 Hello and welcome everyone. Thank you for joining us today for our briefing, Momentum on Climate Adaptation. I'm Dan Bresset, Executive Director of the Environmental and Energy Study Institute. Our session today is the second briefing in a five-part series, what Congress needs to know in the lead-up to COP26. For the entire month of October, which I like to call to the chagrin of certain of my colleagues, COPtober, we are focused on providing briefings and related educational resources with the information and insights policymakers and their staff need in the lead-up to, during and after the 26th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. I would like to acknowledge our honorary co-sponsor, the British Embassy of Washington and our great partner, the Henry M. Jackson Foundation, for their support and cooperation to make this briefing series possible. The Environmental and Energy Study Institute was founded in 1984 on a bipartisan basis by members of Congress to provide science-based information about environmental energy and climate change topics to policymakers. More recently, we've also developed a program to provide technical assistance to rural utilities interested in on-bill financing programs for their customers. EESI provides informative, objective, nonpartisan coverage, climate change topics and briefings, written materials, and on social media. All of our educational resources, including briefing recordings, fact sheets, issue briefs, articles, newsletters, and podcasts are always available for free online at www.esi.org. And the best way to stay informed about our latest educational resources is to subscribe to our bi-weekly newsletter, Climate Change Solutions. And as part of our focus on COP26, we will publish a special daily newsletter during the climate talks, Glasgow Dispatch, to help keep Congress updated on the developments of these critical negotiations. You can subscribe online at www.esi.org forward slash COP News. This is the second EESI briefing of 2021 that puts the spotlight on climate adaptation and resilience in the broader context of COP26. Back on April 19th, our first look happened just as we began to commemorate the 51st Earth Day and while we awaited the new greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal, the U.S. nationally determined contribution set to be unveiled by the Biden-Harris administration at the Leader's Summit on Climate. And now we return to the topic almost exactly six months later in a few weeks before leaders, diplomats, scientists and other stakeholders descend on Glasgow to advance the negotiations started by the historic Paris Agreement. The focus of today's briefing are adaptation initiatives that have been launched or scaled up since the last meeting of the Conference of Parties in 2019. These initiatives span the multiple dimensions of adaptation work demonstrating the many ways that we need to think about and take actions to adapt to the changing climate. Climate adaptation and resilience is a major area of emphasis in our work to provide educational resources to policymakers. We know as discussed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's sixth assessment report that even if we were to muster the transformational policies and investments that put us on a path to limit global warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius tomorrow, we would still be dealing with climate change for years and decades because of the greenhouse gas emissions already in the atmosphere. So we will need to advance a comprehensive set of climate adaptation and resilience solutions to withstand these effects, especially where those impacts affect disproportionately vulnerable frontline and environmental justice communities. In addition to the April 19th briefing, we previously organized a 16-part congressional briefing series about coastal resilience issues that featured success stories and innovative approaches from US coastal communities from Maine to Hawaii, from Alaska to Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. From those briefings, we organized the various findings presented by more than 40 panelists into a major report released just about one year ago that featured 30 specific policy recommendations for Congress to consider. This report, A Resilient Future for Coastal Communities is built around six guiding principles that generally inform our approach to climate adaptation and resilience. The sixth principle, climate adaptation and resilience work should complement and contribute to a decarbonized clean energy economy is what continues to motivate us and is with everything else we do, you can access our report by visiting us online at www.esa.org. Initiatives we were able to cover today are complemented by additional efforts like national adaptation planning, country dialogues under the Adaptation Action Coalition and the Adaptation Research Alliance. In fact, ESI just published an article on the Adaptation Research Alliance and for the first time, we included adaptation and resilience jobs and our latest update to our Climate Jobs fact sheet. Both of those new resources were featured in our bi-weekly newsletter, Climate Change Solutions and can also be found online. So here we are today, just a few weeks before COP26 gets underway in Glasgow. While the State Department leads the official new US negotiations under the UNFCCC, congressional attention paid to COP26 is critical because reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and scaled up adaptation work will require new policies and investments that only Congress can provide. Our briefing series, which began last Friday, is designed to help Congress understand the intersection of US climate policy and international climate negotiations and the importance of our actions in the context of COP26 and what comes next. Perhaps you joined us a week ago for Sir Robert Watson and Kristiana Figueras who helped with the stakes of climate change in context and provide a hopeful outlook for what needs to be done. It was an extraordinary conversation and I encourage anyone who missed it to watch the archived webcast available at www.esa.org. Today, as I mentioned, our focus will be climate adaptation. And on Wednesday, October 20th, we will consider the important role of international climate finance. On Friday, October 22nd, we will describe the stakes of the negotiations set to beginning Glasgow and after COP26 on Thursday, November 18th, we'll convene a briefing for an after-action report about key outcomes and possible next steps. And don't forget to subscribe to that new daily newsletter, Glasgow Dispatch, to follow progress from COP26 from a congressional perspective. You can subscribe online at www.esa.org. Forward slash COP News. Today we will start with opening remarks from Gonzalo Munoz. Gonzalo was appointed by the Chilean presidency of COP25 in the United Nations as a high-level climate champion. In this role, Gonzalo mobilizes climate action in non-state actors around the world which includes leading the race to resilience. The race to resilience is a global campaign that aims to catalyze a step change in global ambition for climate resilience, putting people in nature first in the pursuit of a resilient world where we don't just survive climate shocks and stresses but we thrive in spite of them. Gonzalo is also the co-founder and executive president of Tricyclos, a B Corp certified business with a mission to foster new designs for a world without waste. So let me turn it over to hear these opening remarks. Good afternoon everyone and thank you Dan for setting me up to give a few opening remarks to help kick off today's adaptation session. I'm really sorry I'm not able to join you in person but thank you to the institute for allowing me to give a rallying call for climate adaptation. When the UK took over the COP26, I was really delighted that they made adaptation and resilience a key priority. We often speak of an ambition of between state and non-ferrous sectors. The idea that if we demonstrate race level of ambition from non-selectors we can call upon states to do the same at these crucial climate moments like COP26 in Glasgow. So for this to be a truly decisive moment of climate action though, we have to answer the call of the climate crisis with action on both mitigation and adaptation. We cannot rely on just one of the two and there's so much interlink, we know that. This is one of the reasons we set up the Race to Resilience in January of this year to run alongside the mitigation focus Race to Zero campaign, both as siblings campaigns. So to rally leadership and of course support from cities, region, businesses and investors to help frontline communities build resilience and adapt to the impact story of climate change such as extreme heat flow, flooding and sea level rise. Race to Resilience, the campaign goals is to catalyze a step-changing global action by non-selectors to build the resilience to climate shocks of four billion people from vulnerable groups and communities by 2030. For them to not only survive the crisis but thrive despite of it. The good news to report is that awareness and momentum on climate adaptation is growing. So since we launched the Race to Resilience we had 24 power initiatives joined the campaign representing over 2,500 organizations and taking action in over 100 cities, sorry, countries, 100 countries. So this includes partners like the World Resource Institute who are part of initiative 2020 who are changing the dynamic of land degradation that in America and the Caribbean by beginning to protect and restore 50 million hectares of forest farm pastures and other landscapes by 2030. So within the US, the United States we have majors and governors stepping up as part of the stream heat resilience alliance and ocean risk and resilience action alliance to protect the communities from climate change impacts. So one point I want to get across here is that when it comes to adaptation and resilience it doesn't matter where you live or operate. The systems we all rely on are absolutely interconnected. We are only as strong as the most vulnerable among us and that is so real all around the world. These are challenges which requires really coordinated responses across all level of government and internationally. And I think that we have learned so much from the COVID crisis as well, right? This is where we call upon you policy makers to continue to bang the drum on climate adaptation and resilience. The race to resilience recognizes the outside role of policy makers have in making the decisions of government as effective as possible. This is why at the start of the campaign we had some clear policy recommendations taking from the great work of the global commission on adaptation and the American partnership resilience pathways. We need to ensure early warning and action against climate disasters are in place for one million people in developing countries by 2025. And climate finance reaches the most vulnerable by developing locally-led adaptation plans. This is an area where the risk informed early action partnership is taking a leading role. And climate-proof key infrastructure and services including actions by developing countries where water resources need to be resilient to climate risks. We need to increase the resilience of all urban settlements by 2030 with very specific plans to manage the risk of heat waves by 2025. These are just some of the ways we can make a community resilient to climate change. And I know today's session will look at how we can go from ideas to really concrete an urgent implementation. Of course, none of this happens without a mobilization of financing. So let me make that my final message. We must close the finance gap between mitigation and adaptation. This is not just the right thing to do but absolutely the smart thing to do. Benefit cost ratios on investment adaptation range from two to one to 10 to one. So absolutely the smart thing to do. And this is investments we know create what all what the states want, jobs, safer communities and regenerate nature. So with that, I will hand back over to them and say thank you again to the ESI and the British Embassy in Washington for convening this event to highlight work and adaptation and resilience in the lead up to COP26. Thanks so much. Thank you Gonzalo. It's great to hear from you today and we definitely wish you could be with us in person. Hopefully someday soon we'll be able to convene and talk about all of these events on Capitol Hill with our congressional audience in the room at the same time. But it means a lot that you were able to take some time out of your schedule to join us today and to share those messages. And we totally agree. And I really appreciate that you ended on the message of climate finance which is something we'll address next week on Wednesday at our next briefing. So thank you very much for that. It is now my privilege to introduce the first of our three panelists who will be joining us today to talk about climate adaptation and the work that remains to be done coming up at COP26. So I'd like to introduce Ben Webster. Ben Webster has worked in the humanitarian sector since 2003 and within the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement since 2012. He's worked in emergency contexts in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Caribbean and held roles such as head of emergencies and head of climate adaptation and early action at the British Red Cross. Ben is now the head of secretariat for the risk-informed early action partnership which aims to make one billion people safer from disaster by 2025. He's passionate about improving and scaling up anticipatory action for the communities most affected by disasters and crises. Ben, welcome to our briefing today. Thanks, Dan. Thank you for the introduction. Can you see my slides, okay? Yes. Perfect. So as Gonzalo mentioned, we are often focused on mitigation, reducing carbon emissions when we talk about climate change. But I'm really glad that this session is focused on climate change adaptation because a large amount of the carbon emissions are baked in now and therefore we will be facing inevitable climate change in the years to come. And as mentioned, I come from a humanitarian background and I've seen firsthand the impacts of extreme weather events around the world. And so according to the World Meteorological Organization, just last year, more than 30 million people were displaced by climate-related disasters. And in the coming 10 years, some 325 million people, really poor people will be living in 49 of the most hazard-prone countries in the world. And the cost of adaptation is really increasing as well. The cost of climate change is really ramping up. So there's already an annual estimated cost of $70 billion per year being paid for climate change impacts, but that could sort of over 300 billion by 2030. And it's not just the poorest countries who are being impacted. We've seen this year with the floods in Europe, the heat waves in North America. Last year, the wildfires in Australia. All of us are impacted by the changing climate and therefore we do need to adapt as a matter of urgency. Now in Gonzalo's presentation, he mentioned the economic aspect as well, the benefit-cost ratio of some of these adaptation measures and they range from two to one to 10 to one. Now, if we look at this graph from the Global Commission on Adaptation, it actually shows that that highest benefit-cost ratio is for investment in early warning systems. And so there's real focus at the moment from the World Meteorological Organization, from cruise, from other initiatives to really improve the infrastructure and systems that we have around the world to raise early warning alerts when we know that they're extreme weather events on the horizon. But those early warning systems are only as strong or as useful as the early action that they trigger. So coming from the humanitarian background, we've seen in recent years some of the agencies within the Red Cross, Red Crescent Movement, UN agencies like WFP and FAO and civil society organizations as well starting to use those early warning systems to trigger early action. So this is action that is based on a forecast or collective risk analysis. It takes place before the hazard strikes. So rather than waiting for the floods to arrive and then responding reactively after the fact, action can take place actually before the hazard strikes to reduce the impact. And all the evidence is showing that this saves lives, it protects livelihoods, it assures the development gains and the resilience gains that have been made in the longer term and it's more cost effective as well. It's much cheaper, more efficient to deliver assistance in advance of the impact of the hazard rather than waiting for it to strike and then responding after the fact. So what this looks like, for instance, in Bangladesh last year, there were forecasts of floods hitting particular rural communities and the UN surf, the Central Emergency Response Fund was able to trigger in a matter of hours to support both WFP and the Bangladesh Red Crescent and some local civil society actors to provide assistance to the communities that were likely to be impacted before the floods actually arrived. And all the evidence is showing with the evaluations that have taken place since the operation, that it's been much more effective in terms of reducing people's vulnerability and improving their ability to recover quickly and so on. The problem with these approaches is that they've remained at pilot or project level to date and therefore in 2019, at the UN Climate Action Summit, the risk-informed Early Action Partnership was born to try and take these approaches to scale, recognising that we cannot work in silos and expect to take these approaches to scale. We have to bring together the climate community, the development community, the humanitarian community, to bridge those different silos and work together if we really to see these approaches taken to scale and realise the benefit. So the partnership actually brought together governments, civil society, international organisations and importantly private sector as well, like the insurance and reinsurance industries, to see if we can really start adopting these practices and embedding them within policy and practice at a national level. So the partnership was launched with these four overarching targets. Target one is ensuring that at least 50 countries by 2025 have integrated their climate change adaptation and disaster risk management policies, plans and legal frameworks so that we can reduce the impact of climate change on people and the environment. Target two is around linking the financial instruments that need to be in place, that can trigger ahead of those hazards impacting and linking them to effective Early Action Plan so that we know that resource can help protect people before the hazards strike. And then targets three and four around improving the early warning systems, making sure that they are really targeting last mile communities. Well, what's traditionally been known as last mile communities, we want to flip that on its head and make sure that those last mile communities are actually the first mile, the first consideration when we design early warning systems and that everything that we do in the international community is to support those communities to take action and protect themselves. So those were the four targets, launched what we do as a partnership, what we focus on. Number one, really generating momentum behind this agenda. When you explain it to people, it's a no brainer. Why would we not take action and respond when we know there's a credible forecast that something's gonna happen? It's, there's a moral imperative to act, but how are we going to do this? So we're generating the political momentum using events and opportunities to make sure that governments are supporting these approaches that we are embedding them into policy and practice and really seeing this momentum grow towards supporting the agenda. Secondly, creating an enabling environment. What are the practical things we can put in place to really enable this approach to flourish and to be taken to scale? So for instance, developing guidance and criteria for the donors so that they know they're investing effectively, be able to support these approaches. What are the policies that need to be in place at a national level? Where is the good practice that has enabled early action to be taken to scale? So we're currently providing case studies in different contexts to really analyze, what is it that constitutes an enabling environment and how do we replicate that in different places? And finally, because we've got such a broad partnership covering governments, civil society, private sector, international organizations, we've tried to create a marketplace function where slightly unusual partners and suspects can work together more effectively across these different silos, can understand each other, partner more effectively so that together we can start to deliver this at scale. So in terms of COP26, what needs to happen on the adaptation agenda? There are many things that need to come out of COP this year, really key opportunity for us, but these would be some of the main aspects that I would like to flag today. I mean, the Paris Agreement has been agreed and we all want to see it achieved, but we really need the concrete NDCs and NAPs that are going to help deliver that. So more countries coming forward with their national adaptation plans. Obviously as a partnership, we want to see these risk informed approaches being included in the national adaptation plans, but this is where the rubber will hit the road and we really want to see concrete action being taken of how we're going to reach the Paris Agreement. Secondly, providing equal focus on mitigation and adaptation. As Gonzalo mentioned, the race to resilience is as important as the race to zero and therefore there has to be equal focus on mitigation and adaptation. We know that the impacts of climate change are coming and many people, millions of people around the world are already facing the impacts and therefore we have to adapt right now. Thirdly, the $100 billion that was promised by rich countries still hasn't been achieved and to sustain trust within the parties that has to be delivered. So we want to see that gap bridged and the resource being provided in terms of international climate finance. As mentioned already, the finance needs to focus on mitigation and adaptation as well. The UN Secretary General is calling for 50% of all international climate finance to be focused on adaptation. There's still a way to go before we reach that and therefore that needs to be a focus at COP, the really focused minds on that goal. An acknowledgement that loss and damage is a very real issue. So no matter how well we adapt in the longer term there will be residual risk and we have to be able to manage that risk and where there is loss and there's damage, where coral reefs are dying out and where communities are having to be moved completely there is a price to be paid and we have to ensure that those communities who experience loss and damage are being supported with concrete actions and measures being taken. And then finally COP itself, the process needs to be fair and equitable, inclusive and transparent. As mentioned, trust is so important in this entire process and therefore we need to have that transparency and the inclusion incorporated into the negotiations to ensure that we can achieve these outcomes that everybody wants to see. In terms of REAP and what we want to achieve through COP so as a partnership we have over 50 partners now from those different groups that I mentioned. We want to cast a vision of what does early action at scale look like? We want to inspire countries who have not heard about this agenda so far. Why should they get engaged and what does this really look like at scale? We want to showcase examples from our different partners around the world to bring it to life and help explain what does this look like in reality and practice and we want to provide an opportunity to demonstrate commitments and pledges from those supporters of the early action agenda. So that is what we will aim to do through various events at COP26 and we really hope to increase the momentum so that we can see those one billion people made safer from disaster by 2025. I look forward to questions at the end of the session but right now I'll hand back to Dan and to my fellow speakers, thank you. Thank you, Ben. That was an awesome presentation and thank you for the segue into Q&A. We will have a Q&A discussion. I'll be joined by my colleague, Anna, again, a little bit later and we'll talk with our panelists and ask them lots of good questions and there's also a way for members of our audience to answer, to ask questions as well. If you'd like to ask a question of our panelists, there are two ways you can do that. One is by following us online on Twitter at EESI online and you can send us in a question that way. You can also send us an email to an email address askASK at ESI.org. It's an email address we use for briefings so that we can solicit questions, whichever one you like, you can choose but we will do our best to incorporate questions from the audience during the moderated discussion a little bit later. Ben made a great presentation. He had great slides. If you wanna go back and revisit Ben's slides and this goes for our other panelists as well as an archived webcast, briefing materials, presentation materials and eventually written notes, summary notes will be available online. So if you wanna go back and dig back into Ben's slides you can definitely do that by visiting us online at www.EESI.org. Our second panelist is Tamara Kojur. Tamara is a senior associate in WRI's Climate Resilience Practice. She helps lead the Institute's work on locally led adaptation and other research and programs focused on adaptation and resilience. In her time with WRI, she has also worked on the Global Commission on Adaptation, managing strategic engagement and locally led adaptation and as a monitoring evaluation and learning advisor providing technical support to project design and evaluations across WRI. Her background is in climate and development policy focusing primarily on climate change adaptation and mitigation within agriculture and food systems. Welcome to our briefing today. I'm really, really looking forward to your presentation. Great, thanks so much, Dan. Let me just find my presentation here and try to share my screen. Okay, can you see that okay? It looks like you are in presenter mode. Okay, try that again. How's that? Yes, looks great. Okay, great. Great, well, thanks so much again for having me. It's really great to be here and great to have the chance to talk with this really important topic, adaptation, in the lead up to COP26. So thinking about adaptation, as many of you know, when we're thinking about what we're gonna be seeing at COP26, what folks are gonna be talking about. I think many of you have already heard, we're hearing calls for more finance for adaptation, right? Gonzela mentioned this need to close the finance gap and that there's a need to recognize that while we're absolutely meeting the kind of missions and prevent further climate warming, that we also need to recognize that ecosystems, infrastructure, and very importantly, communities and people are already being affected by climate change. So we need to invest in adapting to climate impacts. We're also hearing calls for more finance to the most vulnerable countries and communities, as something that Gonzela and Ben also mentioned, just recognizing the disproportionate impacts of climate change, especially in the global south. And another call that is a bit more recent is a call for more adaptation that is locally led. And so that's what I'm here to talk about today. WRI is working really closely with the UK, with the COP26 presidency, and also with partners including IED to advance the momentum on locally led adaptation in the lead up to COP and moving forward. So why locally led adaptation? What is it? If you haven't heard this term before. So locally led adaptation is really about recognizing that the organizations, the local governments, farmers, coastal communities, the communities who are on the front lines of climate change were facing these impacts directly that they should be having agency over the decisions that are directly affecting their ability to build resilience to climate change, as well as access to finance for adapting to climate change and other resources that they might need, like climate information, climate data and institutional strengthening. So it's about centering these local partners, not just asking for their input, not just asking for their opinion, but really giving them agency over these decisions and these investments and households and communities around the world are actually the biggest spenders on adaptation, which makes this particularly pertinent. And this is important not because local actors are the ones who are on the ground facing these impacts. They have this nuanced understanding of the context on what solutions might work for them. And so with locally led adaptation, we're likely to end up with solutions that are more durable, sustainable in the long run, more suited to the context and that really bringing community ownership. And this is true everywhere. We talk about it often in an international context, but it's relevant in the US, in the global North as well. This is really a truly global issue and aligns closely with calls we're seeing, for example, from the climate justice movement. I'm a New Englander, I'm speaking to you from Maine, so maybe I'll give an example from here, from the lobster industry. I know we know that that lobster fishing has been affected by climate change, warming, waters have impacted the industry and there've been efforts here in Maine to ensure that fishermen and women are involved in informing planning efforts so that they can align their knowledge of the industry. They know what they need to be building resilience to climate impacts. They know firsthand the changing climate conditions that they're facing. So bringing them into planning processes to align their firsthand knowledge of the industry with the climate science that they need to help them to adapt is one of many, many examples of the importance of making sure that we're prioritizing the climate risks and the priorities that local communities and actors are facing. So whether it's lobster fishers or people living in urban heat islands or flood prone communities in the US, this is really relevant across the board and across the range of climate risks that we're facing. So you may be thinking, okay, that's obvious, that makes a lot of sense. We should absolutely be centering local communities who are facing climate risks. I agree, but the problem is that the status quo of funding for adaptation and planning and decision-making processes just isn't supporting this right now. It's pretty top-down and it's making it hard for local actors to access finance and to influence decisions. And this is true even in the case of well-intentioned donors who are trying to reach communities but still facing challenges and really making changes that are required and really making sure that the focus is on the agency and decentralizing decision-making power to those local communities. So I've put some stats here on the screen which I think kind of summarized it well that we're not seeing the finance that's needed and just to be clear, this is not about saying that everything adaptation needs to be happening at the most hyper, local level but it is about acknowledging that what we're seeing currently that levels of finance are clearly not nearly enough to support the needs that frontline communities have. And so we just need to find a better balance and improved coordination across levels to make sure that we are putting these priorities at the center. And this is not just me, not just WRI. This slide just shows some examples that we're seeing from a number of papers that have come out in recent years which are putting forward similar calls, having similar findings and recommendations, recognizing the need to decentralize finance and structure in a way that is more conducive to supporting local actors. So one thing I wanted to flag that WRI has been working on is these eight principles for a locally-led adaptation. This is something that we have co-developed with organizations like IED, Brack International, Some Dollars International and the International Center for Climate Change and Development and with input from a really diverse set of partners under the Global Commission on Adaptation and that's moved forward quite a bit. So this gets to the, what do we do about it? The eight, these eight principles are really meant to sort of break down what is required for donors, for climate funds. For all of us who recognize that this is important, what can we actually do to make sure that finance and decision-making processes are supporting locally local actors? And as you can see, I won't go through them in too much detail, but it gets to aspects of planning and decision-making, of addressing structural inequalities, recognizing that's not necessarily a given of flexibility in funding and in programming, transparency and accountability. So these principles were launched earlier this year at the Climate Action Summit in January and have continued to gain some momentum but are intended to serve as sort of a foundation for action in this space moving forward. The good news, the great news is that locally-led adaptation and these principles are really picking up steam. We're seeing increasing calls and support globally for locally-led adaptation. A couple other examples, you know, from different communities, including political actors around the world. So we mentioned that this is something that the COP26 presidency is putting at the heart of their adaptation and resilience priorities and adaptation loss and damage day. It's been mentioned by the Climate and Development Mysterial. It was also mentioned in the recent G7 Communique, the principles for locally-led adaptation were recognized as a useful framework for adaptation. There's other initiatives, including the Adaptation Action Coalition and the Race to Resilience, which many of you may be familiar with, which are also supporting locally-led adaptation. So this is really exciting. You know, it's really great to see that this movement is growing. I think it really is indeed a movement that we're seeing growing and gaining traction in the lean-up to COP26. This slide just shows all of the endorsements, the formal endorsements that we have for the principles of locally-led adaptation. We have upwards of, I believe it's actually 57 now, endorsements of the principles and these range from the most local grassroots actors that we've been working with throughout this process to climate funds, to governments who are sort of stepping forward and committing to making changes to put these principles for locally-led adaptation and to practice. And here are the principles again, just some subliminal messaging to reinforce this. And turning back to COP26 and the priority that this is and that we're expecting to see, you know, I think the couple pieces where we'll be seeing locally-led adaptation featured at COP include efforts to really amplify voices from the front line. So this entails featuring examples of organizations who are leading efforts on the ground to adapt to climate change and really showcasing those stories. So it's not just, you know, hearing from those who already kind of have access to that platform, but really giving a platform to local partners who bring that expertise and adaptation who have experience and knowledge to share bringing that to COP26 and using COP as a platform to share those experiences and share those lessons learned, including adaptation loss and damage day. So this is something that's great to see as a priority at COP and moving forward. We're also seeing dedicated spaces and discussion for locally-led adaptation. This is something that's relatively new compared with previous COPs, including at the Resilience Hub and also a dedicated Pavilion on locally-led adaptation. And we're also expecting to see more endorsements and support for locally-led adaptation at these various events and hoping and expecting to see not just endorsements and COP26 is an opportunity for actress to be stepping forward to support this, but also to translate that into action moving forward. So looking ahead, what does this look like? You know, COP26 is one really important milestone. It's really exciting to see locally-led adaptation so prominently featured. But we expect it to be sort of a catalyst for continued momentum in this space. So WRI with partners is leaving a large community of practice and bringing together the diverse actors who are working on this space and looking to work together to continue to build this movement and advocate for locally-led adaptation and the changes needed. We're expecting to see growing commitments and actions. So now that we have these principles, we have these endorsements, it's about how do we operationalize them and actually put them into practice? We've been holding a series of dialogues over the past two months that are aiming to really get at kind of what's needed and what are some ideas and changes that could be put forward and that should be invested in. So that's something that we'll be working on moving forward is actually identifying these opportunities to invest in some of these changes and make the financing and decision-making changes that need to be made to support local actors. And then also strengthening the evidence and knowledge base around locally-led adaptation. You know, I mentioned that there are these great examples with partners we've identified over 100 examples of locally-led adaptation happening around the world. So we're looking to be kind of compiling those lessons learned and strengthening the evidence base so that we can really have a stronger foundation for good practice, for a more equitable and effective locally-led adaptation moving forward. So, yeah, this is a really exciting space. Looking forward to answering any additional questions that folks have and hope to stay engaged in this moving forward. Thanks so much. Thanks for your presentation Tamara. That was excellent. Really appreciate it. And we will definitely have questions but before we get to questions, two things. One, a reminder, everything will be available online www.esa.org including Tamara's excellent slides. And if you have a question, there's still an opportunity to ask us. You can follow us on Twitter at EESI online. You can also send us an email and the email address to use is askask at esi.org. And now we will turn to our third presenter of the day, Carlos Sanchez. Carlos is executive director for the Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment. It's a flagship COP26 initiative CCRI led by the private sector and has a membership of 100 institutions representing 20 trillion with a T dollars committed to the development and testing of solutions for resilient investment decision-making. Carlos is also the climate resilience investment director at Willis Towers Watson where his work focuses on the integration of physical climate risks and asset valuation and investment decision-making processes. Carlos, welcome to our briefing tonight. Great to see you. Dan, an absolute pressure. Thank you so much to you, to EESI, the British Embassy in DC that I must say beyond their support to this event. They've been an absolute core partner and a critical one to whatever level of primary success CCRI delivering. And thank you everyone that is joining us today for this session. So I'll be delighted to share with you the work of the coalition and also our vision towards COP but also maybe most critically even beyond COP. So I will assume that you can all see my screen and I will proceed with the presentation. So let me start with the critical and fundamental information about the Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment and that is what is the problem being addressed? What is the mandate? What is the scope and approach? And what is the status and membership? So with regard to the problem being addressed, the Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment works on the assumption that we are facing a market failure, a market failure in the form of imperfect information being taken for decision-making and imperfect information with regard to physical climate risk. So in other words, starting with the physics story as we can call it. So how an exposure to a certain hazard is not only today, which in some cases we even struggle to understand current exposure to both chronic and acute risk, but more important to decision-making, how that is going to evolve to years 5, 10, 15, 20 and beyond. Because we don't have a clear and consistent picture of how those exposures are going to evolve, then also the interpretation in terms of financial materiality and that is at any level of decision-making. So financial materiality has clearly a connotation of the financial industry, but we could apply it to any cost-benefit analysis for any type of decision-making. The process of understanding that level of exposure into that materiality is very much undermined. And ultimately, what this results into imperfect and not fully efficient incentive structures, which fundamentally are regulation and cost of capital to both reward and enforce the right pricing of physical climate risk. So in essence, we face a very acute mispresent of physical climate risk and the coalition wants to and is doing developing practical solutions led by the private sector in partnership with key public institutions and really relying on a pre-competitive, true collaborative approach across industry sectors, institutions, developing those practical solutions that are certified to facilitate a better integration of physical climate risk in investment decision-making. Our scope is really much of a global scope and I really like the presentation from Tamara and Ben for many reasons, but also because it was captured the notion that the discussion about resilience is not any more exclusive to developing emerging frontier market, but also to develop nations. There are different levels of vulnerability, but exposure is certainly relevant to both. So we have a global exposure and we deliver to both developed and developing regions. We work on physical climate risk alone and the reason is that we believe it's a very, there's are very particular animals compared to transition risk and mitigation and they deserve a very dedicated effort and once that is better understood, then we can integrate, then we must integrate with other type of risks. The all solutions need to be a public good, need to be open source data, regardless of how strategic and how commercially interesting this may be for any actors. This is signed as an MOU within the coalition. As Dan said, we are absolutely delighted to be a flagship Coptonistic Initiative. At the heart of it is really our incredible partnership with the UK government that really brought us to the stage at the UN Climate Action Summit in 2019 and has supported us all throughout this period. So we have really no words to thank them. How this translates practically speaking because all this is a very nice narrative and it's a good framing, but how does translating to practicality of delivering something that is meaningful and that informs practical decision-making. We have divided our work into three key areas that we could characterize as national planning, national decision-making or as we call systemic resilience at the project level or asset level in what we call the asset design instruction working group and at the financing level where it is a financial innovation working group. And before going into the specific deliverables, let me just speak to the interconnectivity and the rationale for working into this. So we believe that at the national level, it is absolutely crucial that we provide the solutions to governments for them to better apply to critical activities. The assessment of exposure of national value to physical climate risk in critical time horizons and the management of that exposure. We cannot focus only on the assessment, particularly with developing countries where we certainly have a focus that is extremely dangerous is what we call the risk of pricing risk. So if you only showcase what is the underlying risk in a certain jurisdiction, risk is that sovereign ratings will go down, capital will be cried out and this will be a disaster. So that is hence why it's absolutely critical to provide the solutions for better management of national exposure to physical climate risk. And I will be speaking very quickly about the specific effects very, very shortly. But what is critical here is that what we need to obtain is a prioritization exercise. It's to help governments understand how constrained fiscal resources can be better and more sufficiently deployed to maximize the protection of economic social and we must always recognize also a consistent value from physical climate risk. The second working group asset level works on a different question is once you have recognized what are the priorities, what does it mean to invest in each of those in a resilient way? And that really is a total different approach that really goes into the structure, into the engineering and into the cash flow modeling of specific assets. And I will be speaking about that very quickly. And then at the financing level is the recognition that a capital instrument can and have a vast margin to improve and to innovate not to only facilitate the raising of capital but actually that that capital is catalytic in really driving a different recognition, reward and integration of physical climate risks. And on the back of this is also crucial to highlight the difference between mitigation and adaptation or resilience. And that is, and I believe it's been well put and structure, I believe it was by Ben that mitigation has very well established metrics. Mitigation investment have very well understood risk return profiles. With resilience we don't have those metrics yet. And with resilience we still struggle to validate the quality of the capital. So while in mitigation investment we are speaking about the quantity of capital in resilience investment we still need to talk about the quality of the capital, the efficiency of the capital to deliver resilience. In any case, let me go into the first area of work that is the national decision making and as we call it the systemic resilience forum. This work really brings together critical actors and that is governments both OECD and OECD that is international organizations or we have 12 important international organizations financial actors that validate and guide the discussion and technical experts in the different areas of expertise that are needed. What is being developed here are these two solutions. The systemic resilience metric. So again, back to the previous framing we need a metric that helps guide what is the national value at risk in a given jurisdiction. But not only that, we also need the investment participation tool that tells us how every dollar will more efficiently improve the result of the metric. So as you can see, there is a very strong interdependency between the two and that interdependency is crucial for public decision making, for governments that oftentimes say we have 90% of our decisions are non-climate related and these are competing for fiscal resources. How can we argue to increment the support to resilience if we don't see that reflected in any consideration on crucial metrics for their decision making and that is to some extent true that that is a problem. So this combination of the tool and the metric should provide what we could characterize as the political return on resilience and that is an immediate and proportional reflection and recognition for that integration of physical climate risk into national planning and national decision making. And then we go to the second element of connectivity that is between systemic resilience metric and critical macro indicators. We totally understand and recognize Ben and Tamara highlighted that there is an incredible dimension that is about the social exposure, the most vulnerable and that needs to be recognized that that is oftentimes missed in GDP calculation. So that needs to be embedded into that as well as ecosystem value at risk. But we need to be able to have a connectivity of an element of proxy measure of this systemic resilience metric with calculations on macro indicator. So GDP inflation interest rate. An example, and we are finishing and we are going to be presenting this at COP a National Investment Practition Tool in Jamaica. So basically led by the University of Oxford with the support of the UK government and the Green Climate Fund, we are developing a tool that assesses three infrastructure networks. So we take energy, water, transport in Jamaica. We hear reference all the assets contained within those networks. We applied a network modeling interdependency or cascade effect analysis. So basically understanding how an asset by virtue of being connected is also exposed. And then we apply economic value to different sections of that network to then obtain a sense of prioritization. As you can see in the top right hand of your screens the Prime Minister Holness of Jamaica has been speaking quite prominently about this work and we are totally honored by that. And this is going to be the first of a series of tools of this type that we're going to be piloting actually in both OECD and non-OECD jurisdictions. So very interesting and very exciting progress. At the asset level, as we said before, it's a total different discussion. And here what we need to do is to enhance a framework for the integration of physical climate risk into cash flow modeling practices. We have advanced these three solutions. And the third one is the one that is still missing a 20% of development but the other two are completed. And we are incredibly excited for that. So the first one is the PICRAM is a physical climate risk assessment methodology. So it's a tool that would be applied to an asset and we'll be able to interrogate how that asset and its CAPEX OPEX depreciation levels are according to its exposure over its lifespan. Not only that, but also issue recommendations in terms of incremental investment. The second is the work with S&P where we have advanced the resilience credit quality drivers that facilitates a simulation of credit quality benefits associated to certain investments and improvements in an asset. And the third is the asset valuation principles for resilience that basically informs how an investment analyst or a public investor integrates these outputs from the other deliverables into the cash flow modeling and the valuation of the asset. Just to give you an idea of how this is articulated and let's say model within this work. We have done this with, we were offered 39 real projects worldwide, properly diversified by infrastructure, asset type, region, hazard, capital structure and stage of development of the asset. And we selected an initial set of five and in these five of which we have four about to be finished and we are gonna be presenting this in Glasgow, they have followed these same process and by virtue of following these processes that we have shaped these very interesting solutions. So starting with climate risk data and climate risk assessment. We are privileged to work with seven climate risk data providers that are delivering pro bono assessments of risk for each of these case studies and even they are collaborating between themselves. So we are assigning them in pairs to different case studies. So they are mandated to deliver to us consistent harmonized assessment of risk for a given asset. With that, we have developed the PICRAM that again does these three fundamental things provides a materiality assessment. So really tells us if that investment and data structuring is according to its level of exposure, issues a resilience option. So it's a menu that you can be, you can see very much an itemized and with a price tag in the form of Delta CAPEX, Delta OPEX how these solutions could be integrated into the asset. And then I implement an early sensitivity analysis for the investment. All these solutions, particularly the resilience options are then taken by the cost of capital or the S&P resilience credit quality driver that basically will tell us which of those solutions or combination of those really resulting to the most efficient improvement of credit quality. And then on the back of that, we go to the asset valuation principles. And that is basically providing guidance to investors as in how to implement this. We are not yet recommending adjustments to the scan rates or cash flow projections, but that is certainly what we are gonna be recommending down the road. There are two components that are applicable depending on the type of asset that is the revenue impact. So really analyzing how the revenue projections really properly integrate physical climate risks and then issue ability that is to explore how risk transfer solutions can really be mobilized not to allocate risk on a shortened duration basis, but actually to enhance cash flow predictability at a lifetime basis. And I believe that both again Tamara and Ben spoke to the importance of this. I must say that insurance is a very important component of the solution, but certainly not necessarily the solution itself. Let me now speak a little bit about what is coming next and the level of momentum that we have enjoyed and we are very thankful for. So the backdrop here is the launch of CCRI at the UN Climate Action Summit back in 2019. And then you have a couple of connectivity or representation of the level of support apart from the governments of Canada, Australia, UK, Jamaica and Tegan Barbuda. We are very pleased to have the endorsement from the G7 and certainly a very important element of support and encouragement. And also we've been working very closely with the state of California. We are incredibly thankful for the partnership with the state of California, with the Governor Nism's office and the true support that has been facilitated in so many different areas. Similarly, we're incredibly honored and pleased to see that in the recent report from the state of California's climate-related risk disclosure advisory group, there was vast coverage of the work of CCRI and to the point that there was even a recommendation that was referring to physical climate risk assessment methodology of CCRI as you can see on the right-hand side of your screens. And that is certainly an indication of what is coming and what is happening. I will finish with this slide and I will add with this slide on our screens what is our level of ambition to cope and certainly what is coming after and what we hear in terms of feedback from partners because as you can see here, we have a very diversified set of supporters, 120 representing again 20 trillion in assets and we spent a lot of time in curating different industries, sectors, institutions and what you cannot see here is certainly the level of support that we have benefited from. There are a number of institutions that have contributed with seven, eight, nine colleagues over a year period to the advancement of CCRI solutions. The reason for that is certainly that there is a perception that CCRI is developing something that is strategic and is strategic to governments and is strategic to investors in that there is a recognition that there is a systemic change happening with regard to resilience. There is given the promising progress in regulation, in analytics, in how rating agencies are starting to include this and overall the awareness and recognition and understanding of the topic, there is certainly we will see a point in time it will be next year, two years, three years, nobody knows exactly when but when practices of integrating this risk into national planning and asset design structure is going to change. So many actors, jurisdictions and institution investors they want to really take action now and start applying the right level of assessment and management of that risk so that when that adjustment happens they're in an advantageous position. Back to the point about developing a most vulnerable countries, we spent a lot of time in supporting these countries to really acquire the understanding and technical ability, the solutions and most critically to attract the capital for them to undertake the necessary investments in resilient infrastructure. With that, I can also speak about what is next because our ambition and mandate is not only to develop and deliver these solutions that of course is maybe the most challenging but what we want to see and what we want to support is to pilot these solutions with the mobilization of real capital and we are having discussions that are quickly evolving about potential large investment facilities that would rely on CCRI solutions and that with that we would see the mobilization, application and scale of CCRI solutions. It is what we call CCRI's leak of investment funds for resilience that would be a series of investment vehicles all linked by the joint and common adoption of CCRI solutions for the screening and assessment of projects and aligned with national priorities for resilience and that at the same time this facility, this leak of investment fund will also benefit from some additional support and incentive. So certainly a lot happening and a lot to happen in the future, particularly in that practical application, proof of concept and capital mobilization that that is exactly what we most urgently need. So with that, I believe I must stop there. Apologies then colleagues for maybe going a little bit over the assigned time, but thank you so much and I stop there. Well, it's okay Carlos, it's no problem at all because now we're going to transition into our Q and A and this will give Ben and Tamara a chance to catch up and equalize the quotas a little bit but great presentation and really cool slides as well. And if anyone wants to go back and revisit those and especially the points you were making about how that all of that structure actually is manifested in sort of real investments is very well laid out. You can access all of the materials on our website, www.esa.org. Let me invite our other panelists to turn their videos back on and Anna McGinn, my colleague at ESI is actually going to lead us through our Q and A, not actually going to. She's done this many times before. She's going to lead us through our Q and A today. So Anna's a policy manager, our policy manager here at ESI. She works a great deal on adaptation and resilience issues and is a major driving force behind all of our COP efforts so let me welcome Anna to our panel today and turn it over to her to begin our Q and A. Awesome, thanks Dan. Really excited to be here with our panelists and thank you for three really wonderful presentations and of course the great introduction from Gonzalo to get us going. So our first question I want to pose you all today is we've heard from you that adaptation has really scaled up in recent years, which is exciting, but of course you've also highlighted that there's much work yet to do. So I'm curious to hear from you. If each of you could share maybe one or two key steps that you see are kind of the most necessary next big things for us to be thinking about to advance adaptation work, whether that's key decisions at the COP or more work at federal or sub-national levels or maybe more work in the private sector. Very curious to see what you all think on that and maybe we'll go in the order that we presented in so we'll start with you Ben. Thanks Anna and thanks again for the opportunity. So I think it's important to have this equal balance between COP and the negotiations process and that global conference and the process that fits behind it but also the real world action as well. So I don't think we can, but all of our eggs in that basket as it were, we absolutely need to make real world progress at the same time. So I think COP's really important for the issues that we've set out today, achieving the 100 billion of international climate finance, equalizing the mitigation and the adaptation focus in commitments and tying those down. But at the same time, we have to keep working on what I refer to as creating the enabling environment. What are the policies that need to be in place? What's the real world action? As Carlos was talking about, the actual investment decisions that need to be taken to move us towards this more resilient future collectively across the globe. So from our perspective, we'll keep working with our partners to work out in each context. What does this look like? How do we turn this into reality? What are the policies that need to be in place? The financial resources available, the work and the plans on the ground to ensure that we can prepare people, communities, cities, governments to be ready for the changing climate is to come. Tomorrow we can jump over to you next. Great, yeah. You know, I think Ben covered it well. I think, like you said, we've made a lot of progress in recent years, but there's still lots to do. We, the Global Commission on Ineptation put out a report called ADAP now in 2019. And three things that it called for, I think are worth highlighting because I think they still stand and are still really useful in thinking about how, you know, what needs to happen, what we can continue to do to advance adaptation. So this report called for three revolutions, revolution and planning, or an understanding in planning and in financing for adaptation. And I think those are three useful things to remember and that we can go back to, that we really need to focus on understanding climate risk, on planning ahead and thinking about what needs to be done to address those climate risks and then also really rethinking financing, both in terms of the quantity of financing that we've mentioned a lot, but we haven't talked so much about the quality of finance and that's another piece that I would recommend that we focus on and that hope to see moving forward and this is something that we think about a lot when it comes to locally led adaptation as well. It's not about just making sure that finance is reaching the right actors and it's reaching local communities, but that it's structured in a way that local actors are able to access that finance that it's flexible enough, that it's not so restrictive, that it's patient and long-term and predictable. So all those elements of quality I think are also important to focus on. Very hard to follow, Ben and Tamara, because I really, really agree with everything that has been said. I mean, the point about the quality of investment and finance is so crucial and something that we in this space have historically struggled so much, in other words, to really prove that every dollar is maximizing that delivery, either of social, economic or consistent value or also to enhance risk-adjusted returns to investors, which is also something that also needs to be considered if we really want to genuinely integrate what maybe often taxes is labeled too broadly as a private sector, where it's a very, very deep universe of different constituents that go into that. But certainly and also on Ben's point, I think there is so much need to really bring this to the practicality. You know, the work of RIP, there is so much value and efficiency in integrating those solutions in maximizing what we could call then CAPEX investment. You know, those considerations that Ben is bringing to us are incredibly effective in really leading to an efficient and that quality of capital or quality of investment for many actors. But if I may attempt to add something, I believe that we are reaching a point in the resilient space where we can, we are approaching that need of a proof-of-concept point. We have the basis analytically, conceptually and practically of what that could be of solutions that can address the problem of multi-stakeholder group and that it's a unique opportunity to then have an open discussion between private and public about what can each part do to really bring us to that proof-of-concept phase. So at the federal state level, and maybe not thinking about the particular nature of the US and decision-making, but broadly speaking, you know, we need to better align upstream and downstream investment and planning decisions. So we integrate and understand that those projects that are advanced are the ones that really make sense in a long-term value with regard to the country. But in essence, it is that we need to go to the practical side. We don't need to be absolutely perfect. We need to be within certain navigating big concept, particularly on the analytics and projection side, because action is really needed. And there is a lot of no regret value into any of these actions and support to that. But I will leave it there. Thank you. Great, thank you all. So our next question is about kind of equitable climate action. So what steps are being taken by your coalitions or partnerships to make sure that responses to climate impacts are equitable? And maybe we'll start with Tamara this time, and then we'll jump to Carlos and wrap up with Ben. Sure, I mean, this is something that we talk about a lot when we're talking about locally led adaptation. I think importantly, because locally led approaches address one level or a layer of inequity, between where finance and decision-making processes are allocated and reaching. But it doesn't inherently address structural social inequities. And this is why this is principle number two. It is about addressing structural inequalities, because it needs to be intentional. So I think sometimes when we talk about this space, there can be kind of an assumption that we're maybe conflating locally led adaptation with equitable approaches. And so we really strive to make sure that that's an added factor, that that's an intentional piece. And there's lots of learning to do. I think lots of learning from experiences on the ground about what are some of these good practices. What is it that we need to be doing to make sure that we're building in those equity considerations from the beginning? And so I think we're thinking about what additional research we can be doing, who we need to be bringing in to make sure that equity is remaining a deliberate focus of these conversations and that it doesn't get kind of lost in the shuffle with things that are very closely related, but that we're having that dedicated space for equity considerations. If I may. So within CCRI, the equity consideration is crucial, particularly at the systemic level. All our work can maybe join in the example and the piloting in Jamaica, where basically, as I mentioned before, we are taking a select group of infrastructure networks and understanding exposure within those networks, not as a measure of asset value, so the measure of how much of a bridge is worth and how, no, the value of social and economic continuity that relies on that bridge that happens to be exposed. In that exercise, we really quickly identify huge challenges in terms of integrating social and equity considerations into that assessment because we are naturally skewing against those most vulnerable communities that don't have access to infrastructure. So relying on existing infrastructure is the first issue there. So we are working and we have effectively addressed that with the University of Oxford to really also expand to understand what are communities that are not properly served by infrastructure to identify greenfield investments that are necessary. Then there was also the challenge in how to factor and assign social continuity to different sections of an even infrastructure network and some measures and indicators that were considered were probably about tax or about income and that, of course, would have been an absolute disaster. So certainly, we are moving away from those considerations. We still must recognize that there is a challenge to measure and to find that indicator of social continuity or social flows. It can just be a measure of amount of population relying on a certain infrastructure network. But again, there, we maybe, you know, they're provided the same weight and we want to really serve to those most vulnerable communities as stated as a priority by the government of Jamaica. At the asset level, it is true that we are working in case studies that are public assets and public investments and for those, we are considering those social benefits as in positive externalities associated to that investment being properly structured. But when we talk about private investments, it is much more contained within the traditional, let's say, risk adjusted return and that also needs to be properly disclosed. But I stopped there. And from my side, I guess there are three ways, one strategic, one in terms of our governance and one technical aspect. But in terms of the strategy, as I alluded to in the presentation, we're looking at people-centered approaches. So one of our partners, Resurgence, has created a project or a program called Deraja where they're specifically looking at informal settlements and slum dwellings to make sure that early warning systems, the more formal, traditional early warning systems through Met Services and so on are also accessible in the informal settlements and finding different ways to communicate risk and so on. So really focused on people. And secondly, we've identified three drivers of change, global commitment on policy and practice. But secondly, country-level ownership and leadership. So making sure that the most climate-formable countries are really driving this agenda. So we work with Bangladesh, Manawis, Jamaica, St. Lucia, Fiji, you know, we really want to put those countries in the driving seat on this agenda. So first in terms of strategy, second in terms of governance, we ensure that our board has that broad representation across all of our partners, the donor countries, the recipient countries, the civil society, the international organizations to ensure it is a collective endeavor to take these approaches to scale. And finally, technical aspect. I mean, we've worked with specific partners on how do we integrate gender considerations into early action approaches and so on to make sure that, you know, as we develop these approaches going forward, we're really embedding all of those considerations into how this is operational. Awesome, thank you so much. I feel like we touched on so many different dimensions there, which was really wonderful. I think I will send it over to Dan for our next question. Cool, thanks, Anna. So we, again, three excellent presentations and a really great Q&A so far. Our audience, a lot of the things we've discussed so far are global in scope, right? We're talking about COP26. It's a United Nations convening, but a lot of our audience, especially those on Capitol Hill, are really focused on US domestic policy and sort of the intersection with sort of what the United States does domestically and what it does internationally. And I'm curious from your perspectives, how can the United States learn or benefit from these initiatives and the partnerships that you all are helping to coordinate? What is the takeaway for an average Hill staff person so that when their boss asks them why is international climate adaptation important? How does it relate to what's being done sort of here at home in the United States? And maybe then we'll go back to you this time and we'll start and then we'll go back to Tamara and then to Carlos. Thanks, Dan, and it's a good question, but from my perspective, this whole agenda around early warning, early action is absolutely applicable domestically and internationally. As we've said, all of us are impacted by the changing climate and need to adapt. And we're seeing that this whole area in much of the good practice is actually in the more disaster affected countries. So Bangladesh is leading when it comes to really integrating these approaches into their standing orders and their local level disaster plans and so on. And we saw in Europe with the floods this year with heat waves, with wildfires, we can absolutely learn from each other. So I don't think this is just about poorer countries or the most vulnerable places. It's definitely applicability across the board. And secondly, what I would say is that we're seeing one of the main issues is actually silos between government departments, between teams, actors, decision makers. That's on the international side, when supporting other countries bilaterally or multilaterally silos between government departments with climate and environment, humanitarian development, that creates issues. But also domestically between who's responsible for climate change, adaptation, disaster risk management, the economic side, which resources will trigger and when. And therefore having this joined up holistic plan and integrating these risks into everything we do is absolutely crucial. And that is relevant in the UK or United States as it is anywhere else as well. So yeah, I think there are absolutely lessons to be learned here, but I'll pass over to the others. Yeah, I would wholeheartedly agree with that. To add on, I'll maybe keep my locally led adaptation head on. This is relevant to the US, there's obviously the foreign assistance angle and how we can integrate lovely lead adaptation into our work with international partners. But this is also really relevant in the US small local organizations, local governments face the same types of challenges in accessing funding. We have the same sort of systemic barriers to agency and inclusion and decision-making processes. So again, for similar reasons, that if we want adaptation efforts that are appropriate and relevant to the local context that have ownership from local communities that are sustainable and that reflect these justice and equity issues that we've been talking about that is important to think about how we can make them more locally led. And I think this is recognized by many of the partners working on this and by the COP26 presidency. I mentioned that at COP26, that adaptation loss and damage day, one of the ways that locally led adaptation is coming into play is by featuring these kind of stories from the front lines of climate change and showcasing, amplifying these experiences and local expertise. And there's been kind of a deliberate focus to bring in stories from the US as well and global North broadly to really kind of emphasize that this is truly a global issue and relevant across the board. So I think here in the US, we have definitely a lot of learning that we can do, lessons learned from communities and countries that have been working on this. So I think that's one really important opportunity. And I think this aligns really well with recent initiatives that have come out. For example, the Justice 40 initiative of making sure that kind of benefits are reaching disadvantaged communities here in the US. So I think there's momentum existing that we can build on and experiences that we can learn from to carry this forward. Indeed, and if I may finish this round, I think that certainly, I totally agree. There is an absolute application at a domestic level, maybe me now speaking from a CCRI standpoint. I wanted to highlight that as you have seen previously, we have a series of governments and countries and jurisdictions that are OECD and that I wanted to clarify that actually their contribution is not OECD jurisdiction supporting non-OECD in improving, it's that they are all benefiting and having the same exact interest in adopting and piloting a CCRI solution. So when it comes to the US, it is not only the US learning or benefiting from, it's also as learning from the incredible level of expertise that is housed in the US and in the house of representatives. I could speak of a few incredible, highly respected professionals that are really having a very strong leadership in this space. So it's about really working together but there are discussions with other OECD jurisdictions where we are already speaking at a domestic level, the application of CCRI solutions in the upstream and downstream planning of infrastructure and starting to see where the most value would be and then associated to that to see where a combination of private and public capital can be brought together. So in the US, all the very particular muni bond space, that is a particular important area where there is a lot of potential to mobilize investment for resilience. So there is a lot to learn and to collaborate but truly in a mutual benefit basis. But I believe we're a little bit pressed with time. So Dan, I hand over to you. No, that's okay. And actually I'm gonna risk going over by a minute or two because we got a question from the audience or online audience, it's just too good to pass up. And Tamara, you've already touched on it a little bit and I think we can do this very quickly. The question is, we'll start with you Tamara because I think it's most closely related to what your presentation is about. This is a question about subnational governments. And the question is, what specific messages could subnational leaders in this, this person specifically mentions governors of US states amplify at COP26 that would support the call that I think we all share for equal attention to adaptation. So Tamara, if we could just do a quick lightning round, we'll start with you and then if Ben or Carlos have other things that they would like to add. I just think that's such an interesting question and it's so timely and you've already been talking a little bit about it. So I'd love to hear from you. Yeah, I mean, I think governors, other subnational actors are in a really good place to be carrying forward a lot of these messages. You know, I would recommend reinforcing a lot of what we've talked about already about sort of the importance of recognizing climate risks and providing some of that context. Cause I think, especially in the US there's a lot of, there's a pretty broad range of risks that we're facing depending on where in the country you are. So I think providing some of that context specificity and kind of how it's relevant to that local context. And I think being able to bring in examples and priorities, so using COP26 as an opportunity to kind of put forward those priorities from local communities in respective states, especially the priorities of more marginalized and disadvantaged communities who are on the front lines of climate change. So being able to express what are their priorities and what do we need to support them? What are we learning from these actors? I think we'll be great to kind of reinforce a lot of these messages that we've been talking about today. Ben Carlos, I'll give either of you the opportunity to have the last word if you'd like to add anything to what Tamara was just saying. Ben, I'll let you go first. Thanks Carlos. I mean, just to say through the lens of risk, vulnerability and exposure, it does vary from state to state, city to city. And therefore those leaders, those decision makers have a crucial role to play to work out what does this look like in their context? So for cities to become more resilient, the states to become more resilient, these issues and principles have to be applied at that level. So yeah, completely agree with Tamara. Yes, I'm not gonna say too much, Dan. So totally agree. Just we need to tailor very much that message to what is the dimension of decision making that we are talking about. They always beg for a small tailoring and an adjustment to the message, but it's crucial to have those messages of endorsement, support and leadership to bring us to the next level. Well, thank you. I'm glad we went two or three minutes over because I think that was a really great question and it was really interesting responses. So thank you all. Thank you Anna for leading us through a wonderful Q and A with our panelists today. Thanks to Gonzalo for helping us kick off an excellent briefing. It was really great to hear his opening remarks and to three just tremendous panelists, Ben Tamar and Carlos. Thank you so much for joining us today and sharing your presentations with us. If anyone would like to go back, just as a final reminder, everything is available online at www.esa.org including an archived webcast. So if you'd like to watch the briefing again, you're certainly welcome to do that. The briefing series, like I mentioned before, would not be possible without our honorary co-sponsor, the British Embassy Washington or our partner, Henry M. Jackson Foundation. So thanks to those organizations for their generous support. What Congress needs to know in the lead up to COP26 briefing series will resume on Wednesday with the role of international climate finance on October 20th and the negotiations, what's on the table on October 22nd. I hope you'll join us for those as well as the one on November 18th where we'll look back at COP26 and recap key outcomes and look ahead to what comes next. If you would like to RSVP, if you haven't yet or if you would like to download any of the resources, the best place to do that is by visiting us online at www.esa.org. And when you visit us online, it would be a real shame if you did that and didn't sign up for our bi-weekly newsletter, Climate Change Solutions or our special COP26 daily newsletter, Glasgow Dispatch. So please do that when you have a moment. I think you'll find that they're really excellent resources and a great way to keep up with everything we're doing here at ESI. I'd like to also thank my colleagues, Dan O'Brien, Amir Lapour, Johnson and of course, Amber Todorov and Savannah Bertrand for everything they did in the lead up to today and overall for the briefing series to make it all possible. Thanks also to our interns, Isabella Valerie and Roshni for everything they're doing behind the scenes to make everything run so smoothly. And I will leave us here. This is a link to a survey. We need to collect survey responses after every briefing. We really value everyone's input. We read every response. There's anything you'd like to share with us today about the topic, about the audio quality, video quality, topics you'd like to see addressed, anything like that. Please take a moment and fill out our survey. We really, really value it. We will end there. Sorry for going a couple of minutes over but thanks to everyone for joining us in our conversation today and I wish everyone a very happy weekend.