 Good afternoon, everybody. So my presentation this morning was covering essentially the results of our projects. So with this shorter presentation, what I was, is this the right one? Yeah. I can't see. Can we put it on the full screen? Whereas, yeah, I wanted to take an embrace sort of more about what the project is doing overall about trying to change the way farmers are managing Fall Army 1. So we have sort of several projects are covered, if you like, by the Fall Army 1 program, because it's, although the sort of core funding was provided by this NORAD grant, we've now also got the global trial and the work that I've been involved with with the Fall Army 1 Global Action that's run by FAO. And then also looking forward to where we want to take this work in the future. So we've already covered this. It's a pest of cereals native to the Americas that invaded the old world in 2016, quickly spread across the old world. Within two years, it was in Asia. And we had these initial predictions of very large crop losses. But as a generalist feeder, it's also attacked by a very large number of natural enemies. So the potential for control by natural enemies is high. So the NORAD Fall Army 1 project is this collaboration between C4 ICRAF, the Sandbin Agricultural Research Institute, and the Department of Agricultural Research, Malawi. And the aim is to conduct on-farm trials of these different agroecological interventions. So it's very specifically just certain agroecological practices, specifically intercropping and soil amendment treatments. And then to associate these trials with household impact assessments. And then there's a whole range of policy and communications activities associated with the project as well. So these are the landscapes. We covered this this morning. We have 12 landscapes across three districts per country. The districts were selected to cover the whole range of rain-fed conditions for growing maize, so that we go from the very wet in the north there in the south down to the very dry in Kazangula in the south. The impact assessment, we had a baseline assessment of households and then post-harvest assessments in four years. So we did the same 180 farm households as the on-farm trials. So across those 12 landscapes, we're actually doing trials on 180 farms. So we surveyed those farms and an additional 720 farms that were randomly. So another four farmers, for every farmer that we're doing the trial with, we selected an extra four farmers from the same village randomly from the village household list. So that we get both the group that we're working with and the group that we're not working with to try and understand how they understand impact and how it's changing through time. In terms of outreach, we've run quite a number of trainer-of-trainer workshops. These tend to focus on more broadly on integrated pest management rather than just on agroecology. I mean, agroecology practices. And we've also been doing a lot of field days with farmers and also local things like agricultural offices and so forth. And we're currently running a very large number of farmer-fueled schools through this season. We're not doing the trials in this season. So we've kind of replaced the effort in trials into an effort in farmer-fueled schools. We've had several policy briefs and white papers out, mostly focusing on the SADAC region. And with the SADAC countries, this is really an FAO initiative, but that we've been using this project to contribute to. We've been working on the national IPM strategies for the SADAC countries. The idea being that because the tendency at the moment, as I sort of mentioned this morning, is that the countries just sponsor farmers to use pesticides and often pesticides that are not only very toxic, but often not actually that effective. And so the whole point of getting it as a strategy in the country is that hopefully they will then follow that strategy. And at least the technocrats within the country will have something to sort of fall back in, to push back a little bit, perhaps, at their political masters. We also produce, or are in the process of producing communication materials. So we have a couple of animated videos that we're doing. We're doing some podcasts and our farmer radio. Also a couple of documentary videos and technical manuals. So with the technical manuals, what we've found is a lot of there's both the national manuals for their own extension agents. And also what we've found is a lot of the NGOs that work with farmers have a manual on sort of how to manage your farm or something like that. So what we're trying to do is put a chapter in many of these different manuals so that we can try and get out to people more about how to manage full armyworm. Particularly focusing again on IPM rather than strictly agricultural practices. And then in terms of sustainability, we've also trained some students there, including one who was sponsored by the TPP, came from Benin and came down and studied in Zambia. We've also tried to communicate to large numbers of other scientists working on the topic. So we held two online conferences, one this earlier, sorry, in October last year and one the year before that. This was actually sort of because of COVID, we had planned a much, much smaller in-person workshops with policymakers. But with COVID we had to change our strategy and we actually found it to be much more effective. We had these two online conferences, they were attended by more than 650 participants with something in excess of 60 papers presented over the two days. And in both years we ran a SADAC regional workshop for the plant protection committees, which was a process to developing the IPM strategies. However, I have to, as I mentioned this morning with Zambia just suddenly deciding it's going to give out free pesticides. There's this persistent problem, even where you've got the technicats within the country really supporting the IPM approach, you still get this persistent problem of political interference because giving out something for free to farmers is politically expedient. And I'm not quite sure exactly how we can really tackle that. I mean, developing the strategies is a way of creating some mechanism for pushback, but I don't think it's the complete answer. So I'll move on to the global trial. This had a version one and a version two to it. So under the version one, it was just a group of people, particularly myself and a couple of colleagues at CIMIT decided that trying to do a trial of these limited agroecological practices across a wide variety of socioeconomic and biophysical environments was really important because the outcomes are context dependent. So we set up a platform to take the data on the trial and we then sort of put the word out to people, could they join in? But the truth was that although we put a lot of effort into setting up the platform and everything, we got very, very low uptake. So we did get a couple of groups in a couple of places coming forward and saying that they would do it, but it was more a case of sort of everybody thought it was a great idea, but then people tended not to follow through. So we were a bit stuck there, but then we moved fortunately through FAO, who were one of the groups that were trying to help us, they saw this opportunity because they actually got funding to sponsor countries to do trials. So they then said, well, let's make the global trial part of this global action. And so that's just starting. We have eight countries, three sites per country. So if this goes ahead and it's full implementation, we'll have 24 sites where we implement this trial. It is also because we had to negotiate a little bit with the protocols, a broader trial, it's looking at the agroecological ones, but it's also tying that with comparing, depending on what the individual countries wanted to do, some pesticide treatments, some biopesticide treatments and so on. The only thing that I would say is a disadvantage is that they, it has moved from being a on farm trial, which was the original version one to a on station trial because I think all the national implementers, they don't want to be doing it on farm, they want to be doing it on station, which is a bit of a shame, but at least we will still be testing this across a wide variety of, at least biophysical contexts. We've had a number of publications out and this year we're trying to write up the results of the main trials that we've been doing so that we should have a bunch more come out this year. Going on to future ideas, unfortunately the funding stream that we're getting from NORAD is not being renewed and so we don't have an option to go back to NORAD to persuade them to give us another round and it finishes in June. So within this project, we're just trying to develop the IPM recommendations and the communications material and then that project will wrap up. We have the project, the short, the small project with FAO to implement this global trial, which we're now at the point of just, you know, getting the actual work implemented through these eight countries. So that's, that'll start and that'll run probably over about the next 12 to 18 months. Just coming up, we have a workshop with a project that was funded in the UK. Their project is also coming to an end, but they have an opportunity for extension funding and we want to link landscape features to pest control services. So I think that this will be an interesting opportunity to look particularly at broader things like, you know, the amount of forest you've got and forest management policies and so forth in how you control pests. And then I think, you know, we've got an opportunity to discuss ideas more. I think really when we're looking at, looking to the future in this kind of project, we need to broaden from looking just at full army women, just at Maze to a much more broader idea of how agroecology and a lot of people have also been obviously talking about the other aspects of the agroecology, the system thinking agroecology and so forth. And I think thinking, well, where does pest control and so forth fit into that? And we haven't had any presentations on pollination, which of course is a major important ecosystem service that, you know, agroecology is often promoted as a solution to. And so I think that these are things that we can talk about. Thank you.