 The next presentation is about how Nordic countries maintain, how and why they maintain climate change into the International Development Corporation. Thank you and good afternoon everyone. The research that I'm presenting here has been done, not only by myself, but also by my colleague Aris Jevo who is safely sitting in the back of the room. The research has been conducted in the context of the Nordic Strategic Adaptation Research Centre of Excellence, known as NordSTAR, in which quite a few SCI colleagues from the Stockholm Centre are involved. I should note in front, like many other presentations today, that this is also still a working progress, so we still very much welcome your feedback. As many of you will know, Nordic donors have generally quite a good reputation when it comes to providing aid. And this graph is basically one of the ways of showing that. It shows it in a rather quantitative way. But as you can see, as one of the main yardsticks or one of the main ways of providing aid is to show the percentage of the gross national income. And compared to the OECD average, the Nordic countries, as you can see on the slide, are doing very well. But also more importantly, they're also doing better than the 0.7% UN targets. So from a quantitative perspective, one could say that the Nordic countries are, let's say, leaders of the class. But also from a qualitative perspective, it's generally said that the Nordic countries' development cooperation is remarkably free of self-interest. So the question informing this research is to which extent this leading role in providing development aid in general can also extend to the area of providing climate-related aid. So these are the questions that we've been looking at in our research and really trying to figure out how and why the Nordic countries have engaged in providing climate-related aid and also which type of approaches have they been adopting. So before we go on, it's very useful at least for some of us to give a reminder of what we actually mean by mainstreaming. And the first question, of course, is what we actually have to think about what is exactly being mainstreamed. And then there are several things one can look at. One is one can look at climate projections for the future and examine to the extent to which these are being taken into account in development planning. One can also look more broadly to climate impacts as first-order impacts, second-order impacts and possibly more. And then finally, and this is an interesting framing that the North Star program as a whole is trying to implement, is one can also look at the impacts of climate policies. So to which extent is adaptation to the impacts of climate policies being taken into account. Another question that one should look at and just to be clear, for us we were looking at all three of these. Another question that we need to look at and think about is mainstreaming into what exactly. And here the usual focus is primarily on the recipient countries and the development planning processes in those countries. But the question or the angle informing our research is primarily to actually look at the donor countries. And what we see from the literature was a lot of literature about mainstreaming climate change in the developing countries themselves. There's actually not that much literature looking at the processes within the donor countries. So we think that this is an important research gap. So rather than seeing mainstreaming as a rather linear process where one first tries to identify the risk and then takes them into account, we try to conceptualize it as a range of different choices. And the first type of choices is more about the design of mainstreaming in the donor country. So really this is about the practical, housing-wise within the donor. So within let's say the donor agency. So here there are different ways of approaching it. On one hand you can, or one end of the spectrum as you can call it, you could say that you really should try to fully internalize the climate risks in your development planning. On the other hand you can also decide to implement climate change through having a few very strategic adaptation related projects. And in the middle you could also say well we actually need to implement climate change in those projects where it's most likely needed by first systematically screening your entire portfolio. These types of choices are very different from another type of choice which are the funding choices. And these choices are normally, yeah, tend to be slightly more contentious and slightly more controversial. Because these are the choices first of all how much money should be allocated to climate related aid. Also from which budget should we try to get that money. So for example from the official development assistance or beyond. So we tried to conceptualize it as two different choices also in terms of trying to make an assessment of these choices. Because trying to make an assessment of the funding choice is very different than making an assessment of the design choice. So to sum up and also to indicate what we've been looking at in our research. In terms of design choices we've first been looking at the extent to which there has been a high level commitment to address climate change but also to climate proof development assistance. Second we've been looking at the tools that have been both available but also have been applied in practice. And we've been looking at the expertise whether that is present or not. When it comes to the funding choices we've been looking at the level of climate finance. Whether this is part of ODA or not. And whether it's additional or can be perceived as additional to the 0.7% target. And finally how the climate related aid has been calculated. So looking first at the design choices. It is clear that sometimes more broadly defined climate change is either priority or it has been a cross cutting issue for all three of the countries. However this doesn't always mean that countries also have been looking at climate proofing their development assistance. And although for Sweden and for Denmark this has been quite clear commitments that they want all their development assistance to be climate proof. This has been less so the case for Norway where the focus has also been primarily on mitigation. When it comes to tools it was notable that Danita has been one of the first agencies to develop a practical toolkit trying to help development officers and program officers to implement climate risk and their development assistance. Also Danita has developed a mandatory screening note which is basically a checklist for development officers to tick off. And finally Danita has been one of the countries which has implemented portfolio screening. So basically they've been looking at climate risks for specific countries throughout their portfolio. Something similar has been done by Norway and NORAD which in the end also led to a practical guide. Again trying to help their officers to implement climate related aspects in practice. When it comes to SIDA and obviously there are a few people in the room who will know more about this than myself and my colleague. But there have been at least from what we can tell one of the most notable developments is the start of a help desk organized by Uppsala and Gothenburg universities which can provide technical assistance to SIDA officers. But also in the future it's going to be interesting to see how SIDA will integrate climate related risks into their development assistance through their SIDA at work program. I will move on slightly quickly to the funding choices. Here I think it's interesting to notice that there's actually from what it's being reported there's a very substantive amount or very substantial amount of climate related aid. Although these numbers should not be taken as given because one would need to look at the assumptions that's behind the reporting of those numbers. Also one cannot simply add up the A adaptation and the M mitigation because some projects have overlapping. When it comes to the choices in terms of whether the funding is new and additional or not. All countries have argued convincingly that it's new and additional funding under the UNFCCC because it's been above their 0.7% target. However from a developing country perspective this could still be criticized because in practice it's still possible that some resources might be diverted. Also and this relates back to the numbers that there is a risk of overreporting which has been noted in the literature and also by practical assessments at least for SIDA. Then generally about the approaches to mainstreaming. From the literature on mainstreaming and also on climate policy integration one can see three different approaches. One would be the procedural approach or the procedural perspective. So here what we can basically see that there's a variety of tools which are used to raise awareness and to incentivize the program officers to take climate risks into account. However what we find is also is that even though these tools are normally there the question is whether they are applied and here it really matters to which extent there is actually expertise. And for the NIDA and to some extent for SIDA the expertise overall compared to the overall high level goals is still limited. Then from an organizational perspective one could then say well actually climate change is of course not just for the development agencies but the Ministry of Environment should also be involved. I'll wrap up with this sentence. But here the risk is that the Ministry of Environment might actually have different priorities. Maybe final sentence sorry Anna. Also in terms of inviting further reflections I think this has been one of the most challenging research areas that I've been involved in simply by looking at the data availability or the lack thereof and also the transparency of the documentation. Again so that's why I very much welcome any feedback from SIDA or possibly NORD or the NIDA people who might be present in the room and provide feedback in terms of whether we're on the mark or not. I will leave it there. Thank you.