 I think the New York Declaration on Forests is a very important step because it does capture a lot of that innovation that's coming forward and it has a great sign on. In a few years with the new set of principles and criteria, it could have sharper teeth on deforestation. I think the big innovation that's starting to catch traction is not formally captured in the summit outcomes, except through the announcement of the Rio Branco Declaration. It's this idea that we start to define success and sustainability at the scale of entire territories and not at the scale of the farm or the mill. And if we can achieve that, then the world of the private sector, which is all about risk aversion and wondering if the people who are growing products and bringing them to them are doing clearing or involved in bad labor practices to a more proactive, positive agenda of rural development. But I think that the New York Declaration on Forests is a big deal. Well, obviously we have the Forests Declaration, which is a very important document and it's supported not only by countries, but also by private corporations, by jurisdictions at the province level, by civil society, and by indigenous peoples. And this broad support is really something good that has come out from the climate week. Of course, I welcome the Declaration. As most UN declarations, it's sufficiently vague to accommodate all tastes. But of course it's in the right direction and certainly Brazil is probably the country which will contribute a lot to achievement of that. But you didn't sign it? Well, Brazil did not sign for diplomatic and let's say legal restrictions because it said zero, zero, zero, zero deforestation. And Brazilian law today allows for a certain small amount of deforestation. So the diplomats were not certain Brazil had the power to sign something that would go against national domestic legislation. It's only for that. However, Brazil's intent is really getting to zero deforestation soon. I think the UN Declaration goes a long way in recognizing forests as a major target for conservation and for climate change mitigation in the coming 10 years and 20 years. Great step forward. It puts forest, which has always been on the marginal land side of the equation and seeing it as not part of the productive agricultural economy as giving attention. On the other hand, it does just that. It seems to put forest on the conservation side more than on the management side. I don't think it highlights enough the economic potential that forests offer. So while it's a very important step forward, I think it missed the opportunity of bringing a more clear message that forests are also central to the economy more broadly, are central to many of the other underlying environmental and ecosystem services that sustain states like New York. So forest cuts across all those functions and the UN Declaration recognizes it as important. I think we need to continue to move in that way and continue to pay attention to the potential of forest for the broader economic impact and economic improvement of many communities. I think there are a lot of positive elements in the UN Declaration. The emissions reductions and the deforestation reductions targets are very positive. The objective to try and eliminate deforestation to engage with the private sector is something that's new and useful and I think that's one of the things we've seen here throughout the climate week here in New York is the private sector engagement is at a much, much higher level than it has been in the past. We haven't seen the level of commitment or the level of representation of the private sector in these discussions that we've seen here in New York this week. So CEOs of major companies coming, not lower level officials from these companies coming, and making real engagements and real commitments to doing things, things that can actually be verified later on and followed up on. So I think that's something that's new. I think that the Declaration is a little bit short in that it really focuses on forests as an entity and not as forest as an element within the landscape. So it's really all about forest and it sort of misses on the connections. So I mean forests are related to other things that are happening in the landscapes and they're related to other things that are happening in the economic landscape that seems to be a bit missing in what the Declaration is saying. So I think that there's a lot of positive elements in it, but the shortcomings are significant enough to actually warrant some comment on this and try and move this along. Peter Holmgren in his comments talked about setting the forest declaration, setting the agriculture decoration side by side. You have a much more compelling, and finding the links between those, you have a much more compelling agenda. And I think that really is the case. To integrate what the world wants to achieve with forests, integrate that with what they're trying to achieve in agriculture is essential to actually achieving the objectives, but also essential to making sure that you don't work across purposes by dividing up what you're trying to do in these different sectors and treating them as separate sectors. We actually need to be bringing them closer together.