 International investment treaties are primarily about protecting investments, they're primarily about protecting foreign investments and they are centered on a relationship between the foreign investor and the state. But of course large-skill investments can affect the rights, the livelihoods and the environments of many other actors as well. And yet the rights and perspectives of those groups are invisible in the investment treaty system. So we have an asymmetric system whereby multinationals have special rights and remedies without having corresponding obligations and this can compound power imbalances between communities, governments and businesses. In effect, the more powerful actors also have more extensive rights and more effective remedies. What we wanted to do was a little bit different, we wanted to look at what kind of risks these treaties were posing to particular forms of climate action. We wanted to measure the extent to which investment treaties protect fossil fuel projects. To test the approach we focused on one particular example, the case of coal power plants. The problem really was access to information. Then we came across this free database. We took data from that database and developed a new dataset that focuses only on foreign-owned coal plants. The database gave us the list of all the coal plants globally and the state that they were currently in. And through that approach we managed to see the extent to which investment treaties protect existing foreign-owned coal power plants worldwide. Our report on fossil fuels came out at a good time because there was significant debate and mobilisation in Europe, particularly around the need to face up fossil fuels and the role that investment protections could play in affecting those efforts. Even with just this one piece of the puzzle, it's clear that there's a lot of potential risk that governments have through the system. We wanted to go beyond conventional approaches to research. We wanted to tell the story of the people who feel affected by the investments, affected by the disputes, and yet they are excluded by the dispute settlement process. For instance, in the case of Santorban, the relationship of the people and of the communities with the territories is related to water. So the conflict there is because the building of an open pit mining could contaminate and restrict the access to water. The conflict is understood mainly between the investor and the state. But the decision that is taken in that process will affect the people, but the people cannot participate in that process. There is a common thread that cuts across these issues and that is the need for us to reconsider the arrangements of economic governance if we are to meet the social, environmental and economic challenges the world faces today. We want to continue working on that, linking the local realities, the local perspective to the global policy debates where issues about reform in the systems have been discussed.