 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the audience. It's a pleasure to be here. My presentation is about forestry and foreign aid. I'm a specialist in forestry and a little bit an outsider of foreign aid. I've been struggling with this question since April this year, as Dr. Jung-Fu Hoang of Wider Institute contacted me with these questions. What has worked in forestry and foreign aid, and what is sort of feasible? The questions looked very interesting, so I took the challenge and have been struggling since. I'd like to have your help and your comments. I'd very much appreciate your comment to this first presentation of these ideas. Tentatively, I'd suggest three solutions to these questions that have been given, and that's the idea, and I'd like you to comment on them. But first, before we go into the theme, I'd like to refer... My background is on climate research and forestry research. I worked with the IPCC precisely on mitigating climate change with land use measures. Some news are not so good. We have CO2 in the atmosphere keeps rising at a faster rate this past decade than in the 1990s, so we do not see an improvement there. Even worse, the global CO2 emissions have hit new records, both in 2010 and 2011, growth rate last year, the latest one, 3% plus, despite all the effort with the Kyoto Protocol and so forth. So this is not good. You've all seen these latest news about the Arctic ice. The picture on the right-hand side is from the day before yesterday. It's freezing again, of course. You feel it outside there, but we had the lowest Arctic ice ever recorded about three weeks ago. Just a picture of Finn, who first went through this ice, so this is a big issue for us in the North, whether the Arctic will become ice-free. Some good news, though. Carbon sinks are doing fine, and we have new paper, this is last month in Nature, an interesting paper showing that over the past 40 years, we have emitted about 350 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, and about 160 billion tons of carbon have remained in the atmosphere. So the sinks have taken up about 190 billion tons, more than what's now left in the atmosphere. And the rate of sequestration into the sinks has improved, and there's no sign of any saturation, and this is certainly something very positive. We published a paper last year with a football team of scientists showing where in forestry we can see these sinks. And this is technical, you can look at the details if you wish in the paper, so the main message is that the tropical area is in balance regarding their CO2 budget, so what's lost in deforestation is gained in other areas of the tropical region, and the northern forests are gaining carbon, so that's a good part of that sink, which is developing positively, as we show. So then, with this background coming to the questions, what would be feasible regarding aid? An excellent book has been published by C4 in 2003 on what forest assistance has been done. This is available over the next, so if you're interested, I'd recommend. So one of Persons' concerns is that we really often do not know what do we want from forests, and if the goal is unclear, then the aid obviously has trouble. How do you promote something that you don't know what you should promote? I mean, of course, we have the same debate, like in Finland, we have a debate of conservation and utilization of the natural resource that's everywhere, but nevertheless, one would think that at least the government has a policy in balancing these different needs that we have on forest, so this is what is interesting. Another one observation of Persons is that we have shifted the paradigm of aid and forestry every 10 years. So first there was the industrial period in the 60s, and then there were the local community development, and finally we've come up to this red plus debate. Now then, what could we do, perhaps, which can be feasible first in the short term, then in the midterm, then in the long term, short term being five years from now, midterm like 15 years, and then a permanent, more sustainable solution. First, an idea of simply an effective stove to burn wood in the areas, which is freely available and could be implemented more or less immediately. Referring to the front page of, you see the whole picture there, a woman carrying about 20 kilos of wood, roughly, probably needs five kilos per every meal that she cooks for the family. So if she could cook this meal with two kilos of wood, she would save time and we would save the wood. And these are available. This is my camping equipment with a stove that I can cook a meal with two kilos of wood, and these are affordable and could be distributed in large quantities fast. Midterm solution, measure the forests better. We have an excellent project in Tanzania in measuring the forest resources of Tanzania. Finland's government and Finnish expertise has been involved. And now, quite soon, we will know how many trees there are in Tanzania. Do you know how many trees there are in Finland? 65 billion. So we have 10 trees for every person in the world. And that can be done. And then a more sustainable... So measuring forest is important, whether for many purposes, including assessing the carbon issues. But the sustainable solution, really, I come from the university, so this may be obvious. I think universities are really very important. So in the long term, we need education and how to do education. You need teachers. How do you get teachers? You get the university. So summary, there are bad news and good news about climate, mostly bad, unfortunately, mixed experiences of what has been achieved in forestry. Some lack of agreement of objectives, paradigm shifts. And then we have, in this field, we would have low-hanging fruits and we have sustainable solutions that then take more durations. With this picture of our university headbuilding, I'd like to thank you.