 a few minutes for questions. So we've learned from Mira that there are important trade-offs in the allocation of aid for mitigation. I'm going to have to inform Mira that there's also trade-offs in the way you've allocated your time. Therefore we only have five minutes left for questions rather than ten. So please shoot at her and we'll take probably one from this side, one from this side and we'll take it from there. I just have two quick questions. One is, I don't know if I heard you correctly, but did you say that the highest emitters are the poorest countries? No, it's exactly the opposite. I thought so. That's why our topic is, I mean, instead of LDC we actually used the concept of least carbon emitting countries. The other little question is, what was it? Yeah, do you have any quantification of what you are saying as regards, for example, mitigation measures, let's say to Cambodia, which you highlighted, but do you have any quantification of the emissions from Cambodia in relation to what you should mitigate? So for example, what are the main emissions originating from in Cambodia? It couldn't be traffic, for instance. And then accordingly the mitigation assistance should be given to try and solve those specific critical problems, it seems to me. So a quantification would be one way to go about it. Yes, and we have in our report and I think in our paper also more numbers, but I don't have them here in my presentation, so I don't exactly remember now. But of course in both countries, well, if you then look not only energy but also the forest sector, so clearly the forest sector is more important in terms of emissions. But of course clearly in both countries there is a need for not maybe mitigating the current emissions that much but more assistance for truly supporting so that the future pathway for low carbon development and so that there wouldn't be lock-ins for high carbon solutions and so forth. But currently, yes, the forest sector is more important in terms of emissions. Thank you, Mira. One question perhaps over here. My name is Elizabeth Remedio from the University of St. Carlos. I have two questions. Actually the first one has to do with, you mentioned something about donors of self-interest, for example, technology. May I ask what is the method of exploring and discovering the donors of the self-interest? The second question is, you also mentioned that aid often better spent if it is directly channeled to, for example, sustainable renewable energy and so on. So the question is that what are therefore the constraints, why is it that aid cannot be directly channeled to probably the direct beneficiaries? So what are the factors that impede such direct giving of aid? Thank you. Because this is, we are running a little bit out of time, that will be the last question. Okay. Yes, the donors' self-interest is very difficult to study, of course. And in this case that I was referring to it, it was more based on literature review. But we tried to also, in our study, when we are doing the interviews and so on to touch upon this issue. And we also discussed with the different officials in the Cambodian and Laos ministries on this. And they actually, well, it's very sensitive, so it's not easily to be presented later on as well. But there were these kind of concerns present and so on. But in the cases of these two countries, it may not have materialized in the extent and in some other countries where there have been studies on this respect. And then, well, ODA for the direct beneficiaries, well, yes, it's a good question. And that's something that we are also kind of suggesting here that if mitigation targets are integrated to ODA and there is no truly new and additional climate finance. So this should be maybe the area that could be more supported.