 Social Science Division based in Erie has been giving the States for 22 years, if I'm not mistaken. And now he's working out of Los Barrios and his specializations on commodity modeling, trade and policy analysis, future markets. And this afternoon, he will bring us to talk and title the world in 2020-2035 how much we need, who will produce it. Dr. Manjit, you have the floor. Thank you very much. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Back here again in the second session here, but I have a different role to play here. I thought I have an easy presentation because I will talk about 2020-2035. You cannot really come back and challenge me I was wrong, because I am very tired of this. But you can come back and ask Eric to be here for 6 months that they are all wrong on what they say. But I thought I have an easy one to talk about. Anyway, I will focus mostly on the long-term value and look at more supply-demanding balances, other than looking at the outlook thing. But before that, this is my outline for my presentation, so I will give a very deep current state of affairs. You need to know what happened in 20-30 years down the road. You need to know where you are, how you got here. So I am going to talk very briefly about the current state of affairs. Looking ahead in 2020-2035, I focus mostly on the changing consumption pattern due to income growth and organizations. And we talk about the supply side story and kind of look at whether we have any imbalances between supply and demand. And looking ahead in 2020-2035, then I will conclude with few remarks. This is where we are right now and how we got here. This is a slide my DG used very regularly and a lot of things goes to really because you can see there the real price prices have gone down quite rapidly throughout the 70s and 80s. And until the 90s, we had the lowest price in the first part of the century, around the real price, around $200 price there. The reason is because the production growth throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s exceeded the population growth and resulting in a real decline in the right prices there. Then we have just to give the significance of the price in the poverty reduction. This is just an example of what has happened in different states in India. On the vertical axis is the poverty ratio and the horizontal axis is the rice yield. You can see between 2003 and 2005 as the rice yield has increased, it is clearly linked with the decline in the poverty ratio. So rice, we already heard quite a bit this morning, the significance of rice. We already heard what rice can do and what rice has done to the Asian economy in the last 50 years. So there is no argument that rice has a significant role to play if we are able to eliminate poverty in Asia and Africa. Still with all these achievements, we still have a long way to go. We still have 1.4 billion people or more than billion people below poverty line all over the world, particularly concentrated in South Asia and parts of China here, also in Africa there. So in terms of achievements, I think we have a long way to go in terms of eliminating poverty from this planet here. Then we had this crisis or whatever you call, rice pipeline or whatever you say that, we had this increase in rice prices in 2007, late 2007, only 2008 and the price can have touched $1,000 per year of time. But since then prices have come down. I'm not going to talk about why the prices happened and prices came down, but what I would like to highlight is that the prices have settled down at a much higher level than what we had seen in many, many years before that, throughout the 90s and 80s. So the question is, is this a new support for rice price? Are we going to see the $300, $200 price ever again? Or we are not. But just like you can see, the rice prices are fluctuating between $500 and $600, which is much higher than what it was before the prices and beginning of the century and throughout the 90s there. Although the prices in nominal terms have been rising for last many years, six, seven years because of the depletion of the stock level there. But the question is, is this a new support for the rice price in the future? Do we actually decide what happens in the future from the $500 upward? Are we actually going to see ever the $300 rice price in the future? Since the prices, what I would like to focus is, I call it a major shift in the food policy. Particularly among Asian countries, I think there's a new trend now where basically countries are trying to achieve food security through food self-sufficient. The whole idea is that you have enough food for all citizens by expanding domestic production. So you throw the import out of the equations there. So that countries are thriving to achieve the food security through domestic production, through having self-sufficient. And the thing these countries have done with lots of short term measures, increasing the rising, increasing the support prices. We have seen that in Thailand, India, Indonesia, many of the countries, the support prices have increased after the prices to expand the production. A lot of other short term measures like input subsidies, what like to see the sale to expand production. And finally what I worry the most is the play restrictions. The new interest of the play restrictions countries have imposed the restriction both on the export and import side to make sure that the domestic production stays at home. I think this is a very dangerous decision in terms of the look ahead in the future where rice is already thinly traded commodity, only 5 to 7% of rice is traded. And if the Asian countries pursue the policy of self-sufficiency, then we might be getting into some lot of serious trouble in many years to come. Maybe a lot more price volatility, not more price price. Then, as I said, a lot of temporary policy measures have been taken by countries to make sure that the rice produced domestically stays for domestic consumption. Then also I mentioned about renewed focus on regional rice reserve. Again, I'm very skeptical about the operation of the regional reserve. I think we need to go back and look in the history and see how many regional rice reserve have worked. How many national rice reserve have worked in the sense. Then finally, which is also very dangerous precedent, that more involvement of the government. What we had seen throughout the 90s and first part of the century, rice trade was becoming slowly legalized. The government was getting out of the business, but they're back in the business again. Then, any kind of slide before the war rice trade. I'm not sure what we have seen in the last, we have seen a significant expense on the rice trade in the last 15-40 years. The trade in this is from 10 to 30 million tons. But I think we need to give few more years to see exactly which direction the rice trade will move. Right now, you can see last three years, it's been going flat, going sideways. I hope this is not the real trend now. I hope this trend will reverse and the rice trade is going to go back again. The upward trend, what we have seen in the past. Because the only way we can stabilize this market to expand trade, to allow rice to move at the border. If we don't make that happen, there is no way we can achieve global food security. We can produce whatever we want, but rice needs to be traded. Actors at the bottom. The trade needs to be expanded. Just looking ahead, the 2020 and 2030, let me focus on the demand side. I think it's the consumption which determines the supply. As an economist, you will agree with me, it's not the vice versa. It's the consumption which will determine how much will supply. If you look at the global rice consumption, the red line you see, that's the per capita consumption in the last 18-20 years. Then the area you see, that's the total consumption. You can see per capita consumption, this is total consumption, not food. Rice disappearance, you can rice utilization, you can say that, which is food, feed, seed, other images, everything included in that. What you see in the historical data in the last 40 years, per capita consumption, was slightly declining in recent years. You can see it's 64 kilograms throughout the 90s and the last 8 years of recent years. The only thing is the rise in total consumption is increasing at the rate of population growth. If you assume this is constant or slightly declining, so whatever increase in total consumption you have seen, it's going to become the population growth there. If you look a little bit more carefully, although the global per capita consumption is flat, there are changes happening within Asia where 90% rice is consumed. You have seen significant decline in high income Asian countries, particularly Japan, Korea, Taiwan. The thing is, you can see more than 50% decline in per capita consumption in Japan and South Korea and Taiwan in the last 30-40 years. I think the real question becomes whether the other Asian countries will follow the Japanese and South Korea and the Taiwanese trend. If that is the case, I don't think we have to worry about the high school security. We are all set. But what if you look at other consumption, the other Asian countries, this is just to tell that some of the major Asian countries in India and China, actually they are kind of 50-50 in terms of rice and wheat. They are not only rice consumers, they are also major wheat consumers. And you can see some other countries, Vietnam and Bangladesh, they primarily consume rice. Then you can see some of these other countries, Indonesia, Philippines, a huge amount of rice, a very moderate amount of wheat. My whole, the reason I am showing this one and my point is that all these countries are unique. You cannot put all the Asian countries in the basket of China, Korea, Taiwan, Japan and think that as the income goes, they will be exactly like those countries. The consumption pattern, the significance of rice, where the rice lies, each of the countries are different. So each of the countries as they become richer, as they become industrialized, they will become different. Not exactly what you are seeing in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. So it's pretty evident, you can see here, what I have here, the horizontal axis is your income per capita income and the vertical axis is the per capita consumption. You can see that each of the countries have their own path. As the income goes, they have their own path there. You can see Malaysia is pretty flat. In between 1990 and 2005, in 15 years, their income has doubled. From $2,500 to $5,000, their per capita consumption more or less not much changed. It's pretty much the same. Then you can see other countries, India and China, who have per capita consumption. Per capita income is much lower. You see some decline in the per capita consumption in these countries. Then other side, you see countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, Philippines, even to some extent Indonesia, per capita consumption is still rising. So you have a mixed bag of countries in Asia, where the whole high-income country, their per capita consumption has declined. There are other medium-income countries like Thailand, India, China, where per capita consumption has started to decline. Then you have countries like Philippines, Bangladesh, Vietnam, where per capita consumption continues to rise. I don't think anybody knows what's the inflation point. When all these countries are going to turn around and start consuming less. We know that as the income goes, they are going to consume less, but it's way. That inflation point for each country is different. You cannot say that as soon as this country is $5,000, they will start consuming less rice. I think that's a very generalized statement. I think each country will behave differently how they consume in the future. What happened to rice in the future? That's it.