 There's a number of things that we hope to see move forward in Durban. The first one is on financing of the red mechanism. As it stands right now, there's an agreement on the side of developing countries to implement red and reduce emissions from deforestation and an agreement on the side of the developed countries to provide financial and technical assistance to do that. But the mechanism for how that's going to happen and the magnitude of the assistance is still not agreed upon. So we'd like to understand more how is the money going to get there, how are we going to ensure the sustainability of the financial stream so that this is not just a five-year project but it actually is a long-term component of the solution to climate change. And a lot of that has to do with the discussion is centered around what's the role of markets versus what's the role of funds and continued public financing for this. And there's a whole host of views on this and we hope to see a coming together of this. For the past two years now, we'd like to see some consensus come out and actually some decisions because a number of countries are already starting to make the first steps in putting in place their red actions. They're moving into the demonstration activities and some are scaling up beyond that. So the question is what sort of funds, they want to know what sort of funds they can count on and what's the plan for the long term. So we need some clarity on what's going to be the role of markets, what's going to be the role of compliance because in the absence of a Kyoto protocol, two countries don't have emissions reductions requirements. So how is money going to come through? How would a market mechanism eventually work in a world where there is no compliance obligations? Now, that doesn't mean there's absolutely no legal framework for this to happen. Europe does have legally binding unilateral decisions about emissions reductions. And California has legally binding emissions reductions. The Northeastern states of the US have committed to emissions reductions. So there are opportunities for markets to actually function and make these things happen because even in the absence of a Kyoto protocol to a second commitment period or a comprehensive agreement, there are legally binding emissions reductions requirements in place. So the question is can we use markets to help implement those and can red actually tap into those markets and benefit from them? Or are we going to have to count on public financing for the next five years and then maybe move to markets? How are we going to phase this in? So all of those decisions really need to come out or at least begin to be formulated. We need to get to the next level with some text on paper that people can begin discussing concrete proposals. But it would really be nice to come out of Durbin with an agreement on that. And if not an agreement on that, at least a timetable to which an agreement will be available. The second area that we're going to need some clarity and hopefully see some progress in Durbin is on the measurement reporting and verification of emissions reductions. It's a little bit tricky. Emissions reductions are sort of counterfactual. In the case of red, we're talking about emissions that did not happen. So how do we quantify something that did not happen? And that whole debate needs to be settled. So there was just two days ago an expert meeting on reference emissions levels and reference levels. This is the jargon in the terms of the negotiations as to how they're going to figure out what the emissions would have been if red actions had not been taken into account. They're talking about the reference emissions level or the emissions that would have happened under business as usual development scenarios. And so we need some clarity as to just what's going to be required there. At one level, there's a discussion about whether we're talking about just the emissions levels from forest and that's sort of the gross emissions level, all the CO2 that's emitted, not counting anything that's being sequestered, any carbon dioxide that's being sequestered through plantation activity, through forest conservation, through just natural forest growth, or whether we're talking about the overall balance in between the biosphere and the atmosphere in developing countries that accounts for plantations, forest growth, protection, fire suppression and things like that. So the question is the one question that needs to be resolved is are we just talking about emissions reductions compared to gross emissions or are we talking about a better performance than what's currently going on given that there is both uptake and emissions from forest in developing countries. We put on the table an idea about a tiered approach and I see that's already in the draft text that's going into the negotiators. The idea behind a tiered approach is that there's a simple approach to setting up these reference emissions levels that all countries could participate in and it's using FAO data, data that the FAO collects from countries, the countries are already reporting but we know that those data are not as actively updated as will be required for a compliance type of mechanism and so we propose this as a first step that all countries could participate doing what we would call sort of a tier one level approach but then as countries put in place national forest inventories as they begin collecting spatial data on their forest they can move up to a higher level of setting their reference emissions level that has greater certainty, less error associated with it that would then allow them to get into the red mechanism. So we'd like to see perhaps a minimum standard of what would be required for a country to enter into the red mechanism but also the steps that countries could go through to get from where they are today in a practical approach to being up to what's required for compliance and then even better being up to what's considered good practice for these types of, this type of what we call greenhouse gas accounting or carbon accounting. So we would like to see some clarity as to just what are the rules of the game for how this is going to be done, whether it's based upon gross emissions or whether it's based upon the net balance between what's currently being emitted and what's being taken up by the countries and any other aspects about what the international community is going to require in an international agreement on red. The third thing we'd like some clarity on is what's going to happen with the so-called safeguards. Safeguards are a series of conditions or a series of, I guess conditions is a good term for them, that red mechanisms have to respect for implementation so that community rights will be safeguarded so that use rights of indigenous peoples to forest that they've traditionally been able to use are not compromised so that biodiversity conservation is respected so that it's not about clearing forest and putting up plantations that we actually get some biodiversity benefits in there, that poverty elements be taken into account. We're talking about implementing red in countries that have significant poverty problems and communities in these areas need to be able to develop so that we need safeguards in there so we don't compromise their ability to develop. All these safeguards have been agreed upon but how these are being reported and how these are going to be enforced is still not part of an agreement and there's still diversion of views on this. Countries have agreed that they actually need to report to the UNSCC how they're implementing the safeguards but there's no requirements or no agreement on what does that reporting consist of? How are these things measured or monitored? Is it just a monitoring or does it need to be quantitative? So we need some indication beyond the language that was used last time which was sort of a lowest common denominator that everybody could agree upon, we actually need to get down to some specifics as to how in the real world context of implementing red how these safeguards need to be reported and more importantly when we find that perhaps we're not achieving a certain level of performance what needs to be done about that. So we need some performance standards in there but we also need some remedial measures to be foreseen in this and understanding how that's going to happen. So I think those are the types of things that we would like to see come out of Durban and understanding that we may not get to full closure on all these at least have some concrete proposals on the table and a clear timeline as to when these decisions are going to be taken. Countries are implementing red already. They need some assurance that this is not all going to disappear in the rhetoric and the discussions around this and we actually have to have a timeline and a deadline for these activities to start and be functional on the ground. I think red is certainly our best, the most likely area in which we'll see progress. We're not going to see a comprehensive agreement on climate change come down. Russia made an announcement two days ago that they're not going to go for Kyoto to Japan did that two years ago said no to Kyoto too. We still see the Kyoto track moving forward. There are still negotiations and discussions around that but there's a whole parallel track that's going forward and even that is stalled at coming to a comprehensive climate change agreement. So I think we're going to see things move forward in piecemeal, a little bit of progress in this area, a little bit of progress in that area as consensus is built around the world. Certainly there's a clear consensus around red. We've been discussing it now for seven years and we've got a number of decisions that are already in place that will allow that to move forward.