 Welcome to the session Carbon Markets, a conversation with Bill Gates, Mark Carney, Annette Nazareth, and Bill Winters. My name is Nicole Schwab. I'm the co-director of the Platform to Accelerate Nature-Based Solutions at the World Economic Forum, and I will be your moderator for this session. We are delighted to have you here with us for the launch of the final recommendations of the Task Force for Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets. This Task Force was launched in the fall of 2020 to answer the following critical question. How can we build well-functioning voluntary carbon markets that can support net zero and carbon negative climate goals? The group consists of 50 of the key industry experts, as well as another 150 experts in a consultation group who serve to challenge the recommendations throughout the process. We have us today to talk about voluntary carbon markets and the Task Force. We have a fantastic lineup. We have Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, and the initiator of the Task Force work. Bill Winters, Group Chief Executive of Standard Charter Bank and Task Force Chair. Annette Nazareth, Senior Counsel at Davis Polk and former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissioner and the Operating Lead of the Task Force, and Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and co-chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We will spend the next 30 minutes to dive into the recommendations of the Task Force with our panel, and if time allows, we will try to take a few questions from the audience, so please use the chat function to send us your questions and comments. And if you are watching this session on social media or the website, you can also share your reflections with the hashtag WEF21 or hashtag Davos agenda. So with that, let's go straight to the heart of the matter and let me turn to you, Mark. What is the role of offsets in the context of a 1.5 degree climate ambition? Well, thank you, Nicole, and let me compliment the leaders of this Task Force. It's a remarkable achievement. First thing to say is that this carbon budget is very precious on business as usual. So pre-pandemic emissions, we have less than a decade of a carbon budget to remain within 1.5 degree temperature increases. So it is a limited carbon budget. And in that context, really a voluntary carbon offset market does four things. The first, it's complementary. I underscore that complementary to companies' efforts to reduce absolute emissions. Companies' responsibility, first and foremost, is to reduce their absolute emissions. And as the report says, they need to first reduce then report, including net zero plans. I'm sure we'll get into the specifics of that, and then only then look to offset. The second thing that this does is it is catalytic. It's catalytic not for renewable projects in many advanced economies where the economics are absolutely clear. They are profitable and they will be driven, but they're catalytic for projects that many of which are emerging in developing economies where the economics are not yet quite there. And this can help tip the balance for those projects to come in. These offsets can also be catalytic as part of helping the economics of absolutely essential breakthrough technologies that need to happen for us to ultimately get to net zero. And I'm sure that will come up more clearly because Bill Gates has led on those technologies. The third thing is this market is cross-border. This market is being driven, it's a voluntary market, but it's being driven by companies making these net zero commitments. Most of those companies, the vast majority of those companies are in the G7 advanced economies, so-called advanced economies, they will be looking for a high-quality, high-integrity offsets, and most of those offsets will come from emerging and developing economies. So this is a potentially huge cross-border flow. And then the last thing, and I'll hand back to you, Nicole, is that this market has the potential, again, properly structured to have enormous co-benefits, co-benefits for biodiversity, co-benefits for other SDGs, although rooted in a high-integrity, highly credible, open, transparent carbon offset market. Thank you, Mark. Let me turn to you, Annette. So we understand the importance of getting to net zero, but the voluntary carbon markets are not new. However, until now they haven't achieved scale. Can you tell us what is different about this initiative and how it is going to help us achieve the Paris Commission? Sure. Thanks, Nicole. Well, you're correct that there is a voluntary market that is already operational, and it has made strikes in terms of credit integrity and transparency and efficiency since its earliest days. That said, from experience, we know that there are structural challenges that need to be addressed. In our blueprint, we set out six topics for action with 20 underlying recommendations that we believe will materially enhance the market to make it more robust and transparent and further increase the quality and environmental integrity of carbon credits and their use. Each of these topics for action and recommendations are important levers, but to me, the three most important elements that will really help us achieve our goals are quality, government, governance, and legitimacy. Quality comes through the development of a set of core carbon principles, which we refer to as the CCP's and additional attributes. These principles set out threshold quality criteria to which a carbon credit and the supporting standards and methodologies should adhere. This is a foundational step to ensure quality and also performing the basis for reference contracts. Reference contracts will in turn drive liquidity and price transparency and allow more high quality projects to be financed. The second element, governance, is critical. We have to get a governance body in place to oversee the CCP's. This should include embedding transparency, standard setting and oversight of verification of emissions reductions from projects. It will also include ensuring projects boost biodiversity and carbon capture while respecting community and land rights. And beyond overseeing credit level integrity, a governance body should oversee participant level and process level integrity as well. And finally, legitimacy. We focused on developing a strong and legitimate demand signal. Nothing will happen unless demand is in place. But having said that, organizations need guidance and clear standards on when offsetting is legitimate. We need to see transparent climate commitments from firms that include how much offsetting they plan to do in the coming years. Companies should publicly disclose commitments, detailed transition plans and annual progress against these plans to decarbonize operations and value chains. Industry consortia similar to Corsia for other heavy industry sectors can also move the needle significantly. And clear and aligned narrative on offsets and what claims corporates can make will also help drive demand. So again, quality, governance and legitimacy are crucial drivers and I think that those will animate our work in the coming days. Thank you, Annette. So quality, governance, legitimacy, let me turn to you, Bill Winchers. Why aren't we doing this already? What problems then in the way and how does the report address these? Now, I've been around the voluntary carbon markets for probably 30 years and at various points got very excited about the prospect of this market really taking off. But as Mark and Annette Bo said, it didn't. It's there, but it's nowhere near as robust as it needs to be to get us to net zero by 2050, which is something that already 1500 corporations have committed to. I guess that the majority of businesses in the world will commit to that. We've seen countries committing to net zero. But we know that the real carbon mitigation and the carbon reduction is coming from businesses, overwhelmingly from businesses. Of course, individuals and consumers can contribute as well. What do we need to do to get this market properly scaled up? But I think that the first thing that's changed fundamentally is that we've made these commitments. The fact that net zero is even a term, not just a term but used by 1500 corporations already. And I guess after this week, it will be many more. If we refer back to letters that are coming from the owners of many of these businesses, I'm thinking specifically about the letter from BlackRock just this week that makes clear that every corporation that in their portfolio will need to have a very clear plan to get to net zero. And in those plans, they'll be very clear that you must start with reductions. And this is really Mark's very first point. Every business has to start in the bulk of the migration to net zero is going to have to be improving our own carbon intensity, reducing our own emissions. That's recommendation number one in our task force and not something that we spend a lot of time on because we're focused on the voluntary market. But clearly, reduction has to be first and foremost. But we also know that it'd be very difficult for many businesses to get all the way to net zero, much less carbon negative as Microsoft has committed without tapping into the offset market. Now, why offsets? Offsets are the most convenient and efficient way to migrate the tens of billions of dollars that need to move from the hands of people like my bank, Senator Carter bank into the hands of the people that can actually remove carbon from the environment or structurally reduce carbon in the environment in the most efficient way. In addition, we have the tremendous benefit of creating price transparency, which has all sorts of other benefits, not least in terms of making clear to those of us that are polluting in any way what the cost of that pollution is. So what's different this time? Number one, we've got these these net zero commitments that have been made. Number two, the stakeholders that are urging us to make these commitments, our owners, our employees, our clients, are intending to hold us strictly to account. So this idea that you could buy an offset that was occasionally referred to as a greenwashing contract, it's simply not going to work. As Annette went through, we spent the last six months developing the standards and the standards setting bodies, the governance oversight, to make sure that we are using the latest and best technology instruments and with the right level of transparency to be absolutely certain that these carbon offsets or carbon credits that are being created are legitimate, that they're permanent. So it's not here today and gone tomorrow when the forest burns or the tree has got down. Tracking leakage, so leakage outside of the project in terms of gradual diminution of the affectedness and making sure that these projects are additional, additional meaning these are projects that wouldn't have happened, but for the fact that there was a carbon benefit to the to the climate. So these are the steps that we've taken. As Annette said, 20 recommendations, lumped under six key themes, with 200 participants very actively involved. What we're coming out with today, and I hope everybody gets a chance to read it, is 17 page executive summary, easy read, you can definitely get through that, 139 page report, you've got to put a bit of time into. But the opportunity for all of us is to take this framework that we put out today and to convert that into an implementable action plan this year so that we can start to see the real benefits of scaling up this market immediately. Because without that, we will not get to net neutral carbon net zero in 2050. Thank you, Bill. Let me now turn to you, Bill Gates, and you are also the founder of Breakthrough Energy. Bill Winters just mentioned technology, and we know that nature based solutions are going to be a critical part of the solution to achieving net zero. But what else is needed? Well, I'd say the good news is that a lot of companies are taking carbon into account as they make decisions. They have some per tonne hurdle price, and they are going to stay away from investments that are generating carbon because of that price signal. The big step, the next step there is getting people to monetize those things and put that money into things that are provably have an impact. And a number of companies now are willing to do that. Now, some of these offsets are very complicated. You know, trees, for example, have a 40 year lifetime on average. So to match the carbon residency time, you'd have to replant 250 times. And trees generally grow where there's good soil and good water. And so the number of places where you can do those 250 plantings is very, very small. So, you know, over time, the understanding and the quality of these efforts will go up. You know, as I went to do offsets for myself personally, you know, long term offsets, the prices were about $400 a ton. You know, that's very, very high. And everything we think of here, it's 51 billion tons of emissions. And so everything has to be considered as a percentage of that. For a company that's a electric utility, a steel company, a cement company, any sort of industrial thing, you know, you see the increase in price that they'd have to have is still significant. So innovation is going to be key to this as we do the carbon markets in parallel with funding the innovation activities. Thank you. Let me turn back to you, Mark. Some say that offset markets are just greenwashing and that it lets companies off the hook, allowing them to buy their way out of doing anything. What would you say to that? Well, I categorically reject it. And I think the part of this is putting companies on the hook, this process that Bill Winner has referenced, you know, we have 1500 of the world's largest companies are now in a position where they're making these commitments. All of a sudden, once you're in making those commitments and participating in the type of offset market that this report recommends, it's not just a commitment. It's a commitment which is has a net zero plan, which is rooted in science based targets, if those are available for your sector and as those watching will know, that is spreading across the sector. So not just a plan, not something you've written on the back of an applicant, one rooted in science based target, annual reporting requirements. That's one of the recommendations in terms of your absolute reductions. And then alongside that, if you are using offsets, well, offsets that come from a market that has the type of transparency and integrity that Annette and Bill have Bill Winners have outlined. But let me just reemphasize. So there's those elements, it's it's it brings companies into a it's part of what brings companies into a formal system. And by the way, all stakeholders around those companies will be scrutinizing and have the information they need to scrutinize in terms of absolute reductions and those offsets. But just if I can make one last adjacent point, if I will, which I started with, which is this is about preserving or conserving maximizing the use of a very limited carbon budget. And what are we supposed to be doing during that time? We need to do two big things. One, we need to turn over the capital stock for proven economic technologies like existing renewables that solar wind and others to get emissions absolute emissions down. And secondly, we need to put big money and a lot of focus and a lot of smart people around the type of breakthrough technologies that we need ultimately to get to absolute zero whether around hydrogen direct air capture or sustainable jet fuels. And so we need we need all of that, which is why I started with this is complimentary is one piece of the puzzle. But we do need this market. Thank you, Mark. Annette, I know that you went through a public consultation. So what what did the public tell you in the consultation? And what were some of the other concerns that came up? And how did those inform what you will do next? Thanks for that question. You know, we've been very fortunate to have a very broad engagement for the task forces efforts. Of course, we benefited from the work of a very engaged task force itself with the members representing the broad cross section of the value chain. But we also had very valuable input from our consultation group, which I believe we mentioned before, which was subject to comp composed of subject matter experts from over 120 institutions. So we took all that input. And then we put out a draft report during our consultation process. And we were very pleased to receive over 160 responses during that consultation period. The reception to the report has overall been really quite positive with 73% endorsing the blueprint and 88% agreeing with the need to implement the six topics for action. So, you know, the full debrief of the feedback can be found in the report itself. But some key takeaways for me were on credit quality and governance and reference contracts. On credit quality, we received feedback from across the value chain that solving the issue on quality, including permanence, leakage and additionality, which Bill Winters mentioned before has been highlighted as a top reason for getting mass adoption. On governance, we had 77% agreement for stronger governance for all identified governance needs. And for reference contracts, respondents were in favor of the development of standardized reference contracts, including over 60% of the buyers who responded who would commit to purchasing through such contracts in the future. So concretely, this input led us to the conclusion that we need to address a few additional steps. First, to drive up quality, we need to get one level deeper on the CCPs, which includes designing specific guardrails per project. For example, renewables only in least developed countries. And to review historic credits to ensure that they would meet the high quality criteria of the CCPs. On the governance process, we have to get more specific on the roles and responsibilities and help propose a way forward for its establishment. And on reference contracts, the task force can help develop the contract templates that will be used by market participants to trade. So again, overall, I think we had a very productive and informative consultation process. And it's certainly going to inform our work going forward. Thank you, Annette. Bill Gates, I have a second question for you. How do you see the role of private sector climate commitments to drive the scaling up of voluntary carbon markets? And what is the risk of getting this wrong? Well, I think the way forward here is to connect these private sector payments to innovation. If you just have some wealthy companies that aren't in the industrial sectors, where the extra green cost would make their products non-competitive, if they're just dealing with their portion, it's a very small percentage. On the other hand, if you're taking this offset money and you're bootstrapping the markets for the difficult products like green cement, green steel, green aviation fuel, then you can start the learning curve. And as you get that volume and learning curve, then these premiums can come down. Because after all, to be at zero by 2050, all the products that middle income countries buy for shelter and lighting and transport are going to have to come at such a small premium that they're willing to shift all their purchasing. And so taking the lesson from solar energy, where country policies drove up those volumes and the prices came down, and now shifting that to the hard areas, including industrial and things like green hydrogen, if we can take this money and start those learning curves, and so we're driving up the volume and causing success and more innovation to get those premiums down, then I see these voluntary carbon markets and the acceleration of innovation through the marketplace as really coming together and giving us that chance of getting to zero. Thank you. Last question to you, Bill Winters, before we turn to questions from the audience. What are the next steps and how will the task force strive for fairer representation? Good question. We spend a lot of time thinking about representation, and I mentioned that the 50 member core task force for another 120 people in a consultation group, and many others that were providing advice or perspectives, including 160 responses we got to the consultation paper, but there's an overweight in the task force and the consultation group in the developed markets. So we have a good representation from Indonesia, from China, from Latin America, but not enough. And when we look at the carbon equation in the world, something like 90% of the practical major-based solutions that the target areas are sitting in developing markets, whereas on the flip side, something like 90% of the natural offset buyers, at least so far, are coming in developed markets. So we wanted to make sure that we balance that out so that we really have both sides of the market represented in the efforts as we get into finalizing the implementation plans to take this framework and put it into reality. Some have said that the carbon offset market will relate to a result in a meaningful transfer of wealth from the developed to the developing economies. There's clearly some truth to that. We know that the developed economies are at, certainly in Europe, they're well ahead in terms of establishing infrastructure and also mindset. And we know that the developing markets, number one, are most exposed to the effects of climate change, but also can have the most important marginal impact from here in terms of improving their emission efficiency. So clearly, the key for us is to have this market be as inclusive as we possibly can, and we want to make sure that we bet that down during the implementation phase. So next steps, we obviously are beginning today with the next round of stakeholder engagement. We had really good, strong, robust feedback after the consultation document. These issues are not without controversy. I mean, there are people that have focused on this market for years, and Nicole, your very first question was, why now, and why hasn't it happened before? The reason is it's tough, and we've had to change some things, and the world has had to move on. Now we need to bet that down and take the controversy and resolve it. I think we have a reasonable shot at getting something close to consensus, but there may be some naysayers and we'll want to make sure that we understand those concerns and factor those into our plans. Second is to get the governance frameworks in place. So we've made recommendations for what the governance should cover. Now we need to actually create the governance body that can, in many ways, be the self-regulating organization for this market and can address the legitimacy and quality issues that you talked about. We need to get the standards agreed, both for the core carbon contract or the core carbon principles, as Annette mentioned, but also for the nature of transactions that are happening off outside of the core standards. We'll continue to work on addressing the remaining issues around the integrity of the carbon market, the legitimacy of the market, making sure that we've got the latest and best technologies and capabilities to track the quality of these instruments. That work has already begun, of course, but we'll begin now in earnest for the broader population now that our report is out. And we urge the most inclusive possible set of interactions with everyone in this community that all has the same shared interest to get to net zero by 2050. Thank you, Bill. So you mentioned a number of controversies, and I would like to now turn to the questions from the audience. And I would like to start with a question from Peter Becker from WBCSD. And his question is, in parts of the NGO community, there is a fierce rather ideological debate underway about refusing the use of offsets to get to net zero. How does the report and the work of the task force help us to break through towards a more pragmatic approach? Who would they like to take this question? Mark, would you like to take this one? Yeah, well, why don't I start and colleagues can jump in. I think the first thing is something we were talking about earlier, which is, I mean, obviously, having a legitimate market, a high integrity market where the offset is the offset and things such as the point Bill Gates made about the role of reforestation over the lifecycle of reforestation and being absolutely clear about the transitory nature of that form of offset. That's essential, and that gets clear first point. Second point, differentiation when it's necessary in types of credits. So either on exchange trader to OTC credits, so it's clear what's being used and the clarity that comes from being in company accounts. Because remember, ultimately, these offsets, and this is one of the core recommendations, not just of this task force, but of the overall finance process is we want climate disclosure in companies main accounts. So it has that level of integrity, and CEOs and CFOs don't sign off company accounts unless they know that it's real, either on the profit side or on the offset side. But then the process point, this would be my last one, but it's a critical one. And part of this will be finally nailed down with the governance body and the final terms of the market. But there's some leading sense here in terms of the principles in the report, which is if you're going to be participating in this market as a buyer, you can't just show up and buy a few offsets and put them in your window and feel good about yourself. No, you actually have to have a comprehensive net zero plan. And by the way, there are 1500 companies with net zero plans. Not all of those plans are comprehensive net zero plans, which would meet the standards of those markets today. This will help ensure that those are the case and then that number increases. And then also what other requirements would be, will there be for those companies that would include the annual reporting on the plan, the market, the relative contribution. So all of that is a way to enhance the legitimacy of this activity. My last point, though, was my first point, which and Bill Winters said this, which is we're all looking for the same objective. We're all trying to get to net zero. We need to maximize our possibility of getting to net zero, our probability of getting to net zero. And this is part of the answer, only part of the answer. And it maximizes the ability to turn over the capital stock as quickly as possible, and to make the kind of innovations that Bill Gates was talking about a moment ago. Thank you. Would anybody like to add something? Yes, Bill Winters. I think some of that perfectly. But I think clearly at the heart of this question is a concern that the all sets that are created in the first place, we're never going to deliver the benefits that we're hoped for, or that they're slippage after the original agreement. And when you read through our Task Force recommendations, you'll see that we try to address those questions very directly, both at the outset and then over the life of the project. But maybe the thing I take most comfort in is, and this is getting back to what's different this time around, think about the number of people that are watching this time who weren't watching before. Our owners are watching. Our regulators, if you're in regulated industries, are watching. As Mark says, to the extent that some of these commitments make it into financial reporting, you got auditors who are watching. You got NGOs who are watching. And if you have an orchestrated market, that these credits eventually are being delivered into an exchange, and somebody's on the other side of every one of those trades, and they're watching very, very carefully. And like every other market that we've seen that's managed to get to critical mass, the best way to make sure that people don't cheat is to have lots of eyes on the process from end to end with complete transparency. So at the very heart of our recommendations is finding ways to make that transparency very evident at every stage of the process. I think if we get that, the confidence that these credits are legitimate, not just now, but through the life of the projects will soar. Thank you, Bill. I'd like to bring in a couple of other questions. So this one on a slightly different angle is a question from Jules Quartenhorst, RMI. And his question is, the focus of the report is the market for offsets. But as Bill Gates highlighted, we need to actually establish the pricing of the carbon attribute in the real economy to drive innovation and create the solutions for hard to evade sectors. Do you see the possibility to expand the voluntary carbon carbon market scale up move in that direction? Would anybody like, yes, Bill Gates, please. I think some of the best money ever spent on climate was what Germany and Japan did buying solar panels when they were still being sold at a high premium cost, which I call the green premium. And so companies willingness to fund activity, we need to connect that to the innovation cycle. Because after all, when if a green product is very high priced, there's no market for it. But if you drive that volume up, then that price delta can come down. And so I do think that really proving to people that the quality of these offsets is strong, that's over the next few years, we'll do better and better than that. But the other is the idea of this catalytic impact and getting some of this money to go into taking the tough, the hard parts, the high green premium parts, and getting those on the learning curve and getting companies that do that, that, you know, buy all their buildings with green cement, green steel, and bootstrap like solar panels, we want to give credit to those companies, because that learning curve is the only way that you get the entire market for those products to shift to green. Thank you. Just to chime in, it's clear in our report that Bill's enthusiasm for this angle is infectious. And we all agree that it's critical that we find ways for the voluntary carbon market to help support these frontier technologies. So that's, it's a central tenant. Now, do we have all the details of that workout? No, we don't. And I think we'll be one of the really important and challenging and interesting issues during the next phase of implementation is finding a way to get comfortable, but we can have the same sort of confidence in these frontier technologies that we have in some of the more established technologies where they have their own questions. But we're all committed to finding a way to do that. If I can make one quick point, which sometimes those are the frontier, it's hard for them to realize how others are behind them. So Jules, I know Jules, well, who asked the question, he's at the frontier. He understands these issues intimately in the financial sector, issues intimately in some of the technologies. Bill Gates, obviously at the frontier, some of these technologies. But one of the things that this architecture, this overall architecture does, companies having net zero plans, clarity on what is and isn't an offset, linkage of those offsets to breakthrough or catalytic technologies, is it shines a huge light on what needs to be done, not over the next few years in terms of currently economic technologies get put in place, but what issues need to be cracked and Bill Gates referenced some of them, you know, hydrogen aviation fuel as well. And that will mean brainpower, money, activity, innovation flows into that. So we get those technologies in, we maximize our probabilities, a better way to put it, that we're going to get those when we really need them. And that's why we need this as part of the overall architecture. Last point, if just to reemphasize, if I'm a company and I'm offsetting, I get to make a decision, how many of my offsets, do I just want to buy the cheapest high integrity offsets, or do I want to buy offsets that also have co-benefits, biodiversity in or co-benefits, which are buying down the green premium in some of these key technologies. And I will know which type I bought and I can disclose it and people can rely on that. That's what this market can help create. I think that's a great point, Bill, because Mark, because we, you know, what we focused on as well with the additional attributes and being able to determine, you know, in the capital markets that that's where your investment is going to go to that kind of activity is going to be within the, you know, within the remit here. And so I think it's going to, you know, as Bill Gates had really catalyzed these processes as companies decide to employ their resources for the purposes. Thank you. And I have a last question from M. Sanjayan from Conservation International. And that question is, one area of offsets, natural climate solutions, have huge potential as offsets, yet only attract 3% or so of the financing available. What does the panel's take on the role of nature-based solutions or natural climate solutions, and its potential for cross-border funds for many countries in the global south? Who would like to start? I mean, many of us start. So that's also my day job, in addition to what I'm doing on the task force. We can look at this as the problem, which it is, is $10 trillion, something like $3 trillion per year that's needed in the developing economies to get them on track to meet the commitments that we all need to make to get to net zero. Only about 10% of that is making its way into the right hands at this point. And we understand the reasons why. And that was pre-pandemic. There's a country risk premium, there's questions about the efficacy of the implementation of some of the projects, and there's a history of projects that have been botched in one stage or other of their execution. It's absolutely critical that we deliver that financing into those hands with well-structured projects. The other side of the equation is, if we're going to hit the sustainable development goals in the world, we need something like $50 trillion of capital to be deployed over the next 10 years. That's $50 trillion. And how much of that is available today? Well, most of it will become available, actually, through a combination of normal risk return activities in markets, together with government actions. So think about blended finance, where governments are helping to catalyze this flow of money from the developed markets typically into the developing markets where the bulk of the nature-based solutions are to be found. There's a role for banks to play in this. There's a role for capital markets. There's a role for governments. There's a role for multilateral institutions. But we can't wait too much longer, because, as we understand, the candle is burning at both ends right now. Thank you, Bill. We could go on. There's a lot of topics, a fascinating conversation. I would like to thank you all for your engagement and for this great panel. For those who are following on top link, we will post the links if you want to read the full report of the Task Force or the summary. And I also want to highlight that as a follow-up to the Task Force report, the World Economic Forum has issued a report looking at the critical role of nature to deliver on that zero and that we will be working to ensure high integrity, high quality nature-based solutions, which is a critical part of what we talked about today. So thank you all. You can find the recording of the session on the World Economic Forum website. And I look forward to, you know, this Task Force really gaining momentum and traction. And with all the wonderful recommendations that you laid out. Thank you.