 There are so many competing interests here at the World Economic Forum, so many brilliant panels. So it's so lovely. You could all come up to Aspen 3 and come and join. Well, I think it's going to be a brilliant chat as well. I am stunningly passionate about the food I eat and where I get it from and what it means to the communities that create that food. And this magnificent panel, a large number of them are the people in between me and those producers. But we need to improve things, don't we? I mean, I've just backed from Dubai. It's a little bit hotter there as well. And I did not spend 30% of my time talking about food. I spent probably 50, 60% of my time talking about energy. It's great. We need to talk about that. But some of the stats which you may or may not have paid attention to, I'm not going to test you all. So I'll give you a little bit of a run-through of what we just saw on the video as well. The first mover coalition for food. This is a brilliant initiative as well. Just building on the first mover coalition work that the World Economic Forum has done in various sectors as well. On the 1st of December in Dubai, 20-plus corporates got together to work with partners such as research partners, corporations, UAE government backing this as well. I had to change one thing on my notes already because from 20-plus, Daniel, correct me here, I think it's 30-plus now. We're 30-plus on this one, so it's pretty impressive. And what is the aim? I think you know that. That's why you're here. To accelerate sustainable farming and production methods and technologies, leverage collective demand. Look at the power of these three companies. Plus we've got a philanthropist on board as well, but the power of just these three alone. We're talking about an industry that has literally trillions of dollars worth of revenues. Look what that industry can do by sending the right demand and procurement signals as well. So if we have the power of aggregate demand, we're looking for a low base. $10-20 billion worth of combined procurement from coalition members. That should be very attainable. PepsiCo could do it on their own. You can see where this one's going, can't you? Put them on. He worked with me last year, he's only just got over it. We're flipping, we're flipping. Don't get me on the other side, I mean, I can do this all day. Right, it shouldn't be too hard, should it, as well. A combined revenue globally of $2.1 trillion as well. Founding members, leading food companies who see the need for more sustainable practices and innovations in food production system. Now, since December, participants have been looking at identifying and shaping the new pathways to support and mobilise demand and get that transformation going as well. The initial results, I think, are going to be published later this year, middle of the year 2024, so we're hoping for something there. About the same time that Madam Lagarde told us that we might get a rate cut. So who knows if that's a coincidence. Right, so I'd go for the other numbers again, they're devastating. You should have seen them on the panel, on the board there. I think you know it, that's why you're here anyway. I'll just go through it one more time. Food systems, 30% of greenhouse gases does not get 30% of the attention. Megan knows about this, it doesn't get a 30% of the philanthropy, it doesn't get 30% of the money, but wow, think what we can do. 30% of greenhouse gases receive less than 4% of climate financing. How about that for an imbalance? 70% of global agricultural food systems, GHGs come from just six commodities. Gilberto, we'll move on to that. Beef, cattle, dairy, rice, row crops, soy, palm oil as well, count for over 70% of freshwater usage. Water, we need to talk more about water and we're running, you know, the glaciers are melting, I mean, there's so many that we need to be so conservative in our use of water, but we're not, are we? Over 80% of all deforestation as well. The parties are going to give off a clear signal here today as well about the sizeable demand signal for low carbon and nature-positive agri-food commodities as well. The accelerate adoption of sustainable technology as well. Technology is there. I keep hearing it, whether it's in the seed science. We talked about buy-out with buy-out last year, about the seed science, the technology is there. The practices are there. The ways of doing this, it's just a question of the adoption at a bigger scale as well. New additions to the coalition as well. Unfortunately, I've represented from China, and you couldn't make it as well, but they're joining as well. Agra, the world farmers' organisation, and hot off the press. In fact, I think he's on the press yet, he's so hot off the press. It's the World Food Programme, Cindy McCain giving a real endorsement to that as well. And I think it's somewhere in the region of a billion as well. So, again, it puts that $10 to $20 billion worth of revenue procurement in perspective. Right, now, I've spoken long enough. I'm hoping this amazing panel will spend a lot of time talking amongst themselves about the key issues as well. Ramon Lugwata, he's the chairman and CEO of PepsiCo. By the way, I'm not going to do big descriptions. You can look up these, ladies and gentlemen, you know who they are pretty much as well. Axton Salim is the director and member of the board of Indo Food as well. Gilberto Tomazzoni is the global CEO of JBS. Nice to see you, sir, as well. And Megan Scarcella, who's the executive director of 1111 Foundation, will just come out of this from a philanthropy angle as well. There's lots to say there as well. Ramon, I'm going to start off with you as well. The power of PepsiCo and the companies of your size is quite extraordinary as well. You're a founder member of the movement as well. Your team is actively working to shape the policies of the Institute. Talk about the ultimate big-picture goals for us. Nice to see you. Nice to see you. This is, I think, fundamental to us. It's fundamental to PepsiCo as well. The food system, as you mentioned, has a lot of opportunities and it has some big objectives. Now, we need to feed 8 billion people with nutritious food in a way that we don't deplete resources of the planet. And also, very important, you mentioned, that the farmer needs to earn very good living. And we need to keep farmers farming as a very critical delivery of this transition. So, you know, we see ourselves, obviously, you mentioned the scale, but it's not only the scale. It's also our values that drive this. If we want to have PepsiCo continuing to be a high-performing company, we are a $50 billion company plus our beverage business. We're over $90 billion. So, we see us as a critical actor in our decisions, but also as thought leaders of the broader ecosystem trying to make this transition happen. And to me, there are two big actors in this transition. One is the farmer and the other one is the consumer. And we have the opportunity to impact both. This coalition, obviously, is about giving the farmer certainty or a bit more certainty or reduced their risk in transforming the way they do agriculture and the way they've been doing agriculture for many years. And in this transition, there is a financial risk for them. So, I think there is a technical transfer of knowledge to them and there is some financial de-risking of this transformation that, hopefully, this coalition of, you know, large companies and medium-sized companies with their purchasing power, the risks that transition for the farmer, which, to me, is the critical agent that we need to put at the centre of this transition and understand is their psychology, their finances, their technical knowledge, and the social elements that surround the farmer. I'm going to ask you just to follow up on this as well, but it's not one of the questions I've already got, Q, it's just listening to you speak. It's like, we need to de-risk for the farmer as well. Why haven't we been doing that up till now? Why haven't the biggest procurers of food, the amazing companies we have here, plus the rest of the industry, what has the industry been getting wrong up to date? You kind of almost got to look in the mirror and say, what you haven't been doing and what you need to do more of. I think the last, I would say, four or five years, the industry has pivoted to not only focusing on the growth, but the how of this growth. And I think it's been a pivotal moment. You mentioned COP for the first time. We were able to put food at the centre of the COP discussions now. And we've been working on this for quite some time. The food, the transformation of the food system is something we've been working for quite some time. But finally, we're putting this at the centre of the governments, at the centre of broader societal transformations, because I think it has, as you said, big impact on emissions, big impact on water, big impact on the livelihoods of billions of people that if they don't produce food for us, and that's their main responsibility, but also their livelihoods, we're going to be in a very difficult position 10 years from now, five years from now. And I would say, I think we should aspire for more as a food industry, but also I think we should feel good about the progress that the food industry has made in the last four or five years to elevate the importance of the food industry for transformation of society. Thank you. I've got plenty more questions, but I really want to just get round for a round, first of all. And then again, what I'm also going to do is I'm going to get the panel to speak to each other as well, because I'm sure they're going to have some brilliant cross questioning as well for each other. Guedetto. The Brazilian government has taken over the December, in December, the rotating presidency of the G20. You've been nominated to lead the G20 Sustainable Food Systems Group. So we get you in two capacities here, so that's great as well. Really, really simple question. What are your key challenges? Not a simple answer. For sure it's not a simple answer, but I think these are the good things that food now is the center of the agenda. We see in this forum that we are discussing a lot in terms of food security, food system. This is really important, because as you mentioned in the beginning, just 4% of the investment for climate change go to food, and food represents 30% of the emissions. But there is another side of this. Population keeps growing. There will be more than 8 billion people in 2050. We need to feed this. And agriculture can be part of the solution, because we can tackle the two problems at the same time. We need to increase the productivity of the farms. Today, 67% of the farms live in poverty. It means that we need to invest in order to improve the life of the small-olders, and at the same time, increase productivity, because we need to feed the world. This is one of the main drivers. We need to support the farmers to make a transition for more sustainable food. And it is not the methodology and the technology are available. It's now a question of to speed up the process of bringing this knowledge to the small-olders and financials, the transitions, the insight, the first money they start to move in, because they don't have money to make the investment. We need to support them. And then it's a part, it's a private sector, it's a government, it's an NGO, it's a foundation. We need to join force, because it's too big for one or other company or one government to tackle this issue. But this is the critical issue for humanity. We need to feed more population, and we need to reduce the gas emissions. I think this is, for me, the most important thing is to put the farmers, to put the people at the centre of the agenda, because if we support them, we can tackle the two challenges at the same times. And the way is to increase productivity. OK, I'm going to go for it straight away. I was going to wait a little bit. Is this all about big industrial farmers creating the amount of food that the world needs? You talked about the extra billion people, are actually smaller farm-holders, stakeholders within this, are they welcome? Because I look at three enormous businesses here as well. It's easier for you to deal with the landowners and the farmers who are doing things on a bigger scale, on an industrial scale. You have one person to talk to where you might have 10, 20, 30 as well. What's the future for those smaller stakeholders if the pressure is going to carry on for those and the industry to have better productivity and to feed more mouths? But I'll give you an example from Brazil. We have, in terms of, we'll talk about one of the chains, carols. We have 95,000 suppliers of carols in Brazil. You can see the number, the size of this. We deal with the big ones and we deal with the small ones. And it's a weekend, we have an experience. We open 20 green offices, we call green offices, to support the small farmers to make the transitions, give the technology. And the way that they move to be some of, is not in a compliance with the legislation, help them to be in compliance with the legislation. And it works so well because we can, in the same area, to produce 40 double the production and storage the carbon at the same time. It's not some... I believe that is the... is revigorate the small farmers. Is the transition of our green, is the opportunity for revigorate the small farmers? Um, I think... You want to come in? We'll do this straight away then, we'll come in, and then we'll get through to you two in a minute. I think as a global company, obviously, we have to adapt how we do this transition to the realities of every, you know, market. So, in the U.S., yes, there's a lot of... about helping larger businesses move forward. So, it's more of a business discussion in that case. When you go to India, for example, in our... We have a very large potato business in India. We have in the large tens of thousands of farmers, it's a very different way of, you know, moving them to the next stage, and it's the technical knowledge. We have demonstration farms where we share the knowledge. It's a very different way of financing their transition. You probably need some sort of aggregation in form of cooperatives of other ways where they're organized above the single smallholder level, and that's where you deploy the knowledge, you deploy the financing, and then they organize. So, the how it varies, I think the ultimate vision is that the full, the global industry moves forward with a whole set of new practices. And why? Because it's financially better for the farmer to eventually, after they go through the transition, to farm with the new practices. I'll come back to this. I think it's a key part of what a lot of us really care about as well. Megan, philanthropy has a role to play, but as you were telling me in the green room as well, I don't know if that bit was Shadam House or not, but I'll say it anyway. I don't know if it was. It can't do it on its own. No, no, and thank you so much for that. I am so glad you brought up the notion that we need multi-stakeholder collaboration to address the climate issue. At 11-11, our engagement with the forum is mostly in the GAIA initiative, which is essentially following the model of public-private philanthropic philanthropic partnerships to address climate. But we've also heard this statistic that is really troublesome to us, and we all know it that 2% of philanthropy goes to address climate, but the reality is even if 100% of philanthropy went to address climate, it would not be enough. That's maybe 1 trillion of a $5 trillion problem. So I just want to give accolades to my co-palace here because you guys are stepping in as private sector needs to do, and we know public sector can create the enabling conditions. We know private sector can help the scalability. And in terms of philanthropy, we are here to kind of shape shift and fill in the gaps where you might need them, and we also like to consider our role as the canary in the coal mine, so to speak, in terms of finding and funding the innovative climate tech that can help you. I mean, one area where I think there is probably a great role for philanthropy is women in agriculture. I think when we, and that by itself could be difficult for the private sector, although we're trying to enable females to own land and farm, but I think there is a starting point where probably philanthropy can help. And because we see a huge improvement in productivity in every end-to-end value for once women are in charge of the agriculture. So that to me is just a, if you can focus your money, that's 5%, do it against that. I think we do make a huge difference. Appreciate that insight. Would you also say a gap to helping to support women in agriculture, obviously, financial gap, right? So financial resources as a solution to get them access to capital to allow them? The whole package. I think it's technology is breaking some of the social bottlenecks in some countries and then obviously giving them right to land and right to initial capital to make the... I think this is the initial capital. Yes. For me, initial capital is the key for that. Because when you talk about the small farmers, some of them they have a monoculture. For example, just carols. We need to go there to support them to have another culture. For example, to plant cacoa or something. They enhance the revenue of them, reduce the leverage, the risk, the activity because they have two crops. But they need initial capital. They need to know how to learn them. That we need to work in multi-collaboration. Today, we have JBS from Amazon and we are collaborating with Solidaridad. We are working together for 1.5,000 families. We are supporting them to make the transition. Really small farmers. Let me jump in here. I'm pleased that I lost control of this a little bit earlier than I expected. It's absolutely fantastic. You've got to be careful what you wish for in this world, haven't you? I did ask for free flowing and my goodness me, I got it. If you could be patient for one more second because I just want to come back at you. Philanthropy. This is what I got my phone out, very rudely, to desire to promote the welfare of others expressed, especially by the generous donation of money to good causes as well. I just looked up the definition because I wanted to get it right as well. This has to be about philanthropy leading to economic rationale. This ain't going to work long-time. You've already mentioned unless the business case is backed up after this initial seed capital. We're setting the wills in motion as well. So you're not looking, and your sector is not looking, at giving vast amounts of money at Infinitum as a good cause. It's looking at setting in motion. And we talked about de-risking. That is absolutely going to be one of the key messages from this panel as well. De-risking the investment as well. You need to be there at the start, but you want to kind of almost put the kid on the bike, hold it with the stabilizers and then watch it go. Yeah. Yeah. No, absolutely. And I will say obviously we, as a family foundation, are not in the business of procuring commodities. But we are encouraging everyone in the corporate sector to consider business unusual because we are not living on a flat earth with infinite resources, as my friend Katherine Hayhoe likes to say. We have, you know, it's limited in scope, so we really need to start addressing our business practices to reflect that. And I need to readdress something as well because this wonderfully patient man here from Indochood, Axton Salim is doing it. Just give us your own example. You guys do everything along the whole value chain as well. That gives you, with your mothership company as well, real insight. Just tell us about what you're doing and what the challenges are. I think food security can be challenging in developing countries like Indonesia. So with that, I think access to quality or quality and sufficient food can be difficult to some of the population. So with that, I think affordability is going to be key. So in any kind of innovations that we would be doing, one thing is we cannot have excess additional costs towards the consumers. I think that is the number one thing for me. And for Indochood, I think we are a total food solutions company. We are all the way from agriculture all the way to manufacturing and distribution. So with that, I think in addressing the challenges of the food system, I think one thing is we would like to promote the low-carbon initiatives throughout the value chain. So upstream manufacturing processes and also the downstream. So for upstream, I think what we do is we support the government's projects for our agribusiness. We implement the agriculture practices which aligns with the government and to achieve the net sink for the forestry and land use by 2030. So that is zero deforestation, zero new planting for peatland and zero burning for land clearing for any kind of replanting. And also we also do preservation work for the high conservation value land areas around our sites, which is about right now, I think we have about 25,000 hectares that is already being preserved. And also 84% of our fertilizers are organic. So I think with that, that's for the big agribusiness. But for the smaller farmers, what we have to think of before anything is actually, as you said, it's the livelihood of the farmers need to come first. So with that, I think it's the same examples. I think we have potato farmers in Indonesia. What we do is we provide good seeds, teaching the farmers with good agriculture practices. And with that, I think it's better yield, lesser use of fertilizers, and of course, I think better income for the farmers. You said so much is interesting there. Let me come back to your one absolute pivotal point. Then, oh, jump in. I think this is going to be the key. Price for the consumer. Yes. I get in a lot of trouble when I go to my local supermarket or my local farm shop. If I don't buy organic, I've got to be brutally honest. Mrs. Sedgwick just comes back and says, we've got to buy organic. We've got to... Yeah, I pay more for it. And I should. I live in the rich Western world. Why shouldn't I? But we're not just talking about everyone not being... Some people can't pay more. Some people can pay more. How do we work around this as well? Because in order to give a fair price to the farmer, we have to pay more, don't we? Or is that just a no-no? You were very unequivocal about that. You said no. They cannot have the consumer having to pay more. I think it's more about helping them to increase the yield and teaching them the good agriculture practices. I think with that, how we work is, with the help in those areas, we actually do buy from the farmers as well. So that gives kind of protection against the pricing in the market. But the path... I think there is enough data already that says that if you move a farmer from conventional farming practices to regenerative farming practices after a short period, depending on the knowledge and some other... two to three years, this farmer will have a better P&L both in terms of higher yield and lower cost, which then says, okay, it's not necessary if you think the aggregate price of agriculture will not have to go up because we'll have better yield. So I think the problem to solve, and that's what we're all spending a lot of time, is the transition. And this transition happens one farmer at a time and is very local. So what we need to do in Indonesia, with the realities of the Indonesia market structure, is very different from Brazil or from Spain or whatever. But I think the outcome is going to be the same. There is a way of farming that takes care of the soil that it's mindful of the water resources, the amount of nutrition that we add to the soil. And there's enough knowledge at this point and enough data point that I think this is investable now. So as part of this coalition, we need to bring banks, we need to bring insurance companies into helping finance this transition. We don't need philanthropy anymore, I think. So there is enough knowledge to get that as an investable asset. And I think we're there. We're in the final time, but we're very optimistic. In my opinion, consumers are not willing to pay more for a sustainable product. Could it be a niche? Sorry, a sustainable product? No, I say low carbon emissions. Because we don't forget that one-third of the population today, not to eat. If we believe that we can make this transition to increase the price of the product, the product will become less affordable. This is not the solution. But isn't a better quality product have better nutrition? Yes, but look, the consumers can make it a preference for this product, but not willing to pay more. The solution is to increase the productivity of the farm as it's possible with what I mentioned here, like I mentioned, we know that regenerative practice will increase the productivity. If you increase the productivity, we reduce the cost at the end. And then, in addition, we can attract capital from the market, for example, for the carbon market, that we can enhance the revenue and to reduce the cost of the production. I believe in that. We need to work to improve productivity. I think if you... Just real quick. If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying that the responsibility of the increased cost of the goods should be on the shoulders of the producer in terms of making sure that you get to increase productivity to reduce that cost. I'm saying that we need to bring new way to produce from the farmers that these... the output will be higher output that reduce the cost. What we need to be that, to bring knowledge and initial financials from the starting transitions? Yeah. I was going to say, I think what Leverto said is true. I think mainstream brands, I don't think they'll be able to convey premium for the sake of just having better farming practices. I don't think so. So we shouldn't assume that Lays or Quaker or some of our large brands will be able to carry the premium. We can create premium brands that might be able to carry some premium. So what your wife probably can afford. Well... Well, the shame can afford it not as a different equation, but we shouldn't make the business case based on we're going to premiumize. I think we can create some loyalty to the business case probably commercially and how we should approach it, but the consequence of that is I think we need to make sure that the farming is more productive and I think that we have enough data to support. Now, how do we bring money into the farming system to finance the transition? One of the things we're trying to do with this coalition is to bring certainty of demand which hopefully can... I'm hopeful that we can do that is to move the horizon of procurement to multi-year. Right now, one of the bottlenecks is that we're buying... the system is buying mostly one year at a time. So we don't give enough certainty to the farmer to execute a much more longer investment that he needs to transform itself. Now, I think we need to give the farmer that visibility and that certainty and that will provide to go through that valley and then get to the peak. I think that's one of the objectives of this group is not only to buy more but is to buy in a different way so that we can enable this transition. It's one of the elements. I think on this panel, I think we're focusing a lot on the agriculture and the farming side of the carbon reduction. But if we look at the whole food manufacturing, it goes all the way from the farming side all the way to the distribution side of it. How can we improve the other parts of the food manufacturing value chain on that? So I think from us, I think one of the examples is how we actually utilize the renewable energy for our manufacturing purposes. About 70% right now of our manufacturing in the food is using biomass or PV. So I think with that, we can definitely take a look from a different viewpoint, not only from farming, but how we can look at it from the total. Absolutely, and that ticks a lot of boxes on the initial figures we mentioned about greenhouse gases as well. But unashamedly, I'm going to concentrate on the food, the price, the quality of it as well. We're talking about the big brands can't increase the cost as well. I want to go back and say, I know this can increase the price, and this is very specific because it's a recent example, and everyone in this room is probably aware of the fact that you, your company has just had a major spout with a major French supermarket as well. It was about one part of the food chain having a row about price, I think, but ultimately, with another part of the food chain. It wasn't necessarily the consumer or the farmer who was getting involved in this one as well. It was about slicing and dicing along the chain with the farmer and the consumer just bystanders as well. That's a great shame, isn't it, to be involved in this kind of conversation when, actually, ultimately, it's the farmer that we need to improve the margins for? I don't think it's one or the other. I think it's a, you know, it's a full-value chain. We are genuinely committed to the transformation of the agriculture, and we're supporting the farmer with our own resources at this point because we need to create this positive momentum. And some farmers in the Midwest of the U.S. were paying $40 per acre more for having regenerative agriculture. So that's one thing. The other thing is how do we resolve commercial tensions with our customers, which is something that has been going on since the middle age. I get that. I appreciate that. Middle age now becomes public because you guys spread the word. Well, now how do we... Currently, that is the job of the media. I think it was a couple that spread the word, not us. I know you're just kidding, but, you know, the fact that it became public is a reality. There's commercial tensions with suppliers, with the customers, and that's the nature of doing business. And we do it in a very fair way and trying to win away. Now, again, to your point, which I think is critical, is are we trying to take advantage of the farmer? No. I think it's the opposite. What we're trying to do is to help the farmer is an unknown journey that he's starting because he needs to trust us, that at the end of that journey, at the end of the tunnel, you'll be more profitable, you'll have better livelihood for your family. That is the journey. Now, we're not going to do it the same in a large country, in a small country, medium-sized country. This is very local. It's micro. It's one farmer at a time. It's a community at a time putting the right solutions end-to-end. That's where we're here. Now, the way we're solving this so far is vertical. I was solving for the potato problem, for the corn problem, for the oat problem. As we join forces, we're going to solve it for the farmer. Why? Because he has multiple crops. He rotates. He creates value by rotating. If I combine the purchases with Salim or with my colleague here, that's what we're trying to do. So, long-term, full ecosystem genuinely helping the farmer to go from this current knowledge to the future knowledge in a better business. And that's an absolutely fair answer. I'm not, as I say, you all know I'm not a gotcha, but I kind of want to make sure that when one big corporation has, as you say, it's been going since the middle ages, when one big corporation in the food chain has a big argument with another big corporation in the food chain in the public. Again, it's our job to report on that as well. And perhaps one part of that food chain, maybe a French supermarket, is making a big point about it. The fact is I want to make sure the little guy that we're trying to actually improve the world for here isn't the one who suffers because at the end of the day, the big corporations don't tell him, I say, well, I'm not going to lose my margin. I'm not going to lose my margin. Let's take it out on the farmer, because the farmer hasn't got a choice. I just wanted to applaud the point you made in terms of recognizing the transition that these small-holder farmers will be having to endure when you go to regenerative agriculture. I mean, they're operating in a legacy of farming practices that they now have to change, and we need to give them support and obviously patience. In reality, the big corporations now, they are taking the initiatives to go to support the farms. And you need to now bring more stakeholders to help us because look for us. We have... We create a fund for Amazon just to support the small farms. It's not in our value chain. They are not in our value chain. It's not our supplier, but we support them because we need to improve the life of the population there. If you run the emissions, we need to go a large way that... And we need more stakeholders to join, like foundations, like the NGOs, the government. We need more actors to help to make this transformation. And I just want to add one thing about the price that you mentioned here. Look for... Because there is innovations in agriculture as well. Everybody knows that about the challenge that we have in the synthetic fermentation of carrots. We are working for three years in supplements to try to reduce the amount of the emissions. The main challenge in the beginning, we'll talk about three years, in the beginning was the cost of the supplement. They reduce the emissions, but they'll increase a lot the cost of the meat. Now, we are quite there and we are working in a big size of trial, 20,000 carols. And the results we get from the the field now show that it's possible to reduce 90% of the methane emissions and not increase the cost. This is the solution of the technology. I know that there's a gentleman not a million miles away from me. He used to work for a company that was very big on this one for a very long time. Nice to see you, Herman. Axon, do you want to come in on this one? No, I truly believe that it needs collaborative efforts. Starting from the government in a private sector and civil society needs to come together. Have a common understanding and not blame each other for whatever is happening. And just find common solutions as well. I think that's going to be key. Already we've got five minutes left, we've got one minute left. I think it's relevant. You mentioned something that could be it's not proven yet, but we're working on it, which is better soil delivers better nutrients. I think this could be a consumer outlook, which we haven't yet proven that this is true, but we have some... We know that better food has better outcomes. We have some signals that might say that if we're able to improve what we're trying to do with, you know, and much more nutrients, natural nutrients and better water, you know, how it stays on the land and so on, these will deliver better nutrients. I think then we have a consumer story that might create the resources to to give more a livelihood to a better livelihood for farmers. For sure. So that is a connection that still is scientifically... It's not a big leap. I've read so much food, nutrition, literature, far over the last few years. I don't know if you can get me in here without making me read 20 or books. But the truth of the matter is we know there is a link between better nutrition, better diet, better health outcomes, less cost for the planet, less cost for governments, less cost for your health service, less insurance costs. It's not about living 280. It's about living better 280. Better health outcomes on cancer, on heart disease, on diabetes, on cholesterol by eating better food. So the cost there is obvious for the governments who have to raise less taxes because we have better outcomes because we're eating better food. It's so wonderfully beautiful. We've got to move on. Hang on for three minutes. Ish. OK. Give me some achievables from this coalition as well. OK, we're going to be here in five, ten years time. I'll still be here. Give me some outcomes that this is really going to work and how we get there as well. We've mentioned financing, we've mentioned getting collaboration, we've mentioned working with the farmers as well, giving them investment, de-risking their decisions. Give me some more ideas and some outcomes. I think to me to be one critical KPI of this full transformation. It's got a corporate key performance indicator. No, it's make sure the farmers have better living than they have today. Because without the farmers sustainably they're going to walk away from farming. And that's the biggest risk. The biggest risk we have is that the next generation of farmers don't want to farm. Because they don't make a living or it's not fancy enough. All of us are getting older. But it's a fact. I think to me a key KPI of this transformation of course is about feeding the world and using less resources and everything else. We need to put the farmer at the center and the farmer needs to have sustainable living, a better PNL better asset and that will justify the future generations staying in farming. It's a huge enabler of having enough food for everybody. I totally agree because at the end we need to tackle the two problems that I mentioned before. The G&G emissions 30% of agriculture in the same time you need to produce more and to produce more you need to improve the life of the farmers. And for me this is the key point. We need to put the farmers at the center. People is the solution. And we know how to do. It's just you need to accelerate the technique we know today the model that we have today how we can speed up the process. Because we know there is existing good experience all of the world the government need to focus more. Just 4% of the investment go. If we change this for 4% to 40% you can mention how we can change the... I'm so tight. I've got 20 seconds for this answer. COP 30 is Brazil, yeah? Brazil. And he's the guy. You need to get this even more front and center. No pressure. You're going to get agriculture and food systems right to the center of COP 30. Exactly. He'll be the center. He'll be in Pará. He'll be in Pará and Pará will be one of the most important states in Brazil and by the way the government of Pará take a decision to make a law to have all of the cows producing Pará to be an electronic tech. Okay, Megan. Real quick we are at an all hands on deck moment with the climate crisis. So my vision would be that you all have created a demand signal to big corporates to get on board with this idea of sustainably minded business first and that would get us where we need to go. All hands on deck. Couldn't agree more. Accident. Starting point or before the KPI, I think understanding the whole supply chain, understanding what are the different KPIs that need to be for each. I think today we focus a lot on agriculture and the farming side but there's a lot more of the different sites in the food manufacturing value chain that needs to be understood. All three of these enormous corporations here as well as well. We'll hold you all to it. I can assure you as well. Love the conversation. Can't believe 45 minutes went so quickly as well. In no particular order. Thank you very much indeed for taking all my points and taking it in good spirit as well. I'm so looking forward to seeing your name in the press over the next couple of years and what you're pushing forward to. Absolutely loads of pressure. Loads of pressure. Megan, it's lovely to see you. Megan Scassella, thank you so much indeed as well. And Axton Salem, you're so right. The whole value chain. We need to look at that as well. Round of applause for our brilliant panel.