 The Global Comparative Study is a multi-component project as you know, it has several components to it and one component looking really more at a national level, national red policies and processes and then another component looking at more demonstration activities, a third component looking more at the bio-physical side of things, reference levels and monitoring and then a fourth component more at the outreach part. Myself I'm more involved in the first component looking at the national processes and policies and here we're trying to look at what red is evolving at the national level, looking at the processes, trying to identify who are the key actors, what is their motivation behind them but then also in a second step trying to look at the strategies that are slowly emerging in different countries and trying with the aim to assess those in terms of their carbon effectiveness to which extend to really address the drivers of deforestation or ultimately the forest emissions, cost efficiency and then also the equity and co-benefits part. What you can try to do is at least group countries with similarity, with similar differences, similar similarities, they're either similar along the forest transition curve so either they still have low deforestation rates but high forest cover or very high deforestation rates or lower ones and then already increasing forest cover again due to reforestation and deforestation. So you can try to classify and map those countries under these different circumstances and conditions and then also maybe then in a second step try to look at institutional similarities and out of these, I mean of these these country groups try to draw lessons and what if there are processes but also what policies did seem to work in these different contexts and then inform the global debate and even other countries in the same group which are not part of the study but could still be. At the very beginning we try to capture the national context, we'll try to look at what are the motivations behind the drivers of deforestation, what is how is business done, what are the institutions, formal, informal ones but also what is the political economy, what are the drivers of land use change. So to a certain extent we do capture those but yes there are differences and we have to be sensitive to those and not ignore them in the analysis. Several sources of information, one of them of course secondary data, you look at statistics, existing statistics of course also existing studies, you don't want to repeat ongoing studies and good work, it has been done, you want to build up on work but then also original surveys, you go out, you talk to policy makers, you talk to other actors and stakeholders involved at various levels and across sectors, yeah I think those captures them and those are the main data gathering parts. And then for the strategy part you would look at the initial strategy documents as they are coming out of the process and use what you have available. My perception is that we have a several step approach and one of them is that you look at first upfront how can you make sure that it's always end user driven in a certain extent and that you sit down and check again so called for whom it is certain information useful and what other information we may forget. So this implies talking to policy makers during the methodological design and also regularly when you have these interviews or in other consultations be sure that you are alert and attentive and then also listen about their suggestions how it would you could best impact and then in the second or more advanced step when it goes to translating it into real impact keeping those thoughts in mind and then being targeted and my sense is that different target groups require different tools so for policy makers perhaps a consultative review of your reports where everybody can discuss openly maybe even in a confidential setting so that we can freely openly talk without any political discourse interfering. It can be for the local level local stakeholders more easily translated I mean of course local language is translated as one option too but then maybe also in more digested form. One of the main interest for me in an REDD is how red will translate now at the national level and at the local level and yes there will be risk or there may be trade-offs between effectiveness I mean really addressing the drivers of forest emissions and equity and other co-benefits fairness equal benefit sharing. So while I am on the one hand very enthusiastic about this idea on red I can see it as a huge opportunity I on the other hand want to remain a neutral or skeptical or critical scientist trying to understand well how will it play out in the given setting what are potential risks and what are avenues or ways to mitigate those risks and feed those ones back into the national process ideally and even globally and even as lessons learned for other countries.