 Okay. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be back here. Actually, my first time at wider was 30 years ago, so it was one of the first conferences here. And it's also good to get an opportunity to talk about, take a few steps back, talk about broader issues rather than getting bogged down to a lot of the more focused project-oriented stuff. I'm engaging with it at FAO. It's not an easy task to follow the act of parents and David. And actually, they've already cut out a lot of the ground. One of the covers I've actually made my life easier. But Tony and Finn asked me to talk in particular about the links between agriculture and growth and poverty. So maybe I'll add a few elements more on those points. To start, that's what would be mentioned. We produce enough food in the world, but still we have quite a bit of malnutrition as defined by unenourishment. And we have also what's a perical, de-hidden hunger in terms of micronutrients deficiencies. But it's also linked with the still one billion extreme poor we have in the world. So not for nothing the first two SDGs are to eradicate poverty and eradicate hunger in the sense of malnutrition or unenourishment. Now we've made a lot of progress. We've reached the global target of having, as one of the graphs of Peir showed, of having the incidence of unenourishment, although not in terms of having the number of people in unenourishment. We're also very clear that progress has been very uneven and particularly with most of the people that are poor and in food insecure are stuck in South Asia and Africa. And although I agree with David when he says, well, income increases not necessarily translate into better nutritional outcomes, but the ones that we identify as unenourished and the extreme poor do tend to coincide and mostly most of them by far most of them live in rural areas, according to the latest World Bank estimate 78% of them. And that's the people living on less than 1.25 dollars per day. So what this means is that even though we have solved maybe a global food security problem just by availability, it's not solved in terms of access to food for everybody, which means that our food systems are highly inefficient and unequal. Although if we want to eradicate over the next 15 years, which is the promise of the SDGs, both poverty and hunger, we probably need new and different approaches. If we look at those that are still under the extreme poverty line, and even though the cohorts may have changed, but the World Bank recently did some analysis over a long period of time, those that are in the category of below the 1.25 dollars per day poverty line, their income increases over the past 35 years since 1980 have been 5%. Not per year, but for the whole period. So meaning going on average from, I recall well, from 74 cents, protection power per $2 to 75 to 78 cents. So what it means is that from all the income growths that there's been, they have not been able to benefit, but also to get to eradicate poverty and hunger, a lot more needs to happen. Probably 15 years may not be enough to achieve that unless we do things differently. The other common feature is that most of the people we're talking about live in regions, sub-regions within countries that are disadvantaged in many other ways, lack of infrastructure, lack of services, health service, education service, basic services, and so on and so forth. So there's other dimensions that we need to look at. And that's going to be my main argument here for the folks on is that maybe also have to reassess the role of agriculture and food system more broadly in overall growth strategies. The reason I emphasize that because you're taking through steps back on the development of development economics and are thinking about growth in developing countries, it always has started from thinking of all you need. In the first place, agriculture productivity grows in order to jumpstart economic growth more broadly. And Peter Timmer said here, I think a year ago in his annual lecture that no country has been able to sustain rapid economic growth until citizens and investors were confident food was reliably available in the main urban markets. But in order to get there, you need a lot of investments in agriculture first to jumpstart that productivity growth. I think that was also understood by the founding fathers of development economics that you need to get that productivity growth in order to release the resources for your industrial development. So going back to Rosstein, Rodin, Lewis and everybody else. What has been misunderstood, possibly also in practice, but maybe also by some of the thinkers is that in order to get there, you truly need to continue investing in agriculture. Otherwise, you don't get sufficient productivity growth that will unleash the labor savings and foreign exchange that's needed to finance your industrial development. But the main thinking also, and I think in Africa in recent decades until very recently, the thinker still was well, we need to industrialize, get urban growth, and that will lift up our economies to the detriment of agriculture development. And I think the urban bias that agriculture suffered for a long period of time has been part of that. And often every now and then that has been helped by big pushes, particularly after 73, 74 global crisis in food, which we also had then, which gave a big push also to the implementation of the green revolution that gave a big boost to agricultural productivity growth and also gave rise to the long period of low agricultural and food prices. Now, this thinking also with the natural pattern that we've seen in former structural transformations that with this productivity growth in agriculture, get a falling share of agriculture in GDP, falling shares of agricultural employment, but it not necessarily means that agriculture is a low productivity sector unlike many investors think, right? There's a lot of those total factor productivity growth that is going on in the agriculture sector. It's just that the impact on overall growth will decline over time as the economy develops further up the scale. The problem which in the transition that we get, as you get widening urban and rural income gaps, which has also given rise to often under investments in agriculture because of the lower incomes and returns that investors believe can be earned in the agricultural sector. The second transformation that has gone on with the overall structural transformation is the changing nature of agriculture and the economy itself. It's a process typically get more consolidation of land holdings, sometimes to very big scale or medium-sized farms and rural labor out migration. And what we've seen which is very important also for understanding the nutritional outcomes we have, the moment is that agriculture be much more part of ever increasing every longer food value change, right? That's come also with the supermarket revolutions that from just getting your agriculture produce on to the markets and then into the households on to much more processed food of all sorts in each time longer value change. That has come with a lot of the benefits of improved also nutritional conditions, more food safety and better quality foods, which has also fit the dietary transition that has come with income growth and urban growth and also with the supermarket revolution as we called the sort of more common food habits that people have. So we get these transitions in the nutritional demands both come with what we call the typical angle law that if the food share of the total income, the share of people spent on foods will decrease, but also Bennett's law that says well over time with income increases you shift from the basic staples, grains and starches on to more higher protein food. Now it's important for the growth story is the implications of that and also the limits to growth. So with that transition to higher protein foods, meats and so on, there's a lot more demand for land use, for livestock, a lot more demand for water use, both for the crops that feed the cattle as well as for the livestock production itself. And that's just put on further burdens on reaching land frontiers in most cases and also determines what are the possibilities of sustaining sufficient food security around the world moving forward. I'll come back to that point in a minute. Also the nature of coming back to agriculture transformation matters for poverty reduction. As former said in the beginning, it's kind of obvious that if most of the poor live in rural areas and also depend on agriculture that agriculture development is likely to have a big impact on poverty and that's also what we find in practice. And oftentimes more than three times more effective agriculture growth to reduce poverty than growth in other sectors. That seems to be applying most when we get to the poorest of the poor. We get to the more moderate poor than non-agricultural income growth becomes more important. But within that, and that will be the challenge also moving forward if I can get this to work, so look at agriculture productivity growth. We've seen quite a bit of agriculture productivity growth, but at much slower paces than some people think is needed. In the SDGs, there's one under the SDG2. There's one of the targets that we want to double productivity growth for smallholder farmers around the world. So both feeding into the food security target as well as into the poverty targets. Now, what we see in practice if we take the poorest regions in Africa and Asia, and this plots the growth of agriculture labor productivity. That's the value of production per agriculture worker on the horizontal axis and land productivity on the vertical axis. So what you see here is that see most of in the countries where smallholder farmers, or the region where smallholder farmers most concentrate, also where there's the lower levels of productivity, particularly on the labor productivity side, we see most of the gains in terms of yields per sector and not in labor productivity. So the biggest challenge moving forward is how can we translate productivity increases on labor productivity growth if we want to have this win-win solution. Okay, let me jump on other issues to discuss. I think one of the important things is what we see in the poverty situations is that we see a reverse land size transitions instead of getting more fragmentation of lands. Size holder, we see more fragmentation of land size holding has to do with increased population growth and poor people having less access to new land and so on and fragmenting through that actually production and limiting through that future productivity growth. Then there's some geography issues that will come back into my conclusions since I'm running out of time. But I think maybe the major challenge that we're facing is that moving forward to solve the food security and the poverty problem has to be done in a context of climate change and environmental degradation. So all the gains that we've seen over the past decades have been in the context of an agricultural sector that is producing one third of the greenhouse gas emissions is depleting the natural resources and through that if we don't transform agriculture in new ways then we won't be able to do that. Also everything we do if we want to do it in a more sustainable way it has to be done through what we call sustainable intensification. FEO projects that to feed a growing world population and increasingly urban population global food production have to be increased by 60% between now and 2030. And then we'll have to come from sustainable intensification also because even if you don't take into account how you produce it in more sustainable ways is that we've reached the land frontier. So basically in most regions of the world 80% or more except for Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa which is a little bit more space everything will have to come from yield increases. There's very little space to do that through expansion of arable land. So that's a major challenge which will require turning things around and this time what we need is a truly green revolution. Key point, key message here is this could also give new growth opportunities transforming agriculture around that way could give would give new growth opportunities through the investments in R&D. But also the through new job opportunities which I'll mention at my final slide. But before coming to that one transition or transformation if you like we haven't talked about this demographic transitions. And in Asia and Africa but actually worldwide one of the key problems we're facing are that of aging farmers. The average age of farmers is 60 around the world not just in Europe, Asia, South Asia, Japan but also in South Asia, Africa, the average age of farmers 60. The share of the population in Africa and south and east Asia of young people under the age of 25 is also about 60%, right? So we want to remember one number here 60, right? 60% increase in food production, age of farmers is 60, the number of young people or the share of young people in the population about 60. But young people are not that interested anymore to work in agriculture particularly not in Africa. So one of the root causes of the migration we're seeing is coming out of that part of where we see more educated young people that don't see a future for themselves in agriculture in rural areas and try to move out. I hear my time is up so I'll move to my final slide which gives some added suggestions to the ones that Per and David gave. So first point, revisit the role of agriculture in growth strategy even if it's a small share currently of GDP in the transformation of agriculture there's new source of growth and also new source of employment. In one estimation the ILOs estimated that a more sustainable transformation of agriculture restoration of soils, forest and so on could generate worldwide about 60 million new jobs and that's quite significant. But it can also be a source as I mentioned of total factor productivity growth. For the poorest areas I think there's a need to also look for new ways of looking at farming not just in the form of getting to adopt more sustainable practices but there's a lot of scope to do things in more integrated ways which could simultaneously solve the issues of poverty, access to food but also more nutritious food. Those things will recall integrated farming systems or integrated agricultural ecological farming system which tries to provide multiple livelihoods to farmers which will produce in more sustainable ways the food but also by engaging in multi-crop polycrop farming that's consistent with those sustainable agricultural practices also provides more nutritious food both on the farm for the local communities but also for urban areas. Within that there's a lot of scope and I don't have time to go into that to entice young people to engage in agriculture. There's a lot of employment opportunities there and they also must be in the case of Africa. There's no way that within the next 15 years non-agriculture sectors can absorb the growing entrance into the labor market. But 20 million young people entering into the labor market in Africa every year and not even at 10% plus growth of the non-agriculture sectors, urban sectors that would be enough to absorb the debt growing labor force. So it will have to be a combination of the two. Then my final point is we have to aside from seeing agricultural justice and agriculture sector as part of this part of the global food systems and food chains also think more in geographic terms. As I said in the beginning the poor and the food insecure live in particular areas and geographic areas that need more integrated approaches to rural development as well as to urban development. One of the things we see is that the transition out of poverty is fastest when it is in combination of agriculture growth with non-agriculture growth in small rural townships where you concentrate new activities. What we see in practice in South Africa the urbanization process is mainly concentrating vast populations in larger cities with disconnect from the urban areas. So if we want to invest in infrastructure we should invest both in rural infrastructure as well as in the infrastructure needed in the small cities in order to strengthen these languages and through that get to more sustainable structural transformations. Thank you very much.