 But today, most countries provide for some form of community-based forestry, although the approaches vary, and so they could range from some sort of collaborative forestry in state forests to more autonomous community and smallholder forest tenure arrangements. So, when we look at the trends, there has been significant shift in rights recognized. So, the earlier approaches to community forestry provided minimal rights and mainly shifted certain responsibilities to communities and mainly in terms of monitoring and patrolling forests. When community forests were recognized, communities were often given access to largely degraded forest for subsistence use of non-wood forest products. Today, increasingly, a number of countries are recognizing rights to good quality of forest and to commercial use of wood and non-wood forest products. So, FAO supported community-based forestry and tenure assessments in 23 countries in the last six years. Of these 20 countries, had provided communities the rights to harvest trees for timber for commercial purposes. So, this is significant. A sustainable harvest of high-value forest products can bring substantial benefits to communities and further incentivize them to engage in forest management activities at the local level. So, the more recent studies on community forestry, including several meta-studies, show very positive outcomes on forests. For example, the FAO assessments conducted with government and non-government entities, stakeholders, show in all countries, reduction in illegal logging, unsustainable fuel-walled extraction and charcoal production, reduced wildlife poaching, fewer encroachments in agricultural use, for agricultural use, and reduction in land grabbing incidences and incidences of fires. However, despite the legal provisions, community forests continue to provide limited income benefits to communities. And I think this is worth a closer look, why that might be the case. I think this is mainly because many countries around the world have not actually implemented community forestry in practice. So, they've adopted laws but not implemented them. And then many of the countries have not actually formalized these rights and or protected these rights always. Also, no support is being provided to communities as in the agricultural sector. In the agricultural sector, we see farmers being supported for from anywhere from registration of rights to in providing inputs to production, markets, loans, insurance, all of those, but not necessarily that's not rarely the case in forestry. Instead, communities often face numerous regulatory obstacles in the rights formalization processes, in the development forest management plans, inventories, annual operation plans, harvesting and transport permits. They also face many problems and with high and multiple taxation on forest products, inaccessibility to markets, just onerous monitoring and reporting requirements and so forth. So, this means that there's a huge opportunity loss for implementing community forestry around the world. Meanwhile, a handful of countries that have supported community forestry initiatives through national programs show remarkable success in improving forests and responding to climate change, improving livelihoods, helping meet domestic demand of wood and non-wood forest products such as China, Mexico and at more local levels Uganda, Nepal, Guatemala and so forth. So, all of these experiences are highly relevant for the Mekong countries where community forestry implementation remains still weak in comparison. As the countries think about responding to climate change in Mekong countries to halting deforestation and engaging in landscape restoration, they can learn from their experiences and also tap into the huge potential for community forestry in that region, not just to meet the forest-related challenges but also to contribute to sustainable development goals at the same time. So, our work at FAO, we are working with regional bodies as well as countries to, well, our starting point often is to conduct assessments of community-based forestry and associated scenario regimes to understand where the gaps and the strengths and limitations of existing community-based forestry arrangements at the country level. And then based on the gaps identified, we support countries with policy and legal reforms or provide institutional capacities to strengthen the tenure rights of communities and smallholders and to implement CBF in countries. We also support community forestry groups and strengthen them to improve forest governance and improve livelihoods with special emphasis on the poor and the vulnerable populations and women and youth who have often gotten left out of past community forestry initiatives. So, yeah, so we also do research and promote dialogue between government and non-government stakeholders to enhance understanding of community-based forestry, the global experience, and better practice cases. And some work we are now doing on promoting responsible investments that recognize tenure rights of communities and smallholders. So, I will end at that and hopefully if there's any questions, you're welcome to ask. Thank you.