 We did a study looking at how countries based on their understanding on why and how forests are changing are planning red plus interventions. So what they should actually do to preserve forests, to increase the carbon stocks in forests, to increase forest area, to reduce the pressure on the forests. Countries are asked to develop national strategies. They are asked to also look into drivers of forest change. So what's behind deforestation but also reforestation. And so countries have developed strategy documents, readiness plans, proposals on how they would want to do that. And in fact that's quite a number of countries who have done that already. In this study we looked at 43 with varying levels of progress in that direction. Some countries are more advanced than others. Some have better data than others, better capacity than others. So it was a bit of a variability in terms of the quality of the data. But it was good enough to make a synthesis, a first synthesis across these 43 countries. So what are countries having in mind when it comes to red plus? And our basic assumption was always, well if you want to do something about forest loss for example, you need to understand why forests are being lost. Because if you know the cause, you can do something about it. And so this kind of relationship, what's causing the forest change? And what can you do about it in terms of then planning concrete interventions on red plus? That was our logical chain. And we tried to analyze that in that context. And we found first of all that quite a number of countries don't understand their causes very well or their drivers. But still plan interventions. And most of these interventions are very forest related. You know, red plus is commonly perceived as a forest related mechanism. It's about preserving forests and so on. And so what countries are proposing, okay let's manage our forests better. Let's conserve them. Let's plant more forests. Let's sustainably manage them. And those are the common interventions you find in that thing. Well we have also some countries who have done a very detailed analysis. Okay this is why our forests are changing. And those are our strategies from that understanding on how to do that. And that's much more driver intervention linkages. And so in these countries what you're finding that agriculture is the largest driver of forest change is that of course the interventions that are being proposed are very much agriculture related. So you need to change the way you do agriculture to actually reduce the pressure on the forest. So you find a lot related to land intensification, integrated land use planning, fire management and all of these kind of things that are actually mostly happen outside the forest to preserve the forests. And so that's why we find quite an interesting divide between countries who have done these driver analysis well and have taken on board and the other ones because the interventions look quite different. That's one of the interesting findings of that study and well a couple of implications of that. Well first of all countries are encouraged to understand and address drivers and that idea is further encouraged by that study in particular countries who haven't done so. And that usually requires some investments in better data and better understanding. We also, it's also now starting to realize more than before is that agriculture is a key part of Red Plus in that sense. And so these kind of linkages between agriculture and Red Plus are becoming even more prominent now when it comes to now thinking about concrete strategies and what to do. And that's really inherent in particular countries which have a lot of agricultural driven deforestation. The other implications of the study is that if you want to think about monitoring Red Plus not only monitoring forest change and monitoring the drivers of forest change but also monitoring the interventions which may be outside the forests that you actually may have to do a lot of monitoring outside forests for Red Plus and not only the forests itself if you want to track these interventions. Direct means in a sense the activity, the concrete activity that has changed the forest. For example, if a forest is replaced by agriculture then agriculture is considered the direct driver or there's a mining that's opening up or there's an infrastructure or a hydrological dam or a road or something that's been built and that changes the forest. That's the direct driver and the advantage of looking at direct drivers you can more easily link, okay this forest change is really linked to agriculture expansion and you can actually if you do like for example satellite data analysis you can see okay I see the forest disappearing and I see that agricultural fields are coming up so you can directly see why a piece of land is converted. The underlying causes as the other one is more like what's really behind. I mean agriculture expansion happens for a reason. You know it's maybe there's more demand for land because of population growth because of economic demands, international market demands and these kind of things so there's an underlying cause that's happening. The issue is that it's often not so easy to link these underlying causes to specific changes even sometimes on the national side. There's international demand increasing for timber. For example you do see an impact on the forest but sometimes it's very hard to link that with forest changes in a specific region if you want to make decisions about okay let's decrease the pressure on the forest here. You know it's something that happens very internationally. Countries have a hard time dealing with international drivers. It's a bit of a different thing. Although the underlying causes are quite important in understanding so what's really behind it. Is it demand in the western world in China for meat, for timber, for other things that is driving the deforestation. So this links are quite important to understand what are part of the solutions so do we need to change behavior somewhere else like in Europe to preserve forests in Indonesia. That's why understanding underlying drivers is really important. From a monitoring point of view it's much easier to monitor direct drivers and so that's why we have usually much better data linking deforestation to direct drivers than linking deforestation to underlying drivers. That's often, this relationship is often not so easy to establish because underlying causes are often complex and very rarely linked to a very specific piece of deforestation. Well it does say that countries are still really starting to understand what it actually means to do these things. That it's not just about forests, it's about forests and agriculture. It's about policy change. It's about transformational change of maybe agricultural policies to reduce depression on the forest and it's getting out of this corner of being a very forest-related mechanism into a kind of a multi-sector perspective that is actually needed to address it. So that's definitely that point and that's not a point that we exclusively make in that study. I mean a lot of CFO research, for example the research of Maria Prokhaus and others have really shown that it requires this fundamental policy change to actually create important incentives that need to be created and that just takes time. It's just not something that comes overnight. The solutions are not as quick as people would have thought and so it takes longer time if they really want to address it in the comprehensive way it would need to be addressed. So having said that, that plus will be slower than expected. It's still quite a vital mechanism under the UNFCCC negotiations that it has a strong standing there. Negotiations are going really well. Some of the big donors of Fredplatz such as Norway, Germany, they have made long-term commitments to 2020 and stuff like that. So I mean the fact that there is more time to actually address some of the fundamental things is a good thing but overall the process is moving slower but in the end somebody needs to realize that it's not just a forced mechanism. It's much bigger than that.