 of landscapes, and incentives to, in a sense, reduce diversification of landscapes, which has all kinds of other impacts on biodiversity and other environmental dimensions. Is that something you've confronted in your work? Is the success of market entry for small holder farmers? And how do you manage the risk that they, in a sense, lose the diversity of the landscapes in which they're operating? Is that something you can, a dilemma you can help us with? I have to clarify that, Olam, we are a very large farmer. So we grow 21 crops across 26 countries, and probably one of the most diversified upstream farmer. We are in Brodica row crop farming. We are in perennial tree crop plantations. We are in dairy farming, and we are also in forest concessions. The key question for us would be, who are we managing this business for? Is it the temporary transient fleeting exiting shareholder of our business? Or is it the continuing shareholder of the business? If you take these two different views, you will develop long-term strategy, make investment choices or capital allocation decisions completely differently. And as a publicly listed company, that is always a challenge. So we always tell our investors, if you are investing in Olam and holding the stock for five months, and you expect us to develop strategy and take decisions to maximise your interest, we will not do that. So you have to self-select yourselves. And we tell our investors and relations team, frighten the living daylights out of potential investors who are going to be holding our stock for five and six months, and just get me 50 investors who will take a long-term view. And it is for there, we are putting ourselves in the shoes of a continuing shareholder. And therefore for us it's all about long-term. It's not about next year, it's not about the year after that. When you get into a rubber plantation, it takes 12 years after you plan to get to full maturity. If you do pistachios, the same thing. And if you do palm or almonds or whatever it is, or coffee or cocoa, it's about seven years. So you have to take the long view here. And the farmer always takes the long view. But he's not properly incentivised to take the long view today. Thanks, that's great to hear. Theo, carbon pricing. What do you think of that? And carbon markets in agriculture for farms? Is that something you want? You want to do? You want to be involved in? Farmers, I represent seldom have the money to buy and implement what to say to pay a carbon tax. They're not going to do it now. They're not there for us in organised agriculture on the continent. There is no difference between climate smart agriculture, mechanisation, commercialisation, modernisation. And at least the African farmers leaders realise that we need to leapfrog into a different paradigm and it needs to happen over a very short space of time. And we think it's possible because it happened in communications technology. Africa has moved from the drum to the smartphone in less than 20 years. Can you imagine if we can replace the handle with climate smart agricultural equipment, the latest technology, where we can go? And for us it is one action. It's not as if we address a farmer on his farm in a number of silos. This you need to do to be climate smart. That you need to do to modernise and so on. It's one action. And because we come from a very low base, it can be done in the southern hemisphere. I also want to touch on the question about the biological farming. You show me the farmer who is not in love with nature, who chose this career because he's not in love with nature. And yet agriculture is not in harmony with nature. Nature does not provide surpluses. So there's always a tension between agriculture and nature. It is how we manage that tension that will matter. The problems I have seen with nature smart agriculture is the way it has been presented to farmers. Mostly because of NGOs who are active in this field and with the best intentions, talk about farming without improved seeds, without fertiliser and farmers perceive it as people working very hard to keep them poor. That's why I'm calling for a sub-star. That's why I think the question from the lady from unsanto is very relevant. We need to be able to tell farmers climate smart agriculture means you need to do exactly this because this is how it will keep your soils healthy. These are the microorganisms you need to have in your soils and that kind of chemical is going to kill them. If we do not make the change on that level, no matter what we agree to at COP21 or any of the other COPs, it's not going to make a difference. And how to get these policies from the clouds and plant them in the ground where the small holders are, that's our big challenge. The answer to that is, assist us in the farmers organisations to have the capacity to reach out to our members on the grass roots level and let it make economic sense to them because farming is a business. If it's not profitable, it's not going to happen. Thank you, thank you Theo. Anna, I don't know if you wanted to come in. I saw you looking to come in on one of those points but could you also perhaps say something about the question on, in a sense, linking the forestry and agriculture debates and the co-benefits there and how we can do more to achieve co-benefits between agriculture and forestry. So it's really all that we are talking about is how to achieve these global goals while increasing the value proposition for farmers. So we're talking about increasing productivity, protecting forests, increasing their climate resilience ability to adapt and how do we share knowledge and ensure that they have the tools that they need including economic incentives. So it's really a package that it's not a one-way solution and how do we use the existing technology that adds so much to what we can do right now to actually share this knowledge and we are working with a number of different groups and entities with the financial sector or with others to provide this type of package to producers and really it's about coming up with ways in which they can, like we have examples in Côte d'Ivoire with COCO where farmers were able to increase productivity by 70% without increasing cost or use of agrochemicals and with that being able to actually triple their income by hectare and this is versus the non-certified farms. So these type of tools are really important and then learning from that and bringing into other places in terms of and the value that for us we're seeing in India what deforestation is doing in terms of bringing serious problems into tea farms that are caused by deforestation. So reforestation being really important and protecting from further deforestation being critical for the health of these tea farms. But also if we're not talking only about farming but also about forestry, we have examples in the Petan in Guatemala where it's starting with best management practices but then moving into certification, moving into bringing the market in and the incentives brought in by the market leading to tremendous avoidance of deforestation where you saw 20 times greater deforestation in a protected area where no activity should take place versus the multi-zone, the multi-use zone. The community, the forest communities were able to develop and design a carbon project and now we'll be able to, it's now, this is available for sale, this carbon credits and they will be able to reinvest in their efforts. So again another example where sustainable development is working brilliantly so possible. Great, thanks, yeah it's very inspiring to see this work and in a way what standardization or certification can do to, in a sense, make up for the lack of other regulations. And it's not alone, certification in itself, it's just registering what's happening there but it's really creating a leverage in another incentive from the market for producers to adopt best management practices. But the training of course is critical. I just want to clarify because I probably would have been misunderstood. When I said climate smart agriculture and that we support climate smart agriculture, it does not mean that it is low tech or it's low knowledge intensive. In fact climate smart agriculture is extremely knowledge intensive, starting from good seeds or integrated best management or drip irrigation or fatigation or whatever you do to improve efficiency. So it's very knowledge intensive. But it can be also low till to preserve the ecological balance of the top soil which is productive. And in terms of carbon tax, you have to be paid by the market for this or it won't work. So we are the world's probably largest supplier of organically certified agricultural raw materials, whether it's organically certified cocoa or coffee or cashews or sesame or even cotton. And we get significant premiums for supplying that organic cashew today. We get a premium of 80% between supplying in organic and organic. And the only way we can sustain that is to pass a significant part or share the gains with our suppliers, our farmers. We have 4 million farmers around the world who supply these crops to us. And everybody who's in a program with us and we work quite closely with people like Rainforest Alliance at Rainforest Alliance, we are probably going to now ship the first verifiable climate smart cocoa from Ghana where you can see in the western part of Ghana which grows 50% of its cocoa. A significant part of that has come through deforestation. But with Rainforest Alliance we have now developed a program with about 2,000 farmers covering 6,000 hectares in the western part of Ghana. And we will get a significant premium for our customers for that. And the same thing for customized grades, qualities and various other certifications, traceability guarantees. Our customers are very anxious whether we're sourcing these raw materials from plantations, whether it's forced labour or child labour. Now if you're going to be buying second hand at the port city 1,500-2,000 km away from the farm gate point, you have absolutely no clue where you're buying it from. If you're buying at the farm gate, that is very different. So to produce one kg of poultry meat, if you're going to consume two kgs of feed grains and a kg of pork meat, you're going to consume four kgs of feed grains and a kg of beef meat, you're going to consume eight kgs of feed grains. And to produce a kg of poultry meat you need 6,000 litres of water and a kg of pork meat you need 10,000 litres and for a kg of beef you need 16,000 litres of water. Shouldn't this be priced in? How can we not price this in? And if you're not going to price this in, we're not going to change behaviour. Thank you, Sonny. Can I ask Martin? You know, we've just heard many expiring examples of how companies themselves or third sector partners such as Rainforest Alliance can create change. When you read through the INDCs, did you see much mention of that, that in a way the private sector has the power to be transformed and transform itself? Because I understand and talking to colleagues, this was not so much a feature of the INDCs and the texts that's been provided. What do you think is going on there? Why is this not up front and centre in these INDCs? It was a bit of a silly example. I started to use the internet in the 90s and when you were loading a picture you had a very, very pixel-y picture first and then it became more refined, more refined until you had a high resolution picture. The INDCs are very, very pixel-y picture and some of them were put together at the last second and they all mention agriculture. So that's great but that's only a start. I think, and I want to tie in also some of the questions I heard, they have the potential to be transformative. Yes, absolutely. Because they have the political energy, they have the attention of the prime ministers and the president's offices where it absolutely belongs. The transformational potential, and that is very much also what I heard here, is if we finally are able to work with the complexities and interdependencies and look at things from very different perspectives. There was the question about acroecology and protection of forests. It's really very easy. The biggest driver of deforestation is still agriculture and we have to feed more people. We want to lift 800 million people out of hunger and misery SDG2 and we cannot afford to further deforest. So we have to restore our soils. We have to put the carbon back in the soils. We have in Africa the youngest continent. We have 11 million people entering the labour market every single year. How do you employ them? The biggest employer worldwide is still agriculture. And yes, there are knowledge intensive solutions, but they are also very low-tech solutions. Sometimes to fight soil erosion you need to do as simple things as building stone walls just to hold the soil back. But that needs education of farmers. That needs extension services. That needs basically communicating the information to the farmers. We have tools for that which we not quite have started to harness in a way that we could. You mentioned leapfrogging and I like the example from drums to smartphones. Well, Africa has the most modern infrastructure for smartphones quite simply because they were the latest addition to the market. You got sometimes better 4G coverage than in New York City. We have to use that to get the data to the farmers. We have the possibility that every cell phone basically knows its location. So you can provide pertinent and relevant information directly to the farmers. But to tie that together, that is the job of the INDCs. And we have to present to the countries that are now sort of jumping in the cold water with the INDCs saying we are on board that there is support and that's also the financing mechanism which is bold enough to take a risk. And I think again, the Green Climate Fund, that is what it should be doing. Talking about the private sector, there is a readiness to investment. What is an investor doing? He is judging the risks of this or that investment. So if there is a perceived 7-10% higher risk in doing the right thing, then this is exactly the sector where public money should be coming in to leverage private funding. And if we are able to do that, yes, I think the INDCs can be transformational. Just to push a little more on this, I mean, why the INDC is not talking about the distortions and price signals that is really affecting the behavior of all farmers? Is it because that often transcends the nation state and it's seen as, or is it that many of the officials simply aren't thinking that way yet? And what's going on here? Is it a lack of understanding or this is the wrong tool to talk about that? And when you monitor the INDCs, there were very few coming in until basically June, July this year and then there was a whole other lunch. I've worked with governments for many years. I know how these things are happening. It's a coordination of different ministries that is very difficult. And then you get stuck and at the last second basically the Prime Minister offers calls and says, oh my gosh, we have to do that right now and then you fire something out of the window. I think quite realistically this is something we have seen now with many INDCs. The question with pricing is of course complicated because then you come into a space of international trade and exactly this fears of interventions that might affect your trade in commerce was what was holding agriculture back for such a long time. But yes, if we in sub-star in the technical committees can slowly agree on common methodology on common standards, which is exactly sort of the far space international norm setting, then we can move into the space while at the same time encouraging private investment to do the right thing. And wanted to pick up on one thing that you said basically to connect small hold farmers with international markets, whether that would be a risk to have more monocropping. Well maybe not because people are now more prepared to pay for speciality varieties, specified coffees, nuts and so on. If you leave this conference room, you go to the Starbucks downstairs, there's a handful of cash news that you buy for two euros. That's a substantial price. So that could also be going back all the way to the farmers and encourage them exactly and precisely not to monocrop, but to have different varieties that can be connected to the market because the market obviously is prepared to pay these prices. Thank you, Marcy. Anna, did you want to come in on that? Yes, just on the, both on the using technology, so using smartphones we have a really good model that we are really hoping that we can take globally to the over a million farmers that we are working. And that is in Guatemala working with 12 farm communities or farm groups to start through use of smartphones, not only communicating lessons learned from other parts of the world between farmers, but then to get information from them on what kind of support they need into us. But then ultimately our vision is to connect the farmers with companies and with consumers. And obviously whether we are looking at price and the cost of things rather than the price taking into consideration the environmental and social costs for some of this product, it's really important to bring in the consumer because I think more and more consumers, especially the younger generation, are very interested in that emotional connection with the product that they are buying and understanding because I think that there is an assumption that everything is grown in environmentally and socially responsible way. And right now I think consumers are waking up to the reality that it's not. I think that there are wonderful things happening right now. The question is how fast are they happening? And we have numerous examples of good practices in every continent. But how do we make it so that not only we are creating incentives for sustainable production, but that we are just closing the door for unsustainable production? And that is really important as well. Thank you, Anna. I need to let you guys go for coffee. We've run well over, but that was deliberate and I didn't see anyone leave. So thanks for staying. I don't think we didn't get the time to get into your question, Danish, because I think we would have needed another hour to talk about how on earth are we going to mobilize ourselves to tackle these vast challenges set out in INDCs, which involves working across so many non-traditional partnerships, getting the banking community engaged. Even more than it already is. Getting the certification community engaged. Getting the agriculture ministries talking to the finance ministries and talking to all the other ministries. There's a vast amount of non-traditional discussion that's going to be needed here. And then getting the finance, the traditional development finance world even more mobilized in this space. And that's of course where the global environment facility is one of the larger funders of work in this area. Can certainly play a role. But I won't dwell on that. Let's break for coffee and thank our panel. It's been brilliant. And see you back at 11.30. Please come back. We've got a great rest of the morning too.