 Today is the second day of the second week, ministers have all arrived. We are now well into the political part of the process. The presidency of the Minister for Environment of Peru, Manuel Puddar Vidal, has talked to all the ministers already, given them a briefing on where we are, asked for their cooperation so that we get a result in the next remaining three days in hand. And I'm fairly sure that such a result will be forthcoming. We expect the arrival of the U.S. Secretary of State tomorrow, John Kerry, that hopefully will also bring political momentum. Today I'm going to talk about a particular issue that I follow in the negotiations, namely adaptation, and with it also now loss and damage. There were several items in adaptation, some in the top part of the negotiations, and I'll mention those first. There was a decision to be made on the national adaptation plans, how they were going to be done, and in particular whether or not they should be a planned document, or not have a planned document. The developed country is saying, we don't need a document, let it just be a process. Developing countries says it can be a process, but it also needs to have some outcome as well. So they won that particular battle and argument, and we now have a NAP decision that does have a document coming out of it. The LDC issues have come up. Lease developed countries have a particular negotiating track, mainly to do with the funding of the Lease Developed Countries Fund. They've been demanding more money, and a fast-track approach to getting the money. Again, they didn't get a lot more money, they got some, but they did get the fast-track approach to getting the money, which was another good win for them. And finally, on adaptation, we have a somewhat more contentious issue, which is should we or should we not have an adaptation goal in the main agreement that's going to go to Paris. We'll have to agree whether it goes in or not here in Lima, and then agree, if it goes in, agree on what it would entail before we get to Paris. The argument from the developed country side is we don't need an adaptation goal, we already know what we're going to do, let's just go and do it. We don't have to put it into the text of the Paris Agreement. Developing countries argue that it's a very important issue that we do need to have in. There's a similar argument to the adaptation argument also on loss and damage, where there were a few technical issues to do with the work plan and the technical composition of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage, which was agreed last year in Warsaw, and there was an interim committee that met and developed a work plan that needed to be adopted here, it has been adopted. The interim committee had to be moved into a full-time committee and the composition of that committee had to be agreed. We have now agreed that it's going to be 50% developed countries and 50% non-developed countries, underdeveloped countries, so that's been resolved, but there is another bit left, which is again similar to adaptation goal, should loss and damage appear in the Paris text that we are going to agree here in Lima and then negotiate between Lima and Paris. Developed countries have put it in. Developed countries have asked for it to be taken out. The way the chairs, the co-chairs of this track have dealt with it is they have come up with text with options. So there's an option one that says keep loss and damage in. There's an option two that says sort of refer to the Warsaw International Mechanism and that should be enough. And option three, take it out. The US is very adamant about take it out. The developing countries keep it in. So we should see what happens. That's something that the ministers will have to resolve hopefully by Friday.