 I'm just curious, what kind of support does the police in Nicaragua get practically? They do get, I mean they have officers and it's something that a national government is always willing to have. So in that sense they are not so short in terms of manpower, they are very short in terms of skills to actually deal with these issues and they are very short of resources to mobilize themselves. So what do you mean you educate, I mean aid could educate the police force and them what? I think it's very important that we recognize that to enforce the legislation which is in place an environmental officer being trained as a forester or something else cannot do that job alone. If it has to go by the book and by the law it needs these other legal institutions to work with them and so yes they need to be accompanied very often if they want to confront a person who has just cut down his forest they need to be accompanied with a police officer. If that police officer is not oriented in that direction there's no chance they will leave their office and do that kind of work. So that's a practical way of helping out. Any questions? I have another question. I mean this thing of making governance more effective that kind of aid is hard to report back to the voters at home. Do you have an idea how we could explain better what kind of effects this kind of aid has? So the politicians and the countries are more willing to give money for governance. I think we have been in the environmental field, this is very dangerous to say, in the environmental field we have been too focused on the resources and too little focused on the environmental rights of the people. I think if we want to make sure that there's sufficient and effective and just enforcement of environmental legislation we have to be able to document that people have free access to state their claims and to have their claims processed the way they should be. And so that's another set of data that we need to have in order to demonstrate because you're right, in order to demonstrate that what some people here in the room call very unsexy type of development cooperation is in fact very effective and very useful in this rights-based framework. Please. Yes, I was just going to say about your horizontal integration and it's a very emotive story about the Ministry of Agriculture not wanting the Ministry of the Environment to encroach on its territory, but our experience is that it's an issue of sequencing, at some point it turns around and so when the Ministry of Environment has been very successful in advocating for a policy change, a carbon tax for example, they have to also be willing to let go and realize that they don't have the mandate to implement a carbon tax or a renewable energy strategy and so on. And I think the same goes for environmental research that there has to be an acceptance that development researchers have to be able to take over and speak authoritatively about environmental issues that I think with our own research as well as policy we're fighting this territorial problem. I think in development businesses and in love and emotions, possession is not the right motive. That was beautifully said. Any more questions from the audience? There's the microphone here. Okay, thank you very much for an interesting presentation. In violation of regulations, there are two things that are necessary, the risk of punishment and the severity of punishment. So if the risk of detection or the probability of detection is low, why not increase the fine or the penalty for those who are caught violating the regulations and thereby reduce the frequency or the intensity of violation? What do you think about that? I think I hope that it's not an either or. I would hate to see that it is an either or because if the risk of being detected is low, it also opens up the space for discretional governance. So I detect you because you're a person I don't like and I don't detect your neighbor because we are allies somehow. I think that is a very, very dangerous box to open. So I would love to see that the risk of detection is high, whether your wrongdoing is small or big, and that the penalty corresponds to your wrongdoing and to your environmental costs that you have included by that. Could you please give an example of when, when aid has pressured governments to be more effective? Is there a good country, a country that has had that effect, do you think? To be more effective? Or a better governance when it comes to those issues. That is outside what I can say on the basis of my research. But to take up these issues and to push, I think this quote that I just had, Nika, I was a case in point, even though I think with the revolution also came an environmental awakening in a sense. It's now dying again. So there's something going on that we shouldn't be too happy about. But I think in other countries, in Kenya is a case we have in among our case studies, where there has been a lot of push from the donors that environmental issues should be taken more seriously, that there should be decentralization of that governance, of that enforcement, and it's going in the right direction. We're not yet there, but we're in the right direction. And I think one thing about looking at successes and failures and then trying to project is, with all the effort going into formulating the environmental legislation, we should never get out of this room and think that we should just continue that since it was such a good success. We should say, okay, we have accomplished that, and now we should move to the next step. And I hope that what we can push this room to go out and preach. Let's try it. Any more questions? Yes, here? Thank you, my name is Maria, and I worked for the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and having worked with the conventions for a number of years in Sweden and also working for the UN. But the conventions are quite patch-wise. Environmental issues are super broad. And even in Sweden, when we implement the conventions and we're writing our national implementation plans, we kind of, you know, this is not a way that we can work because this is not a systematic way of working with environment. And I'm just thinking, how can we improve the international framework so it becomes more systematic? And we actually help countries in a systematic way, not only work on persistent organic pollutants, but how do we deal with hazardous substances? How do we work on waste, not only hazardous waste, crossing waters? And also more focusing on the broader capacity needs that you actually talk about, the environmental governance capacity at the national level. And also, I think when we work with the conventions and we support through the aid, the implementation of the conventions, we're creating accountability chain from the implementation to the global community, and you're not, first and foremost, accountable to your citizens. And how can we... How can we make it simpler or easier to... Or better. Okay, and then we have another question, and then you can... Yeah. Thank you. My name is Rasmus Larsen. I work with the Stockholm Environmental Institute and I was collaborating with Heller and Dees in this work. That was just to offer suggestions and build on Heller's point on horizontal integration or the concept of policy coherence, which I think Swedish development corporations also centred around. The need to think not just integration in the host country or in Nicaragua, but actually in the donor country, in a country like Sweden, when we have business activities, all the relations with the country, often, especially when you raise, I think, the idea of the notion of accountability, often the real leverage for accountability sits where the actors are domiciled or located. And that means that, especially at this time in our development globally, a development corporation could be much more oriented towards working other sectors, engagement with other sectors in its own society, not just on the ground in Africa and Asia, et cetera. In the next room, there's now talk about the Millennium Development Goals, the POST 2015 agenda. And as part of that, the efforts for developing also sustainable development goals. If you ask me what I think, because this is a matter of how we think about it, I would think about it this way, that it's very good and it's very important that we have this overall framework for finding out when the different bits and pieces of world development are contradicting each other and what should then be the dominant way or the most important criterion for deciding which way to go. I would be very skeptical towards having conventions that were of this sort of environmental, legally binding conventions that would be covering too many issues. I think one of the beauties, even though it looks cumbersome with all these conventions and all these reporting requirements and all these eight activities that follow, I think it's very important that we concentrate our effort on having conventions that are very clear, that are very simple, that have targets and that we can monitor. And it takes some resources, but I think we have also global facilities for funding these conventions that we should rely much more on rather than inventing our own ways of financing those through bilateral assistance. Thank you very much, Helen.