 And could you please keep your question comments pretty simple, pretty dialogue. Yes, here's one. I have two questions, I'll keep it very short. One, if I have this for UN, the present tab from UNEP Resource Center, if I have a good project like landfill gas capture or large-scale commercial about digesters generated or mostly make hours on electricity, are there good, are there developers that are willing to pre-fund this project so that when the CER certificate is issued, then there could be an agreement to pay back. Does such facility exist? That's number one. Number two, considering the amount of time and cost being invested in project development. And I want to know if there is a procedure in place by UNFCCC to reduce this amount of time and documentation, for instance, most of the time when this CER certificate is issued, almost 30 or 40% of this money go back to these consultants that prepare and develop this project. And to me from the South, I say this as capital flight. I don't really see if the CDM is achieving its objective. And then the process of going through this documentation is extensive and the monitoring process. Are there process in place for UNFCCC to reduce this timing and this cost involved in developing this project? Okay, thanks. Third question, yeah. Thank you very much. My question is just one. I'm interested in finding out how the CDM ensure that, how does the CDM benefit the lookup populations whose rights are often at stake? Does it ensure that he is designed because from my own Buddhist understanding of the design of CDM, I found a gap in it, gap in terms of respect for the rights of lookup populations who are actually the host of some of these projects. So, and I look at the CDM design, I don't see this there. Somebody was talking about gender sensitivity at the time. I think the old CDM needs to be overhauled, overhauled to ensure that he is consistent with human rights. Because talking about indigenous people, for instance, a lot of things happen on their land in the name of reforestation and afforestation. Somebody take the benefits out of it, nothing comes to the indigenous people. So we wonder who exactly is meant to benefit from this process? Who is it just an elitist mechanism or is it a mechanism intended to translate into welfare of people who are actually bearing the brunt of climate change? Thank you. Okay, thanks. Okay, last two, all right. Well, first two. My question is Bulgan Murun. Particularly, you focus about structural dimension of women's participation in CDM project. So in another side, have you any experience about the process side? Like participation of women in gender, participation of women in decision-making process and fund management and mobilization process, benefit-serving process? This is my question. Okay, last one goes to this gentleman. Yeah, thank you very much. My question is very direct just to Bill from what he earlier said. How do you incorporate the issue of inclusiveness and property rights into the CDM? Okay, thanks. Okay, I suppose question one is mainly for Solon and question two is mainly for Grant. The third and fourth question are mainly for Bergen and the last question are for three speakers. So who would you like to start Solon? Oh, if I take number one, then I will do one. The short answer, no. There isn't anyone who would be willing to pay you upfront for your grants as a prepayment for your expected production of CDRs. It has practically never been. It was in the very beginning of the market and the World Bank burned its fingers on that. Yeah, Solon? But otherwise, very, very few cases. I have tried with the Danish government in China to do a prepayment. We actually did manage to do one based on a sovereign guarantee that we were presented with. But otherwise, it practically doesn't happen in the market. What we have done with the loan scheme is just going part of the way, meaning that what we are going to finance or the loan scheme finances those costs for consultants that normally is borne by the upper counterparts, meaning the buyers of the credits. The normal trade-off between a seller and a buyer is that if you sell your credits on a contract to a buyer, he would then, the buyer would then assume the cost of development, but not pay you upfront for the credits. With the loan scheme, we take over that responsibility or the project proponent can borrow the money against the cost of the consultants, which allows them to avoid entering into a contract at a time where the credit would be at its lowest value. Because the primary CERs would be traded, if the secondary CERs that was traded on the EU ETS now is trading at 1.87 euro, last I looked, the primary CER would have to be somewhere below that amount. If you wait and issue your credits unilaterally, meaning that you do not have an upper partner at the early stages, you would be able to cash in on the difference between the primary and the secondary price. The experience from the loan scheme, unfortunately, and that is one of the main reasons why we have rejected at least some of the projects, simply the costs of consultants are higher than the value of the credits. And that is just a fact of life. This is mainly, the benefit mainly goes to the consultants and the current market, maybe even in the foreign market also, which is why it doesn't really matter so much, as I said before, it doesn't really matter so much that these credits are not sold because those that are suffering the most of the consultants, not the private owners. Go ahead. Okay, thank you, thank you. Just to recap the question again, how does the CDM benefit local populations, I believe, is it consistent with human rights? Is it inclusive? Does it include property rights, et cetera? I think we need to remember that the CDM is not a fix all for everything. That's the first thing I think we need to remember, and that the rules as it's currently set up dictate that it is the authority of the host party to determine these sustainable development criteria, and if these, along with national priorities, of course. So if it is a national priority to reduce poverty, to ensure human rights, codexes are respected, et cetera, the expectation is currently, and the current rules that the project would be approved by that national authority under that guise, so those issues would be addressed. It's not necessarily the responsibility of the CDM, nor its regulatory body, the CDM executive board, to control that. It has no means to control that at the moment. Parties did not give the CDM executive board rights to go and quality check or verify any sustainable development contribution at all. So whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, that's to be discussed of course. However, the executive board has moved forward over the years, and we've seen this, in wanting to be able to improve the way in which these things are, these development issues, these co-benefits, as I like to call it, local population issues, et cetera, human rights. The declaration of this, the expression of this in the project design documents needs to be improved. And so it's moving forward in trying to do that with a more structured way of declaring it so that it becomes more apparent what's happening on the ground to everybody because these documents and this information is publicly available so anybody can criticize it. So that's a good thing in a sense because it's really an instrument that's exposing possibly issues which watch dogs or NGOs or anybody on the ground can question. There is of course also a local stakeholder process which is involved in verifying the claims made in the projects, and that's also an avenue and a venue by which projects, project affected people can voice their concerns. The question of whether this is, whether the modalities and procedures or the rules of the CDM should change has been posed many times. And in the negotiations at the moment, certainly the issues with regards to human rights in particular given some perceived or possibly abuses of those aspects under the CDM are being addressed and are coming out in texts in the process of negotiation at the moment. And we would hope also I think that in the design of the new mechanisms there'd be a lot more very solid texts which would embed a control mechanism or at least a firm declaration mechanism to make this more public. So it's a long-winded answer but I think your answer is, my answer is basically no, currently not, simply because it doesn't fall into the rule set at the moment, but we hope that it would. So the third question was on participation of women in decision making in relation to the CDM, right? So during my research I also observed non-CDM process projects which are similar energy environmental projects but also very successful. So maybe I can take example of those projects. So before or during the project, there's a stakeholder consultation meeting which also plays very important role in involving whether we have to make this project, we have to implement. So I think here in the woman's case, because of the role that they play in their family, it's very sometimes the location of the project, for example, the stakeholder meeting, when it's somewhere very far from their location, then women are not so much enthusiastic to participate because they rather stay and cook or take care of the babies because of the location they have to go. So this kind of, I can say that creating and facilitating the environment which gives functional support to women was also good support. So I look at this best example of, maybe you have heard the Barefoot College in India. The person who had created, actually chose specially removed area of women but also grandmothers to bring them even their illiterate and doesn't speak any language, they just brought them and then created the facility so that they can also play their motherhood role and also eventually they become engineers of solar energy and then they were the ones to provide the local empowerment and bringing the energy in the local. So that was quite inspiring for me. So that's, I can say that the participation that could make the decision making, thank you. And third question I couldn't really answer. Okay, thank you very much. I think it's time to close this section. And I would like to say thank you to three speakers for the very informative, very thought-provoking speech. And I also would like to say thank you for the audience, for your attention, for your very helpful discussion questions. And I hope you all a very productive time in the next few days. Thank you very much. Bye-bye.