 and I haven't managed a mic test yet. So I will keep talking and someone can interrupt if there is any issue with the mic volume. Also, I'm just gonna take a moment to share my screen for this presentation. So just bear with me a second, Tokyo. This is partial, we will be getting this. Perfect. Good. Actually, this is a slightly unenviable task to give some key takeaways for this session. It certainly very much felt as if during a panel discussion and questions and answers section that we were really starting to take off into some very interesting debates and discussions and this is a fantastic platform to continue further over a number of days. But unfortunately I'm going to have to reduce things down again a bit here. So apologies if it feels like a rather false fall back to earth. Anyway, to start my summing up, I thought it would be useful to place our problem in the simplest terms once again. And these are very simple problems which have come up time and time again throughout this forum. And I'm going to do it through the lens of our favorite fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes who always claimed that he judged the case by how many times he would have to smoke his pipe before coming to a solution. So I've placed this as a three pipe problem for three components. Number one, what we're talking about here for responsible agricultural investments we're talking about an issue of investor confidence. There are many investors who wish to work with reputable practices. But they've seen multiple investments and business models fail in the region. And so a concern about their ability to achieve a suitable economic return as well as a maintenance of their corporate reputation. Then we have benefits for smallholders or rather a lack of benefits. And in many cases smallholders have lost their land or seen it degraded through intensive agricultural practices. And this ties into the third point of achieving environmental sustainability. Now, what is clear is that support is needed for governments, communities and companies. And this is where we moved into our first presentation from Yana who I thought provided an excellent overview of looking at the as in right guidelines. This was not intentional but it seems Micah Ingles and I are both thinking in terms of bridges during this forum. And I kind of visualized things in the same way. Now, these guidelines are not one singular vision but instead they could be seen as sort of housing of multiple international standards in a form that is geared towards a specific region. And Yana highlighted guidelines four and five which look at land tenure and forest areas. So there's a very good bridge between identifying these international standards and putting them in a regional framework. But the problem now is the challenge of reaching a national context. So in our further two presentations we then had two companies presenting their perspective in a way achieving responsible agricultural investment although in actuality neither of them specify their work in these terms. So I'm actually starting with the new forest presentation who looked into that they provided a case study of eucalyptus and the casey of plantations in Lao PDR. And they've got very clear CSR policy in place to look towards international standards like FSC, FPIC, IFC, excuse me for all of these acronyms. And the challenge for them is how they can manage operations at the local level in order to achieve these international standards. And even though they're not directly incorporating the RAI guidelines I think there's still a very important role that could be played in finding a way to implement these guidelines at the national level and help them support national, subnational and community actors work with companies. Now in a way I could put this diagram for Vietnam rubber group as well but I think there's something else quite interesting going on through their presentation and there's a sort of a double edged attack to their work. At one level they are very much a domestic event investor in rubber and other crops in Vietnam and in this sense they're looking with CSR policy to engage with government regulation. But this also has to happen in their cross-border ventures in Laos and Cambodia. So there are two ways here that the RAI guidelines could be of some use. I think it's very interesting from the questions that came up, obviously in their case there's a very interesting positioning here and I think there's demands for everyone to kind of know how do we relate past practices next to the sort of implementation of new company policies and what these can actually bring to the table. So perhaps now getting to some more meat or in the discussion or some final thoughts obviously there's a lot of strong points through the RAI guidelines but we are talking about potential here. The potential to address economic, social and environmental impacts of land-based investments. The potential to assist governments, communities and companies in order to achieve inclusive and equitable outcomes. I think in particular we have to make sure that small holders and the rural poor are included in a meaningful way so that this doesn't become some sort of box ticking exercise. Of course the companies we've had presenting here have been putting forward their strong interest in CSR but what about other companies? And in a way we had some examples of carrot and stick options. I mean the sort of comments from James Bampton were very clear in wanting to call out continued illegality and corruption. Then on the other hand we had a sort of false carrot from Stefano Savi in that it would be great to highlight the economic benefits but then what about the fact that responsible investment costs more from production to consumer? And so he asked the question how do we internalize some of these costs? To make them more a level playing field and bring in more and encourage more responsible investment. And then as a final point I think we have to look to the comments of Vicky Bowman which also taken up through the question from Ushuaitian about the price of political instability. And in particular we're looking at the case of Myanmar here. There may be many companies wanting to act in a responsible way but how can they do so when they're faced with a very uncertain political situation as we can see in Myanmar? And I think the question from Ushuaitian did highlight many fears that the country is failing to kind of benefit from the potential of responsible investment. So I think I'm gonna leave it there. As a final reminder, please if you have not already do go to the mentee website and fill in the code and answer the questions for the second poll today. And we have until five o'clock which I guess is coming up soon. So jump to it. I think that's all from me at the moment. Thank you very much.