 Welcome to the COP 28 post-match analysis. This post-match analysis after the climate negotiations is now a tradition. We're very happy to have a fantastic panel to discuss issues that were negotiated at the COP and the outcome where the panel has different expertise and insights into the broad agenda that was discussed in Dubai. And we also have a fantastic audience, so that's great to see. In the panel, we have in alphabetical order Maria Janes, who is a post-doctoral researcher at the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research here at the Linköping University, Mattias Frimerie, who is Sweden's climate ambassador and head of delegations to the UNIFCCC and also at the Swedish Ministry for Climate and Enterprise. We also have Ricardo Marshal, director of the Route 2 REAPS program at the Prime Minister's office in Barbados. Emma Moder-Wiking, who is the global head of international sustainable business at Business Sweden, and Åsa Persson, who is research director and deputy director at the Stockholm Environment Institute. She is also chair of the Swedish Climate Policy Council and a professor at the Linköping University in environmental change. And these five in the panel will then have a discussion, but we would also very much like to invite the audience to post questions. If you put them in the chat, Tina Nieset, who is the director of the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, will then post them on your behalf to the panelists. So that would be great. We will start with a round of questions to all the panelists and then some specific questions, and then at least two times stop to add some questions from the panel before we round it up for the final questions to all the panelists. So welcome again. The first question, which we post every year, is to the panelists, is what will be remembered in 10 years' time from the COP? So what will be remembered from COP 28 in 10 years' time? That's the first round of questions. Should we start with the alphabetical order again then, Maria? Would you like to start? Sure, thank you. So I have two answers to this question. So one is that I sincerely hope that we remember this COP for all the fuss around the host country and that there was such resistance to this language on facing out fossil fuels. And I hope that we will remember it as a past time in which we're still debating these issues and as a last sigh of the fossil area. That's my hope. But what I fear is that we will instead remember this COP as providing much too weak language and outcomes and despite all that we know and despite having at least a slight chance of keeping within the 1.5. So I fear that we will remember it as another one long row of too little, too late, unfortunately. Matias, what do you think we will remember in 10 years' time? Well, I think we'll remember this COP for the same line of thinking as Maria but actually from the other perspective. I think we'll remember this COP as the first COP when we did actually have a first in terms of the dimensioning of all fossil fuels and that's the framing now was the transitioning away from fossil fuels and energy systems. And of course we can debate that it's not enough. We had hoped for more, but still it's the first that we get that kind of mention and an agreement by all parties in all countries to actually mark the end of the fossil era as many of us had said. But that's what we will be, that what COP28 will be remembered for. Well, fantastic hope to have, yeah. Eric Aldo, what do you think? Hi, good morning from my side of the world. Good afternoon to you all. For me, I think what COP will always be remembered as under COP28 is for the establishment of the loss and damage fund and the fact that it was done by the first plenary session of the COP. I think there are a number of other narratives that are out there, but certainly the establishment of the loss and damage fund from someone who was actually part of the transitional committee I think is a phenomenal thing, especially for small island development states and LDCs. Thank you. Yeah, we will come back to the loss and damage and the questions eventually. Emma, and I should say, Emma has a fever. So we know if you need to take a pose, you're more than... Thank you so much. We understand you perfectly, but thanks for giving us any way. Super happy to participate, regardless of the fever, of course. And I agree with the previous speakers and of course the loss and damage fund is pivotal, but I also agree with Mathias that I hope that this COP will best be remembered for the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era and the fact that we actually include the transitioning away from fossil fuels and also reference this for the first time in the climate agreement. It's major, of course. And while we didn't turn the page on the fossil fuel era with a full phase out of the fossil fuels in the GST text, it does indeed break a new ground and it really also makes a welcoming start to advance the discourse facing out the fossil fuels. And I think also it's important to mention also the GST and the clear signal where we're heading in terms of also tripling renewable energy capacity globally and also double the global average annual rate on energy efficiency improvements by 2030. And I think also considering that we were also representing the private sector at COP28, I think it's also important to mention the fact that it was the largest COP ever and also the importance of the non-negotiating and the non-state sectors at COP28. Thank you. Yeah, we'll come back to that as well. Finally then, Osa, what do you think we will remember in a decade? Yeah, thank you for the question and for inviting us to this webinar. My hope is that we will remember COP28 as the last COP before the global peak of CO2 emissions. It could happen next year. We don't know exactly when, but I think the significance of that is that it could have been one of the last COPs where we still had this very difficult politics. I think that global peak of CO2 emissions could be an important psychological turning point when we start seeing the solutions more clearly. That's my hope, but I do think COP28 will be remembered for the establishment of the loss of the damage plan, just like Ricardo said. I think for me the fossil fuel language and also the global goals of renewables and energy efficiency are important steps, but maybe not as historic as we think at the moment, but that's discussed more. Thank you. Okay, well, so pretty high hopes anyway that we will remember this COP in a positive way, and so that's interesting. What you have said so far, I think it's really interesting with the different emphasis, of course, from the agenda, but this is something that has been discussed and reported. My next question is, of course, to you, what has not been reported, what has not been in the media focus or reported, you're inside a tip that's most important that happened at COP28 that was not talked about so much or reported from Dubai. Should we start in the reverse order now then, Orsa? Would you like to go again? Sure, I'll jump in. I would say, I think that I will keep an eye on going forward, particularly methane and energy efficiency. Methane, because it's now becoming, more in the spotlight again, we talked about mainly methane emissions from the oil and gas sector in Dubai, but I think also the agricultural sector, livestock will hopefully soon be more on the agenda. Good to see action and progress on that one. I will also say energy efficiency. This is not my area of expertise, but I understood that this global goal to double the rate of energy efficiency is quite challenging. So it will be very interesting to see how that goes and I think it's a very important part of the solution here. It's not just about expanding renewables, but really becoming more efficient and I think this nicely connects also with sort of lifestyle issues more broadly. Thanks, Emma. I think when media covers and have maybe forgotten or not been able to cover is of course everything that happens behind the scenes and considering once again this was the largest COP ever and more than 85,000 delegates from all over the world. There's of course a lot to cover, but I think it's also typically a large focus on the negotiations, rightly so of course, but the challenges and the difficulties. I think we are lacking the perspective of all the solutions and the opportunities that also the Green transition brings and also what has then been discussed among all the non-state actors that are participating from the private sector, from civil society, from academia and so forth that are also at COP28 and as we've also been discussing in previous events and discussions we've also the fact that there's such a disconnection between the negotiations and the different pavilions and side events that are focusing heavily on the solutions and concrete actions on how we can bridge the implementation gaps and sometimes we also see a knowledge gap between maybe the decision makers knowledge of the solutions that actually exist and also the concrete actions on how they can be implemented and scaled. That is what I miss from the media coverage I'd say. Thank you. Ricardo. Thank you so much. I think I have a little bit of a unique perspective from someone who is actively involved in the negotiations. I specifically tend to cover the climate finance area but of course once you're covering finance you're also covering means of implementation under the mitigation work program under the GGA under the GST etc but I also had 20 plus odd speaking engagements outside and I chaired one of the agenda items. There are two things that I think stick out to me that the media didn't carry. There was very much of a focus on developed countries seen as supporting SIDS and LDCs relative to the phase out of fossil fuels but there's an entire geopolitical sphere being missed there in unabated fossil fuels and the idea being that those who can pay for abatement can get to hold on to exploiting their fossil fuels much longer and so I think the media missed the trick there because honestly it is not as though the Australia's, the USA's the Canada's, the Norway's the United Kingdoms of this world are actually looking to be on the side of SIDS. I think some of us in the SIDS perspective know a lot better. The second matter that I think that the media misses but is very very critical in this is the difference in views between the developed and the developing countries relative to what we call the COP and the CMA that is the convention itself and the Paris Agreement and there's a move by developed countries to bring parity at least between the convention and the Paris Agreement and developing countries see it in very much alike as sidelining the convention towards the benefits that developed countries perceive can be brought by what is under the Paris Agreement and this was played out actually in the agenda item that I chaired under the seventh review of the financial mechanism and you will see that there was a text that went forward to the final plenary that ended up under rule 16 by the US and the EU as the predominant objectives to what was put forward. And the rule number 16 rule 16 maybe you can enlighten the audience. Essentially that means that there is no agreed decision on it because we work by consensus in the process and you therefore had no agreement and therefore no conducting of the seventh review of the financial mechanism and this was the third consecutive year that there was no result and this means therefore that there is not going to be a seventh review and it is likely that the same issues will go over into the eighth review and there is a very strong belief by a number of developing countries that developed countries are using this a to force parity between the Paris Agreement and the convention but also b to prevent there from being a reporting on what is the scale and the success relative to the financing that is provided and articles 4.5 and 9 of the Paris Agreement very interesting perhaps we can come back to that and I have Matthias views on that also when we discuss the Global Goal with you Chad were similar discussions I think when it comes to what should be from the UNFT to see and what should be within the Paris Agreement was raised if I am correct you can return to that Matthias Yes, finally then Maria No, Matthias We have two, sorry Matthias and then Maria Now indeed I would be happy to do a deep dive on the issue that Ricardo raised specifically on this distinction between the COP and CMA Agendas maybe it is understandable why the media may not pick it up but indeed it is it touches the very issues of principle in terms of how the whole COP process is set up so I think definitely something worth at least discussing in this context maybe not in the media itself but the issue that I wanted to highlight in relation to this question was exactly what Emma was pointing to as well there has been a lot of reports in Swedish media in terms of what the business community does in terms to support acceleration of the transition globally but I do think that is something which would be useful to have even more widely reported in terms of highlighting the opportunities that we see in with action globally and if that would be more widely reported we would also hopefully spur action in more countries in terms of what countries can do actually to accelerate their transition and highlighting the kind of solutions that are available where as Emma was saying as well what we often encounter in the negotiation rooms where also as Ricardo pointed out there are differences of views in your countries perceive the transition differently because we have different starting points but what we strongly believe from the Swedish and EU perspective is that by highlighting these opportunities and what kind of policies can we design in order to accelerate the transition to bring about the new jobs and growth needed we think that we would be able to make more headway in the transition globally in terms of the solutions themselves so that's an issue which maybe we can see more of reporting for not only at the COP next year but also throughout next year Thank you Mathias Maria Thank you Mirna So I think that partly what the media missed or at least that it's not as prominent is how much is about this implementation gap So there's a lot of talk about the ambitions especially now that we had so much talk about if you'll face out the potential and ambitions are great and plans and strategies are great and they are needed but they will not reduce emissions or contribute to adaptation unless you're implemented and in my view at least means of implementation meaning support in terms of money technology, transfer and capacity building was really the talk of the town at COP 28 and it is of course about implementing climate action to mitigate and adapt to climate change but it is as Ricardo was also pointing out the source of mistrust both among parties but also among parties and observers for example this issue of have developed countries who really met the climate finance goal of 100 billion per year or have they not or the fact that developing countries argue that they have drawn up ambitious plans but that the level of support is not aligned with what is needed so these issues might be a little bit harder to reflect in the media but in my view they are really core to the climate negotiations and would deserve some more attention Thanks, thanks so much but before we continue with the questions, specific questions Ricardo mentioned geopolitics and then I remember that I forgot despite having good instructions to say who is hosting this event and I also forgot to say who I am I'm a professor at Linköping University and also program director for Mr. Geopolitics research program and an affiliate to Stockholm and mind Institute and all these three are hosting this session so Stockholm and mind Institute Linköping University and Mr. Geopolitics programs that said let's dive into continue with the discussions so at the closing of COP 28 the UN climate chief Simon still said that this is not the finish line but it's a lifeline for 1.5 and I've been to a number of COPs as you have as well and this is sort of the story that we tell after every COP that well this is not what we wanted but the door to 1.5 is still open, it's still within reach how many years can we say that is this really a lifeline or has that ship sailed on a rising tide will the next global stock take we will still be in the common budget for 1.5 by the next global stock take or we have used the remaining budget I think that might be a core question but you seemed many of you seem quite optimistic that this will turn the tide but what do you think Ricardo? That is an interesting question and one that I struggle to be as optimistic as many others on 1.5 is on life support let us be very very real I think from the perspective of the small island development states and having been in the Aeosis room and been participating in the discussions we are literally fighting for survival and we do not believe that that is really being affected that there's a lot of service being paid without very real action a good example is this call for phase out versus phase down with a focus really being on unabated fossil fuels rather than really phasing out when you look at it some of the very countries who are calling for that phase out have increased their ports for exporting oil and gas this year I will not name those but there are a few in my region of the world in addition the developed countries are putting a lot of pressure on developing countries to speed up the mitigation in their own country and again this is tied to the COP versus CMA matter and it has seemingly been forgotten that some 80% of the current global emissions come from those developed countries and along the line that we are pushing it is the small and poor producers of oil and gas that are going to be squeezed out first and whose development trajectory is being curtailed I will give you some examples just from my region Diana, Trinidad and Tobago Venezuela Suriname these are going to be the last in and the first out the door so when we speak on 1.5 we have to consider what has been the historical action and what we are putting forward as the actions going forward if you cannot understand the link between climate change and development and the need for individual countries to address their poverty to address their individual adaptation needs you are never going to get there 1.5 is on life support but development for the developing countries of the world is also on life support we have to find a way to tie those two things together can I come in there please to be to be quite frank I wonder if we weren't in the same rooms I guess just to touch on that point because we have obviously done a very bad job from the EU side when you perceive the EU as not taking perspectives into account we have been very clear in the EU conclusions ahead of COP28 that it is for the G20 who stand for 80% of global emissions who need to accelerate their work and if they don't then definitely 1.5 will be in danger and this is China this is India, this is Russia, this is South Africa this is Brazil including the EU and the EU as and Canada so it's the G20 countries which need to accelerate their action on mitigation in order for us to be able to keep 1.5 alive obviously all countries according to the Paris agreement need to come forward with new NDCs ahead of COP 30 in 2025 but at least from the EU side our expectation is that the bulk of the mitigation action needs to come from the G20 countries and not from developing countries at large and that also I think touches to the point on the sort of this COP CMA issue where we from the EU side and I sort of I wouldn't share your sense that we from the and again we've obviously been doing a bad job in communications here because I don't see that we're sort of trying to what's the word you use to sideline the convention in relation to the Paris agreement but rather for us these are two international agreements on parity already so we shouldn't be saying it's one it's one or the other it's both I mean obviously we think that the Paris agreement sort of has a more elaborated approach to climate action but I mean the principles of the convention are established also in the Paris agreement so I mean those are sort of carried through the Paris agreement itself but our concern when and the example you mentioned on the financial mechanism is that since the financial mechanism serves both the convention and the Paris agreement obviously those decisions need to be taken under both and as long as we have that system with the three agendas as we have for the COP CMA and the CMP either we should merge them into one and we could have one consolidated approach or we treat those we treat the treaties equally between in this case the two or the CMP also when it comes to the adaptation fund so I mean again you know I think from our perspective the bulk of mitigation action needs to come from the G20 including the EU and the US and we expect all countries yes to come forward with NDCs which should represent the progression be economy wide over time and also include all gases may as well state now in the GSD decision but of course for many countries it is adaptation which is sort of a key element in sort of the bulk of their climate action but we we're there to and hope to be working with all parties in terms of accelerating climate action globally and also again coming back to the opportunities and highlighting what we can see as what brings us all growth and jobs for all countries and putting in place those kind of solutions that we see are available Thanks Matias and Ricardo if you want to respond you can we can I will let you in soon but I also wanted to have a comment on this Yes just a brief comment not on politics or negotiations as such but I thought I could offer scientific perspective so before COP on this question of you know it's 1.5 degree target is it still feasible I was part of a report head of COP called 10 new science insights where we look at the latest science and one of the insights related to exactly the 1.5 degree target and we were discussing at length how to what can we say about it and we ended up saying that it's fast becoming inevitable overshooting the 1.5 degree target that's the wording we chose but what I think what we also say in that report is that what really matters now is not about you know dropping that target if we can't limit warming to 1.5 that's the flawed conclusion from the science it's rather about minimizing the magnitude and the duration of overshoot so if I were to guess about the future of COP's and the whole climate discourse maybe this is where it will go how do we limit the magnitude and the duration on the overshoot Thanks Oza, Ricardo Thank you so much I think Mattias and I could probably have the entire program but we shouldn't so I won't but I would say that we believe firmly that there's a requirement from all of the countries in the G20 to act but there's also a requirement indeed outlined in Article 9 of the Paris Agreement that states very clearly that developed countries should take the lead and we want to see that these are the countries that have taken the lead in historic emissions and they need to take the lead both in terms of actions for mitigation as well as financing and I think what you will find is that there are a lot of developing countries that are very nervous about what they put in their NDCs I come from a country that has one of the most ambitious NDCs and so I can speak freely but the reality is that developing countries are held to account whenever they put anything on paper and there's a fear that you do not play on a level playing field because if you take the example of the 100 billion it is clear that developed countries are not held to the same standard there is tremendous request from the developed countries right now to be taken at their word that the 100 billion has been achieved when you speak to each developed country all of them have a different understanding as to what the 100 billion is how much is public financing versus how much is private financing and you cannot see anywhere where the numbers have been presented that say that the 100 billion has been achieved yet the developing countries have been asked to produce NAMAs, NAPS NDCs investment plans now we're dealing with a GGA a GST and it's going and going in that direction and I will speak very frankly developing countries do not believe that there's anything like a level playing field I speak to my EU colleagues often and I have a good relationship with them but I'm just saying that that is the perspective that is coming from our side Thanks I would love to have the conversation between the two of you for one and a half hours maybe that's our follow up that would be great and we will return to the issue of financing soon but I would like to continue with Maria so the cup presidency was heavily criticised before the cup but you all seem pretty at least somewhat content or at least see some positive outcomes of the cup so did the Al Javier prove the critics wrong or was the presidency good or bad for the Paris Agreement Well that's a tough question right because we will never know the outcome of cup 28 with another presidency and another president I think that from the observer point of view he was very clear throughout on pushing the 1.5 degree target as the north star was pushing parties to compromise and of course Matias and Ricardo would have more of an insider view what happens behind closed doors it also seems at least from the outside that most countries were quite happy about the negotiating process which is always important to keep trust within the group of countries with the notable exception then of AOSIS at the closing plenary on the GC deal I think that there was a lot of pressure on the global stock take and that the stakes were really high for Al Javier and also the UAE to really prove their capacity to take on this presidency and also push countries to reach the joint goals of the convention and the Paris Agreement rather than working in their own self-interest and I'm not convinced that another president would have found a stronger outcome of the GSD but I would be happy to hear what the other ones reflections are as well so could we have your perspective on the pros and cons of having an oil executive as the president of ACAP? Certainly, I think that Sultan Al Javier did an incredible job it was a very difficult ask of him and the UAE we stood at that point in time on very shaky ground and I think that his presence and this is something that I guess very few persons would know essentially without the UAE we would not have had a transitional committee meeting number 5 it is therefore unlikely that we would have had a loss and damage fund and just that presence he did not intercede in any way in the discussions but he just was there to let you know that he wants an executive outcome and I think that he was forceful throughout the process without crossing the line and I will say having cheered agenda items at other cops that this presidency was exceedingly good at interacting with co-chairs and co-facilitators to ensure that the process was moving behind the scenes and the agreement of parties that parties were really vacillating and discussing the issues ventilating sorry and discussing the issues and so I think that it was an excellent job and a positive outcome we would always like more but I think you have to give credit where credit is due thanks thanks anybody would like to raise criticism towards the presidency really positive panel I guess in that regard I think we have some comments in the chat with other views that would be interesting to hear but thanks a lot very interesting with that perspective from the inside in that regard Emma we saw an impressive amount of Swedish companies I was there for the opening of the Swedish pavilion and I was impressed by the program that you brought about one thing that you've seen a criticism when in the discussions of the reform of the unicrpacy something is turning into a market fair and that is not seen as something positive maybe you have another view on that but all this participation from business do we see some tangible outcome of that or are they just marketing their own businesses great question and it's important of course I would like to touch upon what Matidas also mentioned the fact that we need to highlight the opportunities and the solutions and the possibilities that can bring into the negotiations if we know not only about the challenges but also the needs and the possibilities and also what Ricardo just said as well clarify the link between the challenges and the needs and here I think science we've known for a long time what the challenges but we need to clarify what do they really mean and then in the same way it's equally important to understand not only what are the scientifically proven challenges but also then the solutions and like in the light of the urgency and in the light of the climate crisis we see that we are did go in the wrong direction by like only 15% of the UN kind of goals global goals that are on track basically 85% are stalled or even going in reverse six out of nine planetary boundaries that are already crossed and the corridor of life are becoming more and more narrow and also as we've seen especially also in this COP where we see the blocking in terms of the possibilities to face out the fossil fuels we see that the political and economic logical is so vital and it's so big in the negotiations and it's really blocking and we see that the possibilities or the difficulties we've seen in actually facing out the fossil fuels is also of course because so many countries are dependent on fossil fuel as a large part of the GDP and also we still have a lot of fossil subsidies and last year we have a record high of the fossil subsidies spending over seven trillion US dollar in fossil subsidies last year which is more than the governments are spending on education and almost as much as we're spending on healthcare so here I think it's really important to then bridge the gap between the scientifically proven challenges and the needs, the negotiation topics and then really showcasing the solution, existing solutions and that's what we are aiming to do to clarify once again what solutions exist today, how can be implemented and what policies are needed and if we really make sure that the gaps and the silos between the negotiators and the decision makers and this non-stage actors would actually come together I'm sure we could lay out the issues and the solutions and have more of a matchmaking process between the challenges and the solutions so what we did what were to really act as this kind of platform for matchmaking and also sometimes I mean we at the Sweden talk of the fact that we try to be as climate tenders matching global climate solutions and sustainable solutions it is of course technical solutions but it's also financial solutions and it's also policy frameworks and solutions and also science are showing that the innovations and the solutions exist to mitigate the worst effect of climate change so the more we can clarify those solutions and make sure that the negotiators and the decision makers are aware of them well hopefully like also Matilda said it can spur some actions in negotiation rooms and also maybe there will be more bold to push the agenda and take necessary actions and also I think it's important to mention the fact that policies in itself will not solve the climate crisis and finance itself will not solve the climate crisis nor we cannot innovate ourselves like out of the climate crisis either all of these different perspectives are interconnected and that's why all these perspectives needs to be represented there and we have seen fantastic outcomes in terms of stakeholders coming together creating new collaborations new innovations that has been developed thanks to the fact that they've been coming together and also new ways of implementing them globally so we see really positive results of it throughout the years that we've been at COP together with the Swedish front-running companies that all have really high climate commitments and they also have solutions that can help other countries and countries with their transition journeys Thanks we have both you and Ricardo mentioned the finance so before we take questions from the audience time is running up so it's a great discussion but I would just like to develop it on the finance which is a critical issue of course the the high level expert group on climate finance which are led or spearheaded by Vera Songway and Nicholas Stern which are famous economists that they concluded before the COP 28 that the world is badly off track of the Paris Agreement of course which we can see in the global stock take but their assessment is that it would require 2.4 trillion US dollars of investments in developing countries a year by 2030 to be on track of the climate goals for the Paris Agreement then both mitigation and adaptation so is that even possible and how would that be achieved or we have sort of all these grants targets which I think you mentioned also with energy renewable, tripling the capacity for renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency and so on also you also mentioned this right but is it possible then if the funding is not there because there's a huge gap it's not only the 100 billion then that the world developed countries promise already in Copenhagen which required that but then it's an enormous amount of funding so what can be done also what is your what is your lifeline here for the world I don't think it's impossible at all and just to put that figure in context the 2.4 trillion and how much is that it's just over the amount that the world spends on military expenditure per year it's about four times the Sweden's GDP and it's about 10% of US GDP so I mean of course it's a huge investment we need to make but it's not the roundtable and when I talk to our sustainable finance expert at FDI I you know the picture is really bad it's not so much an issue of volume of capital in the world but really about allocation and access and ensuring project viability so these are more you know technical terms but as we know so much of the current investment which is not up to that level of the 2.4 trillion but the current investments are very strongly concentrated to China to the EU to the US very little of that money goes to Africa for example so it's an allocation issue it's an access issue particularly when we look at the public funds climate finance funds and this is something that I think needs to be highlighted more and it's frustrating even to see NDCs and maps that have really identified needs and sort of concrete opportunities and projects that they struggle to actually secure the finance to implement them so it's a question of access and finally if we look more at private capital it's a lot about project viability so we still have perceived risk in many contexts so it is very hard to channel investments to places where that capital is needed and to scale that up in a quick way so actually what my colleagues have been writing about and researching is not that yes we need to talk about from the billions to the trillions that's a great vision but we also need to actually deliver the billions in the first place and then we need to have a much more sophisticated understanding of how to limit risk and in short return so I definitely think it's a solvable problem it was interesting that we did not hear so much discussion in my view and maybe others have a different view from especially from inside the negotiation rooms we did not hear so much about this discussion about the international financial architecture issue that has come up with every issue here in the UN and the Paris summit and Nairobi summit etc so it will be interesting to understand that better why that is but clearly it's a little bit of a football being kicked around but it's not we haven't really scored a goal yet on that one that's interesting you love to hear your views here Ricardo also as you mentioned that depth relief was only mentioned once in the whole in the whole document which surprised me a bit that it was not more topical in Dubai since it's been so much discussed after the Bridgetown initiative the Paris financial summit and the Nairobi summit Ricardo please thank you so much I think perhaps I am one of these strange people given the fact that my wife is the Deputy Director of the Bridgetown Initiative Unit here who is actually one of the co-authors on the same report and the architect of the Bridgetown Initiative is a personal friend and so these are literally discussions that we have in my home every day I think first of all it is to say that there are actions that happen within the convention and the negotiation space and actions that happen outside of it and the issue of finance and the global financial architecture is actually something that is discussed at COP but not in the negotiating rooms and therefore that's not where you're going to hear it come from. The predominant issue here is that the global financial architecture is not fit for purpose I would not say it is broken because I think it serves the purpose that it was designed to serve which was the Bretton Woods institutions to get Europe back on their feet after the war but what that does not account for is the needs of countries most of whom did not even exist when the Bretton Woods institutions were created in addition to that again we get back to a playing field that is not level if I want to conduct a project in South Africa versus in Norway on renewable energy the playing field is not level when you look at the risks that are assumed including things like the effects risks that changes the equation and puts you from something that you're dealing with financing at 4% over 35 years to financing at 10 or 12% over 20 years and so if you do not address those issues then you won't be able to bring that in. Countries are being told that just simply by existing that the risks are there and when you are like mine existing on the front lines of a climate crisis where every single year we play Russian roulette with hurricanes whether or not we're hit our insurance premiums go up because we have a big brother to the north of us who because of its positioning is struck every single year that strike may be 0.1% of their GDP but for a country like Dominic or Barbados or Antigua and Barbuda that is 100, 200, 300% of GDP and so these are the things that we need to take into account what the Bridgetown initiative has sought to do is to give you a roadmap of actions that will get you there. Six basic steps and what we need now are the international financial mechanism to respond. There has been some action from the likes of the World Bank from the IMF etc but there is more needed and we also need to understand as well that there are certain other things being brought to play that are also not levelling the playing field like interpretations of article 2.1c that focus on low greenhouse gas emissions and forget the second part of the article 2.1c which deals with climate resilient development and the fact that many adaptation activities are not low GHG aligned. For example if I'm building a sea wall I'm using high grade marine strength concrete with a high rejection rate high amount of steel it is critical for me for my adaptation and protection but it doesn't meet GHG low GHG emission standards. Thanks, thanks very insightful. Okay Matias and we go to a question from the audience. Matias please. No on this particular topic I think that also very much like Ricardo said and highlighted this is indeed why we from the Swedish and the US side have been so keen to have a more in depth conversation on article 2.1c of the Paris Agreement because it is precisely these kind of issues which we would want to engage in a further conversation with our real global partners within the negotiations. There's a lot ongoing outside the negotiations as recorded pointed to and I indeed I was a bit surprised that we didn't see more of the conversation about the reform of the international financial system coming in to co-frontate but as has been highlighted it can be discussed but the actions and decisions are actually taken outside and there have been steps taken throughout the year partly as a response to the call which was issued already at COP 27 for the amount of lateral development banks for example to reform their business models and that work has been ongoing throughout the year but obviously more can be done I think that also sort of speaks to not only the usefulness of having a conversation on 2.1c of the Paris Agreement within the negotiations but also this whole concept of the links between climate and development because it's for us at least I think this sort of cuts to the heart of that conversation where we want to see that it's not sort of two separate strands but it is really part and parcel of the same package both from a policy point of view but also from a finance point of view where we have in 2015 we should remember that we didn't only set out or design the Paris Agreement but also the SDGs as well as the development finance agenda and all of these three taken together provide us with a pretty good roadmap in terms of how we can be designing policies at the national level to spur both climate and development but also how we finance those actions in terms of setting the right kind of investment climate at the national level securing investments both domestically and international and I think that sort of comes back also to obviously we as development partners stand ready to support our developing country partners with the kind of finance that we can provide through our development finance channels but ultimately the bulk of the finance needed for the transition to net zero is needs to come from private sources and in order for that finance to flow we need to have investment climate in every country which attracts that kind of investment I do recognize that I mean not least from the SIDS perspective I mean as Ricardo highlighted we know where storms are becoming more frequent and more intense and you know death burdens are difficult there are special situations for many countries and we need sort of to find those solutions which can speak to the kind of challenges that each country faces but ultimately this needs to be a conversation about how do we set in place investment climates which attracts the kind of investment necessary and that's not sort of a climate issue that's a development issue how do we deal with good governance how do we need with political stability how do we deal with corruption which are barriers to investments when I speak to Swedish national actors why aren't you investing more in developing countries in some cases without just you know the level of awareness they're not very familiar with these markets so how can we also be supporting our investment community in raising that level of awareness for them to also see that these are indeed interesting markets which can provide a good return but for that to happen there also needs to be that kind of stability in the investment climate which again it's not a climate issue it's not something we will solve within the UNFCC but it is sort of a wider development issue more retention for us to be global to make in progress as a global community thank you and we will yes maybe we return to the the finance also in the next couple of questions I have three more questions I think that we will have time for but so now from my end there is this audience so first one from the audience Tina yeah and it's of course really hard to select there's a lot of interesting questions coming in many on issues as well that have been discussed but I'm going to pose just one question now from Luciana Coelho asking the panel not a specific panel member but the panel if you would like to comment on the discussion regarding transfer of technology but also capacity building during the COP or at the COP so where these topics and discussion to what extent they haven't been given much attention in the media does anyone want to comment on this I can maybe briefly comment I mean there were obviously discussions on these agenda items as well maybe not as highly sort of highlighted in the media as others and for some of those there were also difficulties I mean again on technology transfer I mean there's always a link to again to finance and how you know how to make sure that finance available to in order for that technology transfer to be able to happen but I mean personally I would hope that these issues actually could get more attention because they are really two crucial points both in in terms of technology transfer I mean maybe the term in itself is a bit you know what is it actually that we're talking about I think again for us it comes back to you know how can we as global partners be able to share and make available the technology which is available and to spur that kind of technology development in across countries and that of course also in a way links to capacity building how can we as partners be supporting in terms of capacity development both when it comes to institutional building building capacity in terms of knowledge making sure that there are the right kind of policies and legislation in place in order to accelerate action so indeed I think those are two topics which often would deserve more attention than they actually get Yeah I would agree with that I think among the three means of implementation finance, technology transfer and capacity building we tend to focus a lot on finance for many good reasons but it's unfortunate I think to not recognize what we can do and should be doing with technology transfer we did some research on this head of another summit the Stockholm plus 50 summit last year in Stockholm and we sort of I mean that it has become a little bit of if I can say like a dormant agenda we propose that maybe we should think of it as co-development of technology instead and try and you know get some new ideas how we can ensure that all countries and all communities have access to to the best possible technology in the end I think one really alarming finding I saw a while ago was Ungtard had made a sort of assessment that the green transition could actually increase the innovation gaps between developed and developing countries rather than close it so I think it's really important that we try and think new about technology transfer or co-development of technology a couple of initiatives were launched at the COP for example Sweden India innovation partnership when it comes to heavy industry emissions and also one between the UK and Brazil I believe it's happening but yes I think we need to turn much more attention to this both from a research point of view and a policy point of view Thanks and we will have I see there are many interesting questions in the panel so I will try to speed up the last part of this post-match analysis so we have time for some more questions in the end Ricardo I would like to return to you and mention the loss in damage the great outcomes from this and the swift handling was indeed a success but was it a success in content as well you seem to imply that I think it was from the perspective of someone who was involved in the discussions I don't think that any of the parties actually got exactly what they wanted at the end of the day but I think that what we see is really what was a hard thought outcome and it was something that all of the parties more or less could agree on and that it represented for all of us a very positive step towards addressing the critical issue of loss and damage as you know when you look at what was there you had coverage for mitigation and for adaptation but the reality is that we have failed globally to mitigate it means that there's a greater need for adaptation and that adaptation cannot be as effective or efficient and so as a result loss and damage will occur and I think that it was a combination of the hard work of the individuals involved their commitment but also the fact that this is going to go down as the hottest year on record and we have seen some horrific disasters and crises on the international scale so it was very clear that we needed that agreement that it was recognized that the agreement itself was very fragile that you needed to get it as soon as possible for those who were in the room when that decision was made there was an immediate pause and all of the parties who were involved as transitional committee members as well as advisors walked over to each other there were congratulatory hugs there were kisses there were tears there was laughter it ran the gamut of emotions I think that it represented an incredible outcome I think if you speak to anybody who was involved in that process they will tell you that it was a very proud moment that everybody who has been a part of that see each other as part of a family but you will not hear any of us say that we want to relive it again so please nobody suggests that that is how we address anything else going forward under climate finance thank you Ricardo what do you agree yes I think this was again historic given the sensitivities around loss and damage that we have seen since the start of the climate convention I think what's actually my first contact with climate negotiations was when I was studying the adaptation fund when it was established back in 2007 it was very similar type of discussion concerns about governance some sort of ambiguity what exactly is the fund going to finance what kind of projects what is adaptation I see a lot of parlance but also it's interesting now to look at the adaptation fund it is a successful fund it has found it's niche I think it is perceived as working well and that gives me hope that this loss and damage fund will also find it a good place in this landscape of climate finance and funds speaking of adaptation another theme that perhaps wasn't swiftly dealt with was the global goal and adaptation Matthias you were one of the co-chairs of that track it was fraught with which we might have anticipated to see more of it wasn't damage but it was common but responsibilities and respective capabilities it was finance it was a different themes that were discussed and as for some analysis from some observers who said that they suspected it was tactics from some countries part like my development country to the Arab group to stall the negotiations as one of the co-chairs what's your assessment of why the global goal and adaptation was so with conflicts I mean the conversations over the past two years have been difficult at times where there have been different perspectives on sort of how do you how we want the global goal and adaptation to be framed is it sort of a bottom up approach where we will be doing a sort of designing global goal where we primarily support the development on a national level of the kind of policies and actions which countries can take or is it more sort of designing these kind of more top level global goals which then would be sort of the guiding star for the development of the goal and those in some way I guess those two perspectives have now been merged in the decision which came out of COP28 so eventually parties managed to agree on that but yes just as in my experience as the co-facilitated during the first week there was indeed it was very clear towards the end of the first week especially that some parties were not willing to engage basically in the conversation I mean that was the groups that you mentioned both the Arab group and the LMDCs whichever way we tried to get the text over the line there was no agreement from their side to engage so I perceive that as a tactic if you like in terms of having that conversation primarily during the course of the second week but why should not come up with different responsibilities and expected capabilities be part of the global goal of adaptation I must say for me personally that is a bit of a it's it comes back sort of in a way to the question which you record the highlighted also previously in sort of the relationship between the COP and the CMA and the convention and the Paris Agreement because I mean these are principles which are enshrined in the convention and hence also are part of the Paris Agreement itself but I think the fear from many developed countries in making those kind of references in the global goal itself was that that in its way would sort of cement the kind of divisional parties which we have had since the 90s when the convention was signed and obviously the world has developed since then thank God in many ways where the sort of the so called annexes we have to the convention makes very clear which are developed and which are developing countries which represents a world view that we from an EU perspective we do not really think the current world view as it is not both when it comes to mission but also when it comes to economic development and again that question cuts to finance because the fear I think was that if you repeat these kind of principles so very clearly there is also a fear that that would be sort of cementing this kind of provider provision aspect of finance it is the developed countries according to the annexes of the convention which are the constant providers of climate finance we talked to colleagues from Saudi Arabia they say we are the fifth largest provider of climate finance why can't we just recognize that instead of having this basically construed debate around who are the providers so I think that's sort of why there was that conversation about the DCBR principles in the global golden adaptation but I mean eventually we got a result and I think we're also looking forward to the conversations on the new goal on finance next year where we hope to be able to recognize that the world has moved on since 1990 and there is a wider scope of countries which actually can provide finance to the group of countries which are in need of finance including like the UAE we saw the commitment and the contribution to the loss and damage fund for example thanks Eric Adam thank you so much it was an issue at COP that I trained my level best to keep us far away from as I could and unfortunately I was pulled into it a little less because my minister ended up being the AOSIS champion on the GGA but what I wanted to speak about really is the fact that you will see certain things recurring the SU of CBDR the SU of how do you interpret article 2.1c the SU of COP versus CMA versus CMP but the thing that I think needed to ensure did not happen at this COP was that any of the countries hands were tied by what was reflected under the GGA or the GST going into the next year which is the final year on the new collective quantified goal on climate finance the NCQG and I think that what we had at the end of the day was the Matias and others and thanks to the ministers in that second week is a text that as we say in the space we could live with and we can work with and I think that is setting us up so that the big issue for the next COP is going to be the agreement on the new collective quantified goals on climate finance I don't know if fortunately or unfortunately I find myself caught up in those discussions in a significant way as well so I think that that is also going to say to you that that is one of the critical things that you need to look forward to going into COP 29 as it relates to the overall COP to climate finance and to what will be the goal to replace the 100 billion goal I think we are very fortunate that you are involved in those processes anyway thanks so I have one final question before we turn to more questions to the audience and that is the global stock take to me personally I think what the outcome how we will assess the outcome from COP 28 it will be how the global stock takes forward and that we get a credible process there Maria was that sufficient in the agreement on the global stock take to have a credible process forward in the next years to come to go from word to action well only a lot of difficult questions here I think that one part an important part is of course what is in the GST text so therefore we see all these discussions on how do you frame the transition away or phase out or phase down or not at all and I think that the current or the text that came out of the GST has some interesting wording around transition away but also that is so specific in terms of listing the types of actions that our countries are expected to or called upon to contribute to and I think so it mentions for those of you who have not super closely of the GST that mentions the transition away from the fossil fuels but also facing down unavailable cold power and tripling renewables as also mentioned before so it lists a lot of things I think that that will be interesting to see how that is taken forward in terms of the specificity of the language which is different from the Paris agreement itself which is more general on the targets but the other important part of the GST is of course how is it taken forward and what does being informed by the GST mean in terms of updating the NDCs, the national climate plants and since this is the first GST under the Paris agreement we haven't seen that play out yet so I think it will be really interesting to see in the next round of NDCs in 2025 how and to what extent countries actually reflect the GST and I wouldn't be surprised if we see the same type of dynamic that we've heard here about the negotiations also play out in the NDCs where some would refer to the GST text as a whole while some might pick out a few of the paragraphs that they want to emphasise their importance so I think that it's really hard to tell I think but of course it's an important part as this is the main ratchet up mechanism of the Paris agreement which the whole agreement kind of builds on to actually increase ambition Mathias do you sleep well at night resting assure that we have a good process the next few years we at least need to make sure that we do have a good process we have a couple of pointers in the decision itself there will be a dialogue at the so-called SP sessions in Bonn this year which sort of starts us out basically in terms of implementing the GST decision but then of course in the end it will be up to us as parties to fill that with substance and I would hope that we from the EU side will be coming forward with ideas and thoughts on how we see that the GST process will involve in terms of implementation I mean we from the EU side are expecting also a suggestion from the European Commission already in February in terms of our new 2040 target which eventually then will form the basis of the next EU NDC to be presented ahead of COP 13, 2025 but I mean these will be two intense years where we will be working to both prepare our own NDC within the EU but then of course also supporting and encouraging countries globally in terms of preparations of their NDCs and again coming back to where the bulk of the emissions are from the G20 so how can we ensure that the G20 NDCs are in line with 1.5 and making those steps in terms of being economy wide all gases and also representing progression and here again making sure that we have make best use of the process we already have we have the mitigation work program we now have the global goal and adaptation we have the just transition work program we have a number of finance agenda items including the new goal and hopefully in depth conversation on 2.1.C in the transition of financial flows so how can we make sure that all of these work programs also support the both elaboration of NDCs but then ultimately of course the implementation of those NDCs once they have been presented in 2025. Thanks, thanks so much well let's with that turn to some more questions from the audience Tina before we wrap up. Yeah thank you and we have two questions on article 6.5 which I'm picking out here and the first one is that the EU is rather critical of the guidelines that the article 6.4 supervisory body had drafted for carbon dioxide removal projects and what are the prospects that the EU's concerns about the quality of carbon removal credits will be met at future UNFCCC conferences I have a feeling that maybe Matthias also wants to take a first step at this there's a more general question on article 6.5 that is directed to Ricardo maybe you can take that after it's like a general view on the lack of progress on article 6.5 but maybe Matthias if you want to start Sure happy to and I think we have to be working harder from the EU side to be sharing our concerns when it comes to the design of the article 6 framework we concluded the rulebook in Glasgow so basically we have sort of the general rules in place but now we need to work on these final details as well to ensure the integrity of carbon markets and making sure that we're not double counting and that actually whenever we do article 6 projects that they actually do contribute to higher global ambition so we said ahead of COP26 in Glasgow that we'd rather have a no deal than a bad deal and that was sort of the same approach we took here that we don't want to decide on rules which we will be having for a foreseeable future so but from the sweeter side we are also very much engaged in article 6 and our energy agency has been working to conclude agreements with a number of countries in terms of setting those kind of pilot schemes in motion so of course we have an interest to ensure that there is these global rules being decided so I think that's something for us to work on now during the course of next year to synthesise our partners in terms of what we do really need to have in place in order to have high integrity carbon markets Thanks Ricardo Thank you so much honestly article 6 is one of those things that I try to keep very far away from the world who sits in that space and I have a colleague who many know quite well who's passed away unfortunately that being Hugh Sealy who also used to work in that space the reality is from our perspective we're looking for as fair a market as possible well understanding that for many of us there is not much out there in that respect for a country like mine for instance Barbados with a very ambitious NBC it leaves us with very little in the way of carbon credits that we could potentially work from but it would be remiss of me not to speak to some of the concerns of one of my sister countries in the region and that being the Bahamas the Bahamas has the largest expanse of seagrass beds in the world and there's little or nothing that they're in a position to gain relative to carbon credits in spite of what they want to do to seek to continue to protect the seagrass beds and ensure that they continue to exist because they find it very difficult to prove additionality and there is a good reason for needing to prove additionality and to ensure that the market itself operates in a fair manner but what then happens is that you get a number of countries like the Bahamas who are being squeezed in that overall process where they would like to be able to utilise their seagrass beds to have them recognised for the purpose that they serve in terms of carbon sequestration but also to be able to monetise that asset and their protection of that asset and that speaks to a broader issue where when you look at the Red Plus and you look at the issues that have occurred there but there's a lot presented for terrestrial opportunities for carbon sequestration for countries like those in the Caribbean and other small island states where we're essentially more large ocean and where for instance in the case of Barbados our marine space is 424 times the size of our terrestrial space but there are very few blue or ocean related carbon methodologies that are registered and I think that that is one of the things that we need to look at effectively. Perhaps you can also add a 6.5 is that we should not double account the emission reduction that are included in the emissions trading in the host country who is issuing those credits. So the issue of 6.4 and 6.5 are therefore very much linked in that respect and I think that their concerns globally relative to double counting, relative to greenwashing etc. that we need to be able to address but I think others can tell you that when it comes to Article 6 the rest of us are very pleased to let them go off into their little rooms and disappear for practically the duration of COP before they surface invariably especially 6.4 on the very very last day with some sort of agreement scraped together. Thank you. So let's see if we're on time. Yes we could at least have one more question. Tina? Yes I was expecting to have more but we have a question that is more of the general scope maybe given what was already also mentioned the different reactions to the final text that when it was approved from the huge progress to the step backwards and the question is within the realm of what is politically feasible but also given the constraints of the framework are the best outcomes that you would see that could have been possible in this COP and maybe we can also see this to COP 29 so the question here from the audience is in other words what kind of ambition or sickness is reasonable to expect at all from COPs. What's that, would you like to take that one? I think that's a really good question and I think we're at this part of your word that was the COP a glass half full or half empty and you can, there's not one correct answer obviously but I think as I see the COP it's a consensus the process what it can do is to raise the lowest common denominator so that's the significance of it of course we want many countries or others to run fast ahead and show what is possible and inspire and take risks etc so I guess maybe I would have rather lower expectations of COPs having said that I think I just want to, maybe this is my final comment I just want to reconnect to something very important said by Maria Janas initially on the implementation because now with the GST we have been discussing how can that raise ambition so we're looking forward to the next cycle of NDC as Mattia said the EU is now working on a 2040 target proposal that part of the process seems to work I also think that what Emma said about you know this idea of a market fair or the COP as a meeting place for discussing solutions between business government authority, civil society I think that also works and we need to have those climate implementation summits if you like but it's maybe a little bit weak still in this whole process it's the climate accountability summit so you know actually following up how we're doing on the targets that we have already committed to and as we saw yesterday the European Commission assessed that the EU member states are not yet on track to achieve the 2030 target to reduce emissions by 55% it's something like 51% is the current outlook so I think that's really important to not forget and that's also actually one of my one of the reasons I went to COP was to meet with other climate policy councils as national level institutions to actually ensure that we meet the targets that we have already set so I think that's an increasingly important part of the course of climate action and it would be interesting to in another webinar discuss how can you know we reform the process so we actually do a better job of evaluating and following up and learning from that thank you great and we have many other super interesting questions but we have to say them but we encourage the panelists to take a look and all the audience to take a look at the questions because that will be super interesting to continue such a conversation elsewhere because now it's time to wrap up and my last question to you would have been if the if the Dubai Consensus the name of this agreement coming out from COP28 no it's the UAE Consensus UAE Consensus would raise the ambitions on climate action but you seem to think so so my question to you instead is what mechanisms are the primary drivers what is most the most important mechanisms in this consensus that will drive ambition if you think I interpret your answers right that it will drive ambition if not you can correct me so should we start with the order that we started Maria sure yes I think that one of the main things of course is going to be the NDC's interiors that's where we're going to see the ambitions hopefully aligned with the 1.5 but I think that next year with the transparency reports it's going to be interesting with these as Mathias mentioned the national reports on how countries are actually doing on implementing their NDCs and reflecting upon the discussions that we've had here too that it's not about just raising ambitions but also about the implementation so I think in that sense transparency reports coming over the course of next year are going to be interesting thanks short and sweet because we have about one minute a person now so that's great Mathias I think very much along the same lines as Maria just said you know and also what also was saying in terms of the climate policy councils for example which are being set up you know how do we at the global level support the elaboration and implementation of national systems to national institutions to spur action on the national level setting out the regulations and policies ensuring that there's finance in place and highlighting whatever is the kind of innovative technology that is available to support the implementation of those kind of policies and making maybe sort of the accountability framework work on a national level instead of the global level where it might be more difficult thank you Ricardo thank you so much I believe you are having some issues here with the mute can you hear me yes okay excellent I think yes but there are two caveats that I would put there one they need not just for revised and more ambitious NBC's but the need for us to be very clear how we're going to address both the conditional and the unconditional component in NBC's because I think for many developing countries there's a large component of their NBC that is conditional and so you need to look at opportunities for financing in that respect and then of course the other one is still the NCQG we need to have that ambitious new goal that is centered on public finance because public finance is what can be guaranteed there is certainly a significant role for private finance and climate financing going forward but I think the discomfort from the developing country level is one in which when you have an over reliance on private finance that you cannot control that you're going to have issues in that respect so I think new NBC's ways in which we're going to address the conditional component of NBC's and an ambitious new collective point of view for private finance going forward thank you Emma I would agree on the transition reports definitely and also what has been highlighted earlier regarding the GST and how they're centered around the importance of the the fact that they cover every part of the negotiations so that they can be the indices can be even more actionable and also more transparent but I do also would like to touch upon OSA also mentioned and I would think the importance of bridging the implementation gaps are being best done by breaking the silos between the interconnecting stakeholders and really make sure that we are rethinking the process of making sure that the interconnecting stock stakeholders are being meet each other and that we can much make the challenges and the solutions move forward thanks Emma OSA I already used my minutes before so I will say thank you everyone for really great questions that's fantastic OSA and I can say thank you to all I started I was saying this was a fantastic panel I think I was more than right I'm very grateful for your contributions and all your insights here it's been extremely rewarding for myself and I learned a lot and I hope that's the same for the audience thank you also for everybody online that engaged in questions which was really really good questions some questions that we will keep on thinking about I would particularly though like to thank the communications team at Stockholm MITE Institute, Maria Cole and Alicia Polishuk and also at the Linköping University with Tina Nieset which you already seen but also Myla Schibbe a host in a fantastic job in organizing this without them this would not have happened so thank you so much also thank you so much everybody for making it possible great job and I look forward to see you all next year after that COP 29 post-match analysis thank you thank you so much