Well, thank you for coming, and thank you to CABI for inviting me to this symposium. I think, this is a very interesting debate in symposium, the two topics, animal welfare and tourism. And I just wanted to kind of introduce myself, because some people might recognize me from the animal welfare world, because I've been involved in that for many years, whilst others might recognize me from the tourism world, because I've been involved in that for quite a few years. And so I can sort of understand the issues both from the academics and animal welfare organizations and also from the tour operators and other travel businesses, and so that's why I think I was invited. So I wanted to give you that insight, too. And importantly, obviously, if we're wanting to improve animal welfare, the animals involved in tourism practices, then we need to understand the people involved and the audiences, what are their interests? What are their constraints? And that's the kind of thing that I want to raise today rather than going into specifics. So to talk about the different stakeholders, how they're approaching this different topic. And for me, importantly, how they could and should work together to actually address the reoccurring problems that undoubtedly we're going to be hearing about. So animals in tourism-- there are many different ways that animals are used in a tourism context. Some of them are from traditional or cultural activities that have then been made into a tourism or an entertainment approach, whilst many of them actually have been developed as part of an entertainment package, if you like. And that, the list on there, shows the captive animals, whether wild or domestic. And then from the wild animal context, obviously, animals are used there, too, in the sense that they are part of a viewing process or in some cases, an engagement process. So that gives you an idea of the kind of activities involved. And as we know, a lot of those are problematic as far as animal welfare but also customer safety. And so those are the two key areas that are the topics for both the animal welfare NGOs and academics but also the travel companies and associations. So if we have a look at individual species, individual species can be used in many different ways, too, in a tourism context. So when you approach the topic of animals and tourism, from experience, most people think, well, yes, I can view animals in the world. And obviously, there are many different countries and different species you can do that with. And providing you stick to some certain rules and codes of conduct and so on, then generally speaking, that practice isn't very invasive. But there are practices that will also involve the elephant, in this case-- and I've just selected the elephant purely because it's being given quite a spotlight recently-- is that there are many other ways that you can use an elephant in a tourism context that does raise some questions over sustainability but also responsibility. And those two words in the travel industry are very key, those keywords. They're sort of new buzzwords, but they are kind of used fairly loosely. So sometimes people will use the sustainability word, other time it's the responsibility word. My take is that you need to use both. Because actually, apart from the ivory figures here, those other practices are sustainable, because there is a source of elephants for these kind of activities, but is it responsible? And so these are the kind of questions that are important for the travel industry but obviously, important for the people that know to convey that in the right way. So looking at the travel industry, they're a fairly complex industry because they're dealing with so many different topics. There are the outbound operators. So those are the companies that send passengers to a country, and so they are tasked with creating your holiday package, whether that's your accommodation. If you're going to see any historical sites, if you're going to be involved in animal interactions, they will develop those programs for you that are then offered to you as part of your holiday. And then there's the inbound operators. These are the companies in the destination that not always, but sometimes offer a selection of activities for those outbound operators to include in the itineraries. So that's an important difference to understand. There's also the term associated risk. When you're trying to ensure that your brand has a credible reputation, you need to identify any activity, whether it's with animals or anything else, that sheds a bit of fear element that is the potential to damage the reputation. And obviously, the animal issue is one of those areas. But does that mean that tour operators should remove everything that's to do with animals in any context? And so therefore, your itineraries and the products that you're offered when you go on holiday will be diminished, in many cases, to almost nothing at all, and it's just staying within your hotel or accommodation or the locality. The issues of cultural differences -- some countries will not do one thing, whereas another country it's part of the daily life. So how does a company distinguish between what their guests think is right and what the country thinks is right? The public demand and public opinion is also an interesting one. You all know about, I think, someone mentioned swimming with dolphins earlier. Well, a lot of us here probably would say, well, actually that process, that activity should be removed, should be eliminated from tourism. However, it is one of the most popular forms of entertainment that a lot of travelers are still asking for. So if you're a business, and you're providing people a nice holiday, and you're getting demand for something that some think is unethical, what do you do? Where is your dilemma? And so these are all the issues that travel companies are up against all the time, and ultimately, they're being bombarded from all angles with everybody's difference of opinion. And that's why this topic is a complex one, but importantly, it can't just be removing all animal products from itineraries, because that brings its own problems with it. As we know, travel companies have been scrutinized, and those that are doing some good work in identifying high-risk activities or activities that have been proven to be of a concern, they have decided to either remove those practices or to amend them in their portfolios. While companies that are making those stances, they're being celebrated for those actions. So that's the travel companies. The public, the people that travel, I've mentioned those people but maybe no more than others, as far as animal welfare and protection, but we've also got to recognize that people have perceptions, as well, and quite often, those perceptions are inaccurate. So the duck picture up there is a sign that was in the park by the pond. And I remember as a child going to the park with my mom and throwing bread to the ducks. And that's kind of ingrained in social life, but ultimately, the bread is not the most suitable food for the duck. But unless you convey that information, it's not going to be known. So equally for practices that you find within tourism, because they exist, because they are offered by the attractions in the destination but then are obviously sold and promoted by the travel companies, people assume that, A, that the animal-- there's nothing wrong with the animal. The animal's quite happy in undertaking that practice. Furthermore, their welfare, the person engaging with the process is not compromised in any way, but, of course, we know those things to be very different. So what I'm getting at here is that it's not just about public demand, people want things, it's not just about public opinion, but it's also about perception. And we just need to make sure that the information that's out there is accurate and complete and that the information isn't provided because your policy is this focus, so you spin the information towards your particular opinion. We need to provide objective information that will allow people to make that thought process themselves and ultimately, for the tour operator to make the decision whether they're going to offer swimming with dolphins, the member of the public that freedom to make the decision whether they're going to swim with those animals, but ultimately, that they have the information to make an informed decision. So all those different animals, all those different activities, all those different countries, and they have different ways of doing things. Some of them involve animals in lots of different activities that we would feel would be inappropriate. So how do you take that mammoth amount of variable into a document that pulls it all together and then gives valuable information to allow people to make an informed decision but also an ability for people to make that judgment themselves and ultimately make a decision as to what they offer, what they don't offer, and what they look into with the potential of removing or continuing? And that is this document, which I know Claire Jenkinson is going to talk about in length, so I won't do that. But I just wanted to hold it up as the only example where codes of conduct, legislation, common understanding of species requirements and general animal welfare requirement is kind of combined into one dossier. And this is not just one dossier, this is seven documents. A key one focuses on some minimum requirements, and then we've got some additional documents that provide more information. But this has been designed by the travel industry for the travel industry with over 200 experts around the world giving their opinions and information. So this is really something to hold up as a brilliant example of how a business industry can create something that is scientifically sound. And I can guarantee to you that the basis for the Global Welfare Guidance for Animals in Tourism is that it's based upon those principles of the five freedoms but also the welfare quality criteria, which fundamentally, this guide is based upon and assesses suppliers of attractions against. So the animal attractions themselves and experiences also have the same dilemmas that the travel companies have to, because ultimately, they are also businesses and have a commercial interest. But because they offer animals in a kind of entertainment style or because they display animals to the public for educational purposes, whatever their stance is, they ultimately don't want-- their interest is not to cause harm to the animal or to keep the animal in conditions that perhaps don't meet their basic or species-specific needs. But perhaps in some cases they don't know that information. So it's wrong to actually kind of hit them over the head if they haven't been given that information. So ultimately, it's not the responsibility of the travel companies to do this, but the travel companies have recognized that they can be involved in the process of providing valuable and accurate and complete information to attraction providers so they, too, can make informed decisions. And again, the document that was shown previously was written for suppliers, too, so they've got a resource to use. So they have a better understanding, if they don't already, on how to deal with the complexities of animal welfare and protection. And I don't mean to sort of lob the NGOs and the academics into one pot, and if people have problems with that, I apologize myself, but I do see commonalities in the two areas. Because ultimately, the academics are doing very valuable research to challenge concepts, to identify concepts, and ultimately, the people who are making the decisions need to be able to make those informed decisions I was talking about, so they need guarantees that information is as accurate as possible and has been tried and tested. So therefore, the research that the academics provide is very valuable in this process. But importantly also, there is that frustration whereby, OK, so do we just focus our efforts and protect and seek to create guidelines around mammals? Because actually, mammals is where most of the research is to say that those animals are sentient and that they need the protection and they need these certain requirements. And then do we forget all those other taxa because there's not enough research? Well, those are the discussions that are being had. Thankfully, those decisions aren't being made like that. But you can get my drift, is that it's really important for the academics also to understand, and this is down to communication between those that need the information and those that can help provide it, where those holes are of information and knowledge. Because ultimately, decisions can't be made until you can guarantee that that information is accurate and complete. So the knowledge resource of the NGO that have experts within them and also the academics, the academic institutions, are a valuable resource that must be recognized and that must be involved in this process. But equally, they maintain that ethical compass, if you like, where certain practices that might be ingrained within society can be questioned and those decisions of things that may be seen as a norm can actually ultimately change once you've provided the evidence that they need to be. So those are the different-- those are the different areas of different stakeholders. And so what I wanted to kind of throw out there was recognizing the different stakeholders, that, in some cases, people would maybe put the commercial businesses in one pot and the ethical, NGOs, information, science-based entities in another pot is that we need to ensure some cross-contamination-- cross-pollination even and recognize the similarities between the two and to utilize that shared purpose. And that's where I see what my organization-- I'm going to be biased on, but that's why I created it. I've been involved in those two parts in different guises for many years. ANIMONDIAL, the idea of it, is to take all those different components and to join the dots and to ensure that the people that need the information have the information and to ensure that the people that want specific information can find it from the people that may have it or could ensure that we have it. So thank you very much.