 I work for the Secretary, the Climate Change Secretary. We are a bunch of people who are supporting the negotiation process and the climate change negotiations. And we're also supporting the regulatory system for these flexible mechanisms, the three in particular, the two, CDM and JI. I'm going to speak a little bit about CDM today because it is one of the first international and the first international climate financing instrument available with a vast vault of lessons and learnings that one can draw from. I like to call it a little bit the window on the developing world to some extent because there is a vast amount of information that is buried in there and needs to come out, needs to be used for design of future mechanisms, future carbon market mechanisms and instruments. And we've realized this going through a lot of the documentation up to now. And I'm going to use a little bit of the work that we've been doing in the last three years to assess every single project and read into exactly what's happening from a financial point of view, from a sustainable development point of view and from a technology transfer point of view. We also did some comparative analysis with other projects that are not CDM related in non-developing countries so to try and juxtapose the differences between what's happening in the CDM world which is often criticized and that which is happening in the rest of the non-CDM world so to speak from a project point of view. As you know, the CDM was basically set up to facilitate an efficient response to climate change. The premise underlying the CDM was that the greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced at a lower cost in the non-NX1 countries so the developing countries then in the developed world. The non-NX1 countries would host the emission reduction projects and would then reap the sustainable development benefits and other benefits. And the profits from the sale of the emission reduction credits would fundamentally flow to the NX1 countries. So fundamentally NX1 countries could lower the cost of meeting their emission reduction commitments by buying from the CDM projects themselves. I'll show a little bit of how that's actually happening and I'll show a little bit of how that financing is actually taking place and some of the benefits that have come across as a result of it. So coming to the end of the 2012 period, the first commitment period, we asked the question, have all countries really benefited from the CDM? What have been those benefits? What has been the flow of finance? Has that finance come from what was thought to be primarily developed world and flow to the developing world? Has there been benefits, co-benefits such as employment, pollution reduction, access to energy, et cetera, poverty, which Balgan will talk about later. So just moving on quickly, I'm going to run through a profile of the CDM, carbon market overview, impacts of the CDM, and then some future prospects. So just looking here at what has been happening over time now, this is a bit of a time series of the number of projects. This is now new entrants, new projects coming onto the market. And we can see that there's been a gradual growth of later and exponential growth and to some extent a decline at the end there as we come towards the end of the commitment period. Most of them being in the large-scale area with small-scale projects capped to 50 kilotons, relatively stable for that time. Most of them being big investments, big hydro wind in the red and blue lines at the bottom. This is new entrants. The projects themselves that are actually being registered by the CDM Executive Board on the other hand have also seen an exponential growth of late as we get to the end of the commitment period. Most of these coming from China, India, and lesser extent Mexico and other countries. So dominance in the clear pattern in the distribution of these projects and I'll try and explain a little bit why. The fundamental benefit from this carbon finance is naturally of course the realization of the emission reductions, the certified emission reductions. And here we can see a time series of what's happening over time in terms of scale as well of the tons of emission reductions over time. So also dominated by the big three or the big two to some extent. In terms of what's happening in the carbon market itself, you may well know that the price has fundamentally collapsed. There are many reasons for that over supply to some extent. The demand is primary driven at the moment by the European emissions trading scheme. CRs can be changed and can be swapped between EUAs. And these CRs have typically been cheaper over time so that's happened. There is a cap of course to that and that's not going to continue entirely well into the future. We expect also, and a lot of people are saying this in particular, one quoted here the New Energy Finance magazine, that the carbon market itself will grow. Not necessarily as the CDM carbon market, but the international carbon market is likely to grow. So we're going to see carbon finance as being a major player in the future. Most of these CDM projects as we go beyond 2012 will probably likely come from the renewable sector. As we see the industrial gases being phased out due to limitations from the EUTS and also simply because methodologically and structurally within the CDM they are no longer really feasible. We will also see, as I've said, that China and India and a few other countries will dominate the pipeline to some extent. So what happened? What happened to all these projects? How did the CDM actually benefit and what were the design objectives and how have they actually been realised to some extent? Parties got together in the early days and said, well, we're going to agree on this instrument and now the question is, has it really benefited? And some of these benefits are shown, for example, in the happy faces on these pictures, which we launch every now and again in a photo competition. People send in pictures and say, well, I'd like to demonstrate what's happening here. And in other areas, there's a lot of criticism, of course. Yung Fu has mentioned, of course, that the governance has been mentioned this morning also that the market itself is also suffering from an oversupply scenario. So geographic distribution. As I've said already, there's an unequal distribution of projects of the 129 projects with a designated national authority who's there to authorise and agree to the projects at a country level. 50 do not have registered projects. 50 countries do not have registered projects. 27 out of 48, just under half of countries with a DNA, have no registered projects. 25 of the 41 of the LDCs with a DNA, LDC countries, less developed countries, have no registered projects. Well, why? Some high-income countries may have no interest in the CDM, for example. They don't need necessarily carbon finance. Countries affected by domestic unrest and war may find it difficult to implement them. There are also 21 countries without any DNA at all yet. What we found is that the projects tend to follow the mitigation potential in the country. So that's why it's really key to also address the issues of suppressed demand. And that's been done to some extent now in some of the new rules that are coming out and working. We did however found statistically that there is a weak financial sector, limited supply of funds and domestic investment limits CDM activity considerably in many countries, in particular in LDCs and in Africa. So therefore, financial infrastructure, de-risking, instrumentation, et cetera, is needed and capacity building in that area. We also looked at sustainable development claims. So the projects themselves, they send in the documentation to us and we go through it. The Board eventually agrees or disagrees to issue or register the project. But in doing so, they actually describe to some extent in quite detail what's actually happening from a non-greenhouse gas benefit point of view. So a co-benefit essentially. Issues such as stimulation of the local economy, promotion of a rival energy, improvement of health, et cetera. And what we found, and by the way, these are just claims. So to some extent we verified them through a survey, but essentially anybody could be saying anything. But it does provide some insight into really what's happening, or at least what's being claimed to happen on the ground from a contribution or assisting sustainable development on the ground. And as you can see, there are primarily economic and environmental benefits that are claimed, certainly within the projects mostly. In particular, the most prominent being the stimulation of the local economy, reduction of pollution, promotion of renewable energy and energy access. So that's one area where I think it's relatively new in terms of findings. And unfortunately the data needs still to be verified. There's a lot of work that needs to be done on this. And we're now engaging with some scientists to look at doing that. We also found that through the claims themselves, it actually provides an expression of the sustainable development goals in the country. So what's happening through the approval of the project at the DNA level, you're actually getting a quasi-expression of the sustainable development goals for those countries. So in a way, as I said, it's a bit of a window on the world, in a sense. And as you can see, the host country has a significant effect on the mix and balance of both the dimension, environmental, social, and economic, and also, of course, the effect on the actual indicator themselves. Moving on to an aspect of sustainable development, in particular the transfer of technology. Now, this was not necessarily a goal of the CDM, but it was something that sort of came out of the CDM in a sense of what we saw was there is a very strong and relatively reliable way of, well, put it this way, a message coming from the projects to show that there has been transfer of technology. And what you see in this graph is fundamentally a decline over time in the transfer of technology for the big three countries and relatively stable transfers of technology for any other country. It indicates that on average about 40% of all projects are claiming to transfer technology. On average, they tend to be large projects that do transfer the technology. The rate of transfer has obviously been lower for larger projects, sorry, a more common project like Cement, where the technologies are more mature, so you don't necessarily need the transfer of technology across international borders. And as I've said, the frequency of technology has declined over time. And this basically has indicated to some extent and is still being tested to some extent that the CDM has helped, not been the only driver, but has helped in growing the expert base within the country. It's been the initiator to some extent, or the catalyst. The transfer of technologies used by CDM projects appears to be happening through other channels as well, for example, via licensing, foreign direct investment, research and development networks, mergers and acquisitions, recruitment of foreign experts, et cetera. And this has been shown through work done with patent data at the OECD, who we are also working with closely. Finally, the change in the mix of registered projects over time will also affect transfer of technology. We also did some rather intensive statistical work, which is available in last year's report and the report after that available on the CDM website, where we found that GDP per capita, foreign direct investment, renewable share of electricity generation and knowledge stock are a host country characters that have a significant impact on sustainable development, sorry, on transfer of technology. And these are these changes, or these characteristics, if they tend to change, they would have a relatively quick effect on the transfer of technology over time. We did some time lag tests on that and found that within periods of two to three years, if any of these indicators are changing radically, it has a massive effect on the transfer of technology rates. Can we check this again also with using another measure namely patents? In the project design documents, you also get to understand who's supplying the technology. And so we were able to show in a previous report and we'll do so now where this technology is coming from, primarily annex one of course, but increasingly a large section of the technology is also supplied from within the countries where the projects are taking place. Particularly as you know, in the wind sector in China, it has predominantly, and Soran may touch on this after me, from local content. In total investment was something else we looked at. What has been the total investment on the ground in terms of projects? And taking the total investment at the current portfolio, which was about June this year, it's about $215 billion have been invested in infrastructure in those countries. This may not necessarily be additional investment, but it is the quoted investment as stated in all the documents. And we then looked at how much of that is actually operating. So there may be projects on the ground that are not actually running. They may just be paper-based. They may have discontinued. They may have gone to another financing structure or maybe just not occur at all. And of those projects that we know are actually operating, i.e. they've really sent a message to us to say we want the CERs. Fundamentally, there's about $92 billion in operational investment to date. This investment is typically occurring once again in eastern Asia to a large extent. The type, the comparison between non-NX1 and non-NX1 countries in terms of the project level, these graphs compare the average capacity per project by project type for CDM and non-CDM projects. With the exception of solar thermal power projects, CDM projects are larger than similar non-CDM projects, often three, four times in size. Capital intensity on the lower graph is the average capital investment per unit of capacity, basically. And with the exception of hydropower, CDM projects are 15% to 50% less capital intensive than similar NX1 projects. So this may be due to economies of scale, which we're looking at to some extent to try and work out. For some technologies, larger projects have a lower capital investment per unit capacity. And these projects in the developing countries may also benefit, of course, from lower labor costs as well, so that may be a reason why. NX1 countries' projects tend to be much more capital intensive than CDM projects. And this is an overall capital investment is increasing. This is just the renewable sector, by the way. And what we've seen is an increase of late since 2009, 2010 overall for both CDM and non-CDM or NX1 projects as well. This graph is rather complex, but here we're looking at the share of domestic versus foreign financing. So where is it coming from? Is it coming from the actual host countries themselves or is there foreign financial flow? What we're seeing is on average 90% of CDM projects are domestically financed. That means it's really key to address domestic finance issues in regional distribution and trying to regionally expand the CDM or any carbon market mechanism per se. And 65% of NX1 projects are domestically financed, often in both cases with multiple sources of financing, which is very complex to work out. Although the dominant trend in this figure is increasing foreign investment for both CDM and NX1 over time, we've observed an inverse relationship between the share of foreign investment in renewable energy projects and renewable energy projects in NX1 countries. This suggests that some of the foreign investment available for renewable energy projects may shift between NX1 and non-NX1 projects as conditions in those countries change. Using the 90% and applying it to the $215 billion around about 10% or $2121 to $40 billion of foreign investment has actually flowed as a result of the CDM one could probably say. So what has been the savings also? That was one of the things for NX1. What NX1 countries embarking on and taking part in the CDM and its approach. And basically the estimated savings we've been able to calculate through the gap between the pricing structures, the compliance use of CEOS by EU tests installations, for example, the total amount of savings for NX1 parties to date is about $3.6 billion. This is quite a sizable number and it's portioned into various parts at the moment. So where do we go from here? From a future perspective, market trends, as I've said, an incredible build-up of carbon market mechanisms worldwide. The negotiations that are going to occur in Doha and Qatar are relatively important for the carbon markets. There's going to be a lot of discussion on developing new markets, frameworks around trying to incorporate all these different players and market mechanisms. It's likely that these new markets, these emerging markets will compete with and or perhaps even merge in with the CDM. The supply and demand side on established, for example, the EUTS, is impacting the CDM as we see it today. Some of these markets emerging in the world over look like, for example, the Australian carbon pricing mechanism, which is linking up now with the EUTS, which is now affected to some extent the demand on CRs considerably was likely to. China is certainly working in a voluntary scheme and is likely to take up a lot of the supply of CRs as it builds its systems. And there's various others that I won't go into now for time reasons. As I said, supply and demand is a very difficult thing to work out. A healthy post-2012 carbon market depends on robust demand. So basically, commitments from countries to provide a strong supporting price signal incentivizing investment in mitigation and clean technologies. So therefore, it's highly reliant on the supply and demand as tied to mitigation targets. CDM is likely to remain a major offset supply until 2020, assuming, of course, some of the recommendations that have been put forward by the CDM policy dialogue also to some extent looked at or maybe even decided to be implemented. We've been asked by the CDM executive board to take that policy dialogue, which was a big study of the CDM over the first six months of this year and see how much can actually be implemented within the current rule system and how much can't, where there may be legal differences. So I think that's round about it for my presentation. We're expecting quite a lot of work in Doha on various parts of the negotiation process. I'm not going to go into that now. Certainly from a carbon market perspective, there's two things on the table at the moment. The new market-based mechanisms where modalities of procedures and rules and whatnot have been designed. And we're feeding a lot of what we've learned from the CDM into that, where we can, and helping policy to be at least informed. And then there's the framework for various approaches. So building in the green slide that you saw earlier of all the approaches to try and provide a hopefully international carbon market. Then there's the discussion on the start of the second commitment period under the Curio protocol, how long that's going to be, who's going to be signing up to it, et cetera. And then, of course, the Durban platform, which is a new platform launched to replace the LCA. There's still early days as to see where this is going likely to be resolved to some extent from at least an agenda-wise point of view in Doha. Conclusions, time of intense development in the carbon market area. A lot of institutional building has taken place and still needs to take place. The changes of the environment for both the CDM and other markets is clearly dynamic. There is a clear need for co-financing of carbon finance. It can't exist on its own. The CDM is a good reference. As I said, it's a window on the world to some extent. And we should not lose sight of some of that. Certainly, what has happened in the Curio protocol and these mechanisms provides us with carbon accounting and reporting and sort of a flight deck of what's really happening worldwide in terms of mitigation action and adaptation. A lot to discuss, a lot to say. I've tried to pack it into too many slides as you can see and that's all from my side. Thank you.