 Good afternoon everybody and welcome to the Mr Geopolitics Seminar on COP26, recognizing the role of trade and the private sector in adaptation. We'll get started now with the presentation and I'll introduce to you the speakers. Next slide please Ian. My name is Magnus Benzi, I'm a research fellow with the Stockholm Environment Institute and I was a work package leader in the first phase of the Mr Geopolitics programme and we'll hear some of the results from that in just a moment. Next slide please Ian. Today we have some great speakers for you starting with Annette Mona who will moderate today's session. Annette is from the UNFCCC Secretariat, then we'll have Frida Lager who is a research associate at Stockholm Environment Institute and Maria Therese Gustavson who is a senior lecturer at the Stockholm University. So many thanks to the organisers who have provided photographs of all speakers looking at least five years younger than they currently appear, so very flattering, big thanks to the organisers for that one. I'll start with just giving you a little bit of background on Mr Geopolitics and where today's seminar came from. So the programme is looking at the intersection of changing geopolitical dynamics and environmental and climate change and changing security dynamics and it's a partnership of leading policy institutes and universities that are based in Sweden and we also have two international partners Adelphi from Germany and E3G from the UK and the Mr Geopolitics programme is in two phases. We've just recently started phase two but today and this phase two has three core themes which focus on decarbonisation, food security and sustainable oceans but today we're hearing some of the results from the first phase of the programme and in particular drawing on a work package that was entitled impact pathways in a changing environmental and geopolitical context and this looked at how changes in one part of the world affect other parts of the world through these impact pathways and it had a focus on armed conflict, on human migration and the SDGs and on transboundary climate risk and climate governance. So this is the background to the two research presentations that you'll hear from in a minute but the Mr Geopolitics programme achieved more than just the research outputs. Next slide please Ian. It was also instrumental in laying the groundwork for a new initiative called the adaptation without borders initiative and this looks at how to build systemic resilience to transboundary climate risks at the global scale and how to convene dialogue and synthesise knowledge to impact decision-making planning and the implementation of adaptation at a global scale and I think it's really important to recognise where research programmes such as this Mr programme also create and give room for the birth of new initiatives and stakeholder engagement as well as new research. So it's the themes around the adaptation without borders programme that we'll be discussing in relation to the COP and in particular this COP occurs as we start to emerge from the COVID pandemic which has focused our attention on the cascading nature of risk in a globalised system. It's shown how interdependent we all are and what happens in one country has big implications for what happens in another and the crisis has also revealed the critical role played in supply chains and trade by private actors and how much societal cohesion and social services ultimately depend on the role of the private sector and this is an area that we'll problematise and look at in more detail in a moment. So without further ado I would like to introduce the next speaker who is Annette Mona. Annette's been with the UNFCCC for about 16 years working on adaptation and she will also be working on the global stock take and its first iteration coming up soon. Annette was awake this morning working at about 4am because for those of you who are aware there are negotiations going on at the moment and so Annette was up working for that time zone supporting negotiations at 4am so we are doubly pleased and honoured to have you with us today Annette. The floor is yours. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Magnus for the very warm introduction and indeed but the good news is that even though I was up very early at least the results that come out of these virtual sessions are rather promising so we've seen that parties have acknowledged the seriousness of the problems are and are intent on laying the groundwork for ensuring a success later on in Glasgow. At the beginning of the seminar I would like for those of you who are not that familiar with the UNFCCC process to put a little bit in context the the trans-boundary risk trade in the private sector in adaptation as included in the climate change process and more specifically the Paris Agreement. Some of you may know that the agreement adopted in 2015 elevated the visibility of adaptation and recognised that it's not just a local challenge as it was perceived previously but that in fact it has it is a global challenge with local, national, regional and international dimensions and that without adaptation we cannot protect people livelihoods and ecosystems. Parties also acknowledged that in order to be successful adaptation needs to follow a country-driven and participatory approach and the idea was also not to have it as standalone but to see how it can be integrated in various environmental but also economic policies. You may also know that as part of the Paris Agreement we established a so-called ambition cycle and it rests on three cornerstones one is where parties themselves take action they implement adaptation plans take measures and then subsequently they report on them and then every five years countries will come together at a collective level and assess to what extends we have addressed and been successful in reaching the goals. Many of you may be familiar with the temperature goal we're seeking to limit temperature rise to well under two degrees ideally not more than 1.5 but also we seek to enhance resilience and also provide the necessary support to developing countries. When we look at the aspects of transboundary risk trade in the private sector there are three distinct levels and timings at which we can consider those one as I mentioned the very first is planning and implementing at the national level the second is how do we review and report on what has been done and then finally how do we take it up when we collectively review whether or not adaptation has been adequate and successful. When we look at the planning and implementation at the national level parties in 2015 agreed that everyone should develop and enhance adaptation plans and as part of them they should also build the resilience of socioeconomic systems. One of the more one of the important processes in support of developing countries is the process to formulate and implement national adaptation plans for those developing countries also receive support. As part of the guidance countries will assess their adaptation needs but it was just recognized earlier that some of the transboundary risks are not adequately reflected while countries themselves can very well assess their risk to the agriculture sector their risk to their coastal zones they're less able to see what kind of risks they're facing from outside their borders and also to what extent some of the more trade related or private sector related aspects would feature in it. For that we have a number of processes and committees one of them is the adaptation committee 16 experts who provide advice and they will look at how can we address some of the knowledge gaps so that we have a better understanding of what needs to be done at the national level. At the same time in the beginning when we look at adaptation planning it wasn't very much government setting policies stakeholders were engaged to some extent but not necessarily early on so we've now also devised guidance in terms of better integrating the private sector early on to know what what are there and it's knowing that the private sector is of course diverse and as such there are different motivations for engaging in adaptation for them for some it may just be they look for new markets and profits however for others it's the desire to reduce their business risks and I'm really happy that we'll learn more from one particular sector later on from Marie Therese. Of course the other thing when it comes to the national adaptation planning is as I mentioned the transboundary aspects and also trade which hasn't been really well understood and I'm looking forward to learn more from Frida on that aspect how we can better integrate that to have a better understanding. Of course adaptation also has limits we cannot address all impacts and as such the Paris Agreement itself also recognizes that countries need to work together to avert and minimize loss and damage arising from from such impacts and they agreed to share to share knowledge in that regard knowing that even if you're faced with sea level and hurricanes if you're a small island and you rely on tourism it doesn't make sense to build a higher and higher seawall because that will hurt you in the long run so the question is where does adaptation end and at what point do we accept losses and if we accept those losses who would pay for those losses. So assuming that all countries are planning the adaptation they're involving the private sector what's the next step we then look at them to review and report on their action and under the Paris Agreement we have two distinct mechanisms for that one is an instrument called adaptation communication which provides the forward-looking aspect what is each country trying to achieve what are their goals what do they want to do what is their priority sector and the other aspect is the so-called biannual transparency reports meaning we're looking back what have we done what have we achieved but also where are the gaps why didn't we achieve what we set out to achieve why didn't we implement our national adaptation policy was it because we didn't have sufficient resources or was it because there was a resistance from the private sector or did we have other priorities and as such could not devote sufficient resources all of these instruments will be developed in the coming two years through various expert bodies and all of them rely on expert input and as such seminars like that are important to provide the necessary research to allow them to draft these expert bodies the the necessary guidance to ensure that aspects of stakeholder engagement such as the private sector but also aspects of transboundary risks including as their related trade are adequately affected included and then finally as I mentioned so countries have planned and countries have reported but then how do we know that we're all going in the right direction and are reducing the risk that's when the so-called global stock take comes into play we'll have the first process is actually starting this morning we had an event where parties shared the ideas of how that process should look like what kind of inputs do they want to consider inputs from researchers inputs from the private sector inputs from civil society but also what kind of questions do we need to ask in terms of what are the risks we're facing and how do we want to address them and as part of the global stock take we will also look at how well we have adapted collectively so we're looking how how well we're progressing towards achieving the global goal on adaptation which seeks to enhance adaptive capacity strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability so here it is important to to find ways to collate but also aggregate the information we are receiving from the national level at a collective level and that's where we currently also still looking at gaps because if each country only looks at its national aspects and when we collate it we won't get the full picture we won't get the transboundary risk and we wouldn't get any trade related aspects so it's so it's important here also to provide the expert inputs we have upcoming workshops over the summer were organized by the current Chilean but also the upcoming UK presidency to see what is needed how can we ensure that the process actually provides a good overview of where we are so as I mentioned many of those will feed into the COP and Glasgow there will be pointers at how we will assess global progress at the same time Glasgow will also be important to further catalyze actions at different levels on the one hand side we need to increase our efforts at the national level I mentioned the national adaptation plans currently we only have 20 countries who have concluded those we need more we also need more support including through the green climate fund but we also need to have systems in place to address the incurred losses and that support in that regard could look like insurance schemes we can have social protections and finally in general what we need at the international level is also further financial support for developing countries in terms of many countries saying that through the global climate fund global green climate fund they do have problems of accessing resources and we need to address some of those because otherwise you may have the best laid out plans and you have wonderful reporting but at the end of the day you're not able to implement them we will fail collectively on on ensuring that everyone is reaching the necessary levels of resilience and then in line with the sustainable development goals that no one is left behind and with those with this introduction I would like to conclude at this point and as I mentioned we're happy to have two speakers who will provide us more input on their research and will illuminate some of the aspects and I would like to very much invite the first speaker but before I go to the first speaker I'd like to invite Ian to quickly run us through the house rules. Thanks very much indeed Annette for setting the scene so well we're blessed to have the UNFCCC actually represented in a session like this so we can hear it directly so the scene has been set and we will shortly hear from two research presentations from Frida and Maria Therese and I encourage you all to post your questions in the Q&A function which should be on the right hand side of your screen. These questions or comments will be then filtered to the speakers so please record any queries or questions that you have there and I should have said at the beginning apologies this meeting is being recorded and it will be made available after the event on the Mystery Geopolitics website for people to catch up on or for you to go back and check your notes so thank you very much to Maria Cole and Ian Coldwell for hosting this event and I'll pass on now to Frida to give us her presentation thank you thank you thank you Annette so yeah my name is Frida Lager I'm a research associate at the Stockholm Environment Institute and I'm going to present to you some piece of research that we've been doing me and Magnus actually as part of this mystery program as you can skip ahead yeah perfect so we call this research a new risk horizon Sweden's exposure to climate risk via international trade you can skip ahead again we wanted to basically inquire into if you look at trade and try to inquire understand climate risk for one country what can you say basically what can you find out and we decided to look at Sweden for a number of reasons it's a very data-rich country so if you could find good information somewhere it should be here I'm also I'm also based in Sweden so I might I might refer to Sweden as here quite often through this presentation it's a small very open economy very important expert dependent as an example recent research shows that at least one third of all Swedish jobs are dependent on experts not experts exports directly and more than half of the food that we consume is there if the input it you can skip ahead again so I'm just going to talk you through just really briefly what we've done in the study and why what kind of the results show like an overview of that and what that means for adaptation basically so this research has two parts one is assessing climate risk broadly in Swedish trade relations and for that we use so this is the picture on the left for that we use three types of trade data one is national toll logs representing physical flows of goods into Sweden one is input input output tables which is kind of monetary models of imports to Sweden inputs to Swedish sectors and the third one is research footprint so land and water use embedded in Swedish consumption and then the second part of the project this week did kind of a really in-depth assessment looking at one supply chain and one commodity and inquiring into Brazilian soil for Swedish consumption and looking into that supply chain and really seeing if you if you look at one specific supply chain and one commodity and one trade relation for Sweden what can you what can you say about climate risk so looking into climate risk in transport of Brazilian soil to Sweden but also production of soil so you can skip ahead again Mia this is first part of the results for the study so this is overall trade dependencies for Sweden this is imports to Sweden according to national toll statistics you can see that Germany is really pronounced and this is share of imports to Sweden the redder it gets the more important country Europe and the Nordic country is also a similar importance I can skip ahead again Ian it's going to show you these maps because they they show well kind of an overview of what kind of different type of information you get with different types of data this is input output tables so you get a little bit further into second and third tier of of these kind of import relations where you the kind of us China and smaller economies in the rest of the world are seem more important you can skip ahead again looking at land use the geography changes quite a lot Russia stands out are very important so does economies in Africa but also China and smaller economies in Asia and the Pacific but also really South America and skip ahead again and the last one here is water use embedded water use for Swedish consumption where we got a lot of our embedded water use from China smaller economies in Asia and the Pacific India but also the US Spain and the Netherlands and skip ahead again yes so matching this data with climate vulnerability index called and the gain index for ease of understanding the green the green kind of countries represented in these circles are have low domestic climate vulnerability and the weather it gets the more domestic the higher the domestic level ability so for the national toll data and the input output data in trade Sweden seem to be connected to countries that are fairly low climate risk domestically can skip ahead and this is the resource for the land and water resource such traded land and water resources where you see that the climate vulnerability is substantially higher if you look at this kind of data you can skip out again but it's a lot of clicking here thank you so this is I'm not going to go in depth with this kind of the Brazilian this is maps of Brazil for those of you who haven't been there or seen the map a lot I'm not going to go in depth in this study just to show you that we find it important also this kind of results show that you get kind of different information if you go very in depth into inquiring into traded climate risk so this is a municipality scale assessment of a climate risk to Swedish consumption of Brazilian soy and in the top it's production risk so risk of drought and kind of globally gridded crop models showing changes in yield to the bottom right there's a shows the transport risk from farm to port in Brazil and the green map on the bottom left this Swedish specific kind of sorry Swedish specific consumption of Brazilian soy where it comes from exactly in Brazil and I think the most interesting thing that we found in this study was that for the supply chain the most climate risks are not associated with production risks as we often think about when we think about climate risk but because of the way or the geography of Swedish consumption of Brazilian soy it's actually might be more interesting to look into transport risks in this specific case can skip ahead again so just to draw a few conclusions that we found super interesting from this study is that as I've shown you Sweden has important trade links both with countries with relatively low exposure to domestic climate risk so the Nordics Germany other European countries but also with countries that are of a higher exposure to climate risk such as Brazil China Russia India and smaller economies in Africa and Asia and the more detailed understanding of trade relations and supply chains the larger the spread in geography for a country like Sweden that is and also it kind of really diversify the the climate risk exposure that you saw before and many of these trade relations are sticky with quite a few options for diversification you can skip ahead again so the last thing to mention is just what does this mean for adaptation and so we basically need an increased knowledge and awareness of these cross-border climate risks they're rarely addressed in in depth in national adaptation plans for example traded risks are often complex systemic and also sticky which in itself done as a call for international cooperation on adaptation to these cross-border climate risks also addressing these risks and they kind of have new questions for for what does what does actually building global resilience mean and what does what might adaptation spillover effects have if we adapt only in the kind of a national context and how do we take into account these cross-border climate risks I know I'm running for like one minute over but that was really everything for me thank you thank you very much Frida that was very enlightening and I have to admit I haven't came across I haven't come across the term sticky risk yet but I like it a lot with that I would like to turn to our second research presentation I would invite Marie-Thérèse Gustafsson she's an associate senior lecturer at the department of political science at the Stockholm University Marie-Thérèse the floor is all yours thank you very much Annette so next slide please so private companies have recently studied to disclose information about their exposure and responses to climate risks however we still know little about how and with what societal consequences private actors engage in adaptation and today I will present some ongoing research on private adaptation in the mining sector and this is a collaboration together with Lisa Delmuth and Jorge Rodriguez Morales at Stockholm University next slide please so until recently scholarly and policy debate has mainly focused on adaptation designed and implemented by public actors however business association UN agencies and researcher increasingly emphasize the critical role of the private sector in adaptation governance especially in developing countries the private sector is expected to provide for financial resources and develop new technologies and innovative solutions how the private sector and in particular large national and multinational companies respond to climate risk and however have foraging both positive and negative impact on society next slide please when it comes to the mining sector it really plays a critical role in the low carbon transition and the fulfillment of the UN 2030 agenda the demands on minerals and metals are expected to grow significantly in the coming years and mining is also a driver of greenhouse gas emission and it is often associated with grave social and environmental risks in producing sites but mining is at the same time extremely vulnerable to climate risks and climate risk could aggravate water scarcity mining requires a lot of water and damage mining infrastructure and this in turn could have serious consequences for local communities next slide please so the reserves of minerals required for the low carbon transition are overlocated in countries identified as highly vulnerable to climate risks the negative development outcomes of resource extraction have many times been discussed in terms of the resource curse and to overcome the resource curse institutions and governance play a key role however many of the countries that are highly dependent on mining also suffer from poor governance and weak environmental protection and in this map we can see climate vulnerability and mining dependence for 182 countries and on the figure you can see where mining dependency coincides with climate change the size of the blue circles shows the degree of mining dependency and the color on the map indicates the vulnerability ranging from the light pink which is represent the low vulnerability to deep purple which indicates higher degrees of vulnerability and this maps help us to identify the places where you sort of the mining dependency and climate vulnerability are intersecting next slide please so as I mentioned before the adaptation literature still tends to focus on public adaptation and in our research we have analyzed how private companies have responded to climate risks and we distinguish between institutional infrastructural or community oriented responses often also discussed in terms of soft and hard adaptation institutional responses refer to the integration of climate change in the company's risk assessment and in their water governance infrastructural responses to what extent the companies have adapted their infrastructure to climate risks and community oriented responses to what extent they have developed responses that are primarily or partially seeks to enhance the adaptive capacity of local communities and we have also looked to what extent the private adaptation responses are transparent and accountable to local communities and states and finally we have looked upon how private adaptation is regulated in four countries in which mining plays an important economic role and that are at the same time vulnerable to climate risks so I will now present some of our key findings next slide please so here we show the adaptation responses of the mining companies we see that institutional responses that is the integration of climate risk in water governance and risk assessment is the most common a little bit more than half of the companies have integrated climate risk in these procedures 43% of the companies have made investment to adapt their infrastructure to climate change and in contrast only 26% of the companies have developed community oriented responses that is the adaptation in interventions that are or aimed at enhancing the adaptive capacity of local communities however only half of the about half of the companies have not developed any response at all and three of these companies for example have operations in the democratic republic of Congo which is ranked as the fifth most climate vulnerable country in the world by the end and the gain score DRC has important deposits of cobalt that will be needed for the low carbon transition and unless companies handle climate risk in these areas the intersecting impacts of mining and climate interest stressors are likely to increase the climate vulnerabilities of host communities the next slide please however it's not only important that companies are addressing climate risk it's also important that these responses are transparent and accountable to societal actors with regard to transparency we see that 61% of the companies disclose information about their exposure and responses to climate risks to investors investors increasingly demand reliable data on the exposure and responses to climate risk however only 19% disclose information to local communities and to national stakeholders and with regards to accountability 30% of the companies sweepingly mentioned being responsible for protecting local communities from exposure to climate risk but without actually specifying how they do this similarly only 22% of the companies report that they engage in collaboration focused on adaptation with relevant actors at the local and national level and none of the companies report that they participate in national adaptation planning processes next slide please and finally we analyze how private adaptation was regulated in four countries highly dependent on mining and at the same time vulnerable to climate risk we largely found that although adaptation have gained traction in policy debates in all countries the integration of climate risk in key sectoral governance instruments such as environmental impact assessments water licenses closure plans of the mines and so on is generally weak and largely depends on voluntary measures however this is changing and adaptation is currently gaining getting relevance for instance in environmental impact assessment we see some interesting development there in for instance in Canada however more needs to be done as the existing regulatory context give companies few incentives to effectively address climate risk in a way that could help to improve societal resilience next slide so to conclude about half of the largest mining companies have started to engage in climate adaptation this trend is mainly investor driven and focused on ensuring business resilience in the context of a change in climate we think in this context that it's really important that stringent regulations that are forcing or incentivizing companies to address climate risk in a way that helps to improve societal resilience is very important that they are developed thank you very much thank you very much for that very interesting insight into the mining sector looking at it's interesting to see the ambivalence on the one hand side they're contributing to the problem but on the other hand they're also suffering from that I would now like to move to our next part in the seminar and invite you all to a panel discussion we're fortunate to have Frida Marie Therese and Magnus on the panel also like to remind you that we're happy to receive your questions so please post them and then Maria will ensure that they'll reach the panelists what I'd like to do start off is by saying that all three of you refer to the need to enhance resilience but also looking at the risks that are being faced by local communities on the one hand side through mining but also through climate impacts reaching the agricultural sector and that the goods that they're importing or exporting and those that are importing them are addressed you also mentioned the importance of just resilience and I would like to ask that question to Frida and Magnus whether you could illuminate a little bit more what you mean by just transition and also why does it matter it hasn't come up in the negotiations or in the climate change process so far so why why does it matter now and I'd like to start with Frida please thank you there's a little bit of delay on my mute button so I hope I'm all right now thank you Annette also my other it's really interesting to hear yeah and thank you for the question I think I mean we've been justice has been treated in my climate change debates and and also adaptation for quite a while but I think when we when we do realise and accept that we have this kind of interconnected dimension our climate risk also raises new questions on on what does justice actually mean and in this context it also is one of the most kind of automatic replies to this when you notice that okay we are so in like in the as in the case of Sweden and trade okay we are reliant on really climate vulnerable regions what we do and so really one of the core I think issue one of the core reasons for why we address justice why I think we should we really need to just address justice specifically and this is that we we really risk abandoning really already vulnerable regions if we don't or just read just really building risk globally and I think there's also maybe minus you want to come in on this topic of because when you talk about the food system for example you don't have there's really might not even be possible to kind of to kind of diversify your supply chain in a way that that really makes you less less vulnerable to those risks but you you just kind of redistribute to risk globally or sorry or you or you make regions even more vulnerable because you kind of abandon them through changing suppliers etc and you really do the opposite of contributing to a global resilience through that maybe do you want to come in and kind of elaborate a little bit on that yeah sure so I think when we take a chance framing of climate risk you can have effective adaptation to trans boundary climate risk from one actors perspective but it's very harmful to another and so one to look at the mining case that marita is presented in a drought prone region that's got water challenges a mining company could successfully secure it the access to water that it needs to continue its operations and from the mining company's perspective they're successfully adapted to that risk but they might have done so at the expense of agriculture and livelihoods in the region where they're mining so successful adaptation for one isn't necessarily good adaptation for everyone it can be actually redistributing risk like Frida said so there's another way of looking at risk which is if we build resilience particularly in supply chains at the production end and we have a more more sustainable and more resilient use of water in the country where the mine is presented it can still be effective for the mining company they might still get access to the water they need but through a resilience building measure in that region that can build resilience for all so taking this justice framing of adaptation is very important including in the negotiations where there already is a discussion about the justice dimension of mitigation and discussion about response measures to compensate parties who miss out from aggressive mitigation policy it's a UN process and it's it's good and proper that justice should also be discussed within the framework of the convention in relation to adaptation and how national adaptation is planned and implemented thank you very much Magnus for that very interesting perspective was interesting how you mentioned that on the redistribution in that context I'm interested to hear from Marie Therese how she sees the private sector contributing to resilience Marie Therese and you mute it okay now now it should be fine okay thank you very much Annette yeah I think it's really important to get this private sector on board to improve resilience international trade as Frida shows could have huge impact on societal resilience in producing site and we know that private adaptation funding is far from sufficient for all for addressing all the adaptation challenging in the next few years but I think it's also important to have this more kind of critical lens that Magnus introduced that we know that unless the private sector adapts to climate risk this could constitute due to risks for societal resilience like the example with water for example if the mining companies continue to withdraw large amount of watering areas that are where there is a lot of water scarcity this could undermine the climate resilience of local farmers and so on but there could also be a lot of accidents like we see the accident with the hydropower plant in February in Himalaya where over 200 people died or went missing it's a clear example where you don't need to sort of factor in climate risks in the business of these kind of large infrastructure projects but so far I think that the debate on the private sector in relation to climate governance has mainly focused on climate mitigation and this also go for the mining sector because now the mining sector are increasingly seen as a sort of solution to the climate crisis because of the low carbon transition but I think it's very important to look more into adaptation it's really hard to it's much harder to measure and it's not so much at the center of the global climate agenda but I think it's high time that we focus more on the private sector in adaptation as well and in particularly in the global south and there's much that needs to be done there as well in terms of the regulatory context that needs to be stringent regulations in place that ensure that companies are not able to define adaptation interventions in the way that is more like convenient for ensuring their business resilience but also in a way that is coordinated with public adaptation planning that for instance in certain areas there should perhaps not be a mine or a hydropower station because it's too dangerous and then there could be other places and this needs to be factor in these kind of decisions of economic activities and so on. Thank you so much Marie Therese and we're now also receiving lots of questions from the participants so I would now like to throw it back to the panel you all mentioned who should do what and why and we looked at one is doing something but it has negative effects so when we look at if our goal is to improve overall resilience in a just way so that no one suffers the question is who has to act and why is it the private sector and or is it more the national governments that should put in place the stringent regulations or is it the global process that we need more signals from there and there was a question how global institutions could bring the private sector more on board so who has to act and why and possibly also with whom together so I would like to start with Marie Therese and the private sector and then hear from Frida how she sees the the national governments in in that regard Marie Therese. Yeah I think it's I mean it's really important that the the private sector acting but I think it's also a matter of regulating the mining sector to steer business behavior in a way that improves societal resilience I think there are many ways to and I don't think that only public regulations are needed but I think there is a need for a combination of sort of soft governance and public regulation and I think in particular now I think it's very important to have human that human rights need to be fully integrated in climate intervention because there is a risk that all of these sort of global negotiations about adaptation and about mitigations contribute does not fully take into account the interest of local communities in the global south so they could be well intended and so on but not fully capture all the complex adaptation needs of these communities which regards to the regulation I think it's I think that there are many interesting initiative by the part of the private sector right now standard settings in the in the mining sector that we have looked closely into they are developing their own standards about how to adapt the mining sector to a change in climate they are also looking into the community aspect there but this is not very well developed yet but I also think that separate to the climate negotiations and there is obviously a big role for the national governments there to adapt to the sectoral governance like if you look at environmental impact assessment for the mining sector the closure plan the water licenses these kind of regulatory contexts in many countries at least the four countries that we looked at are are still quite weak and this kind of regulation that incentivize the mining companies and other companies in other sectors to act in more responsible ways needs to be in place and also the national adaptation planning processes need to sort of make a better play a better role to to invite the private sector and make sure that there is coordination between public and private adaptation but just like a last reflection I think it's very interesting separate to the climate negotiation we see we currently see that okay so we currently see that several European countries and at the EU level are already adopting different types of human rights and environmental due diligence regulations and this is up and up for possibilities to to regulate what what companies are doing in producing sites in terms of not contributing to undermine resilience and I think that these are quite interesting and promising these new regulations that really could hold companies accountable in complex supply chains thank you so much for your interest and I thought it was very interesting how you said that it would be good for the private sector to have these regulations and I would like to turn to Frida in the trade related aspect the question is who regulates whom especially knowing that many of those company are transnational would they be regulated of the seat of origin or in where they're actually operating or more in one country how would we ensure that we're not having a race to the bottom but instead have something that profits the people rather than the shareholders at the end so what are your thoughts on the role of the national governments Frida over to you thank you not indeed that's the question I think where we are at right now first step is really knowledge inventory or like awareness racing and gathering evidence and understanding how these risks really uh what they are and how they function and work right and what that means for for national government and and action on a national level so first step for most countries I would say is really to to take these risks seriously the trans boundary effects of if that is via trade is that one example but there's also trans boundary effects via movement of bifysical flows financial flows movement of people etc so really awareness racing is one one step and really incorporating these issues into the national adaptation plans and also lifting it on the kind of international agenda for these for adaptation in general I think also that the state the national statement like has a role when it comes to also when it comes to the private sector in supporting small and medium sized enterprises for example in really understanding what this is kind of risk mean for them and really this question of who does what we often frame it as kind of the risk ownership so who has mandate to do anything about these things is it really the state or is it really big private sector firms or is it maybe also a lot of the time kind of these medium sized enterprises so I think we're really not to it maybe it's a boring answer to your question but I think we're really also in a phase where we will be to understand the kind of what's it called the arena where we're at still when it comes to these risks. Thank you so much Frida and with that I would like to hand over to Magnus to then say if it's difficult at the national level and difficult to incentivize the private sector what are the opportunities we have at the global level or even at the regional level we saw how the EU has included transbandary risks and trade in its recent adaptation strategy what can we do at the global level to ensure that everyone will be covered. Magnus over to you. Thanks Annette so in the results that Frida presented it was clear that a country like Sweden is linked to several other countries in other parts of the world through its trade relations and there's no way that a country like Sweden can manage these risks on a bilateral basis with so many countries across so many different sectors and supply chains so the option is only really to work at the global level where there's international cooperation to build resilience to the risks that face a country like Sweden by its trade profile but fortunately there are a lot of features in the global climate governance architecture that can be used and the Paris agreement really sets out a number of tools that can be used to address this systemic risk dimension that we've talked about today so the global goal on adaptation as you said is an opportunity to state the importance of collective action on adaptation and so progress towards the global goal like you said in the beginning Annette really needs to include this transbandary dimension so we can we can measure the amount of climate risk in global systems like markets and whether that's increasing or being reduced through adaptation and we can track the the flow and extent of cross border risks and see are these being addressed by national adaptation so concretely the first global stock take should hopefully include analysis provided by experts and and also non-party stakeholders that assesses the the state of play with transbandary climate risk and another really important element at the global level is that all parties should contribute adaptation reports whether that's adaptation communications or summaries of what they're doing in their national adaptation plans and that doesn't just apply to developing countries who are appealing for climate finance to implement their plans also rich countries should be submitting reports on their adaptation plans and crucially we need to move to a point where parties disclose what risks they face what the transboundary dimension of those risks might be for others but also to assess the impacts of their own adaptation at a transboundary scale so how will national adaptation plans potentially help or even hinder other countries in their adaptation efforts and that's where we need to reach a point where naps and biannual transparency reports and ad comms really take a global view and assess the transboundary effects of risks and adaptation thank you so much Magnus and as you mentioned yes we would need to work together but also developing countries need to be supported and one one question posed by Lisa was to what extent international institution can also work together with the private sector and to that I would like to point out that many of the big green climate funds and the global environment facilities have funds to encourage private public partnerships whereby the public would cover the either the underlying risks or the upfront investment and then the private sector would also bring an investment and then ensure that whatever project is there would be maintained so that there is an incentive for the private sector to engage and bring in the necessary expertise but also capital and with that I would like to move from here you all mentioned what what kind of barriers we see what kind of opportunities we know about the importance of the global stock take very quickly in your related areas of expertise what concrete steps would you like to see within the next five years that would really make a difference and I'd like to start with Frieda then Marie to rest and then finally Magnus before we conclude things. Frieda. Thanks a lot so more or less concrete I think first of all we really have to address this trans boundary sorry I have a flying ration in my home. First of all we really need to make sure that these kind of trans boundary climate risks are taken up in national adaptation plans and as Magnus says also lifted on the global level and I think sorry I think that's it from my side. Thank you so much Marie Therese what would you like to see in the context of the private sector? Yeah okay very quickly I think it's important that human rights are being ensured in private adaptation so that human rights is fully integrated in in private adaptation responses I also think that it's important to include the role of the private sector in adaptation in for instance the biannual transparency reports from the UNFCCC and I also think it's important to step up these regulations at a domestic level to ensure that the private sector are effectively integrated in national adaptation planning processes and that sectoral governance instruments are in addressing the climate risk for the private sector. Great thank you and Magnus what would be your ideal outcome at the COPPA November and beyond? Okay three things at the COP26 I'd like to see a statement in the text that refers to trans boundary climate risk so either a party or a group of parties who explicitly acknowledge the importance of trans boundary climate risk for global cooperation on adaptation framing is important. The second is to see innovation within the climate finance space for funding of adaptation projects that go beyond the national scale so regional that could be more than knowledge sharing so addressing shared risks either at a regional scale or financing adaptation within an international system like a market. I'd like to see that within the next three years and I'd like to see new dialogues under the adaptation without borders initiative that bring parties from different parts of the world and non-party stakeholders together to have more detailed conversations about the division of labour when it comes to adapting to trans boundary climate risk. Thank you so much Magnus for clearly laying out what is needed and I thank you all very much for this very interesting panel discussion but also for your presentations. I think it's apparent that through this we already have a good idea of what do we need to do we know the problems we know who should act the private sector the national governments and the global level we identified some barriers and gaps including lack of coordination the coordination but also we identified opportunities of what can be done and in terms of more incentivizing investors disclosing risks but also having better regulations possibly even instigated from the global level so I think while the problems are still there we know the opportunities we know the possible opportunities of when to act so I think it's just a matter of trying to influence the necessary policymakers to ensure that it is then fed into national but also international policies but that I would like to thank you very much and hand over to Maria. Yes thank you all for your interesting presentations and perspectives and moderation thank you Frida, Maria Therese, Magnus and Annette and also thank you all to the audience that have listened and participated in this discussion very interesting. If you want to know more about Mr Geopolitics you can visit our website or you can also follow us under the Mr Geopolitics hashtag on Twitter and with this I want to bid you all then good afternoon.