 So what I will present is more based on our experience on the Flemish level. I will say some words about our collaboration in the Policy Research Centre. Then I would like to focus more on what are we actually measuring or monitoring? How are we doing that? And then I will go to the urban context. Sorry. I will not open the website as you did, but on that website you can also see what we are doing. You have quite a lot of publications there. But basically what we do in the Policy Research Centre for Flemish is to monitor the progress towards circular economy. So I will come back to that later on, what we mean with that. And we are also working actually on these scenarios that I already mentioned. So monitoring is the first step, but then we want to use that monitoring to set up scenarios to see what strategies could work or do not work at all. And also very important, there is a lot of things moving out there. There is a lot of technology development, a lot of policy development, and of course that's busy on the European level, on the federal level, at city level and so on. So we have to put a monitor for the regional level. We have to connect that to all these other levels as well. So we exist already since some years as I already said, I will not dwell on that, but it's basically a collaboration between KJ Leuven University, Antwerp University, Gantt and Vito, and together with OVAM of course. We give policy advice, we write reports, we elaborate on case studies in particular fields, and it's all on these websites. These are the results of last years. I don't have that much time anymore, so I will go through the slides quite quickly. When we talk about circular economy, there are a lot of frameworks and a lot of definitions. You can start from the SDGs in the broad perspective. You can look at it from the Kate Rower perspective in the donut. You can follow the R-strategies, so on the left side, as Leif Millieu and the Lederlands are doing. But what we are actually concluding is that there is not a single definition of circular economy. You really have to look at what level are you discussing circular economy. Are you discussing that at a micro level? That's the definition most people will recognize, that's taking care about products and materials to use them as long as possible at the highest possible application level or quality and with minimal environmental impact. I really like to add the last one. Some people do not do that, but okay. At the meso level, it's more about a set of strategies to fulfill societal needs with lower material consumption and less impact. So the focus there is more on what are the needs of people. That's actually the level we will consider as most important at the regional scale. And then you have the macro level. It's a societal transition with positive impacts on economy, resources, environment and society, where the focus should be on this transition, actually. So why to measure a circular economy? Well, I don't think I have to explain that here. You have already a full day of discussions on materials, flows and things like that. We need to know are we on track and what are the effects of policy. I have to say together with Walter here present here, we are already active since 2006 on sustainable materials management and circular economy. There have been a lot of developments, so a lot of initiatives. Also knowledge has been growing, but my impression is that the gap is still there. And maybe the gap is in my perception also even growing. So we still need to have better ways to really have an idea of what we are doing. Is that really adding to the circular economy or not? And we do a lot of case studies and I will show one where we conclude that actually the intentions are very good, the concepts are really what we think that is circular economy. But the realization is not really helping the circular economy. So let's start with what is measured already. Well, a lot of things are measured at a macro scale. If you look at what Europe is doing, what JRC is doing, what the environmental agency in Copenhagen is doing, they are setting up large databases on materials, flows and waste, economy-wide. That's the macro level. There are quite a lot of indicators already on the results of efficiency and waste management. But this is very slow. These are data that are updated each five years for some other things. Ten years, if you look at Exubase, for example, and you put up with data, that's quite slow and the level of detail is not enough to really steer for policymakers, they can look at these indicators, but these are actually outcome indicators. They only result from activities and we'll only see developments in that type of indicators after some years. So that's not fit for really steering directly the circular economy. On the other hand, there is enormous literature about LCA's, MFA's at a product level. You also have, for example, the material circularity indicator from L. M. Carter Foundation, which I don't like since I think there are some double-coding countings in there, but okay, you have other aspects really at a product level. But is that helping the circular economy? Well, as to us, we really have to bridge these two levels. So the macro and the micro data, this is not good enough for basic policy upon. So what we think is that and what we are developing is circular economy should actually start from what are the societal needs that have to be fulfilled. And the products, the materials we need for that, okay, that's actually not the essence. That's the enabler of this fulfillment of societal needs. So we should actually measure how well and how efficiently these societal needs are fulfilled. And if we do that, we should be able to pick up evolutions in the early stage already, so that they impact really policy measures. We also have to incorporate there the roles of diverse actors, since that's another difficulty or another problem with macro data. Most of these data are very sector-specific, but circular economy is not bound to sectors, it's just crossing, that's typical for circular income, it's crossing sectors. So the emphasis in our way of working is on the consumption actually, and the consumption perspective. Since if you want to have a circular economy transition, we should look at changing the way of fulfilling needs, and consumers are crucial there. And it's also, for us, it's also an addition to what already exists. I don't say that what exists is bad, we need that of course, we need that. But that is a necessary addition. And policy could have a more direct impact on these aspects than on others. So it's kind of a footprint approach, so the measured data that are in between, or bridging the gap between these macro data. And we start actually with four consumer or societal needs, and we start from mobility as a need, housing, nutrition, and consumption, products, ICT, and things like that. So we published these ideas in more details, you can download the paper on the websites of the Policy Research Center. So again, macro indicators are fit for, or are based on more material input, waste generation, recycling rates, and they are more giving ideas about the effects of circular economy. Let's go to one example, we did that for mobility, it's not completed yet, it's quite a challenge to do that for flounders as a region. So circular economy in mobility is about what people think, getting the maximum out of end-of-life vehicles. That's true, that's one aspect of it. It's also about new vehicles, how circular are they, they should be more circular. It's also about, and then it becomes less common and less known, it's also about new business models on the market, business models for car sharing, leasing, and so on. Also business models for multimodal or modal shifts and things like that. It's also minimizing the amount of vehicles and minimizing the material and carbon footprint. So how can we bring all these aspects together? So at the macro level, people look at material footprint. At the micro level, it's more the materials, flow, the production use, and end-of-life aspects. But at our level here that we want to add, we need information, for example, on what are actually the personal kilometers that you have to travel. That's the basis, that's the start of all. And how do you fulfill this mobility in personal kilometers? You fill that with vehicles, but what are the kinds, the different types of vehicles you need, the amounts of vehicles, the efficiency of use and the intensity of use. It's also very much important in the circular economy, which I don't think you find in Mathieu's flow analysis. That's the type of information that should be added. I will not go into too much details, but of course we also need quite a lot of data, which is a huge challenge since some actors want to share that. Policy departments, some, not all, are keen on sharing data, which is very strange since that data should be public. EPR organizations, companies are the most difficult ones. We'll come back to that afterwards. And in setting up that kind of monitor, we also have to choose between the territorial data, are we looking at the kilometers we travel within Flanders, or are we looking at the consumption perspective, which we tend to use based on the cars registered in Flanders, which is not always correct for the, or does not reflect exactly the population of Flanders, but okay. So there are some limitations of the classical input, throughput data that are easily used. For example, that's a graph of the newspaper saying that car sharing in one aspect of mobility in Flanders is increasing a lot since there are more members of car sharing companies. What does that say of circular economy? Nothing, really nothing. So are we really making less car kilometers then? We did a study for that, and that shows, that study actually also shows the difficulty of data gathering as well. So we wanted to have also data from companies, car sharing companies, they didn't want to share that. So our study is based on questionnaires to consumers, and it's quite broad questionnaire, but we can know some things, but we cannot know everything from consumers. We should add, for example, what car sharing, or how long car sharing companies are keeping their cars. We don't know that at this moment, and that they do not want to say us for now. But afterwards, if you publish the study, then you get the comments of the car companies that it's not complete, and they comment, of course, the aspects that they didn't deliver. Okay. So car sharing, the conclusion of that study, I could show a lot of information on that, but we presented that two weeks ago. But the conclusion actually is that what we want is that we reduce the number of cars and that we also reduce the number of kilometers driven by car, and so the CO2 emissions by car mobility. But we didn't see a real... If you isolate car sharing, we didn't see that reduction in CO2 emissions, for example. Why is that? Well, car sharing should be looked as a transition from car ownership to a more public way of mobility. And that's the most important. We should have a more public, common mobility instead of these private cars here. Car sharing helps with that. But what we see is that there are also quite some people going that direction. And that makes in the balance that it is not... Yeah, the concept is okay, but if you look at the realization today, much more emphasis should be in... If you do car sharing, then you should also try to motivate people to sell their private car. Okay, this gives an overview of the monitor then for mobility. So it's not only about flow of cars or number of cars. Yeah, it's here. That's in this corner. And we see that we are not very circular since the amount of cars is increasing. We also see, on the other hand, that the need per kilometers stagnates in front of us. So we realize actually a quite constant need with more cars. So the ratio between both should be in the other direction than it is today. Also use intensity is also an important indicator for circular economy. Use intensity, so the same cars actually average distance each cars travels per year is decreasing in a circular economy. We would like to see that one car is used more intensively by different people. Use efficiency is also not improved. End of life stage, I will not discuss this, but these data are not very, very clear since we have the border with France, with the Walloon region, so there are fluctuations there that we cannot see very well. And also the application of recycling technologies that's the only indicator there that is improving. So you see quite the different types of indicators that we would like to add on top of the pure material flows. So if you go to an urban context from the regional level to the city level, we also are active in Leuven, as I said before. We do believe, but you discussed this already today, I guess, and we do believe that circular economy has a lot of opportunities at the city level because of the strong concentration, not only of the stocks in cities, that's also true, of course, but also a concentration of people, ideas, so giving space for a lot of experimentation. We also see in cities that, if I may say so, and there are some more progressive policies that are more aware of the opportunities of circular economy, and the smaller scale, we actually see that as an advantage. You could say that, okay, the smaller scale, you have not a big impact on the companies, on the producers of products, but you do have a better impact on the consumer side. You are closer to the consumers, and I think the consumer perspective becomes even more important, so the things we are doing becomes even more important at the city level. I would like to end actually with questions that you could discuss further on this evening, but I have to apologize that I don't have a lot of time to, five minutes actually, to stay. Yeah, what do we actually want to know about the circularity of cities, and what can we measure? So what is the final goal of circular economy? Is it that resource efficiency, climate neutrality, inclusiveness, business friendliness, and quite all actors have different opinions on that, that we should be aware of, of course, and what are the risks of only relying on available data, in first instance? That's the thing that we hear a lot. People or policymakers, they want us to give advice based on existing data, but are these the data that are really described in a circular economy in a good way? And how to correctly deal with the spatial aspects and scale that's, I suppose, something that has been discussed already a lot. So the choice between territorial and consumption-based data, I show you that for the cars, for example, or the kilometers driven, how to deal with important export, of course, how to accommodate the diversity of cities, and since you have, of course, the front runners, I could say that Brussels is certainly a front runner, you have the laggards, you have also other cultures, other ecosystems in cities. Is there one single approach that is fit for all? I don't think so. So we have to be flexible in there as well, and then also efforts and money also are important. Some say that indicators have to be cheap, since they want to use that a lot, but of course you all know that it does not come for free. Okay, I will not, that's just a last word on the need for data, the need for support, actually. And I think that there are a lot of aspects we can share, and I hope that I showed that if we want to guide cities and regions in becoming more circular economy, we do need a better knowledge about the materials flows, but on top of that, we also really need to think, yeah, what do we want to achieve? And for us, these societal needs are really, the fulfillment of these societal needs are really key in there. So thank you very much.