 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Delighted that you are joining us today. My name is Owen Lewis, I'm co-chair of the IAEA's Climate and Energy Working Group. Today I'm delighted to welcome you to this webinar on sustainable forestry and how it may help address the crises of climate change and biodiversity loss. This event is co-organized by the IAEA and the Embassy of the Republic of Latvia in Ireland, and I want to particularly thank the Embassy for their generous support and assistance in helping to facilitate today's seminar. Forests as you know serve really important and diverse roles in tackling the twin crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. They capture and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, provide clean water and air, protect soils, hold habitat loss. The planting of larger, healthier and more diverse forests will be needed if the EU is to realize the target of 55% net emissions reduction by 2030. But today, we are fortunate to be joined by two distinguished speakers, Yvonne Seligenberg, Director for Strategy, Analysis and Planning at the Director General for Climate Action of the European Commission, and Arvid Uzuls, Director of the Forest Department in the Ministry of Agriculture, the Republic of Latvia. And we were to be joined with a third speaker, Dr Hillen Ding, but sadly illness has intervened. We're planning to split today's session into three parts. Both panelists will first offer some remarks and we'll have a short discussion and then turn to your questions. We're going to join the discussion using the Q&A function on Zoom. You should see this towards the bottom of your screen. I'd encourage you to send your questions throughout the sessions as they occurred to you, and it would be helpful I think if you identify yourself and any affiliation when you ask a question, please. The presentation and the Q&A session are on the record, and you should feel free to join the discussion on Twitter using the handle at IIEA. Let me introduce our first speaker. Yvonne Seligenberg is Director for Strategy, Analysis and Planning and Acting Director of Innovation for a Low Carbon Resilient Economy in the Director General Climate Action. Previously she was Director with Responsibility for International Affairs, served as Senior Advisor in the Cabinet of the Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy. Before this, she was Head of Unit for the implementation of the EU missions training scheme. Yvonne, you have the floor. Thank you very much, Owen, and good afternoon, everyone. It's a pleasure to be with you. So thank you very much for inviting the European Commission to participate in this session. You already mentioned quite a few buzzwords that I'm afraid I will be repeating to a large extent. Basically, today I'm very happy to talk about the fact that, you know, indeed climate change and biodiversity loss are independent. They make it interdependent, I should say they make each other worse. That of course then means that we need to address these challenges in an integrated manner, and try to find solutions that basically deliver multiple benefits. And here, of course, typically we think of nature-based solutions. If we then break that down, it means that, you know, the land and the forests we have are under strong pressure of the biodiversity and the climate crisis. It basically means that our carbon sink in forests is decreasing. And many of our forests are in no good state at all, you know, the conservation of the carbon in there is really not good. This exacerbated by unfortunately continuing adverse effects of climate change. They lead to, you know, pretty much unprecedented damage, risks, and here we can think of pests, but also fires, diseases, etc. Now at the same time, fortunately, the forests are also a solution or can be to biodiversity and climate, you know, the situation we're in. You already mentioned forests absorb carbon emissions and they give us fresh air, they purify the water, and they of course in themselves also hold a lot of essential species. So the forest is multifunctional and that is what the management of the forest then also needs to be. So if we try to define sustainable forest management, this is all about safeguarding the health, but also the productivity of the forest, providing, you know, a contribution to climate action, which means reducing emissions, enhancing carbon removals and better adaptation, basically better resilience, and to then also protect the biodiversity that is in the forest. All that while securing the long term availability of, you know, the biomass, the renewable energy, and of course also wood materials. So, indeed, one of the things I wanted to talk about is the forest strategy that was proposed by the European Commission last summer. And this is really was intended to to find its anchor in both the EU biodiversity and the climate strategies and to really kind of, you know, look at the specific role of forests in Europe for the future. So, in our view, the strategy is pretty crucial in terms of underpinning. You already said it. Oh, and you know the 2030 climate targets that we have the minus 55%, but also of course to become climate neutral in 2050, where it has been clearly recognized that you know we will need to increasingly rely on forest things to to actually get there to have this balance between emissions and carbon removal so to become climate neutral mid century. Now, in the strategy we have tried to to put forward and to promote the most climate and biodiversity friendly forest management practices, emphasizing the need again to keep the use of woody biomass within boundaries So, how do we ensure the sustainability of that encouraging resource efficient wood used. It is also accompanied by specific actions and therefore, for example, we have put forward a roadmap for planting 3 billion additional trees across Europe by 2030. Again, in full respect of what we call ecological principle so we need to make sure that we have the right tree in the right place and for the right purpose if you want but also taking into account the change in climate that will inevitably be with us will make it ever hard we work and continue to work on reducing emissions. Now, just to spell it out I mean, biologically diverse forests and more varied forests are going to be more resilient to climate change that is around us. The forest is simply healthier and therefore fulfills better its functions also, for example, as a carbon sink. Now, again, this sustainable forest management and the multifunctionality of the forest in the EU is really what is at the heart of the forest strategy. The main objective being that you know we want to work together towards ensuring that the use forests are well continue to grow that they're healthy diverse and resilient, and thereby contribute you know to to these biodiversity and climate objectives that we mentioned before but also securing livelihoods and of course you know, especially in rural areas, and to also make the the bio economy that we do very much advocate a sustainable one. Now, for all that, one of the tools or how to say you know a very important element in how to ensure this sustainable forest man management is also better monitoring of forests in our view that is really an essential step. It means that we have as part of the strategy committed to make a legal proposal on the monitoring reporting and data collection on forests, we will make that proposal next year. Again, harmonized and comparable EU data combined with you know, or or being used then with for strategic planning at member states level. This should then provide a comprehensive picture of the current state, the expected evolution, and basically you know the future developments of forest in the EU, using the most modern technologies. This kind of comprehensive picture is paramount to make sure that the forest can again you know deliver on these multiple functions for climate biodiversity and the economy and not look at it in silos. Now, our intention is to create incentives to try to create incentives to preserve and enhance the forest both qualitatively and quantitatively. What does that mean it means that we will try to put in place you know support schemes for ecosystem services like carbon six also sometimes called carbon farming. And yeah, these kind of incentive structures should of course very much take into account also the biodiversity concerns, but basically would then make sure that we use the public budgets, as efficiently as possible and you know, have a clear objective of growth jobs, but also innovation. As part of the the bio economy. Now, to do all that to to to work towards these, these incentive schemes. We will also, I think it's at the end of this year, come forward with a legal proposal on the certification of carbon removals, because that will give the necessary legal certainty, you know and robust rules that we need in order to capitalize on these opportunities for innovation in the bio economy sector. Now, that was to while I was zooming in on the first strategy there are many other policy areas and instruments that are relevant here so if you allow me, I will also go a little bit into those. And that is again if you look at the fact that you know we need to have carbon removals contribute to our climate goals. Whereas today, the state of the carbon sink in Europe, frankly is quite worrisome. So that is something we need to stop we need to reverse it this decreasing trend of carbon removals from the land use sector, because otherwise we are not going to get to this climate neutrality. And that is where we have now as part of our revision of an existing legal instrument revision of our land use land use change and forestry regulation. We have proposed to write in the legislation an EU wide target for net carbon removals of minus 310 million tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030. We had commitments in the current legislation before this review but it was to, to keep things stable and not not to have a decline whereas now we're really putting on the table you know increase in ambition in terms of how much carbon we restore in land and in forests. And all this again in view of you know, getting on track towards climate neutrality in 2050. Now an EU level targets is all very nice and good but how do we get there how do we make sure we meet that target. That means that you know all member states will need to contribute to that and they will need to play their part in reaching those targets to do so as efficiently as possible. And to do that we have actually also made proposals to to have some changes in, you know the rules and the targets for for the different sectors as part of the forestry and land use sector for 2030. Now, in our view. That means, you know, if we managed to capture this necessary transition of the sector it would really provide kind of a win win solution on climate biodiversity and the bio economy so we have tried to put forward simplifications of what we have in compliance rules. Better use of the digital technologies, as I mentioned before to really have you know all member states using state of the art monitoring tools both for the for the emissions and for the removals. And then basically to work together towards this enhanced ambition, as I said before. So, we need to. It's always, I don't know to which extent you are familiar but when we make you policy and legal proposals. What is your baseline, you know that is always a very important question so we have for our little CF proposal that's the acronym lose if we have used as a starting point. The, the reported state of play or the reported net removals of each member states over the years 2016 to 18. Those are the most recent data we have so that is the starting point on how we have then shared out the targets for over the member states. We have then kind of looked at, okay, how feasible is it for each member state to contribute to this increased ambition. And there we have looked at, you know, the size of the area of managed land, because that is kind of a good proxy to say okay, a member state has a lot of land so there is potential to do more. It also means that, you know, larger member states will have to basically lead in this increase of carbon removals across the EU in order to get to climate neutrality. Now, just to keep in mind I mean again the climate policy framework is is is quite how shall I say you know rich. There is a specific action on forest and land but we also have. And you heard it I've been responsible for that in the past we have an emissions trading system that looks at the energy sector and at manufacturing industry, but in between those two we have the remaining sectors where we have an effort sharing regulation that applies to those member states have national targets and these sectors covered there is basically agriculture agricultural emissions transport buildings and waste. And what we have built is flexibility between what member states do in terms of action on land use and forestry, and those other sectors to basically, you know, not have too much of a straight jacket in terms of achieving or member states to achieve each of their targets. We do have binding national targets in those other sectors that are under the effort sharing legislation, but there is flexibility, you know, on how to achieve all this and linkage to the to the effort that needs to be made in the land use and use change and forestry sector. Now I thought maybe it could be interesting to talk a little bit about Ireland. Yeah, if you look at the land use land use change of forestry target for Ireland, it has been said exactly in this way we look at the average 2016 2018 greenhouse gas balance basically on land and have put that against you know the share of managed land. And if you look at the outcome of that it means that the target for Ireland is that there can still be a net emission, even in 2030. But again, clearly, it means that other member states will have to go towards these negative millions of tons and increased carbon removals in order to put us on the track towards, you know, our goals 2030 and also 2050. What I want to emphasize is that, in our view, Ireland does have significant possibilities in this sector. There is, you know, a very high prevalence of grasslands relative large areas of carbon rich peat soils, and also a very well established network of biodiversity rich hedgerows. Now, you will have heard of a very important instrument certainly in budgetary terms but also in policy terms at your level which is the common agricultural policy. So there we have a very important instrument that can help to put in place the necessary practices to decrease emissions from agriculture in Ireland, well emissions from agriculture but also from land use. And here, what what can it be I mean these improved practices it can be improved nutrient management, it can be improved efficiency of enteric formation in livestock, and also reduced ammonia emissions from, you know, manure etc. And then those are kind of like the headline practices that that will really need to be looked at and improve but you can also think of holding peatland degradation. On the other hand, you know, rather increasing the protection of peatlands, increasing coverage of trees, you know by trees so basically a forestation, improving grasslands and heatlands habitats, and also promoting organic farming. So, there will need to be a discussion and I think this is quite lively already for a few years now in Ireland on how to, you know, work within the agriculture sector but also with the land use land use change and forestry side of the equation, how to reduce emissions overall how to enhance the carbon sink. Now just one more element I would like to touch upon is at the end of last year in December we commission European Commission adopted a communication on what we call sustainable carbon cycles. This is like, you know, circular economy for for carbon cycles, and we have again set out an action plan on how to develop this notion of carbon farming and other you know sustainable solutions to increase carbon removals. We list short to medium term actions, basically, you know, aiming to address current challenges to take up this this notion of carbon farming and to really try and work together to to to get this new green business model of the ground whereby the purpose is to reward land managers for the action they undertake that can help to increase carbon sequestration. And then again, as we said in the beginning and throughout this this intervention, you know, very much keeping also the benefits for biodiversity in mind. Now that communication was like a major, how shall I say reflection piece almost we will have throughout this year a discussion with stakeholders on how they see these ideas and that will then feed into the legal proposal on the application of carbon removals, because we really are convinced that you know we need to be able to put in place you know a clear legal framework for what is a good quality carbon removal, how do you go about the accounting to have sustainability, and to basically also ensure that we have like a level playing field across the EU. Now, for us, that is, you know, a first step and will be necessary in terms of policy and legal framework to define which types of carbon removal really bring these tangible benefits, and again put us on on the right track. Now, basically, I will end by saying that the decade in front of us is pretty crucial in forestry as well as biodiversity issues and that is why we have indeed under the European Green Deal focus our strategies to look at environmental social and economic functions of force, and to build of course on you know this this concept of sustainable forest management. So, from our perspective, we hope and are more or less confident that you know we are in the process of putting in place the necessary measures to protect biodiversity and to strengthen climate action. We do have to be mindful of the fact that land management takes time. The soils are going to be restored only slowly planting trees and growing trees doesn't happen overnight. It's the same in other sectors but probably even more so here. So we do need to have always the long term perspective in mind we need to incorporate that also in how we design our policy framework so the aim that we have today which is to combine you know the agricultural emissions and absorptions with the land sector and forestry by 2035 and to really steam ahead towards a bigger contribution of the carbon removals to offset emissions in other sectors. So after 2035 again to reach climate neutrality by 2050 is our objective and we hope that we will with all these different measures be setting the right signal, you know for increasing action in agriculture and forestry within these overarching, you know, boundaries and concepts that are there to protect the climate and still being our economy, which of which biodiversity is certainly a very big part. Thanks so much for giving me the time and over to you. Thanks very, thanks very much you've gone. You've covered a large amount of territory there and I think there, I see some questions coming in already, but let me turn to our second speaker this afternoon. Yes, Osalds as I said was is director of the forestry department in the Latvian Ministry of Agriculture. You formerly the chair of the European Forestry Commission has over 30 years of professional experience in the sector. He holds a degree in forestry engineering from the Latvia University of Agriculture, and I would you have the floor, please. Thank you very much even for this very brief overview. And actually all these components are quite important, but what I tried to cover in quite a short presentation, these are some points on new forest strategy, not to pretending to give complete overview, but just to maybe focus on some challenges and what you very rightly said that actually the land use issue and land sector is quite a complex one. And, and also the solutions are not the simple ones. But let me share my, my screen. And, and actually about the long term perspective and then forest development in Europe. We, we got forests, what we have known is that long, at least in the history. And we have two basic forest zones, boreal forest zone, temperate forest zone and actually the Latvia is one of the. And on forest development in quite recent history, which around 100 years. In the beginning of last century we can go 27% of forest covered area, what we call now know we go about. And maybe as a short remarks, I will just cover certain things. And this strategy because otherwise this introductory to long. And both socioeconomic functions of forest promoting sustainable forest but by economy for long lived forest furnace. I will be to come on that. But the keyword here is long live. And then we have another target for some bonus of would be sources by energy. And these have to be somehow combined. Promoting normal forest based by economy, including effort to reason. And this is really interesting point. We, we made some exercises trying to establish our national environment account system, and also made the studies on wood forest based by economy. And especially studying the sum of forest products which are quite popular, and also services. The outcomes were really, really, very interesting, because one can guess what was the biggest part of normal forest for them. And these were berries. And a second one mushroom, and the value is about 100 million euros per year. But not all of that is for a market. There's quite a lot of traditional self consumption. And another of course, big interest was about company. And people guess that okay, this will be a big money. This was one order less than the berries and mushrooms. And the really interesting thing was that not the hunting products like like meat skins was important part for services around value of services around where about four times more. If you're looking on, on, on, on, on. This light house is better. Forestry products just are making their own 600 million euros and and and that's quite the money but what's even more important is that there are a lot of jobs. This is not only forestry, this is also related infrastructure transport and other services to first. And if you are looking for the whole value chain. We are willing to look is actually that this is creating much, much higher value. And the number of jobs is even much more substantial. And what is even more important from the picture is that actually, there is a lot of discussion on how we're going to finance first. A lot of people know and and and the answer is that this value added from sustainable forest products is actually creating a money flow to finance first. And it makes this sustainable forest management also profitable for forest owners under general rules that they have covered all their obligations to society through forest legislation. And and and and actually there is not not that much public money involved. There is certain money in promoting climate activities, or the right now from rural development program. But about in comparison with overall value added. This is quite a small, small amount of money and profit. And then we're coming to some challenges. At least from our point of view. If you are speaking about the bioenergy. What is the point for bioenergy has separate sustainable criteria from sustainable forest management. And this is creating one one challenge and maybe even some stupid questions was that we need another sustainability criteria for lumber or or furniture or whatever. Our, our understanding was that actually what we need. And this I will come later on this also some points. One mention that actually we can provide the joint understanding and criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, then whatever product is coming out of that or even service. Also shall be sustained. I understand that also these sustainability criteria are not targeted only at you first. They are targeted worldwide and and therefore of course there is a need as there is like internationally off of commonly agreed criteria indicators and how you can value this is sustainable or not. But at least in context of you, it's, it's creating some challenge. And, and, and this is what I said, and actually is a criteria in the nature of sustainable forest management by the way are already proposed in a strategy. Another issue is individual assessment versus risk based approach. At least according to read to, we can use two approaches. One is individual assessment of source and another is risk based approach, we actually use the material having external audit going through all our governance systems legislation and actually showing that we can provide with our legal basis. The additional supervision system that is by energy produced in what is compliant with with red directive and therefore should be considered sustainable. This is actually is I'm sorry to speak on this too much, but this will inevitably become quite an important issue. Due to new geopolitical challenges. Unfortunately, we have them. And this will be actually according to our understanding unfortunately very strong turning point for number of issues. In lesser extent very forestry but but other issues, especially energy. Now, there will be need for some reconsideration and therefore, actually, this is quite a recent development but we're a bit bit puzzled that actually read to is not yet completely implemented but we are already getting proposals for promoting non wood forest based by economy, including ecotourism. Actually, as I already told, we made such a exercise these two houses, and the fact that this order exists but it lacks full validation. And non wood forest based by economy. We would also like to walk on broader perspective. These are not only products these are also services. Because tourism is actually one one kind of sector service, but not the only one. For example, in recent code period. What we observed that there is rapidly increasing demand for for recreation in the forest as in a safe and healthy environment. And even our social infrastructure like different environment policies and others was actually overload. And there is another thing which is coming from forest owners perspective, actually in society in different countries differently but there is a perception perception that these things are for free given and therefore not acknowledged as a product and services provided by forest owners to society. And this is actually put the question on on valuation on on ecosystem services and coming to some conclusions. Actually what's what's given for society for example in Latvia offers are free access. Even including private ones. The general rule has a right to restrict certain activities and then because our generals restrictions as a fire safety and other things. But but the general rule is that these forests are freely accessible, including also potentially marketable goods like berries mushrooms and other things contains different issues. Protection restoration and enlargement of new forest resources actually is a result of questions that we need to protect the use loss remaining primary and all those forests. But we still need to agreement on common understanding and agreed definitions actually commission is right now working on set. And this is also members that experts but but and another thing that parameters may differ in different regions due to geographic and climate conditions. Ensuring forest restoration and rain for sustainable forest management for climate production and forest resilience. And actually working on on on on few issues. And I will have an example, because my colleague's class me okay if you need restore a forest. And restoration, the factor means that you are restoring something to certain stuff. Which status we have to restore. Because, as we saw, if you are restoring to the beginning of last century, essentially we have to mean to diminish them and but I will have a picture explanation on set. And even mentioned and unfortunately I respected myself, but there is still a question. Here, looking from a climate perspective there are two very important things. There is a storage of carbon. And there is a sink of the carbon. But the dilemma is that the storage is not of unlimited capacity. Each existing has its capacity limits. Here we had also quite a good research cooperation with number of new countries. And the question is, what is the story school. Because conservation status. And actually, I hate the word conservation because you cannot conserve a nature nature will still continue to develop according to its own rules. But sometimes a bit comparing this with a warehouse. It has certain capacity, goods are coming in at certain point warehouse can be full and then what to do. And the solution of course probably is in a wider climate context and the wider circular economy and and the life cycle context that actually we can use this. By most as a material is basically for long, long live forest products. And but still in the current agreement on the current legislation is this is still delayed. Emission. Of course it's delayed but but actually according to our understanding the main game would be to include also and this is already I think in a document you mentioned on sustainable carbon cycles. It's it's a replacement effect. If we can replace fossil materials, whatever we are using for not only for energy but but also chemicals, plastics, whatever. Then we are actually coming to the complete picture of the puzzle because to achieve climate neutrality in 2015. We can put all our efforts to minimize emissions and this is what we have to do because even from business perspective in many cases emissions means costs and businesses need to reduce costs. Therefore also to reduce emissions because what we are emitting this is a waste of resource. But then actually we need also sustainable things and only putting all this picture together actually we can find a place where forest and forestry is a solution through further value added chain and through further distribution, because sorry to extend on this is that much but but this is really one very critical point. Actually, we are our future running into some time issues so I will I will try to run quickly. Okay. So these are the financial incentives for forest managers and managers and and as this already said, we are applying. And actually definition on sustainable forest management is agreed and has to be taken as a basis. And criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management are established and are in further development. And the main precondition is that this work has to be based on the wide agreement. There are also agreements that this is made. I will not just cite another thing but this is a one picture I promised. In this case of what we have how was the development of forest covered area. Over the history and the earliest data we could find this is the 1772 end of the 18th century. And then we see that actually right now, we have more forest and we have them. Maybe we can put this line back even still on and of course we can reach also to this condition and back. And another thing is that actually since the beginning of last century, we have increased our forest area 1.9 times but the standing value is increased 3.8 times. And this actually what does it mean this also increase this is actually start to start carbon. The challenge is how far we can grow that line. And here I'm coming back to this issue of storage and things. And just a simple picture but while doing that and increasing that through management of our course. We were surprised to find that for example one of the indicators of biodiversity like standing. We are in the top three. There's a question this is good this is bad but but but that's a fact. And protection and the main dilemma for strategy implementation. I'm not going to repeat myself and thank you for reminding about timing but what I would like to add. Actually, our policy decision should be a research based. And this is one good example of the work of the European Commission, where such a research results were compiled of course this is not a full research but still quite a good one. And then the main conclusion from that is that still also research community have no, let's say, single or several solutions, there are still options, we have to explore. I'm not going to repeat it because several sources in Latvia. One thing which exists in number of countries not all is strategic. Actually we have around 16,000 sample plots which are re measured in a cycle. And we have included also biodiversity indicators additional ones because basic ones like that wouldn't be. And another thing is that this can provide us very good timeline on the fact or land use because these sample plots are not only in the forest. And actually, two points, strategic plans for forest. So our understanding also they should do it on all the existing ones. Maybe adding somehow harmonizing but actually is a similar for development of guidelines for national forest programs under Minister of Conference Zen Minister of Conference of protection of forest in Europe. Now forest Europe actually is a similar was in Latvia. Number for most of you members that have them in different formats but and the last on this remote sensing data are actually excellent and rapidly developing tool for sustainable forest management, but with one condition, they have to be adequately calibrated with on set measurements. And we have some also not the positive examples where such interpretation actually led to miss interpretation. And here actually we see and our experience is that this sample plot system, which already provides timelines is an excellent collaboration tool for remote sensing. And then you can use remote sensing quality for some conclusions, not not not the solutions. The main message is commission has to work in close cooperation with member states because we have quite a lot of knowledge. And if that's a good agreements and also it's a precondition for successful implementation. The package of list of two proposals on the file you on all dimension, but they're still in discussion process the same rules regulation, which that applies to. And new list of two proposals to come shortly at least I know that March 23 is a publication day for nature protection regulation and soil issues are coming. So, actually, the main challenge is that members together with permission commission, we have to create a harmonic picture from these still parts of puzzle. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you for taking. I think people with interest in forestry in Ireland can only I think look with considerable envy at 52% forest coverage and we must try and find out sometime how you can achieve that in Latvia, but if we could go on just another couple of minutes we're nearly out of time. There are quite a few questions and if I could direct one from civil O'Neill to even please. We're doing corporate demand for forestry offsets and what measures can the Commission proposed to set rigorous standards for any offsetting or neutrality claims should forestry offsets be reserved for hard to obey sectors like cement and steel, she asks. A very typical question, because of course the interest of companies in this is in principle, a laudable one in the sense of, you know, how can my company contribute to to this transition and to becoming climate neutral. It is not an easy one, because, you know, as I was maybe too confluted when I mentioned in my introduction, you know, the quantitative and the qualitative requirements for any carbon removals and, you know, that you need to have a very, you know, clear set of rules for in order to ensure that what we will be or may be counting as, you know, as removals, be they used as offsets for other emissions or not. So depending on which side of the accounting book do you count it as a plus or a minus that we know what we're talking about. And this is particularly challenging when it comes to, you know, nature, because some of these things and I mean, you know, Arvid's slide actually on the development of forest in Latvia was very clear. It's not always permanent, you know, there I think you said it there is no like permanent storage. And that makes it rather sensitive I have to say you know because if you put it in your books as an offset against an emission, but then, you know, in a certain amount of time that that offset will no longer have the same value because either the tree has died or you know there has been a fire or something, the emission is still there. And that is basically what we will try and tackle in this legal proposal for certification of carbon removals, so that we we through that gets to a system where we have transparency we have accountability, and also the more or more uncertainty that if there is, how shall I say, commercialization of some of these things that you know there is a level playing field and we all know, you know, what is the value of these things. Now currently I have to say, none of this is allowed if I can call it like that, for example, you know there are no company targets within Europe on how many emissions people need to reduce. So, we also need to be wary of double counting the Member States have their targets, you know, if, if Ireland or Latvia says I have enhanced my carbon removals by x, but the companies also say I have all these, you know, bought all these carbon removals or whatever you know, then where is this counted, you know is it counted twice. That's not a good idea. So, for all of that we hope to, and it's a, you know, very challenging thing but again together and I would fully agree with Arvitz that you know we really need to work together on these bring in the best expertise bring in the best knowledge and hopefully, you know, move beyond what can also easily turn into fairly polemic discussions, you know, oh well you just want to, you know, forgo your emissions or something we know we need to become more active when it comes to enhancing carbon removals we want to incentivize the foresters, the farmers, etc. But you know we also need to be open about the fact that you know some of these things are not going to be permanent and how do you then deal with that. So, this is our work cut out for us at least for the coming year and then of course once the proposal is on the table we're also going to be discussing it a lot more in the institutions. Yeah, there was quite a similar question and the keen from tree metrics limited on maybe a more commercial perspective. He says that the 16 million EU forest owners are ready to play their part to increase carbon sequestration, but he asks about the market, you know, when will owners be able to sell forest carbon credits for capturing additional carbon. So challenging questions here. Yeah, but I think it's the same kind of issue that we're looking at because as I said we do want to incentivize the people that are active in these sectors because we know we need it, you know, we need to have massive step up of what we can do in terms of carbon removals. So that the commercialization or the, you know, again financial incentive is an important one there, but it's not immediately ready I have to say so what we when I mentioned the common agricultural policy it was also to say, let's try to support these actors who are able to put in place the best possible tools, because of course if you have the best possible tools it will enhance the, the solidity and the trust. You know, once we then say okay you have your carbon removal calculated this way monitored this way, you know, and entered into the legal framework in this way then you will have probably people saying okay I put some money into this in order to incentivize these communities, full well knowing that probably you know they will have a certain end of their of their lifetime but okay we need to see how we deal with that so. I'm afraid it's going to be a little bit more work you know it's not for tomorrow but if we if we roll up our sleeves and we we work on it together. This is this is the common objective we have. There's a different area raised by Dara Lawler. I should explain that earlier this week, our national newspapers reported the publication in nature, which referred to deforestation in the Amazon and tipping points and so on. Dara asks, should there be criteria on preventing deforestation included in any future EU trade deals? Should these be built into trade deals on deforestation? Well, I think actually we have so far in our trade deals we had like more principles based text you know saying we can look at you know the overall numbers that the overall deforestation doesn't increase etc. But I think it's already a while ago I forget when exactly but in the meantime we have made a much more concrete proposal which is our deforestation regulation whereby we really put forward you know due diligence processes to make sure that some of the goods we import have not got this you know deforestation in the country of origin attached. So this has made it much much more tangible and concrete and basically prohibiting you know import of goods that come with a substantial deforestation attached to it. So yes, we're moving from you know trying to flag this in our in our cooperation and trade agreements to say look by now we really need to because we've unfortunately seen in the past you know some perverse effects, notably I'm sure everybody knows it you know our renewable energy targets then have provoked a lot of imports from you know kinds of things which clearly had you know indirect land use change consequences deforestation consequences and this is what we want to try and avoid. And that's where again we have put forward a legal framework it's currently also as many other things in co decision but at least the awareness is now there and I, again it's, it's. We were talking about cooperation within Europe but this will be a challenge also in terms of cooperation with third countries, and to hopefully also put in place a constructive dialogue there because there are sustainable practices also possible, you know in third countries but we need to have an open debate on what is needed there also in terms of the assurances. Okay. Look, I have to apologize to the other people who put questions because we have trespassed on your on the time we've gone past two o'clock. I'm really very grateful to you even sling work and also from the European Commission of course, and our kids, but also from from the Ministry of Agriculture in Latvia. Thank you very, very much indeed for sharing your thoughts and your expertise with us. And I wish you all a very good day. Thank you, and bye bye. Thank you too. And thank you for this opportunity to share ideas and as I said, we need further collaboration and discussions to find the best best solutions. Indeed and we want to, we want to learn from Latvia as well. Thank you very much indeed.