 Okay. So, like it was already said, we made a similar analyst, as Peter and Seydid, for the Baltic States. We did it for Weissgrat for countries and integrated it into presentation where we compare the Baltic States with V4 countries, if you can just change the slide. So, a little bit about Viseuropa. So, we are in the group regarding the climate and energy policy, but actually Viseuropa, and of course it's a big part of our work because this is such an issue right now, but we are also focusing on socio-economic impacts on foreign policy, on labor market, and we operate nationally and on the European level. So, going to the analysis, we wanted to, we ask ourselves if we and Baltic States face similar challenges because obviously we have differences as well. So, like the main difference is that, especially Polish economy is, in terms of the size, it's way bigger than all of the other countries, but also other V4 countries are also a little bit bigger in these terms than Baltic States and, in general, the share of energy and supply and particularly industry is higher in V4 countries than in Baltic States. In me, it means that we are more industrialized countries that probably than Baltic States, and we are also more dependent on solid fossil fuels. Obviously the entire region is dependent on fossil fuels, but the solid fossil fuels, especially in Poland, are the big part of the energy mix. But we have also some similarities. First one is that our GDP per capita is more or less similar, and it's under EU average, so obviously in terms of energy transition and decarbonization we have problems and issues to cover in terms of the high risk of energy poverty. And we also have a dependency on energy imports. It's the case for the EB3 and V4 countries, and we have also had very big dependence on the Russian fossil fuels. But, yeah, when we compare our countries we can share good practices, how to reduce not only this dependency, but how to transform our economies. Yeah, these areas are for sure the good starters for inter-regional cooperation, not only within V4 and Baltic States, but also in the bigger region. The second part of the presentation will take over. Yeah, okay. Hello again. Thank you, Krzysztof, for this introductory part and the senior high level initial comments. And now to the details of our comparison between the long-term strategies of Baltic States and V4 countries. Yeah, they're quite similar in terms of complying with framework outlined in the governance regulation when it comes to the structure of this document. And all the documents across both regions are quite up to date. Of course, they do not include latest developments in the energy policy, which resulted from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But, and except for the Lithuanian long-term strategy, the documents do not reflect even the Pfit 455 EU package. But in general, they are quite actual in terms of climate policy. But the thing which struck us the most when comparing these two sets of documents was different level of ambitions. Because Baltic States are in general collectively much more ambitious in setting climate targets. And by climate targets I mean in particular greenhouse gas emission reduction and the share of renewable energy sources in the energy system as a whole. Because energy efficiency improvement was in general neglected by all the countries, even in the Baltic States, even by the Baltic States and by the Vistograd group. And this high level of ambition which is characteristic to Baltic States is because of different starting point. As for now Baltic States, the penetration of their energy systems by renewable energy is much more higher than in the case of our region, Vistograd group. And this is an obstacle we must overcome by maybe leapfrogging, reprogging this gap in developing the strategies within our region. But another deficiency which is common both for Baltic States and Vistograd group is that we lack in interim targets for the period between 2030 and 2050. Yes, so the general overarching target for 2050 is set, but we do not develop a pathway how we are going to achieve this target through these 20 years. And this is something that must be amended urgently. Christof, could you? Yeah, thank you. So when it comes to sectoral pathways and measures, in general Vistograd group performed better in addressing this issue as we provided historical data on greenhouse gas emission in all sectors. We have made projections of future emissions. We have outlined policies and measures in contrast to Baltic States where this historical background is often not provided and where this sector-tiler strategy is not even made at all. And this is definitely an example which can be somehow followed by Baltic States when they will be updating their strategies. They can take examples from our region in this area. But a common challenge we have to somehow address both by Baltic States and Vistograd group countries is that we do not develop a strategic roadmap-like approach with policies which are to be implemented consecutively one after another and which would show how exactly we are going to achieve targets in particular sectors. And another general remark is that equally Baltic States and V4 countries did not address to a sufficient extent the land use, land use change and forestry sector and agriculture. And this final stage of our comparison, the last three areas, financing, economic assessment and preparation and implementation. Firstly, financing, this is the area where V4 countries performed much better than Baltic States. As a region, as a whole, we provided an exact assessment of investment needs in order to move our economy towards carbon neutrality. But of course, it's only the first step. It's a half way to achieving this target because, well, we estimated these investments but actually we did not found, we did not identified sufficient finance sources for fulfilling this investment gap which emerged from the assessment of the investment needs. Of course, in the case of Baltic States, even the assessment of investment needs is missing. So even though they can somehow follow the example of V4 countries in developing, in assessing the investment needs, we can jointly, we can jointly develop from scratch a methodology, a strategy to fundraise, fundraise the transition to carbon neutrality to find finance sources. The area in which Baltic States performed better in, when compared to V4 group countries, is definitely research and research and development, as there is a common objective of spending 2% of national GDP on research and development. Whereas in Poland, Czech Hungary, Slovakia, there is no such a target. And as a result, this field is poorly addressed in our long-term strategies. But the most important part of this comparison is socioeconomic impacts and distributive impacts. We highlighted these conclusions because as we remarked at the beginning, as Christoph remarked at the beginning of this presentation, these are the fields where given our common economic problems, the cooperation would be the most prospective. And unfortunately, in these two fields, we cannot learn from each other because both Baltic States and V4 countries did not refer to a sufficient degree to this issue. Socioeconomic impacts are in general poorly addressed with maybe some exception of Poland or Hungary. But distributive impacts are in general the worst, worst-scored category across all the long-term strategies in Baltic States, equally in this group for countries. So this is definitely much room for improvement in this area. Another striking conclusion from the comparison is what Peter already said about analytical tools, because all V4 group countries applied some analytical advanced tools to somehow protect, to plan how the transition to carbon neutrality can be managed until 2050, whereas Baltic States, Baltic States LTSs are missing this element. A very good example is the example of Poland which used a popular and extensive price model. There is also an example of Slovakia and Hungary which could be followed because both Slovakia and Hungary not only applied a mathematical white economy model, but also referred to some external experts who provided an expert inside in some sectors in order to provide some qualitative analysis. As it was also stressed, I think more during the discussion following Peter's presentation, more strict governance for framework is needed both in V4 countries and V3 states. And here there is a good policy to follow, I mean the Estonian example, this policy of truth. This is definitely a good tracking tool which can be, which could be extrapolated across both regions. And together with this, when updating long-term strategies, more public consultation could be involved within the process and civil society could have more influence on the final shape of the document, because as for now, even if this public consultation took place, we are not sure to what extent exactly this public opinions were included in the final draft. Okay, so to the conclusions, Bruce Summary, yeah, as I already said, as I already said, there are deficiencies if in these key areas we identified as key areas for regional, inter-regional cooperation, yeah, I mean social economic impacts, distributed impacts, but also sexual pathways, sector-tiled strategy, which could be especially needed in terms of transport, because both V4 countries and V3 states are highly reliant on oil in this sector, and we could learn from each other how to reduce this dependency on oil and petroleum in transport, and how to develop electromobility. As for now, it is quite difficult to share these experiences. Of course, no one could foresee the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but especially given this latest developments, long-term strategies should be urgently updated. This is probably, unfortunately, a good occasion which can force our countries to update these documents, not only in view of Russian invasion, but this occasion can be grasped in order to, in general, improve long-term strategies. Of course, these latest, these recent events in the energy market, EU energy market, EU energy policy could be included, especially in terms of the burning issue of energy security, as it is common challenge for our regions. Yeah, and these updates could be developed in collaboration between Baltic states and Vistagrad group countries. We will probably discuss it later, how this collaboration cooperation could be conducted. At the end, we provided a brief summary of good practice which could be shared between our states, because as we are close to each other, we share a common challenge we can also learn from each other, and from the side of Baltic states, definitely a strategy for the robust rollout of renewables in something which can be shared with V4 region. As for now, renewables, the penetration of our energy systems with renewables is at a very, very low level compared to the western countries and even to the Baltic states, so definitely this is something we can learn from you as a region, how to develop renewables and how to set ambitious targets in terms of the share of renewables in the energy system as a whole. And another good practice to be followed is this Estonian Tree of Truth as a good tracking tool. Of course, as it might be obviously concluded from what I have already said, a much more good practice can be shared by Visegrat. First of all, yes, this model-based approach, sector-tiler strategies which of course are not at their best in strategies submitted by V4 countries, but there was some effort put in order to design separate strategies for particular sector which was not done at all. I have such an impression in the strategies provided by Baltic states. Of course, assessment of investment needs and available finance is a practice that can be built on in the updates of the long-term strategies. Hungary delivered cost-benefit analysis when assessing the socio-economic impacts in the long-term strategy. It was a very extensive tool which included issues that are sometimes ignored when we think about climate policy. And I mean, for example, car accidents, impact of air pollution on health, etc. These elements could be included in such an analysis of avoided costs and additional benefits from the transition to carbon neutrality. I already said about providing historical data on greenhouse gas emissions. And definitely the documents submitted by Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Hungary had a very good visual side. Data has been presented in a very comprehensive way with many charts, drawings, etc. This was an element which was definitely missing in the strategies of the Baltic states. So this is what we can do together. Thank you very much. In the name of Viseuropa, thank you, Krzysztof. And we are waiting your questions.