 Professor Sacks, I will just turn it over you to dive into this exciting conversation about net zero. Very good. All right, thank you very much. Greetings, good morning and good afternoon and good evening to everybody. Welcome to ICSD for really a fantastic opportunity to speak with the two of the most important leaders and thinkers of sustainable development in our world today. I'm starting with Dr. Laura Coatsy who is the chief energy modeler of the International Energy Agency. And not only is she an outstanding expert on the challenge of the energy transition but she led a team on an absolutely pathbreaking report. This net zero by 2050, this is what we're going to hear about. This is a really crucial report by the International Energy Agency on how the whole world can get to net zero emissions by mid-century, which as all of us know as we've been discussing at ICSD repeatedly is so urgently needed because of the even accelerating rate of climate change. We are now, as we were told by the UN agencies just in the past week within a 40% probability of hitting 1.5 degrees Celsius in some year during the next five years. That's how close we are to this threshold of extreme danger. Well, IEA has done a great service. Laura, thank you so much for being with us and we're really keen to hear your summary of the report and then I have a lot of questions that I wanna ask you but first I wanna start by congratulating you for this great accomplishment. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you for having us today with you and all the ICSD followers today and a big thanks to you for having been always supportive of IEA work on decarbonization and sustainability. So certainly it should start with this. And what I'd like to do is exactly to spend the next few minutes just highlighting the key findings of the report. Jeff said it very eloquently. We need to get to net zero by 2050 if we want to have a chance to keep the global temperature rise around 1.5 degrees and the energy sector is really critical cause most of the emissions that are causing global warming today are actually coming from the energy sector. Now, what wasn't clear to us and I think what was missing to the global conversation is actually starting talking about concrete milestones and what do we need to achieve within the next five, 10, 15 years to make sure that globally we achieve this target. And this is what we really try to do with the team with the executive director Fatih Birol that really wanted, okay, we need the global roadmap for the energy sector and keep ourselves citizens, the companies and governments accountable for the actions over the next few years. So what did we find? First of all, we found something that is obvious but equally important. We need to do a big, big job in the next 10 years. And this is daunting in a way but the non-daunting thing is the following. We actually do have all the technologies that we need in the next 10 years to cut emissions to the level that the IPCC is telling us to keep the open door for 1.5 degrees. So the job for the next 10 years is relatively easy. We need to push all the low carbon technologies that we have at hand. The other wonderful news is that despite there is a huge challenge in scaling, actually these technologies are today in most cases cheaper than the fossil alternatives. What are we talking about here? We are talking about a huge scale up of solar and wind multiplying by four what we have done in 2020 is something that the industry has done already the past decade. So this industry has to replicate of course at a different scale but the job that was done the past decade. Second thing we need once we decarbonize the power sector which is the big challenge for the next decade. Of course we will have a very clean vector that we can use elsewhere. For example, in the transport sector. So transport should really be the next challenge in many places. The United States for example is already the larger contributor to emissions but we can start decarbonizing with electric vehicles. Now this may seem like a huge increase what we are seeing now but when we look at the OEMs, the car manufacturers actually their plans for 2030 is already reaching half that level there. So it may seem huge, it may seem then times 18 but actually the current plan would already feel 50% of that gap. Third big item is energy efficiency where we are really lagging behind but again, this technology is cheap, we have it there we have it, it's just a policy question. So the good news is we do have the technology is about really scaling up. And here I think what is needed in scaling up is money. We need to unlock the investment it's gonna be an investment challenge and here you can see here is a tripling of investment in clean energy that you're talking about here. When we talk about clean energy is not only you need to invest in wind and solar but more and more we're talking about infrastructure and talking about grids. We're talking about making sure that we can start building the hydrogen network we will need for the future. Now we're very pleased to do this work together with the IMF actually to understand that there are very important benefits for the global economy. If you were able to use sustainable recoveries happening around the planet and direct these type of money for the clean energy transition our economies would grow faster and globally we would gain jobs and we would gain points of GDP. So this is a growth story is not a story of keeping people in poverty. The decarbonization story getting to net zero is a global economic growth story. However, there is a bit of a fault line that we are identifying here. The places where these investments are needed the most which are emerging and developing countries is actually the place where we're seeing the growth in investment being very much dragged down. We are seeing very flat investment and the borrowing becoming more complicated costs of capital for this low carbon technology being very high for this for us for the IA this is becoming the major fault line in accelerating the clean energy transition and getting to net zero in this very decade. So we really are trying to work very closely and strongly on this on this item. So we have a job which is accelerating investment in the technologies we know already. This is the job for the next decade. We have another job to do which is post 2030 actually we need more technologies. So at the same time in certain places we will need to start investing in R&D to make sure that we will have the hydrogen we need the advanced batteries we need direct catch director capture that we will need when we go to the harder to a base sector to the industry to shipping to aviation, et cetera. Of course this is extremely important but it should not drag our feet for the essential decarbonization with the technologies we have attend today. Now the big innovation needs are in a variety of sectors but again, I'd like to give a good news here. For example, hydrogen couple of years ago we were not hearing anything about hydrogen or very little about hydrogen over the past two years we see really a mushrooming of interest. So also on the innovation side that see at say we are being quite optimistic in terms of what we're seeing. I'd like to conclude with showing you actually in a very concrete way what we have done. We have tried to be as specific as possible for all sector what would need to happen in terms of do's and don'ts for the next five, 10, 15, 30 years to make sure that we actually reach this net zero by 2050. So if we were to be able to be on track for reaching net zero by 2050, I'd like to stress one thing. This is mostly demand side story. We have around 90% of the milestones that are for the way we use energy but the implications for that we would be that as of today we would need not to approve any new and abated coal fire power plants in the world. At the same time, if we were to follow the oil and gas trajectories demand that would entail from this trajectory equally we would have no more new oil and gas field approved for development. I'd like to conclude with a more realistic and grounded picture which is we are tracking actually basically on a weekly manner what's happening on the ground and we do see a disconnect actually. We're looking at emissions in 2021 and we are seeing those rebounding very strongly. One indicator of such measure and where are we going is how are we directing money for sustainable recoveries? And we checked out of the trillions that have been spent in sustainable recoveries only 2.5% has been redirected to clean energy transition. And this is around a third of what we would be needing if we were to be on track for 1.5 degrees. So on one hand we see on the technology side on the policy side very good signals on the innovation side also very good signals. But when we look at money especially the ones going into emerging economies and the money directed to the transitions and the sustainable recoveries when we look globally still lagging behind. So this would be the couple of words of introduction, Jeff and I would give back to you the floor. Thank you very much, Laura. Don't take off that the screen that you're showing just for us to discuss it for a few minutes. First thank you for the presentation. And again, I really encourage everybody to read the report net zero by 2050. It's the first time we have a full world view that is geared towards getting to net zero and that is specific on the technologies, on the timelines and on the do's and don'ts of what it would take to get to net zero by 2050. And I think that one of the key parts of this report is this slide. The clear messages of intermediate and immediate milestones. One is no new oil and gas fields approved for development. No new coal mines. I like that. How hard is that to understand? No, no new oil and gas fields. And also of course, no new coal plants approved, period. Now, Laura, how can we get these milestones even into agreement in COP26 and Glasgow? Is there some, are you seeing any movement to take the core messages of the report and somehow incorporate them, not just in guidelines for nationally determined contributions, but in some clear statements that the whole world could agree to? So we were quite encouraged by the G7 leaders in their communique, there is actually a recognition of the roadmap and its clarity. So that's a good step in the right direction. And we are actually working again with the UK and the G7 on getting more detailed about the electricity sector in G7 country, why? If you look at this roadmap here, you see that actually the electricity sector globally is the one that needs to go to zero first. So this is an absolute must and an imperative. You see that globally here this roadmap requires globally electricity sector goes to net zero emission by 2040. For that to happen, you need to have some front runner. And it means that actually electricity sector in advanced economies in G7 would need to come to zero earlier 2035 is also marked there. So we are trying to work with the G7 to actually create a bit of a leadership and responsibility at the same time for them to show very clearly to the world they embark on that it's doable, it's feasible. We show that is something that we can commit upon and hopefully this will draw more attention and more countries that we want to join. So I think a good way to look at it is looking at slicing it by sector and slicing it by group of countries that want to actually join a part of the commitments. What about the G20, which is of course taking place in your home country in Italy with a lot of friends closely involved. Do you see some way that even for the G20 which is October 30, 31 in Rome to actually have them adopt some of these milestones because that would be a breakthrough too. What makes the G20 special but hard is it has India which still says, well, yes, but it's hard, we're not sure. Where's the finance, where's the technology? It has China, it has other major emerging economies. What do you see in the G20 process? So we have been involved with the G20 processes very closely and we actually have prepared for the G20 in a number of reports including one on tracking sustainable recoveries. And I think that understanding the finding of that report shedlights us on some of the difficulties some of which Jeff you just mentioned. So what we found there is actually that we are seeing a emerging, a very much a two-speed world. On the one hand, we are seeing advanced economies in which financing for clean energy projects solar and wind is very, very cheap. Also thanks to the financial conditions that emerged post COVID and a very clear focus by policy makers on making sure that whatever is put on the table to help coming out of the COVID crisis is sustainable and focused on being building from buildings retrofit to greening the electricity grids. And this is one part of the world. So if you measure how far we are from an ideal pathway actually when you put together the advanced economies we are nearly 50, 60% there in terms of what we would be we would need to see in terms of finance. And this is one word. When you go to the emerging and developing world we are seeing a completely, completely different situation. The COVID crisis has forced countries to look at firewalls, protecting people that were falling back into real poverty, out of jobs, out of employment and where the cost of capital and access to capital has become actually more difficult. So we have not only not seen an increase in investment in cleaner technologies but actually this has become more difficult. So we are often talking about capital intensive technologies even if those are actually cheaper than the fossil fuel alternative the moment you have and borrow on whatever market you're borrowing capital that is more expensive this is suddenly creating an extra barrier. So I think that the financing angle the cost of capital angle has to come as it has been the case but much more central into the conversation. So this is I think the barrier that we have seen emerging at the G20 talks when the idea of new and non-new and abated cold fire power plants actually was put on the table there was a lot of opposition because we are seeing difficulties in actually getting finance for the more capital intensive technologies. And just to clarify for people that if you look at the whole life cycle or what's called the levelized cost of electricity taking into account not only the upfront capital costs but also the operating costs were in a coal plant you have to continue to buy coal all the time whereas in a solar field the sunshine comes for free after you install the PV it can be the case and it is the case often that the solar or the wind is cheaper in levelized costs over the long-term but because it's capital intensive the upfront capital costs are quite high is your point. And it is a stunning fact that it's a core fact of the world economy that the rich countries today borrow even 30 years at 1% interest basically zero if you take into account inflation or even negative whereas the poor countries and emerging economies might pay 5% or 8% or not be able to borrow anything for 30 years. So the world's completely divided in terms of access to capital but we need the emerging economies which are the ones most in need of capital and growth and electrification to be able to electrify. So are you seeing any innovations being proposed because even the $100 billion a year that the developed countries so-called the high-income countries had promised to developing countries for climate financing has not even materialized and that's not even a big number we know compared to the numbers you showed us which are trillions of dollars. I'd like to jump in with two things here Jeff if you allow me first I know you've been working on access to energy for many, many years and we have been actually tracking access to electricity how it's going in the world since the year 2000 and one of the US playing very eloquently what's happening actually with the cost of capital and the implications for the choice of technologies currently what's happening at the same time exactly for the reason you mentioned the fact that difficulty of certain countries to go and access capital is that we were very happy since 2013 to actually see the number of people without access to electricity in sub-Saharan Africa to go down. And that's why it was happening because we saw Kenya Ghana number of countries pushing not only electrification to the grids but off grid solutions being mostly solar big boom it was going extremely well last year came to a halt we're actually seeing the number of people without access to electricity starting to go up again which for me this is a very clear sign that you're seeing a very big divide so when we're going to the table and you're actually talking to people that they're not even as they were before they're actually getting worse than we were before they're seeing 30 to 50 million people that have actually access to electricity not being able to pay it anymore because of the consequences of COVID so I think there is a real alert that we should really wake up to what's happening in the emerging world in the emerging world today so the decarbonization imperative that we are living on a daily basis is actually being more than compounded by the necessity of giving basic needs that is being actually not materializing and even going slower than it was going in the previous year so this would be the first thing second there is a lot of discussion about the 100 billion which I think is more of course it's about money but it's also about trust so is reconnecting a discussion of trust but when we look at the reality of life our we showed a slide earlier what we will need by 2030 is in the order of the trillions of dollars it's not billions of dollars so we cannot think that the make of break of the financing of the clean energy transition is going to be on the 100 billion the 100 billion will be necessary for an exercise of trust but the reality is that we will need the private sector to come in and come in strongly to actually fill a large portion of the gap in all our simulations without private sector money flowing massively in emerging economies this is impossible we need all the banks multilateral banks development banks to come in with innovative solutions to make sure that we bring down the cost of capital for these low carbon technologies to very, very low level and we need to find and be innovative very quickly to make sure that we not only mobilize the capital from the banks but that those have very, very, very high leverage on private sector money it has happened we have seen it in many places in Asia Vietnam has done something quite incredible with solar we have seen a number of exceptionally good situation but we need to scale it at a much larger level I think the development bank are gonna play an incredibly important role and should really be laser focused on financing the clean energy transition in emerging economies I agree wholeheartedly with you and I even hear in the air a topic for next year's Pathbreaking Report by IEA on energy finance something I would love to work together with you on could I ask you in closing since we're reaching unfortunately the end of a very rich half hour together for the hard sectors say aviation or ocean shipping where we can see pathways maybe hydrogen or something else do you think that we need a more orderly and a more directed process to accelerate the R&D or the demonstration or somehow to push harder and faster on the solutions that we're gonna need after 2030 institutionally is there some way or is this gonna happen because these industries know that they need to do it is that gonna be enough? It's a difficult question and I think that these industry will magically just do it by themselves and it's probably the two areas where most of the innovation will need to happen I think iron and steel and cement are the other two that will require a lot of innovation going forward I think internationally coordinated action on those two sectors are gonna be essential to see the type of decoupling between the activity post COVID that we are expecting with the resume so we are currently in a moment where the aviation sector is still well below in terms of emission where we would be if there hadn't been a COVID crisis so we should expect a rebound a very strong rebound coming in the next year or so so certainly in short and compact we will need those sectors to come together with some kind of strong international coordination to see the type of innovation and the technologies talk turnover that this roadmap implies Let me close again by thanking you for this path breaking report it's really important not only because it's an excellent report really superbly done and congratulations to you and the team it's also extremely important because it becomes a basis for building a full global understanding the fact that it is by the IEA by our international energy agency is so important because it helps everybody to say here is the benchmark for us and again these benchmarks that you've laid out no new oil and gas no new coal plants by such and such date by 2035 overall net zero electricity and so on I think we should do everything we can to get these into every kind of official framework G7 G20 COP26 because that helps to set the path reduces the uncertainty reduces the bickering reduces the excuses and says we're on it this is the path we can get to net zero time is short for the world unfortunately Laura time is short for us right now we're going to turn to finance and to your compatriot in solving this puzzle of emerging and developing country finance and so we'll hope that in the next half hour we emerge with the some solutions to the financing puzzle that you raised thank you so much for being with us congratulations. Thank you, thank you. See you soon and Laura and I'll turn it back over to you. Yes, please allow me to also add my thanks to Dr. Coatsie for joining us today. We're very excited to be moving on to our next session a discussion on the interconnected challenges of recovery climate change and inequality with the managing director of the IMF Dr. Kristalina Georgieva. Just before we start that we have a wonderful video from our partners on this event. This event is organized in partnership with the Kappachinsky development lectures the European Commission and UNDP and we have a video from Jutta Erpland-Nayen the European Commissioner for International Partnerships. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank Columbia University and the United Nations Development Program for hosting our Kappachinsky development lecture series. I am especially pleased that today's event is part of the ninth annual International Conference on Sustainable Development. The theme, research for impact an inclusive and sustainable planet is near to my heart. A year and a half ago skeptics doubted that we could develop a vaccine against COVID-19 within less than 10 years. It took less than one year. The pandemic has reminded humankind of our fragility but also of the power of human to adapt, to invent. Our speaker today, my dear Kristalina Georgieva is no stranger to visionary responses. Whether at the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or the European Commission, she has tackled the challenges of sustainable development with fresh ideas. She continues to press for equity today from the IMF and is a strong ally of the EU. Dear friends, the European Union works for a sustainable and inclusive future for all. This is at the heart of our partnerships also with the IMF. In response to the pandemic, Team Europe mobilized 46 billion euros to support partner countries. We continue to work with our partners in advancing vaccine and medicine manufacturing. We have also launched global initiatives and partnerships to address climate change, tackle the digital divide and reinvigorate multilateralism. And together, we will scale up the sustainable finance. Mrs. Georgieva will be accompanied by Jeffrey Sacks, whom I thank for his availability today and good past cooperation. Colleagues, together we can build a brighter future. I hope the following conversation inspires you. And over to you again, Jeff, to begin our wonderful session with Dr. Georgieva. Thank you very much. I know everyone's gonna be inspired. Crystalina, we're thrilled that you're with us and absolutely thrilled that you're giving the Kapoczynski lectures, which as you know, is a partnership with the European Union and the European Commission, which you have also helped to lead in your absolutely illustrious and pathbreaking career. Crystalina Georgieva is the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and she has been in that position since October 1, 2019, in other words, arriving just in time for a pandemic, which was not exactly what was anticipated on October 1, 2019. Before that, Crystalina was a leader of the World Bank. And before that was vice president of the European Commission. And before that was in countless senior responsibilities in international finance and at the World Bank as vice president for many important matters. And I can say there's no one in the world that is doing more than Crystalina in solving the problems of finance that we have been discussing with Laura Cozy just in the first half hour, the incredible gap, really hard to understand economically between the overflowing credit and capital at almost no cost or negative interest rates available to the rich countries and the often punishing or closed windows for the poorest countries that are most desperately in need of capital. And it's not simply that they're riskier. It's that the countries that print the international currencies have a special advantage. And how to overcome this has been part of Crystalina's urgent role since October, 2019. We're to talk about three issues, recovery, climate change and inequality, but we're not quite at the recovery phase yet. We're still in the COVID pandemic phase. And I wonder if you could, I'd like you to help people to understand what has been the financial emergency during the COVID period and still without the vaccine coverage. What is the urgent financing right now? Then I hope we'll turn to recovery because we hope we'll get there and talk about climate change and global inequality. Thank you very much, Jeff. Great to be speaking with you today. And I want to thank the commissioner for the introduction she gave me. It is very important to recognize that what she said about the contribution of science, not only for the health of people, but for the economy has to be recognized. So where are we today? Because of two things, because of the arrival of vaccines with such an incredible speed and because of the massive support provided by central banks, by finance authorities, we are in recovery from the depth of the crisis we experienced last year. But this recovery is uneven and it remains somewhat uncertain. It looks a little bit like yo-yo. We open the economy moves and then we have to restrict activities and the economy slows down. What is important to recognize is that in this recovery, there is a very dangerous divergence between countries that have access to vaccines, unlimited and have capacity to support their economies and countries that do not. On the vaccine front, as of mid-September, we have about 65% of the population in high-income countries vaccinated at least with one dose, whereas in the low-income countries it is around 2%. It's a dramatic difference. In terms of economic support, advanced economies from January 21, since the beginning of this year, have provided $2.6 trillion of extra pandemic-related measures, whereas in the low-income countries, in the emerging markets, minus the better-performing emerging markets, the amount is $200 billion, $2.6 trillion, $200 billion. And of course that translates into the growth prospects of these groups of countries. We are expecting to see advanced economies and some well-performing emerging markets doing well this year. We are projecting around plus-minus 6% growth this year, but the composition of this 6% continues to change and it is not in favor of developing countries. In other words, the prospects for recovery for developing countries have more shadows than the prospects of advanced economies. Now, if on top of it, we experience a asymmetric inflation and we are already seeing it in some emerging market economies, inflation is pressing central banks to raise interest rates, then it can become a double blow on their prospects to grow. And if in some advanced economies, especially in the United States, the recovery, which is a good thing because it has positive spillover, but if the recovery leads to faster tightening and financial conditions, there could be an additional blow to countries with high level, especially of dollar denominated debt. And this is, so my main message here is that, this is where we are, we need not be there. Vaccinating the world is a solvable problem. We are actually producing enough vaccines for everybody, but we are not yet distributing vaccines in a way that would provide the ground for accelerating the recovery. And I'm very pleased to see that more attention is being paid to that, more attention is being paid to increase vaccine production, more attention is being paid to where these vaccines go and how the countries are able to use them once they arrive effectively. I think it's really notable and important to emphasize, tomorrow President Biden is hosting a vaccine summit and this could be a breakthrough if the US and the other vaccine producing countries, China, Russia, UK, European Union, India all participate. And I hope all give the responsibility, if I may put it on you and the UN system to say, look, you provide the doses, we'll make sure that these get into the arms, even in the poorest countries because that's what the UN can do together with the IMF because the IMF can ensure there's a financing flow. I'll ask you to say something about the new SDR allocation and how it could play a role in this emergency moment, but we need the global cooperation because even if the vaccines are there, they're not gonna get to the poor people unless there's a system. And the only place that there's a system is the UN system. But the UN hasn't been able to get the vaccines because it's been basically taken by the rich countries up until now. But I wanted to highlight a point you mentioned that I think is interesting. I would have expected a much worse crash-up financially than occurred. In fact, not only was there not a crash-up stock market soared in the last two years. And the reason was that like the vaccine development that came very fast, the other piece of good news is that there was global cooperation on financing, notably starting around March 2020, a few weeks into the pandemic, the central banks and the IMF got together and said we will not have a financial crisis come out of this. Maybe you could describe a little bit more because I think people should understand that wasn't an automatic at the moment. I thought there would be a worse financial crisis than occurred, but there was this response and it's a successful policy response. I could not agree with you more. I don't think we have given enough credit to central bankers and also to finance ministries. What we did was we ripped off the benefit of many years of creating cooperation at the level of finance ministers and central bankers. The IMF is the natural place for it. We had multiple emergency meetings of the IMFC, the International Monetary and Finance Committee with the objective to consolidate first our analysis of the nature of this crisis. We did this really fast, Jeff, and I'm very proud of the contribution the staff of the IMF made. It is a crisis like no other in which we tell producers to not produce, don't go to work, and we tell consumers to not go to markets. And therefore the response had to be exactly what it was. Massive monetary policy and financial support. And done in a coordinated manner. I say bravo to all those who have tirelessly communicated to make sure that not only they are out for the rescue of their businesses and households, but they do it in coordinated fashion. So the impact for the global economy is as it was. We projected a much more severe recession. It was still the worst recession in peacetime since the Great Depression, but it was much less severe because of these measures. And especially with the arrival of vaccines and the fact we learn how to function with the pandemic still around us, we are now seeing a recovery, but let's not fool ourselves. It is not yet where it should be. We risk to lose $9 trillion in output between now and 2025 if we don't accelerate vaccinating the world. And this is why I am so, so thrilled to see that tomorrow President Biden is bringing everybody on a COVID summit. And it is actually reinforcing something that the IMF together with the WHO, the World Bank and WTO has been advocating for, which is vaccinate up to, we were saying 60% by mid next year. I understand the summit will go for 70% by end of 2022. And do so in a way that is as impactful across the world as possible. Let's not forget, we don't stop the pandemic, we leave fertile ground for more mutations and more risks even for the advanced economies where vaccinations have advanced. I think by the way, I wanna underscore something you said also for everybody and really important. You said that one of the things that happened was analysis of the crisis and I think it's not easy for a lot of people to recognize how important the international institutions are for analytics because politicians within a country are arguing about power and politics. They're not doing the analysis, it's regrettable but so much of what we know and what we know we need to do say the IPCC report, which tells us why we need to get to net zero or the International Energy Agency report, which tells us how to get to net zero or the IMF staff work that you talked about which said we must respond to this crisis in the following way, could not have been done at the national level and would not have been done and certainly not in 193 countries. And so I like people who appreciate we cannot put a step in front of the other without the multilateral system. And that is not, you know, since the politicians grab the screen nationally or the social media, the real work that's getting done is not understood properly. And therefore undervalued, even denigrated when it's politically convenient for one politician or another to blame the international system. But I'd like to underscore that point of the analysis that was done because where else is this gonna be done after all? Yes, I could not agree more with that. And that has to continue. And I want to, you asked about the special drawing rights. I want to say a word about that. But then also on how we need to deploy understanding the interconnectivity in the economy to win the fight against climate change, to win the fight against inequality. On the special drawing rights, they're really a demonstration of international action at the time of crisis. What they are is using the strength of the collective of 190 members of the IMF to create reserves that are distributed to everybody, but they're most useful for the countries that are in weak position in this crisis. 650 billion dollars is a shot in the arm that helps countries have the fiscal space for vaccines, have the fiscal space to inject more into the recovery. They're above all a proof that we are in this together, we can only get out of it together. And now we are working on ways in which we can amplify the impact of the 650 billion by getting countries in strong positions to own land some of their SDRs so they can be deployed where they need it the most. But let me say looking into the future, what we prioritize from an analytic standpoint at the IMF. First, we prioritize economic policy that can help countries take advantage of this structural transformation that is already underway towards the new digital economy and towards the new climate economy. What we want is to use the unique strength of the IMF that is an institution engaging regularly with its members on a country by country basis and also on a global level to identify policy priorities and then support the right policy actions. It is the technical term is for those who know is article four consultations. What it is is a space to make sure that everybody can benefit from learning from other places. And when we do that, what we see so clearly is that we cannot afford to miss any country taking this turn. Cannot be that we have developing countries falling behind on digitalization and on low-carbon climate resilient future. I want to make one pitch here and it is that when we think about climate and when we think about inequality, these two things have to be put together because climate action can create fertile ground to also unaddress inequality within countries and across countries. I'm mindful of time and I want to be sure that we have the time for me to answer your questions. No, thank you and very clear. And I think the overarching question and the puzzle for me also as a practicing economist of international finance is this divide of access to capital is probably the most important structural divide actually between the rich and the poor countries right now. The poor countries need capital but they pay a huge premium to get it. The rich countries, which also need capital but not the way the poor countries need it are paying historically low rates. To some extent, yes, it may be poor countries are riskier in some sense, but it does seem that it's deeper than that. Risky countries within a currency union of Eurozone or others borrow more easily. It seems that there is a privilege of being the dollar printer in the world. There is a privilege of having the European central bank. So what structurally can we do at scale to really enable the capital for this bold digital and green recovery to be financed? The same question that Laura Cozy was posing in the first part of this hour. Yep. How shall we proceed on that? Well, I have three parts of my answer. The first part is that there has been a lot done to create vehicles for financing in developing countries through multilateral development banks, through national development banks and also through the IMF. It is paramount that we work together and we look at ways in which we can massively increase the power, the impact of this financing by securing a coordinated approach to deploying this money. Just look at the IMF. We have about $1 trillion lending capacity of which 280 billion is being used. In other words, we have a lot of spare capacity. We have the $650 billion SDRs that has been just deployed. We are working on creating more on lending capacity on concessional terms, on more concessional terms through this on lending of SDRs I spoke about. If all of us look at deploying existing financial resources on scale in coordinated manner, we would make a big difference. And I want to praise the Agents-Praz de Development, Rémy Rieu, who has created the coalition of national development banks that is linked to development finance. And I believe we would see very positive outcome of the work he has steered and is now really taking off. Secondly, we have to recognize that to have capital flow into a country, it is important for the country to have rural flow, transparency in governments, good investment conditions. And that continues to be at the heart of the work of the IMF. We want to make countries more trustworthy for investment by working with them on their own desires to have good policies in place and to have strong institutions, vibrant institutions in place. Look at this crisis, Jeff. Countries that were in with strong fundamentals hit by the pandemic, which stood that hit much better than countries with weak fundamentals. So this is not new, but it remains very, very important. And number three, make sure that there are the right policy priorities for investment, that we are not creating the economy of yesterday, but we are creating the economy of tomorrow. This is where the work Laura is doing is so important. We need to have that vision foresight for the future. And then as you said, we need the multilateral institutions United Nations to be there for countries to help them make every penny count for their future. One thing I agree with all of that wholeheartedly, I would add one component that has always been tricky, but probably is more urgent than ever, and with some progress. And that is a global tax reform and administration so that developing countries can actually collect money from multinational companies and not have it all be transferred into tax havens. And I'm sure that the international institutions could really help on that as well. And there is a bright side now because we are moving towards international tax reform. I saw in the chat that somebody asked about natural capital what role this would play. So I want to say that we at the IMF are now integrating natural capital in the review of the assets that countries have, their people, their physical assets, financial resources and the incredibly highly valuable nature. And that thinking of this comprehensive holistic approach to how countries can grow, how they can benefit of that natural capital is incredibly important. One of our economists specializes in looking into how whales contribute to sinking carbon in the oceans, how elephants contribute to nature. And we have lots of people looking into ecosystem services as a generator of wealth. Let me thank you for your really unique and powerful leadership and also for all the innovations that are coming out of the IMF. The takeaway I think for all of us is how much fantastic thinking we depend on and that you're providing in the IMF is providing the International Energy Agency, the international system. We have I think a clear direction and mandate. We have to immunize the world and go green and digital and finance that in a satisfactory way. So I think the roadmap is becoming clear thanks to your work and leadership. We have a very intensive and urgent schedule ahead but I know you're gonna be leading that. Let me thank you on behalf of everybody listening and all that will hear this in the days and weeks ahead as many, many people tune into the conference proceedings. Thank you again, Kristalina for being with us. It's been a wonderful discussion and I will turn it back over to Lauren Borreto to give us our directions for the next hour. Thanks so much. Thank you, bye. Thank you, bye-bye. Thank you, Jeff. Thank you again to Dr. Kotsi and Dr. Georgieva. It was wonderful to have you. We have parallel sessions right now so I hope everybody will migrate over there to view some of our great research and academic work and we hope to see everybody back on again later today. We have the CEO of the Rockefeller Foundation, Raj Shah and the Prime Minister of Barbados later in our program today. Thank you for being with us and see you online later. Bye.