 This morning's panel will be moderated by Chris Field, the director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, and the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies here at Stanford. The plan is for Chris to start with a few questions for the panel, and then we'll take some questions from the audience. Again, we're going to use the same format as we did for the presentations. Please submit your questions via the Q&A panel, which is at the bottom of your screen. So I'll now hand it over to Chris. Thank you, Sarah, and let me add my thanks and congratulations to all of the speakers for a really fascinating set of presentations. I know that Steve needs to leave in just a couple of minutes, so I wanted to follow up with one quick question that I'm curious about the responses for all the panelists on. It concerns the approach to scaling. We've seen lots of evidence of things that are attractive at the plot scale, and even at the individual farm scale, but we're talking about moving these things over many orders of magnitude where spatial heterogeneity, farmer acceptance, impacts of environmental extremes, lots of things are going to play a role. And how are we going to learn about the prospect for scaling across each of the technologies that you guys are looking at? Steve, do you want to start with thoughts on that? This is really a difficult thing to do. When you're doing a study like the negative emissions technology study, it's the scaling and particular feedbacks involving human behavior that leave everyone mystified. You put a policy in place that you think is going to cause forest landowners to change their management practices because it's an economic wind for them. And the uptake rate will be less than 5%. People just don't care, right? They're iconoclastic or something like that. And this is one of the reasons why I decided to put some time into Indigo and help set up the interaction with EDF and that sort of thing, which has been so productive on the methane issue with the big oil and gas companies, because I thought, here's an outfit that has aspirations of going global, right? They have to sell this service to people and they have to demonstrate that it works. Now it may be that when they muscle up and figure it out, they'll discover their business model doesn't work and they'll quit studying it. But if they do figure it out, it's a way to get it done without the public having to pay for it. So I think sometimes these corporate partnerships could, well, this could be an interesting other way in. And thanks again, Steve. I really appreciate you joining us and I know what was a really tight schedule today. Let me ask the same question of Zara who comes at this from more of the private sector perspective than the rest of the speakers from this morning. And I wonder if there are untapped opportunities for pushing scaler, scaling using some of the mechanisms that are more common in the private sector? Again, I think I guess from our perspective, we're exploring options right now. So I work in the R&D arm of the corporation. So we're focused on what kind of options are there and how can we position ourselves well to utilize those in the future. So we do have kind of publicly announced projects on direct air capture as well as advanced biofuels, both algae and cellulosic biofuels. But I think thinking about negative emission technologies from a including nature-based solutions is really important. Me personally, I'm a biogeochemical cycle focused person from a microbiology perspective. And I think there's a lot of promise in some of these, some of the research that's being done today and a lot of things that we can do today. And so trying to learn all we can and identify research gaps is kind of where we sit right now. But we're kind of new to the game a little bit. And Zara, is it your expectation that along the technology lines you think are most attractive, you see the emergence of a few big commercial players, or do you think this is going to be a millions of small producer type of space? I think when we look at things like this, it would be nice to have one silver bullet and it's probably going to end up being more of a silver buckshot. I don't think one, there's going to be one big solution. I think there are going to be a lot of smaller things. And so trying to figure out where we can apply energy and effort on those smaller things to potentially grow them in the future is what we're looking to do. Let me just take that thought and transfer to Anhu. Your comment about the 11 million private forest owners in the US, I think highlighted the essence of the human factors in the scaling. And do you want to talk about how you see more and more of those 11 million being interested in having this be their agenda as opposed to whatever it's been over the last decades? Yeah, I think the way you set up the question, Chris, I have been thinking about it as the other two answers came forward. One is this whole field of behavioral economics, behavioral insights, research. We started doing some of that work at economic research service at USDA and in some cases applied to food and nutrition and children and then the other of the part of take up conservation practices and in fact came up with some really enlightening understanding of what makes and how people make a decision one way or another and especially targeted. So I think this up in the spirit of where research should be going, I think really investing more in behavioral economics on behavioral insights research will help us move in that that further and especially if we are trying to achieve the goal of moving to a plant based from a meat based society and what does that look like. But from a policy perspective, you know, there's some real strong impressive tools within the farm bill that really helps drive direction and at a very large scale. I mean things like crop insurance. Crop insurance touches almost every farmer out there except some of the smaller what we call specialty crops, but there they have other options. So if you know if we could start working within the farm bill construct to think about what is the scale of change you want to encourage and what is the if there's a poll from the producer side and or for the land owner side that they want the incentives they see this as an opportunity, then you have the best both and I tend to be a little bit more optimistic to maybe I'm in Steve's camp on that. But but I think that is that is an incredibly powerful tool that we underutilize I think for some of the the opportunities to make change across the country. And the other reason I mentioned it is because there are 16 agencies there are if I remember the farm bill there's 156 provisions in the farm bill. Almost every part of our life is touched by that from being growing to consuming and so if we can hit where the greatest inflection points are to achieve our goals I think that is again a very powerful tool to use. David I wonder if you can come in on this and I'm struck that in both the forestry sector and the ag sector there are millions of producers who are basically interacting with landscapes in order to generate income and is it mainly just developing evidence that that you really can generate income or there are other factors that that make the producers in this space tend to be really conservative and slow to adopt new approaches to doing business. Well I mean the US is a special beast I think every country is going to have its own story. In the US you know there's in particular with the climate issue there's a lot of sort of there's a lot of clustering of opinions based on factors that have nothing to do with with evidence or or with this particular issue. But you know I think the thing that Ann pointed to which is right is that incomes for example in this country and I think in the last year or two years that the net income of farmers was 90% from government payments. You know they are basically scraping by from a private profit standpoint and they are whether it's insurance or other types of payments they've historically been been really incentive incentivized by by government action whether it's payments or regulations. So if you look back at the ethanol story I mean that's I think a very good parallel like how much if we look back how much did that get driven by government policy how much did it get driven by private opportunity. I mean it was it was a combination of both but you know like I was saying before was that the right use of subsidy from a climate standpoint. You know I think the question should be not if we're going to subsidize rural landscapes around the world. I think it's clear in this country and in many countries that we do that that's just sort of the the natural evolution of societies that become more urban as you're going to effectively be subsidizing these areas and you want to make sure that you're smartly using those did ethanol was ethanol the right use. You know for a lot of reasons you could argue it was but you know if you look back 15 years ago or so was that you know what is the net climate benefit of having put a lot of effort into corn ethanol. Were there were there better uses and I think that that's sort of my perspective looking forward here is is not if we're going to do it but let's let's focus on things that we really think have a good chance of working. I agree with Steve that like indigo really bringing a lot of data and experimentation to this is really going to help convince the skeptics. I guess I'm just I feel like agriculture there's there's been a lot of experience and a lot of I think potential to identify practices that are hugely carbon saving and and that we haven't that the fact that we haven't seen them I think is that we need to think more more creatively or more boldly and maybe that's what they'll do but I'm just I think a little skeptical that there's there's an obvious thing to really incentivize now that that'll work. Yeah the huge role of subsidy is super super interesting in this space. Francesca let me let me ask you about how this plays out from the perspective of the individual farmers and a lot of the comments today were focused around the idea that there are win-wins in many of these agricultural interventions but whether or not people embrace those depends on whether they see them as win-wins and I wonder if in your interactions with farmer community in Europe and the US that there really is an appreciation of the value for their core business of improving soil carbon that sort of parallels their let's say increasing awareness of the potential for climate impacts. Yeah so in my experience in particularly in this region of the world but also the way to come and so far is that as we have said before the farmer are struggling the farmer are making their money from failure and and insurances and that's not you know yeah they they are happy to get that money but that's not their business and here in Colorado they don't have more water anymore so you know corn irrigation they have to convert and and and farmers are starting to become pretty you know basically what we are seeing is that while we are looking at agriculture to combat climate change the farmers are conducting climate change every day to make their their mid-hands and so they have to come with a different way of doing if they want to have a crop at the end of the year they want to have some revenue we are seeing a lot of return to pasture a lot of animal integration on on on land and return to dry land and so while I um so so in my opinion it's it's we all uh so there are different things once is that we don't have the one solution because soils are like humans you know they respond differently to different treatment while there are medical doctors understand broadly how to cure something each of us will respond differently to a different uh to a different treatment and so the same as for the soil that's why we need to go back to understanding and mapping where the soils are where the potential are what they can respond and and and and tillage will not work the same everywhere in northern country tillage is bad or tillage is bad at that in other places is great and it's not just stillage you have to do it together with cover crops you need to put the root back in the soils all the way down and all the year all the year around so it's not one solution it's integrated at it's integrated at the farm level do you think is that in the academia we are still teaching conventional agriculture and in many uh soil and crop department we have we are not giving to the the new farmers the right information on how they need to treat their soils and how they have to make profit in the face of climate change the most important thing to farmer is to have a resilient system maybe never have peak production but have production year after year and so I think that we need to work on the farm bill and and the the way the reason why farmers are not changing and I was with a lot of them in Kansas last week and the first reason they say we are not changing is because if we change we don't get the insurance at the end of the year and so they prefer to fail their crop and get insurance um and and that's why we need to work together with the science with the academic the way in which we teach the new farmer he our consultant be there in the field the solutions are there are more integrated are more farm specific and the nice thing is that I'm working with nutrient I'm working with McDonald I'm working with the general meals I'm working with indigo the industry is wanting to do that and once the industry wants to do that we can actually go up in scale yeah it's super interesting to think that the fact that agriculture is so subsidy dependent or so insurance dependent really does mean that there's some potentially additional leverage from public policy you have to have the right public policy but the but the leverage is there I want to ask about a theme that came up in in David's talk about that maybe the best way to think about agriculture is to make agriculture so productive that we need less land either by increasing yields or by shifting away from meat-based diets I'll start with sorry you know a lot of the emphasis that you bring on on algae production and intensive bioenergy production would have implications for how much land is needed for energy crops especially and and how much do you think about land sparing as a as a part of the agenda that that you're trying to develop that that's a mobile and I think land is always is always a part of the conversation when we think about um I mean even even thinking about algae ponds and some of the work they're doing there how do you I mean I don't know how many folks know what we actually are doing with algae biofuels but it's actually to increase the photosynthetic efficiency of an individual cell so you grow more algae at depth right because the sun hits and then all the algae have to spread out and so you need large large ponds and if you can increase the photosynthetic efficiency of a single algae cell let more photons pass to one beneath that you can actually decrease the overall footprint is the hope and so I think land is very important when we think about algae when we think about even cellulosic biofuels and we think about about anything where we do have a footprint um the idea would be um I mean I don't know if you were asking specifically about algae biofuel but the idea is looking for areas that have high high sunlight that maybe aren't used for other things like so deserts close to coasts you know things like that to try and not compete for food algae isn't it um intensively productive and so compared to corn ethanol it's a lot less land needed per gallon of fuel produced at the end and so those are I guess to long answer to a short answer it's land is very important and we'd like to decrease our land usage when we're thinking about things like biofuels. Great thank you let me um ask one more aspect of this land sharing and pose this question to David who emphasized the importance of manure in natural climate solutions but then Steve highlighted how exploding demand for meat alternatives is is reshaping the demand for grazing land but it's also going to be impacting the availability of manure I wonder if you've done any quick calculations as the conversation's gone on about the implications for natural science natural climate solutions that are manure based um yeah it's an interesting question I mean a lot of the the available manure is is from dairy cattle I would say that a lot of the beef cattle like they're mostly spending their time on on grasslands where the manure is not not recovered so and these substitutes are not just meat substitutes obviously they're the the takeoff of dairy substitutes is is very large so it would certainly you know it would reinforce this question around scale associated with relying on on livestock integration or livestock manure for increasing uh increasing soil carbon on the more general question of meat and dairy substitutes you know I think Steve is I agree with him that there's the scaling there is is potentially fast and the implications for carbon balance in in in the agriculture is you know the implication could be big um and that I think just relates to or maybe ties very closely to this question of how are you going to support rural communities because because I think the in agriculture there's always this risk that prices are going to jump up and land's going to be clear but there's also always this risk that somehow prices are going to fall through the floor and and rural communities are going to be devastated so along with the carbon opportunities provided in terms of land sparing there's probably some either risk or you could look at as carbon opportunities provided by then it's just going to ramp up the rural demand for for some sort of support payments of some sort and maybe those could be kind of a win-win in a sense of of essentially paying people to farm carbon as much relative to to to food or much more than we do now yeah and if we do make progress with sparing land from agriculture or grazing and if you as a forest planner had the potential to think about increasing the forest to state globally by you know hundreds of millions of hectares what kind of opportunity what would that present if you were thinking about uh not not doing a better job managing the forest we got but increasing the amount of forest but how would that change the the agenda you bring and and how do you think about the issue of natural climate solutions under that circumstance great great question yeah there's um a lot of a lot of involved in that one um i think one one topic that we haven't really brought up very much is is the notion of agroforestry and the opportunities to really better integrate um agricultural production of certain sweet crops with the forest side and the incentives associated with that and we've seen the growth of that approach but it's um it's not nearly it's not been nearly as aggressive as i think it could be within this context it's part of what i've been thinking about is how can we expand the use of of an agroforestry component um that would also hit some of those 11 million non-industrial private landowners i mentioned too are thinking about not necessarily an economic return but probably wouldn't mind having an economic return if they could get the other ecosystem services for the reason they have that land um and the other other aspect is the um the whole opportunity to grow our urban forest we think about street trees but there are some real opportunities within almost all of the especially the rust belt cities where you've been um have certain neighborhoods that have been declining a lot of outward movement opportunities to reframe those as pocket parks like we've done baltimore or larger kinds of chunks of trees and urban canopy because we do know that there is a positive quality of life that goes along with that energy reduction a climate response a pollution response and so to be able to grow that and many cities are really excited about doing that um it's it takes maintenance but i think the the opportunity is out there and if we can continue to provide the tools and the information i think that is one aspect but the other notion and this not specifically on forest but i do want to just bring it up you know we have just been going through in our continuing and a really grand experiment of overturning the food system um through the through covid and the fact that we went from one third to one half of our meals away from home to zero meals away from home that's changed the access to food the packaging of food i mean it's really become very complex which has a direct result on land use and the distribution as well as how we are farmers themselves are responding to that through a direct to consumer approach we don't know what all of that does that continue in the future do people really like it that way what happens to those who can't afford the higher prices but we have gone through higher prices so i think if there's in this larger spirit of thinking about um land use change and people's behavior using data from the last i'm not even sure how many months has been now have been going through a really radical societal change and and thinking about that um and then i want to take my moment for one more thing because we we haven't really talked as much about public lands as i think i should have and we could um steve mentioned that we really can't do much more reforestation i disagree we have nearly 85 million acres of under stock poorly stocked forest right now that are federal lands that are just waiting for reforestation that is well designed and that is adequately funded and to turn that into healthy growing forest rather than what we have right now so i think we we really do have an opportunity in that space to to change how our forest policies are being implemented a lot of it is funding we know how to do some of this but it's also making sure we have the right materials i think somebody said this the right materials in the right place to be able to be sustained over the the climatic conditions we have and is that is that opportunity primarily a consequence of of degrading the characteristics of these forests through historical harvesting and other kinds of utilization or i i think it's a combination of several of those factors i'm certainly i was thinking about an arkansas forest i visited that is um has trees on it but they're all scraggly and because they were hydrated in the past and your poor genetic stock and you could really improve through silviculture at that forest so that's a past but then there's the whole wildfire situation and the fact that we have overstocked poor two dense forests so that the trees that are growing are not healthy and are being affected by insects and diseases so to be able to restore them to a healthy healthy state there was a just the fact for preparation for this i read a paper by mouth of north who actually has think about think of the interior west as a great big yard and how you might landscape that yard to get a robust future forest it was fascinating but it is about intermixing and really having more more deliberate design on the reforestation that takes place but that's active reforestation i mean that's you have to go out and do something as opposed to natural regeneration that's great i want to make sure they're time for questions from the audience but i i do want to ask one thought final question to francesca who spoken really compellingly about what we can do in the ag soil space and quite a lot of the conversation has been now about well what do you get if you switch from aglands to forestry and i i wonder if there are parallel opportunities for improving the carbon stocks of of forest lands or whether the forest game really is a tree trunks game oh i think actually you know from our analysis in europe forests have the highest carbon stocks in europe um with ag coming second just because the ag is in in higher amounts of forest soils do hold a significant amount of carbon i think the issue there is more on the avoided emissions because a lot of that carbon in forest is in unprotected form and so a lot of the northern forest if they go into a warming environment or fire even can burn or even that the the soil carbon so on one hand we need to make sure that we manage forest with an eye on protecting the existing storage but also as i was saying with regards to to to to forest management it's important to think about the combination of species the association with mycorrhizal because that drives a lot of the carbon sequestration in those forests um and um and so for sure there is a a a lot of of carbon uh i'm not to be honest i don't know how much more you know we consider them more or less an equilibrium so it's it's hard to imagine that you can accrue the forest on an accrual carbon stage but um they they could be since they are on many forests in an accrual uh uptake um one thing to to consider is you know all the work we did in elevated co2 and so the the the forest i uptake in more but i also cycling the carbon faster and not really historic that much more um into the into the soil we also worked on biochar in forest and so there have been in particularly here in the raucous with a lot of the died back because of the pine beetle um we started whether we could use the dead trees in order to produce on-site biochar and add it to the forest soils and and and that is a possibility you can surely increase carbon that way how easy it is and you know there is all the the operations in forests are never as um as easy as as they are in ag but um i i think a small scale biochar unit in forests that use the residual food and and produce char that these added straight into the forest could be a way to further increase carbon in in forest soils and and then they need to be protected with it there okay well thank you very much and thanks again to all of this morning's presenters for a really uh fascinating and in many ways challenging set of presentations i want to make sure we take some time for the the best part of questions for the audience and then if i understand the agenda for today i'll come back at the very end with a couple of summary slides so let me pass it to jenny for questions from the audience thank you chris awesome awesome panel discussion there um so we have a couple questions from the audience uh we'll start with mary kate bulan who has a few points to raise in questions mary kate um apologies for mispronouncing your name please unmute yourself when you're ready and uh ask your questions hi you got the name right thanks so much so mary kate bulan with new forest we're a sustainable forestry investment manager and pre-active in natural climate solutions i wanted to just raise one thing that i think is a really important piece of picture that ties together a lot of the threads the panelists brought together this morning around the way that entities and corporations in particular are reporting on their climate impacts so we're involved right now with the greenhouse gas protocol revision process which is looking to include carbon removals and land use related emissions consistently in greenhouse gas protocol reporting and it's grappling with topics that i heard the speakers address this morning ranging from sand level to landscape level issues so how would we actually understand the impact of substitution benefits how do we deal with non permanent carbon removals i'm just wondering from all of the good thoughts this morning what do you think we can do to really bring the benefit of the research and academic world to better inform this effort which is really kind of grappling right now with how do we bring ncs and the actual existing impacts of business as usual into corporate reporting and support the uptake of more comprehensive land use reporting at the entity and organizational level from companies i wasn't sure if that was familiar for an open open question i guess that's where i want to go back to my comment about far certification as a system to be used i have seen a lot of companies in order to meet their esg goals being very proactive in the climate space and i think i would love to get credit for that and in a way that is comparable and measurable and that's part of the reason why having some kind of system-wide approach i think becomes really important everybody knows that everybody's reporting the same way in a way that is comparable but the reason i like far certification as a concept is because well for one thing we bought into it now for what 20 years and many of if not most of the companies are in use of one system or another whether it be sfi fsc or however three-form system etc so they're we're used to reporting there's a mechanisms to do that there's a system for third-party verification that's systematized and i think until and there is a market share associated with it so until we can do something like that that to me that's the if you will load the low hanging fruit we have a system it lends itself to that kind of regular regularization and system-wide approach and so how do we build now carbon and climate into that system i actually feel very hopeful about it i've been watching from the sidelines sfi's conservation approaches and some of the discussions they're having are in fact moving in this direction and then i'll say the other part to this is at least in the us we have an a comparable system exists in canada and i think in mexico now the forest inventory program gives us again a forest-wide whether it be public or private system for measuring if we can do it at the scale that's needed and we build that into the certification scheme some way then you have again a comparable system for everybody rather than many different ones to be sorting through so i don't know if that gets to your point but that that just strikes me that that is the using what we have in a way that is much more explicitly dealing with carbon i think would would make a whole lot of sense thanks and that's a great thought and reply i think what's been good in this process is to see that those tools are being used in reference for the us context and then one of the things i try and bring to a working group is saying how can we do that outside the us because unfortunately the rest of the world doesn't have the benefit of as comprehensive data as we have in like the fia system so it'd be great to see the us lead on that and provide a system that could be scaled thanks for kate thank you great question um so we'd like to go to shafiq jaffer now shafiq would you like to admit yourself and ask your questions i think this question is perhaps a little bit more directed francesca and ann a little bit i think this point of ancillary benefits in some of the approaches either in soil or forestry is quite important especially in the developing economies where you know carbon credits or carbon mitigation isn't the the focus of policy makers and lawmakers how do we kind of bring this kind of more to the forefront rather than talking about this through ncs how do we perhaps bring that more to the forefront of the other values that can generate for their economies and for their people yeah to me that goes back to the idea that um um you know we need those those systems to stay productive we need food from them and besides carbon sequestration a lot of the problem currently is the high um viability in production um now from here to here and to me the the the real message is to build the resilience in agricultural system sometimes you know being a scientist and being an ecologist um i i come with that mindset to act um and and and so um but that to me is the the the winning message for the farmer but also for the for the public is that uh we the the goal is not maximum productivity one exceptional year by putting a lot of fertilizer and irrigation and pesticides that year after year have started working off as as uh David was saying that now no till is an issue because the the um you know with control of the the chemicals don't work anymore and and so the the the message is that we need to go back to a more holistic view of agriculture or or making it a more resilient system that can ensure the productivity we need to feed the the the the the the the growing population on earth and by doing that you have everything else as a co-benefit actually carbon can be a co-benefit of that with the first with the first message being you'll be more productive as a as an as a business as a farmer if you strive for resilience and not for maximum productivity so i i saw um another another part of your question which i don't know if this gets to it but it struck me as you were talking about payments for ecosystem services as part of that the way forward and i in particular feel like water is and it's undervalued in terms of its role related to forest and agriculture i remember the 2010 rpa assessment identified 83 percent of surface derived drinking water for the united states comes off farms of forests and if i remember it correctly 58 percent of that is far so if you have a fully functioning healthy forest downstream water quality is going to be improved but coupling that action of management with the downstream valuation by the utility so that there's a willingness to pay is one of our challenges and we have done some work at rff on source watershed management and the willingness to pay question you see it clearly in places like mount hood connect with portland coven reservoir in boston cat skills in new york how do we then promote that kind of um linkage in other municipalities and be able to get that that benefit so if you have a healthy watershed you have a healthy forest then then you actually are promoting some things we're talking about with regard to carbon but you're coming into the water quality lens which i think has a has greater play and i think maybe i was a little bit of what you're getting at and i'd love to see that really promoted more yeah you're you're exactly on point there and i think this question of how do you bring this valuation such that the people that are going to have to pay for this at the end of the day for the benefits understand that right so thanks for that and i like to add that actually the water apply very well also to the agriculture and the other incentive is that they can reduce the the input rate if you start managing for example the fruit the the the nitrogen and the natural um input of of nitrogen from from nitrogen fixation or from integrating the animals um then then you you you know they can save on on input costs yeah exactly and the the other question i had was maybe a little bit more directed i guess now david but and since steve isn't out there and perhaps francesca you know this but in terms of how far crops are today from their maximum yield you know when we look globally and say okay if you could really maximize yield in the existing agriculture what amount of land can you really avoid from potential land reuse changes and things like that do we have kind of a global estimate today on that yeah there are definitely estimates out there in terms of total potential gains and i think that you if you think about sort of economically optimal so we're never going to purely be maximizing yields that would be too costly but like in the u.s for example we routinely see yields that are 80 of what is possible and if you look throughout the systems of the world and you figure out what the gains would be by getting up to that level it's significant it's something like an exact number but it's something like 30 increased production if you if you did that which is a lot you know a big chunk not the entire chunk but a big chunk of what we would need on current trajectories to meet demand growth so you know i think that there is a lot of synergies between the types of things you want to do to increase overall food security and the types of things that francesca was talking about which would increase potential soil carbon in the systems and i think a lot of people have therefore you know in some ways felt the ends justify the means if if selling the carbon benefits is going to be what gets people to say improve their soils which people think will be the right avenue people have been comfortable doing that i personally think that it's important to make sure that we don't oversell those benefits but there certainly are real i think it's also important it's just one maybe in the spirit of being a good panelist and trying to disagree as often as possible with other panelists i mean i think i also came with this as an ecologist trains as an ecologist but i think it's important to think of the the food system overall as resilient it has many different modes of resilience and and sort of the on farm resilience is only one of them in the us you know if you ask yourself would you rather be in the position of the us which has a large year-to-year swings but very high productivity or like an alternative world or another country where you have much lower inputs much less year-to-year variability we get resilience from sort of the the risk management practices that we practice not the on farm resilience now that doesn't mean we don't want to improve the on farm resilience but it's just we don't want to overemphasize that one sort of tool that we have so there are synergies but i don't think we we want to kind of oversell the synergies um in the name of uh or because of risk i think reducing overall progress towards food security and food supply goals