 So, Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Participants and Dear Colleagues, I would like to welcome you to this virtual lunch of the FAO's State of Food and Agriculture, SOFA, organized in collaboration with the FAO's Agri-Food Economics Division. I would also like to thank you for taking the time to attend today's session, given your busy schedules. We appreciate your support and interest in FAO's work. My name is Delphine Badam-Peliard. I am Senior Liaison Officer at the FAO Liaison Office in Geneva and I will moderate today's session. As you may already know, FAO supports its members' efforts to formulate policies conducive to improve food security by strengthening evidence and analysis, providing capacity development and facilitating a not-hold dialogue away from the negotiating table. With today's session, we will have the opportunity to elaborate on the theme of the 2023 edition of the SOFA on revealing the true cost of food to transform agri-food systems. This event since 1947, FAO's State of Food and Agriculture is launched with a different theme. This year, for the first time, the 2023 and 2024 edition of the SOFA will continue with the same theme to be further developed in the 2024 edition. This year's SOFA is focussing to consider the hidden impact of producing the food units. True cost accounting allows estimating the cost and benefits of agri-food systems, providing decision makers with the evidence needed for their transformation. Indeed, agri-food systems have become increasingly unsustainable, contributing to climate change and natural resource degradation, while failing to provide healthy diets for all. Yet many such impacts, both positive and negative, are now reflected in the market prices of agricultural products. Within agri-food systems, these hidden costs are not known and so go unconsidered in the day-to-day decisions that agri-food actors make regarding what to produce, how to produce, how to process, store, or market produce, or how to manage new unused produce. The report SOFA 2023 makes the case for more regular and detailed analysis by government and the private sector of the hidden or true costs of food systems followed by action to mitigate these harms. Next year's report will assess the best ways to mitigate them. Last week, our colleagues organized a roundtable discussion on the same topic in Rome. The report was very much appreciated and the 2024 report, which will target the measures that could be taken, is eagerly awaited. I believe today's discussion will also help inform the preparation of SOFA 2024. Now let me introduce our speakers. First, Mr. Andrea Cataneu, Senior Economist at Agri-Food Economics, Division of FAO, and Mr. Alvin Cox, Deputy Assistant Director General at the Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture. Before giving the floor to Andrea, I would like to share some details regarding housekeeping. So this is a virtual event where virtual participation is possible through the Zoom platform and the event will be in English only with no interpretation. We have reserved some time at the end of the session for questions and we would kindly request you to submit your question in the Q&A module. While posting your questions, please kindly state your name and organization or institution and we will try to accommodate as many requests as possible as the time permits. After the session, we will share the presentation and recording as well as relevant sources with all participants. That's all for housekeeping issues. So now I would like to give the floor to Andrea. Andrea will present the SOFA 2023. Please, Andrea, the floor is yours. Thank you. Let me share my screen to show the presentation. You should be seeing my presentation right now. So let me just start by saying that we're very excited about presenting the SOFA report. As if you mentioned, this will be ongoing work into next year, so we're eager to get feedback. The theme of this year's SOFA is revealing the true cost of food to transform every food system. So it's going towards action, understanding the costs to go towards action. This is a particularly relevant theme because many of the impacts of every food systems, both positive and negative, are not included in the market prices, which really shape incentives to produce, process, distribute, consume, and dispose of every food product. So they are in and generally not considered in the day-to-day decisions of every food actives. That is the challenge. And this gives rise to consequences, both good and bad, that are not always visible. So that's why we find it vital that the impacts of our actions within our food systems are made transparent. So the objective of this year's SOFA is to uncover these impacts and contribute to improve their environmental, social, and economic sustainability. As such, this report adopts an approach, which is true cost accounting, also known as TCA, to assess the impact. Using this approach, the report presents a preliminary quantification of the hidden costs of every food systems for 154 countries. So we stress that these results are preliminary, but we think it's important to put them out there. The report uses global sources with country-level and annual data, and it recognizes the level of uncertainty in these estimates, but it also provides ranges for this uncertainty. So we think that's also quite valuable. It then moves to provide guidance on how to conduct more targeted every food system assessments that go beyond the nationwide national levels that are presented in this report, but how we wouldn't go about it to inform action. And it discusses the role of these assessments in implementing levers for transforming every food system. So I will touch on these different elements here. So next year's report, as we mentioned, will be on the same topic. It will focus more on the empirical applications of TCA through case studies around the world. The case studies will include targeted country-specific analysis that will help guide decision makers to prioritize actions. So specifically, it's about identifying trade-offs and synergies among possible interventions and policy options, having a more kind of systemic perspective. And so by having both conditions dedicated to this topic, FAO is hoping to pave the way for kind of broader average food system assessments to be part and parcel to decision-making. Why? Well, because average food systems touch our lives in so many ways that we can't really ignore these hidden impacts. So, you know, let's be clear. The value of average food systems is not in doubt. Average food systems bring great benefits to us through jobs, food, and culture. But they also generate significant human costs that impact the environment, society, and health, as I mentioned, and negatively affect all countries. This is across the board. The essential of these human costs are assessed in values through rigorous accounting, and then this information is used to reduce them. So, true cost accounting is a systemic approach, but it brings together the environmental, social, health, and economic dimensions, and its objective is to improve decision-making. So, but before diving into the estimation of these human costs, it's important to understand why these exist to begin with. In most cases, these are caused by market, institutional, and policy failures, whereby resources either are not allocated efficiently or opportunities for sustainable development are not seized, taken advantage of. So, these failures generate losses to society that are not reflected in market prices. And so, that's why we call them hidden costs. Examples, water pollution from fertilizers. Although it can be reduced with the right practices, it may come at a private cost to farmers for which they have no incentive. So, this reduces the quantity of safe water with negative consequences for human health and the environment. Another example from a distributional perspective is how many every food system workers are poor despite an abundance of profits downstream in food supply chains. That is another human impact of how every food systems function. To complete this picture are the hidden costs associated with unhealthy dietary patterns that can arise from the lack of information about the impact of consuming highly processed foods of low nutritional value or simply stated preferences. So, these are how do these different impacts compare and stack up? And how do we look at them in this overarching broad aspects? So, this is what this report does. It goes, we examine the hidden costs along the value chains from inputs and primary production to consumers. So, all along that arrow. And the model used in the analysis was paired with power stat data and other global sources that contain data from multiple countries and time periods on greenhouse gas emissions, nitrogen emissions, land use change, blue water use. So, these constitute the environmental hidden costs in green. Next, as a poverty and undernourishment are social hidden costs that come about higher productivity losses because of undernourishment or because poverty in within every food systems, people who work within every food systems who cannot make a living and therefore what would be the cost to society to bring them above the moderate poverty line. And finally, the burden of disease from dietary patterns which is in blue. So, the new thing about this report is that unlike previous estimates that did exist on the true costs of every food systems, this analysis were estimated, I mean, is done at the national every food system level for 154 countries. So, this is the first time it has been done for so many countries in a way that is comparable. However, because estimates were all monetized, they enable aggregation comparison on different dimensions and geographical scales. So, in this exercise, both kind of hidden costs and benefits are factored in as much as possible. However, hidden benefits such as return ecosystem services from grassland recovery into forestry, for example, are expressed as negative hidden costs. For that reason, we say hidden costs as a simplification. We also acknowledge that some benefits cannot be monetized such as cultural identity and our bus excluded from this analysis. So, this analysis has some some of the costs, but not all of them. This is for this reason that we call these estimates preliminary and we look forward to improving them and do country level studies that are more in depth. So, we find that aggregate systems generated an expected value of 12.7 trillion dollars in hidden costs in 2020. So, environmental hidden costs amount to about 2.9 trillion, which corresponds to about 20 percent of total quantified hidden costs caused by average food systems and social hidden costs to 571 billion and pelting costs account for the majority of these hidden costs and being more than 9 trillion. So, this is equivalent to about 10 percent of global GDP per day. These costs are equivalent to 35 billion dollars or about 4.5 dollars per person every day. So, these are, you know, we find that essentially these costs cannot be ignored. I mean, even account especially accounted for the fact that they're likely in underestimates and some things are not included. So, we also looked at the uncertainty around these estimates, right? And we find with a very high degree of confidence that aggregate system generated over 10 trillion hidden costs highlighting that undeniably urgent need to factor these costs into decision making to transform average food systems. So, uncertainty is not really an excuse for an action. We, there is uncertainty there about the exact estimates, but even accounting for that uncertainty, you know that the costs are higher than 10 trillion for sure. So, we also break these down by subcategories. So, I'm not going to go into the details here, but the environmental category is the one that has the most, the most subcategories. And we see that the environmental costs about half are connected to nitrogen emissions, mostly from runoff to surface waters and pneumonia emissions into the air. And these are followed by contributions to greenhouse gas emissions to climate change for about 30 percent and land use change for 14 percent. So, social hidden costs are mostly due to poverty and a much smaller part to undernourishment. And these are more relevant in low income countries that we will see. And then health costs represent a large majority of hidden costs and are based on losses in productivity from unhealthy dietary patterns. So, the costs of treatment are already part of the economy and therefore are not included in these hidden costs. These are hidden costs that are losses in productivity. So, however, aggregating the hidden costs of a global level hides important variation across the income levels of countries. And these, the countries are key decision makers in reducing these costs. So, this figure breaks down the hidden costs by main category and country income group. And it shows how hidden costs differ not only in their magnitude, but also in their composition. So, the first observation is that most hidden costs are generated in upper middle income and high income countries. Those are the two lower bars. Second, at lower middle income countries, account for about 22 percent, while low income countries make up only 3 percent of those hidden costs. In all country groups, apart from the low income countries, productivity losses from dietary patterns are the most significant contributor to other food system damages. So, now, this might give the impression that hidden costs are a problem only in high income countries. However, the perspective changes if you look at hidden costs relative to GDP, which is where market transactions are included. And this is the second figure here, right? Comparing the cost to GDP gives a sense of a burden of these hidden costs placed on national economies. And the story is in burden. As a share of GDP, the costs are relatively much higher in low income countries at an average of 27 percent in large part, driven by poverty and entrepreneurship, which is that orange band in the upper bar. So, the ratio of hidden costs to GDP is 12 percent and 11 percent in lower and upper middle income countries. And social hidden costs are relevant still for lower middle income countries, not so much for upper middle income countries. And in high income countries, the ratio of all quantified hidden costs is about 8 percent, the majority of which are unhelpful dietary patterns. So, the narrative changes quite a bit, depending on where you look at absolute costs or relative to the size of the economy. And it shows that this is not just a high income, rich country problem, but that in low income countries, this is a big issue and it's very much linked to poverty and entrepreneurship. So, the national level estimates that we presented are preliminary and serve a purpose of really of awareness building, right? We can go a step further with TCA to carry out more targeted analysis, which can further help set priorities for change and going into the specifics of what should we change? So, the scope of TCA analysis can be adjusted based of the needs of the decision makers. So, they can be a unit of analysis of every food systems or dietary patterns focused on investments or organizations or specific products and value chains. So, these targeted TCA analysis also allow us to explore scenarios for change in doing so we can identify trade-offs and synergies among possible interventions and management options. So, targeted TCA analysis can really contribute to assess policies before and after they're put in place with SES. So, and here I'm approaching the end of the presentation. As I mentioned, this is geared towards favoring action and addressing these costs. So, the end goal is that it helps inform decisions. So, and decisions happen all across every food systems and we can consider these as levers for every food systems transformation. So, for example, every food supply chains are influenced by trade market interventions, fiscal subsidies, laws and regulations that we see there on the left and public and private capital. Likewise, food consumption is influenced by various labors including those that affect consumers' pocketbooks and those that influence food purchasing decisions. And finally, kind of the general services and support to public goods, such as public investments through research and development, R&D, infrastructure that affect the functioning of our food systems can also be influenced. So, these levers are not new, but could be differently employed or realigned to better support the transition to sustainable life of food systems. So, the actors involved in this transformation is really everyone, right? And you have government, you have research and civil society organizations, you have business and financial institutions. So, just for the sake of illustration, you can see that with the yellow dots, governments have a major role pretty much in all leaders through different mechanisms, right? But also with here the green dots that research and civil society organizations are also influential in terms of laws and regulations, consumer, influencing and advancing the kind of general services. And finally, the business and financial institutions have a very important role. I mean, agriculture systems are essentially a private sector enterprise of all along value chains. So, especially private capital is a very important element in terms of how investments are guided towards more sustainable life of food systems. So, what does addressing these hidden costs imply? Well, there is a concern among consumers and policymakers about what will happen to food prices. Now, we have just seen that there are many different levers that can affect change. So, this was meant to convey that addressing the root causes of hidden costs is more than simply passing these hidden costs on to either producers or consumers. It is part of a structural process of every food systems transformation that aims to reduce these costs in the long run. So, the point we need to make is that uncovering the true costs of food need not imply overall higher food prices. So, for certain foods, such as environmentally friendly or highly processed foods, prices might go up. Overs, prices might go down from nutritious and whole foods. So, the bottom line really is that better policies and investments in more sustainable life of food systems can reduce hidden costs without increasing families expenditure on food. So, we shouldn't be afraid of regressing hidden costs. So, and this is my last slide, taking into account hidden costs and benefits of agrofood systems is really critical to FAO's vision of transition to more efficient, inclusive, resilient and sustainable agrofood systems. The findings of the SOFA report are clear. I mean, the global cost of an action is very high. The fact that they are hidden does not make these costs any less real. And they are substantial in all countries. So, to build momentum for action, concrete examples of how assessments of impacts of agrofood systems can affect change are required, particularly in data and resource-constrained contexts. So, FAO aims to mobilize resources to scale up these type of assessments and build momentum and engagement among members and all stakeholders shaping future policy making. So, this commitment is expressed by these two consecutive editions of the State of Food and Agriculture Report, but also to other work that is ongoing inside FAO on the assessment of agrofood systems. So, the ambition of these parallel streams of work is to catalyze and action and transformation by providing concrete examples of how targeted assessments can affect transformational change. So, thank you for listening, and we hope that this report, which is just a starting point to look at these hidden costs and take action, starts to build this momentum and inspires all to take meaningful actions that will steer agrofood systems towards greater sustainability. Thank you. Thank you very much, Andrea. It was good to have you as the lead author of this report. And thank you for presenting the main messages, this new edition of the SOFA. In particular, you explained that many costs are not included in market prices and why this hidden cost exists throughout the value chain. You showed us also some of the results obtained at a global level and the different impacts on countries at different income levels and also the levels of influence. So, thank you very much. And now, we can move into more details on the Swiss case study, a way of addressing true costs in a recognized international methodology framework. And I would like to give the floor to Mr. Alvin Kops for his presentation. Please, Alvin, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Delphine. It's really a pleasure, to be with you today at the Geneva launch of this flagship report of FAO. I will probably talk a little bit about not so much about Swiss results, but about why SOFA 23 on true costs is important to my office. We all know there is a need to transform food systems in order to achieve a sustainable development goals to help keep a climate change within the limits of the Paris Agreement and to make our food systems more resilient. Current food systems do not adequately address the environmental and health costs related to food production or food consumption. These hidden costs need to be taken into account if you want to transform our food systems efficiently. Switzerland recognizes the need to accelerate food systems transformation towards sustainability. Both the legislature and the executive branch are working on it. Redesigning public policy and repurposing public support will be key to make the transformation happen. True cost accounting will be an important tool to get the repurposing right. We congratulate FAO for having taken up this important issue and lead the way towards how to deal with it. The Swiss Federal Council, which is our executive branch, issued a report last year on the future orientation of agriculture policy. The report provides a vision for 2050 and defines the most important steps for reforming our food system. It embraces a food systems approach and aims to create stronger links between food production and food consumption. The federal government proposes to work on true costs and use true costs analysis of food to increase transparency related to that. The parliament welcomed this strategy and requested that we develop a dispatch of law to be presented to parliament in 2027 to put the strategy of the federal council into place. So we have a very solid basis to work on true costs of food in Switzerland. This is important as a transforming food systems is a whole of society task and all branches and level of government but also industry, farming, research and civil society at large need to be on board. Limited market transparency and insufficient considerations of externalities are disincentives to sustainable, healthy and animal welfare friendly purchasing behavior. It is important to ensure that consumers have access to relevant information, consumers next to policy makers of course. Currently my colleagues here are in capital undertake in-depth work to better embrace hidden costs in our policy instruments. This starts by developing understanding of true cost of the Swiss food system and will lead into the development of appropriate policy tools such as fostering transparency throughout the supply chain, incentive mechanisms and the like. But we are only at the very beginning of this process. Switzerland imports about half of the food that is that its population consumes. Therefore true cost accounting has to take into account these cross border relations. We believe true cost accounting has to be done objectively and in a non-discriminatory manner as trade is concerned. This analysis is done best within an internationally recognized analytical framework. This is why the work of FAO is so important. It looks at the hidden costs across countries in a coherent and comparative manner. We are very much welcome there for SOFA 23. It provides such a wealth of insight and the many background papers add to this. The report forms an important foundation for future work and is a wonderful opportunity for further collaboration. Switzerland will base its true cost accounting on this report. We are proud to be collaborating with FAO in the framework of the next SOFA, SOFA 24 report. We work together on a country case study on hidden costs and benefits of the Swiss food system. For this case study FAO and my office, the Federal Office for Agriculture, are working with elite scientists from the Research Institute FIBL. We will build on the results of SOFA 23 and drill further down in Switzerland's context by for example adding country specific data. The aim of the case study is to identify the most pressing challenges and opportunities for the Swiss agri-food system in terms of hidden costs. It will also provide recommendations for potential entry points for policy reform. An advisory group will support this work. This group is composed of scientists and experts from all different kinds of horizons and expertise such as public health, nutrition, agriculture, environment or modelling. Overall we aim to get a deeper understanding of the issues and we hope that the results will foster a fruitful dialogue among policymakers stakeholders and civil society which will eventually lead to the development of targeted policy instruments to transform our food systems towards more sustainability. We are very much looking forward to continuing our collaboration with FAO on this important and sometimes challenging topic. Again we congratulate FAO for the release of this report. Thank you. Thank you very much. Alvin for this very comprehensive and informative presentation. You showed us why SOFA is important for Switzerland and how it can help to accelerate the transformation of food systems and create better links between food production and food consumption and also how all stakeholders have to be on board. It's very important so we look forward to working with you in the perspective of the next SOFA 2024. Now we move to the Q&A session. So please submit your question in the Q&A module. So maybe first Andrea, we have a question on which reads as follows. So which hidden costs are included? Which are excluded and why? Maybe you can answer to this question. Sure. Actually before answering the question I would like to thank Alvin and the Swiss colleagues for the great support that they gave to SOFA 2023 but all in terms of rounding it. Because I think the report itself is a global report and if you don't bring it forward with country specific work I think it affects, it informs but I think it doesn't, it struggles to bring action. So I think what we hope to replicate more and more is this type of interaction that we've had with the Swiss Federation and with experts in the Swiss Federation to improve the results because these results and SOFA are preliminary. In terms of what is included and what is excluded. So as I mentioned greenhouse gas emissions are included, nitrogen emissions are included and as I said I mean there is, the report quantifies the level of uncertainty in different dimensions. So for example nitrogen emissions being incorporated in this type of analysis are quite new. There is also a considerable uncertainty that's why for example we see that the cost, the environmental cost that is reported in SOFA 2023 the bounds of uncertainty are quite high for the environmental side. Let's so for example for the social side that is quite well known in terms of because of measurement. And also some of these environmental costs are very localized so it's also more complicated to figure out what these old impacts are. So that's in terms of what's included and the fact that even in what's included there is some uncertainty that we try to take into account. We take into account water use and land use transitions. So deforestation comes as a biodiversity cost but reverting back from grassland to forest brings biodiversity benefits on average. And what is excluded we don't have a pesticide exposure. We don't have any impact on pollinators of pesticides. So there's both a health side and how an agri-food system functions because pollinators is a very important one. We don't look at specifically at land degradation. We don't have anything about antimicrobial resistance and the impact that has zoonotic diseases, consumption of unsafe food. So in these different dimensions there are a number of different costs. Even when we look at unhealthy dietary patterns that is specifically about non-communicable diseases linked to obesity. So for example if we don't look at the lack of micronutrients. So there are a number of elements that are missing there and therefore these estimates are to be considered conservative. And so there are also hidden benefits on cultural identity for example that we are unable to capture and monetize. And this is one thing that I think is interesting of going from this global perspective and tries to compare and monetize to going to national studies that true cost accounting doesn't require that you actually give a monetary value to everything. It is more of an approach to try and take into consideration what is important to the stakeholders. So it's useful if one can monetize it but there are things that one may be uncomfortable or not capable to monetize and they can still be taken into account in these more detailed studies where you're thinking about actions and what will be the impact looking at trade-offs in a way that is not necessarily in dollar terms. Thank you Andrea. And in the chat on the same topic we have a remark from Lorenza Yaquia who said that among the levels that are mentioned she suggests adding developing and implementing transparent and informative food standards particularly for normal products. I don't know if you want to if you have a short reaction on that. Well it is definitely an important lever. And I think depending on what is the objective by looking at food standards or voluntary guidelines so it ranges from the regulation to voluntary guidelines to labeling especially on the consumer side it can have a big impact potential. Because one of the things also we don't know is we have identified how big these costs are but not how much it would cost to reduce them. I mean if one moves to pay these costs between costs one has to take actions and some of these actions may be costly. So I think we hope in the next sofa to go into more detail on the different levers and so looking at food standards would definitely be something that is of interest in going forward. Thank you Andrea. An additional question. Could you provide examples of countries that have undertaken a true cost accounting analysis and what do you think stopping more governments and businesses from undertaking this TCA analysis? So countries that have done true cost accounting exercises it's mostly through the TIB and refood. TIB stands for the economics of environment and biodiversity. It's under unit that has a long pretty long tradition and it developed an average food component which is more recent right and they begun studies in Indonesia where the Ministry of National Development and Planning which is a button in Bapanas requested a science-based policy advice for food system policies looking at agroforestry and cocoa and that was kind of a you know it led to the inclusion of agroforestry for the first time in Indonesia's kind of mid-term national development plan. So that's the case of a targeted assessment which provided insight to policy makers and it made it into the mid-term national development plan. In Kenya there was a TCA analysis on traditional use of forests and food systems in the greater Mao catchment area and policy makers from the Ministry from the Ministry stated that the analysis will form kind of again the country development plan. So there is movement and it is it has been following kind of you know for having examples in Colombia, Thailand, in China, in India they will be focusing on organic farming in agroforestry. I think in Thailand we were looking at organic rice and how it would produce hidden costs and also on the business side there's a tea agrofood business element which tries to work with businesses and I think they're working in like seven countries Brazil, China, India, I think Indonesia, maybe Mexico, Thailand and so these are project agro business models by supporting them and understanding manage risks and dependencies on nature essentially. So there is these entry points that can be quite different. In terms of what is stopping governments from doing more TCA, I would break it into kind of two you know big things. One is evidence so you know there's a lack of kind of sufficient data information to really in a short manner to kind of prepare a true cost accounting analysis or at least that is the concern and there's also limited information on the cost of policy change so okay you find out what the hidden costs are or what's the cost of change so you have to go into scenario analysis so there's there's an element there that you need to invest some resources to do true cost accounting and also figuring out what indicators to use right and that's that's also on the evidence side and then I think there's a more kind of you know political and and the aspect which is you know resistance to change addressing hidden costs can require significant changes to current production and consumption practices and so adoption of these measures is not certain and they made me resistance from governments but also businesses from producers, consumers, consumers don't like to be told what they can or can't eat for example despite the health costs being very very high in middle income and high income countries so that's just one example but also tradeoffs right I mean I think it helps to figure out what the tradeoffs are but it doesn't resolve how to address those tradeoffs so using aerotemicals can improve increased production and reduced poverty but also mainly to ecological damages so it forces some choices that you want and then I think also concerned about distributional impacts they're concerned about prices but the most vulnerable being affected by any price increases now as I was pointing out our view is that it's a more structural process so it's not just about passing on these costs to somebody it's about changing how the systems function and so I think those are the two main things I mean one is kind of a the obstacle of kind of building that evidence that is you know because you are trying to look at these different dimensions in one go kind of the environmental, the health, the social and the other is kind of resistance to change and that's where we're hoping to just by familiarizing people with these same costs it becomes more of a norm to understand what they are and that we need to make decisions based on taking them into account. Thank you very much Andrea. Alvin I don't know if you want to provide some additional reflection if you want to react. Yeah happy to do so I think indeed at least what you can do with a true count analysis is to make hidden costs a transparent that doesn't yet give you a guarantee then what are you doing about this and I think that's what you're going to see also in Switzerland where if we go through this exercise now and provide more transparency it's then another a next step to say okay what kind of policy instruments do we develop or apply what are the changes based on that true cost accounting so I think these are these two steps but I think it's important to indeed look at these hidden costs if you want to stay within the limits of the Paris agreement and climate change there is no way around a transforming the food systems so and you try to better do it in a holistic in a systemic way because it's not everything that relates to hidden costs is actually doable or related to how you produce it is also related to the way how you consume I think you need to you need to get this broader picture and the framework that a FAO provides offers here it allows you to actually do that but then the big question for example you see in the Swiss hidden costs there is a huge a chunk on health costs related to food how do you change a consumer behavior and what is the role of government in that or of the private sector in that I think that all needs dialogue and true cost accounting can provide a good basis for these discussions that need to be that need to be had thank you very much I think if there is there are no additional questions or remark we are now approaching at the end of the session so I would like to close the Q&A session and so if there are any pending questions please send us an email and we will follow up on those questions and so now I would like to conclude the session so distinguished delegates participants and dear colleagues I would like to express our gratitude to the speakers who dedicated their time to be with us today as we are today this year's reports presents initial estimates while next year so far aims to focus on in-depth targeted assessments to identify potential path to mitigate them we have seen with the presentation of the Swiss states that governments can use different levels to affect the transformation of agri-food systems and improve the economic social and environmental sustainability of agri-food systems and with that I sincerely hope that this report will also serve as a call to action for all stakeholders from political decision makers to private sector players researchers and consumers and that it will inspire a collective commitment to transforming our agri-food system for the good of all I look forward to seeing you in 2024 for the next sofa on the same field and I would like to thank you all for your participation and wish you a very nice day thank you very much everyone bye bye thank you very much thank you