 So this new info brief that was led by Laura Kohler here in Peru is about benefit sharing and land use initiatives. So it's part of a project that is aimed at studying benefit sharing for Red Plus. We actually studied a variety of initiatives, not all of which are Red Plus. Some of them are payments for ecosystem services, some of them are other types of conservation initiatives. And basically there's a few key points that kind of come out in the brief. One is that policies that actually govern how benefits should be shared from the national to the subnational down to the project level have been really slow to emerge. In the absence of sort of guiding policies about how benefits should be shared for Red Plus and other initiatives, projects have kind of gone ahead and developed their own ad hoc sort of case by case arrangements for benefit sharing. In these arrangements, the types of benefits that have emerged are often non-monetary. Non-monetary benefits have been hugely important across the board. These include things like capacity building and training activities, activities related to sort of infrastructure and livelihoods. These have been hugely important. And the other key finding that we have is that really key to sort of the good functioning of these benefit sharing arrangements on the ground is the legitimacy of the process through which they're developed. Kind of broad consultations are really key we find and that overreliance on representatives from communities instead of real meaningful broad consultations can actually be problematic for legitimacy. Yeah, so there's a few reasons why monetary benefits have not been front and center. First and foremost I think is that Red Plus projects and other projects that are based on carbon that depend on international carbon markets have faced serious challenges because an international carbon market has been slow to emerge. We don't really have a robust functioning international carbon market with serious financial commitments from developed country partners. So this is the first thing. And then apart from that, trying to focus, and I guess not apart from that, but related to that, trying to focus on alternative livelihood strategies and really sort of changing the value structure of forests has been high on the agenda of a lot of NGOs and private sector organizations that are promoting sub-national initiatives for Red Plus and related activities. For example, there's a project in Mavre de Vios in the Amazon region of Peru that has partnered with a association of Brazil nut collectors. And rather than simply trying to focus on how to measure, report, certify and sell carbon, they've tried to invest in the forest as it were, right? So what they've tried to do and they face challenges along the way and it's not clear how it's going to result. But what the goal is is to invest in a Brazil nut processing plant. And this plant will kind of move the Brazil nut collectors up the value chain, increasing their incomes, improving their livelihoods. Carbon can be sold along with that, but it's not necessarily central to it. Yeah, so it really varies. And I think the key for a lot of these project proponents is to listen to what communities want. We've got the same project happening in Indonesia, actually. And one of the very interesting cases that has emerged is not a Red Plus project, but a protected area that's had its borders expanding, right? And the communities felt like they were not adequately consulted before this happened. And my friend, Rod Meyers, conducted research in this particular site and his main finding was that communities have been offered monetary benefits, compensation from the government and an NGO that's involved in this park in West Calimantan. But they're not really interested in money. They don't want money. What they want is recognition of their rights. And they actually feel that accepting that money would be to accept the legitimacy of the government's park. And they don't want to do that. So one of the main implications, I think, is that broad consultation at the community level is really key to establishing the legitimacy of these projects that sort of not engaging enough and not making sure that these benefit sharing arrangements on the ground are legitimate can compromise the potential effectiveness of Red Plus and related initiatives like we see in this case with the National Park in West Calimantan. And also that kind of bringing these lessons from the ground up to higher levels to subnational and national policy levels is going to be really key moving forward because as these frameworks for benefit sharing are established at the subnational and national level, they're ultimately going to need to engage with initiatives on the ground. And given that these lessons have already been learned to some extent, it's going to be critical to bring them to spaces of dialogue with subnational, national, and even international policy. In some, non-monetary benefits have been key. Ad hoc arrangements have been kind of emerging in the absence of policy guidance and the way that these ad hoc arrangements is negotiated is absolutely critical for the legitimacy and well-functioning of these types of initiatives.