 We've got the emerging collaborations with IACN, WWF, WCS, CMARIC, and others. I'm going to go through this. Let me just say that we're involved now, and I'm going to end this pretty quickly here. We're involved in the strategic planning process. We want to exist beyond the life of ACSC. We started in January with an internal strategic planning process at the University of Georgia. We're now moving toward an external consultation process, which I consider this meeting part of that, to refine our research priorities. And we've identified forces, and these are a work in process. They are landscape histories and conservation planning and implementation. This is something, obviously, that a lot of people in C4 have worked on. And I'm particularly aware of the stuff in Lino, but there's obviously a lot of other work as well. But as Kev Redford once pointed out to me, he said, you know, landscape history that's always used as a hammer to attack conservation, but you're not taking account of it. Obviously, integrating landscape history into conservation planning can be a positive tool for conservation, particularly now that we're engaging with the climate agenda. We're thinking about connectivity. We're thinking about the impermanence of protected areas and so forth. Secondly, the role of the social sciences in conservation. This really gets at that last point I made in the last slide about trying to gauge how we think about the social context, local contexts, and broader social and political contexts in conservation with the shift from protected areas to more market-based and other kinds of mechanisms. Activation and collaborative methods really refers to some of the, a lot of the collaborative work that, again, people here have been doing, but then also, and here I'm speaking particularly as an anthropologist, where we've been pretty seriously attacked by a lot of indigenous communities for the way we work and, you know, the way we've worked in the past in the extractive ways. And there are, I think a lot of, there are still lessons that we are learning that are emerging in that literature that can be applied to conservation. And finally, emerging conservation strategies. And really that, from my perspective, is kind of a burning ground for identifying future research priorities. And so, for instance, the climate change agenda. What does that mean for conservation? There are lots of, again, all these emerging market-based mechanisms. Conservation is changing dramatically today, and we think it's important to kind of be tracking those changes and trying to understand them and see how they shape the broader conservation domain. And so, this is the external consultation process. So I think I'm going to, I think I'm going to end there. I've gone through things rather quickly, but I'd be interested in hearing from you what you think about, whether you're talking about the framework or whether you want to have something to suggest that we're missing CSR, that it's something that we might view, or whether you build collaborations. Let's go to the floor up to suggestions, questions, comments. This is probably a good idea. What do you mean by landscape? The model that I'm seeing has involved, are we seeking over time or more of a social context? What I think, first of all, I mean, the thing that we have discovered, we've been doing some scoping on this, is that this literature is all over the place. And it's very hard to, you know, to, you know, there are folks working in European context and in all kinds of time spans. I think the thing, and here I suppose this is me as an anthropologist speaking, when I think of it, I think primarily in terms, not in the sort of deep time kind of context. Recognizing, of course, that, you know, that conservation, particularly when they're talking about restoration, they need to establish the baseline. But I think about context like the club at Highlands, where Sarah has been doing her dissertation research, where that landscape is full of history. You look at it, it looks like a forest. It's full of, it's not just, you know, baryocytes and megaliths and so forth, but, you know, rows of fruit trees and so forth. And that can be documented and that can be used as a positive tool in conservation planning. There are lots of models for doing this, but they have not been, I think, applied much at all outside of Europe and a little bit of the US and Europe. Yeah, good. Thanks, a lot of very interesting stuff. We recognize negotiation support, systems and multiple knowledge and multiple, pluralism and all that stuff. You've heard through the debate about what community means. We are very interested in the evaluation process and power of one very simple word that is at the core business of this center here, that is the word forest. And I know currently debate about climate change and all that, very much hinges on that single term. Yes. International agreements will be made soon that refer to that. The politics of the power of whose, what does it mean and what does it not mean is a very important one, right? We have asked answers to just the case studies. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, we have not addressed that issue. I'm particularly aware of that issue. A lot of my previous research, in the context of that, followed a lot of Malaysian debates, and precisely about forests. And now we see this with plantations and so forth, obviously, carbon stuff and whatever. So we've not looked at that, but I'd be interested in hearing more about what you're doing on that front because I absolutely agree. And that precisely is one of those, I would consider that one of those implicit, excuse me, contexts in which power is being exercised by who's defining what a forest is. Your third bullet point there, it's kind of an influence in conservation practice. I know your phrase is a question, but have you got any insights into actually influencing conservation practice especially in the academic to the practitioner? Yes. I think, first of all, and here I think I'm trying to channel Tom McShane, who's the PI of the project, but I don't want to answer for him. He's thought a lot about this issue. So the other folks, we've all thought a lot about this issue. And I think one of the issues that we have come up against, one that we've heard, particularly, is the distinguish, the distinction between content-driven research and demand-driven research. And the point was made by someone from the maker conservation organizations that if there's no demand for it, you can do something blue in the face and who cares about it. So the question then, to me, is a strategic one, if you just sit around and wait for your work to be in demand, you're not going to be very relevant. We think this potential and the focus on trade-offs that you guys are undertaking, that there are strategic ways to ensure that it is taken into account by the conservation community, obviously one route would be through donors. And of course, what does that mean? One of the interesting, one of the other pieces of research that we sponsored is a focus on conservation funding and sort of trends in conservation funding. One of the most interesting findings, I don't know if you were there for that presentation in Beijing, but when we think of conservation funding and we think about USAID and GDAF and various other kinds of multilateral and bilateral funders and we think about the big foundations, the interesting finding of that research and the people doing the research were very careful to say, listen, we're still massaging numbers and trying to sort out what all of it, but still I think the quantum is interesting. The big foundations, like Arthur, Moore, Packard, all those, that support about 3% of conservation funding. That's a very small percentage. Whereas the bilateral's are much, I think, around 60% plus percent. Now that's interesting. That doesn't mean that you should ignore that little 3% slice because as the subsequent discussion moved forward, someone made the observation that those guys can move very quickly and very innovatively in ways that the big funders can't. We think it's important to try to influence the funding community. This is something that possibly through your work on tradeoffs, might be a nice synergy.