 and I'd like to throw a question to Tom Riven, the question that he asked at his last slide. What exactly are the policy implications that result out of this fund? Because if I read it, it seems like he let it be. I mean, the private sector will operate on its own and, you know, if this intervention from the government and everything will work in terms of structural transformation in the long term. Then what do we say to the government in terms of the policies, for example, of S&E's promotion of small and medium enterprises to fast-track rural industrialization? The second part of that is how about facilitating training in the short and medium term? For example, we know that 2007 and 2008, a large portion of the food price crisis was government in many, many, many respects. So there does seem to be a role for government, and in particular for Rice, who also had a separate study that says a large portion of the price volatility is because of the day market in Rice, which is in contrast to corn, where there's a lot more of corn off a private sector participation. The second each idea is on the intellectual and the technology transfer. The past decades showed that technology transfer to small scale was not effectively through CGIR, like E-Ray, and through a lot of ODA and assistance, and, of course, for you, certainly the government. But in the present, we see now that a large fund, the largest of the funds, are now with a private sector. But we come up with the issue of IPR, because IPR is reported to them so that they will have an incentive for a return to investment. Would that have implications in terms of inclusive technology transfer for small scale farmers to receive in the past volatility? Because they're one which brings to me the spatial aspect, and also inter-temporal, was let's move towards helping Africa so that they will become less import of rice and become more or less self-sufficient. However, I'm confused with that argument, because the studies also show that by 2050, in fact, the best way really is to help those who have comparative advantage in producing rice. And the active advantage is, unfortunately, maybe in Asia, where 90% is the incomes for rice, which means that, in that context, it means that facilitates trade. Maybe the advocacy should be towards facilitating more trade so that there will be lower cost of importation for Africa in the short and medium term, while we also invest more in the technology. This is fantastic questions, obviously. I think that there's clearly, including in your question, the birth of the answer in that on one side, there's sort of deregulations and avoidance of bad regulations that are crucial to allowing this thing to flourish, at least on the efficiency side. And then there's good regulations and good investments that are necessary for it to flourish on the equity side. Wow, I'm gonna let that down, this is good. But I was just thinking that on one side, for example, in going back to Prabhu's point about how you usher in these changes, the public extension in our studies has been shown to be terrible, basically non-existent. There's a lot of extension agents, but the actual delivery is zero or negative or in many of the situations. And so in that's performing, let alone for SME activities in these other sectors, logistics, training, et cetera, et cetera. So strengthening that as a public investment seems crucial on the equity side. And then secondly, there's the issue of certification and traceability that will be necessary for this and the existence of adequate inspection and certification agencies, rather than just bribe taking groups, is it absolutely central? And everybody basically says they're just paying a lot of money out for payments to these people, but it's not really effective in certification. There's also the issue of various kinds of public investments in roads and improvement of logistics, which is very important, reducing bribes along the road, improving the quality of the roads, et cetera, access roads, all those things are kind of being very important, probably more important than rice technology and productivity level in terms of the effects of cost to consumers. And then there's the issue of credit availability. Again, Kisan credit cards in India have been what we've seen in our studies, a major success, very equitable, very widely distributed among the poor in various areas, very effective in helping investment, but not available enough. So there's another specific thing. But on the side of getting out of the way, then you kind of contradict the equity point but move toward the efficiency points and the biggest thing that occurred in India that, again, probably had more effect on the cost of rice than all of the technology changes in rice in the 1990s and 2000s, that's my hypothesis, was de-reserving the milling sector. Instead of reserving it for very tiny and hounded mills, you de-reserved it and led to a massive investment in automation and the scale increase, the larger scale mills in both China and India have a far higher utilization of their capacity and much more efficient, et cetera. So if you, we can go into this, but it seems that there's those two sets of policies getting out of the way, making investments, improving the services available to not just farmers. As I said, farmers are minor actors in the chain. They're one of the actors, but they're important actors but they're just one. But helping all those other segments of the chain to develop and to be equitable and efficient will in the end lead to the improvement of food security overall in that economy. I wanna talk about South-South trade but I can't, I'm sure, because of the time. Yes, thank you Tom. And I'm sorry to break this very interesting discussion but without your time, and I would like to thank all the presenter and Babu. So, in a lot of the countries where rice is grown, there aren't patents that account for some issues. There aren't kinds of issues when it comes to trade and it hits the shores of a place for the grid or it is bad. And that's where you actually start to see the issue. And that's something that, but why do I just deal with it? You'll find a comment right there. I just wanted to address this Africa rice issue because when I was in Asia, when I was living in Los Maneos, I was saying to you that low-gross is taking on, which is why is Africa producing rice? You know, Africa should be just importing rice from my home, et cetera. Then I looked at the numbers. Remember, the rice market is very thin. The total rice market is around 30 million times per year. The total area under rice in Africa today is around five million hectares. And so, even if you say that African, and I don't have numbers right, but even if you say the average yield, there's two tons per hectare, you've got about 10 million tons already in the continent today. And the total demand for rice in Africa is around 20, 25 million tons. I don't think the world rice market today can support an exclusive purchase of rice demand in Africa coming out of Asia. And with very little effort, you can improve the productivity of existing rice lands in Africa. So it's not either or. Areas which are on the coast, which are easy to get to, will continue to import a lot from Asia and maybe import even more from Asia. But large parts of Africa will continue to benefit from increased transport activity, domestically in their own countries. Thank you. Okay, let me thank all the present of the group and the active participation. The only eight minutes delayed from our coffee break. We'll take a coffee break for 22 minutes. We'll come back here at 4.30 for our market outlook session, for office of the South Sideists. And thank you very much for the participation. Please join me in the meeting.