 All right, early on we were challenged by McArthur to say, you know, why are you doing this? Even though they were the initiators of it, Jonathan Pham wanted us to articulate a set of principles. He wanted us to identify why this was important and be very explicit about it. And we thought it was important to frame it this way. This really represents three different ways of thinking about the quote-unquote natural world, that there is biodiversity, that we or some set of we care about. But of course there's also the whole ecosystem services conversation, and of course there are people in the extractive industry and national governments concerned with development and so forth who have merely only a few forests and see them as natural resources to be exploited. But not necessarily in sustainable ways. Trade Offsets, of course, acknowledges that you can't always get everything at once. You can't always get what you want. And therefore, as a matter of principle, this project that I think you domain for is based on the idea that trade-offs are almost everywhere at all times involved. And therefore, again, going back to what I said earlier, we need an approach, an integrative approach to analyze and negotiate trade-offs. This is the part that we have in this earlier visualization down here. This is the part that we're still working on. And I want to again be forthright about that, that we're working on developing the different what we're called lenses, and I'll introduce those to you in a second. But the what next part is where we're at right now. That's what we're starting to work on. Once you analyze a particular context, then what does it need to negotiate? Are you just identifying future research needs or what else is there to be done? So this is what we've done just very briefly in putting together the case studies. We asked each of the country research partners to put together these case studies, looking at these different factors. And in doing so, and this is part of what I think before would have felt dysfunctional, but now as we were acknowledging it, it felt not so dysfunctional, but that when we're talking about political factors, for instance, different disciplines think about what is political in very, very, very different ways. So political scientists might view politics in one way, and anthropologists might view politics in another way, not just in a matter of scale, but in terms of how we think about power and all of those kinds of issues. Again, between academics and practitioners and between global and local research and practice. So we developed a set of, one of the things that I've mentioned, MacArthur challenged us to develop some principles. And these are still also a work in progress. These are the principles that we put together, but we consider these subject to review, revision, and so forth. But the first one simply being don't forget place and context. That certain kinds of models are very good at aggregating, simplifying reality, and that captures an important reality. So you also need to keep in mind the complexity of real places, real people, real things, and so forth. The second one really gets at the issue of complexity and scale and prompts us to take seriously what happens when you aggregate and what happens when you think about trade-offs across different scales. And so, as we all know, I think trade-offs might be made at a scale, let's say, in the context of a free trade agreement. That may have huge impacts on local contexts where local people have no clue that a trade-off was even made involving them that will result in the forest where they live being liquidated and turned into oil. So in thinking about trade-offs, it's important to think about trade-offs across spatial temporal and institutional scales. Pluralism is really the issue that I was getting at earlier. Recognizing, and to me this is one of the key things about the framework that we've been developing, that it acknowledges the value of different perspectives. It doesn't say we can put all those perspectives together in a toolkit, put it on a shelf, and deliver results to you. What it says is reality is messy, different disciplines and different fields of practice have different ways of understanding local contexts, national contexts, global contexts, and the trade-offs that are being made, and it's important to acknowledge those. Humanity and nature, some of these may sound overly simplistic, but we felt it was important to put forward what we think is necessary for an adequate way of approaching trade-offs. Humanity and nature really just acknowledges the inextricability of humans and nature. And social learning, finally, that this really tells us that we don't, and probably don't want to aspire to have a final product. That we'll say here it is, here's the trade-off framework, go use it. But that it has to be iterative, it has to be engaged with other institutions and other approaches and so forth.