 I think as red has become more real and less theoretical, people have obviously seen that much of the forest has to be managed by communities. That first step was to see that community management was going to be a major issue. And from that, I think people recognise that the only real way to monitor would be to get the communities to do the monitoring, not only of the carbon stocks but also all the other benefits, safeguards and so on. This of course is a big problem. It's a problem if the rewards are going to be calculated on the basis of the monitoring. Obviously there's a risk of perverting the measurements. Personally, I don't think it's ever going to be possible to pay communities proportional to their carbon achievements. It may be possible at a jurisdictional level, I hope it will be, but I don't think it's possible at a community level. So I don't think that is actually a very big problem. The other point is that of course you will always have to have third party verification, as in any carbon process. And it may not be that every community is checked every year, but there will certainly be, communities will have to know that their results are going to be subject to scrutiny. So they can't, they can't really manipulate the figures all the time. No, not at all, not at all, absolutely not. If you consider how payment for environmental services works today, for example for water, in most places people have paid a flat rate for taking certain actions, for example not using nitrates on the fields. So they are paid by their actions, not by the outcome in terms of the amount of water or the quality of water. And I think the same should have to be true for carbon, that people will be paid for certain activities that we know can serve the forest, and it won't be necessarily in terms of the actual carbon that's saved. You have that anyway, there's no way around that. I think community monitoring, as a number of studies have shown, is about, costs about one quarter of professional monitoring. So you save there, and you also possibly engage the communities more in the whole process, because by, by actually making measurements, they have like a platform to discuss things. And third party monitoring is, is always going to be required, whoever does it, because there's always the risk of, of, of bribery and corruption that, that's bound to be third, third party monitoring, whatever. So that's something, I mean, I do think it's an important cost that hasn't always been taken into account when people look at red. But it's inevitable, whoever does the monitoring, that you'll need third party monitoring. It depends how it's done. I think it depends very much how it's done. And I think it has to be done in ways that communities themselves think, think benefits them. And so we have, we have therefore, like a dilemma here, because ideally from a point of view of a national forest monitoring system, you want a standardized system where everybody does exactly the same. Yet from the point of view of communities, they want to do monitoring of a type that is interesting to them. So you've got this kind of difficulty in, in how do you, how do you maximize in a situation where you may have quite two different, two different ideas about what monitoring should be. There's always a question of compromise. It always has to be compromise. I think the basic variables have to be standardized. I don't see any way around that. But how they're measured could be, could vary. And what else is measured could vary. It could well be that communities design their own safeguard indicators. Because in any case, the situation in Village A is always different from Village B. Some colleagues of ours with the Life Project in Mexico went to three communities and asked them about what they would like to monitor in the forest. And they had three total different answers. One group was one monitoring for water, because they had trouble with their, their rivers. Another was monitoring for pests on the trees. And the third one was, had a sustainable forest management program and they wanted to monitor the timber and the carpet. So it depends. But basically, I think it has to be a system, either a flat rate system, so you pay anyone who agrees to certain kinds of, of activities such as putting up fences to keep the cattle out or leaving certain areas totally for conservation. You could have a flat rate payment for that. Alternatively, you could try and estimate the opportunity costs and say, well, in these communities, the temptation would be much higher to cut the forest so they deserve higher payments. But that's very difficult in reality to implement because, yeah, who's to say what those real costs are? I mean, most, most payment for environmental services systems, they work on flat rate payments. And that's by far the easiest. And it's, it's, it's, it's, it's seen as equitable because everybody gets the same. It's easy to administer. Of course, what you can say is that in certain kinds of forests, you'd have a higher flat rate than in others. Because these forests are perhaps more threatened, or because they're more intrinsically valuable. But basically, to flat rate systems are the easiest and most straightforward systems to apply.