 Personally, I wanted to recognize John Crawford's contribution to CGIR to International Food Policy Research Institute. So John Crawford was a diplomat and he's also a good economist. My institute was established in 1975, right after the first food price crisis. So John was very instrumental in setting up my institute in responding to that food price crisis. And his argument was, technology is great, technology is very important, but policy is equally important. So that's why Ippri was set up. And we re-attribute to John Crawford for his contribution. And obviously he served as Ippri's first board chair. And in the last four decades, we have had four Australian board chairs. So John Crawford, Jeff Miller, your former secretary or former minister of agriculture. Ross Garnett, I think you advised your prime minister in making lots of policy changes where the Australian economy begins to take off. And another distinguished economist, Kim Anderson. So Kim Anderson will become Ippri's board chair in January 2014. I think many of you probably know him. Actually, he strongly recommended me to come here to give a talk. Now, what I would do is just go through some slides, maybe in the next 30 minutes. And I will be happy to answer some of the questions. I think I'm always interested in the Q&A sessions. I apologize that my snide has been split into two pieces. So you have to look at my title at the bottom here. So some technical issues, but I don't think you will miss much. The majority of my content will be at the probably 75 bottom part of my snide. So we are facing some challenges right now. 850 million people are still suffering from hunger and malnutrition. Water energy scarcity, threatened food security. And to produce more food, we also need water and energy. So that sort of interface is important. And sustainable intensification is essential to meet agricultural and food requirements. So sustainable intensification. I will come back to explain what does sustainable intensification mean. And the next approach should be adopted to achieve sustainable food security. So the next approach. So 850 million people are suffering from hunger and malnutrition. In 2000, the global leaders and the national leaders came together and committed themselves to cut the percentage of unenourishment by half. That is probably from 24% to 13%. Sorry, actually 18%, 18% to 9%. But today the percentage is about 13%. So we are still far away from meeting that goal called MDG goals to cutting the percentage of unenourishment by half. Yes, we made some progress, particularly here in Asia, in Southeast Asia, in East Asia. So the unenourishment has been cut dramatically through agricultural, through social protection, through many other means. But in South Asia and Africa, the percentage remains very high. And there is another hunger called hidden hunger that you cannot observe. The lack of micronutrients, lack of vitamins. And the damage to mental, physical health is equally important, if not more. Right now, about 2 billion people are suffering from that. And every year, because of the unenourishment or lack of micronutrients, we lose 2% to 3% of global GDP. Children's unnutrition is particularly damaging. So when a child is unenourished, it's either too short compared to his height, called underweight, or he's too short compared to his age, stunting. But stunting is a good indicator because it measures the undernutrition, malnutrition in long term, the chronic hunger, chronic malnutrition issues. But look at that figure. In many parts of the world, 20%, 25%, or even 40% of children are stunted. So when the children are stunted, their mental, physical, their cognitive capability or IQ will be compromised. So their score grades will be lower, and their productivity will be lower, their wages will be lower, the income earner will be much lower. And there's another dimension of malnutrition. So third burden, that is overweight and obesity. We have 2.1 billion, equivalent to the people who are hungry, who are either overweight or obese. It's not just a developing country phenomena. In developing countries, obesity, overweight, are equally significant. And the rate of increase in developing countries is actually faster than some of the rich countries. So actually 62% of obese and overweight population is in developing countries. Here in Oceania, 40% of men, 50% of women are overweight. Probably the most significant is the rapidly increased of children overweight and obesity. And probably you have seen that. And lots of fat children in big urban centers, including my own country, China. If you go to Shanghai, Beijing, you will see probably 20% if not more children are overweight or obese. So what are energies, scarcity, increasingly threatened food, security, and nutrition? So here I wanted to emphasize nutrition. So it's not just a food. It's what type of food, whether the food is nutritious enough to meet your body's need. So all of these are linked, water, energy, and food. I just wanted to give you a two very good examples of how these three things link together during lunch. So I have a dialogue with Quentin. Bifuel is a very typical case. Bifuel makes food, water, and energy linked together. So that's why we need to work on these issues in one piece. So Bifuel production increases global food prices, threatens everybody's food security. Bifuel production also uses enough water in Nebraska because of the increased corn production. The underground water, the reservoir, has been depleting very fast. And we have seen the increased correlation between oil price and energy price. You know, the energy price is much more volatile than oil price, at least in the last four decades. But recently that correlation has even, has further increased. The correlation between food and energy prices has doubled. Why? The culprit is Bifuel. So when the oil price reaches to $90 per barrel, the Bifuel production will become economically viable, even without any subsidies. And not mentioning today, Bifuel production are subsidized. So even without subsidies. So that's the perfect case. Food, water, energy are linked together. There's another case that is large-scale hydronic dams. Yes, from a positive perspective, these dams can generate electricity to help you to increase access to energy, particularly poor people. It also helps to irrigate land to produce more food. It uses water, right? So water, energy, and food together. But the question is the environmental impact, non-term impact. Can we have win-win-win in terms of energy, water, and food by building this large-scale dams? And well, we are facing some challenges. The first challenge of it is increasing population urbanization. So that will demand more water, more energy, more food. Rising incomes and demand diet changes. Same. When the people are moving to the cities, they demand more food, better food. They also demand more water. They use more electricity. And the rising energy prices by a few expansions, as I have said, these linkages have become much stronger after 2007-2008 food crisis. Then growing land and water constraints as a result of the population growth, as a result of urbanization, and probably as a result of the climate change. So climate change has led the loss of fertile land in many countries, particularly in poor countries. So poor countries will suffer more than anybody else when the climate change hit them. Soil, temperature, the rainfall. And then let me just review how aquaculture actually affects water and energy. So aquaculture consumes 70% of freshwater sources. And global water withdraws to rise 50% by 2050. So we need more water to produce more food. And most of the growth is actually in some of the emerging economies. Bricks some in your neighbor, China, Indonesia, India. And right now, 15% to 35% of global irrigation withdraws are not sustainable. So we cannot continue to deplete our underground water. Or we cannot continue to use fresh water to irrigate more land. And shifting dyes will affect water consumption. So food waste, obesity, overeating of meat not only increases food prices, it actually creates huge pressure on water. So 1 kg of beef needs 7 times 10 times water than 1 kg of grains or vegetables. So aquaculture is both vulnerable and a contributed water scarcity. So I have been working on aquaculture for the last three decades. So I have to recognize that aquaculture is part of the problem. Now look at the water stress in many different parts of the world. And indeed, it is in some of the poorest countries, poorest regions where the water scarcity will be the most severe. And they do not have economic means. They do not have technologies to address the stresses. And by 2050, if we don't do something, business as usual, 52% of the global population will live in water scarcity region. So right now it's about 35. And 45% of global GDP will come from water scarcity region. And half of the grain production will come from water scarcity region. What does that mean? If the grains come from water scarcity region, it means they are more vulnerable because the rainfall fluctuates. So more volatile in our global food system. And energy. Energy demand will increase by 30% from now to 2035. The next two decades also. And the rising energy prices make biofuels more profitable, promoting food fuel competition, as I have already said. So biofuels production will increase by 50% by 2020. So in the next 10 years, we will see the biofuels production increase by 50%. By 2050, the problem will double. What does that mean? More NAND will be used for biofuels production. More food will be converted to biofuels. So that creates tremendous pressure on global food security. And obviously increased costs of eco-culture production because increased energy prices, increased water prices, or increased water shortage. And rural neighbors are moving to the cities. So wages are increasing. How can we feed 9.5 or even 9.6 billion people? This morning when we were in the parliament, we heard from a UN official, UN population funds, saying that by 2050, we will have 9.6 billion people in this world. 600 million people then I thought. I thought 9 billion is the number I ever recorded. But he said 9.6. So that further increases the stress on our global food system. And then for poor people, in fact, all these three things are correlated. So it is poor who do not have access to energy. It is poor who do not have access to good clean drinking water sanitation. It is poor people who do not have access to good food. So it's a bad nexus for poor people. So the good nexus that we have, good access to water, energy, and food, but the poor do not. Many poor do not have that. And sustainable intensification is essential to meet agriculture and food requirements. So sustainable intensification means we produce more with less. And here more is not just more grains, more output. It's more nutrition, nutrients. Less means less water, less energy, and less carbon emission. So that is our goal. How can we produce more, more nutrition with less, less water, less energy, less carbon emission? And there are many quick wins. Policy failed. For example, subsidies in water, subsidies in energy, subsidies in fertilizers. That actually exacerbated all the use of water, energy, and to some extent, and also nutrients and micronutrients on the ground. So we can remove some of these subsidies. And technology innovations will come back to this. And so at APRI, we try to analyze how sustainable intensification can help to produce more with less. The global model called an impact model that covers many countries. The majority of the producers, consumers of major food crops. So 40, 115 countries, 40 major aquaculture commodities, and link each country to the rest of the world through trade. So trade is a way to solve the global equation supply because demand plus stock and the price obviously is also a variable that determines the trade. So here we try to analyze different options or different scenarios. So how different scenarios would affect the future food supply and demand through sustainable intensification. And we have made some assumptions. And I know many of you are researchers or scholars. So that's why I wanted to explain in detail. So for example, high economic growth, low population growth. This is our assumption. So 3.6% economic growth, 0.35% population growth. These are the assumptions. And these assumptions can easily be violated if some policy changes to push up population growth. Or to slow down economic growth. Then additional investments in aquaculture research. Yes, we know that we need more investment. So we made some assumptions. So crop yield growth. So 90% from the baseline that we think by 2050, the crop yield will increase by 90%. So livestock yield will increase by 50%. Water use efficiency improvements by 2050. So 1.2% per year. Technique change in domestic and industrial sectors for access to safe drinking water. So these are the assumptions related to water. And a reduction in water demand, domestic by 0.45%. Industrial by 0.43%. Irrigation by 14.5%. So all of these are the basic assumptions in our model. And climate change. Climate change is a very wild card. We assume 2 degree increase from now to 2050. Access to secondary schools for all growths by 2030. So we did a simulation to look at all. It looks like this part. So the title is at the bottom. The left side is then you have to use your imagination. So we did a sort of different type of simulations. These are the different scenarios. All kinds of different sustainable intensification practices. Then look at the impact on grain production. Here actually it's a grain production. Here is area harvested. Here is probably the calorie. And here is a number of children. So the sustainable intensification is alternative. It's a scenario, not the baseline. And then we look at the results or impact on these different indicators. So the first row actually is the price. I think it's the grain price. The grain price. So from let's say, okay, the conventional world means business as usual. So the food price will increase from $200 per ton to $150. This is a real price based in probably 1995. So the actual price will be much higher. However, if we adopt sustainable approach, sustainable intensification, food price will actually go down. Go down from 150 in 2005 to 160 in 2030 and come down to 154 in 2050. So global food price will be more or less stable if we pursue a more sustainable intensification. In the crop areas, if we pursue a more sustainable intensification, the areas required to produce food actually will go down. What does that mean? It means we will have land for environmental purposes, environmental services so people can use them as entertainment or recreational purpose. Then obviously the calorie, here's the calorie per day per person will be increased substantially under the sustainable intensification scenarios. In business, we do not expect everybody will consume more than 4,000 calories per day. Then more interestingly is to look at the impact of undernourished children. So business as usual, we will still have more than 100 million children who will suffer from malnourishment or malnutrition, business as usual, from current 150. On a sustainable intensification, that number will be reduced to 50. Yes, we still have quite a number of undernourished children by 2050. Even we pursue a more sustainable intensification. So that's why other approaches, other mechanisms should also be used. So not just from production side. Social protection and cash transfer to help the poor, to access to food. And again, the climate change will change the world, will change the agriculture, will change the food system. So there are many practices that can pursue a win-win-win sort of opportunities. The first way is to increase productivity. The second way is to increase resilience or increase farmers' income. The third is to help them to mitigate the climate change. So adaptation, mitigation, and in the meantime help the poor to exit from poverty. So there are many, many practices. For example, newer crop varieties from CJIR, C4 rice, so newer type of rice will be able to produce more, 25% more yield, will use more, less energy, 20% less energy, 20% less carbon emission. So these new technologies can do a lot. Now obviously one productivity improved, farmers will gain. So adaptation, mitigation, and a farmers' income. Again here the rotation among crops, fallows, help to conserve the land, water, cover crops, tree cover crops. You plant some trees along your crop that can provide a shed for your crops. And the appropriate use of fertilizers and manure, particularly newer technologies, newer fertilizers, should release the nutrients to crop slowly, more efficiently. Right now many countries overuse fertilizers. That's because these fertilizers are not very efficient. China and India waste 40% of their fertilizers. All these nutrients have been washed away. So a NAXA approach should be adopted to achieve sustainable intensification, so instead of signals. So look at it, again I apologize, now this left part has been chopped. Water, energy, and food. So on each note here, water, energy, and food, they can do something along their own work, but in the meantime more important is interfaces among the three sectors. So a NAXA approach will be able to minimize the trade-offs and promote sector synergies. We know that there are trade-offs. If you want to produce more, obviously you have to use water and energy. You will have no carbon emission, right? It's a trade-off. But there are also synergies. Wing, wing, wing as I already presented, requires a greater levels of collaboration among actors from each sector. As Quentin has said, right now we are still working in signals. Everybody is working in their small corners, in their office, working on either food, water, or energy. So we needed to collaborate, we needed to work together. Individuals, but also institutions, countries, promote connective policy design, implementation, and monitoring. So some of the energy issues, the impact of energy, groundwater, NAXAs, just to give you some examples. So energy subsidies, not to agriculture growth, but water depletion. As I already said, we need to cut down energy subsidy and also make sure that free electricity in some of the farming areas, some of the farming countries needs to be stopped, particularly in Punjab, Haryana, many parts of India. And all this overuse of energy reduce access to rural poor, lack of NAXAs approach. So we are needed to lose, lose, lose. Why lose, lose, lose? If you provide free electricity, farmers actually do not have incentive to save. They just leave their tuber wells on because the electricity is not reliable, it's public goods. And the government has no money to pay for more electricity production. So then when the electricity comes in the evening, people don't use much electricity, and water begins to come. They leave the tuber wells on and then the whole field is flooded. So waste of water, waste of energy, and obviously the crop production has also been compromised. And while increasing investment in agricultural research and extension services, that promotes resource-efficient inputs and practices, close yield gaps. So there are still a lot of yield gaps among different countries, even within the same country. Access to improved crop varieties, particularly the sort of win-win-win crop varieties. Access to effective input-output markets, it is still the case that many smallholders do not have access to input and output markets. The best way to improve their nutrition, their diet quality is actually through market. So if they can produce more, they sell some of their produce and then buy from the market. And adoption of sustainable land management practices. Again, sometimes it's a poor who contributes to the degradation of natural resources. Poor do not have access to clean energy. They go to the hills, mountains, cut down the woods and bring them back as cooking fuels. That not only affects the environment, it also affects the health. There's indoor smoking every year kills more than 3 million people. Improved water use efficiency. Improved water transportation irrigation efficiency by improving the whole irrigation infrastructure. Shifts from irrigation agriculture in water-rich areas, shifts from irrigated to ram-fed crops. Again, research can play a very big role there to introduce crops into ram-fed areas. So the crops actually don't need much water and they still can produce a very good yield. And agriculture technologies that produce more with less. And again, here at EPRI, we did a study to quantify the impact of 11 technologies, how these 11 technologies can produce more with less. I think we have a brochure somewhere there to illustrate to you how these different technologies can help. And development-strong institutions which support resource rights. It's still the case that water is free and man is not protected. When something is free, when something is not reflected in its scarcity and prices, then people will have no incentive to protect them. Who would protect something that does not belong to me? So this is one of the major causes of inefficiency. And we'll employ a physical policy that promotes sustainable health in diets. As I said, overweight and obesity contributes to health problems. Every year, 3 million people die because of obesity. Every year we lose 2% of GDP because of obesity and overweight. How can we help a population, a general citizen, to promote a more sustainable diet? So the diet is nutritious, healthy, not eat too much, but in the meantime helps to save water, energy, and helps to push down the food prices. Obviously, market getting the price right is also very important. Why there is huge food waste? It's because food is too cheap for many people. When food is cheap, then you waste it. Address food and health and waste. Now, this is a huge issue. In developing countries, the food waste happens usually in the retail sector, in your dining table, or in your refrigerators. For developing countries, it's the technologies. It's a past disease in the field. As opposed to harvesting technologies, it's a transportation. Although the same issue, the waste and the loss, but it happens for different reasons and in different stages of production system, so we need to address them separately, differently. For biofuel production, this is a big issue right now. How can we really introduce some of the innovations to look at the second generation of biotechnology that does not use food grains? For example, yesterday I heard a presentation from my colleague from Ikriset International Center for semi-dry areas. They introduced a sweet sorghum crop, sweet sorghum. A sweet sorghum can help provide food to poor people. Sorghum is actually more nutritious than rice and wheat. You might know that. The straws or stems can be used to feed animals. And the straws can also be converted to biofuels. This is another great win-win-win. But investment in science and technology will be critical. So these are some of my summaries. One is an access approach is critical to end hunger and malnutrition. Sustainable intensification creates more withness. And finding a policy coherence is needed to account for interdependencies across sectors. Technology is important. Policy is equally important, if not more important. Thank you. So I will be happy to answer some of the questions. My question is how much of a public investment is going to be needed to bring about these changes? So is it a question of resources or is it a question of just changing policies? I think there are not quick wins. You don't need to have a huge investment. It's our behaviour change. When I do agriculture, should I think about water? Should I think about energy? Should I think about environment? So that sort of thinking, does thinking cost anything? Probably not much. You probably will have some brain cells. I think probably for the stimulated. Yes, investment is needed for a couple of strategic areas. One is education. I think right now the students are still educated in signage. All your agriculture, your food, your environment, or your water. I think if we can have a master degree programme to bring all this together, nutrition, food, energy, environment, water, why not? Can we start from education? Then if it's a defect, it wants to invest. I think it's a great area to invest. Master degree, I don't know whether you need a PhD, which is probably even more signable. And then some partnership. Create some partnership. Create an environment for the people to interact, to work together. At EPRI, we also have nutritionists, economists, engineers, macroeconomists. Until four or five years ago, they just sit in their little corner to do their own research. So what we did is we created a cafeteria. We have teas, coffee together. Just that small thing encouraged the researchers to exchange their ideas how they can work together to make sure that their work do not have cross-purposes. What I'm working on actually does not compromise your objectives. So another simple thing can do, can have quick wins. But no longer around, yes, we need to change the governance. At Global Network, we have some global organization working on water. We also have FAO working on food and agriculture. We have EFAT working on small holders productivity. Can we combine them together? Energy is another big issue. They never care about energy. Carving mission. So Global Network Governance needs to be changed to make sure that they do work together. That's a developed sort of integrated program. And government, national government. You still have a minister of agriculture, minister of energy, minister of environment, minister of climate change. Do we have a mechanism to bring them together either in the prime minister's office or somewhere? So we needed to make some institutional changes as well. I don't know whether this will cost money. We'll need any investment. Probably some of it is important, but more important is to change our behavior, change the way we work together. Thank you very much, Dr. Fang, for having a very interesting presentation. My name is Paul Verrall and I'm a PhD student from Corporate School. I had a question about policy responses to nexus issues. So dominant policy responses to scarcity in water through energy in this country and elsewhere often focus on supply-side solutions. So more dams, more deceleration in plants, lane clearing. But it seems natural that demand-side solutions and policies like removing the efficient subsidies as you mentioned and appropriate pricing of these resources is much more efficient. But on the other hand it's very difficult, they can be very difficult to implement because of the resistance from industry but also affects the general population. So my question is, what do you feel are the most important barriers for policy makers in terms of implementing demand-side solutions? Well, that's a very good question. How can we create political wills for politicians to make some change? I think politicians respond to general citizens. I think if we can empower our citizens with knowledge information and say, hey, business as usual is not acceptable. We only have one planet. If we do the business as usual, by 2050 we need another two planets, right? That's what I heard yesterday. But we don't have one. We can't move to Mars. We cannot move to the Moon, obviously. So the politician usually is driven by general citizens. I think if the citizens are empowered with this knowledge information then they will push the political system. That's a lesson we learned. We used to communicate this to our policy makers, politicians in India, China. They said, so what? I care about my party. I care about my sort of political legitimacy. Because I respond to my political constituents. So until we change political constituents, I'm afraid this existing governance structure will not be changed. Maybe that's a good thesis topic. How can you empower the general citizen to work up to change the political system? There's one from... Somebody's serving the country, I guess. There's also doing a PhD at Fenner School. All right. In Pirates and Society. Thank you for your talk. When you're talking about the nexus between food, water and security, it's just been looking like my behaviour change. And they say that most of these people, when you really get down to people's cognitive and their neural pathways, is their very, very deep beliefs. And that 98% of brains, our reasoning is done in our unconscious. So I was just wondering, with these research programmes, we have involved potentially artists and people with good narratives who can help actually access those deeper parts of people's brains to do their behaviour change, the new framing and things that's required to make these ideas a reality. Yeah, I think that's a good question. Some years ago, we tried to communicate some of the extension knowledge information to farmers. We used cultural events, dancing, singing, all kinds of performances to influence the local, particularly women farmers, right? They are not more accepted to this sort of thing. Yeah, I think it actually worked very well. But now, how can we change the people's behaviour, thinking fundamentally? It's a very much research topic. At EAPRI International Food Policy Research Institute, our nutrition division is looking at that issue, why good nutrition has not been practised, either by poor or very rich people who overcome, over-consume through different ways, through campaigns, through knowledge, through all kinds of different modern medias. So it's still a work in progress. I really hope that maybe in a year or two, we can report some results. Thank you for the presentation. I was wondering, why should we focus only on this real aspect of the Nexus and not be having a more integrated vision of the system involving health, involving transportation? Why should we focus only on energy, water and food? Well, to me, the transportation is an instrument, not really one of the goals. You can integrate many other things. If you want me to add a couple of Nexus notes there, the first one I wanted to add is actually nutrition. Nutrition. The other one is probably carbon emission. Well, water is fine, right? Water and energy is fine. But carbon emission, carbon emission, nutrition, probably should be added into this Nexus approach. For all others, you discuss actually other instruments. What are the factors that can drive the interlinkages of this so-called outcome variables? I had a question regarding policy coherence. You mentioned earlier about the domestic level. I was just wondering what it is at the international level because we all know it's true. We talk about domestic politics, but it's also hard to adhere to what's happening in the international arena. And I'm just wondering if there's anything done about the policy coherence that is to this Nexus at the utility level, because this affects the whole trade arrangements and from that the subsidies, and somehow applies some pressure for governments to take action at national level. So I was just wondering we talk about domestic politics, but the international one which actually limits government's ability. I'm just thinking about Australia playing the tobacco packaging and all those mitigations. So you think about it, perhaps at the global level we empower governments to do it at the national level? Yeah, at the global level we are facing some challenges. One is trade, clearly trade. Trade is still not fair, still not open, still not free. Well, I'm free maybe not the right word, but that's definitely not transparent. So I think we failed, we failed for the last couple of years, four or five decades. So how can we really bring all these issues to WTO, the multinational framework, instead of binational regional agreements? I think this is a key message also to Australians. Australians used to be a champion in the globalisms, WHO, global framework. So don't move away from global framework to regional binational framework. We failed desperately in this area. That's trade issues. And obviously there are many other issues we failed, for example the coordination of transpondery diseases. Yes, right now you can see many diseases can still work around, transmit across different borders. We still don't have a good mechanisms to work around that area. I just give you some examples, there are so many examples, but at the national level I think this coherence probably is even more important. So for example the agricultural ministry, its objective is to maximize the food production, self-sufficiency. Use more water and land to use the trade export ban, meantime uninvesting research. Ministry of Health is focusing on fixing the health problem instead of prevention. Ministry of Environment look at the climate change, look at the water and land issues in signals. So how can we really bring these policies together, have a coherent approach to tackle these problems in an integrated manner instead of competing with each other. And subsidies, for example, right now most of the subsidies in agriculture goes to wheat, rice, maize production. And this is a good food. In the 70s and 80s they played a very big role in feeding the whole world. But today, is it still a wise policy to continue to promote rice, wheat, maize production by subsidizing them, by investing so much, even research resources into them? Can we change that a little bit towards more nutritious fruits, vegetables and promote better healthy lifestyle? So we have lots of things to do to make sure that our objectives are not cross-purposes. Our objectives are actually not coherent. So national naval, I think poverty is more important than global naval. Sometimes the global naval problems actually are derived from national naval. And my name is, one question is about the bilateral and multilateral donors and what prevention role they can have in supporting this, the win-win nexus, particularly in the case of developing countries. Well, obviously both bilateral and multinational investment is still not enough. We needed to make sure that the total investment should go up. And I think the global naval multinational support is very critical. It's not just the funding, it's not just money. It's more sort of policy support. It's more willingness to work together. So that's a WHO, FAO, the World Bank work together on the cross-cutting issues. It's a nutrition. Nutrition is everybody's work. It is also nobody's work because nobody is accountable for any nutrition outcome. So at a global naval, can we make sure that WHO and or UNICEF and FAO to be accountable for nutrition outcome? So not just the production, so not just health issues, a doctor or training. The bilateral funding support, yes. Don't try to support just one ministry versus another. Bring several ministries to work together. I recently involved in some of the WFP World Food Program review in some of the countries. WFP wants to move towards more holistic approach. Nutrition, small-holder income, short-term relief or non-term development, building resilience for everybody. But when they move to the country, then you meet all these kinds of hurdles. Ministry of Agriculture said, oh, you should work with me. Don't work with others. If you work with others, I will throw you out. Ministry of Health, they don't think food or nutrition as an important part of instrument to improve health, environment. So all of this must work together. So your bilateral funding, I would suggest you bring the ministries together to use your money more strategically, more instrumentally. Instead of business as usual, different ministries and sign-offs. It's been a very interesting presentation and your responses to the questions have been very interesting too. I guess the question which I had is that the WTO has been a conspicuous mixed result, shall we say. Climate change, been around that for two or three decades and very big progress. Millennium Development Gold, maybe we haven't made much progress in business here and there, so it's an international level we've got a fair bit of work to do. If you go around the national level, both the developing countries, I think similarly the scorecards would be very mixed, not only at individual policy levels, but trying to integrate policy solutions or policy coherence if you like. So I guess the question which I have is what is it that's going to drive some different sets of results? Why do we think that the world isn't just going to continue and the national level and the world level will continue in a way that we have for the last two or three decades? Why is it that something might change in the years ahead? I don't want it to sound totally negative or we have achieved some progress in the last two or three decades. The MDGs, among eight goals, we achieved the number one. That is to have a number of poor, extreme poverty by half. Yes, we achieved that target. Well, of course, majority of the crowd is going to Asia, right? East Asia, China, Vietnam, and even hunger. Around 1990, we had about 800 million, maybe 900 hungry people. Today we still have 850. Does that mean we have not made any progress? No. That's because total population increased. So we have to recognize what we have achieved and learn from it. Why we succeeded in some areas? Why? I think poverty and hunger goes and health goes. I think actually we made progress in three goals, if I can. One is poverty. One is hunger. One is actually health. That's because the goals we set up are very measurable. Yeah, we can debate about it. They're measurable. Whether it's $1, $1.25 or that's 180 calories per day. Clear goals. Compare the progress across different countries. Give the countries pressure. Oh, India. India always argued. Well, why do you think my hunger level is very high? So they are very concerned about this indicator. If they challenge your number, which means they care. So I can see that. So to have the goals, to have the measurable goals and to monitor and check the progress is very critical. So now when we move to the post-2015 agenda, right now it's well in the middle of the debate, currently there are 17 goals, 169 targets. So I'm very concerned about too many goals. 17. Who can remember 17? I don't know. I can't. I can't remember until six. After six, I won't be able to remember. So how can we really, really, really define some key goals we want to achieve and separate enablers, instruments from goals I think this is very critical, putting from different. Make sure that we support that process. Make sure that we have the right goals. 169 targets. Many of them are not measurable. They are aspirational. When the goals, when the targets are not measurable, you will not be able to make the people accountable. So that's when we move to the post-2015 agenda and let's make sure we have clear targets, clear goals, measurable goals. We can track money to the progress. But more importantly, I think for SDGs to work, is to make sure that countries, countries, whether it's developed or developing countries are falling, falling in that process until the countries, until the countries who can lead, can drive, can own their own development agenda and you will not be able to achieve it. Again, this is the lesson we learned from MDGs. It is the countries who own, who drive, who need their program and they succeeded.