 So let me turn now Haruka, Dr. Haruka Sakamoto to you from Japan. You've been listening to us. Thank you for your patience and welcome. Hi, Ari. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak today. So today, I'd like to talk about my opinion about how global health governance has changed during the COVID-19. And then I also would like to talk about how the various actors make up the global health governance, especially the platforms in which Japan is involved. So what my understanding is that even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the challenges of the global health governance had been pointed out. In particular, since the outbreak of the Ebola in West Africa in 2014, a need for structural reform of the WHO and in a coordination throughout the UN organization, the absence of the leadership at the global level have been pointed out as a major problem of the global health governance. Also, as a result of the aforementioned governance problems, the inability to provide global public goods such as vaccines and therapeutics in an appropriate and timely manner, and the inability of the international community to stop the spread of infectious diseases have also been seen as a problem. So after the Ebola outbreak, in response to such discussion, WHO reforms and UN-wide coordination mechanisms have been discussed and made a significant effort to improve such organizational challenges. In addition, the World Bank's PEP and then WHO's CFE and then several other financial mechanisms have been proposed and established as part of the discussions on how to handle finances during the crisis. So in this context, COVID-19 occurred, and then my personal feeling is that the issue of global health governance that have been discussed in the past have been exposed again this time of the COVID-19. So it may include the structural problem of WHO and the relationship between the WHO and the National Sovereignty. Also, so the WHO has various policy tools for pandemics such as international health regulations or IHR. They are not legally binding like an IAEA. So as Jayza already pointed out in the IPPPR report, everyone would agree that it is necessary to discuss on WHO reform and then also the structure about WHO as well as the United Nations as a whole by reflecting on the failures and lessons we got from the COVID-19 pandemic this time. But I'd like to point out one point. I'd like to, I mentioned one point. So there seems to be a lot of criticism on the WHO, but I don't think it necessarily means that WHO did not play a sufficient role this time. So of course, there are many challenges, but for example, looking at the WHO Western Pacific collision of which Japan isn't a member, I feel that WHO has played a very significant role, especially at a country level. So this region, Western Pacific collision has been confronted with the various pandemics in the past, such as SARS and the novel influenza. So by preparing for the pandemic based on the past experiences, the number of deaths in the region has been relatively low compared to the other regions. So the WHO regional office and the country office and the ministry of health in each country in the region have worked closely together from the early stages of the outbreak to share information. And then regional office and the country office have provided technical assistance to countries as needed. So due to the strong relationship between the WHO and the ministry of health in each country in the normal times, I feel that the presence and importance of the WHO, especially at the country level has been reconformed this time. So there are certain roles that only the WHO can play, especially in the relation to the ministry of health. And then I feel that these roles need to be properly evaluated when we're discussing about the WHO reform. And I also would like to personally commend the ACT Accelerator and the COVAX framework that have been newly created this time. Of course, the provision of vaccine through COVAX has not necessarily achieved equitable global vaccine distribution. Last time I already pointed out, there is an overwhelming disparity in the vaccine supply between the high income countries and the low income countries. However, if COVAX had not been in place, the gap between high and low income countries may have even wider than it is now. So it isn't a fact that there are at least some countries that have been benefit from the vaccines via COVAX. So on the other hand, yes, we already discussed in someone, but as has already been pointed out, how to involve the donors more in the COVAX and then how to strengthen authority to secure the necessary funds and distribute vaccines fairly remain issued to be addressed. I also would like to talk about the importance of the bilateral cooperation. So not only from a multilateral perspective, but the impact of bilateral cooperation on the global health governance should also be considered. For example, in the case of the vaccine provision, Japan has provided a huge number of vaccines through the COVAX. On the other hand, Japan has also been actively providing vaccines as part of the bilateral cooperation, especially to the countries that are strategically close to Japan, such as Taiwan and Vietnam. So while cooperating in a multilateral framework, many major donors are actively providing support in the bilateral framework because they can provide a surprise mark quickly and then have diplomatic advantage in terms of the strengthening relationship with partner countries. Also in terms of the impact of bilateral cooperation on the global health governance, China's influence is also not worthy. So many people are already aware of the fact that China is actively providing Chinese-made vaccines to other countries. And in addition, it is also actively providing oxygen and healthcare staff. So China's vaccine diplomacy has naturally stimulated many Western donors in Japan, and it will be interesting to see how the world responds to this. So global health governance was discussed considerably after the Ebola epidemic in West Africa in 2014, but China's influence has become more pronounced since that time. So there are various moves to deal with China's influence on the global health, one of which is the Quadri-Lateral Security Dial, also called QUAT, which is a framework proposed by the former prime minister Shinzo Abe in the past, and then consisting of the four countries, such as India, United States, Japan and Australia, and it aims to promote peace and stability in the Pacific region. Just a few days ago, the first face-to-face meeting with the Quad was held, where the leaders of the four countries met and then agreed to further collaborate in terms of the COVID-19 response, including the vaccination provision. Also, another possible platform that could involve China would be the G20. Even before the COVID-19, platforms such as the G7 and G20 had been increasing their presence in the global health governance. For example, the Ebola epidemic of the 2014 led to the first summit discussion of the health security at the G7 Elmo summit in Germany in 2015. The following year, 2016, the G7 Isashima summit was held in Japan, and then the prime minister Abe at the time advocated the importance of health security as well as the importance of the crisis-resilient health delivery system. So there's a note, and then also the G20 summit recently discussed about health security and the health care system, which is well prepared for the future pandemic. So there's no doubt that the G20 will be a platform for thinking about how to confront and how to cooperate with China. So finally, we should also pay close attention to the fact that there are some past achievements that have been useful this time of the pandemic. One such example is a coalition for the epidemic-preparing innovation, or so-called the CEPI. This initiative launched at the World Economic Forum in 2017 was jointly established by the Japanese government, several other government pharmaceutical companies and philanthropic organizations such as NGATE Foundation. And it aims to rapidly research and develop drugs and vaccines for pandemic that are not in demand during normal time. So some of the vaccines widely available for COVID-19 today are provided through the framework of the CEPI. So in the conclusion, global health governance is often discussing the negative times, such as the weakening with the WHO, the absence of the leadership, and the structure of the US-China conflict being brought into the global health. And then all of them are true. So the WHO itself have several challenges, and then it is also true that global health governance is not functioning sufficiently in the COVID-19. On the other hand, it should also be noted that WHO has stated to be cooperating with each member states, especially at the country level, and that the lessons learned from the past pandemic have played in the major role in the COVID-19, such as CEPI. And the international solidarity frameworks, such as the COVAX, though incomplete, have been helpful. So when we think about the global health governance in the future, I think those kind of lessons in the positive aspect also be considered. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Professor Sakamoto. Thank you. Thank you for linking somehow to our previous, to the discussions that we had earlier this morning in at this conference.