Side event organized by the Transform Drug Policy Foundation with the support of México Unido Contra la Delincuencia
STEVE ROLLES:
Hello and welcome to the official side event of the Commission of Narcotic Drugs, which is being co-hosted by Transform Drug Policy Foundation and MUCD. Transform is a UK based NGO doing policy work and advocacy around drug law reform, very similar to our colleagues in MUCD who have a broader mandate that includes drug policy. Today we’d like to spend the short time we’ve got exploring some ideas around policy for coca and cocaine. It’s a historically very difficult and challenging issue how we address the reality of cocaine markets and cocaine use across the world, there are a range of issues for producer countries, transit countries and primary consumer countries, and the fact that those are substantially merging so there is actually a lot of cocaine use in producer and transit countries as well, but it does have a unique dynamic like other plant based drugs in that, it is an international market that is covered by international laws. We’ve taken an enforcement approach to cocaine for the last 50 years or more and all the problems associated with cocaine, cocaine use and cocaine markets, seem to have just got worse and worse and worse. So what we’d like to do today, is to spend the short time we’ve got exploring some new ideas about how we can rethink our approach to cocaine, move away from some of the failings of the punitive war on drugs paradigm and consider options for including the possibility of regulated markets for cocaine and coca based products. We’ve got 3 speakers here today: myself, Lorenzo Uribe from Colombia, who is the lead drafter of a bill that is being debated in the Colombian Senate tomorrow, and Lisa Sanchez, who is the director of MUCD. The session is being recorded and will be on the C&D website and the Transform YouTube channel if you miss any of it or if you want to share it later on. If you have any questions, please do put them in the use of Q&A function on Zoom. Please also just say hello and tell us who you are. I wanted to mention as part of the introduction that there’s a lot of policy works, a lot of policy analysis, it really quite dry and functional and technocratic but we also have a campaign initiative called Anyone’s Child, where people have been impacted by the war on drugs – not just necessarily drug use, but the enforcement of drug laws. They are able to tell their stories because we feel it’s important not just to look at data points on a graph, but understand that many of those data points or a lot of those figures that you see in the world drug reports, often each one of those statistics is a human story and we feel that it’s really important to provide that human element to the narrative, so that we don’t forget what we’re actually doing here and why we are here it’s because the war on drugs and the current approach to policy and it’s focus on enforcement rather than health and well being in human rights. So we have this project where we provide a platform for people to tell their stories about how Drug Enforcement rather than just drug use and how has impacted on them and their loved ones, so people who have been bereaved by overdoses or have lost people or have been harmed in drug related drug war related violence or have had loved ones incarcerated. Before we start the presentations, I’d like to show a short film which is a story from one of our representatives for Anyone’s Child in Belgium called Peter, who is a former policeman who lost his brother.
*VIDEO PLAYS*
STEVE ROLLES:
Thank you for that, Esther – and I think that’s the thing I like about that film: it brings together so many themes that we’re going to be talking about today, because Peter has been a senior policeman in Belgium enforcing the drug laws for much of his professional life and it was only the experiences with his brother that forced him to sort of re-evaluate a lot of what he was doing, and the basis of a lot of that enforcement made him question the overarching punitive paradigm. Behind those statistics there are many heartbreaking personal stories like Peter’s.
I’m going to move from my introduction roll into my speaker role and make a short presentation about the book that we published last October: How to Regulate Stimulants, a Practical Guide. The debate around the regulation of drugs has focused considerably in the last 5-10 years particularly around cannabis stuff and that’s where a lot of the action. There’s a lot of stuff happening around cannabis which is understandable, it’s the most used of the illegal drugs, it’s at the lower risk end of the drug spectrum compared to many other drugs and it’s the least threatening politically, so it’s not surprising a lot of activities happening there. At the other end of the risk spectrum with injectable drugs and even some stimulant drugs, we are beginning to see debate around medical provision to people whose use is problematic, so we’re seeing prescription of injectable heroin, and in Canada that debate is really blossoming around this concept of safe supply, so they’re actually looking at prescribing drugs or making drugs available through medical channels for people who are dependant or have drug problems that includes some stimulants. So we’re seeing real movement around the world in terms of regulated availability of drugs as an alternative to criminal markets and illegal supply, but in the middle between these two poles there is this group of drugs stimulants and to certain extent psychedelics group of drugs which aren’t really getting much attention. We felt that stimulants we’re not getting any attention considering the problems that are associated with illegal markets and the drug use itself are driven by prohibition particularly for stimulants, but no one was really talking about it, so it’s these drugs that occupy this middle ground the sort of mid risk drugs and many of which aren’t used in the same sort of problematic ways, but us still associated with substantial problems particularly around their production and supply that we wanted to focus on, so we’ve produced this book. It’s available on our website to download for free and it’s also being translated into Spanish and will be available very soon. If you look at what’s driving a lot of discussions at CND and the war on drugs, historically it’s all about deterring people from using drugs, using punishment and using enforcement to crush and eradicate drug production and interdict drug supply. There’s this preoccupation with creating a drug free world and a lot of the metrics for evaluating and measuring policy are focused on that, we’d like to refocus on what we actually want: our drug policy to achieve in terms of protecting human rights, in terms of protecting public health, in terms of protecting young people and vulnerable populations, in terms of ensuring equity and social justice. People have been harmed by the war on drugs to enhance security and development, particularly in producer and transit regions and to actually meaningfully reduce crime associated with illegal drug markets and organised crime groups. We really need to have an evidence based focus on delivering those goals and if we focus on those goals I think we’re in a much stronger position to actually debate which policies are going to be able to deliver those goals that we all share clearly. The war on drugs has not done any of those things and in most cases it’s taken us further away from that. We hope that a public health based regulatory approach can help to deliver some of these shared goals in terms of our overarching principles, we’d like to focus on in a post-prohibition world learning the lessons from tobacco so that we don’t have over commercialised markets driven by profit incentives rather than the public good. We’d like to make sure that our policies are based on science and evidence rather than politics and geopolitics and prohibitionist ideology. We’d like to see regulation models guided by the concept of risk so that more risky products or more risky behaviours justify different levels of regulation and the deployment of different regulatory tools. Clearly you’re not going to regulate cocaine in the same way that you would regulate cannabis and you’re not going to regulate cocaine in the same way as injectable heroin, so we need a range of different approaches. We need to be flexible to see what’s working and what’s not working and let policy and regulatory approaches evolve on the basis of that evidence. In terms of production of cocaine we already produce cocaine legally and it’s something that not a great many people necessarily know about, but we already produce cocaine legally for medical use, it’s not a huge market but it does exist. Coca leaf is grown in Peru, it’s flown by the Drug Enforcement Agency to the US where it’s processed by pharmaceutical companies into pharmaceutical cocaine, which is sold around the world for medical use and then cocaine leaves are sold to the Coca Cola Company to make Coca Cola, so there is already a legal cocaine market. There’s no mystery about how to do it, but if we are going to move from a situation where a legally regulated production of coca and cocaine, we need to be thinking about sustainable development. A lot of people from economically marginalised populations have moved into coca production and to electrics tend cocaine trafficking as a form of economic survival, it’s not necessarily something they want to do, but if you are an economically modest population it may be one of the few options that you have. So we need to be thinking about sustainable development particularly for plant based drugs. In this case cocaine, we don’t want to see it aggressively marketed in a way that we’ve seen with alcohol and tobacco products over the last century, we would like to make these products available in a functional way, not a promotional way. So we think they should be marketed and made available very much like pharmaceutical drugs, which is effectively what they are, so we’ve knocked up this packaging and on the left you can see some mock up packaging for a legal cocaine product, which looks very much like a pharmaceutical product and has very clear bold: yellow boxes with appropriate health warnings and information about dosage an risk and where to find more information. We’ve kind of alighted on in our work a state monopoly retail model that would keep commercial companies out of the market completely as far as possible and leave control of the market to state monopoly retailers. If we think we would be better positioned to make responsible choices in the interests of the public, so there will be a complete ban on all advertising and marketing. We would see sales from something that was more like a pharmacy.Able to enforce rationing controls, age access, controls on whether or not someone is intoxicated when they are buying and then you would have controls on things like location, signage hours of opening, all the more familiar dimensions of legal regulation that we see with other products like alcohol, for example or pharmaceuticals and pharmacies. I think finally it’s important to remember that coca leaf, cocaine powder and crack cocaine are sensually all the same drug, but they come in very different forms that are associated with different behaviours and very different levels of risk. Coca leaf chewing in the Andean Region isn’t really associated with any medical or social harms at all and in many ways it’s associated with many benefits, cocaine powder obviously is much more of a mixed picture. People who use coca powder occasionally and moderately, don’t have any problems but some people do and do either harm themselves or others with crack because it’s too much more concentrated, rapid, more intense experience when you smoke it or of course if you’re injecting cocaine powder. Talking about crack here it is associated with greater social and health harms, but again not everybody who uses crack does so problematically nonetheless we’ve got different products here even though they contain the same drug and we do need to have different approaches, so obviously you can have a much lighter touch approach to coca leaf it’s going to be more like coffee or energy drink. Cocaine powder is kind of what I’ve been talking about during the presentation, we need to have a kind of strictly regulated rationed sales through pharmacies to adults and crack smokable crack. We felt that there wasn’t in any obvious way to make that available under a retail model, but if you can buy cocaine powder obviously you can make crack anyway and if people were determined to use it they were going to do that, so we would have a harm reduction approach not to criminalise approach but a harm reduction approach with a public health focus including things like supervised consumption, spaces and health and social support as needed. All of this is explored in a lot more detail in the book, there is a lot of theory and practise described in there. There’s a detailed section on coca and cocaine products, so please do access. You can download it for free if you want to buy a print copy you can, but the book is available as a free PDF. I hope people will look at it, read it and let us know your thoughts because as much as anything what we want to do is get the debate around stimulus regulation and cocaine regulation moving, cause what is absolutely clear is that the status quo is not going to solve the problems that we’re facing, there only getting worse. Hopefully this book contributes that and I would very much welcome people reading it and letting us know what they think. I am now going to hand over to Lisa Sanchez who is my esteemed colleague and director of MUCD.
LISA SANCHEZ:
Thanks everybody for joining this event – here in Latin America it is incredibly early, so I am just thrilled to have the opportunity of waking up and seeing all these beautiful black boxes on Zoom but with very dear names, so thank you so much for being here. My name is Lisa Sanchez and I’m the general director of Mexican NGO called Mexico United Against Crime. We’ve been involved in drug policy reform for the past 10 years with the support of Transform and we’ve been very active actually trying to imagine how to force policy reform, how to force social change, how to change the terms of the debate and actually try to help people imagine what a post-prohibition world would look like and what would be the benefits of actually trying alternative approaches to different drugs through different types of regulation, which I think is the best added value of publications and books like this, that actually help people try to understand how to do it, what would the challenges be, what would the benefit be and it provides a clear path on how to advance in terms of policy reform, which I’m sure Lorenzo is going to support when approaching politicians in other countries particularly producing and transit countries. One of the most important things is actually having some sort of recipe or at least some sort of pathway to help them transit to a different approach into better policies. So why did we get involved in drug policy? well basically because Mexico has been suffering the negative impacts of drug prohibition but also of war on drugs, policies for the past 20 years if not more but ever since 2006, when former president going around the clear of full frontal combat against illicit drug trafficking and against the organisations that were trafficking with drugs, basically security indicators, violence indicators, human rights indicators, democracy indicators even were really affected in Mexico and the negative impacts were incredibly high in terms of violence, in terms of waste of public resources, in terms of failing to address the public problems that we were actually facing like insecurity or actually dealing with the public health phenomena that drugs represented in our country. So we started working on drug policy reform around 2010 basically trying to imagine how to force that political and social change in Mexico and we basically used books like this, we used the first Transform book that was about how to regulate drugs and what regulation meant, then we started using a second book that was how to regulate cannabis and we started changing the terms of the debate. Now we’re going to use this but the use of all of these resources and around, and in the creation an implementation of a strategy that was a little more comprehensive, and basically tried to attack public opinion but at the same time try to influence decision makers and at the same time went to tribunal to actually make judicial cases against prohibition helped us win the verse the first very victories in Mexico, and I think in all Latin America in which is Supreme Court basically agreed with us than using drugs was part of a human rights, that was already acknowledging our constitution that was the right to develop its own personality, so we succeeded in pursuing that strategy with cannabis and then we started thinking: ok so if cannabis is the most consumed drug in Mexico is also the most enforced substance in Mexico it’s what causing the mother most arrests in terms of violating drug laws it’s definitely effective and it’s only logical to start with cannabis but our problems as a producer country and as a transit country of several different drugs it’s not the end of our fight and cannabis cannot be the only substance that we actually pay attention to, so we started it trying to imagine whether those cases could be applied to cocaine and we decided that they could because the same problems that happen with. Kind of is happened with cocaine and it’s no surprise and I know we all know this, but for example in Mexico 82% of the people that were actually arrested in a year for violating drug laws were arrested for simple possession of small quantities of drugs and if you actually go into the numbers and see what were the substances that these people were carrying, you could see that yes, cannabis is the first with over 30% of total rest but then it comes cocaine with 17% of the adults that were arrested for simple possession of small quantities and 6% of the adolescents that were also arrested for possessing small quantities of cocaine. If you go into the numbers historically of what has been empowering criminal organisations here in Mexico, you can also see that cocaine for many-many years over a decade was actually the most profitable substance that was providing these criminal organisations with an enormous amount of resources,if you actually go and see what the anti-drug actions were in Mexico for decades, you can see that yes eradication of illicit crops so just cocaine or puppy wear a big part of the actions that our military was actually doing in terms of enforcing drug laws in fighting this drug war but cocaine seizing and prosecution was actually another or the second largest anti-drug action that our military was conducting with an average of nine tonnes seized every year. Years in which our military basically secured over 40 tonnes of cocaine and arrested hundreds of thousands of people, so basically knowing that we have the same public problem that we have with cannabis which is we are a transit country for cocaine were not necessarily a producing country for cocaine, but we’re actually enforcing drug laws that are criminalising users that are doing nothing to address the public health consequences of this, that it’s causing violence that we’re empowering and legal market that is disrupting pretty much the entire life of Mexico and knowing as well that ever took ever since 2006 we’ve been militarising to drug or drug efforts and now because of that militarization of drug policy and drug and anti-drug actions were basically enabled the militarization of the rest of public security with the attached costs that policy choice hands in terms of human rights. in terms of violence in terms of failing really to address and contain violence insecurity delinquency. We just decided that it was too much to bear, that it was unsustainable and that we needed to do something, so we basically used the same arguments that we used with cannabis as to say possession is the lack of legal sources for cocaine users to get their drug and basically use it responsibly. As adults is basically causing that these people actually go to an illegal market that is empowering criminals, that is causing violence, that is fuelling conflict in Mexico and it shouldn’t be that way, because if you had secure supply sources all these people could one be better addressed by the public health system in case they need an intervention but you would actually prioritise differently your policing, your judiciary, your law enforcement resources and you could actually be more effective of trying to find crime if you stop criminalising, arresting and processing these people. And just to conclude with a little good news and not on the negative side of what the drug war has caused in Mexico, basically one court agreed with us and last two years ago in 2019 we basically won the 1st court case it was a regular tribunal not the Supreme Court but it was the very first case in which a judge agreed that legal supplies and safe supplies sources should also be available for drug users other than cannabis users and we’re basically trying to push those cases to get to the Supreme Court and then providers with some jurisprudence or some sort of legal criteria that can help us stop criminalising people who are using cocaine. In advance this debate about how to regulate cocaine or stimulants knowing that we have very different problems that my friend Lorenzo here present have as we’re not producing country so just to say that these particular materials have been incredibly helpful that they can actually do improve the advocacy work and the legal work and loving work that we do as organisations in our countries and that with this type of information along with evidence of the failure of the war on drugs you can actually advance your cause whenever you are it’s either Mexico or the UK or Colombia, so thank you very much again for having me here, it was a real pleasure an I give it back to you Steve.
STEVE ROLLS
Thanks so much Lisa – really useful points and I particularly take away the point that even though cocaine is a very different drug to cannabis and most people would accept it, it’s a more risky drug than cannabis. The same arguments for moving from a criminal justice approach to a regulation approach apply, because however risky a particular drug is, a war on drugs and a punitive approach just makes all the problems worse and there’s an ideological shift from an enforcement prohibitionist approach to public health and human rights approach. Obviously it will be different for different drugs but it sets the arguments are essentially all the same. The important thing is that it’s actually moving from theory into practice and that’s what we are now going to hear a bit about from Lorenzo, so we’re running a little bit later but you can still every 10 minutes, we may not have that much time for Q&A.
LORENZO URIBE
Thank you very much Steve – thanks everyone, especially Transform for the invitation, I’m very happy to be here and have the opportunity to share our experience introducing the first bill to regulate all the stages of the cocaine and cocaine market in Colombia and probably it’s also the first attempt in the world and I’m pretty happy to do this in these 64th session of the CND, so I would like to use my time to tell you first why we decided to regulate the cocaine market in Colombia, then I will move to the details of the bill what we’re trying to do exactly and then give you an overall context of where things stands, how other responsibility has been and then conclude so you know when the policy has failed over and over again and I think both Steve and Lisa have mentioned it. I think the natural thing to do is to reconsider that policy and in the case of Colombia this policy, the war on drugs, prohibitionism has not only failed but it has also brought immense suffering to Colombia so why has it failed? Because the production of cocaine has remained has increased over the past years actually it has increased by 120% between 2008 and 2018 and at the same time the price and purity have stayed more or less constant, meaning that you approach to reduce the supply of cocaine is not really working, but it’s not only not working it’s also causing a lot of suffering in terms of development and human rights in Colombia so I have a few facts to show you: war on drugs is causing thousands of deaths every year, it’s estimated that this is around like 3800 homicides per year, in Colombia it’s caused a lot of money to the Colombian government billions of dollars that cannot be used to other social programmes they are being spent on policies, this is equivalent between 2005 and 2014 the money spent on cooker education by the Colombian government was equivalent to 50 years of the annual budget of the Ministry of Agriculture to give an idea of the quantity of money that is being wasted in a policy that is actually not working. It’s also had huge negative consequences in the environment in 2017, for example 24% of the different station was thought to be caused by coca plantations because since this is an illegal activity, farmers have to hide and they have to like grow coca beyond agricultural frontier and this of course causes deforestation, also in terms of human rights are very harming policy, it’s a major source of overcrowding. To give you some numbers again, on average between 2005 and 2014 nine people were arrested every hour in Colombia because of drug related crimes and most of the time is for very minor crimes which are committed by in large part vulnerable sections of the population and last but not least, it’s probably the fact we are most aware of it filled corruption and political instability in the country over the past decades so of course this is not going to be easy, but we think that Colombia a good place to start and being one of the most affected countries. I think it’s reasonable to start the conversation in Colombia so of course these are facts that we all know about why did this happen, now why did we decide to introduce this bill last year? I think here’s where the macro context means like personal stories, and its because the senator Ivan Marulanda from the Green Party, who was in politics 30 years ago was part of a minority political party whose main flag at the time was to fight the increasing influence of drug cartels in politics and as result of that fight most of his colleagues were killed including the presidential candidate at the time that was about to win the election in 1990. So 30 years after that failure of trying to contract the increasing influence of broker deals he reached the conclusion that the only way to actually win was by regulating this market and so that’s why I think his arrival in office, we’ve been working on this bill which was introduced last year in June and we hope it’s going to get this. Feliciano Valencia the indigenous senator who is also one of the authors of this bill. So what this bill is about is trying to regulate all stages of the coca and cocaine market from coca cultivation to retail and consumption, so I will try to be brief because we’re actually following most of the recommendations that Steve mentioned in his book. So for the cultivation the idea is that coca plantations will only be authorised in the areas where coca is currently being grown, as long as they remain outside of the environmentally protected areas, so this is to ensure that the market benefits the areas and communities most affected by the war on drugs and prevent new actors with potential advantages from entering the market, so the idea is first to ensure that these new legal framework benefits vulnerable communities but also the idea is to repair the damages caused by the war on drugs on these communities. So once you have these coca harvest, the idea is that the state will buy the harvest required to meet the demand of the legal cocaine market both at the national level and the international level if some countries are willing to import cocaine and coca based products legally, then the state with this harvest would subcontract the transformation of the coca leaf into cocaine through research centres and laboratories, so this will only be for all the coca that will be used for cocaine like all other users of the coca plant will be left free to the market and the last stage retail and consumption. We’re actually following the approach based on the level of risk of each product so depending on the risk that each product causes to health, the regulation will be different, so the first set of regulations will cover low potency or not start with products such as the coca leaf itself or like beverages food, cosmetic products based on the coca leaf and in this case the regulation will be very similar to the one already in place for products such as coffee, where private actors will be allowed to buy and sell these products more or less freely. The second type of regulation will include cocaine an will cover psychoactive products derived from the coca leaf that are used for mainly recreational purposes, in this case the regulation will be a bit more strict and you will consumers will have to go through a medical checkup and register in the database before being allowed to buy a certain dose of cocaine in registered pharmacies, of course all types of advertisements and sponsoring would be forbidden and only adults will be allowed to purchase cocaine. The third set of regulations will be much more stricter and they will cover products like crack cocaine that will remain prohibited but will not be criminalised and the idea is that in this case the harm reduction strategy will be adopted, so this is about the bill. I want to first tell you very quickly what the political reaction with response to this bill has been. Is being overwhelmingly positive actually were very surprised this bill was supported by 20 congressmen in Colombia, most of the comments have been positive it’s also received and this policy is actually supported by a petition from all over the political spectrum from right to left and as I mentioned, it’s supposed to get discussed tomorrow. We know the chances that this is going to pass are very slim, but the idea is to put the debate into the agenda and for the first time move from the diagnostic that the war on drugs has failed to a concrete proposal in the political sphere, because what happens usually specially in Colombia is that only retired politicians start debating and talking about regulation but once they retire, in this case it’s a current senator that is bringing the debate so we think that also has a value added of course this is not going to solve all problems and as long as international markets keep cocaine illegal, this is not going to solve all problems but we think Colombia is good place to start and we need to start from somewhere, so this is why we decided to do this. I think I will leave it here so that we have at least a few minutes for questions, thank you very much, Steve
STEVE ROLLS:
Thank you very much, Lorenzo – there’s actually a question in the comments about the public response, I’m actually quite interested to know what’s the public reaction and the media reaction billing in Colombia and the Supreme Court case in Mexico.
LORENZO URIBE:
Yes, so as I mentioned I think the response has been overwhelmingly positive, so of course like the government is opposing, but I think especially in urban areas younger generations have come to the conclusion that this is the only way to go about, so as I mentioned I think there is a consensus about the failure of the current approach but not many people have actually thought about what we can do and I think that’s why we’re doing this, is like the first attempt to say like well we don’t know exactly how to do it but let’s discuss about the how and not just stay on the “oh it’s failed” which I think there is a consensus and the conversation is still at a very early stage but people were very happy to have this debate opened.
LISA SANCHEZ:
The most worrying part was that when the case reached the Supreme Court finally last year, the arguments that the justice was using in to rule against it, were pretty much arguments that we would listen in 1970s or 1980s, so one of the main use of these cases was for us to be able to put out there in the public debate updated evidence about cocaine use, cocaine production, cocaine enforcement, coca based products instead of separating coca from cocaine and pretty much informed debate. When we first want this case not yet at the Supreme Court but in the 1st level of the of the judiciary what was unleashed a very specific reaction from the US government that basically strongly opposed for this debate to advance in Mexico and that had organizational impacts and it was during Trump administration, so hopefully with the renewal of the American government we will actually have a little bit more space to have a debate like this, but it got a very strong reaction yet I just want to encourage people to continue to have this conversation. The amount of information that we actually managed to get there with the case, was actually a positive effect of the case itself even if we’re not winning that legal strategy, we have the opportunity to move things on the ground and share information, because it’s basically what we need to move forward.
STEVE ROLLS:
I’m just going to conclude by kind of reinforcing what Lisa and Lorenzo just said, which is that this debate around regulation of drugs other than cannabis is really in its early stages but we need you to know and hopefully the work that Lorenzo is doing and Lisa let me see doing and Transform doing and the book and another work other people are doing around works. It’s just a debate we need to have, it couldn’t be clearer that prohibition of cocaine and other drugs and the war on drugs are not working, the status quo is not sustainable, we need to be looking at what the alternatives are and how they were working, that means having precisely these debates: how do you regulate different drugs with different sets of risks and different behaviors in different environments? Because it’s not going to be the same between different countries, it’s not going to be the same between different drugs. There’s a lot to think about here and a lot of difficult questions and it takes time for the public to get to and really get their heads around and engage with these questions, it took years with cannabis it’s going to take some time, with more difficult, more politically challenging drugs which are more associated with threats and concerns in the public mind, but we have to start somewhere that work is happening. I would really encourage you all to engage with the work of the different organizations, the work of transform, do take a look at their book. I’m afraid we don’t have any more time to look at some other questions that are coming in, but if you do have questions please do contact transform or MUCD, you could ask some questions now on Twitter to Lisa, myself or Lorenzo. Thank you for joining us! Please do read the book, I look forward to taking this debate forward in the UN and everywhere else, so thank you very much and goodbye.