 Good afternoon everyone. This is a great pleasure for us to organize these great debates which are addressing the question, are the forest a solution to climate change? And the topic of this debate was chosen not by accident. So there were a couple of reports which were produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that was talking about the role of forests in taking up CO2. And taking up CO2 is needed to actually get to the targets of Paris agreement. On the other hand, forests are the living substances and we cannot just take them as a CO2 pumping machine or need to look what happens with the forest, what are they doing, how are they behaving. So the question for this debate is do we really understand the role of the forest and the climate agenda? I would like to introduce our absolutely stunning and outstanding panel which is comprised of all the continents and genders and very very balanced opinions about the role of forest in the climate agenda. So our first panelist is a professor here. He is a professor of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences and the director of the COS Global Change Research Center for East Asia. He holds PC in ecology from Inner Mongolia University and a PhD in Environmental Change from Beijing Normal University. He serves as a member of the International Science Council Regional Committee for Asia Pacific. He was a coordinating lead author of the IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land, the Sixth UNAP Global Environmental Outlook Report and the Fourth China National Assessment Report on Climate Change. Professor Jir has a broad research interest in terrestrial ecology and atmospheric sciences. He published over 100 period papers in the high-profile journals such as Science, Nature Climate Change and Global Change Biology. Thank you Professor Jir for joining the panel. Our second panelist is Dr. Bronson Griscombe. Dr. Griscombe leads the conservation international science that is applied to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere through natural climate solutions. He received his master degree from New York University in Plant Genetics and Conservations. He completed a PhD in Tropical Forest Ecology from Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and a postdoc at the Cannon Valley Institute in West Virginia studying restoration of high-elevated Appalachian watersheds. Prior to joining Conservation International, Dr. Griscombe served as the director of forest carbon science at the Nature Conservancy, where he led the research team that published the landmark study on natural climate solution in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science in 2017. Thank you Dr. Griscombe for joining the panel. The third panelist is Dr. Luciana Vanigati. She has a basic education in chemistry and she conducts research on atmospheric chemistry focusing particularly on greenhouse gases. She coordinates the greenhouse gas laboratory at the National Space Institute in Brazil. She works on multiple cooperative projects with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of Leeds and multiple international partners to study a long-term balance of greenhouse gas in Amazon. The focus of your research is to understand the impact of climate change and human activities on Amazon carbon balance. She has more than 750 citations and she co-authored several Nature papers. Thank you Luciana for joining the panel. And our last panelist is Dr. Katharine Scott. Dr. Scott is an independent research fellow at the University of Leeds, where her work focuses on interaction between forest and the climate. Dr. Scott's research looks beyond the carbon aspect of forest and addresses the exchange of energy, water, volatile organic components between the land surface and the atmosphere. Dr. Scott is the Director of the Leeds Ecosystem, Atmospheric and Forest Centre through which she works with a range of external stakeholders including charities, local authorities and UK government. Thank you Dr. Scott for joining the panel. With these absolutely amazing people with our super-renowned experience in the forest, understanding the forest and managing the forest, I would like our panelist to actually give a short statement on the topic of the debates, our forest and solution to climate change. And we will start from Professor Jir. As you know, all the climate scenarios which we look at in the IPCC report, they say that we would require quite substantial negative emissions. So how much do you think the forest can help in that? Is it reasonable to expect that with massive reforestation and eforestation, we can actually achieve the climate objectives of various agreement? Professor Jir, the floor is yours. Good morning or good afternoon everyone. Before we can answer the question, are forests our solution to climate change? We have to start from some pathways. We know that forests influence climate in two major ways. One is biogeochemical as we familiar as the CO2 budget and other greenhouse gas budgets. So forests release carbon and also have subcarbon. So another one is bio-physical that normally people are not very familiar is through the modified energy balance with our beetle and evapotranspiration. That means reflect energy back to atmosphere and also transmit to water vapor to atmosphere. So those are two processes also influence energy. So those are two. In terms of the solution, we see both positive and negative processes lean to forests. In the positive part, we know that forests account for about 22% of global ice-free land surface and there's a general trend of greening. That means we see forests can take more CO2 from the atmosphere now through CO2 fertilization and through some reforestation efforts, for example, green for green and about energy. On the other hand, there are some negative from now. The first is that forest is limited by our climate zone and we cannot plant forests anywhere. So forests can only grow in the habitat of super forest. That's the one. And also under the climate change and extreme climate conditions, there are some disturbances, for example, fire, pests, insects, and deforestation. Those are actually compromise our efforts of forest natural solution. In terms of biophysical effect, there's quite a mixed picture. In some area and some biomes, actually there's a warming change. In some regions and biomes, there's a little bit of cooling. So there's a trade-off and a synergy. We can discuss this later. In general, we could see that forests are natural-based solutions for climate change. However, there is a limitation for this solution. I stop here. Thank you very much. This is a very balanced and very interesting statement. So I would like to ask Dr. Griskum to look to provide his views on the forest. There's a solution and probably in a nature of your work, you look at the diversity of different solutions, not just forest, but all the other interconnected nature-based solutions. So in the whole spectrum of the potential nature-based solution, what role do you think the forest can play? Can we impact somehow the capacity of the forest to uptake you to, or can we do some other management practices that can help us to use the forest or to look at the combination of the other solution together with the forest? The floor is yours. Thanks very much. I'm absolutely confident that forest play a large role in the solution to climate change. Taking a step back to the fundamentals, plants are essential to the global flows of carbon in our atmosphere and in our ecosystems. Even today, the flux of carbon, both in and out of plants, as my colleague just described, are actually the largest source of fluxes of carbon on earth. They're largely balanced, not fully balanced, but they're largely balanced. And of course, the flux, the emissions of carbon from fossil plants are what is not balanced because of humans burning fossil plants, fossil fuels. In a sense, of course, we absolutely have to drive down the emissions of fossil plants. Meanwhile, the elephant in the room is to what extent can we enhance the massive role that living plants play in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? And we can do that both by reducing the destruction of ecosystems and by increasing the growth, the restoration and improved management of ecosystems. So what we've done is we've done a couple of studies where we have synthesized a large number of other studies and conducted some additional research to fill gaps to look at sort of break down this question and essentially run the numbers on this. And so here are the numbers that we have arrived at that ecosystems overall nature can deliver cost effectively about 11 gigatons of CO2 climate mitigation per year, both through avoided emissions and through increased sinks. And forests, if you can click to the next one, play about 80%, about nine gigatons of that global role of nature. So they are the largest component of that ecosystem role. The numbers that we have here are constrained or sort of we have essentially, these are far below the maximum potential. And here's how we've constrained these numbers. So first, we deducted for some local biophysical effects, things like albedo in particular. And we kind of took actually pretty draconian deduction. So we actually did not include at all the potential carbon sink, major potential carbon sink of restoration or expansion of boreal forests due to the albedo effect, which can counteract the gain of removing that carbon. And we also did not include avoided deforestation in boreal regions. On the other hand, we actually did not add the benefit of what are called local biophysical effects also in the tropics. So in the tropics is the reverse when you add forests, they pump water into the air through transpiration and actually increase cloud cover, which includes reflectance. So we didn't actually essentially do the reverse, which is sort of add the benefit, the other types of benefits to climate of forests and tropics. So we think that we have made conservative deductions for these other effects that I think we'll be discussing. But I'm very curious to hear from my colleagues about more about that. In any case, in addition to that, we avoided any kind of reduction in global croplands, reduction in the production of wood. We need wood because it's a relatively low carbon footprint structural material. And finally, then we constrained these estimates to be cost effective. So we wanted them to be essentially cost competitive with the other forms of emission reduction through cleaner energy and industry. So after all of those constraints, these are the numbers we arrive at. And we find that over the coming decade, nature, natural climate solutions offer about a third of cost effective solution to climate change. And forests alone are about a quarter of the global cost effective solution to climate change in the near term. Thank you. Thank you very much. That is quite an interesting statement. And I would like to kind of ask the response from the person who actually sits on the forest. There was a recent publication just in April this year in Journal of Science, which was done by team broadband, who said that with the current rate of warming, in 40 years from now, none of the trees alive today will be able to survive the projected changes in climate. Luciana, my question is to you. You sit on the forest. What is happening in Amazonia? Is it growing and blooming? Or is it dying? I would like to say good morning, good afternoon, good evening for everybody. And the answer to the question, this answer is very complicated. I can say yes and no is the answer. Yes, because of course, forest is a very important and a complex ecosystem. We have not only regulation for climate absorption, capture for carbon, but also leaving many species, you know, and the population, also Indians. And it's a very important ecosystem for control, precipitation, and the temperature. And then no, because only forest will not solve our problem. Of course, we need to change the mind. We live in this world. We emitted a huge amount of carbon in the atmosphere. It's not fair hope that the nature will clean our dirty stuff, you know, and then sinking in Amazon. That is where I have experience. We can see now that Amazon are changing a lot from the human impact to the human activities. The temperature there, if we consider the whole Amazon, is enhanced in 1.21 degree. We can see the biggest enhancement is during dry season. And when we see the precipitation, we will also see that during dry season, we are losing precipitation. And we know the precipitation is less during dry season and dry season is longer. But this is not homogeneous in the whole Amazon. We can observe that the places where it's more the forest that, like the east side, suffer more changes in temperature and the precipitation during dry season. We observe, for example, the worst situation is the southeast, where is the forest around 30%. The reduction in precipitation is almost 30%. And during August to September, the mean temperature is 3 degrees higher. This is a huge enhancement in temperature. And they bring a very stressful situation for the trees. This is a typical trees from tropical forest that can't survive in this so extreme condition in temperature and in drought, in water stress. And then we are observing enhancement in mortality. And the forests are becoming a source during this time. We observe that this time is what put more weight in the annual mean, because the forest are losing so big amount of carbon during this time that you make the annual mean change. In the west part, we observe that this situation is not so intense. We also see changes, but we don't see so so big changes. And when we compare the changes, how the precipitation temperature influences the flux, we observe that how less precipitation we have, we have more emission and the less uptake. And for temperature, how much more temperature, more emission. When we compare east side from west side, east side is around 30% of the forest. But the carbon emissions in the east side is around 9, 10 times higher than west side that is in the maximum 10% of the forest. We see a huge difference between the two sides. And the fire emission also in the east side is three times higher. And we don't see uptake in the annual mean, you know, when we consider the uptake during wet season that you have there at season, when the precipitation, the temperatures start to go up, the forest just up to make uptake and pass to be a source. And that this is a bigger source than during wet season. And the west part is still making uptake. If all Amazon could have the same condition than west part, Amazon could remove from the atmosphere around 0.7 gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere. Then this is what we could get from the lessons from Amazon. Okay. I would like to move to our last panelist, Dr. Scott. And as you've heard, there were a lot of discussion, and in particular in a policy making world, that people are considering forest as the, largely as a sink of CO2. And we heard from Luciano that if you have the changes in the precipitation patterns, then that's not a sink of CO2, but it becomes the source of CO2. But the forest are the living species. And they are not only working with CO2, they are working with a lot of other environmental constituents. And they also change the environment and emit different species themselves. So could you please reflect on how complicated are the forests? What kind of the processes drive the emissions of the other constituents and not just the CO2 exchange? And can we actually evaluate the total net effect of the growing forest on the climate? Dr. Scott, please. Hi, everybody. Good afternoon from the UK. And thanks so much to the conveners for inviting me to be part of this panel. So I think to address the overall theme of the debate, I wanted to start by really agreeing with what's been said so far in terms of the fact that protecting and restoring the world's forest is only part of the solution to climate change. It's an extremely important part. But when we talk about forest contributing to climate change mitigation and actually getting to net zero emissions globally, we still require 80% or so of a reduction in our sources of greenhouse gas emissions. And then we're looking to forest to kind of mop up that remaining 20% or so of the emissions. 25% we heard earlier. It depends on the numbers that you use. So that remaining 20% is extremely important because there are going to be aspects of society in which we find it impossible to completely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. So that kind of remaining negative emission from forests is going to be extremely important. However, we shouldn't be considering forests as just a tool that we can deploy for mopping up carbon. They are part of the climate system themselves. And as Luciana was describing, they are vulnerable to climate changes. So in order to be able to protect these forests into the future, we have to cut our emissions because one of the biggest uncertainties in our understanding of how the carbon cycle will respond in the future is the response of the carbon cycle to rising CO2 concentrations and temperature. And if you could just go on to my next slide, thank you. And as Oxana mentioned in my introduction there, we know that forests do a lot more than just store carbon. And a couple of these things have been mentioned by the previous panellists, but forests also change how reflective the land surface is. So they're pretty dark in colour most of the time and if they are covering an otherwise snow covered or grass covered surface, that dark colour lowers the reflectivity and that can have a warming impact on the climate. The aspect of this that I work on is the fact that vegetation emits these volatile gas compounds into the air. And these compounds are really interesting because they react and then they go on to form aerosol particles. And those particles are able to reflect away sunlight and also potentially to form cloud droplets and actually make clouds brighter. The flip side of that is that those same volatile compounds are actually involved in complex chemistry that can lead to an increase in some greenhouse gases like methane and ozone. And so at the moment it's still a really active area of research to try and understand exactly how these effects balance out and whether they're having an overall warming or a cooling effect. We think that when you add these things together in terms of the impact on the composition of the atmosphere it actually increases the warming impact of deforestation. The other thing that forests do or suffer from is burning and the emissions from these fires are also having an important impact on the composition of the atmosphere. And one final thing that's extremely important is the fact that forests more than any other kind of vegetation are actually responsible for transferring moisture from the land surface into the atmosphere. And as we had mentioned earlier this can end up affecting cloud cover and also importantly can affect rainfall. And we're only just beginning to develop the kinds of coupled earth system models that are able to robustly couple together these processes so that we can actually understand how these different impacts play off against one another. And what we do know is that some of these effects are more important in different parts of the world so at very high in all the latitudes this albedo effect is extremely strong. In the tropics the evapotranspiration so the transfer of water is extremely important but what happens in the middle in the the temperate latitudes of the world is still quite uncertain. And that's before we start thinking about the impact of adding new forests we're actually still trying to work out what the impact of the of the existing forests are. So I'll leave it there thank you. Thank you very much Dr Scott and I think this is this is very interesting conversation we are having. Can I invite the panelists to give a short reflection on the statements of each other. So we will start from Professor Gere what do you think of the statements of the other panelists. Yeah I think from the our just the presented by the panelists one thing is clear forests can provide the solution for climate change but it's not the only solution. How effective of this solution can be really depends on what we do and how we do. For example there is very limited land for our forestation and agricultural activity and others so we have to consider this competition of land and we have to make this forestry very effective. And so there is always a always a trade-off around these different sectors. So a coordinated efforts cross sectors probably is a solution. There's this coordination including coordination across sectors and across countries and at different regions. So that's my comment. Thank you very much our Grisco please. Absolutely well first of all just thank you all so much. I'm so glad that we're having this discussion this debate. It's a critical that we that we dig into this stuff and understand it better. I don't I only can my only concern right now is that is the disappoint that we are not having actually a huge debate. We're mostly I think agreeing and I would just so I'll second this agreement. I think I agree with actually everything that's been said so far. What I would emphasize is that despite the tremendous complexity of ecosystems and their relationship with the atmosphere there are some very basic fundamentals that we need to keep in mind that emphasize the importance of forests for mitigating climate change. Okay so so so ecosystems hold about five times the amount of carbon that is in the atmosphere. We know that the carbon in the atmosphere is in the form of CO2 is the primary cause of climate of climate change. So what does that mean? That means two things we must avoid the additional emissions of carbon from ecosystems because if we if we have too much destruction of ecosystems we will massively increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and and and the flip side is that this five times higher carbon storage is despite you know centuries of impacts by humans which means that ecosystems have the potential to hold a lot more carbon. So when you put those two options together avoiding emissions and increasing sinks there are tremendous opportunities big potential contribution to climate change as we discussed. And then the final point just to Dr. Gia I would agree that I think the restoration the expansion of forests has gotten a lot of attention. It's certainly important but it is not the biggest opportunity. The improved management of production forests better management to increase the stocks of carbon in forests that we manage for timber for example is a huge potential and avoided destruction of ecosystems is a huge issue. So when you put them all together we should do all of those things but there's not any one civil bullet. Thank you. Thank you very much. Dr. Gatti please your reflection. This is you know I think the thing is we need to have a knowledge to make a better job in the planet. We can see today you know uh what people are doing Amazon by trying to get money destroying the forest with activities that have a so low uh rentability and the bad destruction is amazing. We have so many ways to make the ecosystem preserved and economic productivity. You know if we think what we know now you know and then I think the the first word is understand the ecosystem like the house of the planet and to to make this you know work together with us you know uh have the the temperature and the precipitation in the whole country is completely important for the agricultural business but as of the Amazon is very important for climate for the people that live there, indigenous, the animals, many many many species that we have a big big diversity there you know we can't deploy this gun like that trying to destroy and the problem is how we are changing the world then we need to start to repair the environment and ourselves to try live in more harmony with the nature. I think this is the solution. Thank you Luciana and I think we go to Dr. Scott your reflection please. Yeah so I think um I'd also agree with some of the the first things that were said there about thinking of that we shouldn't be thinking of forests in in isolation so when we look at the the kind of climate scenarios that are able to or in which we can successfully limit warming to below one and a half degrees over the next century there tends to be a bit of a kind of divergence between the amount of area given to forests and amount of land given to to pasture for for agriculture and I think we have to we have to definitely face the the fact that at the moment we are using a lot of land for for fairly inefficient things um and that if we want to be kind of sequestering carbon at the scale that we're talking about here we really are going to have to be doing things differently in terms of how we we manage the land and that's not to say that we have to just instantly stop farming in a certain way but that we need to now be thinking about well how do we try and do these things in a more integrated way how do we increase the carbon storage on land that's that's also being being potentially used for other things too so I think um this is a really interesting debate in terms of the role of forests but I would say it's pretty much impossible to to look at forests in isolation in terms of how we actually move forward with with with trying to enable forests to contribute to climate change mitigation thank you very much and our I think that we could actually proceed to the couple of questions there's one interesting question which is related to the I think the first speaker and that is related to the question that we have a limited locations where the forest can grow and what about the new locations and new opportunities for the sites where the forest can grow and which can arise due to climate change would it be is it considered is it is it part of the solution so there are several questions around that are I think Dr. Gio or anybody on the panel can you address this question please good question I will try to address some of this first off is forest has its own habitat cross globe there's a different type of forest over different biomes and some areas never have are suitable for forests but good news is under climate change and some human intervention there is expansion of forest habitat in many part of the area especially for example in forest region and for the edge of the dry land so there are some more new chance for forest to expand another frontier is urban forest and in urban area you see more and more urban green planted and with the human management they can have a quite large area of forest and a well maintained so this is for the forest location the second part what is second part that was about the extension of the forest in the in the new areas yeah I think that's they are all related to one is in the frontier of existing forest for example expanding forest into in equal tail another one is urban area and also with the human management we can we see some area that can have a forest expansion can I jump in and add sure um so again you know agreeing with Dr. Gia but I would just emphasize that I think so we have looked at urban forest reef forest you know bringing trees back into urban areas they're certainly important and I think locally very important you know but in terms of the sheer potential of of essentially land available that could be available for expansion of forest it is in rural areas and I would particularly emphasize that diet is very important so 70 percent 70 percent of the global agricultural lands both grazing and and crop lands are dedicated to the production of livestock which deliver about five percent of our global food okay 70 percent of land five percent of food tremendously inefficient so basically the ruminant gut of of livestock is a an inefficient way of producing food I I myself historically have been a meat eater so I'm not here to to evangelize about that but I'm just saying when you look at the sort of the basics of the numbers your our diet has a big effect on on land use and I think to Dr. Scott's point this you know it's an interaction between between our sort of production lands and and for food and forest so if we improve our diets reduce food waste it could release a huge amount of land for for forest thank you very much our we have quite an interesting and challenging questions to the panelists which I find quite quite challenging what the panelists think about the emergence of the initiatives from oil companies focusing on FR station as opposed to the protection or appropriate reference station given the limited land area trade off and large-scale tree planting and they need to reduce fossil fuel as well what is your reflection on that I think we needed to understand the complexity you know of the changes we are promoting if we first reflect the best areas we can repair the ecosystems the the sound is okay yep please go ahead we we see many examples in brazil for example we are looking during dry season reduction in precipitation including the main part of the country that you produce food you know then we are losing production the forest in amazon you know uh the fire it has also temperature that you reduce precipitation the white season go far go far go far now we are looking in general that was less precipitation and then accumulate more precipitation during February March and then the agribusiness are also losing productivity because of the amount that is rain in these two mouses much bigger we are observing uh many places in many sectors that we are losing in productivity changing the systems you know change the cycles the people just just thinking area to plant and then they they deforest everywhere include uh uh the rivers include the the sources of waters and we have a less uh less ability of water for everybody and then you know I think the first issue that we needed to put in practically is to conserve the health of the ecosystems you know after what we are looking in the in the in the earth is what we are changing that are promoting many changes it's not only how much you are too we are putting in there but we are changing all of the systems you know in the atmosphere to your land your precipitation rivers the animals and then go to the ocean I think it's so big that we can't just work like a manager off of the the natural places you know like the other places you know and make a big effort in reducing emissions thank you Luciana I think we can take one question to Dr. Scott and this question is actually related to the complexity of the forest and it can actually in between the biogenic emissions so the question is our as the climate is changing and we have an increasing temperatures what do you think is it a tropospheric ozone which is formed around the forest or is it a dryer conditions that can actually impact the uptake of CO2 by the forest yes so that's a that's a really interesting question so I think to start with the yes we know that the biogenic emissions when when they're emitted into the atmosphere they they can help to form ozone so they're part of the chemical process that that does that and so understanding the conditions under which that happens versus there there's another process where these chemical compounds will actually react with ozone and deplete it so that getting an understanding of the balance of when those two things happen it's really important in terms of understanding how much ozone would be produced or what the impact on ozone would be and you mentioned there that a change in climate and as some of the the very important controls on the emission of these volatile organic compounds are our climate changes so as temperature rises we expect the emissions of these compounds to increase and so one of the things that we're looking at now and people have been looking at for a while is is what we expect the impact on on that process of climate change to be and and there was a point as well about about deposition oxana I don't know if you could just repeat the question so the question was which process is it is it more the formation of the tropocytic ozone or is it the dryness itself that will impact the CO2 uptake by the forest ah I see okay um yeah I think in terms of the the ability of the forest to take up carbon the actual climate conditions will be a greater um have a great impact there is um yeah ozone in the atmosphere can can have an effect on on plant productivity but in terms of the the I guess the most concerning impacts in terms of future climate change um it's the overall impact on the on the on the climate okay thank you very much we take two more questions and our next question will be probably yes and all by the panelists so there were several people asking for can we hope that forest will always do some more up for greenhouse gas emissions and I will do it indefinitely are there limits or not so the the answer by panelists can be yes no I don't think so and we take and after that we take another one and we go to the vote I would say no because forest has its own lifespan start from pioneer to mature to climax every stage has its different potential for a carbon sink so this depends on age and depends on the condition that depends on the region is located I would mostly agree with Dr. Zia and the so there's a what's called saturation period and once we get out to about 20 or 30 years once a forest is about 20 or 30 years old that the net rate of sequestration of carbon begins to slow but it continues for you know over a hundred years and and then in the case of co2 fertilization what we're seeing is even old growth or in very old forests are continuing to have a net sink that net sink is is is beginning to decline as they as they saturate but it is actually quite interesting to note that even very old forests are continuing to absorb more carbon than they are releasing and then there are some exceptional systems like mangroves and peat wetland systems which you know so so wetland systems are effectively the source of fossil fuels they're there that's kind of the way that that that peat forms and eventually becomes a fossil fuel so those those systems actually just continue to to be a sink for carbon essentially indefinitely but those are not nearly as extensive an area as as essentially upland forest for which as Dr. Gia said you you know you eventually will saturate largely with with the exception of that co2 fertilization effect I think that the the main issue is of course we tend to the equilibrium if we stop you know make changes but we need to apply that the forest to become a source that what is happening now you know the main the main source for amazon is the ban of ban but to make it many other changes you know in degradation and is making amazon be a source we needed to apply that's what you know I think we needed to sink in more in don't make the forest to become a source preserve the species ecosystem the the cycles of water temperature you know we needed to sink more in preserve and think about the definition because now you know the foresting is making a one more source in the atmosphere to we have a natural example then I think we needed to repair the natural ecosystems thank you and the short reflection from Dr. Scott and then we go to voting yeah so um I think as as Bronson was saying there we we know that actually a quite a lot of older forests are continuing to take up take up carbon but I I think the issue is that as as some of the the work that Luciana's been doing has been showing is that we're getting into a situation now where we don't necessarily know exactly what's going to happen in the future in terms of the health of these forests so I think where we're starting to see carbon forests that were carbon sinks shift to become carbon sources is where we've we've got increased mortality of the trees and so I think although our our understanding of the way that forests work and our kind of observations of forests so far tell us so much um it is difficult for us to kind of be certain about exactly at which point um any individual forest it may may tip from being a continued sink into being a source so overall I would say yes we expect forests to to continue to take up carbon but we can't be certain at the point at which that will stop okay so are at this point where we actually don't know what will happen in the future I would like to thank the panel and let's invite the participants to do the vote Claudia can you put up the slide where people can see so I would invite every one of you take your phone and go on the minty.com and put the code which you see on the screen I think all the panelists are very happy to see the results and I would invite the participants to move to if it works to the key message which you brought from this debate what is it the key message when we're finished today that you can say you learn and you want to retain it with you I think there are some important messages which I would like to highlight and as a positive note we've seen that there were words hope it is complicated protect the forest forest I'm important and um I would like to thank our panelists for joining this debate you guys are great you're doing great job you are giving hope to people though everybody understands it's it's complicated it's difficult thank you very much