 Okay, I'll just start off with the first question, addressed at both of you, but I'll ask Steve first. With the New York Declaration, it seems to be a very ambitious plan to stop deforestation. What do you think are the actually realistic aspects of that declaration? Well, of course, the Declaration signed by governments, private companies, NGOs. And a lot of the, if you will, the burden or responsibility for its implementation falls on the private sector, because these are large companies that produce key global economies like oil, palm, sugar, beef, so on and so forth. And they're the ones who are having the direct, really significant impact on the forest landscape. And so the implementation questions that arise really fall largely to the private sector. What's significant about the Declaration, among other things, is that a very large number of the principal commodity-producing companies in the world signed on to the Declaration. And the Declaration provides, really has this aim of having deforestation by 2020 and eliminating deforestation by 2030. So you're quite right, Virginia, these are hugely ambitious kind of goals. And so lots of implementation issues arise. Now, I have to say there's been some experience over the last 10 or 15 years or so on the part of companies and others to try to reduce the sort of impact on forests of their agricultural production practices. And so there's some lessons there to be learned. One thing I might mention is the experience of something called the soy memorandum, which is a zero deforestation pledge in Brazil that a number of companies signed in 2006, which has had the effect of really eliminating added loss of forests due to soy production among the companies that signed that pledge. And of course, the incentive here for the companies is that in signing the pledge, they get access to global soy markets. If they don't sign the pledge, then they lose access. So there's an experience with that, with how to do that. But there's lots of questions arising in how it'll actually be implemented. And maybe Christof can reflect a little bit on when you think about the kind of challenges to implementation, what are the things that come to your mind? So we are talking about pledges which are not coming into effect immediately, are giving us some time to kind of implement that put measures in place. And another important aspect is that companies which are making these pledges are actually, if you put them all together, they represent around 60 to 70 percent of the global supply chain or trade of oil pumps. So we are talking about a significant chunk of oil pump being traded globally. And so these companies are pledging zero differentiation over, let's say, the next 15 years. So looking at it from that standpoint, you think, yes, okay, perhaps this is feasible. But then one thing is to look at it and say, okay, whether it's feasible or not. But the other side of it is to say, okay, what are the implications for other players beyond these immediate limited number of large global players making these commitments? And this is the area which for us is very interesting to explore. And I think the area that we feel hasn't been really looked into or examined sufficiently. Companies are making these pledges. Everybody's excited and just like it, governments are kind of still trying to find their position on it. On one hand, they kind of say yes, but on the other hand, okay, what does it really mean for us, for our economies? But the question of implications for other players, for small and medium sized players, smaller companies, small holders, this is something that is unexplored and we are looking into. And we have some, let's say, how shall we say this, Steve, preliminary concerns or whatever, that perhaps implementing these pledges in practice may mean excluding or sidelining some of these small and medium scale actors in the oil pump agenda in the oil pump sector. And that has to do with cleaning up the supply chains, ensuring deforestation free supply chains of oil pump. And drawing on the experience that we have from the forestry sector, looking at how it played out in the timber sector, we see a lot of parallels with sidelining and excluding small and medium sized players. So, I think our concern is how to ensure that that is minimized or doesn't happen. It doesn't happen. I'd like to get back to that small holder aspect later, because I think it's particularly interesting when you are looking at those larger corporations and the fact that their pledge may in fact exclude the livelihoods of other people is what you're saying, Seafall's concerns. It could, it could. We're not saying it will, but it could, yes. How do you investigate that? How do you make an assessment that that will be the consequence of a corporation, you know, that that is a possible consequence of a corporation signing on to the deal? It may happen. We don't know whether this will happen. I mean, it's, it's, it's kind of an open question right now. But again, drawing on the knowledge that we have from the timber sector, from the forestry sector, looking at how the timber legality verification system played out in Indonesia and the small scale sector, we, we feel that, you know, we may see a replay of that situation in the, in the oil pump sector. Given that it's a voluntary declaration, that's highly likely that that could happen given that it's not legally binding. Is there a role for governments, obviously there's NGO and indigenous people kind of watchdogs and support and lobbying, but is there a role for the governments that have signed up to the declaration to be part of that process of checks and control? Oh, most definitely. And the kind of social and economic questions are rising. For instance, if a large number of small producers, whether they be goers of oil pump or, or, or marketing, you know, companies, you know, if they're excluded from these markets, then questions of where they market their product, what kind of price disadvantage might they face, what would be the consequences to livelihoods and incomes can be quite significant. So any government's going to be concerned about that. And so here, you know, questions arise around, so safeguards, if you will, to ensure that, you know, smallholders and others who have, have secured livelihoods from, from forestry or from the forest landscape or from agriculture are not disadvantaged in participating in these, in these markets. And, and you know, this is all part of, if you will, an important element in the certification movement. This is a form of certification. Really, this zero deforestation is an outgrowth of, it's very interesting and important processes, but unfolding over the last 30 years, where, you know, producers of commodities have, you know, met certain requirements with respect to sustainability, land use and resource use, but also social sustainability and values. Those have been introduced in, in sort of later stages of the certification sort of development, kind of thinking about certification. And so here's where the considerations of social impact would, would come into the mix. Governments would be very concerned about that. Consumers would be concerned about it because, you know, drivers of, of, of these sort of pledges have been in markets, you know, and they're, you know, consumers in many large markets are as equally concerned about the social consequences as they are the environmental consequences. And increasingly so. Just to add to, obviously, you know, the consumers are driving this, you know, in Europe and elsewhere, you know, they, they've actually, they made it happen, you know, that the companies made these pledges. But of course, they don't want to hear that, oh, as a result of our pressure and the pledges, now, you know, small holders or rural people, whoever are going to suffer, you know, because of, you know, because of the exclusion. So almost certainly, you know, the social groups and NGOs, they'll be pushing the governments, like in Indonesia, I'm sure, to make sure that there are safeguards in place to assist small holders, to kind of speed up the adoption of certification measures among small holders and help them meet these Eurodeforestation criteria. Again, sort of learning from the forestry sector, you know, is this, this group certification possibility. There is also this self-declaration sort of concept or jurisdictional level sort of based approach to certification. So the different ideas being explored to, to kind of more effectively implement certification on a sort of wider scale. The landscape. Yeah, yeah. But, but, but this remains to be, you know, it remains to be seen how this is going to play out in the context of OOPAM. Right now we don't know, but we can expect that there's going to be a lot of pressure on the government to make sure that there is no excessive adverse effect on, on small holders. Yeah. It, it seems from what you're saying that that is kind of one of the areas and the, the question I addressed to you before about kind of government involvement in trying to ensure that those people don't get edged out of, out of the picture. What kind of research is needed to be done to make sure that that production line, for instance, the one that you were talking to about before kind of remains in place, but that the declaration is, is, you know, the declaration works, that the aspects of the declaration of deforestation actually works. Well, in my opinion, one of the major basic things, basic pieces of research that needs to be done and I think some, it's a piece of research that we will be very sort of enthusiastically pursuing is a better understanding the small scale sector, OOPAM sector, wherever it is. Of course, mostly we're talking about in... What do you mean, sorry, what do you mean when you say the small scale sector? Can you just define what a small scale sector is? Oh, that's becoming a bit tricky now. We are talking about enterprises anywhere from two hectares to 150 hectares or something like that. There has been a virtual explosion of those kinds of enterprises in Indonesia over the last five years. You know, most of the time when we talk about OOPAM, we have this, you know, we have, people imagine large scale monoculture plantations, thousands of hectares, which is the case, but in more recent times, there's been a tremendous growth in this kind of small, what we call small scale sector. And so there are various estimates as to how big or how large it is, how many people it involves. There are some official statistics indicating that somewhere between three to four million people are involved in this sector. If we include the kind of unregistered ones, it may be double that, so anywhere seven to eight million people or families in Indonesia. So, but there's some very basic piece of information that we don't have about this, you know, how large is it, how is it distributed spatially, the working dynamics of this sector, the financing behind it, the sort of political economy of it, the management practices, and also the links to the value chain, the supply chains. All these things need to be better understood in order to understand how we can, you know, how we can safeguard these small holders and growers of OOPAM. You know, so they are not adversely affected by zero deforestation. From a government perspective, Steve, the protection of those small holders is vitally important. It would be. I mean, any government would be concerned that they not be excluded. But the government has other interests in these pledges. And Kristoff alluded to one, I mean, what are the consequences, for instance, for economic growth? You know, if the adoption of the pledges means that there's less overall production of OOPAM in the country for export, less government revenue associated with the sector, less maybe net employment as a result, then those are other questions. And in a sense, Indonesia, for instance, is one of the leading countries with respect to deforestation. It now is the leading country. It just surpassed Brazil last year as the country with the highest rate of deforestation. And much of this is driven by large scale, but increasingly contribution from small scale producers, OOPAM and other sort of commodity production. And you sort of reduce that, then it has economic consequences. Well, there are some serious contradictions. I'm sort of smiling as I'm listening to you because, in fact, my sense is that the government of Indonesia is kind of caught in the middle. On one hand, yes, they would like to support this sustainability agenda of zero deforestation. On the other hand, of course, they are the leading producer and grower of OOPAM, so they want to maintain that, if not expand or strengthen that position. And then there's also these indeed contradictions in the sense that if we look at the Indonesian law, indeed, as it stands now, zero deforestation is impossible, in fact, because companies legally are forced to or are supposed to develop their full concession area into plantation areas, and they're not supposed to be setting any sort of areas aside. I mean, that's according to the letter of the law. So some parts of the legal framework would have to be changed as well, if zero deforestation were to be implemented fully, effectively. So there's definitely some contradictions, and they will need to be sorted out. Well, we started the conversation discussing how realistic you thought the declaration was and is, and what aspects of it were more realistic than others. I'd like to end, I suppose, by just asking you, how would you judge the success? Or how would the declaration be judged a success? Well, I think one of the simpler measures of success, I guess, would be precisely what Steve mentioned earlier, to keep an eye on the rates of deforestation in Indonesia. I mean, no matter how you look at it, oil palm is a major driver of deforestation. There are other drivers, but in other commodities. But oil palm, by far, is the leading one. So if there's any progress being made in that area, you should see a drop in the overall rates. Of course, understanding the drivers on the ground that might be leading to a reduction in rates of deforestation is something that we do here at C4. That's part of our research mandate. So how are these pledges implemented is a key issue. But I think also, and I want to say how potentially important these pledges are, because they represent what we're sort of characterizing as sort of a new element in the global forest governance architecture. Because traditionally and historically, forest governance has been the kind of responsibility of the state. State governments tend to own forests. They regulate their use through permitting and enforcement rules, and so on. But in the last 20 or 25 years in zero deforestation is the latest expression of this, we've seen kind of consumers voting, if you will, in ways that have implications to how forests are used and how forest producers are treated in many settings. And so this is another, we call this sort of non-state sort of governance regime that could conceivably, if these practices take root, consumers continue and increasing the expect that the commodities that are produced sustainably, then the potential for there to be significant benefits to the environment in terms of reduced deforestation, greater protection of biodiversity, reduced greenhouse gas emissions associated with deforestation. These can be quite significant benefits, maybe greater than some of the benefits realized through traditional government initiatives. Being mindful that there's more that we can do on the government side as well. And just to reiterate what we said earlier, I think it will require some clear measures to kind of buffer or protect the smallholder sector. And then some specific steps to modify the legal framework for plantation development in Indonesia. So the actual zero deforestation management practices can be implemented. So it will take some modifications in the system and so on. But I think overall it has great potential to move along the sustainability agenda in the oil pump sector.