Yeah. So I'm a vet, so probably [INAUDIBLE] presenting not one of the best representatives initially for animal welfare. But I've learned quite a lot in the last 14 years or so. Working in animal welfare for 12 years now with work in protection across a various range of campaigns and projects. And, actually, the first project that brought me to that work was working on bear baiting in Pakistan. So it was quite interesting to me in the beginning that this area was usually, in the past many 100 years ago, a bear-baiting arena, so kind of brings me full circle to what I'm doing now. But today I'm going to talk about elephants and tourism because that's part of a campaign I'm quite deeply involved in for a long period of time. I was based in Thailand and Indonesia for the last 10 years, so I was surrounded by tourism and wildlife tourism and various issues. And I'll try to outline some of the findings of the research we've done to build that campaign that we're running but also to maybe outline one pathway to an elephant-friendly future. Keep in mind that's one pathway. That's a pathway we chose based on the information we had and the capacity we have. It may not be the foolproof only way forward. The campaign is actually spanning wider than elephants. So we talk about wildlife entertainment, and often that confuses people a little bit. What is actually wildlife entertainment? Are we entertaining wildlife, or what's going on? The definition we'll be using is the use of wild animals primarily for the entertainment of people in ways that are cause of harm, stress, or discomfort to the animals or by displaying them in demeaning ways. So this is in this presentation how we define wildlife entertainment. And a few examples up here. You already seen them from Daniel as well. Our campaign started probably in 2005 [INAUDIBLE] local campaigns by various country officers working to educate tourism or travelers when they go abroad. But then in 2014, we decided to make a more strategically thought through global campaign. We spent a lot of time building up the evidence base for what's really going on on the ground. So there's a couple of reports we released over the years looking at the specific issues really and trying to quantify how bad is it or how good is it for animals and what's the scale of it. The aim of the campaign has always been to catalyze a phase-out of the use of wild animals for entertainment by primarily working with the travel industry but also the communities on the ground. So the first kind of study I coordinated was in 2010 in Thailand because we got approached by -- two company that wanted to know more about how they can make decisions when they send tourists to Thailand. And they had very specific questions about specific camps and venues, and we didn't know -- nobody knew. There was no database on elephant camps, nothing. So we decided to go around and actually visit every single wildlife entertainment venue in Thailand, be it a snake farm, be it a crocodile venue, be it tiger selfie venues, elephant camps, whatnot. We then repeated that work in 2015, but limited it to elephants but expanded the scope across Asia because we felt that seems to make sense for elephant tourism. But, obviously, it had Thailand included, so we have this five-year gap where we had two studies done so we can observe the trend of elephant tourism. The last study-- just to give you a scale, we found 220 elephant camps in Asia with roughly 3,000 elephants. The majority, about 70% of those, were in Thailand, so Thailand is really the epicenter of elephant tourism. And as much as we often like to avoid pointing fingers at a specific country, it's kind of unavoidable in this case. What we did when we went to the different camps and venues, we had an assessment system set up that allowed us to score welfare conditions. It's not the actual welfare of an animal but the welfare conditions at the camp across a range of categories that ended up in -- if you summarize them into score for that venue. And we found the last survey 2015 that 77% of animals, elephants were kept in severely inadequate conditions, meaning score one to five. One is lowest, and 10 would be the best possible captive condition. That doesn't mean all perfect. 16% were kept in better but still inadequate condition, and only 7% of the elephants were actually kept in scores that we would say are more representing best welfare conditions. Now when we look at what do these venues actually offer, there was a very strong correlation between what the venue activity was offered to the tourists and the welfare. So pretty much all the low-scoring venues would offer elephant riding and elephant shows. So they were really catering to a mass market Elephants would be chained in short chains whenever they're not being ridden. Bad welfare from -- that was it really. The middle kind of venues, the 16%, they often provided better welfare because these venues would be located in more remote locations, slightly more natural habitat. So they scored higher, but they would still offer a lot of very intense direct interaction with the tourists. So elephant bathing, be a mahout for a day, these sort of things. And they are still very, very trendy these days. If you go to the north of Thailand, it's full of these places these days. In a way, it's good to see that there's some recognition of how bad the previous convention at the time was. But this is not where the journey should end for elephants because it is still not good, and it's also really, really unsafe for tourists. Playing around in the water with a couple of thousand kilo animals isn't really the safest way to do it. Plus, in many of those places, they have these attractions where you get water blown in your face from the trunk of the elephants. So as vets, we deal with tuberculosis, for example. And with elephants, the only way to diagnose tuberculosis is to put water in the trunk of the elephant and to let the elephant blow it out in a bucket. And then you search for the bacteria in the water in the bucket. So what you get here is a free sample of potential mycobacteria in your face right where it shouldn't belong. There are studies that shown, I think, in Malaysia 20% of the elephants were positive for TB, and 20% of the mahouts because it goes both ways. In Thailand, nobody wants to do the study. Go figure, right? 7% of the elephants were kept in the best possible conditions, so that's usually places that don't offer any kind of direct interaction. It would primarily be observational activities. So when we looked at the trend condition, there was two studies. First of all, we saw that there were 30% more elephants in the Thailand tourism industry between 2010, 2015. So much more elephants getting into the industry, and that's obviously worrying because more elephants means less resources to take care of those elephants. We've also seen that the majority of these increases happened at the low welfare end, so at the bad places, while still a few elephants would be recruited into the better camps. And proportionally this is actually the stronger fraction. But it still highlighted that right at this point, 2015, at the beginning of the trend, we didn't see a shift of elephants from bad to good. It was more diversifying the market to whatever the tourists were asking for. We then looked at establishing baselines on attitudes of people, how they stand to elephant welfare or elephant entertainment or wildlife entertainment. That was important because if you're campaigning to create change, you want to know where you start off and kind of monitor success. So we did these two studies with 12,000 respondents each across 12 to 14 countries. And one of the things we asked is how acceptable they found certain attractions. And you'll see here in the top row the 2014 result, so-- and two years later, we did follow-up, 2016. The results are below. We saw that acceptability of elephant rides decreased by 9% in just two years, which really caught us by surprise. It's a quite strong decrease in such a short time. We also found a decrease in swimming with dolphins and attending animal performances and little bit less so in joining wildlife selfies, but nonetheless, it was quite encouraging. However, this is just the acceptability, so attitudes. So we wanted to correlate that to actual practice on the ground. So we did face-to-face surveys in Thailand in the same kind of time frame, interviewing the top nationalities visiting Thailand and were talking to them while they're actually on holiday. We did 2,000 interviews there in both years. And we asked them whether they participated or whether they planned to participate in certain activities. Here, we saw that elephant rides to 2016 were actually increased by 4%. Elephant shows went down, monkey shows went down, and tiger selfies went up as well. Now, that's slightly in contrast with what you've seen before, and there's two explanations for that. One of them is that in that sort of time frame, 2014, Chinese tourism in Thailand kicked off big time. So we now see about 30% of tourists to Thailand are Chinese, and they, at this stage, were not yet exposed to any sort of educated messaging on elephants or tiger selfies. The other reason most likely is that in the first survey we asked about acceptability, which is an attitude thing. If you want to achieve behavior change, people go through different steps of behavior change before they put something into practice. So most likely we've seen the first stage of that behavior change when people start to contemplate that they may have done something wrong. But it takes them a bit of time for that to translate into actual action on the ground. But what we do see-- there's change happening now. We also ask people, if there would be an elephant-friendly activity, what would they be willing to spend? Because many, many times, when we are talking to elephant owners or people in the elephant industry, they would say, oh, nobody's going to pay for all this wonderful stuff that you ask us to do. Well, actually, 12% of the tourists we asked said they would be happy to pay 100 US dollars or more for an elephant-friendly activity. And basically we showed them picture of potential elephant-friendly venues so they could see what we mean by that. 12% of tourists in Thailand translates, if they all pay 100 US dollars, translates to 360 million US dollars per year that is potentially available to support elephant-friendly venues. So that's a really big market share, so there is clearly an economic will to support such alternatives. Now, a lot of the work we do is by working with travel companies and talking to travel companies to ask them to end the sale and promotion of exploitative elephant activities in favor to replace those with supporting elephant-friendly alternatives. We're going to talk about what we mean by elephant-friendly in a second. But basically we ask them to consider changing the policy so they change where they send the tourists. Rather, sending [INAUDIBLE] ones, send them to the better places. So far we've got 200 travel brands that have committed to end that sale, which is a really, really good number. Obviously, we are still reaching out to the travel companies. So if there are any kind of [INAUDIBLE] travel companies in the room, we have my colleagues outside. There they are right now, but they will be outside as well. They'd be happy to talk to you about if you're interested in hearing more about that, becoming part of a journey. We also have a couple of big travel companies phasing out wildlife entrainment, such as TripAdvisor making some commitments and Instagram having made commitments on wildlife selfies. So this elephant-friendly criteria that I was mentioning, it's basically a definition of how we feel what's the most practical, realistic situation you can keep an elephant in the best possible situation in captivity that can be replicated without building massive, big sanctuaries. Note a few key points. So no direct interaction between visitors and elephants. Social groups of elephants should be given. The elephants should have freedom of choice what to do at what point. Elephants should be treated humanely wherever feasible, and there should be a restriction on breeding of elephants so that resources are kept for existing elephants to take care of them. We are practical on this, so there are quite a lot of compromises that we had to make in order to create a system that is actually acceptable by the people on the ground. And now we work with those elephant camps to enable them and encourage them to actually transition their current practices to become elephant friendly while working with the travel companies to secure an actual demand for these places. One of the first things we did is working with some of the key partners in the industry to create a working group. And as part of that working group, we created a business model and actually did the homework for the elephant venus, so they didn't have to crunch the business numbers. We had to kind of pre-digest the case for them and say, look, this is what you need, to do, this is what you need to consider, and then your business will be OK. But you will be elephant friendly, and you will be safe from any criticism or of falling customer numbers. The key to that was also to make sure you support the camps when they are transitioning and then, again, make sure they can replicate this kind of process outside of us standing by all the time. Benefits were quite clear. Elephant-friendly venues can then become an actual high-welfare alternative for elephant-riding venues transition into. Elephant themselves will enjoy better welfare by actually having -- being able to express more natural behaviors. Mahouts will in most cases receive better work environments because they're part of the journey. You're not separating the elements from the mahout at the journey, but you actually transition that camp with elephants and mahouts. And you will train the mahouts. You integrate them better into the relationship with the business. And it's usually quite a rewarding experience. And when you talk to mahouts at existing elephant-friendly places, they have-- they feel much better respected at those places because the visitors take them serious and really want to learn about their own life and how they got to where they are now. For the tourists, it is quite positive as well. They may experience an authentic, natural, and educational valuable elephant attraction than before, which leads to happy tourists and their feedback to the travel industry. So the travel industry's motivated also and encouraged to make further changes away from current practices. And, last but not least, this will then also lead to greater reduction of the number of captive elephants so that more resources are available to take care better. Progress right now is we've had four elephant-friendly venues that we're working with right now. We are transitioning one or two conventional elephant-riding camps into elephant friendly at the moment. And, also quite exciting, we're working with Nepalese elephant owners. It's the biggest elephant owner kind of community in Nepal that owns almost all the private elephants there. And they as one union have voiced that they want to change to elephant friendly. So we're now working with them to create a business plan how this could happen for -- I think they have 80 elephants, which is quite daunting but also super exciting. So in summary, we did see that global acceptability of wildlife entertainment decreases, and we do begin to see a behavior change in the individual travelers. But most importantly, we see also that there's quite a lot of economic demand for elephant-friendly alternatives. Travel industry is widely supporting and adopting practices, but still we need more buy-in, really, from the travel industry because there's still quite a lot of bad examples out there. And transitioning elephant venues to elephant-friendly conditions is really the key to success. It's not about boycotting the whole industry. It's about taking them into the journey and moving them along while securing the demand for these practices. So that's it.