 Thank you very much, and it's a real delight to be here. My brief was to speak about recent advances in future agendas of conflict research and links to development, and that's what I'm going to try to do in 15 minutes, so forgive me if a lot gets missed. This is my personal view on the field, and I want to talk about three main developments which have happened recently. I'm talking about maybe the last five to ten years in conflict research. The first is a shift to the micro level. The second one is this idea of civilian agency, and the third one, which I think is really, really important, has to do what we call wartime institutions. And I think this has really made a big difference. It has shifted and advances a lot of research on conflict which has exploded in the last ten years or so. For a long time, and we've heard Omar already alluding to some of these big debates, for a long time, the research, research on conflict, particularly in the development of economics of which there was not much, there was very much on the issues around security and capacity of states. It was about states, which really had a lot of importance because it brought attention to development and to development economics, particularly to the importance of conflict and violence across the world. About 15 years ago, and it's probably still the truth, right now, no developed economics textbook referred to conflict at all. This has shifted quite dramatically, and it did, policy reasons, the Millennium Development Goals highlighted the fact that the only countries that would not achieve the Millennium Development Goals had in common the fact that they all were conflict-affected countries. And there's been this explosion of work. And for a long time, the work is focused on the states, but then it starts becoming obvious that subnational patterns and trends and processes were really important. And while the first, call it conflict 101, was really important in kind of understanding the triggers of conflict and what drives civil wars mostly, we sort of forgot what happens at subnational level. And this has changed quite dramatically recently, and most of the new advances have been at the micro level. And some of it has actually been convened by the houses in conflict network, which I convened together with Tillman Brook and Philipp Verwimp, and was born here at YD 11 years ago, when Tony Addison brought us together in a panel that gave rise to the houses in the conflict network. So it's great to be here 11 years later to tell you about what's been happening in the field since then. And what's been happening is quite remarkable in the short space of time. One of the big contributions has been a lot of evidence, a lot of data collection has been happening, a lot of difficult work done under very difficult circumstances. We were told there is no way you can collect data, empirical evidence in war-torn countries, DRC, Afghanistan, so forth. It is possible, we've shown it's possible. And we have quite a wealth of data and the network now extends quite a few members I see present here today. And the other advance that this micro focus has brought to the field is this idea that people matter and actually people's behavior and the way different interactions and social interactions happen in the field really matter to explain why conflict lasts, why conflict reignites, what different processes of conflict take place. And this has been also highlighted in a policy world where there's definitely a lot of much more people-centered approaches have become much more prominent than in the past. One of the great examples being the World Bank community-led development programs which spend now currently billions of dollars focusing on getting the sort of relations on the ground right. And one of the big developments has been sort of a move from this idea that people, people that live in conflict areas, these are the people we're talking about here, when we talk about policy, how to make their lives better. And it turns out that people that live in conflict areas are not, they suffer a lot of conflict, there's lots of victimization and so forth, etc. But there's been a kind of slight shift from sort of focusing people as victims and trying to understand people as agents in the conflict itself. And this has been quite significant and it has led to new developments even with the development economics itself. And we now understand that actually these dynamics, these local dynamics really matter to understand why we're fighting takes place for whom, for how long and so forth. And the other big event, the sort of big body of research that has taken place recently over the sort of five years or so is a very simple idea. It turns out that what happens during conflict matters to explain post-conflict. And it's quite simple, but somehow it gets forgotten and there's this idea that conflicts are areas of unarchy, blank slates where once the conflict over we can come in and try to solve the situation, of course it's not the case. At the theoretical level, this kind of idea that you can do policy in conflict areas once the conflict is ended and you can sort of implement some of the development as developed as business as usual, like Graciella was mentioning, is theoretically we tend to think of conflict areas where social order has broken down. So we have large literatures on state collapse, the state failure literatures and so forth. However, if you've been to any of these areas where fighting takes place, what we see is that although state institutions may collapse, it's not necessarily the case that order collapses. This is what makes conflict areas so difficult to understand and to intervene in. And what happens is that spaces are empty and they're left for different actors, political actors to come in and occupy that space. If you remember, violence has been with us since the beginning of human history. Violence happens for a reason and it happens because violence is a means through which institutions are born and raised and created and destroyed. So if you start thinking in this way, it's not that surprising to see that lots happen in conflict areas. And we know these groups, we know some of these groups, and we have the FARC in Colombia, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, a lot of ISIS now. These groups are occupying empty spaces and they are providing order, which makes it really difficult to sort of break. Relations get established in different areas and they are very difficult to break. There's not surprising that the presence of the successful groups, many of them fail in the process of getting there, have to are present in conflicts of long duration as well. So there's something to understand there and there's been lots of work done around these issues. People have called rebel governance where there's a body of research on trying to understand how these relationships between combatants and non-combatants happen between algorithms and civilians with a lot of implications for policy, like combatants reintegration and so forth. Lots of work also around understanding changing of social norms during conflict, which has huge implications for how we do development at community level. And so where do we go from here? Again, this is my personal choice I'm sure a lot more could be added here. I could spend the next two hours going over various exciting areas of research. But I've picked three and the three I've picked are about linking these two different views of the world. It's about data and the fact, trying to make a point that violence happens outside Africa and it happens outside civil wars and this is sort of a new movement and new understandings that are happening in the field. So, we've started from states. We worked a lot on understanding states and state capacity. We've spent the last ten years on micro. How can we bring this together? If these new developments in micro level allow us to be successful, they can only be successful to the extent they'll explain that provide the micro solutions to understand the bigger phenomenon. So, can we actually use all these learning from field work and micro level to understand big questions such as why conflict persists and mutates, survival and security, negotiation process and so forth. We're not there but we're getting there and new work is happening quite significant and I can see a lot of it is going to happen in the next five years. There's lots of work on so called by status calibers and liable cells on technologies of rebellion. How do fighting strategies at the sub-national level actually have implications for both? What happens to people and what happens to states? The research agenda on wartime institutions is quite significant to have spoken about that. Collective action, where does civil society come from? We have three actors in conflict. We have the state, we have the civil society and the armed actors. We sort of focus quite a lot on state-civilian relationships. We don't focus so much on a sort of armed groups, civilian relationships and the rise of civil society and how that gets affected by the conflict. Quite a lot of research being done at that level. Systems of patronage. How do these institutional change that happen in conflict driven by relationships between armed groups and civilians mostly? And by armed groups I mean most rebel groups but also military. How does that then reflect in post-conflict politics? And it has huge reflections. And there's also a very interesting area of research around business and war economies at the local level which is quite interesting as well. And all this research is kind of amalgated to try to link these two views on the world. So conflicts are not just about the states and the people. There's something in between that will have to link states with the people and that's what the new research is coming up is trying to do. Then I have to talk about data. I do a lot of data collection and we've done a lot and we have a lot of data on populations living in conflict on sort of political events, on conflict and violence events. There's a lot out there that can be used but we still are at the case study level. Very little comparative work has been done and this requires huge investments. To do this kind of work at comparative level requires huge investments that only sort of the big international organizations can do. And Tillman and I, and Phillip Feving as well, we're working together with the World Bank to try to push this agenda a bit forward and see what comes out of that. And finally, we've spent a lot of time. Most of new research on conflict is about a restricted number of failed states in Africa where civil wars have taken place. It was obvious the analysis were going to start there. But one thing that is quite clear is that although you learn a lot about why conflict happens and why it lasts and so forth from these case studies, we sort of miss out the transition period. And if we think about history, think about the history of Europe, where wars have taken place and institutions have changed so over hundreds of years, not the 10 and 20 years that we're trying to do sort of policy in conflict-affected countries. Well, we need to learn from both how these transitions happen. How do you move from state of conflict to state of peace? And this is extremely complex and you don't learn that just focusing on countries that tend to go back into conflict constantly. You also learn those from those that succeeded, including Europe itself, the US, the Civil War in the US. So you learn a lot from these long transition periods and we should kind of try to do more about that. And also we know now that most violence takes place in non-fragile countries. So a lot is happening outside the traditional failed states in Africa. There's a rise importance that urban violence is another area which has been untapped but obviously has implications for how we understand the world today. And protest, social tensions and so forth, there is a lot to be learned from recent research on conflict in civil war conflict to understand the sort of rise of protests and when protests become violence and so forth. So I think there's a lot of research that's going to emerge there but I'll stop here. Thank you.