 Good morning for some of us who are in Korea, and good evening for those that may be in Palo Alto. It's a great pleasure to speak to you today. As I saw you was saying, currently my day job is the Deputy Executive Director and Chief Investment Officer of the Green Climate Fund. What I would like to do today is to walk you through a presentation that provides you with the background of how we operate, that provides you with the main theory of change of what we would like to address with our investments, and give you a few examples, but mostly engage with Q&A from you all. So please, as I present, if you have any questions, give them ready, and I'd like to have an engaging conversation. Any questions could be asked. The idea is to have that exchange as I was saying. So I'm gonna now pull up the presentation and just see if someone gives me a thumbs up that this is visible and I'm audible, I would proceed. Thank you, Katie. So the main sort of focus of the Green Climate Fund is to be a green market accelerator. So we're here to accelerate investments and innovation in climate. I believe it goes without saying that the crisis that we are facing with climate, it's just possibly the most important challenge that humanity is facing because it compounds other potential prices. And if we look at the recent report from the IPCC, here I'm presenting a summary that somehow background has been recently confirmed by the lead scientist globally, right? And that is that the human induced global warming is changing at unprecedented ways that adaptation measures can effectively build resilience, but the financing adaptation is not yet at scale. Then there is a high likelihood of temperature rise reaching the 1.5 degrees Celsius between 2023 and 2024. And this is something that we've never seen. And this is indeed why the Paris Agreement came into place. We have also seen the climate is not just an issue related to science, it's an issue related to humans and social. And this is actually exacerbating inequities. They could really make it difficult to really transition into a just and equitable way. And then that both finance, for mitigation and adaptation must increase. It must increase in quantum. And this is why the Green Climate Fund exists because we are here to crowd in more public and private capital. So just some background in case not everyone is familiar with the Green Climate Fund, we were set up by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, the famous entity that holds the cops every year, as you know, and in 2015, we were recognized to serve the Paris Agreement as one of their financing mechanisms. So operationally, we started our transactions in 2015 when COP21 took place. We work only in developing countries. And as Toyu was mentioning, we are trying to support both mitigation to do that transition to low emission economy and also adaptation in order to hopefully provide people with more risk to them. But as we grow and we are only one of many players in the climate architecture, we would like to serve as a hub of the climate finance landscape. Today, we are the largest multilateral climate fund and we would like to be that hub of climate finance. Now, let me give you some characteristics of our operations because we have a model that I think is unique in some ways but complex as well. And this is we are country-driven, which means that the programs that we are approving are programs that have to relate to countries and have to relate to how those countries are meeting their national determined contributions or MVC. We also support countries in their policy de-risking. So we are also trying to strengthen the enabling environment of the country level. And we use what we call readiness programs to support country planning and create investment planning at countries. Our goal is that countries are able to translate their MVCs into actual investment plans with bankable projects. We are what sometimes people call capital agnostic, meaning we're a fund that could use a range of financial instruments to leverage and we are at best a core blended finance layer. So our capital is public. We get resources from contributors. Most of them are contributors from developed countries. And those contributors are, you know, replenishing the fund every four years and then we try to use that in the best way possible. We are currently in the second replenishment that we hope will help us fundraise for the 2024 to 2027 programming cycle. We are a patient capital. So we are a long-term investor. We're able to take higher risk than commercial investors and even other development investors. And this definitely distinguishes us because from a risk appetite, we are more focused on the long-term impact and the possibility of crowding in and the risking. And therefore we're able to take first-loss positions and we'll be giving a few examples in a moment. Now, on the bottom of this graph, we also are clarifying that we are an open partnership organization. So we're not making investments directly ourselves. We work through a network of entities that go through a very thorough diligence in accreditation process. And these entities vary from NGOs like Conservation International to National Governments to UN agencies like UNDP or UNEP, multilateral development banks like the World Bank or the Development Bank of Brazil, all the way to private sector entities like BNP Paribas or private equity organization like Pegasus or impact investors like Acumen. So we are working with 114 entities that have been accredited and they bring the projects to us and they execute the project at the country level. Lastly, we are mandated by the COP to keep a balance allocation between adaptation and mitigation. They would like us to keep a 50-50 balance from a grant equivalency perspective. So these are some of the characteristics of how we work. Now, our theory of change at the moment, this is based on our carrying programming. So we would like to drive change, as I mentioned, by first providing that policy de-risking and establish an enabling environment for attracting more climate solutions and climate finance. We have seen that countries have barriers that does not allow finance financial flows to come into country. So we would like to hopefully help those countries overcome some of those barriers, make it a lot easier for capital to actually flow in this much needed area. We also want to catalyze innovation at all levels. So not only innovation on technology, which we do. So we, for example, have been funding technology transfer solutions for adaptation. We recently approved a project where we are creating incubators and accelerators for climate with academic institutions in Mexico and in Ivory Coast to serve the Latin American region and the West Africa region. And we did this through GIZ, which is a German technical assistance entity. We also like innovation on business model, meaning we also like to go to projects that are really trying to innovate at the business model level. For us also is on the financial structures. So we recently approved that the board last October, a transaction where we are creating a green guarantee company. And a green guarantee company is exactly to allow countries to be able to, I'll be putting my slides in a second, to be able to access capital. So the driver of innovation is indeed something that we want to sort of do at all levels, not just on the technological side as I just mentioned. The third important column or vertical of how we operate in our model is around the blended finance. So here our goal is how do we the risk immobilize finance at scale. This is very important because we at the GCF, as I said, we have a high risk appetite and the risk statement of our board is indeed that we're here as a catalyzer, that we're here to create markets. But at the same time, we're able to ride large tickets. So sometimes we make investments that could vary from 10 million all the way to $250 million. So this allows us that sometimes we're able to do transactions that go above one or two billion dollars. We would like to now also go into what we call investment platforms where we would also be able to somehow fund the sort of proof of principle of an investment platform and mobilize hopefully resources at the 20 or 30 billion because here, as you know, the need is great. So we need to move the billions to trillions. We would like to play a role there. Lastly, we are also very keen to work at a local level. So we would like to work with the local financial institutions, national SME banks, microfinance banks, any entity that is also trying to bring their operations and provide local solutions for climate. Now, where we are in regards to our portfolio, so we have committed 12 billion dollars. So as I said, we are a young organization. We've been operating since 2015, even though we were created about 10 years ago, but from COP 21, where we did our first transaction and fast forwarded this to March, 2023, when we held our last board meeting, we committed 12 billion dollars across 216 projects. And the co-financing that we aim to attract in those transactions will bring our portfolio to a total value of 45 billion dollars. So as you can see, we have a multiplier of about one to three and with this, we are able to sort of leverage public and private capital. While this is indeed a large portfolio for a climate only fund, it's still small for the need that we have. Remember that at COP, the mandate was to mobilize 100 billion dollars a year. That was the big ask. And we represent 3% of that because we mobilized somewhere around two to three billion dollars a year. So, but we, you know, that's accounting for all the climate finance that is Paris aligned. Now, we believe that our capital does have a unique sort of catalyzer role. So while we mobilize those three billion a year, that three billion a year has that sort of multiplier effect and that high risk hopefully will be able to crowd in a lot more capital. Now, we look at our portfolio from how we are distributed so just to provide some context. There is this grant equivalency target and this is following OECD sort of KPIs. What that means is in the case of us, we would like to have a balance of 50-50 for grant equivalency. We're very close to that. At the moment, we are 51 adaptation and 49 mitigation. But if you look at the nominal value, mitigation is higher. 60% of our nominal portfolio has been allocated to mitigation and 40% to adaptation. Adaptation is harder or a newer area where we are somehow breaking ground in some of the areas, you know, resilient infrastructure, early warning systems. All of those areas are newer, nature-based solutions whereas mitigation, as you know, especially in the renewable energy is the most developed sector. Regarding the distribution across regions, we are equally distributed across Africa and Asia-Pacific at 35% in Africa and 34% in Asia-Pacific, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean at 28% and Eastern Europe is currently at 3%. Now, the COP does ask us to focus on the vulnerable and the most vulnerable is understood as countries that are considered the least developed countries, small island development states or cities in African states. So 64 of our capital, it's currently allocated to those vulnerable areas. We work both with the public sector and the private sector. At the moment, 65% of our resources are in the public sector and 35% in the private sector, but the private sector is growing and is an area that we're also putting a lot of emphasis because we believe that here is where the scaling and the crowding in could happen a lot more. From the financial instruments, we are equally split between grants and loans at 41%, but we're also increasing our private equity exposure at 10% for the moment, guarantees at 3%, we also have some resource-based payment. So as you can see, we have, I would say, quite a nice mix and this is going to continue working. Across sectors in the top, those are the mitigation sectors that we're working. So we're working on energy generation and access. I think here we have a large portfolio in generation and we're now trying to work a lot more in energy access. We're trying to work in mobility and transport, in building cities, industries and appliances. So we also are working with the high emitter industries and helping them transition and become less of an emitter. And then we are also doing a lot of things in forest and land use, especially on carbon, the frustration, right, loss and other matters. On the livelihoods and resiliency, we're trying to work also with, you know, how do we improve and help people's livelihoods become better and the communities have better. So this could be from access to water, sanitation and many other elements that are very important. We also work closely the nexus between climate and health, climate and food and security and water security. We also are working in what we call infrastructure and built environment here. It is to build a resilient infrastructure who recently approved a private equity fund in Africa to exactly do that, focus in resilient infrastructure. And then we're trying to work in biodiversity and net positive ecosystem solutions. So these are sort of the areas sometimes as Soyou was saying we work in cross cutting between mitigation and adaptation. So sometimes our projects are indeed working across the board. You know, where do we place ourselves in the entire, let's say funding infrastructure or climate finance infrastructure? So if you look at this chart and let me just walk you through, because here we're trying to somehow map certain, you know, climate funds or other funders with also the use of different financial instruments. So we see ourselves at the upper quadrant to the right. And here is we are taking a lot more risk than the development financial institutions or DFIs than the national development banks and the multilateral development banks, but maybe less than the philanthropies. But at the same time, we are also taking higher risks than the other climate funds. We have other climate funds that are set up by other conventions like the Global Environmental Facility, Jeff. It is more fun that serves the Rio Cup and the Biodiversity Cup. We also have the Adaptation Fund. And then also not only are we taking higher risks but we are also able to ride larger. So we are, I would say, close to impact investors and maybe a little bit below philanthropies, but you can see that we could play that catalytic role because our network of executing entities and accredited entities are a mix of some of these players here. So I think we are able to bring that. Overall, we're here to scale, to create markets and to accelerate. Now, I mentioned already that we have the flexibility of working across a range of instruments. I'm not going to go over those, but the one thing I really wanted to provide a little bit of focus is blended finance. The blended finance, it is the use of finite public capital in a way they were able to provide that high-risk concessional capital. We are going to be able to mobilize private capital that is looking for a market return. And the idea is that there is alignment between impact and return. So that is how we see the role. And I believe that's sort of the core of what we do. We are a blended finance provider. I already mentioned that we've been growing and now we're also improving our implementation. So if this is only data as of December, but we hope to reach close to 13 billion in the next year, about 10 billion of that will already be under implementation. The disbursement is there is a bit of a lag because we also are investing in early stages. So the J-curve of our investments is indeed, there is a deeper sort of a deeper drop because it takes longer, but also we are going through some adaptive management because a lot of our projects have been impacted by the COVID pandemic. But here we're focusing now a lot on increasing our disbursement. Lastly, I wanted just to provide a few examples here just to bring life to what we do. So here, these are some examples on adaptation. These are projects that we've done in Timor-Leste and Malawi. This is examples of early warning systems. So this is indeed to support the most vulnerable. So in the case of Timor-Leste, we are working with UNEP, the United Nations Environment Program. This is a project that is brand based where we are funding $21 million. And the idea is to enhance the early warning systems by building hydro-material logical solutions that would allow them to have more resilience in how they work. So this is one example. We also have one of our earlier, earlier transaction was in Malawi. That was also on scaling the use of modernized climate information and early warning systems. It was also with United Nations that was with UNEP. And it was also grad based. Now here, I'm gonna use some examples on oceans because the whole blue economy is also something that we are working very closely. These are adaptation examples. But here we go before we did single-country projects. Here we're showing you two private sector projects that are multi-country. One is a project in the Western Indian Ocean that we did with KFW. KFW is the DFI or private sector development bank of Germany. And here it was indeed to somehow create a pool project with NGOs on something they called the Blue Action Fund. And this was to work on coastal zone management in the ocean. And that covered Madagascar, South Africa, Mozambique and Tanzania. The other one is quite a groundbreaking transaction because here is on how to reduce the stressors of coral reefs by creating a blue economy that is somehow protecting coral reefs by either ecotourism or any infrastructure that would protect the coral reefs. This is done by Pegasus Capital Advisors which is a US based private equity firm. And here GCF provides $125 million of equity. And we are coming here as the first loss. So we are taking the highest risk branch of the capital structure hoping to raise $500 million and create that blue economy to protect the reefs. And here there are about 18 countries included in this project. Here, these two examples are also public and private. This other one is also with Pegasus. This subnational climate fund is actually focusing cities. 70% of the emissions are concentrated in cities across the globe. So the idea of this project is to help cities make that transition and working. This is working with municipalities but also working with providers of services across the cities. Here we also are providing a first loss of $150 million. Then we also work with IFAD. IFAD is the agricultural development agency based in Rome. And here we are creating what we call the inclusive green finance initiative. And here is mostly helping farmers and farmer organizations and co-operatives work in the transition to climate. Here there were 13 countries and here it was a mix of grants and loans. And lastly, this was the one company that I was talking to you about the Green Guarantee Company. This is actually a Japanese accredited entity and U of G bank or Mitsubishi Bank. And here we're gonna be providing, we provided the first launch of this investment was 40 million, but we might be providing another 40 million to a total of 81.5. And here we are trying to create an institution. So here we are really taking an equity stake in the company in order to allow countries to mobilize more capital through their capital markets. A lot of the corporate in emerging markets are there's a ceiling on the sovereign risk rating, but the idea is that they will overcome that ceiling by working through this company that will have a triple B rating. So by having access to a triple B rating, even though the countries might have a general rating, they will be able to access capital market at better times. So we're working with them and this is going to be to fund Green Project. Lastly, we're working with EBRD on a big energy financing project in Egypt. This is pretty much a project finance on renewable energy. And this is sort of to increase the transition and how Egypt is using cleaner energy for their own trade. So this gives you some of a flavor of how we're working across all levels with small transactions driven by UN agencies or NGOs, grant bays, to a larger transaction driven by commercial banks or private equity firms, to also working through VFIs and multilateral development. Here I'm leaving you some links for you to follow, but also there is this recent progress report that has a lot of visuals on how we are operating and what we've been able to achieve. And I would invite all of you to check it and also to be able to somehow see how we operate. With this, I'm going to pause and I'm now I would like to open it up for questions and answers. Thank you very much for your attention. Apologies for the little alarm glitch that we had, but I think we've got another 25 or 30 minutes for questions. So thanks a lot and over to you all. Thanks so much. Thanks, Katie. Thank you. Glad that you didn't have to evacuate what we're presenting. Yeah, so now the floor is open for questions. Any question from the audience? In the meantime, if I may, I have questions. So it's interesting that you're trying to balance the GCF portfolio between adaptation mitigation 5050. And then I've been heard that adaptation project is extremely hard. And then GCF is only a few institution who is actively playing in this perspective. In more specific way, I mean, first for the audience, what do you count as an adaptation project usually? And then what are the risks that you are seeing? And is there any different way that GCFC that, oh, okay, this might be for private sector or certain institution, but for us, like if you are seeing this dynamics and so on, or you're just doing just first loss taken and stay there to catalyze more investment to come in. Thank you, Soyoon. So given that we are able to take a lot of risk and we are able to also, while we want to do things that are commercially viable, we don't have an IRR or a target IRR. It gives us a lot of flexibility. So actually our adaptation pipeline is quite large. And as I said, if you look at the grant equivalency is almost 5050, but even putting that aside, 40% nominal in adaptation already tells us that we're able to do a lot of it. The board approved an adaptation paper. We have also project preparation facilities that are mostly used for projects in adaptation to create baseline indicators, to create certain tools that might be missing. So I don't think there will be an issue for us to somehow have a very dynamic pipeline in adaptation projects. However, what we really wanna make sure is that we're able to measure those adaptation results, which are mostly in our case around beneficiaries. So we're always trying to somehow have access on how livelihoods improved and resiliency improved at the beneficiary level. And as you know, we sometimes have cross-cutting projects where a percentage of the project is mitigation, but then part of it is also adaptation. We wanna make sure that this is truly adaptation and not just a nice sort of component just to say, oh, we're doing adaptation because a little bit the whole issue of greenwashing and how do we make sure that people are counting for what they need to adapt. So I think this is, we have a methodology to determine adaptation beneficiaries. We have a team that is also looking into that. All our projects go through an independent panel review before they are approved by the board and they are technical experts. They would also look into those adaptation beneficiaries. So we do have a number of filters to make sure that we are actually accounting things proper. Now, we are, as I mentioned, we're trying to work with the vulnerable. We're making the vulnerable a very clear target of what we do. And just by working with the vulnerable, we also need to provide solutions. And we've been doing a lot of locally led climate solutions and adaptation where we're also working with indigenous knowledge. We just did a very good project in Vanuatu in the Pacific Islands, we saved the children of Australia that had a very clear project in community led adaptation. And this is something that if we get it right, we will be able to replicate with certain adjustments across the board. So that's sort of how we see it. We see that we will be doing more adaptation. We recently approved a new policy because I mentioned that we need to work through entities that go through an accreditation process. We have a hundred and fourteen of those. Our accreditation process is very heavy. So it takes entities to the three years to get accredited because there is an external panel, it's approved by the board and it has a lot of steps. So we're now doing a project assessment accreditation whereby we don't need to work only with entities accredited but we look at projects. If the project has all our investment criteria, we might be able to fund them. And in this pilot, we're gonna try to do 10 projects a year for three years. If in those 30 projects that we're gonna be doing the next three years, adaptation is one of the priorities. So we are very, very focused on this. I think there's a question from Raymond. Hi Raymond, thank you. So the question is, can you describe the short version of what you're looking for in clean energy sources? How can one connect one on one with each other? On the clean energy, energy is the area that we've done the most. So it is the sector that has been most heavily invested and we're working across the entire clean energy. So we work on large renewable project like the one I just showed in Egypt. We're also working with green hydrogen. We are exploring green hydrogen as this is sort of a new frontier in the energy mix. We also work in some areas where we believe that the just transition, we're working with countries like Indonesia or South Africa that are trying to go through a just transition. Now, we are working as mentioned through entities that are creating solutions at the country level. So it also depends on the needs that those countries have, right? And what is their matrix of energy and how we could support them? So there's not one size fits all. So we are trying to be very country-driven as I mentioned, but we are investing across the entire value chain of the energy, of the renewable energy opportunity set. How can you connect with me, either being me on LinkedIn or I'll be putting my email in the chat in a few minutes. Thanks for that. June, over to you. Hi, Henry, thank you for the talk. I actually had a follow-up to the adaptation investment question. So a couple of years ago, I was doing some interviews with local groups that are somewhere on the accredited entity pipeline or are in the process of preparing projects on adaptation. And one theme that kept coming up was the burden of proof to show that an impact that is being addressed is indeed climate change related and how difficult that is if you're in a country where there's in the baseline historical observation or climate modeling. So have you found, what are some ways that's impacting the projects that you're seeing in the adaptation pipeline? Do you find that there's a lot more that you're seeing in terms of early warning systems than investing in data gathering and permission systems and how do you balance that trade off because there are areas where impacts are there, they might just not be able to show it's climate change. Sure. Thanks, June. Very good question. And actually this burden of proof also was very tough by the independent assessment panel that we use because they were also asking for a lot of data. The board approved an updated climate impact potential paper last year and this policy, which is available in our website became provided a lot more flexibility on the use of indigenous knowledge and also of the use of proxies that could be established in large data sets like the IPCC or others. Because I think, as you mentioned, countries do not have, especially some of the countries that are the most vulnerable, do not have those 30-year data that some of our technical people are asking, especially the external panel. So I think with this, this has allowed countries to overcome some of those, I would say, heavy requirements. From our side, June, we also are helping countries or projects as they come through us with technical assistance in case they could access, but they don't have the resources we are able to provide them with grants. The either project preparation grants, where the climate or the adaptation beneficiary assessment could be paid outside of the project and we're able to bring the expertise through a roster of consultants or a roster of experts. So those are some of the solutions that we have tried to put in place to make sure that we're not limiting the opportunity for access of our capital, given the difficulties of managing those data, that information. So I hope that answers your question, Jim. Thank you. Right, any other questions? Relating to that question, but kind of going one other level to the institution level, it's really interesting that in your slide, you're talking about this is how much is invested, this is how much carbon is mediated and so on. So, and then you already mentioned like how GCF is measuring the impact at the project level, how the impact that GCF is generating as an institution is being evaluated. You mentioned how much money that you deployed and then how much money that you have catalyzed, but is there any other measures that GCF is using to show the impact that GCF's projects are generating? So from a project perspective, remember, we are a second level funder, so we fund through entities. Those entities have their own impact management systems and that's things that they have. We always get, we're very simple in what we're looking for because on the mitigation, we want to have quantifiable reduction of emissions because this is linked to the indices. So every project, we have a mitigation impact assessment tool and here we know that what we're looking is to that number of, well, how many tons, how many metric tons of CO2 reduction are we able to see in this project? And on the adaptation side is number of beneficiaries. So this is at the project level, but I believe our impact beyond the reduction of emissions and beyond the resiliency and access of beneficiaries is on our role in the climate finance architecture. How many early stage funds are we able to test in the market? How much are we accelerating the market and the financing in the market? How many private investors are we able to crowd in? How much are we able to do risk in an industry to make it commercially viable or market viable? How many, you know, how much capacitation are we transferring to countries? So countries could really translate their indices into proper investment plans. You know, how are we helping entities bring their own operations by being able to enhance their portfolio? So we believe that there is this transformational element of working with the GCF because we're able to take a lot of those risks that elsewhere people are not taking and hopefully we are, you know, doing this. Now we are this sort of, you know, ecosystem building an ecosystem enhancement is not being measured per se. I mean, maybe one measure is the mobilization of private capital and the leveraging of our public money into total money for raise for the funds. But for me, this could even be as important than the actual mitigation and adaptation targets or KPIs because this is what is creating a market. So for us, this is if we, I mean here, as I said, we could take so many high risks that if we fail, 30% of our portfolio fails, that's not for me a signature of failure because if we tried and then we're able to de-risk and we were able to prove and then others improved it, I think there is a huge upside to that. So I think there are two levels. We've got the measurable clearly, but we have this other ecosystem building and enabling environment building that I think we are playing, I would say, but reports are possibly one that if we do it right with our partners would help create the market that I think we're trying to create. And then it's good point that you raise that you are actually working with your accredited institutions and your accredited institutions are various. Like they are very diverse, as I saw, like they're much lateral, bilateral, even private sector. In your view, like how, you know, like a working with a different type of organizations look like, you know, it's also kind of like relating to the governance of the blended finance. You know, I assume that, you know, every project working with different organizations might be different, but you know, by that category, like how your approaches are different and then how your setups in blended finance are differentiating. Yeah, so you said it rightly, right? We have a very heterogeneous set of entities. So we have 114 entities, but we also have other, what we call delivery partners that provide technical assistance. We've got about 200 partners all together. Listen, I think it's a privilege. I mean, very few funds have this plethora of owners. You know, UN agencies give us a lot of access because they are in-country. We are based in Korea. Only we don't have country representation at the moment. So through the UN, we're able to have a deep outreach and they have good experience in project management. Through the MDBs, the Multilateral Development Bands, we are working in leveraging capital and they also have in-country presence. They also have very strong technical knowledge. So when we work with the World Bank or we work with some of those entities, we are able to leverage both knowledge and local presence. With the NGOs, so we work with Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy, WWF, I mean, they bring a lot of, I would say, track record, especially in biodiversity or in some of the nature-based solutions space. So for us, that is a great partnership to have. Impact investors like Acumen, they bring that sort of blended finance experience but also that focus in really making a difference. So Acumen is actually working on a project with us to what we call the Harders to Reach, which is working with the 800 million people in Africa that have no access to electricity. So this is not a project of energy per se, the project of energy access on the solar system, et cetera. So they're really trying to really make something commercially viable but working with those that are excluded. So I think the impact investors bring back. The private equity partners or the commercial bands, they bring to us that knowledge of financial instruments that big outreach of capital markets. So you know, I think every single entity or cluster of entities will provide, I would say, that enhancement so that our capital can go further and then our impact could also be bigger. So honestly, I think this is, I mean, I used to work as you said, I work at the World Bank, I work at the UN, I worked at Morgan Stanley, I worked in responsibility which is a large impact investor. So in just a year, with one job, I'm able to have all of those, whereas in the past I had to go to different jobs to be able to get that exposure. But I think this is maybe one of our, I would say, unique value proposition. Thank you. No, Bruce was actually talking about the US investment into the fund. Thank you, Bruce. Yes, we're also are very grateful and we welcome the announcement by President Biden that the US was contributing a billion dollars. So actually, we hope that this money is gonna come in at the end of this month. And we already, actually the call that I have in six minutes is gonna be discussing pipeline for our October board meetings. We would like to use that money into that. And you were right. Some of the issues on climate that I just mentioned are not exclusive of the developing countries. I also believe that in developed countries you face similar barriers. We don't invest in developed countries because the Paris agreement is, as you know, a bit of a compensation agreement of how developed countries who are the high emitters support developing countries who are having the biggest branch of the impact and they were not responsible for that. But that's why our mandate is to only invest in those countries. But with some of our peers that we are working some of the separated entities they also have portfolios in developed countries. And we hopefully cross-fertilize some of those. We are very focused now actually last night and tonight. We're having our second consultation meeting for potential contributors for GCF2. GCF2 is the next programming cycle of 2024 to 2027. And we are getting very positive feedback. This is not the easiest year to fundraise because of the Ukraine crisis and because of everything that is going on at the macro level, but we hope to have even another 10 to 12 billion dollars in the next few times. So we really hope to get all our contributors. Our largest contributors are the UK with the number one followed by Japan, France, Germany and the US. And those are our top five. If you look at what they've contributed they contributed each sum of between three and two billion dollars. The US pledged in our initial, initial reasonable mobilizations through the Obama administration. They pledged three billion, but they had only been able to pay one billion because during the Trump administration there was no payments. And then now the Biden administration was able to honor two another billion. There's still one billion pending. We don't know when that will come. So I would like to thank all the taxpayers from some of the transition countries because we are able to do these things to you because this is public money. That's why we wanna make sure that we use it in the best way possible. June, I'll be taking your question as the last one and then I'll be wrapping up over to you. Thank you. Yeah, it was also regarding like fundraising and replenishment discussions. If you could comment a little bit about the loss and damage discussions and how you anticipate that being useful in fundraising efforts going forward. I'm glad you brought that question. Actually, the secretary general sent us a very nice speech where he's calling all countries, especially G7 countries, to replenish the green climate fund, but he also said make the loss and damage fund operational. So while our mandate is to have a balance between adaptation and mitigation, we could account that about 30% of our projects have a loss and damage angle. But when you talk about loss and damage, you're talking about minimizing, averting, and addressing loss and damage. You work on these three. But the addressing is the area that we're not doing because that is more the emergency funding. So addressing is the Pakistan crisis happened. How do we set up a fund that will go into Pakistan very quickly to manage that? We don't have that agility portion. We have board meetings three times a year. We need to go to the board to approve it. We do not operate in a humanitarian crisis type of business. But the projects on early warning that I just presented to you, that is actually minimizing and averting. Some of our insurance projects could also do a little bit of addressing, but also of mitigating or diminishing. So we believe that there are some tangential loss and damage impact that we do. However, the loss and damage fund will be exclusively on loss and damage and mostly focus on addressing. Now, we are an observer to the transitional committee of the loss and damage fund. We're also trying to provide some of our lessons learned of how fully things they should not do. And the issue with the loss and damage is we don't know the sources of capital. So we could think about an amazing fund, but we're talking about raising this 10 or 12 billion every four years is quite an endeavor. And creating an entity and institution from scratch, because while we are, a lot of people call us the flagship UN green climate fund. We were created by COPD and we are accountable to the UNF triple C. We are an independent entity, based in Korea, as Korea wanted to be our host, but we had to start from scratch. We need to negotiate privileges and amenities in every country we operate. We needed to do everything. So we are startup. So there is also the possibility, could they use some of our back office to create the loss and damage and the loss and damage could be somehow supported by GCF or powered by GCF. That might be something they could consider, but for that we need to have a separate window of funding and also operations because with our business model, we will not be able to process. But we are engaged. Let's see what this happens. I mean, COP28, we will see the result. It's been a pleasure to address the Stanford and CHI students and community. I would like to thank Soyoon and Katie for the invitation. I will be sharing the slides with both of you. So you can also share it with the rest of the attendees. And my email is there. My LinkedIn profile is easily found. I hope this, you know, sparked some interest as you are exploring climate finance further.