for my colleague Agnieszka who is trapped without internet in COP27, not trapped but you know in the specific location without internet connection. And my name is Yerene Benito as Helen kindly introduced. I'm working in Planet in European Affairs and I'm delighted to be here today. So I'll move quickly to my hashtag, which is you cannot manage what you don't measure. And I think this is super important when we're thinking about the binding targets that the EU Nature Restoration Law is going to place upon us in Europe. So my hashtag would be steer for change. We hear a lot of driving for change, but I think what we need is really steering for change. We need to have a clear direction on how we want to go and where we want to go together. Thank you. Yeah, thank you so much for having me here also. My hashtag will be science for EU Nature Restoration. So this would be the main idea that we can promote the use of science based evidence to be able to address policy relevance to biodiversity in the EU. Thank you. Good afternoon. The hashtag from FAO would be no food without biodiversity. I emphasize really the connection and the interdependence between biodiversity conservation and sustainable biodiversity in our food systems. Thank you very much. And how about IECN and Alberto's views on this? Thank you very much. First of all, thank you for having me here. And I'm not going to enter into the Twitter discussion about the new ownership, of course, just focusing on the handle of the headline, which is the main issue about Twitter. I'm going to focus actually on the collaboration side of the things. We all know that we are developing now a new piece of legislation that will have the same challenges as the pieces of legislation that are there now from the European side. And one of them is the implementation that is always an issue. One of the fundamental issues related with implementation is about the ownership of the different stakeholders and there comes the collaboration that I wanted to mention. The EU nature restoration law is a historic opportunity for us and for our environment. This will be the tweet to make it work collaboration amongst all stakeholders will be key. Scientists, land users, businesses, NGOs, job advocates, we need to assume that we all feel that this is our law from the start. Thank you. Thank you very much, Alberto. And then how about you, Yanica? What would be your hashtag for this discussion today on behalf of VA? Yes, hello, and thank you for the invitation and very, very glad to be here. Alberto spoke about collaboration, which is very important and my thoughts were along the same lines. This nature restoration is something we have to see as an over-compassing attempt to make sure that we have a continued future on this planet that we all share. And because this requires the collaboration that Alberto mentioned, I want to take this a step further and say that my hashtag would be restored biodiversity to benefit everyone. So this includes also all the sectors who are building their livelihoods on biodiversity. Well, thank you very much, Yanica, and thanks a lot to all the speakers. I think we have already some quotes for social media. We cannot manage what we cannot measure. We need to steer for change. We need to make the best use of the available science for a new nature restoration. We need to restore biodiversity to benefit everyone. No food without biodiversity. And of course, it's extremely important to focus on implementation and collaboration within all stakeholders. So I think it's very important that also on behalf of the secretariat of the intergroup, this is our approach that is deeply rooted in the core of the mission of the intergroup since 1994. So following a multi-stakeholder approach involving all the relevant actors on board. So maybe on this note, I give a throwback to Helen to drive the discussion forward. Thank you very much, Elias, and thank you for the initial interventions from our panelists. I think that's really set the scene for the rest of the panel discussion. So I'm going to start off with a few directed questions for our panelists. And I'm actually going to first come to Gregor Dubois first. Gregor, the EU Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity enhances biodiversity, the Biodiversity Knowledge Base, and it's facilitating dissemination by fostering cross-sectional policy dialogue. I wonder if you can say something about the challenges that we face when seeking to integrate science into the policymaking. What are your views about how the scientific community and the policy community together can actually overcome some of these challenges? Thank you for that. I really love the topic, of course. The Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity wants to solve a big hurdle. We don't want to go back to obscurantism. We want to have science-based policies. But how can we make sure that the science really flows into the policies? Obviously, the obstacle is mainly communication issues and there are three dimensions in this problem. Why do we have such a problem? The first one is the temporal dimension. We have a lot of interactions with the scientific community, but in a sporadic way. What we need is much more continuity. The policy is a process from the design to the development implementation to the monitoring to the assessment of the impact of the policy. Obviously, we have researchers coming in and out, but what we need is a continuity in the dialogue. That's the first thing that needs to be kept in mind is continuity in the dialogue. The second one is a spatial dimension, especially for biodiversity. We want to make sure that the right hand is not going to undo what the left hand is doing. We speak constantly about competition for lands. At the time we are speaking, we have so many sectors talking about the same piece of land that will be used either for energy, either for nature conservation, either for food, either for living, either for constructions. You can imagine so many uses of the same piece of land. The same happens to the marine environment, but to another extent. The challenge is there. We need to make sure that we can have all the sectors sitting together around the same table. That's one of the challenges that we have. Of course, we try to solve through the knowledge centre for biodiversity, which is quite new actually. It's only two years old. And then the third challenge is a structural challenge. It's really how do we manage this wealth of information that is floating around, that is constantly published, the data that are available. How do we access that in a synthetic way to help the policymakers take the right decision? So we don't have the solutions to all of these problems, but at least we're working on it to provide a one-stop shop to provide the interface to the scientific community and to the policymakers. And I need to stress that the communication issue is really a bidirectional challenge. It's not only the scientific community that is slowly improving its way of communicating to the policymakers, but also for the policymakers to formulate properly the questions that can be used by the scientific community to really move on. So these are the three dimensions that I think the main hurdles and the main challenges that we try to address with the knowledge centre for biodiversity. Thank you ever so much Gregor for that intervention. I think you mentioned some topics that are very relevant for the discussions that we're having internally at EGU with regards to that flow of information from our members as researchers to policymakers. So I very much appreciate that intervention because I think it's a challenge that EGU already recognises and this is part of the reason that we have now set up mechanisms within our organisation to try and facilitate that flow of information. So thank you. I think that's set the scene very well for the discussion. Thank you. So I'd now like to come to Alberto Arroyo-Schnell who is head of policy and programme at the European Regional Office of the IUCN and Alberto is online. So Alberto in a recent press release IUCN highlighted the EU's nature restoration law as an important boost for biodiversity and climate. So my question to you is why do you feel that immediate action on this topic is important at this point in time? Where do you think that more effort is needed in this topic and what role can scientists play in supporting the biodiversity targets on an EU level and implementation at the member state level as well? Because both facets of this discussion are equally important. Yes thank you very much for the question. You know I have been working on this matter on environmental issues on biodiversity and EU policy in particular biodiversity for more than 20 years now. So when I hear the question why urgent action is needed, it's a question that every day is easier and easier to answer I have to say. We all know about very specific examples such as rivers that existed when I was a child and I could swim there and now they don't exist and there were crabs there that are not there anymore. We all know about climate change consequences such as forest fires in North Europe. We can already see all these consequences during all these years and this is the important bit. The answer that we have provided we have tried to make the case for nature for its own sake after we were trying to use more convincing matters such as economy, such as our own health. At this point what we know is that conservation and restoration of nature is fundamental for our own survival. We can mention some specific issues such as agriculture, which is one of the main threats for biodiversity, but at the same time is the one that is providing the food, obviously our food we need it. And at the same time, the degradation of biodiversity is affecting very much. So there is no way to deal with it if we are not working with this sector very much specifically. And at the very end what is saying is that conservation is a very anthropogenic issue. It's not exactly for nature, it's for all of us. So if urgent action was in the 20 years ago, now it's probably double or triple than it was at the time. Now in terms of working with scientists, as you were asking also, well, IOCN is a science-based organization as you know. So our work is underpinned, it's guided actually by the latest scientific evidence. We have many tools that I'm sure you are familiar with such as the Red List, the Nature-Based Solutions Standard, the Global Ecosystems Technology. Well, it is hard to say how scientists could work with IOCN as it will be saying how IOCN can work with itself. Now, giving voice to scientists is the fundamental bit in discussions such as the one we are having now, policy processes. Even such as this one, consultations trying to ensure that the voice of science is heard is fundamental. I want to also emphasize here the responsibility from science itself to get familiar with the policy processes, being aware of the weight of their own responsibility in any kind of publication or any kind of public information that comes out from the science discussion. From the policy side, ensuring that opportunities are provided to scientists to make sure that the input and participation in this discussion is possible, is one of the most important bits probably to ensure that the future policy processes are more science-oriented. This is actually, I have to say, the role that we have as IOCN and therefore actually the discussion that has happened enough for us is fundamental. Thank you very much, Alberto. So I'm going to move on to our next panelist here in the room, Ann DeVall. Ann, and I'm going to ask you about your role because the UN has actually sent quite a clear signal with regards to tackling both climate and environmental crises and actually underlying the key role of nature restoration in addressing these challenges. At the same time, the FAO has been doing a lot of work on mainstreaming biodiversity and trying to see the broader picture. And we're also very shortly going to see many of the key representatives going to Montreal for the CBD post-2020 GBF discussions. And we're only a couple of years away from the UN decade for ecosystem restoration. So I wondered if, in that context, if you could perhaps give your thoughts on the global priorities for nature restoration and how these potentially could be addressed through some collective actions. I think we've already heard from our two previous speakers how important that collaboration is going to be to achieve some of our key objectives. So perhaps you could give us your perspectives on that. Thank you very much, Helen. And just on behalf of the secretariat of the intergroup, I think it would be equally worth to hear perhaps from a global perspective on behalf of FAO how important land and sea restoration is for productive ecosystems providing healthy food and nutrition there. So up to one for that. Okay, I'll try to combine both questions, starting maybe to give some idea at the global level when we're talking about land degradation. When you look at the world's soil, then one third of it is moderately to highly degraded already. Moving on to the global fish stocks where one third again is over exploited. And I could go on and on as another panel member already said this is very urgent to take action. And it's very clear that these kinds of degradations directly have an effect on the yield of farmers have directly in effect on increasing food insecurity and also affect or even threaten the income and the livelihood of more than two billion people worldwide who are directly depending on agriculture sectors. So yes, this is a very important issue of restoring the degraded ecosystems and especially also productive ecosystems because they are not only necessary for biodiversity objectives but equally for food and nutrition for health and for our livelihoods, as we already said. That's also why the UN decade on ecosystem restoration was declared from 21 to 2030. And the main aim there is to prevent to halt and to restore ecosystem degradation in all continents and on all oceans as well. So that's a global movement where the co-lead has been taken up by FAO and UNEP, Environmental Programmes. So there also you see the linkage between productive sectors and natural sectors. So this is to situate how it is actually or how the current situation is. But there are solutions that have been developed and in the different sectors that are related to agriculture, crop and livestock production, fisheries and to forestry. I won't go into details into the restoration options but there are options and of course they can further be developed and they have to be backed up by evidence, science-based evidence. But there is a major effort to be made also when it comes to linking what is happening at field level to what is happening and the negotiations that are happening at global level. So I'll just jump into the first question of Helen because as we are preparing for the conference of parties that will take place on the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal in December. So in a few weeks there are a lot of hurdles still to be taken as Gregor said at different levels. But what we would like to put forward is that it will require a lot of political will and courage also and leadership to make sure that the different sectors that are related to ecosystem restoration will be included into the targets that are supposed to be very clear and precise. So it doesn't only go about protection but it's also about sustainable use of biodiversity resources. So that's why I think next to all the different steps that are important it will be also looking at the EU to take up this leadership and to mobilize the international community also to take action on reversing biodiversity degradation worldwide. And as a fail we are ready also to back up and to assist our members in taking up this further action. Thank you. So I'm going to move to Janica next to get her perspective. Janica the European Environment Agency data has been a vital resource in creating many of the EU's biodiversity targets and has provided us with a biodiversity baseline. And I wondered if you could perhaps say a few words about how you envisage the data being used moving forward. And I think one of the other supplementary questions that will be useful to have your thoughts on will be how the European Environment Agency is able to support EU member states when they are creating their EU nature restoration plans. Of course. So let's start with the question on data. It's right. The data that has been supplied to the agency by member states has played a large role in the creation of baselines and reference areas. And we will continue to work with member states to improve the data they sent to us and we will use it to assess progress once it has been reported. We will also supplement this data with model data and this in turn will then be shared back to the member states. In addition to this we will use Copernicus and Copernicus Drive products to assist in this task. And we have a variety of other data sets to use as well. For example on protected areas on land use and land use change and many more. And these as well will assess the progress and assist the member states where needed. And it's important to know that all data is by principle freely available to member states. But we do not just provide the data but we also interpret it and produce information and knowledge which we use and share openly. In terms of the support to the member states once the national restoration plans are being made. They are of course being made by the member states each of them for their own areas but the EA will support here. So we can bring expertise together for example through our IONET network and we can also guide in this process. And that's what we're going to be doing on a more technical level. We are developing the reporting formats for these national restoration plans as well as information systems and data flows for the reporting. We will also have a help desk for the member states to support them through the process. And finally once the reporting comes in we will assess the progress reports and we will monitor and report on the progress overall towards the target. Thank you ever so much, Annika. I want to now come to Irene Bonita Rodriguez. So Irene, I want to sort of have a few comments from you. As you mentioned when you in your introduction you said you were from Planet. Planet obviously its work is extremely relevant for today's discussion. Over the past decade Planet has revolutionised the Earth observation industry. Specifically your work has democratised data which is a topic close to my heart being an informatic specialist myself. But it's also allowed for key analysis by scientists but also allowed timely and impartial decisions from policymakers through the availability of that data. So my question to you is actually that what do you perceive is the role of Earth observations. What does it what do they play in helping the EU achieve its biodiversity targets and in supporting the EU member states in implementing the monitoring the nature restoration law. Where would you see the main challenges and opportunities ahead. Thank you Helen and well firstly as a citizen of Europe I highly appreciate the work of the institutions to make and hopefully the EU nature restoration law a reality. This is central and crucial as part of the EU biodiversity strategy and of course of the Green Deal. And for the first time we're going to have binding biodiversity targets and Earth observation is going to be crucial in order to monitor progress towards those targets. And for those of you that don't know what Earth observation really means and Regina you can press again. So Earth observation satellites provide imagery on the surface of the earth. This means that we are collecting information on all the changes that are happening on the globe. And this is information that comes from a visible signal from the spectral but also invisible. And planet here is and has indeed revolutionized the sector. We have over 200 satellites orbiting the earth every day. And if this is not the most amazing animation that you've ever seen in your life then I don't know what to say. We have a daily scan of the whole earth. So this means that every single day we're taking an image of every location on the globe. So you can detect and monitor change on a daily basis in a high level of detail. And of course this is enormously useful. Firstly it's providing again as I said this daily information and daily change detection. But of course also it provides a harmonized global data set and harmonize European source of data. Regina if we can go to the next one. I'm providing a couple of examples on the uses of this kind of data for biodiversity. And actually before I move here I want to point out that we are so fantastic because we are providing the greatest amount of data and information in publicly and commercially available. This means that we're providing more information than all public and commercial data sources combined every single day. So this is really groundbreaking what planet has done. And in terms of biodiversity monitoring I think one of the clear applications comes from a water management and the restoration of water ecosystems. Very unfortunate but very clear event from this summer. You may be familiar with the Oda River Disaster. This is a river separating Poland and Germany where over the summer thousands of fish were founded. And the damage to the flora and the fauna has been estimated by scientists that it will take several decades to actually recover. The causes were initially unknown. However some scientists took planet data and did the first assessment of water quality indicators over time in the weeks leading to the disaster. And they found that one of the indicators is actually chlorophyll concentration. And that's what you can actually see in the GIF changing. The chlorophyll concentration was changing downstream and there more damage was identified. And actually this is now seen as the leading cause. Chlorophyll being a proxy for algae blooms, for harmful algae blooms. And what was I think crucial here and how our data really played an enormous role was by the time actually assessments were done this was exposed. This was after the disaster took place. So you couldn't go and take a physical sample of the water because this water was already in the ocean. So with daily satellite imagery and this daily archive of imagery, you could go and assess in the weeks building up to the to the disaster what was going on in the water. And of course it's also very useful when we're looking to monitor future water bodies to make sure that we take action before it's too late that we have an early warning. And if we go to the next example. In the next slide and twice again, please. So another clear occasion is going to be in the management of forests. So we have this harmonized data set that is providing us daily three level information of every forest in the world. And of course of every forest in Europe. This means that we can monitor the health of forest. We can look at different degradation parameters. We can look at early signs of pests of early signs of diseases of early signs of drought. We can detect on a daily basis illegal activities to the individual tree levels so we can detect selective logging. We can detect a selective cutting and we can look generally at broad forest parameters and restoration. And there's something that Earth observation really provides us today. So the big message is we have incredible tools at our disposal. We have very ambitious targets which are fantastic, but deadlines are approaching 2030s approaching very fast. So let's make sure that we use the technology at our disposal to monitor progress towards these targets. Thank you. Thank you ever so much Irene. I am going to move on to our last panelist to get some perspective from Felicia Akinema to my left. Felicia is, as I mentioned in my introduction, she's actually a member of the EGU's Biodiversity Task Force. So Felicia, my question is actually going to be more focused on your perspective of the role of organizations like EGU in promoting these activities, both at the European level but also at the member state level. So I just would like to ask you if you could say a few words about the aims of the EGU's Biodiversity Task Force. And how it's been instrumental in providing feedback on the proposed nature restoration law. As part of your answer, if you could perhaps give us some thoughts on the role that you think an independent scientific organization such as EGU plays in providing scientific advice to policymakers as well. Thank you so much Helen. So for the EGU Task Force, the Biodiversity Task Force, it's a scientific network of experts across Europe. And most importantly, we have the desire or the motivation to actually provide our thoughts, to share our expertise, especially at either the EU level or even at the member state level, because the nature restoration plans have to be provided. They have to be prepared, they have to be monitored as well as the progress also monitored over time. So one issue would be that for the member states to be very, very crucial for them to be able to assess in a timely manner localized scientific information, which can actually support the kinds of information or the types of indicators that the targets of the EU Biodiversity targets would require. And it's also important that we are able to assess scientific advice. So one major role that the EGU Task Force is well positioned to address and to support at both the EU and the member state level is to be able to help in terms of getting access to the required expertise. We all would take into cognizance the fact that the issue of biodiversity is very diverse, whether in terms of the ecosystems, land based, marine based, and also the approaches that will be used in the different member states. But on the other hand, it's also very important that we are able to get some directives. So for example, in the recommendations that were made, seven key points were there. But one, I would talk briefly about two. One is the need to enhance the connection between ecosystems. One reason for this would be that these ecosystems, even though we restore them, actually are not in synergy with one another. So in this case, it's very important. I take the example of peatlands. More than 50% of peatlands in Europe are already degraded or they are lost. But in this case, restoring peatlands gives us an opportunity to be able to generate better results in terms of the kinds of biodiversity that we are able to impact when the peatlands are restored. On the other hand, it's also important to maintain the conservation status of those ecosystems, the habitats. So for most of the indicators or the targets, they actually are based on references to the past. But we also should have this long-term perspective to monitoring the different targets that we aim to achieve at the level of each member state. The reason also is that if we have this kind of perspective, then the long-term monitoring will be guaranteed. And in that sense, it's very easy for us to actually ensure that we get the full benefits that we need in terms of either monitoring, restoring, and maintaining the different ecosystems. So I think in summary, the EGU Tax Biodiversity Task Force would actually work more as a hornet broker for scientific knowledge. So we are able to support in the provision of scientific information, whether as a group or at the level of individuals. And of course, like I said, we are all diverse. We are present across Europe. We are also able to support the scrutiny of the scientific evidence and as well as we are able to help in highlighting the consequences of the different policy actions that policymakers might decide to take. So this I think is a way for the biodiversity task force to be able to provide information that will be useful and understandable to policymakers. So we are very interested in the debates as well. Thank you. Thank you so much Felicia. I think our speakers have given us a number of different perspectives on this very important topic. And I think we're going to wrap up this policy, this discussion on this aspect with a more general question. So I'm going to hand the floor back to Ilias, who's going to provide a single question just for all of our panelists just to wrap up this part of this event. So Ilias, I'll hand it back to you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Helen, for moderating this panel discussion. And I would like to take the opportunity to extend the warm thanks to all panelists joining us today on site or online. I think that all previous interventions have greatly stimulated this interest, judging also by the number of questions received via the platform that we will be looking into in a few minutes time. Just perhaps before that, I would like to turn to panelists and ask you, well, as we're coming to the end of this discussion, perhaps just in one phrase, what is your key takeaway of this panel discussion so far? And then what would you like the audience to take home today? And we could follow equally the sequence starting with Ilias. Great. Thank you, Ilias. And, well, I just want to point out once more that we are making incredible progress in the area of biodiversity. And I think the EU nature restoration law is a perfect example. However, 2030, even 2050, they're approaching very fast. And we need to move fast. We need to make sure that actors and decision makers have the necessary tools to be effective. And many of these are at our fingertips. The technology is there, especially when we're talking about Earth observation and services like Janika just mentioned. So let's make sure that we don't miss the opportunity to empower decision makers with the right tools. Thank you. I think we get certainly new tools, new methods, new interfaces between science and policy, new evidence. Everything is hopefully getting easier to process and to handle. Are we going to take the right decisions in front of that? This is, I think, the main challenges and the question that remains open. What we miss completely is the link with the actors on the ground. We have the evidence that we need to take actions. We have all these multilateral and mental agreements where, I mean, the COP 27 is just aiding, ending. We start the COP 15. I will be part of the e-delegation there. How can I convince the public that what we are going to do there makes sense? And I think we need to show that this science evidence is used for taking decisions and applicable on the ground ends that something is happening. We need to gain the trust back from the public that the science that we use is driving us somewhere. So that's why I came with the first fact that we need not to drive somewhere because we can drive everywhere. We just need to steer this process all together in a direction that is where we address equity, where we address conservation, where we address nature, where we address solidarity. All these things require much more than just a science-police interface. We need an additional interface. It's the direct contact with the public. So I think we need to, that's something that I keep constantly in my mind and which is actually worrying me a lot. Thank you. Yeah. I think for us as members of the EGU Biodiversity Tax Force, one key message we would like to leave with everyone is the need to emphasize the science-based, the use of science-based approaches. For example, the likelihood for the member states in achieving the biodiversity targets that are set would be ensured if, for example, supports in terms of expertise as well as the data can help in selecting, for example, ecosystems, habitats that are both, that are currently resilient as well as those that would be resilient in the future. It's also important, for example, not just to look at numbers in terms of the progress in monitoring the indicators. It's possible, for example, to predict areas, whether in the future which areas will unavoidably be impacted. There's nothing we can do. It will be transformed, whether it's climatic-based or anthropogenic. So these are the kinds of questions that the tax force, whether directly or the bigger EGU family in terms of the different working groups can actually support the member states as well as the EU to do in terms of achieving the set targets. Thank you very much, Faris. Stan, how about you on behalf of FAO? I think there are several takeaways, but let me stick to this one, which I've been hearing being expressed by several people and, of course, within the mandate of FAO, that if we really, if we want to guarantee food security, nutrition and health for all, then it is really, we have to care about biodiversity and about ecosystem restoration. And we have to make sure that sustainable agri-food systems and other sectors, productive ecosystems are part of the solution. And there is a link to be made with what Gregor was saying, what is happening on the ground, what is already there, what are the experiences, what are the experiments, etc. And I know that from a lot of colleagues of FAO, they are doing a lot of the groundwork already in different sectors. So it's also a question of being able to share and getting the knowledge from up at different levels where the decisions are being made. Thank you. Thank you very much, Jan. And perhaps now we can turn to online speakers. So how about you, Janika? Thank you. I've heard a lot of good inputs today and it's going to take a while to melt this all down into a great outcome. But what I want to highlight is that we have had voluntary commitments for decades now in the previous biodiversity strategies. We have talked about this when the discussion was more focused on preserving nature and preserving biodiversity for its intrinsic value. Now the discussion has shifted into preserving nature and ensuring restoration of nature more than preservation, not just for the intrinsic value of biodiversity, which naturally is important, but also for our own future and our way forward in the life we have on this planet. So there have been some good advancements and this cannot go unmentioned because a lot of efforts have been made, but it hasn't been enough and it's still not enough. So this new tool, nature restoration law, well it should be seen as restoring our livelihood law and it should be seen as the tool to make sure that this will happen. That we will reach the goals now that they are written in a law. And just as the previous speaker highlighted, we need all sectors on board on this. I think it's even important and crucial to make sure that all sectors are on board because if all sectors are not on board on EU level, on global level, on member state level, then restoration will not succeed the ultimate target that it set out. So I want to leave you with the thought that business as usual is no longer an option. We have to implement new tools and new ways forward and this is the new way forward. Thank you very much, Annika, and I think that's a great takeaway message. Business as usual is no longer an option. And then on this note, I'll hand the floor to Alberto on behalf of IUCN for your key takeaways as well. Alberto, I know that on behalf of IUCN, there is a lot of great work done and within your intervention as well, you are mentioning that we need action now. So what are you taking away of this discussion today? Thank you very much, Elias. Well, we are focusing on the restoration law at the moment. And of course, science will be its guiding principle both in the design and in the implementation. So actually, I agree very much with Gregor's message on awareness and the need for public evaluation. We simply need to base our action on facts, current and desired. Now with this in mind, I would like to highlight only three keywords. First of all, historical opportunity. This is the first comprehensive law in Europe since the Habitat Directive in 1992. And by the way, it's also the first continent-wide law of this kind, restoration. This is simply once in a generation opportunity. Secondly, stakeholder ownership. It has been mentioned many times, but to ensure that all key actors feel this law as their responsibility also is going to be the only way to ensure that implementation really works. And by the way, this includes also ensuring proper investment, which is very much related with political will as we know. And finally, global leadership. This law, collaboration and implementation will be very difficult in the European Union. Yes, that is true. But it will be much more difficult such thing in other regions of the world where the capacity is even less. So our example is key. We are actually, I would say, being watched. And all this relates both the EU and the global dimension as there are two crucial realities and processes happening now, the EU restoration law and the upcoming global biodiversity framework. So if you want for me to summarize one of the key points or the three key points here in relation with the EU restoration law process, which now the European Parliament is engaging is about historical opportunity stakeholder ownership and the global leadership. Thank you. Thank you very much, Alberto. I think that was very much to the point as I would like to take the opportunity to thank all panelists for your key takeaways during this panel discussion. On this note, I think it would be very interesting to also hear the reaction of MEP. Miss Rodriguez Ramos on behalf of the European Parliament. Mr. Rodriguez Ramos is an MEP from Spain for the group of Renew Europe in Teralia. She is sitting in the committee and she's also the shadow reporter for the natural restoration file. So a key MEP involved in this discussion today. So thank you very much for being with us today. Thank you. First, I would like to apologize to the delay. I was participating in a debate on COP 27 and it was not possible for me to arrive early. Second, let me thank the organizers, the European Parliament Intergroup of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development and the European Geosciences Union as well as the host, Cesar, Luena and Yuta to bring us an important topic to the rooms of the European Parliament, natural restoration and the nexus between policymaking and science. Over half of the global GDP depends on nature and the services it provides and our health depends on the biodiversity. The biodiversity give us air, water, productive soil, but however its condition has been deteriorating over the past decades. With natural restoration law, I think we have an historical opportunity. We cannot afford to miss. I think the Commission's proposal for natural restoration law is a good and solid basis, but I believe there is room for improvement in some aspects of the parliamentary process. The position paper I read of the European Geosciences Union helps Summit will certainly help us to achieve the best possible outcome. One of the core elements of the regulation is the establishment of legally binding targets to restore or degrade ecosystems. The national restoration plans will cover the period up to 2015 with intermediate deadlines for different targets and actions. I think the monitoring of these targets is key for the success of this proposal. In this regard, I believe that the European Parliament can improve the proposal by improving the evaluation of modern objectives and by establishing clear monitoring indicators. Member States must review their national restoration plans every 10 years. Okay, I think it's too long of a period to act. I think we can discuss about the miss them and the review of the national plans. I agree. We need to improve all aspects of public participation, especially concerning the identify of areas to be restored in the national restoration plans. In preparing their plans, Member States should take a particular account of the knowledge of local communities. As you explained in the paper, people who live near biodiversity areas may have useful knowledge and techniques specific to the region they live in. Normally, they have the expertise to understand complex ecosystems and their voice should be heard in the elaboration of the plans. Another point I found very, very, very interesting in your proposal is to include soil biodiversity as an additional target in the natural restoration law. Okay, it is essential for maintaining healthy soils for agricultural practices and both urban and rural ecosystem services. We have been working on land use in different files this year in the MV committee. I think we have to study the opportunity to include in this legislation an additional target. Another important thing, very, very, very important thing is the urban areas. I would like to stress the importance of Arctic species. According to the Gweldband, 75% of the population in the European Union live in urban areas. With this ground, it is essential to apply natural-based solutions in urban systems and we will work to make it happen. Last but not least, we need to improve the funding of the proposal to stop the loss of biodiversity and deterioration of our ecosystems. Okay, we need not only decisive political action based on scientific evidence, but also we need resources and specific funding to carry it out. Without adequate resources, this law could remain a Maya declaration. Finally, restoring new wetlands, rivers, forests, marine ecosystem, urban environments and the species they lost is a crucial cost-affected investment, the better investment in our future. In our food security, in our climate resilience, in our health and in our well-being. All in all, I look forward to exploring opportunities in the legislative process of a natural restoration law. I am sure now is the moment to lead by example, by actions, hand-in-hand with science. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Rodriguez-Ramos. And indeed, there's a historical opportunity that we cannot afford to miss, as Mr. Rodriguez-Ramos very right pointed out. So thank you very much for your remarks as we are counting on MEP's leadership on this. And of course, the position paper on behalf of IGU that Mr. Rodriguez-Ramos referred to is also available in hard copy at the entrance of the room for on-site participants. Looking at the events agenda and perhaps continuing with plot twists, we can try to screen MEP, Miss Paulus, video message intervention with help of technicians in the room. I guess it's like the Coldplay song, if we never try, we'll never know, so let's see. Dear César, dear guests, dear colleagues, thank you for permitting me to host this great event exploring how we can support the EU's biodiversity targets by bridging the science policy divide. Unfortunately, I am not able to be present in Brussels today. As a scientist myself, I would have loved to be part of the panel, but of course the COP 27 and Chamele Shake is also a great opportunity to promote nature-based solutions. We will not solve the climate crisis without nature. And vice versa, the biodiversity crisis is exacerbated by climate change. Deteriorating ecosystems are directly linked to the climate crisis. Without natural carbon sinks, no slowing down of the climate crisis. Our natural carbon sinks, the oceans, the forests, as well as the soils are the world's largest carbon sinks and are hence fundamental for tackling climate change. Peatlands alone cover only 3% of Earth's land area, but they store more than twice as much carbon as all forests combined. And they are not only important for climate change mitigation, but they are also vital for climate change adaptation. By preventing flash floods, by cooling their surroundings and by storing water for drier periods. Planetary boundaries such as climate change, biodiversity loss, freshwater pollution, land use change and so forth were defined in a groundbreaking study by the world's leading scientists, chaired by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. And 5 out of 9 of these boundaries have already been transgressed by the human civilization. We are moving outside the safe space for humans. The biodiversity loss on species level as well as on genetic diversity level is the most dramatic threat to our civilization. And this is not about the simple fact that the nature surrounding us looks a bit dry and unhealthy, or that the abundance of butterflies and farmland birds I recall from my youth is long gone. This is about the web of life that provides us with fertile soils, pollinated crops, potable water and clean air to breathe. We hence need to listen to science and put biodiversity protection at the centre of our political agenda. We need to make sure that the European Green Deal is not reduced to a European climate deal pushing for more renewables and curbing greenhouse gas emissions alone. But that all promises of the Green Deal, ending pollution, healthier food systems, the transition to a silky economy and bringing back nature are fulfilled. We are all aware I guess that nature conservation in Europe is no huge success story. Europe is the region where the most natural ecosystems have disappeared so far. New urban areas increase. Evermore streets are cut through forests and vulnerable and biodiversity rich ecosystems such as peatlands and wetlands continue to disappear in the EU. This is not because of our regulatory basis for nature conservation would be poor, but rather because enforcement is lacking. 25 out of 27 member states still have not completed the natural 2000 network. And according to the analysis of the European Environment Agency only 23% of the species and a mere 16% of the habitats which are protected under the birds and habitats directors are in good conservation status. The nature restoration law is hence a key file in the European Green Deal, the first real nature legislation in 20 years. Therefore, I thoroughly welcome the Commission proposal as it puts biodiversity back to the centre of the agenda. Of course, there's always room for improvement, namely strengthening the indicators, increasing the overall restoration targets for peatlands importantly. But we need to make sure that the nature restoration law is a regulatory tool that actually works because defining good indicators is not enough if we don't make sure that there is a dedicated funding mechanism and a functioning governance structure surrounding it. The Commission's impact assessment clearly shows that restoration is economically beneficial. Every euro invested in restoration generates at least 8 euros in social economic benefits. However, we face many attacks by lobby organisation and so-called conservative parties who claim that food security and economic development are in danger. As if most of the food we grow were not dependent on pollination and as if natural resources were not the base of all economic development. Last remark, I do want to point out again that restoration often is mixed up with rewilding. While some ecosystems can be best restored through rewilding indeed, many of our most species-rich ecosystems are the result of human civilization. For example, nowhere in the world a meadow or a cart would develop by itself. And just like this, there are many restoration measures which improve the condition of the ecosystem without excluding human utilization, be it for agriculture, for forestry or for recreational purposes. In this regard, I wish you all fruitful discussions and I'm looking forward to working on a very ambitious nature restoration law in the upcoming month. Thank you very much. I hope the video was well received by participants online as we had some technical challenges in the room. But in any case, it will be available on the EBCD website as soon as possible. So all participants and speakers can have full access to the video message intervention of Ms. Paulus. Ms. Paulus, of course, is a German MEP Member of Environment Committee and Shadow Rapporteur for the nature restoration file. In this note, I would like to once again apologize for that. And since we have with us MEP Mr. Rihena co-host of this event and Rapporteur on behalf of the European Parliament, both for the EU by diversity strategy, but also the nature restoration file, maybe we can give you the floor before we take some questions from the audience. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much to the EP intergroup for inviting me to co-host this event with my colleague, Jita. Thank you also to the speakers for your contributions to this interesting discussion and to the rest of the participants for attending this event. Thank you so much. I think this debate is key, especially in the preparation for the discussions that we take place at the 15th of 15 in Montreal next month. The scientists have warned us for decades about the twin crisis that are destroying our natural war, climate change, and the collapse of biodiversity, which requires urgent attention from global policymakers. Following scientists' advice to avoid the worst climate outcomes, we have implemented a strategy to tackle this crisis. European binding climate law, a target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, and discussions are ongoing in some sake to get a new global agreement to have everyone on board. Things are different when looking at the biodiversity crisis. We don't have any technological solution to restore species that go extinct. We don't have replacement for natural systems that are destroyed. Our ecosystems cannot wait any longer for us to take effective science-based decisions that will protect them from destruction. The natural restoration law, for which I am the reporter at the European Parliament, is an ambitious step forward by the European Union to lead the world towards binding restoration targets. It's a pioneer proposal that will prevent the disappearance of ecosystems and the worst consequences of climate change. But this legislation will only be effective if we listen to science and we implement ambitious binding targets for all EU members, all. We need to protect pollinators used close to natural practice in our forests and sort the protections of the marine life and let our rivers flow freely. Our species, our ecosystems, our water bodies are essential to a healthy and climate. And as a reporter, I will work for an ambitious science-based report that will restore our habitats and stop the drain of natural resources. However, this is not a European Union issue, but a global one that needs a worldwide solution. The Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service, known as normally IBES, published in 2019 the Global Assessments Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service, which alerted that a million, million species of plants and animals now face extinction, many within the next decades. The EU's role leading the fight against climate change and the biodiversity crisis ultimately to sides of the same coin, globally and always. I think we need an international commitment that should start in Montreal at the next COP15. I will be part of the EU delegation travelling to Canada and I will defend the importance of making biodiversity a key priority for every government and every nation. Lastly, I would like to stress the importance of scientists' work and engagements in the policy-making process. Your dedication helps us better understand the scope of the crisis and the urgency of the solutions. Your contributions educate citizens around the world and raise awareness of the state of the nature that we all enjoy. Your proposals and also your recommendations are our guideline to implement effective policies. In conclusion, there is no way out of the climate and biodiversity crisis without science. Thank you once again to all the participants for attending this event. I wish you a good rest of your day and thank you. Thank you so much for your work and for your compromise and your dedication. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Lenon. On behalf of the secretariat of the intergroup, it is indeed evident that the time to act is now. So thank you very much for your intervention but also for your leadership in advancing an ambitious science-based report for biodiversity and nature restoration. On this note, perhaps we can take some questions from the audience for speakers in the room and then we can look into questions already posed through the platform. So is there perhaps any burning question from audience here today? Yes, please. Hi, Noelle Baker, member of the EGU Science for Policy Working Group. Thank you all for being here and for putting effort and time into this. I would just like to point out the fact that many of the participants and panel members yourselves are scientists and for those of us in the audience who have put effort into this, we greatly appreciate that our comments have been received and considered in this event. My question to you is more and more scientists have been getting involved through a sense of urgency because we see in our research how incredibly important and urgent it is to take action. I would just ask you, what is your take on this? What can we do and what are the next steps? Thank you very much for this question. I guess it's an open one for all speakers. So feel free to take the floor if you want to come in at this point. Yes, and thank you so much. And again, I am not a scientist myself but I greatly appreciate the work of the scientific community. For us, I think in the area of Earth observation, science and research is essential because we still don't know how much we can do with the data. The opportunities and possibilities seem gigantic and we need the research community to take the first step and start looking and validating at the different use cases the different possible applications. So my job is to try to put the data in the hands of as many researchers as possible because that's really the first step to then be able to inform better and more effective decision making. So I fully agree and I'm happy to inform anyone in the room about how to access Earth observation and planet data for free. Any other speaker perhaps that is interested in taking this question as well? Yes. Hi, again Noel. I had a similar session in EGU engaging with a lot of young scientists and I allow myself to repeat a message of us. Scientific paper which is usually the achievement of a scientist to do the first step. Once you have published your results, you have read to think about what is going to happen with the data? What's the information you provide? Is it going to be used and for what purpose? And then you'll be sitting behind and make sure that this information will be used really to change something on the ground because if you don't think further, we're not going to move anywhere. We will keep on being flooded by information but not drive any kind of changes that are urgent. No. We are just talking about our life support system and it's not enough to do the research. We have a wealth of information. It's about driving the changes. The only way to drive this change is to bring people to the citizens, to the colleagues, to the friends, to the family constantly about what we can do together to move this in the right direction. Now, the right direction can be only given by many scientists. I'm really glad to have EGU on board because it's not only about biological process. It's about physical process. It's about geology changing. It's about the biosphere. It's about climate. So how can we have all this converging evidence that is integrated into a solid package that addresses the social challenges, equity, biodiversity, sustainable nature. These are the things that we need to drive together and there's still a long way to go. We need to have the interfaces to develop these interactions with the public, go in your municipalities, talk to the mayor because this is the first element of democracy. This is where you can put something on the table saying we should change that and effectively see the change happening. So we can start there at the fundamental levels of democracy and hopefully scale up these kind of movements at a larger scale. But we need to gain trust from the citizens that what we do in terms of science will be useful and we'll be going in the right direction. At the moment, we are not good enough as scientists to communicate what are the consequences of the challenges that we have and what are the difficult decisions that we need to take together. And we are first citizens before being scientists. Thank you. Thank you very much. To add upon that, I'm not a scientist myself. I don't consider myself as a scientist, but I've been on the policy side. I think the question is really how can science and the insights that come from science influence policy making at different levels. And as you said, there are different levels to be taken into account. The importance is also, I think, on how to present what has been on the basis of which questions, which really policy questions are at the basis of those scientific research. And that connection sometimes has to be bridged and there has to be more opportunities to meet and to make sure that what has been under research is actually responding to the policy questions that are really the most urgent ones. And I know at European level there have been some efforts made at least for soil research. And I think that was a really step ahead. Excuse me. To see as a policy maker, okay, I can count on those inputs from research to make sure that what we present as next steps to take is really based on evidence. So look at, to find those different opportunities to make those connections. And I think that is somehow what the FAE was trying to do at the global level then and also at regional level to link those insights and make them easily available and digestible for policy makers so that they can in their turn take them to the next level. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ann. And I also noticed through the platform that Ayanika and Alberto are interested to this question. So I think honestly that's a great question there. Maybe we can start with Ayanika. Thank you. I agree. It's a great question and really puts us on the spot on what needs to be done. Continuing on the science, providing the right science, the researchers need to also think about the output of their science so that it's the right questions as Ann said so that it also caters to the policies that are being made so that the data and the output of the data, the way it's presented is usable so that it can be interpreted for the policy questions that are being decided. That's my first point. Another very important point is we need to break down the silos. Last month I took part in a panel in Prague where I sat on the same panel with somebody from the earth extraction industry from sector and it was very interesting we discussed the nature restoration law and it was very interesting to have this exchange with a sector who are hands on doing work and need to think about the implications of this upcoming law and I think this is something we need to see more of. So we need to see the silos breaking down, we need to see the scientists and policy makers speaking to people from all sectors and for some reason this seems to be rather challenging but this is something we have to do now because as already pointed out we have to have all sectors on board to make this happen and I think there's a lot of sectors out there who don't even realize that they can be champions, they can be the ones to implement the needed changes and if they see this not as a cost but actually as an investment an investment in that their work can go on in the new format that's required then I think it's a good way for them to come on board and for this whole package to work because it's not only the scientists who can solve this, the scientists are very important and they are providing us with absolutely valuable information and here at the EA we work with this information a lot but for the final output we need to look at the broader scope so that's my second point, breaking down the silos Thank you very much Yanika for this and Alberto perhaps any reflections on this question as well Thank you very much Well most have been said but it's also good to realize if you want the scientific community responsibility, it has been mentioned a number of times but it's good to emphasize it and let me start saying the same again I am not a scientist myself also I work with scientists I think since the start of my career it's fundamental the role of scientists and it's actually the ones that are those are the ones that are really making us realize that there needs to be a change Now, when we prepare some paper, there are some organizations that say that when you prepare a paper in the policy domain let's say you should dedicate a percentage of time to prepare another strong percentage of time to disseminate it or to see what you are going to do with it exactly 10% in the development and 90% in the world just to use it outside I don't know what is the exact percentage but definitely this will be much more probably from the scientific side in terms of thinking what to do with it because at the very end as Gregor was saying sometimes you can have an incredibly good and positive and useful message that maybe it will just get lost because nobody will use it there is even another possibility that somebody else will use it instead of you and go in the direction that they want to go so simply it's important to realize that the possibility of producing new information is not stopping in the moment that is produced but rather in the moment that is used Thank you very much Alberto for your reply and also to all speakers of course for your kind flexibility as we have extended the official timing for this event today and I notice in the room that there is a lot of movement I understand that there is an upcoming meeting taking place very soon so on this note I would like to thank you all once again and for the economy of the discussion I'll just be providing the floor back to Helen for some key takeaways and some closing remarks also from your side on behalf of EGU co-organizers of this event today in the European Parliament Thank you very much Iliad in the interest of time I will keep my remarks quite short but I do want to make a few key observations from today's discussion I first I want to add my thanks to the panellists for what I think has been an interesting and informed discussion on a critical and timely topic but I want to come back to the point that Alberto made in his intervention because I think this is a critical message for all of us and is certainly one of my takeaways from today and that is that action is needed now and that's because we're all scientists or we're involved in policymaking everyone in the room has a different role one common factor that we all have is that we see a change in our environment we recognise that our environment is not the same as it was for the many decades before and that we need to act to restore our environment but also as Felicia observed in her intervention there is another key aspect here which is that we also need to halt the ongoing degradation at the same time so we not only need to be thinking about restoration thinking about halting the ongoing degradation and maintaining those environments and not allowing a further erosion but an important aspect of acting now that I've heard from a number of our panellists today is the importance of communication as part of this activity we need to ensure that we are not only communicating bilaterally between scientists and policymakers but we need to be having an interaction across sectors but also we need to be interacting with society we need to make it clear why these actions are important why they're needed now and why we are seeking to actually really take action to address these challenges I think the other important point was made by Irene in her intervention where she mentioned the importance of the availability of data and availability of data to everybody democratization of data is critical for scientists to do their research but also to deliver trustworthy and sound research to policymakers so I think these are all important facets of the discussion we've had today and I think this event has been an opportunity to bring together scientific experts and policymakers to address the priority areas and I think the key thing that I've taken away from today's discussion is the critical value of those interactions and they highlight the need for a consistent and ongoing dialogue between scientists and policymakers but also with other stakeholders make sure that we are not focused on this bilateral interaction but I think the one key message that I will take away Ilya sassed what the key message was for each of the panelists the key message that I think I will take away today is the comment that was made that there is no way out of the climate and biodiversity crisis without science I may get a t-shirt made with that put on the front actually because I think that is a really critical message for everyone who's engaged in addressing these issues so I want to wrap up this discussion with a few thank yous firstly I would like very much to thank our hosts MEPs Luayna and Paulus for facilitating this discussion and hosting this event today I'd also like to thank Ilya s and his colleagues at the intergroup on climate change diversity and sustainable development who co-hosted this event today I have to say I personally have found this a really positive experience in organising this event so Ilya s I'd like to thank you and the rest of the intergroup for your time and efforts in organising this event lastly I would also like to thank Ms Rodrigues Ramos who I felt that her support and comments on the recommendations that have been made by the EGUs biodiversity task force are really important and valuable for those who've been involved in our task force in addressing this issue so if our thanks could also be conveyed to Ms Rodrigues Ramos we would appreciate that for those of you who are in the room we can continue our discussion over coffee I apologise to those of you who are online who are not able to join us but we will wrap up this event by thanking everyone our hosts, our contributors and particularly our panellists both here in Brussels and online I think this has been an excellent discussion but I want to echo something as my final remark that was said by one of the panellists who I was so I apologise we need to have a consistent and ongoing dialogue so I hope today's event is the start of a conversation and I would encourage you all to think about this event as being the start of a conversation so thank you all for your participation and your time today