 Jag tror att STGs representerar en möjlighet, för det är ett nytt sätt att formulera om hur vi vill ta planeten och hur vi vill ta humana society. I det här sättet är det viktigt att formulera dem i en mång som är lätt att förstå. Det betyder något till människor. MGGs är ganska specifikt och oftast sektorbund. I STGs har vi en möjlighet att formulera krosskattningar som inte necessarerar att följa de övriga gränser i sektorer. Det här är en av de poängs av ett krosskattning-sättning, för följer är viktigt genom att utveckla agenda. De är viktigt för följdsektorer, de är viktigt för att protectera området, de är viktigt för klimatförändringar, de är viktigt för grön ekonomi som utvecklar. Vi kan inte verkligen plästa följerna i en box. Vi måste se hur följerna kan hjälpa krosskattningarna. We often hear about forests being under threat. Yet again we hear about what I just mentioned that forests are important across so many different goals. One of the issues is that we can't really find the solutions if we only look at the forest. Take for example the big forest fires that we had in Indonesia earlier this year. These fires were there because of agriculture activities. And unless we start working together across forestry and agriculture we will not find the right solutions. So that's why we argue for a landscape perspective so that we can find a basis to discuss these common solutions. I think once you step out of a sector approach and discuss this in a more open-ended way then it becomes very obvious to many people that we have to find solutions across the landscape. And we hear that particularly I would say in the evolution of the red, the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation discussions. This is mainly under the climate change convention but it still represents a very big part of the landscape approach that we need. And in this evolution it is becoming more and more clear that we need to look at the drivers of deforestation. That means we need to find out how forests and agriculture can coexist and with combined solutions. I think it's important to recognize that people are a central feature in landscapes. So it's not only about the natural resources as such. And therefore if we want to measure progress then we need to figure out what makes life better for people. So one of the measures needs to be something around livelihoods, probably income or something about assets for farmers and producers in the landscapes. And other issues of course food and the landscapes produce all our food. We need to have a measure that tells us the amount and quality of food that's being produced. A third one of course bringing in the production of food but also the wider aspects of protecting the environment is ecosystem services. We need to have a measure that tells us that the landscapes are doing fine, they are healthy, they can continue to support our livelihoods. And a fourth one would have to do with resource efficiency. We need to produce our food in more efficient ways. We can't continue to emit so much greenhouse gases. We can't continue to convert forests to farmlands and thereby emit many greenhouse gases. So resource efficiency will be the fourth one. And if I want to add a fifth one that would have to do with biodiversity. We need to make sure that we have the ecosystems and the habitats that have the potential to carry biodiversity for the future. We have the knowledge and experience in many countries on how to follow, how to monitor the development of key factors for landscapes or countries as a whole. In forestry we have a long tradition of national forest inventories. And those can be adjusted and developed to fit the purpose of wider indicators. There is also a lot of experience in monitoring households and livelihoods at the local scale. And those experiences can be used as well. We are now closing a phase of the SDG developments. There has been the open working group of the General Assembly that has met eight times. And they have gone through all the topics that were raised in the Rio Plus 20 conference last year, actually two years ago. And one of those topics were forests. But forests was only one of more than 30 topics. So that gives a good perspective on how we need to figure out a way for the importance of forests to appear across many other topics. And not argue for a standalone SDG on forests because I don't think that will be productive or even politically possible.