 But it's important to ask another question, who are the actors? That may or may not, that may sound like a very simple question, but I think in some contexts it's actually quite complex because certain actors may not wish to be visible, they may be playing a role in the making of trade-offs, you know, the role of the petroleum industry in the US in the debate about armbar, you know, it's a key role for instance. We use a number of terms, and I won't go into this right now, agency being one, which is who are the actors, but not just actors that are brought there by explicit processes of stakeholder involvement, but other kinds of actors, again, who may not be quite so obvious, playing such an obvious role. Some of this work is premised on the idea that the very act of simplifying as one might see in aggregational approaches, economic approaches, has a certain power. If you do an analysis, if you try to decide what to do in Papua, let's say, and you do an analysis that lumps together, you know, a whole sort of district, that in itself, this perspective would tell you, is a form of power, because you're writing out a lot of simplicity, you're simplifying reality through your model, through your analysis, and that's important to take account of, distribution of knowledge, legitimacy, how to differ, all the different actors at the table frame the issue, and what power relations are most important. So, this is where, again, we think that this framework can be useful in analyzing, in particular, these guys, and one of the things that I'm interested in, and one of the reasons I've been here in Indonesia now, is talking to people from various conservation organizations to see about the potential of applying this framework to the Coral Triangle Initiative, and we've also had some discussion about applying to the Coral Coral Initiative, but this is, again, this is the part where we really need to go, we've got these three lenses, we're still working to develop them, but there's the then one question. This is really an oversimplification, but in some of the cases that we've done, we've seen these trade-offs between jobs and income quality of life, economic development versus biodiversity, assistance services, and so forth. We recognize particular valuation gaps, so we recognize particular process gaps, and we recognize particular, these, again, come out of our case studies from our country partners, power gaps. All right, that's the big question, and that's where we're at. So, in some cases, we also use this idea of the gap. We think that the gap can be narrow, and this really maps on to the valuation approach, payment for ecosystem services, or various other kinds of incentive-based approaches through process, that's second lens, you can bridge the gap if you get the right people at the table, or you can simply mine a gap. And taking seriously that bridging and narrowing may not be possible in some contexts. All right, let me, now, that's the framework. Let me now switch back to CICR and talk about a little bit of what we've done and where we're going and where we think that this framework might apply. And I should say that this framework has been emerging through the ACSC process, at the same time, we've developed individual research projects that at the time weren't part of this. It's not been a neat process, it's been really messy, and so we developed these research projects, and the framework was coming together over here, and now we're also in the process of kind of saying, okay, what does all this have to do? We have a meeting next month in which we're going to say, what do all these different pieces have to do with the framework? And so let me just sort of share with you briefly a couple of the things that we at the center have particularly been doing. We, first of all, last October in Barcelona was the World Conservation Congress, and we organized an event ethnography of that meeting. We brought together about 20 researchers, focused on particular aspects on payment for vital services, on indigenous issues, on marine issues, and so forth. And the idea was, I went to the World Parks Congress in 2003, 8,000 people there or something, and I was a lone anthropologist, I was completely lost. Meanwhile, CI was there with 90 people coming together every day, sharing notes, strategically placing themselves in different panels in different meetings, coming back together every day, and sort of approached the meeting like a meeting part to come together, come together, go together. We kind of wanted to build on that strategy as a research strategy so that we all went out every day, collected our data, came back, shared our findings, and we're now in the process of putting that together and sharing that, sharing those results with IUCN. We've got a project underway with our Peruvian colleagues on what we're calling the Politics of Translation, one of my Peruvian colleagues, as he put it, he said, you know, all these terms, governance and biodiversity, he said, they begin in the Northeast debate and they land in the Southeast Band-Aid. And there's a little bit of, you know, I think that captures an important reality, I think it's a slight oversimplification, but it captures something very important. And what we're trying to do is understand how these terms circulate, how they land, in particular in Peru, what we're hoping to do is develop a framework that would be applicable to, you know, English, Bahasa Indonesia, or even when conservation terms, development terms are translated, say, between Spanish and Kituwa, or between Bahasa Indonesia and Kantu, or Kenya, or something like that, right? That there is something going on that it's important to pay attention to in translation. And we really became aware of this when our Peruvian colleague said, at one of our very first meetings, he said, wait a minute, wait a minute, we don't know how to translate this term trade-offs into Spanish, we have six different terms we could use. And the Vietnamese said, actually we're having the same problem. For us, the concept of trade-offs, the only word we could color, the only idea we can come up with is to, that we can express in Vietnamese, is when you have to compromise from a position of weakness. And that said something very powerful about, you know, these concepts. We think they translate easily, and of course, questions each week, right? And it's important to take that seriously. I have a graduate student who's doing his dissertation on the WWF Arctic Initiative, trying to map the different trade-offs that are being negotiated and carried out through that initiative. And finally, I've got a postdoc working on the role of the social sciences and conservation, which he's particularly interested in, is this shift toward market-based mechanisms in conservation. And so that, for instance, we have all this sort of red payment from viral services. A lot of that's being developed by economists who aren't aware of the fact that back in the 80s and 90s, we had tons of debates about what a community is. And all this stuff that came through this sort of participatory community-based management literature that's directly relevant to how one would think about benefits in the context of viral services. This is the kind of thing that I think there's a lot of potential.