 My name is Amosomore. This is one of four opinions around the big issues for life-token phase two. It is guided by two questions. One, does the model of testing science in value chains work? And two, are there better ways in either of the future scenarios? The two future scenarios under consideration are scenario one, CRP livestock and fish is similar to its current form with a focus on value chains and intensification and scenario two, CRP livestock and fish covers a global animal science agenda. Common arguments in favor or against either of the two scenarios are as follows. For scenario one where CRP livestock and fish is similar to its current form, the common arguments in favor are that with this approach we have more focus for greater accountability. We know that our investors often demand more of this. The approach of addressing the whole value chain is more holistic than working on individual nodes of a value chain here and there. Linking market pool and technology push factors is possible in this approach. And this is more promising for achieving sustainable intensification. Piloting with partners ensures appropriate learning and eventual uptake of technologies and innovations. Sustained policy engagements to support scaling is possible because policymakers can visit pilot sites to see and believe. Initial evidence is already being generated and we will lose credibility in the value chains without proper justification for withdrawal or scaling down activities. Common arguments against that with this approach we lose focus on generating global public goods and that we risk getting too involved in development. For scenario two where CRP livestock and fish covers a global animal science agenda, the arguments in favor are that this is better at ensuring generation of global public goods. It is argued that context specific learning cannot be easily scaled and that delivery is not researchable and should be someone else's business. It should be business of the scientific community. The argument against that we've tried this before with undelivered products, the pathways to impact are clear and it is often said that this perhaps should be the primary role of better resourced public and private organizations in industrialized countries. I want to argue in favor of scenario one because I think it is more promising for achieving the desired impact and satisfying both our investors and clients. Besides the strong arguments in favor that I have just highlighted, I think it does not necessarily preclude scenario two. With this model of testing science and value genes, we can still generate regional and global public goods and we could cite various examples here and there like the smallholder daily research for development in Kenya sometime back. Adaptations for scaling elsewhere is often needed but this is easier with good science that traverses discovery to delivery as we are trialling in the value genes. If we continue with the current scenario with a focus on value genes and intensification, we need to strengthen some areas. Firstly, we need to strengthen processes for learning and capturing what works well, where and how as a basis for scaling nationally and beyond. We need to create optimal interdisciplinary teams in the value genes. We need to strengthen business orientation in the piloting of our best bets and we need to continue with the work of strengthening linkages between flagships and value genes. We look forward to receiving your comments. Thank you.