 In the negotiations that we currently are involved with on fishes from Brazil, we are dealing with endemic species living only in restricted areas of Brazil. And you may then automatically think that these fishes all have to come out of the Amazon to get into people's aquarium. But this matter is complicated enormously by the fact that the majority of trade clearly comes from captive breathing in other parts of the world. And with a Citus Listing you may get things better under control, but not necessarily. And that is what we in the panel are trying to figure out whether the Citus Criteria are met in a way where a Citus Listing actually will be beneficial for the conservation of the species. So we had a proposal, an appendix to a proposal made by Brazil. The proposal assesses mainly two species, Potamotragon leopoldae and Potamotragon wallaceae. They're endemic species restricted to two different river basins within the Amazon basin in terms of freshwater stingrays. Obviously there's legal trade and there's also illegal trade. And we also have captive red specimens, some of them hybrids. The data we're evaluating for stingray is mainly if there'll be declines if a listing does not take place. The convention is on trade, so we have to ensure that the ongoing trade is not harming in any way the population. And this is something I really like to work with, because I believe in sustainable fishery. I'm fairly evaluating the Zebra Pleco, which is a very emblematic species of the Brazilian aquarium trade. It's found in a restricted region of the Zanu River in Brazil. And that species has been highly impacted by the construction of a hydroelectric dam. Brazil started restricting the trade in that species by just allowing trade from Brazil in 2004. Trade has continued at some level. There's evidence of illegal trade in the species. It was uplisted to sites of index 3 by Brazil in 2017, which increases the quality of data that's available to us on the international trade. But aquarium, obviously, has been readily and actively breeding this species since the 1990s. And there's a large commercial trade in captive red or aquaculture species of Zebra Plecos that supplies a large portion of the market. Catfish Proposal suggests that there are 100,000 specimens being smuggled out of Brazil every year. And at the same time, the proposal is based on this sort of law. And the source that says this also says that it's estimated that there are between 60,000 and 75,000 Zebra Plecos kept in an aquarium more than white. So where are 100,000 going? The challenge with evaluating science proposals is that oftentimes they're written by non-specialists or people who are very concerned and often rightly concerned about the conservation status of species. So they don't have a lot of information about the population biology or the amount of decline that's occurred. So the difficulties rely in that we're trying to review proposals on the scientific merit of the petition that's being made by the components to illicit species. So it's very important to have the most robust science available when making these decisions. It's probably the largest challenge for the panelists to be presented with a proposal that has very, very little scientific information and then trying to determine what's the best available science to make a decision whether the species meets the listing criteria or does not meet the listing criteria. Reaching consensus can be a very challenging thing. I think scientists like, we like to, especially fishery scientists like to work in a data-rich environment and almost all of these listing proposals have very little data to support the listings being proposed. And the conservation community often disagrees with the fishery scientists when it comes to listing criteria. But for this panel, we feel very strongly that we reach consensus on a recommendation. And that, you know, in a five-day period going through these species proposals and working in small groups and then having plenary discussions on the pros and cons of the merits of the listing criteria, we try to reach consensus. But that's not always possible. And I think it's very important for any minority view or majority view to be presented in the FAO report. And I think the FAO in general does a very, very good job at trying to reflect accurately the sentiments of the expert panel within its report.