 One is going certainly to be discussed is the whole issue of carbon market and what is called the Paris rules book, which is in fact the set of regulation or rule or framework that have to be used to implement the Paris Agreement. And then in the Paris Agreement there is something also that is called the ratchet mechanism that asks the countries to revise their nationally determined contribution every five years. And we are now five years after the Paris Agreement. And this is where we expect to have the countries raising their ambition in terms of climate goals, in terms of mitigation and adaptation. But this is another topic. So we have the carbon markets and the rule book for the Paris Agreement. We have the climate ambition. So as it is now, we are not going to fulfill the 1.5 degree targets. So we need to increase our ambition. The developed countries have promised to the world that they will deliver 100 billion a year in climate finance. And this was in 2009. And as of today, we are still missing something like 20 billion. I think in 2020 it was 80 billion that were mobilized. So we are still missing. So there is still this whole issue of climate finance that is a bit of a sore point in the discussion. Two other very important issues, but probably going to be very difficult also is the whole issue of loss and damage. And we have seen in the last few months with the various catastrophic events, mega-fire flooding in Europe and other places, landslides, everything. Climate change is already upon us and generates a huge amount of damage. And the question is who is to pay for this damage? And then of course, developed countries say, or don't say, but say that everybody is on its own. I mean, if something happened in the US, the US is paying for it. If something happened in India, India is paying for it. But the developed countries say that, well, that's not fair because some countries are more responsible historically than others in terms of climate change. It's also very important is the whole issue of equity, climate justice. And let's start by understanding that a ton of CO2 emitted by an indigenous people in the Pacific Island or a ton of CO2 emitted by a stockbroker in New York is still a ton of CO2. So in terms of climate change, they have the same impact. On the other side, I mean, I thought the indigenous people in Pacific Island are emitting much, much less CO2 on a capital basis than someone in the US or in Europe. And they are not the same and they are not the same impact on climate change. So the question is, what is the fair share of things that should be done by globally the developed country and the global south of what is called in the negotiation the developing country. And that's a bit of a sore point. And then ultimately, I think that's the main point. And I don't know if it's going to be a discussion is the whole issue of the ambition are serious. We are everybody recognize that natural best solution are very important planting trees or growing trees is very important. But it's not going to solve the whole climate problem unless we solve the first issue consumption issue. And here you can make a quick comparison. The developed world has promised 100 billion per year in terms of money to fight against climate change. At the same time, the same developed world is subsidizing the fossil fuel industry at the rate of $1 million per minute, which is about the $100 billion that I think is rich about in a week. So we spend in a week as much money in subsidizing fossil fuel that we are supposed to spend in a year in terms of fighting climate change. So unless we change and we put these priorities in the right order, so we should spend more money to fight against climate change and help developing countries and support whoever wants to rather than subsidizing for this issue. We may talk a lot at the COP, but ultimately end up with very little on the ground. The sort of the five I think important topics and there are many others that we probably will discuss, but these are critical and these are topics that will be very difficult to get probably an agreement. What we can do is certainly a contributing and by providing evidence, people need evidence to take decisions and otherwise decisions are taken on the whim or political agenda or short-term interest. So and that's what C4Ecraft is doing is that we provide evidence in terms of who is emitting and what is the justice and how can we involve, I could be more inclusive and involve all the stakeholders and I say that it goes from the indigenous people to the industrial sector because if we don't manage to involve everybody quote-unquote the good and the bad or the ugly, we are not going to sort out our problem and manage to reach a solution that is agreeable. If we succeed in keeping the global warming in this 1.5 to 2 degree, I mean everybody will win. The question is how do you pass the vested interest, how do you remove the incentive and that is all things that we are working in terms of doing research at various scale, at the local scale, at the regional scale and at the global scale and developing tools, developing monitoring tools, developing assessment tools, contributing to assessment like the assessment of the New York Declaration of Forest and so on. This is our main contribution and I think that if people are willing to use and consider what we are telling them, what we are producing, what we are showing, then that may help in the negotiation because it's much more difficult to refute our fact and to argue with people based on dogmatism and perceptions.