 As I took up my job at CIFOR and I was introduced to various ministries in Jakarta, I was introduced as the new DG of CIFOR, a real forester. Depending on who says that, it can mean very different things. I think it was said in a positive spirit and I take it from that. But I think this interpretation of what forester is is really central to what we need to discuss further today. I come from Sweden. I know that from my previous assignments that Australia is a country with 100 million hectares of forest and 20 million cubic meters of harvest. Sweden is a country with 20 million hectares of forest and 100 million cubic meters of harvest. So I know about harvest. So keep that in mind because some of the other things I say may be in a different vein. So my first picture is this one. This is a famous painting. It's actually from Finland, but it could have been in Sweden as well 100 years ago. It's a landscape. There are some forests behind it and there are some people eking out a living as we know very much from other parts of the world. You see the picture fading in now is from today and it's in South America somewhere. This is still the situation. There are still plenty of people out there eking out a living and trying to survive on very meager conditions. And of course these people are not interested in a line on the ground that says that it's forests on one side and not forests on the other side. That's something I will come back to in my speech. My second picture is this. This is my Scott's Pine. Actually it's my wife's, but anyway. It stands on our property in Sweden. It happens to be the oldest pine tree in the Stockholm region by international standard. That doesn't say very much, but still it's a pretty prominent tree in that particular region. It also represents considerable economic value. This tree could heat my house for two years, but I don't fell it because of course there is a value system here that makes me consider not to fell it. And that value system is not based on monetary evaluations. Now we just heard a lot of Tasmania. I've never been to Tasmania, but I actually included a picture from Tasmania. And I'll just say that what I hear from Australia is that there is a very interesting debate over the value system of forest here. And I'll be happy to discuss this further with the senator who mentioned this a lot. I think there's a choice here for the professional foresters, and I'll jump a little bit in my speech here. The conference objective is to challenge delegates to recognize and question the leading role that professional foresters play for a widening range of organizations and communities with different objectives. I think the choice for professional foresters is whether the entire value system is included in professional forestry or not. So the challenge to, I would say the forestry club, and I'm part of it too, is to tear down some sector walls with agriculture, with conservation, with other sectors. Also not to fail to relate to the bigger development agenda, not just the forestry goals. Because you know, we speak a lot about sustainable forest management. We do it nationally. We do it internationally. But outside the forestry club, nobody really knows what this is about and how it connects to those more important development goals, the sustainable development goals that are being discussed at the moment. How do we relate to those? It's not very clear. And actually in the climate change process, sustainable forest management has now a negative connotation. That's something to remember. We can come back to that in the discussion. So I'm going to talk about three things today. First, I'll talk a little bit about C4. We're celebrating our 20 years anniversary. So that's worth mentioning a little bit of what we do. Secondly, I'll talk a bit more about the lines in the landscape, forest, non-forest, what that means, and what it would mean to erase those lines and move to a more landscape level approach. And finally, what does this mean for the bigger picture? So thanks, IFA, for this conference. It's an excellent opportunity for the debate. As a forester, I feel very welcomed. But as I said, my mission today is to take you out of your comfort zone. I would also say that today I'm speaking to a national audience about international issues. Tomorrow I will speak at the United Nations Forum on Forest in Istanbul, an international crowd, and I will tell them that they are not taking national level priorities into account. So it's always interesting to switch like that. But in both cases, I will say that two things are really missing. One is the world outside the forest. And the other is what I just mentioned, the connection to mainstream politics and development goals. The institutional setups we have doesn't really help to cut across these things. Okay, so let me go into see for a little bit. This is how we want to present ourselves. We are an organization that shapes forest and forestry for sustainable development. We are based in Indonesia. This is a picture of our headquarters in Bogor, outside Jakarta. Many of you have been there. Welcome back. And for those who haven't been there, you're most welcome to visit us. But we are a global organization. The map shows where we're active across the tropics. And our vision is throughout the world to make sure that forests are on the agenda, that the value of forest or values of forest are recognized and that the decisions that influence forest and the people supported and the people depending on forest are supported by solid science. We are a research organization and principles of good governance. It all started in 1993. We are more or less a product of Rio, the first Rio, which was actually stock on plus 20. That's something that not many know about. And there were four countries that founded C4. Australia was one of them. That's important to remember. We still enjoy a lot of support from Australia, both professionally and financially. We're very grateful for that. Sweden, Switzerland and the US were the others. And Indonesia bid successfully to host C4 in Indonesia. And this is very significant today. Indonesia is now a G20 country. They are very prominent on the sustainable development scene. Of course, it's a big, it's a huge forestry country. So we think we're in the right place. But C4 doesn't stand alone. We have 15 international research organizations that together make up the CDIR. C4 is the only forestry one. We have rice in the Philippines, maize in Mexico, agroforestry in Kenya, livestock in Kenya as well, genetic resources in Rome and so on. And together we make up the largest research consortium on agriculture, forestry and fisheries. C4 leads the program of forestries and agroforestry. And we contribute a lot to the program on climate change, agriculture and food security. Now, where do we see our future? I already said that we need to connect to development goals. So we see that when we do research and forestry, we need to relate to poverty. We need to relate to food security, nutrition and health. We already do, but we need to continue to relate to climate change. Biodiversity is obviously a big topic. And production forestry is an area that we will actually now increase our emphasis on. C4 has done a lot in the past, past few years maybe less. But I look forward to develop this particular area and that I think interests many in this room. So those are the basic research expectations. And that leads into some more bigger picture issues. First of all, evidence-based policies. We are emphasizing the need for evidence-based forestry. And here I would like to beg to be a little bit different in opinion than the senator just was because science doesn't provide the answers. Science provides the evidence. The answers have to be provided by the politicians. So we shouldn't expect science to come up with all the solutions. That's something that sometimes gets a little bit diluted in the debate. But certainly science needs to provide an evidence-based for those solutions and for those decisions. We see that sustainable landscapes where forest is an integral part, essential for livelihoods, essential for resilience, and essential for ecosystem services. That's a key direction we're taking. We see that green growth is a particular emphasis for us and that forestry well done is going to contribute a lot to green growth. So that's a little bit about C4. Happy to say more about that. And I'll now come back to the issue of the lines in the landscape and why it has ended up like that. And if you think about forestry more broadly as I try to do, even if I have my background in the harvesting in Sweden, forestry priorities are different and depending on who you are, your priorities will be completely different. If you're from the forest industry, then green growth is your first priority. If you're a climate change negotiator, a red negotiator, then the climate change is your priority. If you're an environmental NGO, then the mix of climate change and biodiversity is probably your priority. If you're a farmer, it's different. It's the livelihoods, it's food and nutrition, and it's the resilience of your production system. And if you're a poor farmer, then it is even more the livelihood, the immediate livelihood and the immediate food that is the priority. And we seem to forget that the stakeholders have so very different priorities and that the multiple goals are actually multiple and that forests are important for all of these priorities. Forests, of course, is very hardwired to agriculture. There's no doubt about that. Deforestation is actually the expansion of agriculture. For some reason, deforestation is associated with the forest sector, but I don't know how that came about. And of course, agriculture depends on forest too. Most, many of the ecosystem services that agriculture depends on, depend on the forest. So, there is a system here that we can't really deny. And the question is, why can't we deal with these sectors together? The answer is obviously that the institutional setup doesn't allow it. But why do we avoid combined solutions? Why do we look only in the forests for forestry solutions? Why do we have a conflict between conservation and wood production? Why do we talk about mitigation of climate change in the global negotiations? But we ignore agriculture and all the things that are happening in agriculture that influences the climate. Why do we argue that we need more food? Why do we argue that we want green growth but don't like forest plantations that some people don't like? There are many of these strange conflicts out there where these multiple objectives seem to be difficult to embrace. But I think that this is exactly what we need to do. We need to embrace those multiple goals. And the challenge for the forestry profession, if you like, is to be able to step out of the comfort zone and embrace those multiple objectives. Forests are too important to be isolated. And if we keep the lines in the landscape, if we persist that there is forest on one side of the line and we have policies for the forest and there is something else on the other side of the line, we will not find those better solutions. So what happens if we erase these lines? What do we mean by landscape? Landscapes are not objects. Landscapes include people. It includes their ambitions. And it is people on the ground that are in charge. In the global processes we often talk about big goals, red or conserving biodiversity, et cetera. But we often forget that it is the ambitions, the aspirations and the decisions of the billions of people that actually manage the resources that will determine if the future is sustainable or not. I don't want to define a landscape. I worked with definitions of forests, for example, for many years. And I know exactly the problems you get when you start arguing about the definition. So I will avoid to do that. I will just say that this is a landscape. It is a spatially heterogeneous area. It includes forests, it includes farms, it includes towns. I will also say that management objectives in the landscape, they vary in time, they vary in space. This looks like, sounds like chaos, but it is actually the natural planning situation on the ground most days for farmers and foresters. So what we need is a basis to pull all this together. Because I think that a big part of the problem is that the fairly complex reality that we all have to deal with, that work with forests and farms, et cetera, is very difficult to translate to the wider public. And with the wider public increasingly being urban, increasingly having the opportunity to choose and to vote, this translation from the complex reality to the wider public becomes really the main problem. Maybe the senator will agree to that to some extent. So we've started to think about landscapes. What do we want with the landscape? Can we explain the landscape and what we want with the landscape to the wider public? And this is our current thinking. There are essentially four things we want to achieve. We want to achieve better livelihoods. We want to achieve better sustained ecosystem services. We want to achieve a sufficient level of food and non-food products. And we want to avoid pollution and we want resource efficiency. These are four objectives that I think I can explain to my 11-year-old son. And he will understand it. I also think that each of these four can be measured at different scales. As you see here, we've provided some IDs on how we actually measure that. And I can go into that in more detail in another presentation. So if we achieve to provide a picture about what a landscape is, how we measure progress, and I would say if all these four are stable or improving, we could say that it is a sustainable landscape. But also remember that the weights between these objectives are not fixed and they are different and they depend on the priorities of people on the ground. I also want to say that the debate whether to monetize the nature or not is important. Personally, I think it will be extremely difficult to monetize everything. We need to have models and methods and processes that are able to combine objectives that we measure on different scales. So we are working on in this direction. One example of this is that what used to be separate forest days and agriculture days at the UNFCCC meetings. These are big conferences. We've had very good visibility at these conferences. We're not combining them. They will not be a forest day. They will not be an agriculture day at the next UNFCCC meeting in Warsaw this November. They will be instead a landscape forum. Now I've talked a lot about what forests and forestry do and don't do. But I want to talk a little bit from the agriculture side too. The last 50 years have been incredible. Our population has gone from about 3 billion to about 7 billion. Our food production has tripled as well. Our GDP per capita has tripled. But one thing that hasn't changed is the number of hungry people. The number of food insecure people are actually about the same as they were in 1960. This is important because how often don't you see in the press and in the debate that we need more food. We need to make sure that food security is achieved. We need to keep food prices down. And these are things we've been trying to do for 50 years and it does not reduce the number of food insecure people. So there is a disconnect here. There is something in the debate that's not working. And I think that here we see an example of the agriculture silo. We are still stuck in some legacies of the Green Revolution. In the 1960s we needed to increase the production in agriculture. We needed to make sure that enough nutrition was available in many countries. But we haven't moved on from there. There is no doubt that we can produce enough food today. That people don't have enough to eat this because of poverty. It's because of market failures and other things. It's not because we don't produce enough food. The issue with that is that as long as the perception that agriculture needs to produce more. As long as that persists we have a problem with the natural resources management and with the landscape objectives and with forestry for that matter. So where does all this take us? I see three general policy implications. First of all what I've been saying the whole time we need to cut across traditional sector boundaries in policy interventions. This is very difficult. Institutions are what they are. It's not easy to walk across the boundaries. I changed the open FAO. I moved from the forestry department to the natural resources department. I was completely in a different universe. Suddenly I was outside the forestry circles. It was very strange and of course we all know about this. The question is how can we deal with it? Secondly, in my view affordable and long-term finance for landscape investments is a key factor. There's no doubt that land use is a sleeping giant in terms of investments. There's no doubt that the money is out there. The big funds are looking for alternatives to Italian government bonds these days and if we can figure out a way to make all that capital work for sustainable landscapes and I think we have a good way forward. And finally of course research that address the landscape level and make those evidence-based policies possible. Now taking all this into some conclusions. Forestry in the 21st century this is the picture of trying to convey to you. If we talk about the what, we can't talk about forest only. We have to move towards talking about landscapes and beyond that we need to talk about development goals. We need to relate forestry to those bigger agendas. And when we talk about the who, it's not only foresters. It's not even all the people engaged in the land-based sectors. It's the wider public and if forestry fails, continue to fail to connect to the wider public, there is a problem. So if anyone asked me where does forestry need to go in the 21st century, noting that we've already done one eighth of the 21st century. So we're already a bit down the line. So this is my final picture. The original painting I showed was from 1900. In 2000 it looks like in the middle something happened, what happened, what development happened and a lot of forestry happened and a lot of intensification of agriculture happened and a lot of urbanization happened. So now the landscape looks completely different. But these objectives are still multiple and they're still changing. We can't really say what 2100 will look like in this location. Maybe it will be vineyards because of climate change. Maybe it will be an urban area. Maybe it will be something we don't even imagine today. I'm pretty sure that the people in the painting in 1900 did not imagine what it would look like a hundred years from them. Can we imagine what things will look like in a hundred years? I don't think so. We need to have a very flexible approach to addressing the challenges that we have in front of us and the landscape approach is perhaps just the first step to widen that perspective. My final word is that I was reading The Economist on the way here this week's issue. It's a bit about forests in there. They're basically saying that producing wood is not good for energy because it's dirty. It's even dirtier than coal. I thought that was an interesting statement so I read it again and I'm planning to write the letter to the editor. The actual argument is that subsidies are not good and I could agree to that. There are some good arguments for European Union subsidies not being so effective. But the analysis of the forest sector is pretty sweeping and again it's a stab at traditional forestry and if that traditional forestry can't relate to the bigger picture then we're in trouble. And that's something to think about. This is the real debate. This is two million copies every week. Thank you.