 Payments for environmental services is an area that has seen a lot of development over the last decade. And it's basically a way of using compensations to make people change behaviour and provide benefits to society in the environmental field. So this is an innovative conservation tool, you can say. For example, I've been working in Ecuador for a while on a scheme where downstream water users pay a surcharge of 25% of their water bill to protect the upper watershed from where their water comes from, where there had been a lot of land colonisation going on, and you're now paying people to protect that land and do not convert it to pasture and agriculture, but instead leave it as regenerating forests and natural grasslands and through that secure a more stable and cleaner water supply. It depends on the area and on the type of land users that replace its forests. We've just did a larger study in Brazil where we looked at the potential for pests in regard to the Amazon forest land that is threatened by conversion until 2050. And we found that in particular the extensive pasture without a lot of technological inputs and slash and burn itinerant agriculture are two land users that can widely be bought out by pests. A main constraint has been on the demand side. There are some benefits in society of biodiversity and also in terms of global warming, in terms of carbon benefits that are where there are not enough payment mechanisms available. And in that sense, IEDD could be one powerful motor that could sort of drive into that direction and pests could be conversely and important on the ground implementation measure that could help avoided deforestation come true. I think it's a good idea to work with a number of nascent schemes that still allow us to actually find out how these things are working. It takes actually a lot of time to develop schemes and often it takes time to build trust between providers and sellers. It takes time to set the rules. So I think we're still in a pioneer phase where it's a good idea to gather experiences of what works under different preconditions. We also are learning that under some circumstances, for example, where there's no clear land tenure on the land that is threatened, where pests cannot be used. So it's not one size fit or all type of measure, but it is another tool in the conservation toolbox that we can use, especially in those cases where there are hard trade-offs between conservation and development. The barriers are in the land tenure issues that I mentioned. I think there's a lot of deforestation going on by land grabbing on public lands. And on these lands you cannot use pests as a measure. Of course you can use other measures, for example improved control of state forest lands from invasion, reduced violence in rural areas. You can use this type of tool as implementation tools for red. You can then use pests in other areas where there is clearly established land tenure and where there's a steward that can be paid. I think there will probably also be some obstacles at the government level because I see red like a bag of money that you give to the Ministry of Environment to influence the policy process, to do things on the ground. But there are other bags of money to construct roads, to subsidize agricultural expansion. So there will be some competing goals and it remains to be seen how much policy change red can actually buy. It might be that certainly Brazil always has had a quite strong opinion about things and is slow to change that around. But I think just the change that has happened over the last five years under the influence of some of the progressive NGOs that have been pressing or leading the Brazilian government towards a more innovative position that gives me some optimism that Brazil can be a constructive player in the global red regime. I'm trained as a macroeconomist. I started out in other fields, diversified into the environmental area and find that it is a fascinating area where you still can develop a lot of new things and new thinking. And I also enjoy a lot the interaction between desk-based work and the possibility to go into the field to see rural reality and changing land use and action and trying to influence that process in fields that are globally very important is satisfactory in and of itself. For me the work on pests and on compensations for conservation is the result of having worked a lot in the past on deforestation issues and times after times having found that deforestation happens because it pays off to the land users that are doing it. So finding these hard trade-offs you need to find a tool that is designed to deal with it and I think compensating people for changing behavior is a more realistic, more honest and a more equitable way of addressing the major conservation challenges that we face.