 Yeah, thank you very much. So just to introduce myself, my name is Tom Blomley. I'm working on the learning initiative, principally involved in work around evaluation. And as shouting as said, I actually have a chance to do both Ghana and Lao PDR to review the activities going on there and have a chance to talk to different stakeholders, but within and outside of it programs try and get a sense of the financing arrangements and early results that are beginning to flow from those from those two countries. But as mentioned, there's also been a number of desk studies and other sources of information, interviews and so on. So what I'll try to do very briefly is really summarize some of the very, very broad key areas that are coming out from this. They're very early, they're tentative findings. But we're putting them out there really to try and generate some discussion and get your interest. So really the first slide, what I've tried to do is to categorize in a way the principle financing modalities that the fit has been using across this portfolio. And these are not in any way, you know, complete lists, there are other modalities and so on. But first of all, probably one of the biggest categories of investments are what we're calling enabling investments. These primarily flow through public sector projects to government, through grant arrangements, and they provide support to a whole range of policy processes, capacity processes, financial de-risking as well to some private sector capacity support. So it's those sort of trying to reduce barriers to investment really, around a whole range of issues. We've seen in Ghana, for example, the PIP program working a lot on our tree and land tenure, which are significant constraints to investment. And within Laos, there's support to timber plantation companies around capacity building, trying to help them engage more with communities. The second model there is also a large, it's 53% of the portfolio. It's really support to very low level, micro level, family owned, sometimes informal sector, income generating activities. And these are sort of happening within, largely within rural communities around forest, within forested areas. In some cases, they're supported through village loan or grant funds, which then used through a community process to identify and select income generating activities and livelihood based activities. I think the key here is that the emphasis is really on the financial support and the process of selection of the IGAs. But in most cases, and this is again a general finding and not not in all cases, they are mostly around that aspect of establishing the enterprises. But there's relatively little support to business incubation or links to markets and market support and engagement with the private sector. The third cluster there is we're calling business incubation with finance. And this is really where technical assistance through tailored grants or credit to small enterprises is supported with business incubation support. It's a relatively small amount of the portfolio. We calculated around 3%, but the work that PIP is doing in Mexico, for example, with community forestry groups and communities there. But also we've seen a spin off project working in Ghana, which is scaling up and taking the work of a big program through another donor, in this case DFID working on in a broader landscape area. And then finally, investment finance only and this is really just a direct financing to usually to large scale companies involved in generally in forestry activities. So plantations, this sort of thing, and generally not linked to technical support. So examples of that in Ghana, the support to a Dutch company called FormGana, who are supporting plantation establishment within government forestry reserves. So briefly, just turning to some of the strengths, if you like, of the models that we've discussed. I think what comes out really strongly is that the process of developing national investment plans through a sort of pass bakery process, which provides a strategic and programmatic flow of investments. I think this is really a unique strength of the support provided by FITS in this area. I think secondly, the anchoring within national government ministries and high up within those government ministries, anchored with people who have significant influencing and decision making authority, provides unique opportunities for particularly these enabling investments we've talked about, linking to policy and regulatory. If you look at other non fit financing mechanisms, it often goes directly to individual enterprises or companies to the private sector. And this broader policy work is much less of an emphasis within the activity. So I think that's a real strength. Thirdly, I think by anchoring within within a single ministry, there is this through the strategic aspect of the investment plan. I think in many countries we're beginning to see these external links to other government agencies, which again provide the enabling aspects in terms of policy regulation, whether it's to do with legality or taxation or support through other sector ministries. Again, I think these are these are rather unique aspects of the support provided. Turning to some of the limitations, perhaps, I think what we have identified, one of the key areas we've identified where there's perhaps work still to be done is on the whole aspect of business incubation and development for small and medium enterprises. We've pointed out the example from Mexico where actually this is happening, but it seems to be more the exception rather than the norm. So we've seen this strong emphasis on participatory bottom-up identification of income generating activities, which I think is a great strength, but then a limited emphasis on really providing the business development skills, incubation skill support, and market linkages to really enable those micro activities to become sustainable in the long term. I think the second area is limited support, financial services, and so on to small and medium producers. So in general, the loans or grants tend to go either at the very bottom to the very small scale family household livelihood activities we talked about through village level funds or grant schemes, or they tend to go to the large-scale big companies through IFC or through other NDVs in support of large-scale private sector programs. But this middle ground of medium, small and medium enterprises, I think we've seen less emphasis, and this might be something that we could discuss later. The third area perhaps where there's limited support is to be this sort of aggregation function. So if you've got many, many individuals or groups working on particular sub-sectors or value chains, helping to take that up to a national level, to aggregate that to, for example, national or producer organizations, co-operatives, and so on, which helps generate marketing opportunities, economies of scale, and potential for influencing advocacy. I think finally, we talked in the previous slide about the strengths of the bit in terms of its anchoring within government and that strategic opportunity in terms of engaging on policy and so on. But I think certainly one area that does come out is by linking it so strongly with government, the links to private sector, it doesn't come naturally necessarily to a government ministry. The skills and the techniques and tools to engage with, reach out to, engage, and enlist the support of private sector is not something which is necessarily a first nature to some of the ministry's staff. So I think this is a gap that perhaps could be strengthened. Going to the final slide, Ashav Singh said we wanted to throw out some questions that perhaps you could keep in mind during the webinar and we can discuss as we go through it and think about as you listen to the other presenters. But building on some of the key findings, I think there are three questions that emerged. One, this aspect of business incubation, in your experience, how do you think fit for better support that aspect of business incubation to make it sustainable and effective? Secondly, the excellent work in supporting communities and households developing and generating activities, library of support and so on. How can that be really developed further to give that leads to market to be taken to scale and so on and to be truly sustainable? For example, this work on the apex level organizations, is that something that could be strengthened. And then finally, how and when can FIC provide support to these small scale producers and their organizations in ways that can attract additional financing and funding so that we can once again take that to scale? So these are three general questions which emerge from some of the key findings and I think I've run out of time so I'll go there and come back to chatting.