 Well, when red got going, you were talking about how you change land use, how you reduce deforestation. And a lot of people were worried about how that would be implemented and whether it would throw Indigenous people off their land and big private companies would come in or trees would be planted in monocultures. And so safeguards are some best practices and some requirements that ensure full and effective participation of stakeholders that ensure that the rights and knowledge of Indigenous people in local communities are respected, that ensure that red is implemented through transparent and effective forest governance structures, that it isn't used for conversion of natural forest, but is used to enhance biodiversity and to deliver other benefits. So the thing that's really interesting about red safeguards is that safeguards sound sort of negative, you're safeguarding against harm, but actually the red safeguards include positive things like making sure that red delivers and enhances other benefits to people and to biodiversity. And also they focus on governance issues like participation and transparency, because that was one of the problems. Indigenous peoples and local communities were afraid of red and then people were worried about investing in red and implementing it because of these things it might do that were negative. And this brings more people in, gives them more confidence, brings more credibility. And of course, because they participate, it delivers more emissions reductions because people get involved in designing the red programme to make it more effective and so they're not only a kind of add-on prerequisite checklist that you do, they're a kind of integral part of making red more effective and making sure it delivers a whole suite of sustainable development objectives. Loads of progress, I mean lots of countries are really moving forward. There are those Cancun safeguards which were agreed by the UNFCCC and they're like seven big principles. And then each country is taking them and unpacking them and working out what are the risks and opportunities for red in our country. And then they're looking at how their policies, laws, regulations, their institutions already address them, but they're finding some weaknesses. And where there are weaknesses, they're looking at ways they can address those. So that is when there's a set of international rules or national rules that are defined for how red should be done and safeguarded on the social biodiversity side, people want to know, well, is that working? You know, as you're implementing these red activities, are you actually respecting rights? And so the information system, so collecting information from the local level or from the national processes and synthesising that information and making it available so that those people who need that information, either at the management of the strategy level or internationally in terms of providing a report on how safeguards are addressed and respected in the country, is a necessary prerequisite. It's a requirement. It's in the rules for red before a country can receive results-based payments. That's exactly it. But there's so many sensitivities about it. You can imagine, these are national sovereign countries and they're being asked to address and respect rights of their own citizens and to do this against international standards, safeguards. And many countries don't want to be checked up on, you know, how are we respecting rights in our own country and how are we delivering sustainable development to our own people? And so what we as a group are trying to do is encourage more stakeholder participation within the country as a way of building the credibility of the information that's provided without there being an international descent on the country to somebody from outside checking. And of course, I mean, somebody mentioned in the panel here that, you know, is it important that the information satisfies the outside world and the donors? No, it's important that the safeguard is implemented in a way that satisfies the stakeholders, the citizens of the country who are affected by red or can benefit through the red benefits at their own level. So really the kind of arbiter of whether it's good enough for the stakeholders in the country. Ah, interesting. So this week, last week, there was an agenda item on whether there should be more guidance for safeguard information systems. And at the moment, there's just very minimal guidance, which was agreed a few years ago. And several countries, many countries think it would be very helpful to have more guidance because then they would know what they have to provide to the outside world and the people, the donors and the financing agencies would know what is good enough, what types of information should these safeguard summaries have in them. But there's also a pushback from some countries who are implementing red who don't want to be told what to do. You know, they think a more flexible approach with what they already have should be good enough. We're talking about how many countries have really made good progress on this and how they've started to learn that the safeguard information systems are very important for providing information within their own country to their own stakeholders to improve the red programme, as well as for international reasons. In Indonesia, they are already piloting their safeguard information system at the province level. We've had the example from East Kalimantan and integrating information from project levels and then bringing it up to national level. I think it's a really exciting time for red and for safeguards because we've got all this new experience coming out and we're involved in an initiative of exchange and learning between countries which is leading to new emerging good practices. I suppose it really just helps to emphasise how red can be part of a broader landscape sustainable development strategy as an element of what countries are trying to achieve to support their development.