But it's important to ask a number of questions. Who are the actors that may or may not, that may sound like a very simple question, but I think in some context it's actually quite complex. If you can certain actors may not wish to be visible, maybe playing a role in the making of trade-offs, the role of the controlling industry in the US in the debate about Arnold. It's a key role, for instance. We use a number of terms, and I won't go into this right now, agency being one, which is who are the actors, but not just actors that are brought there by explicit processes of stakeholder involvement, but other kinds of actors, again, who may not be quite. So obvious, I think it's an obvious role. Some of this work is premise on the idea that the very act of simplifying as one might see in aggregational approaches, economist approaches, has a certain power. If you do an analysis, if you're trying to decide what to do in Pacoan, let's say, and you do an analysis that lumps together a whole sort of district, that in itself, this perspective we tell you, is a form of power because you're writing out a lot of simplicity, you're simplifying reality through your model, through your analysis, and that's important to take account of. Distribution of knowledge, legitimacy, how to different, all the different, represent the table, frame the issue, and what power relations are most important. So this is where, again, we think that this framework should be useful in analyzing particular study, and one of the things that I'm interested in, one of the reasons I've been here in Indonesia now, is talking to people from various conservation organizations to see about the potential of applying this framework to the core triangle initiative. And we've also had some discussion about applying to the heart of the coordinate initiative. But this is, again, this is the part where we really need to know, we've got these three lenses, we're still working to develop them, but there's the demo on the question. This is really over-simplification, but in some of the case that is we've done, we've seen these great odds between jobs and income quality applied at an development versus biodiversity, ecosystem services, and so forth. We recognize particular evaluation gaps. We particularly recognize particular process gaps and we recognize particular needs again, come out of our case studies from our country partners, power gaps. All right, that's the big question, and that's where we're at. So in some cases, we also use this idea of the gap. We think that the gap can be narrow, and this really backs on to the evaluation approach for the payment for ecosystem services or various other kinds of incentive-based approaches. Through process, that second lens, you can bridge the gap if you get the right people at the table, or you can simply mine a gap. And seriously, the bridging and narrowing may not be possible in some context. All right, let me, let me, now, that's the framework. Let me know, switch back to CICR, and talk about a little bit of what we've done and where we're going and where we think that this framework might apply. And I should say that this framework has been emerging through a CICR process at the same time we've developed individual research projects that at the time, you know, work part of this, it's not been a neat process, it's been really messy. And so we developed these research projects, and the framework was coming together over here, and now we're also in the process of kind of saying, okay, what does all this have to do? We have a meeting next month in which we're going to say, what do all these different pieces have to do with the framework? And so let me just sort of share with you briefly a couple of the things that we at the center have particularly been doing. We, first of all last October in Barcelona, was the World Conservation Congress, and we organized an event ethnography of that meeting. We brought together about 20 researchers focused on particular aspects on payment for vital services, on indigenous issues, on marine issues, and so forth. And the idea was, and I went to the World Parts Congress in 2003, 8,000 people there, something, and I was a lonely anthropologist, I was completely lost. Meanwhile, CICR was there with 90 people coming together every day, sharing notes, strategically placing themselves in different panels and different meetings, coming back together every day, and sort of approached the meeting, like the meeting part, and coming together. We kind of wanted to build our dad strategy as a research strategy, so that we all went out every day, collected our data, came back, shared our findings, and we're now in the process of putting that together, and sharing those results with IUCN. We've got a project underway with our Peruvian colleagues on what we're calling the politics of translation, one of my proving colleagues is he, but if he said, all these terms, governance, biodiversity, he said, they begin in the North is debate, and they land in the South is fanate. And there's a little bit of, I think that captures the report reality, and it's a slight oversimplification, but it captures something very important. And what we're trying to do is understand how these terms circulate, how they land, in particular in Peru, what we're hoping to do is develop a framework that would be applicable to English, Baháse, Indonesia, or even when conservation terms, development terms are translated, say, between Spanish and Kituva, or between Baháse, and Kántu, or Kenya, or something like that. That there is something going on that's important to pay attention to in translation, and we really became aware of this when our proving colleague said, at one of our very first meetings, he said, wait a minute, wait a minute, we don't know how to translate this term, trade-offs in Spanish, we have six different terms we could use, and the Vietnamese said, actually, we're having the same problem for us, because of the trade-offs, the only way we could color, the only idea we can come up with is to, we can express some Vietnamese is, when you have to compromise for a position of weakness. And that sense of being very powerful about these concepts, we think they translate easily, and of course, questions between me, right? And it's important to take that seriously. I have a graduate student who's doing his dissertation on the WWF Arctic Initiative, trying to map the different trade-offs that are being negotiated and carried out through that initiative, and finally, I've got a postdoc working on the role of the social sciences and conservation, and what she particularly interested in is this shift toward market-based mechanisms in conservation, and so that, for instance, we have all the sort of red payment for vital services. A lot of that's being developed by economists, who aren't aware of the fact that back in the 80s and 90s, we had tons of debates about what a community is, and all this stuff that came through this sort of participatory community-based management literature that's directly relevant to how one would think about benefits in the context of the environmental services. This is the kind of thing that I think there's a lot of potential.