 Good afternoon, thank you for being with us. Now the goal is to decubinize, keep one and a half alive. For emerging economies, it means mobilizing about $2 trillion annually through 2030, but currently only 20% of what's needed is being mobilized. So there is a funding gap. And according to the IMF, the private capital can fill about 80% of what's needed. And if you take China away from that, then it becomes 90%. The question really is, what are the innovative funding solutions available? And what do you do with questions about transparency, the lack of policy framework? So these are the issues that this panel helps to address. And let me first introduce to you the speakers today. Rick Duke, US Deputy Special Envoy for Climate. Odell Reno Basso, President of the EBRD. Bill Winters, Group CEO of Standard Chartered. Joanna Messing, CEO of Grow Old Climate Fund. Rick, let's start with you. I want to talk about the ETA, the Energy Transition Accelerator. It was, I guess, revealed at COP28, likely to be unveiled, launched, come Earth Day. Give us a sense of how ETA will help the action, boost the action, in emerging economies. So you're very right to start with the gap in financing for the energy transition. And this is meant to help to address that gap. The International Energy Agency estimates that we need to have a 7x increase in financing for energy transition above all in the power sector. And the Energy Transition Accelerator is tailored to bring voluntary carbon market solutions that are high integrity into the picture to help really pick up the pace and make a difference. By focusing on a jurisdictional approach, which we pioneered, I should say, in the land sector with the LEAF program and the Red Plus efforts that are really picking up steam, I should say, and also warrant investment and attention and will help to stop deforestation, we are taking a similar approach here in the Energy Transition Accelerator, looking at a power system-wide approach. And that allows integrity when it comes to additionality. It ensures against leakage. And it also is a way to ensure that governments and utilities can get resourcing to do everything they need to do. They can do transmission. They can do storage. They can do new renewables with that transmission and storage. And so we are thrilled that we have made so much progress in a short amount of time. I want to thank Standard Chartered and Bill for being one of the initial companies really pioneering this work. And we have three pilots moving now in Chile and Nigeria and Dominican Republic. And we have a real opportunity here to make a big difference on a big problem with a high integrity approach to mobilizing finance. You talked about strict enforcement. How exactly are you intending to do that? What mechanisms in place? I mean, how do you ensure that carbon that's being avoided is being reflected accurately? Well, when it comes to the power sector, the data are good. We have a very clear sense of what the emissions are because we can track the fuels that are being burned. And we know when you burn a ton of coal, you get a ton of CO2 if I'm doing the math right. And so it's not difficult to pin down the math at that level of the fundamental question of being able to measure so that you can manage. What, of course, is challenging, and where the jurisdictional power system-wide, grid-wide approach is so crucial, is that you have to make sure that you are actually crediting real reductions that are above and beyond what would have happened without the effort, without the energy transition accelerator. And we can do that because taking a page from the jurisdictional approach from the land sector, from the LEAF and RED Plus programs, you can define a baseline that is clear, incredible, and then you only begin crediting when you beat that trajectory in terms of carbon intensity reductions towards zero, for example. And we made tremendous progress in the last year in mapping out what that would look like in the details. It's been a very inclusive process. It will continue to be so. And we are quite confident that this would be really an antidote to some of the concerns that have been raised about other voluntary carbon markets, which take a more one-off approach, in which do indeed have real problems in some cases. This jurisdictional approach is entirely different. President Renovaso, what were some of the key outcomes for MDBs at COP28? And how is that guiding the reform agenda for MDBs? So I think MDBs, first of all, have been, since a few years, very committed to working with the COP, committing to increase their contribution to climate change and support in all countries in which we are in green transition. A lot of the engagement coming out of the COP, doubling the renewable, tripling the renewable, doubling energy efficiency, and so forth, will involve MDBs, as well as the sort of key objective is cutting metanomission. And for MDBs, this is a really a driving element in the policies. We are implementing. Each of us have different, some are more public. We are EBRD working more with the private sector. But we have all enhanced our green objective. And also delivered in 2015, we committed to some, or 2019, we committed to some deliverable for 2025. And we are advanced, I mean, already reached the target collectively. So in a way, we have delivered. But it's clear that we need to go beyond, to accelerate, and to find ways to increase the scale of what we are doing. And in doing so, there is a lot of discussion, and I'm sure we will come to that about the role of the MDBs, the role of the private sector. I really see the role of the MDBs as an enabling element working on the global strategy and the global policy of the countries on green transition, energy sector transition, but also manufacturing transition. And defining with the country, I think the most value we can bring is when we, working with the country, can define what is a strategy? How can they define the objective they want to reach in terms of renewable, in terms of closing coal power plants and so forth, bringing that together, having a framework which is also induces to private investment in terms of regulation, rule of flow, clarity of the objective, roadmap to go there, and bring that together in order to have clarity on the strategy, and possibility, I mean, MDB financing in terms of lending, possible equity, and so forth, bringing also some concessional financing because part of these activities need to be supported by concessional activities, and their philanthropy or countries, ODA can play, I mean, need to play a role, and then the private sector. To give you a concrete example, we've worked a lot with the team of John Kerry on Egypt, and last year, Egypt at the COP, they came with a platform where they had a clear strategy on energy, a commitment to close some gas power plant, five gigawatts, I mean, to be closed, and at least 10 gigawatts of renewable to be developed, and also investment in the grid, so as to make that possible. We worked together, so this strategy was endorsed, announced very strongly politically on by the government. We brought some donor financing in order to help with the direct transition and the closing out of the gas power plant. We financed ourselves the grid, and we have a clear roadmap for developing the grid, and then there will be a lot of renewable, and hopefully, renewable will involve private sector developers and some private sector financing. So I think this is a strategy we want to develop. It's a big strategy, a lot of work to be done. What are the priorities for 2024? What are you looking to do? I mean, for us, increasing renewable everywhere is a key priority. And what is encouraging in a very positive note is that we see all countries in which we intervene, starting from very different point, but all embracing this agenda. And defining, I was before on a panel on Eurasia, countries in Central Asia, like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Turkey, they're all stepping up very significantly their objective of renewable, understanding that the price is much lower, that it's an opportunity. It's also not only good because of Paris Agreement and the need to keep the 1.5 alive, but also because it's important for competitiveness. Because now, if you want to develop to be strong in manufacturing, you need to be able to show that you have also green source of energy. The other priority for us is to, so we are fully Paris Alliance, so all our investments are Paris Alliance. And what we are trying to do is working with a financial institution in the emerging countries in which we work in order to help them bringing this kind of assessment on their project. So developing the governance target for the local banks in order to have this kind of green environmental objective and then deploy that in the way that assess the project. And I think this is the best, I mean, we can have a big impact because then it's not only our financing, but also our local banks work on their own financing to SMEs and so forth. Right, and Bill, you know, a lot of pressure on the private sector, a lot of pressure for to mobilize private capital. I mean, how do you see banks playing a bigger role and what's stopping banks currently doing that? At first, I'd say it's actually probably not a lot of pressure. And I think that's... And that should be more, Bill. The pressure in and of itself isn't gonna create much progress, so we have to put the facilities in place so that pressure can be applied and then realistically act it out. And there's no silver bullet, and I think we've all been focused on this for quite a while now. And let's take a look at the good news first. Our balance sheet has gone from being 0% sustainable finance to about 6% sustainable finance. What should it be at the end of the day? I guess probably something closer to 25% sustainable finance. So it's not that nothing's happened, a lot has happened, but as is always the case, the easy pickings are the low-hanging fruit and the low-hanging fruit. And I'll say that the first bit of low-hanging fruit was disproportionately in Europe. Why? Because the European facilities were in place. There's a function in carbon market in Europe, like a really big function in carbon market with a carbon price that actually makes sense. It's volatile, but it's volatile around prices that we all think make sense. We're talking $60 to $100 a ton, whereas the voluntary carbon market, which we are trading right now, it's something between $2 and $10 a ton, which is clearly the wrong price. So the facilities, we know how that worked in Europe, it's a cap and trade system, so there's a quota. And that's a form of taxation on European industry, which then requires subsequent actions, including border adjustment tariffs and things of that nature. So that facility is in place. There's no silver bullets, but what are the bronze bullets that we can line up? We talk a lot about public-private sector financing. Certainly in the emerging markets, where standard chartered is very active, that's an essential component. It's necessary, but not sufficient. And we know that the amount of capital that's been allocated is far from sufficient. And we can all, and I've sat on this stage and shot my little silver bullets at the World Bank or the IMF, or never the EBRD, but I suppose I could have, and said, you know, we need to, the shareholders need to increase the capital of these organizations by 15 times. And then we need to go from a one-times leverage factor, i.e. $1 of MDB financing is crowding in. Actually, today it's 95 cents of private-sector capital. That obviously doesn't make any sense. Something like 15 would be a good target. Now, I'm on a, with Ajavanga and Mark Carney and Trude Videra and others, a World Bank lab, private-sector lab, as it's called. And our objective is to, a little bit more modest, not increase the aggregate amount of capital of the World Bank, that's not within our remit, although I would call on anybody that has any authority in the world to do that. There's one government that's sitting a couple to my left that could lead the way in that. But I know that Richard's not, you're not the obstacle on that one. But then what we can affect is this leverage factor, the crowding in. So let's get to at least a four-to-one, right? Let's go from zero or a one-to-one to four-to-one. And how do we do that? Well, much more creative use of MDB guarantees and acceptance that MDBs will really provide that difficult to address capital layer. It might be the first loss on a project, it may be the political risk on a project, it may be the foreign exchange risk on a project. But those are things that the private sector has real trouble addressing directly. So if we're gonna use concessionary capital from the MDBs, and this is all of our money, obviously, let's use it in a way that's gonna have the biggest impact in terms of mobilizing private sector capital. So what Ajay and team have done at the World Bank is nothing short of phenomenal in terms of changing a mindset in a very short period of time. Organizations like the Asian Development Bank have actually been ahead of the curve and are already doing, EBRD, let's say Europe is way ahead of the curve. But there's a whole infrastructure in Europe that's supporting sustainability. Unfortunately, that's not where the big emissions are. Not anymore, apart because you've reduced them so successfully. We've gotta get to the rest of the world. A lot of that is in the developing world. Anyway, I don't wanna monopolize the time, but I think public-private partnership is one part. But getting access from the public capital market, so this 80 or 90% number that you mentioned up front, assumes that all those funds that are ESG funds, which are public pension fund money, insurance company money, personal saver money, is actually deployable into sustainable projects. And the fact is today, they're not because it's quite complicated to execute a sustainable finance project. And the expertise is sitting in a pretty narrow group of places, mostly banks. And the capital markets aren't geared up. So we need to standardize. We need to get consistency in terms of what is a good project, what's not a good project, that requires standards. We need to get uniform structures. We need to get elements of legal protection that are consistent across markets. And then we can bring the capital markets to bear. I don't wanna say that my good clients who are asset managers are lazy, but they are. And they're get it by the stuff if it's easy for them to buy. Not because it's the right thing to do all the time. So I'll stop. These are just a couple of themes that are many, many more that we are exploring. Well, pick up on some of your points later by Joanna. There's also a big call for Philanthropies to do more private public Philanthropies working on innovative partnerships. How do both sectors capitalize and make maximum impact? Well, we're here because we feel like the role of philanthropy is to really catalyze innovation, to support higher ambition, and to incorporate in some of those just issues that are harder for capital markets to incorporate. So in terms of ambition, the main message that we're all hearing is that finance and markets are not meeting the moment. However, the finance sector has proven time and again its ability to innovate, particularly in times of crisis. So part of this is to look at how are we going to meet this moment? What is the innovation that we are going to create that is going to enable us to reach particularly issues in emerging economies and to meet this moment? I think part of the challenge has been that we've been talking about things at very large scale, trillions, large terms like sustainable finance. But in order to make the right innovations, we need form to follow function, which means we need to think about where are the projects? What is the kind of capital that's needed? So we make sure that it's the right flavor of capital in the right place at the right time. And so we need to look at the different categories of projects. First of all, there are projects that would provide market rate returns, but because of failures in the capital market system, the right kind of capital isn't there. So when we think about the role of philanthropy there, there's several things that we can do. First of all, policy is a huge area which we've seen impacts profitability. We're hearing over and over again that having a stable policy environment, a stable regulatory environment, improved permitting processes, all of that increases the chance of profits. So that is a role where philanthropy can come in. But also thinking about ways to increase technical assistance, transparency, funds that cut across geographies to reduce some risks and enable access to those projects which really will provide a market return. Talking about low hanging fruit, that's the first place to go. Secondly, there are projects that will provide a return but it's not considered market rate, particularly in emerging economies where you layer on political risk. Or sometimes the kind of capital that's required would add on to debt burden and the country is not willing to take that. This is another great place for philanthropy, particularly in partnership with public institutions, to think about technical assistance for domestic institutions that don't face the currency risk hurdles, for example. Seeding project prep facilities like we've seen with CSAF or ACP. But I also think there's a role for philanthropy to do business planning around potential new products like sustainability linked bonds, transition finance as an asset class, experimentation. And then finally, I mean, there are the hardest but necessary projects which will not give a rate of return that's going to be market acceptable but which are critical, like we've heard over and again, like grids. And so that's again where government and public policy and philanthropy needs to partner to enable it. And in all of these choices, again, going to granularity and locality, thinking about how we partner with people on the ground to ensure that the communities are engaged early on and that the projects meet the needs of who's on the ground. But in the end, our choices are actually quite simple. We can either reform existing institutions by thinking about what are the new products and policies that existing institutions can roll out. Or we can build new institutions that meet the moment that may be public, they may be private, they may be nonprofit, but we simply do not have the choice of saying it's too difficult. And so I'm here to really offer the role of philanthropy to do radical collaboration across sectors and really hope that we can be innovative to problem solve this together. We talk about risk, we talk about policy clarity, we talk about stability. These are the elements that need to be in place for capital to be deployed. How do you see the end of these perhaps helping to address these issues? I believe that this is at the core of our role. For example, working, because projects are not coming, may depend on countries as well, but very often it's a lot of work to get a project. It's a lot of work to convince a country that it's interest to move out from coal to green. I mean, it's politically difficult, you have vested interest, you have a cost of human capital, you need, I mean, it's a lot of work and a lot of risk. So convincing the country that this is the right strategy and bringing them all the information. We are talking about countries also where the administrative capacity is not necessarily the strongest one. So making the, I mean, working on the policy decision is very important. That for example, you know, bringing, we worked a lot, not only in advanced Europe, but also in, I mean, Central Asia and so forth. And we convinced Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan to sign methane pledge. For Kazakhstan is a huge issue because, I mean, there are bigger oil and gas producer. For them, it's, I mean, 40% I think of their CO2 emission are related to methane flaring and so forth. So it's a huge endeavor. It took us two years, I think, to convince them and so forth. But then when you have this kind of policy commitment, a bit like the one I was mentioning for Egypt then it's a very good basis to develop projects and then investment opportunities. And then when you have investment opportunities and projects which can be fine. And then I think how to bring private sector is important because we cannot do all the financing ourselves. And it used to be the MDP model but I think everybody understand that it's not up to the challenge. It will never be up to the challenge whatever level of capital we got. So we need to find ways to, and I think that requires effort on both sides. It cannot be only the public sector absorbing the whole risk. We need to have some big sharing but of course there are some ways. For example, to take, you were saying the first law, I mean, there are mechanisms with the first laws. We can develop framework to finance, we can develop more projects in local currency. For example, EBRD has been working very much on tapping local market financing of ourselves in local currency in order to be able to land in local currency so that you don't have the exchange at risk. You also have the capacity to work, we develop the project, the construction part and then when it's up and running, generating revenues and so forth, we sell it, I mean, then we invite private investors to come in and we recycle our financing. So there are a lot. The challenge I think is that we need to go beyond sort of generic discussion about risk, guarantees and so forth to very concrete focusing on countries, project and operations. It's also about credibility, Rick. I mean, if you take a look at the voluntary carbon market, it's been settled by scandal after scandal after scandal. How do you build back that credibility? So the answer to that question really is rooted in this jurisdictional approach and I wanna explain why a little bit. When you look at the issues that have arisen with voluntary carbon markets and really project-based voluntary carbon markets, there are real issues around inflated baselines where you have a center, frankly, on the part of the project developer, of course, but in many ways on the part of the host country in many instances to have the math in their favor. And there's not enough clarity, there's asymmetric information and so there's no way to really properly discipline that project-based approach unless you nest those projects in a proper jurisdiction-wide credible baseline that can be established based on some kind of principled approach and analysis. That's what the LEAF program does in a Red Plus framework for landscapes and we've seen two new transactions come out just at COP28 and we have a large pipeline of transactions coming there and that is something which we can really count on in terms of stopping deforestation through those mechanisms and giving governments the flexibility to use the revenue as needed for enforcement, for investment, for whatever it takes. Similarly, in the power sector, with the energy transition accelerator, taking a power system-wide approach anchored in a credible baseline about what it takes to get to net zero in the power sector at what pace of carbon intensity reduction, you solve those problems. You also deal with the leakage issue and it is something where we also need to communicate effectively about this and make clear the distinctions so that we can proceed because there's too much work to do in stopping deforestation and accelerating the energy transition to be slowed down by what are very real concerns about elements of the voluntary carbon markets. We need to get the voluntary carbon markets put to work and let me just very briefly, if I could, thank EBRD for the partnership on both the Egypt Renewables Project and on the methane piece. And just briefly, it was a mere 200 million in deeply concessional grant funding from the United States, Europe, and Germany is mobilizing $10 billion in Egypt. That is going to lead to and has led to them accelerating their renewables goal by a full five years in their Paris Agreement nationally determined contribution just last June following that deal. We are excited about that as a major step forward and it is a model I think for us to pursue in other countries. And then similarly, just a note on the methane front on oil and gas methane, since you raised it, in addition to everything you just said, we have mobilized $255 million in grant support to help low income national oil companies do the upfront work to be able to then invest with confidence in flaring, venting, and leakage reduction. And when we get that job done in places like Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, which are now engaging with us on this diplomatically and commercially, when we get that done on a global basis, that is worth a full 10th of a degree of avoided climate change right now. And we can get it done, we're working with EBRD, the World Bank, and partners, including in private finance to make it happen. Bill, you wanted to add? Yeah, well, just on the very last point that Rick meant, it's, sometimes we bemoan the, frequently we bemoan the lack of developed consensus on really impactful things. And the methane agreement in COP was really impactful. And it's a little bit expensive, but it's the best bang for the buck. And it was prioritized, and the best majority of methane emitters now in the oil and gas industry have signed up, so that's great. I wanted to pick up on some of the voluntary carbon markets, just to expand a bit, because I completely agree with Rick's diagnosis of the voluntary carbon market is tiny today. Its reputation is in tatters because of the number of projects that fit exactly the description with either an inflated baseline or inadequate enforcement. Many, many, many sort of avoided deforestation projects are good. The forest is still there. The baseline was quite ugly. So what prompted me and 450 other people three years ago to set up what was originally called the Task Force for Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets was the belief that without restoring credibility and confidence in that market, we'd have a hard time protecting the existing carbon sinks of the world, much less investing in new technologies that are on economic to avoid carbon emissions in future. So this group of 450 people, which included I'd say the world's leading scientists on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, the most active NGOs who were interested in developing this segment of the decarbonization agenda, the biggest polluters of the world, airlines, oil and gas companies, the biggest project generators, conservation, international, World Wildlife Fund, Nature Conservancy, and then a bunch of intermediaries like banks. So 450, we came up with a set of standards that were intended to restore confidence in this market. Say we got to a level of detail that was about 15,000 feet, 5,000 meters. We handed then over to it to a totally independent board called the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Markets, which is operating today. There are 22 members of this board supported by 60 of the world's leading climate scientists. They're taking those standards from 15,000 feet, 5,000 meters, to let's say 1,000 meters. So quite detailed at a methodology level. The verifiers who were discredited in the earlier regime, so take Vera Gold Standard, I don't mean that these are bad people, but they approve transactions that were subsequently found to be inadequate, are refining their methodologies to be consistent with the ICBCM standards. And at the outset, very few of the projects, of the nature-based projects, will qualify under the very stringent guidelines of the Integrity Council. But as the methodologies are developed and as the governance arrangements are put in place easier in a jurisdictional environment, but not limited to jurisdictional situations because obviously most of the carbon sinks that we have today don't have a jurisdictional framework. And if we say goodbye to the Amazon and goodbye to the enormous carbon sink in the Congo, I'm afraid there's no amount of direct air capture that we can do that's going to prevent a two-plus degree increase in temperature. So jurisdictional or not, we have to make this work. And the objective of the Integrity Council is very simply to say this is a good credit. You can have high confidence. And the bet that I'm making and that a lot of other people are making is that once that confidence is restored, that huge body of private sector money that's saying, oh, why on earth would I buy a carbon credit? Well, I'm one going to use my shareholder capital and two, we criticize for it. That's a lose-lose. I'm not going to do that. So of course the market's small. If we can flip that around, that will bring the pressure back on banks and corporations to say, no, there is something you can do about that. Yeah, of course you have to go through your own transition pathway. But for all that difficult or impossible to abate along the way or impossible to abate at the end of your process, you buy offsets. You better buy offsets. Because if we don't predict the existing carbon sinks, doesn't matter what else we do, we're not going to get there. Joanna, yeah. Yeah, I think one of the things I'd like to just follow up on this is to say one of the reasons I think we need innovation in the market is any one particular solution might end up not getting us there. And so what I'd like to discuss is in parallel what are some other pilots that we can run? And talking about low-hanging fruit, one of the things that we've seen is that we have not picked all of the low-hanging fruit. And so one of the questions or challenges that I'd put forward is can we make a commitment over the next couple of years to pick all of the low-hanging fruit? Cover all of the abandoned coal mines, the industrial rooftops, the brown fields, the abandoned industrial sites with renewable energy. Those are not going to meet with community protests. Can we make lighthouses that show how this works and create positive stories about the jobs that are created, the energy that's produced at the same time that we're exploring other models? The other question I would ask is how can we update the financial models that are actually being used for evaluation to reflect some of the broad ranges of risks, both some of the physical asset risks that are happening with extreme weather events that actually changes the profit viability of existing assets, but at the same time, looking at which policy innovations would make these renewable energy projects more viable and see how we finance those. So I think in addition to the conversation that we're having here, what are the other experiments that we can run? Let's open the discussion to the floor. If you have any questions, just raise your hand and we'll send a mic your way. If there are any questions? Yeah, please, right in front. Hi, I'm from Brazil. I'm a social innovator, so I'm on the ground feeling the effects and trying to help. So I was wondering, how come we don't see the developing and emerging markets on this table, for instance, and shouldn't we be a part of the discussions ourselves? So wanted to hear your comments on that as well. I don't have an emerging markets accent, but that is the business I'm in. So the center charter operates across Asia, Middle East, and Africa, actually with a nice business in Brazil as well. So these projects that are driving our sustainability agenda are almost entirely in emerging markets. I'll just add that the point made earlier, I think by Bill, that when you look at where the challenges and opportunities are on climate mitigation, increasingly it's in emerging economies and in developing countries more broadly. And certainly the United States recognizes that as a government. President Biden has a goal working with Congress to reach $11 billion in public climate finance by next year, and we've done over $9.5 billion in 2023 on that path. We are, of course, through energy work, trying as much as possible to do both country-led, specific efforts like the Egypt effort, but also the just energy transition partnerships that we have in Indonesia and Vietnam and South Africa with G7 partners, but with the host country driving the discussion in every case, bringing in private finance, including standard charter, thank you, in the conversation in an effort to do three things that I think are worth briefly noting. The first is actually to work on the policy context because these things have to be country-led to succeed because the policy in country is the prime mover. We need transparency for utility sector about what their financials look like, why they are or are not investing in renewables when renewables are increasingly by far the cheapest way to deliver electrons, but in many cases, you have fossil interests that are incumbents that don't want to see that happen. Second thing we need is to make sure that we're creative about these financing solutions and public, private, even philanthropic blended approaches to mobilize more capital more quickly at a lower cost of capital. And then finally, we put the just energy transition partnerships in mind in place with a view to encouraging and really insisting on engaging civil society in these efforts in country so that we can make sure that the transition is equitable and just and that we work on what happens to those that we're working in the fossil sector or in coal power plants, et cetera, during the transition. And so, agree that we need to have that as an inclusive conversation and I can't comment on the panel composition per se. Do you wanna? I think it's a critical point and one of the things that philanthropy can do is change the conversation a little bit from investment only in technology to also this transition is about investing in people. And for too long, there has been an underinvestment in people in the global South in particular and also female leaders by the way. And so I think that one of the pieces of the conversation that we can also introduce is what is the investment that we are going to make collectively in talent? So we've launched this last year a climate talent initiative which is meant to bring people from outside of the climate sector into the climate sector but also to support transition leaders and particularly to support the talent that exists in the global South so that in future panels, we can have all women from global South perhaps. But I just, I think it's also, I just wanna reiterate the importance of remembering that these changes happen from leadership and investing in those leaders will enable the innovation and the trust and the solutions. No, I will not comment also on the panel because we are not part of the deal. But just what I want to point is that we started with COP and one of the very, I mean, useful tools in COP I think is all the national strategy, long-term strategy, national contribution and so forth because this is contributed even and this is what very much is the basis for action in the climate area decarbonization and so forth, driving everything that takes place around. So I think that's where we engage very much in countries in what, I mean, can be the ambition, what is realistic, what can be done in terms of NDC and long-term strategy. But I think the ownership of the country is at the core of what needs to be done and this is very well reflected in the COP processes, I think. Please. And it's the day of the social innovators. I'm a short social innovator too from India. Just wanting to say that we have support from USAID. We are building women's collectives in bamboo. We're gonna work with a million women across 10 states, 300,000 hectares. Bamboo is the highest and fastest carbon sequestering plant on the planet. It's gonna be done with all biodiversity, et cetera in mind. The next thing we could do is seaweed. So Mr. Winters had spoken with Marisa and your team. So they said, seaweed. I said, okay, we'll get to seaweed next. But there's huge examples happening in the global majority where communities are getting involved in not just being victims of climate change, but earning money and at the same time becoming highly carbon sequestering. There is a huge potential in NBS, phenomenal. And Ms. Bessing, thank you so much for speaking about the staggered and the need for a very strong capital stack. We need the capital stack starting with philanthropy because we are results of the funding we got from USAID. Thank you. And on the policy front, the government of India, they don't know it unfortunately, but they need to understand. They've got the largest amount of government funding going into the national rural livelihood mission, which builds rural women's collectives and we'll be working with those collectives enabling them to plant the bamboo, which will feed India's bamboo industry, right? So, I mean, there is so much that the government is actually doing, but they don't know that there's such a strong link between equity, climate and gender. And I think doing more of these even in the global majority countries is important, but I think a bunch of this will come up at the COP in Columbia. The need for more community involvement. And it can't always be about EVs and mass manufacturing. Yeah, thank you. That was a question right at the end there. Hi, Rich Powell from Clear Path in the US. Question, I think for Rick, but maybe everyone. Rick, you give us a great taxonomy a few minutes ago of all of the different approaches that have been tried, some attempt to sort of standardize with the JETPs, the multilateral Egypt tax-specific agreement. I'd add bilateral tax-specific like US-Poland nuclear deal maybe to that taxonomy. What you're doing with the accelerator is tax-specific, but global, applying to multiple. So we're trying a lot of different things. Are we learning enough to eventually converge on something that can then be repeated 50 more times across all of the additional developing countries or are we going to continue doing the spoke deals across all of these? And I say that with the obvious concern that doing a bespoke deal one time a year every year will not get us to net zero globally by later this century. Yeah, thanks for the question, Rich. And I think it's a good push. I think we do need to hold ourselves to account as a community that's involved in this work to do that learning and to take on the lessons and change course as we learn by doing. I will just say, and you know as well as anyone, that we should not lose sight of the learning by doing that has brought us to a point where solar and wind and other solutions increasingly even nuclear are the cheaper answer to deliver electrons and electric vehicles are the cheaper way to transport people and so on. So we have a great technology foundation to build on. And you're absolutely right, we are still working through the institutional approach, the diplomatic approach, the financial approach that's gonna make things move as quickly as we need. And there are so many dimensions to this, but what I would come back to is the role of philanthropy and helping to ensure that learning occurs and helping to ensure that the policy prime mover really is addressed because it can seem a little dull, especially here in Davos to talk about policy and government and bureaucracy, but I can tell you that if a utility, which in most cases is a natural monopoly, doesn't have to explain what it's doing and why it's doing it, then incumbent interests are going to tend to dominate its decision making about coal versus renewables, even when renewables are cheaper as just one example. Then there's fossil fuel subsidies to talk about. There are management of local content requirement and tariffs to talk about and a whole range of other policy drivers. And we do need to do the hard work on that dimension above all I would say for the financing to flow. And we do need to do the institutional learning as we try these different approaches. I think you hear some real enthusiasm for some models that are clearly working. The EBRD project in Egypt as a very interesting model because you had in country staff from EBRD that got things rolling, got things to a place that was clear on the policy front. We could come in as governments with some essential deeply concessional funding to get it over the line and some diplomatic engagement. And then it all fit into that Paris Agreement beating heart of nationally determined contributions when they updated their NDC based on that support and that 10 gigawatts of new renewables that are coming this decade because of it. And so that's an example of a model. And I'll just say one last thing which is I do think the Paris Agreement itself is driving an extraordinary amount of progress. We were talking about as much as four degrees centigrade before the Paris Agreement in 2015. We're now talking about two and a half degrees. And of course we need to get to 1.5 or get back to 1.5. And so there's a lot more to do but it is driving that target setting at a national level that every government really is taking seriously and increasingly covering all greenhouse gases as China just committed to do and the world just encouraged itself to do at COP28. And then that flows through to the policies that are so essential that can then drive the finance. Oh, I know we're running short on time but if we're looking for examples, it could be repeated. The live example to me would be the credits coming off of early decommissioning of coal-fired power plants which Rick and the U.S. led in terms of the JETP together with private sector participation. Now nobody knows how these credits are gonna work. Who's gonna pay for Indonesia to shut its 40 year life coal-fired power plant 20 years early? We all know someone should pay. It's a good thing, it's a good credit but there's no mechanism for that. If we get that right in that one case in Indonesia with some public-private partnership, Singapore has come in to say, yeah, we'll buy those credits. So I mean, that we should be able to replicate hundreds of times. Of course if you fail at the first pass then you don't get a second shot at it. So I would say that's just an example of some of the things that we are, we can actually make repeatable events if we get them right in the first order. Where's the runner-up question? I think we are making good progress in understanding and among MDBs and with bilateral donors and so forth on how we can work together. Country platform, for example, having this big program that, I mean, we put a framework and give a framework for investors and so forth. So I think we are making good progress there. We need to keep in mind that it will remain country-based and each country, I mean decarbonization is different in each country so it will remain specifics but we can still have a sort of model, financing resources, way to cooperate, how to approach the objective and the project and so forth that have well functioning and then deploy that country by country. And on that note, President Renovaso, Bill, Joanna, Rick, thank you so much for your insights today and thank you for joining us.