 I think it's important because you have an important number of small holders and communities that somehow they depend on forest resources and if you look at forest resources probably the main source of income is timber and this is even more important because the process of granting new rights to small holders and communities that makes that sector much more visible and they also have gained more capacities and resources to use this timber that they have access to. So they are becoming an important player in the timber markets. That doesn't mean that you don't have an important group of large-scale industrial and well-established industrial sector. So and these two sectors are coexisting and they use the resources but small holders over time and because most land is being granted to these people so they are getting more access to resources and they are getting a larger portion in the markets. And it is important because the contribution that timber has on the livelihoods of these communities and these small holders. I think over time we tend to get more knowledge about the fact that there are much more actors involved in the forest production and in the timber markets. It's not just about small holders and communities using the resources or intermediaries buying the timber but also there are well developed sectors providing services. There are foresters working on the forest management plans, providing technical assistance to communities, enterprises, you have the chains of millers that also they have a role to play into the production and in the market and so there is an important number of actors that depend on the sector and that makes this production and markets a bit more complex that we used to think in the past. And with regard to your second question I think there is a false assumption that you can split the realities between what is formal or what is illegal and what is informal or illegal and what is formal and legal because in practice well this is a more arbitrary conceptual distinction because in practice I think these two realities they tend to coexist are very much the two sides of the same coin and I may say that probably every actor in the Amazon is a bit legal and a bit illegal. Also very much depends what are the degrees of legality or illegality not because those realities coexist so it's impossible to distinguish them in practice. I think it's important to have more flexibility in the regulations or at least the regulations. Well the problem is that the regulations in the past they have been inspired in just one model on how forest management would be possible and that model has been trying to impose in different actors either indigenous communities, colonists, caboclos, whatever and I think the laws they have to recognize that the different actors, different groups they may have a different idea about how to use the forest and why do they use the forest for? For example in Ecuador and that's interesting from the data that we collected in the field that the small holders that they don't follow the law they tend to extract less from the forest, less timber from the forest and the small holders that follow the law they need to extract more because they have to pay for the permits so I think would be much better to have a more flexible system that could adapt to the different ways in which people is using the forest so to have a more plural and flexible way of thinking about how regulations can be implemented in practice. I think that's very important.