 What do you think? I was really so interested and very motivated by so many of the comments. Really a lot of very thought provoking ideas, no lack of things to work on for sure. I kind of like this idea of the ICT and the fiber optics in the river. And then the marketing of products from way inside. I thought, is that the amazon.com coming into the Amazon or something? Yeah, I agree. I think that a lot of the ideas... I really saw several of the speakers touch on the importance of the local to regional issues. And in particular, some of these ideas of empowering the forest people and the value chains that I think are critical to the success of a lot of these interventions. I want to pick up on this thing of fragmentation. I think it came from several of you, but I think Dan particularly brought it up towards the end. And I picked up a number of other things that I would like to connect to this fragmentation of agendas. As I also said in my opening, why don't the forest declaration and the agriculture declaration fit together? And then three things I picked up from the discussion today was that first the need of a common language. And a common language of what we mean by success. And that needs to be a common language that not only teenagers and politicians understand, but even economists understand. That's the trick. I think we can get there and I think that will help us pull in more finance to the actions. The second one is that we need to have the courage to bridge the agendas, these fragmented agendas. And I think as researchers we can have that courage provided that those that fund us have the same courage. So this is the research agenda coming up and we have the courage, do the donors have the courage we'll seek. And the third thing is that I think in this bridging the agendas, a key is really to embrace the diversity of solutions. It's very easy to argue for, actually deforestation is the case, it's one similar solution everywhere. It's a good one, I agree to that. But we have to embrace the diversity of solutions. If we're truly going for a bottom-up approach then we will have to accept that the solutions look different in different places. And I think that would be another trick to convince the policymakers and the heads of state, etc. So those were three things I picked up on the fragmentation issue. Okay, I think that actually sets up very nicely some of the final remarks that I wanted to make. And in respect to, I think some of the research opportunities that definitely exist between the Earth Institute and CIFOR, for example. And I'm going to pick, there are so many, but I'm going to pick the particular comments that were made by both Cheryl and Dan that I think are related. So Cheryl advocates that we really need better planning tools and decision tools so that agriculture can benefit the forests. And in Dan's words, the need for bottom-up, regionally attuned solution to address a lot of these problems. I think those things are related and I think that they also go to, again, this issue of working at a local to regional level. And in the interest of research and collaborative research, so starting with the research piece itself, the data is certainly critical. And we heard a lot about that. Having the data, having access to the data, but the data is only part of it. We need to turn that into knowledge and all of our little research communities has their own data and their own knowledge. So we need to bring that all together, the agronomic, the climate, the social, the economic, remote sensing. All of these things need to come together by working together. And so I think that there's a lot of research in just how those communities work together, how we put our information together that actually becomes then knowledge and something that can start to build and inform decision systems and planning tools and things like that. But in order to do that, then the second critical piece, I think, and many of you touched on this also, is partnership. So we have this research partnership, the future up here, and it is more than just Earth Institute and C4. It's really the partnership with those local communities and with the national agencies and with really the global community that wants to succeed in this problem. So that's what I sort of distilled out of all of this great dialogue from your distinguished speakers. Thank you. Yeah, I just have one short thing to add, and that's that in the past couple of days we've heard from very high levels a lot of talk about taking the forests out of the value chain. I'm beginning to think that that's actually completely wrong. What we want to do is the absolute opposite. That is, we want to include the value of forests and the forests into the value chain. And I think that there is an interesting twist that we should be working on a bit. So I'd like also to thank you. Thanks to all the speakers. Thank you to the audience who have also provided questions to the panel. And I think we, from my part, from C4's part, thanks again to Columbia, thanks to everyone who have made this possible. And I think we're ready for some refreshments outside eventually. Yes, thank you very much Peter. Thank you C4, the Earth Institute. And again, thank you very much to the speakers.