 And we found a very strong correlation between the willingness of local users to monitor and forest density. A very recent major study by Ashwini Chhatre and Arun Agarwal just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in the last couple of weeks. They look at the trade-offs, potentially, and or synergies between carbon storage in forests and local livelihoods, because there are people who say, oh, don't let any of those guys in the forest. They'll just take it away and then you can't store carbon. No, it turns out there are synergies rather than trade-offs. They find that indeed larger forests are more likely to be effective at carbon storage, but they also are more effective in stimulating livelihood outcomes, particularly when the local communities have high levels of rulemaking autonomy and when they monitor. Recent studies by Coleman and Steed and others have found that a major variable affecting forest conditions around the world is when local users monitor. And what's surprising to many is when local users have harvesting rights for some are sustainable. And we now have a very large N and we're looking at it over time. These are very strong findings. So we need to be asking, well, what are some significance of these scientific findings for REDD? Well, we have now learned through rigorous studies that solutions that sound good, like government protected areas, may not generate a strongly positive result and they may sometimes even result in something worse, so that forest conditions can go down even in the sound good type policies. So beware of simple formulas. Sounding good is not enough. Two, monitoring who uses a forest for what purpose is essential if illegal harvesting is to be prevented and kept low. But monitoring is expensive if you have to hire troops to come in or guards to come in and really pay attention from the outside. And unfortunately, many guards in developing countries are not paid very well. And this does provide an opportunity for a few side payments and ignoring illegal activities when they're given a substantial side payment. So this problem of monitoring is very important. Third, we've found local users willing to monitor. They have some sense of ownership, some sense of long term duration. Now, why would they do this? Well, partly if they have a long time horizon and if they are not going to harvest illegally, they do need to know a little bit more that others are also not harvesting illegally. So by monitoring and keeping their eyes open, they're getting a sense of the other people trustworthy. And if they're trustworthy, I can refrain from going in and over harvesting and not be a sucker. And getting trust is something that is very, very important and we're not stressing it as much as we should in our policy. Now, monitoring by locals is not yet in our textbooks nor is the whole problem of establishing trust. We need to change our textbooks. That's obviously not something for today, but I hope that in our negotiations that we do move forward, but we do so in such a way that we are very, very careful to be sure that the rights of indigenous people and local owners that have not been recognized in the past are recognized, protected, and that they're given the chance to get technical advice, to do a variety of things to get marketing capabilities for a limited kind of harvesting so that they do get livelihood out of it. Fifth, if local users and indigenous peoples in developing world are not recognized and assigned clear rights, red could lead to more deforestation. We have lots of highly motivated entrepreneurs in the world who are looking for all sorts of cheap ways of getting forests down and plantations in their place, so we end up with less biodiversity, less forests, and more plantations. So in conclusion, let's work hard to develop a carefully designed general policy that then can be worked out to fit many, many diverse local conditions and local ecological conditions as well as local social conditions. We need an adaptive policy process rather than a top-down one. And top-down policies frequently do not work. Thank you very much.