Cole. Hi, everyone. We're going to start. Sorry, we're running a few minutes late. Welcome to this session on the alleged transition from a rules-based to a deal-based global order. I'm Jonathan Tepperman. I'm the editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy Magazine. We might as well call this session what happens when the art of the deal becomes the charter for a new global era. The big question that we're tackling today really breaks down, I think, into three separate questions. The first is, have we truly entered a new reality, one defined more by deals than by rules? Two, if yes, what does that actually mean? And three, what can we actually do about it? Now, in the spirit of the new, more egalitarian Davos, I thought I would start the conversation by asking a question of all of you. So I want a show of hands to see who agrees with the basic idea that we really are witnessing a sort of ethical change, a paradigm shift, into a new era in which ad hoc and bilateral agreements, coalitions of the willing, what have you, are replacing the traditional institutions, conventions, and all the stuff that's bound the world together for the last 70 years. So let's take a vote. Who supports that proposition? Looks like the nays have it. What's interesting is the idea has very much become a consensus among at least pundits like me in the last year. And to be fair, there's plenty of evidence for that view from the Trump administration's America First policy to its incessant criticism of international organizations and agreements, to its preference for bilateral dealmaking, and so on. But what makes it more interesting, I think, is it's not just Washington's fault, because we've also seen Europe, which in its handling of the migration crisis, specifically its deal with Turkey, arguably violated the UN Convention on Refugees. There's the Brexit vote. There was Russia's violation of Ukraine sovereignty. There's the failure of the international community to do much of anything on Syria or on the Rohingya crisis, despite nice-sounding international nostrums like R2P. There's China's illegal island building in the South China Sea and so on. And yet, I think despite all of these developments, one could still argue that we make a very different argument, which is that the post-World War II international system, the supposed decline of which is now being bemoaned, never actually worked that well. Or at least it always had these major flaws and gaps that required all these ad hoc deals or unilateral actions by great powers to make the system work. And I think you could even argue that given the way that power has changed and diffused in recent years with an ever-growing group of global corporations, non-state actors, and citizen groups taking on roles that were once only played by nation states. And given that so many of these groups have very different values, that the idea today of trying to hold together an international consensus on major issues may be kind of pointless. And so perhaps ad hoc arrangements are the best that we can hope for.  I know it is for me. Fortunately, we have a fantastic panel here to help sort it out. And what makes this group, I think, so especially exciting is that they represent very different sectors and interests, former government officials, academics, and the corporate world. Let me introduce them starting from my far left. We have Ambassador John Negra Ponte for those of you who don't know if there are any of you. The ambassador is one of these superstar diplomats that the US government has used for about four decades to solve the kind of problems and take on the kind of jobs that nobody else in government wants to do. These have included serving as US envoy to the UN, to Iraq, to Mexico, to Honduras, to the Philippines. He was also the first director of national intelligence under President George W. Bush. To his right is Kishore Mamubani, who is Singapore's John Negra Ponte, or maybe we should say that Negra Ponte is- Wow, that's the biggest company in the entire country. Is Kishore Mamubani. Kishore's also held a long, long chain of diplomatic posts and these days he runs the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at Singapore National University. Next we have, we're very lucky to have Andrew Loveris, chairman and CEO of Dow Chemical, and then finally we have Nairi Woods right next to me, who's a world-renowned economist in dean of Oxford Levatnik School of Government. So to my questions, and I'm gonna ask some and then I'm gonna open it up to all of you. Now, Ambassador Negra Ponte, I'm gonna ask you a question, but I'm gonna give you a pass. So if you don't wanna take this on, just signal it to me and I'll move on to my next one for you. It's clear to everybody that you're not exactly one of President Trump's best friends. That said, because you're the token Republican on our panel, I wanna put you in the hot seat and ask you, if you can tell us a bit about what you think Trump's America first foreign policy actually means in this context, and how do you understand the administration's aversion to multilateral accords like NAFTA, TPPWTO, especially given that these have seemed to serve America's interests so well in years past. Okay, so I'm happy to take at least the first step down the path. And thank you for asking it. I also maybe later on can comment on your fundamental thesis, but I think Mr. Trump's foreign policy is work in progress, and I don't think we should necessarily rush to judgment about it. I remember in President Reagan's time, and don't forget he had six different national security advisors and confusion reigned in the White House for the first several years that he was in office. And yet historians are already marking him down as one of the great presidents in American history. I'm not making a prediction here. I'm just saying that it's not always that easy to tell when you're living through the events. Second point I would say, and maybe this goes to the question of, is there more disruption or is there more continuity in Mr. Trump's foreign policy? And I would say that's just a fundamental tension in the conduct of our foreign relations at this moment. I think there's probably more continuity than Mr. Trump himself would have liked or expected. I think he tried to disrupt a number of things and found that, well, may not be that hard to do. There are all sorts of forces that work constraining and restrating you. And I have particular reference to some of the rather pejorative comments he made about alliances both during and after the election with respect to Japan and Korea. Well, maybe they ought to get nuclear weapons so they're better able to defend themselves and then not willing to reaffirm our commitment to NATO and the attack on one is attack on all under Article 5. He's pulled back from that. He's reaffirmed it. So I think there's real tension. He's disrupted some areas, but not others. And I think there are a couple of them that are really just very much up in the air. And I'll finish on this note. The one that bothers me the most, having been ambassador to Mexico and been there for that negotiation. And I think that would be a terrible pity if the disruptive view prevailed. And I think at the moment we're in some doubt as to what the outcome of the NAFTA discussions are gonna be. Nairi, I wanna turn to you next. Have we actually lost anything? Or was the international system always more aspirational than actual? Well, look, cooperation among governments is always going to be difficult. And so what do you need to make that cooperation work? You need a forum that governments trust to go to and the United States after the war has done that. It's brought countries together. You need some rules that countries agree to be bound by. You need some monitoring and enforcement to back up those rules. That's what you need to help governments do something very difficult, which is to cooperate with one another. But so when we ask this, I agree with Ambassador Negroponte's point that every US president comes to power with a certain bluster about setting a new America first strategy, even if they don't use those words. And within a year or so, it becomes very tempered. Reagan made a hugely anti-United Nations speech before he came to power and then a remarkably 180 degree turn a year later. But I think that doesn't mean that we shouldn't focus on a new kind of diplomacy. And to me, it's not deal-making or cooperation. It's how you go about understanding how to make a deal. Now in 1980, an American political scientist, Robert Axelrod, ran a tournament. He said, look, to cooperate, you don't just need what I just said about rules, et cetera. You need a strategy. So what's the strategy of cooperation which is most likely to help you win? So think about this in your private life, right? Because when they ran this huge competition, 200 entries, computer programmers, game theorists from all over the world, remarkably, the strategy that won was by Father Simplest and it was called TIT for TAT. And what that means is providing the first move is a nice move. It's something that is generous and gives something to the other side. The strategy of reciprocating behavior always ends up with the best result. And that's important to consider because there were all these other strategies saying, hey, but try and make a move on the other side that puts you in an advantageous position. Envy the other side's outcome. Try to underplay the agreement. Try to be sneaky. Try to be clever. And none of those strategies worked to get a better outcome than pure first move cooperate TIT for TAT after that. So why do I say that? In the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford, we have 120 current and future leaders sitting in our classroom from 60 different countries. Some of them have got a lot of experience. We have them play a very simple cooperation game with Xs and Ys. Now the absolute winning strategy is for each group simply to cooperate and agree all to put down an X or all to put down a Y and stack up maximal money. But nine out of 10 of the students doing that, nine out of 10 of the leaders doing that, instead try right from the beginning to undercut their opponents, to beat them, to win more. They calculate that if they get a deduction of that amount and they gain on that. And it's fascinating for me because three weeks after the exercise, students are still coming up to me going, we lost, like how could we have lost, right? So when we talk about the deal, it's not just the deal or cooperation. It's how we make deals. And the simple rule that comes out of this huge Axelrod tournament is be nice, don't be envious and TIT for TAT cooperate. And that's how you get the best deal, whether you're doing it deal by deal or whether you're doing it within a cooperative institution. So is the implication that even if we are moving to a more deals based order, it could be a benign and mutually advantageous one. So it's not something necessarily to be feared. Well, you see, I think what is signaled from the top by the United States president, who is a communicator in chief for the world, is actually very important. Because first it sends a signal about whether the first move the United States is gonna make is gonna be a nice move or an undercutting move. And that's very important for the reason I just spelt out. Otherwise you end up in a downward spiral where you always, all parties always end up with less. And second, the United States does need and has helped provide a stability and predictability about global rules. Lots of countries have not liked those rules, but at least there's been a certain stability and predictability about them. And I think the tweeting president disrupts that. The fact that the United States courts are using the president's tweets as evidence on some of the immigration cases is telling us that what's destabilizing here is communications which seem to undercut the stability and predictability that the United States has conferred on global order. And that's why other countries and other regions are starting to just organize themselves and start building sub-orders and regional orders so that they don't have to be beholden to the unpredictability of Washington DC. Kishor, bring us the view from Asia. First of all, on whether from your vantage point in Singapore, you see a paradigm shift underway. And if you do, whether, A, this is actually going to play to the advantage of China, which will step in as Xi Jinping promised to do last year here at Davos, to play the role of the global guarantor, the world trading system if the United States won't. Whether the old system, in fact, disadvantaged Asia, many emerging markets there and elsewhere. And so if we are seeing a shift, maybe it's not such a bad thing, but it doesn't mean the decline of rules per se, but a shift to a more, or differently balanced rules-based system. I think I'm going to be the good news guy. Because everyone is thinking that the world is falling apart. The good news for you is that the world is not falling apart. And certainly from, if you live in Asia, you don't understand all this pessimism that is sort of draining on you from the West, because from Asia's point of view, the last three decades of Asian history have been the best decades of Asian history in 300 years. So what is that a cry for? And there's also a recognition that a lot of Asia's rise has been due to the rules-based order. And then this, frankly, at the end of the day, the rules-based order that the United States and the West created after World War II was a gift to the rest of the world. And certainly, if you take, for example, United Nations, is the UN working? There's a very simple test of whether UN is working. Look at the long-term trend of conflicts. Is it going like this? Or is it going like this? Just read Stephen Pinker from Harvard. Long-term trend of conflicts is going like this. What is the long-term trend for trade? Like this. What is the long-term trend for global poverty reduction? Like this. What is the long-term trend for life expectancy? Like this. I mean, all the long-term trends tell you that the human condition, actually, has never been better. And from the point of view of the two big winners, certainly China and India, they recognize that it is this rules-based order that has got them to where they are today. And that's why it's very striking that Davos has become the forum where both Xi Jinping and a few minutes ago, Narendra Modi, made it very clear that they want to see the continuation of this cooperative world order, which has actually worked very well for large segments of humanity. And as you know, the timing of Xi Jinping's visit to Davos was very interesting. He saw that with Donald Trump getting elected, pushing an America-first policy, someone had to step up the plate, say, hey, let's not give up the rules-based order. And that was the trust of his speech last year. This morning, you just heard Narendra Modi said, very, very clearly and very categorically, India believes that we live in one world and we have to cooperate in this one world. He said, treat Mother Earth as your mother and treat her with respect and so on and so forth, form a trustee-ship. So all these sort of commitment to a better world is there. But of course, I must emphasize as someone like John, and we were colleagues together in the UN Security Council. We weren't playing it as an exercise either. That's good to hear. And you were also saying it better, right? And the world has never been a perfect place in any dimension. And the rules-based order has never been a perfect rules-based order. And even in the rules-based order, you had to make exceptions and make deals. I'm going to give you a classic example of everyone thinking about trade issues. People forget in the 1980s, the big devil in the trade world was not China, but Japan. And so at the end of the day, when Japanese car exports became too many, you formed a deal. You created a deal. Slow down, guys, slow down. You'll take this many cars and the rest please manufacture in the US and so on and so forth. So in theory, it was a violation of the open markets and so on and so forth. In practice, it was a recognition of a political reality that you have to live with. And so in the real world, as long as the, I would say, for most of the spectrum, the rules-based order works. And I would say even roughly 70 to 80 percent the rules-based order works. And then there are the exceptions where you make deals and you say, okay, I cannot play by the rules. I've got to suspend the rules here and so on and so forth. But the final point I'm going to make, of course, is an important one. At the same time, the China and India also want to see some changes to the rules-based order. And I'll give a very simple, easy example for you to remember. We still have a rule that says that to become the head of the IMF, you must be a European. To become the head of the World Bank, you must be American. And that rule hasn't changed in 50, 60 years. Now, please, there are 3.5 billion Asians. They're reasonably smart people. Surely one Asian can run the IMF or one Asian can run the World Bank. That time has come. So those sorts of things you have to change. Create more space for China and India. And in the process, if you create more space for China, India and ASEAN or so, then they become the principal stakeholders in this rules-based order, which was a gift from the West to the world. But we want to be part of it. Let me just push you on one point you made about India and China. It's true that there's been this remarkable shift in rhetoric from the leaders of both countries in the last few years on their role in sustaining the international order. You know, if you had gone to China just five years ago, as I did, and asked people about the international system, you traditionally, you generally heard two things, which is, one, the system is very unfair to China. The deck is stacked against us. But when you then asked, okay, is China ready to play the role of a global guarantor, they would say, no, no, no, no. We're a poor country. We can't be expected to do it.  Well, I'm glad you said you were there five years ago because the lot has changed in the last five years. And to give you the most dramatic example, and this is actually, I'm very surprised that China and India did this, okay? Technically, there's absolutely no reason for China and India to take on obligation to deal with climate change because they can say, climate change is not just due to flows of greenhouse gas emissions, but to the stock of greenhouse gas emissions that the West put in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution. So you pay for the stock, we pay for the flows. That could have been a zero-sum game within China, India, and the West. Which was an argument they made. But the fact that China and India change significantly, and the fact that both China and India have now agreed to take on significant responsibilities in climate change, is actually quite surprising to me. Well, that's a result of the recognition that, hey, we have to do something too. Andrew, President Trump has defended and justified his approach to international affairs by arguing that the conduct of interstate relations should be done more like business. And that business is about deals not about rules. And that business leaders can in fact get all this work done in a more efficient fashion. Do you think actually his characterization is right? And that the world of politics has a lot to learn from the way things are done in the world of business? So the qualifier the Ambassador put in on in terms of interpreting President Trump from a geopolitical point of view, I'd also put on from a business point of view, President Trump's entire regime is family business. It's not corporations. And it's certainly not operating internationally. So he's in a steep learn as you go type environment. And the good news about this presidency and his key members, he's got an incredible team. This team is very open to learning from the business community on what makes business tick on a multinational international level. So that also from an optimistic point of view, and I've certainly been part of many, many sessions where I now see a game changing attitude in terms of how global American based corporations can look to their government to play a role in conversations that were they were previously absent in. Now I call that deals of a different type. And if I wanna dial back to post World War II, I've spent 42 years at my institution. So most of the last 70 years, the 42 years I've spent in the global world order. I wanna remind everyone when I started the world, the whole globe had a lot of pink on it. That was the British Empire. We evolved from that. And then suddenly we've got... You're not that old. Well, I'm just letting everyone know that what is a global order? It's changed three or four times just in my career lifetime. Even the term multinational, what does that mean versus global? There was a period of time where every presentation made in every boardroom, you had the USA, maybe North America, you had Europe, and then you had ROW, rest of world. And that's how we categorized the China's and the India's. And so I just wanna remind everyone that the lens here, if you're looking at lens, this new global order of ours is not all that old. And frankly, the topic that hasn't come up yet that we in the business community understand very well is the commoditization of everything, except for human talent. And so with the digital world arriving, the commoditization of information, the downside risks of cyber, this has created a whole new type of competitor out there. And when you throw on top of that, that we're operating in jurisdictions which aren't necessarily capitalist democracies where the rules are not coming from the heart of capitalism, then frankly, global multinationals or global companies like ours are the best equipped to help answer the question of whether this is rules-based or deals-based. I would venture to say to you, we're at a tipping point that the world is moving to this incredible world where we're all connected and we have to work together. We have to master this incredible speed of life that we're all living in and use it without official intelligence arriving, use it so the benefit of all humankind. Yet, our political systems of which people here on this panel are much better equipped than I am to comment on when you look at capitalist democracies, it's created income inequality that has led to populism that's led to this pushback. And so this collision, this collision of these forces is causing all of us to back away and say, well, just a second, is the market model that the US created post World War II where the US is the market for all and everyone can benefit from that market and the jobs get created everywhere else. Whether the jobs get created in the United States or not is a consequence, it's not a need. We've just upended that with this election where I was chairman of the business council not long ago where I had chaired a meeting and I said, we all in the room, 100 CEOs of companies like Dow, may we'll have to answer the question for the first time that we've never had to answer. Are we a global company based in the United States or are we an American company that operates globally? We've never had to think about that before and why not? Well, because we allocate capital to wherever capital gives us the biggest return. We haven't had to think about what the jobs are in the US versus Mexico or China. I mean, we create jobs, period. Two thirds of Dow when I started was in the United States in terms of revenue and assets. Two thirds of Dow is now outside the United States in terms of revenue and assets thanks to the growth of these wonderful economies on that model. Are we really moving from a rules-based order to a deal-based, I don't think that's the question. I think we're moving from a rules-based order to a new set of rules-based order and I think we're all gonna be part of formulating what those rules are like. Well, so that was the question I was gonna ask which is as we move through this paradigm shift that you're discussing and multinational corporations face these challenges, how are they best addressed? Is it on an individual corporate by corporate basis or do you see a new collaborative model emerging where these answers can be addressed cooperatively? Well, right now, we're being forced into our various tribes. So we're being forced into our nation's capitals, whatever our company is, and we're being forced to answer from a tribal point of view. I venture to say to you that question you just asked has not been answered and global business communities actually starting to address it through connecting our various business councils and roundtables, because we are all connected and companies like Dow where everywhere, so we're members of every council, but a state or an enterprise in China or an emerging company out of India only belongs to their various entities. We aren't even connected in the business community yet on your question. I do think it is an unanswered question. What's the institution that can help broker this new world-based order, that rules-based order that we're talking about? I'll finish with this one statement. I have now witnessed a paradigm shift in terms of negotiation with foreign states, whereas on a global American company operating in some foreign jurisdiction before had no leverage, we suddenly have leverage and I didn't ask for it because people are now worried about the United States. People are worried that if we don't give an American company a shot, my company won't get a shot in the U.S. It's had an unintended consequence, which is actually amazing. And maybe that at the end of the day is President Trump's strategy. Can I pick up on two things that Andrew has said that I think are very powerful and important, because there are two things that are changing international cooperation very quickly.  There are a large portion of Americans saying, why has it become as dangerous to give birth on average in America as it is in some developing countries? So that story of up, up, up is not working and we're seeing whether it's in the Philippines or Brazil or the United States or Britain or Germany or France, a huge backlash to that, a sense put in caricature that the establishment have been ruling for themselves and for their own benefit and leaving out the mass of people and therefore they're not trusted as legitimate. And so let's go to the new populists who are promising salvation of a new kind. And that makes international cooperation, I think, more difficult. But there's another force that Andrew touched on that's also happening and that's the digital revolution, the revolution in data, the commoditization of data, which is separating governments very quickly. There are some governments for whom this is an instrument of complete control of the population because they have access to all of that data, they can know what time their citizens are getting up, where they bought their coffee, which bus they took to work. Literally, if you're using WeChat for every transaction you're making or if the government is managing to digitize every transaction of its citizens and it has access to all of that information, suddenly the power of the government becomes almost absolute. We're almost in a kind of Orwellian state. Whereas for others, we're seeing the digitization create in Estonia a kind of different utopia of no government at all but just a platform. And somewhere in the middle there, our government's struggling to work out what a digital transformation means. And that's gonna make international cooperation, it's gonna take us back to the basics of what makes international cooperation work. We can't have this cozy 1990s vision of every country in the world heading in some way towards democracy and free market policies, which was very much the paradigm we had. We've now got to deal in a world where countries actually have very different models and I would say even more than ever, we need forums for those countries to come up with rules which they agree on and to use for tax strategies positively to cooperate. Right, and you're making a very interesting point about an important one about inequality, which is not just that it's expanding within countries, but by some measures it's expanding between countries. Now, in a GDP sense we're, I think, still seeing convergence, but we're seeing major differences opening up on the digital divide, for example. Not just countries where people have broad-based digital access, but on how technology is used in countries, some countries versus the way it's used in others, right? Which will have vast implications both for the citizens of the countries and how their countries perform against others. We're already more than halfway through the session, so I wanna open questions up to the floor if we have any. If not, we still have plenty to talk about, but we'd love to bring you into the conversation if anyone has anything to ask or add. Yeah, please, Ishan. And if you just mind, stand up and identify yourself, please. Hi there, Ishan, the ruler of the Washington Post. Thank you so much for your remarks. Just a quick question to pin on to the discussion. Does the fact or do aspirations toward democracy have any more of a role in conceiving the new world order that is emerging? Is this another divide between... I mean, the obvious exception to the democratization of the world is China. And I can safely say that China is not gonna become a democracy in the next 10, 20, maybe 30 years. There was a time, I would say, when the sort of more thoughtful intellectuals in China actually thought that as we grow, as we progress, of course, our natural destination in one form or another is to also become a democracy. But something has changed in China. And now I think clearly the attraction of democracy has gone down and the problems of the democratic world, clearly, you know, the populist backlash, the emergence of Donald Trump has made them aware that actually, if you open up the, I would say, the political environment in China, the likelihood of a populist nationalist figure emerging in China is far greater than anywhere else because there's a lot of burning nationalism, as you know, in China. And sometimes I say that actually President Xi Jinping is actually delivering a global public good by restraining nationalism in China and making sure that China is more or less trying to play by the rules as much as possible. But if you had a democracy in China, you actually end up with a much stronger, more populist, more nationalist leader. But this doesn't mean that the long-term direction changes. I think most societies in most parts of the world still obviously, that's very clear, aspire to become democracies because most of us really want to live in societies where we have a say in the political outcome of that society. That long-term trend is true, but it's no longer a simple straight line. There'll be lots of detours now in history. And just to add one little important qualification to where we are in terms of the point of history, there was also a time, I would say, let's say in the 70s and 80s, where you said essentially there was modernization, men, westernization. And they were sort of, they were hand in glove together. Now clearly what you're seeing in Asia, you're seeing modernization without westernization. And this is not just true of China, but I mean, as you know, if you watch Narendra Modi, watch how he dresses, what language he speaks. You know, any other Prime Minister of India before now would have spoken in English in Davos. He said, no, I will speak in Hindi. So that distinction between modernization and westernization is growing by leaps and bounds in Asia. And therefore, the difficult thing for the West now is that you've got to deal with modernized people who are not westernized.  So how do you deal with them? That's a new challenge. But I think just to your point about Xi Jinping wanting to sort of keep the lid on things so that they can cooperate with the international community. All you have to do is look at what they have at stake, the size of their economy, the degree of its integration with the global economic system, the level of exports. I think that is one of the fundamental points that we have in common. And I think the reverse, if you think about Russia and one of the reasons it seems to feel like it can behave more disruptively, it doesn't have as much stake in the international system. Its level of trade with the United States is one-tenth, order of magnitude less than what we have with China. And who's being disruptive of the global world order? I would say Russia more so than China. Kishore, please, Nae. No, I just think coming back to your question about the aspiration to democracy. To me, I guess we're seeing the results of democracies being very complacent, not just about their values, but about representative democracy itself, where in every region of the world, people are looking at a government that's supposed to be representative and saying, I can't see anyone in government that looks like me, that sounds like me, and that's offering me something better. Which is Kishore's point about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. And I think there are really powerful lessons that democracies are now gonna have to learn in order to innovate. They've got to become more representative, right? Otherwise, they simply won't be permitted to rule. They've got to think about the distribution issues that Andrew was mentioning. They've got to, we've got to move from this very restrained pragmatic politics where we think about politics as restraints on government to a politics which responds much more to represent and to mobilize and to give people hope. And so I think the aspiration to democracy is there in every part of the world. And it's in the process of being reinvented. And the exciting thing is that we're seeing, and I see this in my day job every day at the School of Government, we're seeing brilliant leaders from the private sector, from the not-for-profit sector, and from the public sector say, I now want to serve. I wanna serve my community. I want to serve the public interest. I want to be part of this exciting moment rebuilding a politics that answers to communities. One of the interesting and potentially disturbing implications of the failure of representative democracy is not just the rise in populism, but as a recent cube poll shows, a burgeoning of support throughout Western and emerging democracies for democracy by direct plebiscite for referendums instead of representative democracy. And you don't have to look far, and you can just point to Brexit to acknowledge, recognize the challenges and the threats that those kind of plebiscites which sound, ultimately democratic in theory, but can actually be extremely problematic in practice. Yeah, and in Switzerland is an interesting place to talk about that, of course, because Switzerland is one of the countries which is arguably the most democratic in the world in the sense that it's a country ruled by plebiscite and referendum, and the Swiss will argue that it prevents them from doing a lot of things, but the state nonetheless functions fairly well, but whether that could work so well in countries like the United States or Britain or France or Germany is not at all clear. I mean, I think the thing we have to be aware of is in any leadership role, whether it's in the private sector or in the public sector in government, we should be wary of leaders who try to shrug off responsibility, and my problem with direct democracy, and the reason why Mrs. Thatcher called it the tool of demagogues and dictators, is that it's a way of avoiding taking responsibility for decisions. Now, the Swiss government is quite special. It took a referendum and then decided that was not in the national interest, and that's giving, that's the role the representative government should play, because government decisions are really difficult. One professor at UCLA worked out that the 51 balloted issues that the citizens of California were asked in the last presidential election, like this is direct democracy, that it would take a senior professor from Berkeley a couple of years to get enough information to vote on just a dozen of those issues, right? That's why over the last 2000 years, human beings have created representative democracy, because every decision a government makes creates winners and losers and trade-offs, and you need information. So we appoint representatives to work with specialists to weigh out those trade-offs and make decisions. So beware of the politician that says, ooh, I don't wanna take responsibility for the outcome of this decision, so let me use a referendum or a plebiscite so that I can blame it on the people. But ask yourself, what do the people then do if it's a really bad decision? Who do they blame for it? You can't vote the people out, you can't get rid of the people. Hi, I must say I want to agree with Gary that beware of plebiscite democracy, because I mean, for governments actually, actually I was gonna mention Jonathan, I stepped down as dean of the Lee Kuan Yee School of Public Policy three weeks ago, but I was dean for 13 years, and I can tell you there's a dean of a school of public policy, challenges of governance today are getting more difficult, more complex, and harder to deal with. And so the idea that you can give the man in the street an instant decision to make on some issues that which have significant long-term implications, you know, like healthcare and so on and so forth, so it's actually better to go back to the old balance of representative democracy where you elect a government for five years and then you hold them accountable five years later. That, I think, is a better model because that gives them the time then in the first two years to actually make some of the unpopular decisions that they have to make, you know, give up some subsidies, you know, maybe cut them expenses and so on and so forth, which they have to do otherwise, you know. So that five-year cycle or four-year cycle, I think, is a better way of democracy, and Brexit really shows us the danger of plebiscite democracy because at the end of the day, most of the thoughtful British people I speak to say, this is actually like committing national suicide, but you can't reverse costs. Can I just pile on maybe a practical example of why this topic is so critical to this deals question versus rules? During the TPP conversations under President Obama, many of us went through our factories and talked to the people on the shop floor about why trade at a trade deal like that was good for their jobs, okay? You'd be stunned, maybe you wouldn't be, the how absent of knowledge the voter is on what it means for them, okay? Not the big headline in the Wall Street Journal, a lot of the stuff we're all reading, what it means for them on the shop floor. So we have disconnected, okay, and made more complex topics for the well-being of humanity, like job creation, okay? Societal benefits and how we can help people through great education systems. We've disconnected it from the people who voted the last president in, and I think that maybe in the other countries that you all referenced. I think I would notice that on the shop floor, and I'm based in the Midwest of the US, so many of the people who voted President Trump in, many of my employees, and I would tell you, I was doing my own straw poll through that whole cycle of the 16 becoming, 14 becoming, all the way down to his election, and it was very obvious in around September, October, that he was gonna make it. Really? Very obvious. If you just listen to them. Now I, like all of you, probably was reading other things and saying, no, it can't be. But if you were just listening to that constituency, okay, my employees, it was an inevitability that he would make it. Wow. And it does speak to this connectivity that we need to find in representative democracy, and Nari, I totally support what you said. This next generation who is generating the value of the digital economy as we speak, we need to give them a chance to come in, and I'm encouraged, I was with President Macron last night in Paris. I mean, you know, that's, a new type of politician needs to emerge to help connect the dots between that person on the shop floor, okay, and topics that we have here at Davos. But do we need a new paradigm and a new type of politician? Because after all, if governments had, take the U.S. government, if governments since the Clinton administration, the Bill Clinton administration, had simply done what they'd promised to do all along, which is to help buffet American workers from these de-stabilizing trends, changes coming from globalization and technology. If they had simply delivered on all of those problems, wouldn't we be in much better shape than we are today? If you take a CEO's viewpoint, we have delivered, we're the same size today workforce-wise in the U.S. as we were 15 years ago, and we're five times our size, revenue-speaking. We have used technology incredibly well, but we haven't created the jobs that the school system is producing. We have a mismatch between the education system and the jobs we've created. That's right. That is the biggest chasm that's sitting out there. But that's arguably a failure of government. That is a failure of the system, which includes the private. We all need to put together our minds on this one, because there are 500,000 open STEM jobs in the United States right now, and the system is producing 50,000 a year. But I also think it's very important to remember that in a world where there's so much information and much of it is confusing, for a voter, a citizen, to work out whether a government has delivered on its promise or not is difficult. And that's why, actually for the last several decades, voters, a lot of voting takes place on the basis of identity. In other words, swamped by the possibilities of whether a politician's doing a good job or not, voters just simply ask themselves, which one can I trust the most or which one can I distrust the least to look after my interests? And very often the answer to that is the one I can identify with or the one that is speaking a language I can identify with. And I think that's what we have to capture. Otherwise we get lost in this technocratic, if we just report our GDP figures, then we'll get the votes. We have to remember that people will vote on the basis of trust. And as the Edelman results that were reported this morning show, trust in government is hugely declining. And so is trust in CEOs and such like. But you're not making an argument for candidates that I'd like to have a beer with, are you? It's, look, I'd like to have a beer with. That's in the school of government, I think we have a duty to teach future leaders to really listen. And that's very different to what professional schools were doing a decade ago, which is credentialing people. And there's still the occasional student that comes, I can remember an Indian student last year saying, I want to come and do it at this degree because if I've got a Harvard degree and Oxford degree, you know, et cetera, then I'll stand more chance in politics in India, right? And thinking maybe not, right? Maybe not. Maybe that's not the times that you're living in. So, but teaching people listens hard. You know, a lot of people think listening is simply stopping talking until you're gonna speak or that the job of the listener is to translate what this person is saying into the technocratic language that you and your colleagues understand. And then you've lost the game because what that person wants to know is you've heard their concern and can voice it in their language. And that's where politicians like Narendra Modi get it right. Can I jump in on your question about the impact on society and the frustration with globalization and all of that?  I don't know how the tax system never found him but that seems to happen in Europe somehow. And it's all legit, it's all above board. But he said he could never tolerate, stand having that wealth if he didn't have as much confidence in the social welfare system of his country. And I think that's one of the big problems we have in the United States. And I read a fascinating book that was recommended to me by the chairman of Barclays a few months back called The Precariat. I don't know if you've heard of this book. It's a combination of the words precarious and proletariat. Guy standing, he's a British fellow. And he talks about this as a global problem of people living on sort of contract labor, not getting the benefits, having these jobs but none of the, and I don't know how many of my friends have children in the United States, at least one or two of whom don't have any benefits associated with the work that they do. And if the Congress had just decided instead, our debate is going in the completely wrong direction on this, but if we had just established a single payer universal healthcare system, I think we would have relieved a lot of anxiety in our society, a lot. Even to the point where people might be much more accepting of the entire system. I say this as a Republican. Can I just add something? And I hope I don't make myself a bit unpopular. Please do. You know, that is obviously, I would say the challenges that are being faced by democracies in both North America, United States and Europe are very significant. And I think you have to find a way of dealing with the anxieties of your working classes. They're very, very real. But I always add the qualification that the West makes up 12% of the world population. And 88% of the world lives outside the West. And so it's always important to nuance these discussions and say, talk also about different parts of the world and how their situation can be quite different. So by contrast, for example, with the kind of a pessimistic dialogue that you would find, let's say in Europe, for example, about the future, you will find a much more optimistic dialogue about the future when you talk to many of the society's nations. I'm gonna disagree with you so that we can provoke here. Because I simply... You know Asia better than I do. Well, I simply don't buy the argument about that this is a Western problem. When I look at the rise of Duterte in the Philippines of the opponents of Jokowi in Indonesia, when I look at the rise of Bolsonaro, who's now running top of the polls in Brazil. To me, these are issues. When I look at the problems which the Chinese government put at the top of their list to deal with, which are very much about trust in public officials, making sure that their public officials are less corrupt, more responsive, eventually better paid. Then I don't think there is this divide. And I know in the school, we encourage everyone coming into the school to try to stop believing that their one country is unique while all other countries are similar. Because I think we all start with that. We know our own country's history and social conditions and such like. Whereas I think this is a moment where the whole world can learn from each other. And the fact that we're seeing these populist reactions from the West of Africa, right across Asia, to Latin America and across Europe, I think there are real lessons there and they're powerful. Speaking of democracy, do we have any more questions from the audience? Right here, please. And we're running low on time, so I'll ask you to make it quick, please. Zhang Zhao running a private equity fund that is resummoning globally by investing Chinese economy in the last 10 years. I've noticed economists global, politics is more and more national. So there's obviously an old rule which is the advanced country established with all the good attention and for many years good result. We need a new rule. And India and China came here and saying, we're a rule binding citizen of a new order, but we need to be part of the rule making. How do we make that happen? And if there's another question, I'll take that now and then we'll let the panelists finish up. If not, yeah, please. My name is Anizan, I'm a Buja Global Shaper. So in this new world order where bilateral agreements are becoming more relevant, what happens to the countries that don't have that much to negotiate talking about Africa specifically? Two great questions. How do we bring China and India into the rule making process better and what do we do about the countries that get left behind because they don't have that much throw weight? China and India is actually easy to answer because they're simple things you can do. Like as you know, in the IMF and World Bank is the size of your voting shares that reflects how much decision making capacity you have in the IMF. And for a long time until a few years ago, China had less votes than Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg combined. That's been changed by the way. But the voting shares in the IMF must reflect the current share of global GNP. In theory, that's supposed to happen in practice, the time lag is enormous. Get rid of the time lag, change it now. So politically, it hasn't happened and that's one of the gripes particularly that India would have, for example, that it's not a permanent member of the UN Security Council. And that's not likely to happen because speaking of deals, Franklin Roosevelt made a deal with the US Congress in 1945 that the UN Charter wouldn't be ratified unless there was a veto and it's the permanent members of today who are keeping the council, the permanent membership from expanding. And doesn't this also speak to the other question about how we bring in countries that aren't able to muscle the rate of the table because they don't have that, the economic or other power. Well, I think you've got some surrogates for the Security Council now, like the group of the G20, I think has started to play a little bit of that role. But I think that's still a challenge before the international community and our leadership as to how to help emerging and growing economies, the rising powers, get a more equitable share, equitable place at the table. Well, I think that's an excellent place to end. And I was told we have to stop right on time because Kate Blanchett wants the room when we're done. And I'm not gonna argue with her. So please just join me in thanking this fabulous panel. Thanks, Bob. Thank you. Beautiful.


Titanium implants are commonly used for orthopedic and dental surgeries, but recent studies have raised concerns about their long-term durability and reliability. A recent clinical case demonstrated that even when no significant trauma or external forces were present, titanium implants could still fracture. This was attributed to a combination of factors, including abutment design flaws, material fatigue, and biomechanical stresses placed on the implant during functional loading. These findings raise questions about the safety and reliability of titanium implants in high-stress areas like the posterior region or weight-bearing bones. Scanning electron microscopy revealed the fracture site near the prosthetic platform, demonstrating the fragile nature of titanium implants. This article was authored by Joao Paulo-Mendes Trippst, Ari Werner, and Eric J. Blom.


Hey, it's Annelia Contara from Adweek and for all of you not at South by Southwest this year, we are, so we wanted to show you what it's like. So let's go. So right behind me is Nando Likes the Food Effect. It's an activation meant to start a dialogue about food. There's a 360 video experience, it's had a lettuce head, a DNA hacking game, and even a phone bank where you can listen to issues of hunger across the world. So let's go see what's about. So right behind me is a whole wall of phones where if you pick it up and listen you'll hear from someone who's suffering from hunger issues in the world or someone who's trying to end those hunger issues across the world. And if you listen to the recording fully, a meal will be donated to the Feeding America Network of Food Banks. So right behind me is a big lettuce head where inside is a 360 video experience where you get to see dairy algae and vertical farming and how technology influences them. So let's go see. Right behind me is a big DNA helix where you play a DNA hacking game. You have three different scenarios each with a big food issue and you have to figure out the right DNA combination to save and fix the problems. So let's go play around. We're here at Biceland's activation where the whole point is to get people familiar with the TV channel and the brand. The Biceland bus is behind me where a mini party is happening and there's also baby goats to play with because who doesn't love baby goats. There's also plenty of merch people can pick up and take home with them. We're here at Sony's Bath Studio where there's AI dogs, an acoustic audio journey, and AR air hockey. So let's go check it out. This is Ibo, an AI robotic dog. As you can see he responds to a lot of touches both on his head, underneath his mouth, and on his back. He has a camera right here on his nose. You can take photos of you and your family and he can tell certain things like it's dark in the house, he knows it's time to go to bed, he needs to recharge, he'll also go to his charging pad and he barks. So right behind me is air hockey, an augmented reality game where you play actual air hockey with a puck and everything but then virtual pucks show up on the screen. You have to hit the virtual pucks as well and this whole light show gets created and it gets to see exactly like how fast the pucks are being hit and it's pretty cool. So let's go play. We're here at Ben Mio's the Decay Theater where they're highlighting 10 years of staff picks so let's check out the activation. This is the first thing you see when you walk into the activation. It's moving movie posters of the films being celebrated here at Ben Mio. So let's go. So that's just one day at South by Southwest. Hopefully you enjoyed it and didn't get too much from her. Bye.


So, welcome everyone. It's our great pleasure today to have another knowledge dissemination dialogue and today's presentation is by Manuel Caballe from FAO. He'll be talking about exploring an integrated approach to AMR control in food and agriculture, talking some voices from the field, results from a former field school pilot that he's done. Just a little bit of background, hopefully you can still see my slide, background here in terms of logistics. We'd ask that all the participants keep their background microphones on mute if you would like to rename yourself so your organization is shown so we can acknowledge you if you have questions. Those views presented here are those of the speakers and not specifically of FAO. And I know our speaker knows this but for any participants please refrain from advertising any services or commercial products or anything in the chat. And finally, post your questions in the chat and we will go through those and answer them at the presentation after the presentation during the discussion period. So, again acknowledge that this meeting is being recorded. If you do not wish to be heard, don't say anything. The video recording in the PowerPoint will be posted on our FAO YouTube channel for sharing in the future. So with that I'm going to stop sharing my screen and I'm going to pass the microphone over to Manuel if you'd like to share your screen. Please go ahead with the presentation. Thank you very much, Jeff and Emmanuel Cavalli. I'm sharing, I'm doing this presentation on behalf of our big team working on EMR at the FAO on a project that is funded by the Fleming Fund. Are you able to see my screen? Yes, it looks great. Please proceed. I'm sharing the correct screen in for presentation mode. Thank you. So a little bit of background, you can see the title of the presentation has changed a little bit because we are a bit more on the action-oriented side of the fight against EMR. And I'll really run through the presentation with those that outline and looking at how we came to set up for this approach in trying to promote good practices in agriculture and specifically animal production to fight EMR. So a little bit of a background. We work in a project funded by the Fleming Fund and this is a multi-country project that is run by FAO but provides support to member countries. We are present in 12 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in South and Southeast Asia and we target 12 countries, 7 in Africa and 5 in Asia. When we started around 2016-2017, our main thrust was to support the implementation of the FAO action plan on EMR through the project. Our project was perfectly designed and aligned to the FAO action plan and so we had four objectives similar to the FAO action plans for objectives and our overarching focus was to improve laboratory capacity and diagnosis as well as data and surveillance of EMR. We're also focusing on building capacity to collect drug resistance data in food and agriculture sectors to enable the sharing of drug resistant data locally, regionally and internationally and to collect data on EMR and also to encourage the application of this data to promote the rational use of antimicrobials and the presentation today is really around how the last bullet point has driven us to adopt the farmer fields approach. So specifically under that objective number four, we're focusing on good practices in the food and agriculture sector and based on international instruments such as the Codex and to make sure that these are available too and they're implemented in the target country in the 12 target countries that we had. We were also focused on supporting communities of EMR practice and to initiate behaviour change pilots and application of adult learning methods to promote good practice around antimicrobial use. We also targeted to contribute to the mass of data through peer-reviewed scientific journals and at some point we of course had the usual boxes you have to take on your project and I think in the we had a three-year project and at the beginning of the third year we had this text box I extracted this for framing and this and the question we were asking our superiors in Rome were asking us as a team is are we winning because if you look at the very last row here we were looking at a proportion of targeted key stakeholders reporting change in practices and behaviours related to the use of antimicrobials and what's 75 percent in this in this third year of the project but deep down our hearts we were asking and our minds is this correct are we are we on track are we actually winning are we doing this the right way and in a sense for me I I take it that we were talking to ourselves who are speaking to professionals we are speaking to veterinarians who are speaking amongst ourselves in a language we have very vested pharmaceuticals regulatory regulatory science distribution of drugs but and and thanks to to our leaders at that time the the project leads in Rome we knew we were missing an opportunity there was something we could do right and and we had this opportunity to do it and so we we we had the confidence then to try and shift our approach on objective for from a veterinary biological science driven approach to something else something more social science approach based something more downward looking and something more bottom-up approach and I've I've skipped a lot of slides here maybe a hundred slides to get to this slide because we eventually decided let's go to the countries selected countries that were interested let's go and listen to the farmers let's go and hear the people on the ground what really matters to them what does MR mean to them and with the with the support of our social science team and led by Mac Obonio and I think at this time with working with Professor Dennis Pirongaba we went to the five countries in Africa that's Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe and conducted cup studies that involved a little over 700 farmers and we with we did knowledge attitude and practice studies among farmers their veterinarians and agro agro vets and we had quite interesting results coming out of that for instance AM use and MR patterns were by diverse range of behaviors were affected and influenced by diverse range of behaviors across the production cycle and therefore we realized very quickly that a single target intervention was unlikely to be successful exactly what we had seen in the in the in the three years previous to this we also noted that respondents knowledge of and of and attitudes towards AM use and MR did not predict their AM use and MR relevant practices and so we concluded there that awareness raising alone was not likely to produce the behavior change we were desiring and and and therefore by implication we realized MR needed interventions and approaches that can target practices across different production variable chains and also expanded beyond just raising awareness so we started the project with if we tell them the best practices these are the standards don't do this do that process meet this way to safeguard a life and keep keep the quality and that wasn't going going to work really and and so we moved forward and and and explored and thanks again to our social science team we explored what the best approach would be to try and change behaviors and we eventually chose the farmer field school approach and and with this approach our main aim our high level target was to try and and and generate data for action around MR AM use and AM residues to inform policy and and and other action on MR that take a one health approach um we're quite aware that lack of high quality data on MR AMU and AMC are a major barrier to effective and informed decision making and this is much bigger than just behaviors investments into MR from from the grassroots up to the global level really requires a reliable data and we noted that we we struggle to have and demonstrate those reliable data so I'll take a step back a little bit and assuming that others that will listen to this may not really be aware of what we are speaking about so the farmer field school what is it and this is is an initiative that was crafted by FL a little over 30 years ago and it's called a school without wars and and at this school we have 15 to 25 up to 30 farmers with a common interest learning best ways of production through observation and experimentation and and there is a facilitator who guides the discussion and and and the group meets at least once a week or twice a week or or twice a month depending on the production cycle they are working in so it's quite flexible in that sense the length of the field school is usually around a full production cycle and and in poetry when we are doing layers it runs for around six months at least we rent some for that long and when you look at broilers it will run for around one cycle run for around six to eight weeks there are a few steps in the implementation of the field school so a typical field school session is around three to five hours and it involves conducting having a roll call and having a roll call and conducting an ecosystem and ecosystem process coder ESSA and there are group dynamics involved so everyone is expected to participate once in a while based on the group's demand we we we bring special topics to to a session where they learn about a specific technical even including social and other issues and then there's a review of the day's work and and the plan for the next session just to be clear an ESSA is an agroecological ecosystem analysis and specifically when we do for instance the broiler production it's it's renamed a BESA so a broiler ecosystem analysis a few critical characteristics of a field school is that we we we emphasize the use of non-formal adult learning which is experimentation and hands-on on the in the field learning we also focus on a farmer driven learning experience with co-creation as as one of the key drivers of the solutions to to the presented problems we have a problem solving and the local knowledge embracing approach so every answer is correct and of course the facilitator is there to in a way sense check the approaches but not to hand not about a top-down handing of solutions approach and sometimes we have in-depth understanding of the ecology and the local constraints and and the facilitator just facilitates and not teachers as as I have said so we are also able to run experiments depending on the demand or also the focus of of the intervention and in this case for instance we in the picture as you can see farmers have their own approaches and and they work as a community they work as a team together at a host farm and the host farm is where one of the farmers hosts the school and the other farmers visit the school and they and they grow in this case the cycle of product who are looking at layers in this case this is of course guided by by by facilitator so when we set up the field schools from the cap we had we had we had five countries of course one country in this case Tanzania found the approach in layers of broilers not feasible at the time so we took a different approach and worked with with with the maasai the the the pastoralists but in the four countries where we actually applied the the farmer field schools we implemented 25 field schools and we had about 750 poultry farmers participate the the farmer field school learning curriculums were informed by the the cap studies and several ffs especially under the broiler lasted multiple cycles and we are proud to say for two years now cycles some of the field schools are still are still running we also affirmed an evaluation around the layer field schools and these were conducted in in in Dana and in Kenya and the idea here was to do a cross-sectional survey comparing farmer field school graduates with a sample of non-farmer field school graduates and we had about 154 farmers participate in the evaluation this evaluation ran for a course of six months and and so we were trying to check the adherence of of graduates to to practices that they had learned during the the cycles of of their practice when farmer field schools were running we know that most of the practices that were recommended were around biosecurity and we're trying to compare the business as usual among the the non-graduates to the graduates who would have adopted some of these and some of the early findings we had there was that around 67 percent of the field school graduates reported that they did not use antimicrobials for any other purpose except for treatment and and and this compared to only 15 percent of non-field school farmers that that that reported that and also we noted that farmer field school graduates were significantly more likely to keep more likely to keep regular farm records compared to to non-field school graduates we have a publication on this and I think there are links at the end of the presentation that you can you can you can look at and so over the eight months of evaluation 65 farmer field school graduates and 35 non-graduates were completed the evaluation the eight months period and there were monthly visits to to the farms and I think we also went beyond just the farms to traders and also input suppliers and in that so just a few slides to really summarize some of the findings that we got here is that we saw a significant difference between farmer field school and non-farm afield school participants in terms of frequencies of diseases and disease symptoms reported in chickens and in chicks and in growers and then from the 85 medicines that were used farmer field schools obtained prescription farmer field school graduates obtained prescriptions around 75 time percent compared to non-field school graduates that that that were only 18 percent that that got a prescription for for medication and also from the 115 reported disease episodes or incidences and animal health professional was sorted 82 times by the field school facilitators which was about 65 percent of the times and only 22 times for non-field school participants at this point and we are being very careful and and I think my my social science colleagues would would would would back this up during discussion we are being careful not to think this is a win for farmer field school but this demonstrates potential update uptake of the good practices that that that that we need to promote and remember when I started we spoke of speaking to ourselves but here we see an opportunity that we we are able to to actually promote good practices among those farmers that that take part in the in the field school we've also looked at the economics of production and through the field schools and there are interesting findings here and these are also early findings and and that is an FFS participants spent significantly less on antibiotics across the evaluation period that eight months and also FFS graduates spent less money compared to a sample of farmers who are not enrolled in the farmer field schools these findings are quite early and I think the sample size is very small I know they are the economics experts in the meeting today and we can have a discussion around here and so we we are we are aware that this specific expenditure bit was not significantly was not the difference was not significant and statistically significant in this in this particular case but we think we have we are able to frame a case here around the economics of animal production and and in the in the forecast I'm going to mention what we plan to do so I think in a nutshell we we we know based on the quantitative and qualitative surveys that we conducted we know that through the farmer field school we are able to decrease antimicrobial use on the farm we are able to increase investment and and adherence to biosecurity and we are able to increase interactions with animal health professionals and in those 50 slides I skipped before these are some of the things that we found through the cap as being priority areas for for potential intervention we also put in a component a component of behavior science and in our in our interventions besides of course the biological sciences related to AMR and AM use and and what we are what we are what we are able to to to find here around behavior science is that farmers make decisions of course this is none bounded within their enablers and barriers so such as the economics the veterinary service ability to access those the influence of the neighbors and family and and and that these enablers and barriers influence their decisions more than the sense of the good practices so to a farmer AMR doesn't mean much production means means much more and also the decisions with the potential to impact AM use and AMR are made across the entire production chain so it's not a one-off decision and and I think situations like high mortalities are likely to influence the decision of a farmer to use antimicrobials more than the logic and the knowledge that antimicrobial use without a prescription and it is not recommended and also that access to services and attitudes and or or sufficiency of knowledge do not necessarily translate into adherence to to practices a good example of a behavior intervention was an intervention we made for for promoting the use of footpaths because again during the cup studies we realized most farmers who knew what a footpath was was used was was intended and actually had footpaths on their farms the majority of them didn't actually use them and when you ask them why they didn't use them I think generally the perception was that they were not effective and also one of the critical outcomes specifically in Ghana that came out was that use of footpath was expensive because disinfectant was quite expensive and when the behavior team and the social science team prodded further we realized that things like for instance when a dip is sold or when a when a disinfectant is sold there's no measuring device sold with a disinfectant and so the farmers would use sense the poor water in the footpath and pour as much disinfectant as they thought would be sufficient to be effective and and and that apparently was a barrier for them to use the footpaths and and and one of the outcomes of this behavior in intervention and insight was that in Ghana for instance we developed a local solution to measuring the amount of disinfectant to put in a footpath and the outcome there was that the farmers realized the container of disinfectant that would last a month or less was able to last three to four months and so over two production cycles or in layer in the case of layers over a full production cycle of a year they would use only two three containers where they used to use one container every month and so that was one of the outcomes that that enabled farmers to adhere to to show adherence among field school participants who buy security measure in this case they use and all the footpath and I'll use a few minutes to wrap up and this knowing I've used quite substantial time what is the way forward and and so with with with what I've described before and there's a bit more detail that we can get from from our team here we see potential in the field school as as a source as a data generating platform also as as a site for for promoting good behaviors but also for sustainable for sustainable behavior change here we see also an opportunity to scale this approach because it's a flexible approach it has got local framing so we are not asking the same thing to be done across different regions within a country and across countries we are aiming to have common targets with locally framed interventions around the farmer field school we also I believe this has a very strong geographical adaptability it including the respect of customs and local traditions and beliefs and also we believe we are likely to have a systematic change and using this approach also we feel we are able to to generate sufficient data for action around antimicrobial use around the quality of products and so substandard falsified antimicrobials we are able to also have social science interventions behavior science interventions and also promote good husband practices we are careful going forward in framing our interventions because we need to pair data as perfectly as possible and this has been quite a challenge where we would like to pair all these data points from antimicrobial resistance, economics, behaviors, behavior interventions and economics so that we are able to try and see correlations through a production cycle I'm sure you're all aware that this is not an easy thing to do but our team again on the ground is really made a good effort to try and design a study and an approach that that will be able to provide as best an outcome as possible we we also think that I'm going to skip a few slides yeah we also we also think that we are able to and if you look down and to to the left here we also think that with with the pilots that we are planning to to run learning from these results we are able to scale this through other initiatives and I think there is an initiative to reduce the need of antimicrobials and in agri-food systems this is an FAO initiative that that seems to target around a hundred countries and we we think this approach could be useful in in such a mammoth intervention and initiative because of its flexibility and and we are also seeing uptake of this approach by other partners outside FAO in Africa specifically because I think we we see that it is very very flexible and close cross cutting and finally I think we are able to support now the implementation of FAO's strategy on AMR or approach as you can see where there is the number two that that relates to to to mainly the behavioral and the social science approach the farmer field school approach and we are able to frame this around awareness, engagement, surveillance and research and promoting the good practices and also are promoting responsible use. I'll end my presentation with an acknowledgement of a lot of technical input of course I acknowledge Marco Calder's work because he's our boots on the ground he takes the heat when we do this work he bears the brunt and the stress and and he has to think through a lot of framing we are grateful to Dennis Piarungaba who helped us with the with with the framing the science approach to this the veterinary approach the animal health approach to the pilots that we ran. Annika is responsible for the behavior science and we worked with Courtney Price as well in the framing of this at the beginning. Our projects have gone through several technical colleagues from Sarah to Marcus and Junshan and of course the CBOs who are the budget holders and their team has been very supportive and to provide funding to our work. I'd like to acknowledge of course the role of Jeff in leading the science behind and this work Susan Eckford, Antonio and Alejandro who've been very very very supportive in framing our work and also our Flaming Fund team which is we have over 30 active staff working with us to run these pilots in the countries and regions but we without the farmers the governments the veterinarians and other colleagues we are running into the thousands of participants to deliver this this work and also the reference centers in the UK and in Denmark that have been very supportive of our work and of course the funding agency which is the UK Flaming Fund. I have a slide here highlighting around seven of the publications we've made arising from this work and feel free to access those. I believe the slides will be shared and I'll end with that and maybe hand back to Jeff to open for a discussion. Thank you. Awesome, I want to hear about there and thank you so much Manuel. I really like this in particular by probably by the personal experience early on in my career in relation to educational awareness, raising and behavioral change. I found it my approaches on the throw it at the wall and see what sticks theory and that's really not the case when you talk about behavior change it's actually underpinned by science social science and behavior science that they're into these theories and these practices and we can predict what will and then it's a great this is the real one-help approach I think to integrate behavioral sciences into understanding why people make those decisions and what the models and mix changes and whether it involves economics or other the social factors so I think this is a real good example of how things can happen. We've got a couple of questions and I have a couple of questions. I'll go along the line first. In your economic assessment there gender looked like it showed up as a factor. Now which gender had the more economic benefit and why do you think that might be with your microphone on? With my microphone on? Yes, of course. Yes, Jeff. Gender had a significant effect here. No, Jeff. Or did I not think that right? No, no, no. Gender had an effect on the cost per egg. But not on the drug cost so you got that right. I can get support from Mark here but my understanding and the framing here is that among yes Mark I think we found more benefit among the female gender here than the male gender. Mark would you like to step in? Thank you. Yeah, that is correct. So most of our female participants the poultry was their primary I can turn them over to you. Was their primary income generating activity? So even when we were looking at the uptake of practices from the farmer field school we found greater adherence among females compared to males because like I said in some of the our male participants you know the keeping of the layers was something that they were doing that was combined with say a wage labor job in Nairobi or around Nairobi. So we found that the the woman farmers are much more I think focused on kind of the farm and implementing the practices on the farm. So thanks over to Emmanuel or Jeff. Yeah and Jeff that's a very good question because in framing gender specific interventions and it's good you ask that because gender is one of our core it wasn't a core target when we're doing the pilots but is a core going forward. It's more impactful when and Mark can can also support me here is we see a lot of those women are also coming from female-headed households. So it's not only that this production is their primary source of income it's actually a very important area of livelihood. So in essence by having these interventions we are going beyond just AMR and good practices to actually supporting livelihoods actual livelihoods and what we are trying to do now and I hope in the next couple of years we are able to present this is that we want to capture all these relevant data points you know how do we actually impact livelihoods how do we actually impact economies of households and communities rather before we get to the macro a macro level of nations and international and so that's a very good question Jeff. Again to re-emphasize these are very small sample sizes and some of these effects we are seeing might require to be measured across bigger bigger samples and we are looking at a few thousand samples in our next pilots. Yeah thank you. Thank you and if you see them show up on small sample sizes maybe the effects is large maybe the effects are large. We'll say Mark do you have a comment? Yeah I just want to add one additional aspect to this and that and this is from our qualitative work but the the females in general in most of the areas we work are also responsible more responsible for food safety concerns. So when we when we talk to them about AMR and its relation to food safety they often feel a more sense of responsibility to you know make products that are that are antibiotic you know residue free. Of course male farmers also are concerned about this but it seems like the how integrated females are in the kind of distribution of food taking care of the home essentially. Maybe also makes them a bit more bit more likely to adopt some of these practices as you know they're part of that chain of distribution of food. Yeah thanks back to you Jeff. Great thanks I really appreciate that we get a tooth for here right. The boat that you're joining in is an anuosic lab and work and it's nice to have both the biological and social science expertise on the line. A question from the chat again regarding to the the analysis and how did you recruit or select participants and the controls to participate in that study. And that's a big question Jeff our attempt to answer this and and and rightly writing on what you said our social scientist is in the is in the meeting and is and is going to give a bit a bit more detail. I think we had and you know this is multi-layered research we had a bit more purposeful sampling in this case because for the CAHPS studies of course we had target we had target regions where we wanted to go but those target regions were already determined by our government counterparts in the countries where we're going and then when we went in those local areas we ride on the strength of influencers and and and the veterinary delivery systems and the local leadership systems in those in those places to to bring to us the willing the willing farmers and then of course from that pool that we that we get we are able to select and sample and each country varies their approach varies in each country but also very important I think one of the key considerations before Mac comes in that we had years we had to be careful in selecting the control group because we had we had already noted that there was possibility for a spillover effect when farmers participate in interventions we saw a very strong uptake of the of the learnings in the in the local community so we had to frame the control group away from the areas where we had the intervention just to ensure that there's no confounder where they are taking up learnings even if they're not participants and so besides that I think we're very purposeful purposeful in in the rest of it and Mac please you you can come in with a little more detail there yeah thanks yeah so in thanks Emmanuel so in in Kenya like Emmanuel said it differed between Kenya and Ghana for these pilot studies so for example in Kenya we didn't have any records on on layer farmers in the community so we just did a transect for the CAP study the transect got the names of all of the farmers who are keeping layers in the community and use that to generate a random sample for the CAP but when it Ghana had more records so we were able to use that but importantly for the farmer field school you know it's it's not it's something that there's potentially a bias in that because it's our selection of farmer field school participants we first focused on those individuals who we had CAP information on because part of the the CAP study we were telling them we're getting this information so we can develop these interventions to help you in your production to help you on your farm so part of it is given responsibility going back to the people that gave us data in the first place to say okay we've come up with this intervention are you now interested in participating in the intervention and so we started off with that until we until we hit the we had three farmer field schools in in one location in one community in Kenya and we got up to around 60 65 people in total who wanted to go to the farmer field school out of I think in a a CAP study total of 115 and then with the with the control yeah so we attempted to identify those farmers who who were geographically isolated if you will from the areas where we're holding the farmer field schools you know but again you know we we recognize that there could be bias because some of the these individuals were in the original CAP study and they just said I I don't have time to do the the farmer field school and so maybe at the beginning they didn't value improving you know biosecurity practices or something like that so they said no to the farmer field school so right there we're almost biasing ourselves in the sense of people are self-selecting into into this um intervention that they want to uptake so yeah so that's what like Emmanuel said once we expand we'll be able to get a bit more sophisticated sampling frame to really try to tease out some of the effects of these of these schools on the farm thanks back to Jeff great thank you mark for joining in there um I've got one more question before we close uh and it's again related to the farmer field schools and not the participants but the host or the the farmer champions again those people are going to have to want to participate the two questions are um I see there's a potential risk here to buy a whole bunch of other 30 farmers to your free of your farm I mean we promote bias maturity and keeping people off your farm right so how did you mitigate that risk and did you compensate the the I don't know if those those people were actually the facilitators but the the host farmers to compensate them for any potential risk and they were they were exposing themselves to yeah and and again I am sure mark would would want to come in on on this and that is true the risk is actually on two sides the risk is on our side because you know when we do when we use a um a host farm we invest resources so the experiment has to be run around investing and again in different countries depending in some countries actually I think Ghana were using flocks that belong to the farmer and I think that is why your question is is is is relatively very um very potent from the from the host farmer side but in others like Kenya and Zambia Zimbabwe we actually purchased the chicks and then purchased them the other products like feed and and and all so the risk on our side is the host farmer agrees and signs to host the school and if they change their mind maybe because they have a difference with one of the participants in the field that is completely out of our control so that's a risk where the farmer decides in the middle of an intervention I'm no longer interested in doing this unfortunately we didn't face that situation and and I think it's also kudos to the social science aspect of this intervention is that we are able to maintain the momentum among the participants and the cohesion and among the participants but directly to the benefit of the host farm and also the risk um and remember these these farmer groups are told to work as a community so the farmers are coming to the host farm to support the host but the host is also hosting as as a leadership pro in the community so we're quite deliberate to choose a reliable farmer um a leading farmer and also farmers that were willing themselves they offered themselves to host what we are what we have thought about mitigating that in some countries is actually to use facilities like learning local learning institutions or or picking picking up facilities that are out of use so that belong to the community in general rather than to an individual but but we are not we are not likely to win very very much in this sense as the direct benefit for the host farmers in some cases as we upgrade some biosecurity measures so for instance we we repair the deep the deep tank we make a few changes to the facility and that benefit remains with them um on the biosecurity front you're right in some cases the the host farmer is both at risk and is also a risk because they insist on continuing their production of other things and rightly so it's their house it's their plant so we find in some cases where we have um free-ranging chickens we have goats and and other production including chickens actually there were some farms where there were chickens pigs and rabbits in production while there was this there was this demonstration going on and and and I think we we we deeply thought about that how do we factor in biosecurity how do we prevent transmission and having confounders in certain demonstrations compared to others and it will be useful to also actually get advice um on some of these pertinent issues but I think it's an excellent question um the direct benefit also for the for the host farmers by default they are forced to take up some of these practices because in a sense they are influenced indirectly to to to to apply some of these good practices and them themselves being the the host farmers and Mack and I think you can add a bit more detail to that things yeah I mean you've covered everything mostly everything I was going to say I would just like to add we also um strive to provide um PPE for all the um participants so you know it's a part of the obviously the process of learning um how to integrate proper biosecurity onto your own farm um but we make sure that before the farmers are getting onto the farm so for example Kenya everybody's washing their hands everybody's put put everybody's been given gumboots and a coat um and so they're going through the process even before getting on the farm of disinfection um and so yeah we try to really emphasize because it's already a big emphasis in the farmer field school the importance of biosecurity and that kind of in a way allows us you know it's learning by doing so every time you go to the farm here the processes that you have to take um and the only thing um maybe additional to add would be um that the farmer field school process itself there's a lot of work that goes in before the farmer field school even um even begins and um a lot of that is having these facilitators who are who go through a three week training going into the community and identifying potential host farmers um and then really explaining what are the responsibilities um as a host farmer you know um in what are the benefits what are some of the drawbacks um and so as Emmanuel said we've been pretty lucky so in all of our farmer field schools we haven't had issues with a host farmer um dropping out yet so thanks back to you Jeff. That's good um I think we can see on there this call but I think we're gonna have to wrap it up here uh so I'm gonna take this time to thank Emmanuel and Mark too for joining in on any discussion we really appreciate that and those who joined I think I have a slide to share with you about the future presentations that we have oops um right here so yeah that's the introductory slide that's funny that it's uh oh let's see if it'll get back sorry about that a quick recap of everything that Emmanuel said here uh until we get right here all right uh the next uh knowledge dissemination dialogue will be on November night noted change in time uh it's at 1230 Central European time uh that time we'll be talking about implementing a monitoring frame UNAMR a small development country a presentation by Sean King of Australia so with that that's the next webinar and be sure to feel uh to complete the feedback questionnaire that's available and if you have any questions make sure you let us know uh on this if you have a desire to present some of your own work so with that thank you very much and have a good day bye


Honestly. I'm Rick, man. Feeling it. Reacting to Barfee. It has Barfee in the name. Oh. He Barfee. We saw that, man. Barali Kai Barfee. That's not enough for a corporalization. And it's starring Rajikumar Rao. Oh, cool. And? Oh, yay. Oh, man. I'm excited to see this thing. So we have the guy from Newton and everything else that we haven't seen yet. And under Honda, I know Article 15. Yes. And I'm sure this is somebody big, too. We know that name. Do we? Yeah, Creedie. We know that name. I'm not putting face with name, but I know when we see the face, we're going to know. Great, cool. I don't know what it's about. I'm ready. But if it's anything. Did you see under Honda, or I watched it with Alexis? No, you saw it with her, because remember? We did. He's blind. Yeah. OK. Here we go. We're going, mummy. You stuck a note in your blouse. They're going with you. Don't try to find us. In this world, whoever we are, we're good and we like it. Pre-tum with Rohi. Where will we find this? Where will we find this? You've been here for a long time. This isn't it. I mean, it's not in the city. Sir, you're the one who's being scared.        List of 50 films we've got to watch, I mean, it's got to be fantastic for us to invest the time to watch that one, don't you think? Well, I enjoyed it. I did too. The thing that struck me is actually Rajkumar Rao. It seemed like he was holding himself differently. Physically? Physically, which I love. Yeah, we're big fans of Shakespeare. I like that. And from what you guys, a lot of people actually say he's the best actor. Right. I've seen those comments. Even above Noazedan. I know. I've seen comments. I'm like, we need to see more of his work because he's that good. And even, gosh, man, I mean, we need to watch more movies with you because you don't even know Noazedan yet. Really. I don't know him. Yeah. And you'll appreciate it. You know who he's from? SAKRIDGAMS! SAKRIDGAMS! And Sartaj. I'm going to read these in upside real quick so we can get a better understanding. Go ahead. You said you wanted to work, but a fine. That's weird. OK, so how do I say the first word? Borelli? Borelli. Borelli, OK. Set in the small town of Borelli, Bitsi is a free-spirited young girl who lives life on her own terms and refuses to be pressured into getting married. Her life takes a shift when she meets Chirag Dubey. I think that's it. Sure. And Pritam Vidrohi. What did Barfi mean? Did we figure that out last time? We did, and I have forgotten. It clearly means something. Yeah, of course. That was. Thanks. That was good. I don't think we know creedee, actually. It really means something. You know what? It's interesting. There were a few subtle moments that she had in that, and I really appreciated the one little moment where she had the wink and it did the camp. Oh, that was cute. Right? Yeah. She very much intrigues me to see her in this in terms of she kind of reminded me. She doesn't have the same look, but there was something about her that had a magnetism that reminds me of Sandra Bullock in What's the Movie We Love? The Modeling. Miss Congeniala. Miss Congeniala. Oh, yeah. Very similar. Oh, yeah. Yeah, so this is a romantic comedy, but it looks better than some of the ones we've seen. Oh, yeah. Like in terms of the level it's at. It's got a cheap romantic comedy. It's going to have a little more depth. Hopefully, well, you can let us know. I mean, if this is at the level of like, I don't think it's going to be this kind of film, but if we would enjoy this as much as like Deli-Belly, I mean, because I loved Deli-Belly. And basically, this guy, from what I've seen, they say he does not have a bad film. Right, and that he's a shapeshifter. Yeah, shapeshifter. So we need to get into his stuff. I can see the comments. I did a poll on Twitter. Hey, go follow us on Twitter. But I did a poll. And basically, it was like Newton Street, because he was in Street. Wow, he was, huh? He's the guy in Trapped.  We've got to start watching his stuff.  Like, yeah, we've got to start watching his stuff. It got like almost 500 votes. And it was like, it was 25, 25, 25, 25. Yeah, wow. And this definitely can't be first. Oh, no, it's not. We've got to make long roads. I'm pretty sure it's not gonna be first, but you'll let us know how it is. Yeah, wow. He's for sure our most underappreciated actor right now. Someone argues, Ranbeer. Well. That's true.  They're still babies, guys. There's a hashtag going on. This is justice for Ranbeer.