It takes around 5,000 to 20,000 liters of water to produce one kilo of beef. And then it takes around 4,000 to 5,000 liters of water to produce one kilo of wheat. Food systems are a complex relation between producers, processors, and consumers, and should take economic, environmental, and social issues into consideration. The current food systems need to be improved to sustainably deliver the quality of the diets needed for men, women, children's health, but at the same time also allowing sustainable economic growth. Poor diets are a major contributing factor to the increasing level of obesity and associated non-communicable diseases in the region. So these are some of the facts in the region. My name is Raymond Jiele. I'm the regional program leader at FAO here in the region, and I will be your moderator today. Let me welcome you all to this webinar on sustainable food systems and healthy diets in Europe and Central Asia by the regional office in preparation of the upcoming regional conference, the main FAO governing body in the region. I hand over for the opening statement to our assistant director general and regional representative for Europe and Central Asia, Vladimir Rachmanin. Thank you, Raymond. Good morning, colleagues. It's a great pleasure to see many familiar faces, as well as new faces here, and I very much appreciate your dedication and contribution to the work of FAO. The basic human right for every man, woman, and child is to access a healthy diet, and it still presents challenges in Europe and Central Asia. Undernourishment exists, as people cannot access the required quality and range of nutritious foods. And micronutrient deficiency continues to persist in certain countries of our region. Furthermore, overweight and obesity is now a major issue in this region and often way above the world average of 13% of population. This panel today is convened to introduce the item on sustainable food system and healthy diets for the ministerial roundtable discussion, agenda item eight at the upcoming FAO regional conference for Europe, which will be held on November 2 to 4. And I am absolutely sure that we'll all benefit from your discussion. Little did anyone know when the roundtable topic was agreed in mid-2019 that we would be in the midst of a global pandemic and tasks with ensuring that the health crisis does not become a food security crisis with long-term impacts on the economies and social fabric of our countries, our communities. While COVID-19 has exposed fragilities in our food systems, it had only served to reinforce the importance of food systems. Food systems transformation was already highlighted as key to achieving sustainable development goals and in particular, sustainable development goal, too, to end hunger, achieve food security, and improve nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. Many now fear that the recent challenges due to COVID-19 have set back our progress in implementing the 2030 agenda. There is broad agreement that we need to transform our food systems due to the inability to provide a healthy diet for all, pressures on our natural resources base, imbalances and inequalities socially and economically. How to do it and the challenges that come with it have to be understood and tackled at the country level. The food systems in our region are diverse at different stages of development with different challenges and different external pressures, limited public spending, natural resources constrain socio-political considerations. To transform and improve food systems require multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary action engaging policy makers, the private sector, civil society, and academia. Coming together to listen to each other's viewpoints and engage in decision-making at national and local levels. Discussions and actions are ongoing. What is being done and what more should be done to build more sustainable food system and assure healthy diets in our region. Subsequently, FAO looks forward to the inputs from the members and the observers at the round table discussion at the upcoming regional conference. We believe and I believe it is very important opportunity for information exchange and sharing of best practices and experiences on sustainable food systems and healthy diets. Let us learn from each other and determine what further actions are needed in our region. The outcome of discussions at the regional conference should inform the work of the recently established UN regional issue-based coalition on sustainable food system. And I'm very happy to see with us the representative of WHO who we organization which is actively cooperating with us in this regard and should also feed into the UN food system summit to be held in 2021. Let us join our efforts to ensure that our food supply chains remain resilient, to ensure food and nutrition security, and to build back better and stronger and address the fragilities and weaknesses in our food systems. Where the opportunities have a reason, let's harness them and where challenges remain, together we can find solution. We show a very productive discussion and thank you very much for the opportunity. All the best to all of you. Thank you, Vladimir. As you said, the food systems need to be sustainable. The outbreak of the COVID showed the vulnerability of the food systems around the world. So we need to give further attention to the entire system, including agricultural production, food chain operators, trade and distribution patterns, management of the food safety, animal health, as well as also plant risks. So short-term challenges came out of COVID but long-term implications are also expected. So we have lots to discuss for the regional conference and to do this, I'm glad to have such an excellent panel supporting the introduction of this item, of this topic to the regional conference. So let me welcome you all and to introduce you here also to the audience and thanks again, also Vladimir Legevich, for this introduction. Rint accused the vice president of the Turkish Federation of Food and Drink Industry Association. It has 27 sexual member association and is covering more than 2,000 companies in the country. He says, educate the public, integrate agriculture into industry to achieve sustainability and balance and adequate nutrition. I'm also welcoming Jao Breda, the head of the FAO European office for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases in Moscow. And Jao says, the food system revolution is at the crossroads between sustainability and health. Let me, in addition, welcome Isabel Alvarez, vice president and advocacy offer of Urgenzi and Urgenzi is part of the Neonelony, Europe and Central Asia food sovereignty network. Facing the challenge of malnutrition requires a holistic analysis because healthy diets require sustainable food systems and these require a healthy planet and social justice is being said by Isabel. I think this is quite important. In addition, let me welcome Rada Kehlaraova, policy officer of the European Commission, DG Health and Food Safety, known also as DG Santé, who says Europe's goal to become the first climate neutral continent by 2050 can only be achieved by making our food systems sustainable. I'm very happy to also welcome Ewa Haliczka, senior researcher at the department of food market and consumer research at Warsaw University of Life Science in Poland, who says all actress have a vital part to play in the pivoting of the food systems to for a world sustainable nutrition. In addition, I would also like to mention that we have Gulnar Skaseyeva, who is the chairperson of Agro-Lead. Agro-Lead is a holding company in Kyrgyzstan with also having consultancies as well as also Agri-Corporatives. We will have a video statement of Gulnar's later on. So a warm welcome to all of you on this virtual round table. And before we are going to start our discussion on the various aspects, which is already coming out from the statements you have made, let's look a bit closer on the issues regarding the situation in the region. And let's look at the video from Mary introducing us to the topic. Hello, thanks for watching this talk on sustainable food systems and healthy diets. If you are a consumer who wants safe, nutritious food for yourself and your family, or a farmer or food business who depends on food and agriculture for your livelihood, or indeed if you're a policymaker engaged in improving the agri-food sector in your country, food systems and how food is produced, used, and consumed concerns you. I am Mary Kenney, and I work at FAO's Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. In this talk, I will address a few different key questions, including why the focus now on food systems and urgent call for transformation. What do we mean by sustainability? And what are actions and possible entry points to shape and transform our food systems? These issues are all very relevant to the round table discussion, which will take place at the 32nd session of the FAO Conference for Europe. Firstly, why the focus on food systems? Let us take a closer look at the food and nutrition situation in our region. While the food and agriculture sector has performed impressively and there is a very low prevalence of hunger, we do have challenges with under nutrition, access to the required quality and range of nutritious foods, and micronutrient deficiencies also persist in certain countries. Alarmingly, overweight and obesity is now a major issue in the region. In addition, other pressures show the inadequacy of our systems. There's concern about the toll on the environment and natural resource base as a result of how food is produced and consumed. Concerns with land degradation, over-exploitation of fish stocks, pressure on our water sources, loss of biodiversity, increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and the stark statistic that one third of all food is being lost or wasted. We have inequalities and imbalances throughout our food system. We also have many urban and rural poor who cannot access nutritious diverse diets. And more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed a number of fragilities in our food systems, reconfirming the need to ensure our systems are resilient to shocks. So what do we understand by food systems? FAO defines them as the entire range of activities, goods and services involved in the production, trading, processing, marketing, consumption and disposal of goods that originate from agriculture, forestry or fisheries. It covers everything from land reform, to natural resource management, to food production and value chains, to managing food chain risks. Food systems also include people and institutions as well as the socio-political, economic and technological environment surrounding these activities. Although COVID-19 has put a spotlight on food systems, the discussions on sustainable food systems has been ongoing for some time. Transforming food systems is at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and specifically SDG2, Ending Hunger. This focus builds on many global commitments already made and ongoing initiatives. As we look forward, the UN Food Systems Summit to be held in 2021 will be an important milestone, recognizing that many countries are facing challenges in building their food systems. At a regional level, the issue-based coalition on sustainable food systems established in April 2020 provides a mechanism for increased cooperation and fosters close partnership. So why is a holistic systems approach being promoted? Clearly, food systems are not new, but what is gaining momentum is the call to adopt a more holistic approach and to address the three dimensions of sustainability across economic, social, environmental issues. Adopting a systemic approach should redress the current reality where complex challenges in the food and agriculture, trade and health portfolios are often dealt with through isolated, fragmented policies with due regard for the interconnections and even trade-offs that may need to be made. And as we seek to ensure the sustainability of our food systems, we are aware that we want many things from our food systems. We want them to be environmentally sound, to support livelihoods and inclusive economic growth, and ultimately to deliver healthy diets for all. It is only natural that there are competing priorities and trade-offs will have to be made. Some examples of trade-offs may include balancing decisions between agricultural production and the use of natural resources or trade policy decisions and how they may affect on livelihoods and nutritional status. It is clear that we need a political process to understand trade-offs and to strike a balance between these competing priorities. There is growing evidence that a business, as usual, model is not acceptable. And some examples of transformation, which may take place in the agri-food system, are transforming food production for more diversified foods and sustainable systems, including the uptake of agroecological approaches, improving food supply chains and markets at home and abroad. And finally, improving food environments through consumer behavior. Understanding the local context is just so key. What is challenging, however, is to identify the right set of reforms needed and to generate the evidence so that stakeholders can understand how these reforms will improve food systems and healthy diets. So what approaches are available to transform food systems at country level? Members are encouraged or called to provide an enabling environment and governance mechanism to support the food systems transformation agenda, to promote dialogue among multiple stakeholders which will foster policy coherence. This recognizes the important role non-state actors play, including the private sector, to drive responsible investments that consider sustainability and to support scaling up of innovative practices. Social movements and consumers can also drive the sustainability agenda. Furthermore, there is a need to invest in data and evidence collection to enhance our understanding of synergies and trade-offs. And we need to address the power inequalities in our food systems to foster a more people-centered approach. People working together will help identify solutions that are win-wins for both human and planetary health. I would like to conclude by wishing you good discussions at the upcoming FAO Regional Conference for Europe. It's an opportunity to share experiences on transforming food systems and to engage with FAO. The fragilities of our food systems have been exposed by COVID-19, but it has only served to reconfirm the importance of supporting small holders and rural development, agri-food trade and market integration, and natural resource management and climate change mitigation actions. And while there are challenges, many opportunities to drive long-term transformation also have arisen a need to be harnessed. We should not focus on short-term solutions only. Let's take this opportunity to build back better, stronger food and agriculture systems, ensuring no one is left behind and to provide healthy diets for all, protecting our planet today and for future generations. Thank you for listening. And until we meet again here in Budapest, in your country or at the UN Food Systems Summit, take very good care. Mary indicated that we should build back better and stronger food and agriculture systems. So we need to transform our production structures and we need to move to more diversified structures. In the past, agriculture policies focused very much on production incentives. So we, some of us probably know the common agriculture policy of the European Union was focusing on this up to the 1980s. But how are we able to move here in the right direction, achieving also the universality of the SDGs, which means on one hand, production efficiency, but on the other hand, of course, environmental and also social goals to be achieved. So let me in this case turn maybe to you, Radha, how do you see really transforming the production structure from the EU perspective? As we focusing on transforming the food production, how can we balance the need to produce more food of increased diversity, manage the global food market with also stressing on the environment and the natural resources. So what do you see from the European Union perspective? Well, first of all, we don't believe that we need to choose between producing enough nutritious, affordable and safe food for everyone and protecting our planet. With the Farm to Work strategy that we adopted last May, we believe we can do both, whilst also ensuring the livelihood of all actors in the food supply chain. Next to addressing food production by aiming at making it sustainable, the strategy also addresses food demand and food consumption. It has the ambition to have food waste by 2030 and reduce food losses. And in this respect, by 2023, we will propose legally binding targets to reduce food waste across the EU. But the strategy also recognizes that the transition to a sustainable food system will not happen without a shift in people's diets towards healthier and sustainable diets. Moving to a more plant-based diet with less red meat and processed meat and with more fruits and vegetables will not only have a positive impact on people's health, but will also lower the environmental impact of the food system. This will also mean... May I mainly react to you at this point? Let's stick on the consumer maybe a bit later. I would like us still to stay maybe under the production side because I think the production system is something which I would say is definitely quite important. And maybe Isabel, Orgenzi always emphasized that there is a need that the food system needs to be changed. I know you are also... I looked a bit also on some of the videos, you're a strong supporter also of agroecology. So where would you, from the point of view of Orgenzi, like to see the change in our current food systems? And where do you think there are the threats or the opportunities, particularly for the urban and rural communities? Hello, can you hear me? Yes, very well. Okay, because... Sorry, I lost the connection. Can you repeat the question please because I lost the connection for a moment? Yeah, so Isabel, Orgenzi always emphasized that there is a need to change the food systems. And we know there is also a very strong interest to use agroecology as part of it. So where do you think there is a change needed in the food systems? And what do you think are the threats or opportunities for the urban and rural communities? Okay. Okay, of course the first change that we would like to see is to see all people fed and food systems that guarantee access to healthy food for all people. This change, as you said, requires a multi-dimensional perspective. And we highlight that it's really, really important to have the resources to feed people and also to be fed. If we need to feed people, we need the access to land, we need to preserve our biodiversity, we need markets at the local level. And we also need resources to be fed with real food. Sometimes we hear about the decision making power of consumers and we know that many of our decisions are not based on our preferences or our health. Sorry, many decisions are based on the resources that we have. And we know that today the unhealthy food is more accessible than healthy food in some regions. So, and also if we look at public procurement, sometimes the main criteria for that are not healthy criteria, sometimes our prices or our other issues. And talking about the opportunities and challenges that we were asking, I think now with COVID-19, we are seeing how we need resilient models and I think we are demonstrating in our experience from civil society and also of course from urgency. We are seeing how the local models, the local networks are being really, really resilient in this situation. And I think this has to be the preserve these models and preserve these networks has to be a priority on public policies. And of course the challenge is that is... That's also Isabel, when we talk about the policies come later on down the discussion. Actually a quick question back to Rada when, because you mentioned the fund to fork strategy, would you say there is a definite, a clear answer in that one also based on the COVID experience for the, let's say for the production part, would you see there is something on this which we can really identify? Well, yes, obviously as was also indicated in the introduction, the COVID-19 pandemic showed the need for a robust and resilient food system that is capable of ensuring access to food to everyone and not least in times of crisis. And also we have drawn the lessons from the COVID-19 in the fund to fork strategy because we are also foreseeing as an action to develop a contingency plan that will ensure food security in times of crisis. So this is perfectly encompassed in the strategy. Let's maybe move in that sense then a bit further up in the supply chain if we go away from the structure, from the production then how is this particularly also at the processes or the traders level? Maybe Joa, I want to ask you from the point of view of WHO and particularly also related to the objective of the sustainable and healthy diet. What action can be taken in our food supply chains to provide such diets and how can we balance the different stakeholders interested in here? Thank you very much for the opportunity. Clearly this is a complex system but at the end of the day we believe that there are actions that need to be taken if we want to have healthier and more sustainable diets. They require that we really reduce animal foods very significantly. We increase the share of vegetable origin foods. This is a must particularly for the European region countries and we also need to make sure that we reduce the presence of harmful and nutrients that are related or elements that are related with non-communicable diseases because we have to remember that in the European region we have either one out of three or one out of four kids that are already overweight and obese. So we can talk about this forever but if we don't take action and this action is very straightforward. There's too much sugar in Europe from everywhere. You look at baby foods, you look at the unacceptable levels of marketing of foods to children. I mean the digital marketing which is so challenging at the moment. All of this has a huge influence so we need to reduce sugar, fat, we need to eliminate trans fats. We have now 37 countries out of 53 countries members of WHO Europe with a ban on trans fat and we would like to be the first region completely green in terms of trans fats and we are moving fast in that direction but we have to be very clear that diet, health and sustainability need to come together but we need to support countries in the way they do it. The sustainable, healthy diets in one country may not have exactly the same recipe in another country. Countries need support. There are tools, for example, the food procurement, public procurement is a great tool to move on with diets and your national interpretation of what is a healthy and sustainable diet is important. Okay, we need a planetary diet, that's fine. We need less vegetable, more vegetables, less meat, less sugar, all of those things eliminating salt as much as we can because it's related to so many non-communicable diseases as well but at the end of the day, these needs to be translated at the national level. It's not the same when we refer to certain types of foods in one country and another, the Mediterranean areas very different from the Eastern part of Europe and therefore using inspiration from traditional diets we believe that we can build for Europe leadership. Europe can lead and maybe it's the best region position to lead on healthy and sustainable diet. It's based on complex systems but at the end of the day solutions are not that complicated. Yeah, Xiao, what would you say in this case? Because we are of course from an international organization point of view we're talking a lot about governments but what would we say WHO is giving as a recommendation maybe also to the private sector because when we are talking about sugar free what you also mentioned the private sector has here also its role to play. So what would you say we would need to recommend here? And then I will ask Rind afterwards if you agree. So yeah, of course, the private sector is extremely important. We need to work with all stakeholders and private sector needs to be part of the solution here. Obviously sometimes there are situations where the role of a government through legislation or regulation could be more significant. There are areas where the private sector can contribute with their own initiatives and sometimes it's a combination of both areas like salt. For example, there is a good history of private sector really contributing significantly in other areas. Sometimes it's a private sector that says, no, we prefer the government to take the lead on monitoring and regulating digital marketing or on sugar because they can create better a level playing field. So it's about dialogue, it's about collaboration it's about taking action. Not, we don't need to discuss so much anymore because we need what we know what needs to be done is about really taking action in promoting better quality foods.  Of course not, the industry needs to understand that they need to also transform themselves and providing better diets. It's consumer demand, but also the offer has to be there. So I think working with all stakeholders NGOs of course are also extremely important not just the private sector. And we believe that it's based on dialogue and the mix of policies where of course governments need to take the lead to inspire the action that is needed. Rind, would you agree to that? What Zhao in that sense says what is the responsibility of the private sector in this case? Or would you say, okay, we have to leave it more to the government. We can only produce what the consumer is demanding. So how do the food businesses really balance here on one hand improving sustainability but on the other hand, of course, business oriented and the demands. So what kind of efforts are being done from the food industry in this context? Well, let me put it this way. I agree on one thing, but Zhao is that we have to communicate. We have to establish a common denominator on understanding what the food and nutrition is. We are totally against as the industry to demonizing certain articles like salt, sugar, fats, flour, et cetera. Anything which appears on the list of codex alimentaris is not harmful to human health. The thing which makes it harmful is the amount or the dosage you take. Therefore, instead of saying that sugar is harmful, I think World Health Organization should take the lead in educating the public on a balanced and adequate nutrition for a diet. Because everything which is on the list of codex is something that we can eat. If we want to warn the consumers that eating something in excess is harmful, then we should put warnings on everything, including the basic thing which is water. If we drink more than six liters of water, we die. We know that. Therefore, we should educate the consumer on how to have a balance and how to eat adequately. Because I fully agree with you on the obesity issue. I fully agree with you on the non-communicable diseases. However, the issue is to have the same common denominator on every problems we have. Our approaches is different. We don't believe too much regulation of forced regulation by the government helps us. We think we should understand the problems jointly and in a joint manner. I don't think we've been able to achieve that with WHO so far. WHO, I understand that so far has seen the industry. As well, I shouldn't say enemy, but it's something that to be fought with. WHO always approach the industry with restrictions on the governmental level. Industry A has to deliver what the consumer wants, that's for sure. What the consumer wants could be lead by WHO on educating them. You've mentioned two points which I think we should also take up further down. First, again, the role of the consumer. I said it also at the beginning already when Osorada and Isabelle started. Let's bring that as well as of course also the policy recommendations. I mean, the policy recommendations of governments and international organizations are probably very closely related. But I want to take up one point more and that is when you look at it from the industry point of view. Would you say the COVID implications are an opportunity or giving us an opportunity to change some of the food systems? And do you see there are real opportunities? Rehman, we published a book in June. This is about 100 pages. It reflects the aftermath of the COVID-19 issue. The three major findings we have is that we have lack of communication between agriculture industry which led to a chaos. We have lack of coordination between major players which led to inefficiency. And collaboration has become more important than ever which we have to re-establish and restructure. Today, the government was not quick enough to intervene with the COVID-19 issue as far as the food security side is concerned. It was the private sector, especially the food chain, the couriers, the people on the motorcycles who delivered the food to homes where we had locked bags. Therefore, we have to learn from this. Of course, there are certain issues that we can do which we have already started. We are trying to use the large purchasing power of the multinational companies to educate the farmers as far as, for instance, while we are trying to buy food items or raw material which uses less water, which uses, I mean, in sustainable matter, but this is not the issue right now. The major problem we are going to face in our part of the world, which is Southeast Europe. As the Federation, we had ordered and researched to Istanbul Technical University which we published as a book in 2018. It says that by 2030, climate change will affect the region and its effects is going to reach a peak by 2050 which means that the climate, the warming will reach up and as of today, it's going to drive the areas where we grow food right now. So that's the major threat. We have to be ready for it. This is very much in line also what Radha said as one of her clear statements, the European Union wants to be amongst the first. Let's say continent to have a climate neutral approach, but of course, like several of you also mentioned, the consumer plays an important role in that context. Now, the question is here, is it made easy if we are putting all the blame on the consumer and saying, okay, the problem, is the consumer, if the consumer is going to get it right, everything else is also going to change. So when we talk about the responsibilities of the consumer, what kind of emphasis do we need to give or maybe I'm asking Eva in that sense, of course, she looks at it not from the consumer perspective, but also from the research and having done a lot of research in that context. What do we need to do in order to have a demand for a healthier diet? Do we need to have stronger regulations, sorry, in reducing some of these food items?  What is needed in order to move the consumer in the right direction or education, is that sufficient? I think this is such a fascinating topic from the point of view of the consumer. Yes, I have been doing research for at least 20 years here in Poland and in Europe, and I have seen and we're observing how consumers change. They get a lot of information. We have seen a lot of educational also initiatives in the region and the change has been slow. I think there was also a lot of, well, too much information. I sometimes it is misinformation. The health messages have for sure come through. People know that they should have a healthier diet. Now, the challenges is to add the sustainable, the recommendations linked to sustainability and not make the message more complex. People often don't understand or if they think something is too complex, they just switch off. The sustainability recommendations that should be added also in different food-based dietary guidelines that already exist or are being developed in some parts of the region are quite simple. I'll give just an example. Eat or choose food locally, eat seasonally. And I think also for policymakers, it is an opportunity to engage with consumer groups which are also becoming stronger for many years or even decades. Consumer organizations were not heard or their voice was quite dispersed and quiet, I may say. They're always at the end of the discussion very often at the table. So, but I have seen a big change. I think the shift in awareness of consumers is very, very near. We have 920 million consumers in the region, in the ECA region, Europe and Central Asia region which we're talking about, 920 million consumers. Okay, some of them don't buy food but they're still linked to the market even if they are supported by food banks, for example, or they eat only the food that they produce where all we are all linked to the food market. And there's a big shift in the awareness that I have seen coming and I think even COVID in a way, it's paradox, but COVID will accelerate the shift. And just clear messages, I think these food-based dietary guidelines that incorporate sustainable diet, sustainable diet messages will have a huge impact on the consumers, strengthening their ability to choose on the market and that will shift and that will help improve the food system in a very, hopefully, near future. So if I hear you in that sense, you would say it needs to be simple, the messages need to be simple and we need to increase, so we need to empower the consumer further. In this case, Rada, let me turn here again also to the commission. The commission is not always considered, forgive me if I'm making this statement to make things simple. So would you say, farm to fork strategies and what do you see from the commission's point of view needs to happen to maybe make it simpler, to make it better understandable to the consumer and in that sense to change the consumer behavior? Well, I think that what we have proposed and that we have put forward in the strategy when it comes to ensuring a sustainable consumption is actually trying to make things simpler for the consumer because we believe that an informed consumer can therefore be able to be, to will be empowered to choose the healthy and sustainable diets. And we have basically put forward a number of initiatives that we will come up with by 2022 and these are in the area of food labeling and we will propose for instance, harmonized mandatory front of pack nutrition labeling. We will also consider the possibility to extend the mandatory origin or provenance indication for certain products. And finally, in the longer term, we will also consider the possibility to develop a sustainability labeling framework which will encompass all three dimensions of sustainability in order to give a simpler information as you said because this is indeed the key to consumers about these elements. So we do believe that with our actions, we will make it possible for consumers to choose healthy and sustainable diets in the future. I think one of the key points certainly is that when we're talking about consumer choice, consumer empowerment information, again, the right depends also on the costs because the FAO, for example, has for the 2020 state of food insecurity, we have looked into affordable diets also. So as a consumer, you don't have a right to choose if it's not affordable. So I think this is definitely also an issue which need to come into the equation. I would like to discuss more on this one on the consumer. What I would like to take a moment and in this case, shift here the discussion before we come into the policy recommendation to the case of Kyrgyzstan. And I would like to hear from Gulnath from the agrolead in Kyrgyzstan to see what are the efforts made there to move to more sustainable food systems. And she has given us a video where she summarizes this, Gulnath. Good morning to everyone. My name is Gulnath Kaseyeva. I am a chairperson of the Board of Public Association Agrolead from Kyrgyzstan. And today I would like to share with you with one idea to solve the problems of food security in Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan is agrarian country with more than 70% of the population live in rural areas of which 65% are employed in the agriculture sector. So in Kyrgyzstan, we have a lot of small scale farmers. The reason was the land reform after the collapse of the union. And there appeared a lot of new farmers. So since the new farmers didn't have needed the knowledge and experience on the agriculture sector, the theory was needed in extension services. So Public Association Agrolead is one of the extension services in Kyrgyzstan. It was established in 2009 and during the 11 years of our activities, we implemented about 100 projects in agriculture sector. Currently, the extension services in Kyrgyzstan come from different sectors. It's from state, public and non-governmental organization and private. But all these types of consulting services work on their own way and each for seeing its own goals. There is no general coordination of work in the agriculture sector among NGOs, business sector and government bodies. Those there is duplication of work, each organization works in fragments for seeing its own goals. And it affects in general to the efficiency of agriculture development in Kyrgyzstan. For example, the situation with COVID-19 showed that there are big problems with the food security in Kyrgyzstan. Meanwhile, developed small-scale commodities and competitive volumes and prices require coordinated actions from the oldest stakeholders. So one of the initiatives of Public Association Agrolead was the creation, the association of extension services. And in 2019, the establishment in Kyrgyzstan form of rural advisory service. The main idea was to create a common platform for all the stakeholders to discuss and try to solve jointly the main topics in agriculture sector, including the food security issues. And as a result, on September 2020, there was signed memorandum of understanding between Ministry of Agriculture and Kyrgyzstan. And the purpose of this agreement was to bring together all sectors involved in agriculture sectors to coordinate actions in agriculture for the agriculture development. Thank you very much for your attention and I wish you a good discussion. And if you have a question, I will be happy to answer it. So Guna says there's little coordination at the level of the food chain actors and they are trying to improve it. I think this confirms that there is a need to improve the governance mechanisms. Now, I think efforts are being made. In this case, Isabel and as we are talking, now also about policy recommendations, how do you see that from your perspective, from our agency? Are we moving in the right direction? Are we adjusting decision-making processes? Are we empowering also the civil society more? I mean, the civil society, actually we are all part of the consumer. Everybody around the table is certainly a consumer, but is the civil society in a better position to participate? And what do you think, can the civil society do in this context that we are moving to a different governance mechanism? Yes, yeah, I know we are moving, but this is good. Yeah, I think, yeah, and from our perspective, we think that we need inclusive and participatory processes for, yeah, to build together a public policies. And yeah, and in this sense, I think it's important you were talking about the consumers, the decision and how, I want to talk about it again, but I think it's important to say that when we are talking about food, we are talking about a human right. And when we are talking about these multi-stakeholders, sorry, platforms, we need to make visible that, of course, we agree that everybody has to be around the table, all of us are part of the food systems, but we need to make clear that there are multi-stakeholder and right holders. And we think that this is really, really important when we sit all around the table and it's not only to see who is or not there, it's also from where is each part. And for us, this difference between multi-stakeholder and right holder is really, really important when we are talking about food, because for us, the human right approach is a key point when we are building these sustainable food systems. And about the role of civil society, of course, we are involved in different spaces, you know it. I think sometimes the question maybe could be if it's possible to build a sustainable food system without civil society involvement, no? Without farmers, without fisheries, without indigenous people, without young people, without women, we think that the centrality of people is the key to this construction that we need, no? And yeah, this is our point. And would in principle say that the policies need to be more people-centric, because you just mentioned that we are probably make sure that they are all involved and therefore the policy need to be more people-centric. Let me, in this case, Jao asking this from the perspective of an international organization, WHO, do you think we have to do more in terms of making our policies more people-centric or what do you think that we need to do in that sense? Oh, absolutely, absolutely. We fully agree with that. From the health perspective, we talk about people-centered health systems. And here is people-centered food systems. And I think there might be a lot to learn there as well in terms of process and you devise and then implement your strategies. It's a bit to understand the need to do it in a comprehensive way. It's not, again, just about education and people making the right choices in terms of if I am a consumer, or about devising the right regulations that then will promote healthier and more sustainable diets. It's how you can understand this complexity and then put forward a system where individuals and human beings are actually at the center. And that's a tremendous shift. And I'd like to say that that's very much in line with what it is, the new, very challenging and very interesting EU policy is really about leadership. And this Europe and Central Asia region to a large extent, I believe it can be on the driving seat. It can really take the lead in terms of the changes that are necessary because you have the most vibrant industry, the most vibrant research. And really it's also going to give you a competitive advantage. You not only have the amazing Nordic Mediterranean diets, the fantastic mix of foods in Central Asia, but you also have the knowledge and the brain and the technology. It's not about everybody has a role to play. And here is really placing the individuals, you could say the consumer, but it's more than that. And then the link with health, look what COVID did to our lives. Without health, really, there's nothing else. And what we see sometimes is that by producing the foods we are producing, by incorporating ingredients that we incorporate in foods, we are not protecting health. I'm sorry to say, but a soft drink with 40 grams of sugar, this is not a healthy product. And I could give you hundreds of examples. So really there needs to be a transition into of course the consumer has to want it, but consumers, you have more and more vegans. I'm not saying becoming vegan is the right solution, probably not, because you can also have vegan processed foods which at the end of the day when they will not be very healthy as well. So it's more complex than that. So it's really happening all together. And we ourselves international organizations, we have responsibilities in terms of coming up with guidance to member states and supporting member states at the national level. And I think that we all have to work more together. So I really support our organizations working together and we welcome very nicely and very happy with the EU initiative which I think it's, I'm convinced it's going to make a big difference and it can really make a challenge and impact the overall region which for WHO has 53 countries. And when we want to make and we want to give this good example for the region and as you said, we need to bring the people in. And I think actually the COVID crisis in these days shows again with the figures are going up that if we are not getting the people into the vote it's very difficult to get the measures through. So here, Rada, do you think the Farm to Fork strategy has the adequate policy coherence in place so that we are really able to reach the people or is it in the end a document or an approach where people say, okay, yeah, it sounds good for us as experts, it's great, but it's not simple enough. Like Eva was also saying to the consumer to understand this. How would you see this? Well, we see the Farm to Fork strategy as a strategy that has this holistic approach that we were just talking about. And indeed, we have put forward actions for every single actor in the food supply chain but also beyond. It's not just farmers as we can often hear that need to make efforts in order to transition to sustainable food systems. It's all primary producers but it's also food manufacturers, processors, distributors, consumers but even beyond that, as was rightly pointed out I mean, we need people from the financial from the research and innovation sector because indeed you need new solutions to overcome some of the challenges that we are facing today. And these solution needs to be financed. And also you need the intervention of actors from the advisory services sectors because they need to transmit this new solutions to the actors on the ground. So we think that really this food systems approach that takes everybody on board and that will force us also to think no longer in isolation. So just to give a concrete example, if we say that we want to reduce dependency on chemical pesticides, well, we also need to hear and to understand that farmers need alternatives that are as efficient. And so what do we do? We need to invest in research and innovation. So to be able to find these alternatives. So all these sectors are very interlinked and this is what we are trying to bring this coherence and this also consistency between all food related policies. And there is also in the longer run and also it's one of the flagship initiatives of our strategy, a legislative proposal on sustainable food systems that will bring this policy coherence and that will mainstream sustainability in all food related policies. So we are believing that only together we can achieve this transition successfully. And this is the reason why we don't think that as you say it's just maybe a paper but that we together can make sure that this implementation and these transitions are successful. Rint, would you feel from the private sector point of view there is already enough policy coherence and would you feel, I mean, there is no transition to a sustainable food system without the private sector. Would you feel you are supported in that sense enough? I mean, the EU Farm to Fork Strategy of course is probably also spilling over to an association country like Turkey but of course there are probably also other issues from your point of view. But basically I fully agree with the brother. I mean, COVID-19 has taught us a lot. Today we've realized that we have discrepancies in major parts of the Farm to Fork strategy. Therefore this has to be fixed and we have to adapt new strategies. Today probably it's not true for our region but we have to talk about the basic right of human beings to reach food. Our area is not a famine area but in general we have this problem as well. We have to discuss that as well. It's quite complex. We as the private sector has a great role in this and we're ready to play our role as it is described by the policies but mainly with dialogue with all major agencies. This is very important. Dialogue is essential. Today we see the carbon footprint as a major issue and if we don't reverse the climate change we will pay a very, very dear price for that one and we need cooperation of everyone in this issue. That's the first one. Then the resources will not be sufficient when we come to 2050. We have to look into it. We have to pay more attention to innovation. We have to pay more attention to biotechnology which is going to be the key in 20 or 30 years to come. These are the issues that the policy makers will have to address. We're ready as far as we are concerned as producers but still I'd like to emphasize the fact that dialogue is the most essential thing. I think I take this issue from the dialogue very much let's say further on and unfortunately I see also that we are coming to an end in terms of the time. I have one actually point which I wanted to raise again also with Zhao but maybe others of you may also want to come in is because we need policy coherence. We need to invest more. We need to do the education for the consumer. We need to put more investment into the three dimensions of sustainable food systems healthy diet. Are we in danger with the COVID that there are not enough public resources available in order to put an emphasis on that because we need to put much more of an help. Zhao any views on this from your side? No, I mean the health sector in many countries has been tremendously underfunded. So it's important that countries are now stepping up their investments and so on. So I really don't see that there is a competition here by investing in NCD prevention non-communicable diabetes, obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease. If you prevent the day you're saving a lot of money and you're also you're creating healthier consumers that will leave more time and there will still be even more informed and better consumers. They will spend more money because they will have more capacity to have more fans available and so on and so forth. So I don't think that either or I think that we really need to have a comprehensive approach and this is why it is very important that international organizations and the different stakeholders really work together on this one to look for the commonality where what can bring us all together. I really think that the future is in the interconnection between health and sustainability. Clearly using food-based dietary guidelines but like Eva very well was saying put on the top the sustainability and then you will have a perfect recipe, I would say and where the European farmers will be very well off. I'm very convinced of that because that will be about being more competitive as well. So it's about working together and really fine-tuning how we can do that in a better way. Eva, would you say if you look at it from a research point of view are you confident that there is also enough money is still put inside in order to make this transformation and that you're not in danger that with the COVID research here is not going to be given the same emphasis as now? Oh, I'm unfortunately not confident about that. And we will see. I have, we made a little research in the past and we also know this was what I would like to emphasize that the consumers differ. Rural people living in rural areas and urban areas have a different approach to sustainability. Research here in Poland showed that people living in rural areas know more about sustainability, respect food more. So people can also, we can see the differences. So I would just hope there will be enough resources to not only educate, but also see the changes but in different consumer groups. As you know, consumers, the cultural differences, geographical, demographical, we have many groups. Of course, the message can be one and simple and clear but then when we go deeper, the message will be more effective, the behavior change will be more effective if we really see the differences taken to account. Unfortunately, we need to close. So we, I think we have many interesting points. Lots of points have been put on the table. I think lots of food for thought also for the member countries for the introduction of this agenda item at the regional conference FAO together and particularly at the CFS. So the Committee for World Food Security is working on voluntary guidelines for sustainable food systems which are currently under negotiation. So there are of course many efforts in the area of production and in the area of the food supply chains, the food environment, we are coming a lot back also again to the consumer. We are putting a lot of, in this case on us speaking as consumer. So we definitely also need to see how the different strategies are going to be taken up. We have of course also the ICN2 from FAO's point of view, the framework for action which is there. So there are many instruments but I think we need to do more on these three dimensions of sustainable food systems. So I would like to thank you for staying with us and for an interesting debate.


Welcome to the first release of Super Office 9, a brand new generation of Super Office CRM. True to our focus on usability, we'll start this generation off with a clean and modernized user interface. You'll see an updated color palette, sharper images, and more minimalistic shapes and icons across both your desktop and your mobile. The new simplified design will help you focus on what's most important, and that's the relationship you have with your customers, prospects, and suppliers. You'll have new ways of organizing and configuring your CRM data. Rearrange and personalize your archives by filtering, grouping, and changing the information you want to see and access. We have expanded the mini-card into a side panel, which gives you the ability to see even more information in a single screen. You can adjust the available screen space by clicking, dragging, and moving around the different sections to increase the area you want to focus on. Or if you want to, hide both the navigator menu and the side panel to make your screen even bigger. And finally, we've improved the way you create a new company card, activity, document, or selection. The new drop-down menu is bigger, and split into two columns for better readability. This is the first release of many new exciting features to come. If you'd like to learn more about this new version or the whole generation of Super Office 9, please visit us on our community website.


So, this is a much smaller session in the earlier one and we will try to close as you know sooner, much fewer slides and also more interesting because you will have a different voice speaking after little while this is one of our as I told you one of the incubating companies at our incubator will talk about his experience. And this part is more about you know we talked about mentoring and monitoring earlier in the afternoon and this is the other part of you know as I said one part is to help the entity grow in a protected environment and the other is to take it out you know help the incubated company to go out and reach out to the rest of the world. And one of the things which is what is called networking is what we will talk about. And some of the learnings other learnings that we have and some of the entities that we have to deal with such as venture capital funds and how do we approach and so on and so forth. So, that is the broad outline of what we will discuss. So, you know networking is when the incubating company comes into the incubator most of them are you know especially in our case they are students who passed out a few years ago or maybe have just have graduated or our faculty members who have had little or no interaction with the commercial world outside. And the only way in which you know their entities will become successful is if they have profitable interactions with the outside world. So, the objective is to once their business models are clear once there what they want to do is you know sort of defined then you need they need to start interacting with the external world with their potential clients with their potential partners with their potential investors. So, so that becomes a key part of say for example, at our incubator. So, how do we really do it there are two three different ways of the way we approach it is one is that we invite people to come to our incubator. So, we would invite a venture capital investor to come to our incubator talk to the incubators make the incubators give presentations about their company and then hope that you know the fund finds one of the companies interesting and then move forward. The others to have actual formal relations with Wenchuk funds and angel networks for example, at at sign we have a formal relationship with Indian angel network. So, we we have signed an agreement with them. So, that our company get a faster you know it is a it is a long process. So, we help by this agreement our company is get a fast track into that process. So, eventually hopefully we will get the funding faster and what we have also agreed is that we will get our companies to make even if the companies may not be looking for funding, but they will be allowed to make a pitch to the angel network and get their feedback. So, this is one of the ways in which we try network them into the other is to invite entrepreneurs who have been successful maybe some of them maybe from the same field as the incubator companies to come and speak about their experience and you know their learnings which then the incubators can use. Then there are industrial you know associations such as NASCOM or you know for there are various industry associations for different industries and either go and meet people there or invite them over to our incubator to get to start getting some sort of traction in business development side. So, for example, if a company has developed a product we talk to the computer society of India and say that can we get this product to be tested by your members or for example, with NASCOM we are talking if they can help companies in their marketing of the product in overseas countries. So, those are the sort of interactions we try to engineer through our relationships. So, in our case we have a fairly illustrious alumni many of them are you know entrepreneurs themselves or our venture funds. So, again we try to connect the incubator to these people there is no real formal process to it it is as in when it happens you sort of connect when you meet somebody in the outside world and say hey this company could be of interest to you and then you connect them to them. Also many of us come with you know past business experience. So, that helps having relationships of the past can be used for the companies here. There is no real formal process to it it is fairly ad hoc maybe you know one needs to look at making it more formal in one way or the other. So, just take a little more time on venture capital because as we said that most of early stage companies are dependent for their survival for getting venture funds because before they can get to break even point you know 2, 3 years or 4 years would have passed in many cases and they will need that money for their product development for their marketing expenses for their you know other costs. As you know venture capitalists are looking for high growth companies with which are which can provide them an exit after 4, 5 years. So, that they put in their money at a lower valuation and exit 4, 5 years down the road at a higher valuation and for that again they are not only looking at technology, but also looking at the team which can take the company from 0 revenues to you know 10 million dollar revenues in 3, 4 years time because only then would the company have a value to a potential acquirer or if it grows even faster for you know a public listing when they can exit out of their company. One of the issues that as I said before Indians you know the whole venture capital industries fairly new in India and when a venture capital capitalist comes into your company you have to start sharing power with the fund and there are you know issues which we are still learning you know because when the venture capital fund comes into your company he has certain veto rights that you cannot appoint a person reporting to you without his permission or you cannot spend on travelling without his permission which is outside your business plan. We will probably hear from it little later from the incubator he was here, but there are certain rules governing the relationship between the incubator company or the investor company and the venture capital which means that originally when the entrepreneur could do whatever he wanted to do with his own money he could travel wherever he wanted to or he could you know fiddle around with the business model go to one set of clients not to go to another because he had full control or the founders had full control over the company they will no longer have that control and that is a process which every entrepreneur has to you know who gets invested has to go through to come to terms with giving away certain of his powers to the incoming investor. The value really from a venture capital fund is they have helped other companies to scale up and apart from bringing just the money they provide the experience of helping companies to grow and also they bring in the network to which they belong to. So, there is only a certain amount of you know we are also doing the same thing, but they do it at a far larger scale because many of them are international VCs and then can network companies to you know international potential international clients or partners even people and one of the key things that VCs typically do is to get a professional CEO or a professional head of marketing into your company especially for companies which come from a technology or a product background you know who come from a technology background do not really have marketing exposure. So, they help them to do that. See typically early stage in whether you know angels will take anywhere between 20 to 40 percent of your company. So, there is again there is no golden way of measuring a company's value, but finally you know people work on ballpark figures. So, companies will be valued between say a 4 crores to 8 to 10 crores you know that is the sort of range at which the company will get a valuation and typically the first level of investment will be between 2 to 3 crores may be over a certain you know certain milestones the company is to achieve certain milestones and the money comes in. This is significantly smaller than what you would say a company would get in the US where costs are much higher. So, in India with less money you can invest you know you can invest in more companies. So, that is it of course has its problem because because that is because of this fact that VCs who came into India initially did not want to make small investments because they would end up managing 200 companies with 20 million dollars which they do not want to do because you cannot physically manage 20 you know 200 companies. So, that is why VCs in India who came initially looked only at bigger companies. So, they said we are happy to give out 10 million dollar checks 3 million dollar checks, but not you know 100,000 US or 200,000 US, but that is changing as we saw. So, there are no real parameters. So, essentially they will see what is the potential exit for them say supposing 4 years from now they will sort of make a mental calculation that this company can be sold for say 20 million dollars and I am looking for may be you know 100 percent return on my investment year on year. So, if I am looking at 100 percent return year on year I should invest at a valuation of say 2 million dollars. So, that will become the valuation today or the company is valued at 2 million dollars. So, I invest say half a million dollar and expect that this will at a valuation of 2 million when the company becomes you know 10 million dollars I will get 5 times my money. So, that is the sort of calculation which VCs do it is there is no mathematics to it is just partly a matter of you know a ballpark figure that you will take with less than majority shares in the company and the company needs say you know 2 crores or 3 crores and you will expect if it can potentially lead to you know a 40 crore valuation then you will invest otherwise you will not invest. So, that is how a venture capital funds you know if you look at statistics they have performed better than despite all the you know dot com boom and busts they have performed better than mutual funds. So, mutual funds typically will give you you know say about 15 percent return on your capital whereas, VCs will typically give you may be 20 to 25 percent return on your capital. So, actually smart investors put their money in venture capital funds we spoke about this earlier, but the as we all know entrepreneurs and specially technology entrepreneurs are very focused on their product and one of the things which networking also helps to do is to focus more on the market focus more on the client rather than focus on you know your product and the features of that product what does it do to the client how does it help him to save money is the other thing here is you know we again talked about it earlier that Indians think if my product is cheap because you know we are very good bargainers if my product is cheap it will sell and that is actually a huge stumbling block for many of the product companies going out of India who are trying to sell their product say in OCs markets or even in India because if your product is cheap in terms of cost the perception of the client is that it is also you know lacking in certain features and so on and therefore, it is price cheap it also comes from the situation that because costs are lower in India you 10 you know you would think who is going to buy this product for you know 20,000 dollars, but if a similar product is going out in the global market at 20,000 dollars and your product is priced at 1000 dollars nobody is going to buy your product and that is how you get you know you become a me too product in a crowded marketplace here you know alliances is a key to today's global you know technology marketing if you are not aligned with the you know the demand side of the market in one way or the other if you are not aligned with the key players in the space that you operate it will be very difficult for you to penetrate into the market. So, one of the best ways of for early stage companies to make their first sale or get some is by allying with an existing player as I told you for example, one of our incubator companies has tied up which is promoted by a faculty member here has tied up given away 49 percent of his company to another company which is going to help him in marketing so, if you do not have that core skill within your company you might as well ally with somebody else and you know get it going there is no point of owning 100 percent of something which is not going to sell again this is again a repetition of what we spoke about earlier that you know in India we have too much regulation and here you know ability to go and being going from an academic institution if the incubator company has a problem with say service tax or sales tax it really helps if you can you know help them through the process of saying that you know they are from an academic institution if they have done something wrong take it sort of lightly. So, they do not have to pay the usual costs which other companies have to pay dealing with the regulators I think there is now there is an advantage that the incubators do not have to pay and the incubator companies do not have to pay service tax I think that is one small the other is to also ensure that they are properly aligned with the arrangements that they may have made so that they file their returns on time they you know all the corporate filings are done on time there are no delays and so on because these actually become roadblocks today they may not some important because there are no investors in the horizon there is nobody else looking at your company, but tomorrow there is a global company wanting to do an alliance with you will want to check your accounts will want to see whether you have you know done everything right before he comes and signs on the dotted line. So, some of these small and painful things are necessary to go through also when when VCs come in you know they will really go through your accounts and your corporate filings and the agreements that your company has done with a tooth comb and if you have not you know done it then you could get have problems. It also helps you in the long run in doing all these things being ready to be a good corporate citizen you know finally, if you do all these things and you get into the habit of doing these things which Indians find it difficult you know to do helps you to become a good corporate citizen in the long run. So, this this actually ends the presentation. So, we spoke about you know which model works best in terms of whether it is parent child or between you and the incubating it is a parent child or it is you know teacher student or it is just a purely commercial relationship you collect rent and and wait for your equity to go down you know get liquidation out of your equity is is that you benefit when he benefits and vice versa if if that company does well the incubator eventually in one way or the other makes money. So, you you build a partnership for the for the incubate is progress and not really look at it from a teacher student or you know a landlord and a tenant sort of a situation because if the company does not do well you might have a whole lot of rent payable, but that is that is only on your books you know it is not really cash flow. As we heard in the morning from my colleague pointy that the legal framework both for the incubator as well as between the incubator and the incubating needs to be very well defined many of you know when when a when a incubating comes into the incubator he or she may not have the knowledge to go to understand all the integrities or what what is the agreement, but I think you would do well to get them to read get a lawyer to read it and understand it because later on there should not be any misunderstandings you know coming up later in life and at that point of time since they really their company is really not set up they do not have any revenue sales. So, the the value of equity or the value of what they are signing on to may not seem very big to them, but suddenly that that small company becomes 10 million dollars then 1 percent is a lot of money and and and lot of problems occur between you know incubating incubator there are two of them here. So, I will be careful, but you know problems do crop up because of you know because the value of the company changes drastically over a period of time is that thinking big you know build a scalable business model which can which you know not be restricted by what others have done so far and look at and I think the last bit is and lot of people who visited our incubator both VCs and entrepreneurs have said is to maximize the exposure you know the idea of the incubator is to protect them from the environment, but at the same time you have to maximize the exposure of in this protected environment to the outside world because that is that is a lot harsher and it is and that is where they have to be eventually. So, if you if you try to protect them and keep them in inside the you know academic institution they will sort of get complacent and be comfortable and not really want to try out things and really not know how tough the world is outside. So, any questions good. So, I will ask Kaushal with the founder of a company called Coalcraft which has a group collaboration software he will talk more about it and his experience from the incubator is possible. Just one real quick thing. Yeah. Just one real quick thing. Exposing people and exposing people to successful entrepreneurs due to do you try to arrange mentoring relationships like ongoing mentoring relationships where it is mostly like bringing somebody in to talk for a couple of hours is more about one time. Yeah, in general it is the second one that is we get people to come and talk for a few hours and so on. In particular cases where we feel and the company also it has to eventually be mutual the incubator also feels that that is an area where he needs external support then we encourage them to find a mentor who would come and spend a certain number of hours per month or per quarter with the company and provide certain specific deliverables and for that we have an equity model where the mentor gets a certain equity of the company.


Live from Madrid, Spain. It's theCUBE. Covering HPE Discover Madrid 2017. Brought to you by Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Ball's off, just put it back on. Hi everybody, welcome back to Madrid. This is theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. My name is Dave Vellante, I'm here with my co-host, Peter Burris, day two of HPE Discover Madrid 2017. Bina Aminoff is here, she's the Global Vice President of Big Data AI and New Tech Innovation at Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Bina, welcome to theCUBE, it's great to have you on. First time on theCUBE, right? Yes, thank you Dave, thank you Peter, I'm glad to be here. No, you're very welcome. So, let's talk about what Hewlett Packard Enterprise is doing in AI. You're new to the company, they brought you in. Why did Hewlett Packard tap your expertise? I think a lot of it is based on my previous experience and honestly, there is so much buzz going on with AI and the hype around it, right? There is so much that we need to do with AI, there's so much potential and we're not tapping into it as much as we should. That was one of the big reasons and especially what Hewlett Packard Enterprise is doing now, as we're going through this transformation, we can help our customers start on their AI journey, help them build out end-to-end solutions with AI, which is going to be one of my biggest charters. Well, when we were young and started in this business, AI was the buzz in the early to mid-80s. And that was the fifth or sixth time around with AI. Oh yeah, yeah. That was 40 years ago. And it just obviously died, the processing power wasn't there and I guess the data really wasn't there. Is that, why AI, why now? Yeah, so, and I'll date myself here. When I was doing my undergrad and post-grad, we had AI as one of the courses and nobody wanted to do it because it was considered this very futuristic thing, never going to happen, self-driving cars. Oh, personalized ads, even that was considered so hypothetical because we didn't have the compute, we didn't have the processing power, we didn't have the amount of data accessible to us. The acquisition of data was harder, the compute power wasn't there, so it was just always a science project. It was always a science project, it was a research, it was more ideas and it wasn't doable. But today, with the advances we've seen with cheap storage, easy access to compute, the whole game has changed. Lot of things we could only dream about is now becoming real, we are able to experiment more. And speaking to what you were saying earlier, AI has been through this hype cycle several times. If you think back, AI, the term itself was coined in 1956, and then we've seen those hype cycles when there is massive investment and there's nothing delivered, then it rains down so the AI winters keep happening. And now I think it's a gain on a rise but this time we are actually seeing results. We're seeing self-driving cars, we've seen personalized marketing taken to a whole new level, we've seen drones making delivery. But if you think about it, when you start in the business, you've seen about AI too, right? It's still the narrow intelligence part, right? It's not that super intelligence or general intelligence that we've reached that scale that we've reached out to. And I think given what I know about the analytic techniques available today or even the compute powers available today, we're still going to be dabbling around in narrow intelligence for at least the next few years before we expand out to the next level. Okay, so that raises an interesting issue because I first heard about AI back in the 70s reading Flagenbaum's fifth generation systems book, which by then what they were talking about, multiple generations of AI that had supposedly already happened. But AI has, for technical reasons, for technology, for data acquisitions, has disappointed. Now it's not disappointing, but there's still this perception of how much change is coming and the impact of the change. And let's talk about the people side of this because the success of AI is going to be very closely tied to whether or not social groups abandon it because it doesn't deliver what was expected or the impacts are greater in ways that weren't anticipated. What's the people side of this change? It's the innovation, the social change side. So I like to look back at history. History always gives us an indication of where technology is taking us. And if you look back at the early 19th century, when the early 20th century, when the steam engine was invented, what did it do? It enabled humans to expand their physical abilities to move things, to drive things forward. So it was increasing the human muscle power and that whole industrial revolution that happened around that time with steam engine and the automation of a lot of work that was being done by humans manually. And we're seeing a similar revolution happening now because it's fundamentally changing how we work, how economies are made and that causes a lot of fear and insecurities and who knows, our jobs might be replaced or changed over the next few years. We don't know because this technology is coming at us very fast. The reason is because there are so many companies investing so heavily in AI. What that makes us do is it accelerates the development of the technology. It comes at us smarter and faster and we're not prepared for it. Like if you look back at our own lives, right? I'm talking about a time when I was in my 20s and just thinking about AI and it was mythical and futuristic. And now today there are self-driving cars. It's happening in our lifetime where things have changed so rapidly and we don't know what it's going to look like 20 years from now. The piece that I'm optimistic about is unlike, you know, there are a number of luminaries who are spelling doom of mankind and elimination of human race and jobs and so much more. For me, it seems like, look, at the end of the day, we are building AI. We have the power to shape it the way we want. The fear exists because there is so much unknown and it is also because there's a select few group of people who are shaping AI, right? So how do we actually get more people involved? How do we truly democratize AI so that we get different viewpoints? Like should a computer scientist be building an AI product in isolation without full partnership from a lawyer or from similar domain products, domain experts have to be involved and today that's not happening. So we don't, you know, if you're building, and I stick to legal just because something that I can relate to is if a lawyer is actively involved in building out an AI legal product, he or she can know all the checks and balances we need to put in place so that AI doesn't go rogue, right? When a pure computer science person is driving that product and building the product, he or she may not be aware of all the checks and balances, right? And we may not put the right guardrails in place to prevent that program from growing rogue. At the end of the day, AI is something that we own and we should be able to build it in a way with the right guardrails in place. And if you, you know, look at, you know, at the end of, we are all so dependent on our phones and what is that? That is AI today, but we are not afraid of it. We use it, we leverage it. And that's how I think, you know, AI will be 20, 30 years from now is really helping us extend our brain power, right? Remove the monotony, monotonous tasks we have to do and help us be more creative, really elevate the human aspects of all of us. So let's carry that through. So you mentioned the Industrial Revolution. Machines have always replaced humans in certain tasks. There's always been substitution. Always, and, but for the first time, it's happening with cognitive tasks. So people get scared. And then you quote the statistics, median income in the United States has dropped since the late 90s from 55,000 down to 50,000. Part of that is, and you can see it at, you know, there aren't paper hangers on billboards anymore, barely there are.  Hopefully they can place it here at least until tomorrow at the airport. And so people are concerned, as you rightly pointed out. But you also said, we have the opportunity to shape this. So the answer many of us feel is education around creativity, how to combine different inputs to create value. But many people are afraid and say, oh, let's stop progress. That's not going to happen, you know that. So what has to happen from a socio-economic, a public policy standpoint in order to create those borders that you talked about? Right, right, right. I think education itself, you know, has to fundamentally change where we infuse more creativity into the education system. If we start, till now it's been more focused, very focused on the science or math aspect which is where you go computer scientists. But you need that, you know, the human aspect built out in all of us, right? And so, but it's also an opportunity for us to leverage AI to make our education better. So more personalized education. But if you, from a social aspect, I think one of the things that's missing is really the policy aspect. We don't know, this technology is coming at us so fast, we don't have all the policies figured out. We are building out the policies as the technology evolves. And that is kind of causing that fear or friction, so to speak. So I think there needs to be this group or the governments actually need to take more ownership and start putting in those guardrails into place from a policy perspective. And that needs to come from the industries themselves, right? There needs to be these thought leaders. I think everybody who is scared of AI should be starting to take an active role to understand it and drive this policy forward. Well, it has to be bipartisan, too. Which right now doesn't look too... Whatever the partisan is, because in other ways it's not just bipartisan like it is in the U.S., but coming back to this question, I got a couple of quick questions for you. One is that you mentioned earlier that the computer scientist probably should not be the one that's necessarily making the decision about a legal issue. It suggests that there's going to be a renaissance of cross-disciplinary skills required within, certainly within computing. Absolutely. So for example, the people that are best at describing how human interactions evolve and maintain might be philosophers, which gets turned into law, talk a little bit about the kind of the renaissance of the whole promise of cross-discipline thinking in computing because we're attacking new kinds of problems that just aren't algorithmic. Exactly. And you need to have deep domain experts deeply involved in building out these AI products. Which is kind of a gap today. So I think you're absolutely right. So second thing is related to that is we've done some research and we're in the midst right now of a pretty sizable project on envisioning what we call, or the needs and how it will be structured, we call systems of agency. So we, you know, you observe the collection of the data that turned the data into value through big data and then to have a consequential action in the real world, we think that there are three different ways that's going to happen. I'm going to bore you right now. But really we're asking these systems to do something on behalf of the brand and increasingly do something in a complex human centered environment. What does, and so effectively be agents for the brand. We know how to distribute authority, or I'm sorry, we know how to distribute data, we know how to distribute processing. How do we think about distributing authority? Using AI. Is that something that people are starting to think about in your estimation, as we think about the people problems associated with this? I think so. I think people are beginning to think about it. There's a lot of investment going on, not only in the technology development part, but also the human side of things. It just doesn't get as much publicity as the technology piece does, right? A robot beating somebody at Go is much more newsworthy. You have huge moral implications for something else. So I've got one more question. Well, by the way, in a narrow sense, would fraud detection be an example of distributing authority? No, because, well, I'll ask you. It's fraud detection and example of distributing authority. It's narrow, but it's somebody, it's a machine making a decision not to fulfill a transaction. Right, but the machine is not making a decision to bring an indictment against someone and really doing fraud. So all the machine's doing is seeing a pattern that might indicate a problem and taking a prophylactic step to avoid it. They, the machine is not declaring fraud. No, and there are two things to it, right? The machine, before it declares fraud, it's been trained, it's been built by a human, it's been trained by human, right? Before it declares, before it goes into production and declares fraud, there has been a lot of training done by human where they're saying, yes, no, this is right, this is wrong, to say, so the training is crucial that comes from humans and also once it's in production, there's a human in the loop who's watching it. Who still has agency rights. Exactly, so the human is still there. So I have one more question, I have one more question. And that other question is, at least in the US, because AI is software, at least in the US, the most software is covered under copyright law, which means what software does is a speech act, which has implications for whether or not you can go after a company because their software did something wrong. AI, as an agent, can't be a speech act. There's got to be some other remediation. We have to expect more from brands that deploy this. How is that going to evolve in your estimation? I think the policy part, that's where it becomes more important, right? And if you, recently there was a news of a robot being given citizenship, I mean, besides the marketing and hype, what does that entail? It's making us question fundamental things and the policy aspect has to cover a lot of new scenarios which we've just haven't had to think about in our whole life, right? It's just arising a lot of new scenarios that are going to make us create new policies around it. So, I mean, this is a very interesting discussion. And when I hear it, I think about what can humans do that machines can't do?  Yeah, yeah, they can do, yes. Gymnastics. Yeah, right. So, I don't know, do you think in those terms, and I mean, there's empathy, there's maybe negotiation, there's maybe things like decisions on a jury that require humans. Oh, yeah, I'll give you the simplest one, what it cannot do even today. It can write music, which you've probably seen. But, yeah, I still can't tell a joke. Can't write a joke, because it doesn't know, it doesn't understand sarcasm. And it doesn't really have that human aspect of connecting with people and taking conversations forward. Like, just talking to you, I have something called an intuition or perception, which helps me guide this conversation. A machine can't do that, it's just black and white, it goes by data. It's trained, yes. It's trained. Responsive. Yes. I always struggle with the term artificial intelligence. I feel like machine intelligence is more accurate. I struggle with the artificial, I struggle with the intelligence. Yes, it's how you define intelligence. All right, Bita, we have to leave it there.  Yes. Tie it into your future vision. Oh, yes, I am so excited to be here. And I don't know if you've had a chance to walk through the floors, but we're doing some amazing things with AI, with big data. And really looking forward to helping our customers start and execute on their AI journey. B. Naminah, thanks very much for coming in theCUBE. It's great to meet you. Thank you. All right, keep it right there, everybody. We'll be back with our next guest, Dave Vellante for Peter Burris Live from HPE Discover, Madrid, 2018. You're watching theCUBE.


Somalia's Jubiland Regional State Assembly has elected Ilyas Badal Gabose as a fourth member of Somalia's Senate as a more delayed post in the country officially kicked off in the southern port city of Kismayo. But Jubiland Regional Assembly is expected to vote for three more candidates today. Gabose is a former governor of Lower Jubil region and a close ally of Jubiland Regional State President Ahmed Mohamed Islam, also known as Ahmed Madobe. The seats of 54 Senate members are distributed among Somalia's regional administrations. Jubiland State has been allocated eight of those seats. The other regional administrations have not yet announced a date for the re-elections to the two houses of the federal parliament.