 So I think these type of things are very, very important to pay attention to. And that's why, OK, I'm here to represent collectors. And I am a fan of collectors because it includes the user. The user uses the platform, owns the platform, but at the same time can be used top down. So I wonder if it's possible to link those type of things in a way that the semantics becomes the bridge and allows for less of the misunderstandings and disruption in terms of confidence. We send potential dealers of this platform on my view. Sorry that it was not like this at all. None of these questions are actually yes or no, but I think it's a really important point. And it is one of the risks as we see a proliferation of platforms that can actually create more confusion rather than better understanding around the data. But I think one of the challenges we face with Google Forest Watch is that the data we're trying to communicate is fundamentally extremely complex. And we don't want to lose the users in the complexities too. So it ends up being a compromise between complete honesty about what the data is saying and the best way to communicate it so people can actually use it and derive value from it. I wonder if I could provoke anyone who, it looks like we had one or two voters in the disagree category to explain their thought process. What risks do you see? We don't feel comfortable if we need someone online. Do you have any? Yes, go ahead. I actually agree, but I do see the savers do have when it comes to any data, which is manipulation. And especially when you talk about satellite data, while the data is becoming increasingly freely available, the expectation data is usable right off the bat, I think still prevails. Whereas, in fact, there is quite a significant investment that's required in order to make data usable, which I think is a barrier to transparency and also provides an opportunity for some of those who may wish to misuse the data to take the data that's being applied and tell their own story. Thank you. One more question, and then I'm going to turn to the panel. I also generally agree. One concern, though, that's often struck me is that there are significant economies of scale with transparency, and so if we're trying to move towards a more sustainable land use system, there's a risk that by mandating transparency or having differentiation of products based on transparency, we might be favoring certain actors and making it harder for smallholders people with fewer resources to participate. Thanks. I mean, it's hardly to see this level of agreement, and there was a session earlier, which I won't, their attempt to create, which looked into some of the risks of this kind of work, and there was a very rich, rich conversation there. When we launched the platform, as I surveyed that many of you will know, made the reflection that everything that cannot be made transparent should be made transparent, and that ultimately this will benefit all actors and benefit good actors in particular, and I think that ultimately is really important. We just have to recognize that this will be a transition, a road, a pathway to a better set of outcomes if the information is out there and available, and someone mentioned stories and how data can be used and manipulated, and I think a lot of this is both about incentives in certain jurisdictions to encourage actors to stay and make places better, and those incentives need to be aligned in part using this kind of information, but without going there, which relies on governance, if you like, outside the remit or the control of these kind of initiatives, I think what these kind of initiatives can do is to ensure that there are clear narratives about not just risks in certain places, but opportunities. Can we highlight the places where there are issues, there may be deforestation or other environmental and social impacts today, but where there are the conditions that enable improvements, and to make that information just as available and clearly pulled out as the information on risks. And also to, I mean, thinking of the trace data, if you're talking about, one of the advantages is the wall-to-wall coverage that the trace data allows, so you're looking at the entire soy, the entire set of soy exports in one year, in fact, in multiple years, and this is critical, from Brazil, so if we see over multiple years actors moving from university commerce, from bad places to safe places, then ultimately that should, in the narrative, that should be seen not as a success because they're cleaning up their supply chains, but as a failure because overall, we're not improving and not getting to where we need to be. And I think analysis, more advanced analysis on leakage and trying to get an evidence base behind the dynamics of leakage can shed a new light on what actually constitutes success in this game, and that should change the incentives, not just at a jurisdictional level, but also for governments, but it's a road that we're on, and ultimately I think we'll end up in a better place. And let's see if the other panelists want to comment on this question. I think we're gonna move on to the next. So again, these are imperfect questions, but they're really just meant to spark the conversation. So looking across the suite of tools you saw today, which audience do you think has the greatest potential to positively influence land use outcomes through the use of these technology tools? And I know you'd all like there to be an answer that says all of the above, but it's not gonna be an option. That's actually very interesting. It looks like, oh yeah, it looks like we only have nine users voting so far, but yeah, let me open that up for questions or comments from the audience on this. Why did you vote for the audience that you voted for? It's kind of related to this and the other question, but the topic I feel, I do support all of these transparency stuff, and you know, a company I work for, we've got one and we're using it for management tool, but within supply chains for private companies. I can see a great use for private sector having transparency over their supply and being clear in their own management and decision making. I can see it being very useful for advocacy groups. My issue is it feels very big brother-ish. Like everybody in this room is everybody from the Western world snooping in on all the producer countries and seeing what they're doing. And I can see that yes, if you're a private company, you need to know what you're doing. But I do feel just slightly nervous about this, that where are the local governments and do they really want this level of transparency? Does the Kalamantan governor really want everybody sitting back in Washington knowing what it's doing? Would we allow this to happen in the UK on our sort of farming lands? I'm not sure. So I just wonder about the ownership and the role we're playing, whilst I agree with it. Kind of thing. That's a really interesting point and I would like to hear some of our panelists coming on that. In our case, what I just presented, I have to say that and I wanted to say it, but now you're reminding me it has no legal basis whatsoever, just yet in the sense that it's not been endorsed by the limited government or, for example. But obviously, since we're putting in government data, it's actually, we've also got company names and so on, and it's obviously necessarily comfortable with it. But you have to know that this is not just a Western thing. I mean, if we take the Indonesia example, there are a lot of grassroots movements, local national NGOs who are doing exactly the same thing. So who believe that these kinds of systems will be able to move things forward. In the case of Indonesia, there's all sorts of overlapping land players. I mean, if you take a concession polygon, there's anything going on in there. Companies can be present, get off, right? So might be also all sorts of different actors that are disputes over land. So bringing in the transparency on all these issues might also be a way to solve land tenure issues. We're thinking of the one initiative, for example, in Indonesia that tries to do justice and it needs to go transparent in order to be able to move forward because people need to be able to see each parcel of land, who does it belong to and if it's got different clients, then who are, where are all these clients? So I think, yes, it looks big brother-ish. It comes from the satellites, but I think there's a lot of grassroots movements in countries that are adopting this system. I think I have a more question in the audience, but I also just want to reflect back on the point that Maria was making earlier, that these platforms really need to be a launching point for Transparency to be both top down and bottom up. And I'm hoping that many of these tools because they are open source, because the creators of the tools are working with stakeholders at the local level to incorporate information that we can actually drive this virtuous cycle of transparency through open information. But transparency itself is fundamentally uncomfortable because of nature, what we do. As Sandra Mitchell, I'm the founder of GCP and I think the two very important points that we're just exploring here, let me deal with the uncomfortable part. I think this is a real risk. If you look at what has happened to iPod, you can take them down, whichever way you look at it. And the reason it happened to some extent is that it pushes a whole bunch of people into what we might call an England and Naughty Corner. And they don't like it. And often those are the people who have the ear of the government. And therefore they say, get rid of these guys. And the transparency systems could fall into that trap as well. Because it actually favors big companies that can afford to put in the checks and balances and apply the high standards. And it disadvantages the small holders who can't. That's not a good political position for any government to be in. And we do need to figure out how to deal with that. So I think that's a really important point that someone made earlier. Secondly, I think we're quite wrong on the load. I think that reputational risk works in one sector, which is really Western companies that are in Europe. If you actually look at the data, only 7% of the biggest people in the deforestation economy have made any kind of commitment across the world. It is only 7%. They have single commodity commitments that are much larger. You can get this data from the Forest 500 website. Not based on the companies, I guess, that's what we mean. But the guys who can really influence this is the financial sector. I've been demonstrating traits to investors who have pulled it in these companies. And they say, yeah, like in Singapore they make some money. We, hey, hey, it's in Singapore. We're really upset about it. We want, you know, they're investing in half the companies that are causing the haze. And they tell a witch, and they don't know who's good and who's bad. So it's really useful for investors, these kinds of traceability, to give them a way to engage with companies. And of course, they own it. So I think you should have that in your head. Thank you. One more comment from the back. Hi, Chris Botsford from ADM Capital and TLFF. The other that I popped in down the bottom, I think that's mine anyway, is smallholders. And for example, in the Parmol sector in Indonesia, there's about four million smallholders. And what we've seen is that they would welcome a lot of this technology because it links them into the world. And at the moment, you know, they're exploited by all sorts of middlemen. They're sold by at seeds. They don't know which bits of land they should be settling on. They're told go over there, burn that forest if you want a bit of money to pay for your child's hospital bill. That's what's going on. That's a cause of a lot of the problems going on in Kalamantan and other areas. This allows them to get out of it. We can make it clear. Finance is available if you're in these areas. If you go to these areas, you're in high conservation value forests. It gives a lot of definition to their lives and it brings them into the world in a way that otherwise would be hugely expensive. It's also, if you look at the cost of getting to transparency or getting to RSPO or Gapke or one of the other different levels that one's got of certification, it's really expensive. This technology is going to bring down the cost and that's really going to benefit small holders. So my vote, small holder. Things, I think that was at least three comments that we've heard about the need to emphasize technology access and incorporation of small holders. I would just like to emphasize that all the technologies we demonstrated today were either launched in the last week or in the last couple of years. So we really are in nascent stages and I think one of our biggest challenges is going to be to figure out how we bring these technologies to scale on a very low level. I think we should move on to the next question, which I think is the satellite imagery question. Right, so we saw a really exciting presentation from Joe about the potential of microsatellites to bring much higher resolution and higher cadence imagery to our work. And the big question that I'd ask myself on a regular basis working at Global Forest Watch is we're going to have this amazing resource. We have limited resources with which to try to translate that into something useful. Where should we prioritize our efforts? So I don't have another category here but we have a few categories of land use monitoring, generating activity data, monitoring restoration, power stock enhancements, monitoring degradation, assessing accuracy of monitoring products derived from medium resolution imagery like the Global Forest Watch. And also, are we missing one at the bottom? There's, so at the very bottom we have, we don't need it, the medium resolution we have that is freely available is good enough. And it was supposed to be one more answer that had to do with the cost prohibitive, so this question doesn't matter anyway. Yeah. I think that's better. So maybe at this point, if there are any specific questions for Joe about the applications of this data or your request to Joe about where we should be investing and applying this data first. Thank you, my name is Rana Polk and I voted for the second one, this accuracy. And I would like to refer what Maria said about transparency and also the first presentation of Nancy, the quality of the data. And I remember last year, that was the draft of 2015, I said the global net deforestation is 7.8 million hectare and Global Forest Watch said 18 million hectare. And this is very confusing and I think we need really much more information about the accuracy and because the politicians and the system makers they are completely confused. Which figures is now correct? I know most others are comparing apple and pear but I think we need more information. That's the big problem we're facing. I mean these answers are reflecting the fact that we are in a very early stages which people see as a very narrow use of the data. And the data has much more potential than that. And by having this type of problems in the system, Global Forest Watch is wrong. Probably, Pra is not as wrong as everyone thinks. So, what's the problem? And the problem is the semantics where those concepts come from. So we need to find easy bridges to understand where the discrepancies are coming from. I mean, we don't have to treat public and policy makers like idiots. They are not idiots, they have their objectives. And what they have to understand is where the discrepancies are coming from. We don't need to make an effort to engineer this data to be the same. But we need to make them a mature, solid explanation of why. And it's not easy, I agree, it's not easy. But sometimes just saying enhancing data set is trick-over which is a very clear concept, right? While when you have data coming from Pra, they use the forest definitions that have been provided by the countries which makes a difference. And there are reasons for having forest definitions and there are reasons for having a common definition to have a global assessment. So this is the sort of things that we have to convey to our policy makers. And I'm very convinced that you could expand more than 100 bars here of the use of this data. And if you succeed to do so, then technology will matter and then all this data which we are collecting, it will matter. I mean, I was very happy to see, for example, the trading. And one of the users which was missing in the formal question is the scientific community. The scientific community is also streaming of use. And they are also using all bunch of models and they're using all bunches of summaries which are not transparent, all right? So the generation of these data sets being used more wisely by scientific community can also have transparency at all. And how do you understand what the description should have from the front? Just to add to Maria's point, our Global Force Watch team a couple of months ago published a blog directly related to the sum, the differences between UFW and FRA. For this exact reason, we know that lots of confusion is out there in the world. Just very quickly on this, I think this is an excellent question. I think I'm actually optimistic that a lot of these technologies will pay enormous benefit in the very new future, culturally and scientifically rigid. You're gonna be waiting a long time. And the main reason for that is simply that the word forest itself is not a standardized scientific concept. You can put labels on it, but those labels behave differently, different volumes. When I was a postdoc, we worked briefly on a data set from Spiny Forest in Madagascar. I know them by their other name, Deserts. But what I would say is that we actually have a unique and important opportunity to get more accurate about carbon. And the reason we can do that is because carbon, unlike forests, is an element on a periodic table. It cannot, you know, what is a unit of carbon in the abstract cannot be argued about, except by chemists, possibly, or for physicists. But among ecologists and NGOs and civil society actors and governments and so forth, carbon is carbon. Now, it is hard to measure, admittedly, but I think we're getting a lot better at it. And I think actually, I was disappointed to see few votes for forest degradation, only because there's a huge amount of carbon emissions coming out of tropical forest caused by degradation. And we actually don't have really any idea what they are. Very few red projects at all look at degradation. And those that are trying to look at degradation are doing it by torturing these 30 meter landsat pixels and trying to dig around inside and figure out what's happening within this spectral indicator when a single three meter flash of soil appears briefly and is detected by the landsat and is what's subsumed in this whole landscape. I think, in my opinion, one of the most immediate benefits of more high resolution data is tracking degradation. And in planet data, for example, but also in the data of other commercial providers that image in high resolution, degradation is as visible as deforestation. Logging roads, single tree removals, because you see the soil appear, you see the canopy loss. And those things happen, and if they're monitored in relatively rapid time, you can see them before the forest has a chance to green over and obscure them. And that's a risk with landsat-based analysis as well. Places like Kalamantan, a lot of these logging roads can grow all over. And although they're sometimes visible, they're not always as visible as they once were. Thanks. Unfortunately, we're running out of time and we only got through half of the questions that we had planned. But I think it would just close with a point that obviously there's a lot of very exciting opportunities related to these emerging technologies. We still have a lot of work on our hands to figure out how we create radical transparency but also responsible transparency and that we're really creating benefit towards the common objectives that we're here at this landscape forum to address. So I'm going to officially close the sessions. I know some people are probably hungry to get to lunch. But if you still have burning questions, I think the panelists are probably willing to stay next to a few minutes in this room. So we're happy to continue the discussion for a few moments. Thanks, everyone.