 We started doing this survey at a side event last year at the Coppenwashau and the aim was a little bit, you know, there's all these decisions being made on national forest monitoring system and there are some modalities being decided upon but countries still really needed a side on certain things themselves, things like how to involve communities in monitoring but also how do you design your beneficiary systems and our aim of the survey was more kind of getting the audience actually to react on some of the propositions we made and then see kind of where are the agreements, where are the disagreements, so where are still the controversies and should we then act upon those also as researchers for example to find out okay how can we resolve these controversies. Some of the main findings were that, you know, there is agreement that communities can monitor certain data but there was a bit of a debate upon should it actually be the basis for kind of the sharing of benefits kind of related to carbon performance or not and these kind of issues are still very much controversial and there's a lot of different opinions about this as well like how would you integrate it into national forest monitoring systems is it feasible to do so. Another interesting finding that came out of the survey was that people actually, most people actually agree on the fact that if key sectors outside of forestry like agriculture are actually reducing their pressure on forests is that they also should be beneficiaries of Red Plus which raises a lot of questions and might, I was actually surprised that so many people agreed on that because that might really change the focus from kind of poverty elevation to kind of really more who is actually doing it but also rewarding the bad guys basically that have been the foresting in the past and that was a surprising result for me. There there were really two very distinct camps about agreeing and disagreeing and some people say look the way Red Plus is set up it's basically performance based so you kind of have to do it that way you have to you know look at the performance and also it's that you know you have to ensure additionality for example while other people say look it's not going to be about carbon it has to be about more than carbon basically to make it work and so there are two very different views and also almost philosophies about how you look at Red Plus. Yeah I certainly think so it does I mean we all got to comment today that it's very much theoretical but you have to kind of agree on these kind of almost philosophical questions like who benefits actually from Red Plus is it a is it a pro-poor kind of thing or do you actually want to be effective and not so much focus on is it equitable for example and these are I think important questions you know you have to think a little bit about the design of these systems and the implications and you also more from a research side you want to tell countries okay whatever you choose and it's your choice and it's your context that you have to deal with there are implications for certain choices that they might not be aware of so you have to do this kind of theoretical thinking as well to show them okay be aware that if you choose this it implies this and this also on the monitoring side for example or it might not be so feasible to actually do it or it might cost a lot of money to do it like this. We had about for on average for every question we had about 25 respondents and for some questions a little bit more but that's about the average and we are also keeping the survey open throughout the COP especially hoping to get a bit more results from from governments so it's it's not a I would say I wouldn't use it as a scientific study but it does indicate some of the the issues I think where there are still questions and where there's still a lot of debate going on.