 Welcome and thank you for joining the COP 27 post-match analysis which is hosted by the research programme MrGPolitics, the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research at Linköping University and Stockholm Environment Institute. Just a few words on those who are hosting the event MrGPolitics. It's an eight-year programme analysing the dynamics between the changing U-Political landscape and the prospects of reaching the climate goals and the sustainable development goals. It's hosted, it's collaboration between several universities but it's hosted by Stockholm Environment Institute, who is the host for the programme then, and SEI is one of the world's most top-ranked research institutes which has been focusing on and contributing to international climate collaborations and the work for chiseling out how we can deal with climate change internationally since its very start in 1989 and the Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research has been around since early 2000s looking at the the politics and governance and the impacts of climate change that has been present at the COP's at least 2004. So some words on who's behind this event. We're very glad that you have joined. We have a fantastic panel so I look forward to to the discussions and my name is Björn Ola Linné. I'm a professor at Linköping University and also an affiliate of Stockholm Environment Institute and also the director of the MrGPolitics programme and I'm so thrilled and honoured to be able to ask the questions to this panel. That's going to be super fun but so can you in the yeah this is the panel okay I come to that you can ask the questions a little bit later. This is the panel that we are so thrilled to have. So Mathias Frimeri, he is the head of delegation to the UNFCCC at the Swedish Ministry of Environment and a well-known person for us who work in climate but also to the public that frequently commenting the the negotiations both before and during COP's to the Swedish audience at least. Richard Klein, he's a senior research fellow at Stockholm Environment Institute and has been one of those who spearheaded the climate adaptation agenda in the UNFCCC. He is also a professor here at Linköping University, professor already back in well over 10 years since you became a professor here. Emma Moder-Riking, she's the global head of international sustainable business, CEO office of Business Sweden so and very active and driving a lot of the work of business at the COP's and it's going to be exciting to hear more about that work here today. Then we have Malika Mikkelson who is a doctorate researcher here at the Center for Climate Science and Policy Research at Linköping University focusing on one of the most topical issues at COP 27 loss and damage and she recently returned from a research visit to Fiji making interviews in many villages that are exposed to to climate change. So very glad that you want to join us as well. And then we have Tinichi Regalado who is a climate research and diplomacy at the Manila Observatory and also a young representative. Young is the children and youth constituency at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and still in Egypt if I understood correctly. So what we heard from several of you have heard from Shamash Sheikh is the poor internet connections and that still remains so I think that Tinichi will go off and on with his camera. Okay but thank you all for joining this panel and I very much look forward to the discussions today. As I said we will have questions. I will first start off a round of questions and then when it's about 20 minutes left of the seminar we will go to the questions posed by the audience but you can already now start to post your questions in the Q&A function on the top bar of the chat box with the question marks. So with that I would like to start immediately so we have as much time as possible to discuss what unfolded in COP 27. The first question we had this in the last year as well I think it's we start with two questions that to the panel we go through the other whole panel and then we go one by one and have a little bit of a discussion but the first question is what will we remember from COP 27 in 10 years time and should we start in the order that I presented you so Matias would you like to start? Thanks very much Binola and great to be with you at this post-match analysis. I think well if we're just sort of looking to what I mean the media reporting and also conversations with colleagues I think the new or to be developed to fund for loss and damage I think is one of the sort of the key outcomes from COP 26 which probably will be remembered also in 10 years time but it'll be interesting to hear also fellow panelists as to the extent of the pushback we saw also from fossil fuel producing states in terms of including the mentioning of phasing out of all fossil fuels to what extent that also will be remembered in 10 years time and hopefully will be in another space in 10 years time and will have actually included that kind of language in the decisions texts from the COP. Thanks Richard. Yeah thanks very much and I also thought about the loss and damage fund at the same time I think it will really be remembered once it's operational. So I picked another I think achievement of Scharmelssheik which is the work program on just with transitions which has been agreed under the agenda item response measures. Response measures used to be the agenda item where the oil producing countries sort of were gathering to make life difficult for all the other agenda items and it has evolved in a very positive way into what I think is an important work program on just transitions which recognizes that climate policy can lead to winners and losers not only in oil producing states but everywhere. What I think is important is that it will also recognize that adaptation can lead to winners and losers and that the notion of just transition is just as relevant to adaptation as it is to mitigation. Thank you. Thanks Emma. I can only echo the previous speakers as well I think also besides that we see a really clear shift as well from talking before a lot about mitigation and way more now about adaptation and loss and damage and of course I mean the breakthrough is definitely the loss and damage package and fund and I think it's also says a lot where we are. It feels like we are aware of the climate crisis has come to the point that we are a little bit beyond only mitigation there's way more focus on adaptation and and damage and loss. Great we will return to that in a while. Thank you so much Malika. Thanks Birnola. I hope that this couple will be remembered more for the historic deal made on the loss and damage fund and less for its failures and what stood out for me was that the developing countries in general and the small island developing states in particular were extremely determined and their unity was evident in securing the decision for the response fund and that this was done in spite of strong resistance from developed countries where the alliance of small island states that these developed countries were furiously trying to stall the progress and even worse they were attempting to undermine small island developing states and playing games in the process. I think those are the resolve that this the small island developing states displayed is something that for me will stand out from this part. Thank you we will of course return to the loss and damage as well and the future of what will happen there. Yes and Tunici are you with us Tunici? Yes hello am I audible? Yeah thanks. Yes so I think what we'll remember down the line really here and you know among others is that of 27 and the establishment of the loss and damage fund it really is going for our communities and the institutions working on the frontline workers as well as activists who have been calling for the creation of a facility that can adequately respond to climate needs. We are looking at it at a very hopeful lens and it is the long road ahead of us for loss and damage and hopefully in years that we see you know come after this and we see some real progress with regards to moving the pin really. So the specifics of the fund still need to be laid out and so also the fund remains to be identified in addition to that of course we will remember the circumstances and background of COP 27 both politically and really the realities of holding a huge COP really in the background of a very real sense of lease state and it's very difficult for people to really find their common ground with regards to having to work with the other parties in developing countries as well. So I'm very hopeful actually that in the next 10 years that we do make progress on and not just on the specific fund but really on the operational modalities of the other agreements that will be set forth you know post the gradual kind of attack in the Sharma Shack compensation work program. Thank you, thank you. So I think some of you have already perhaps started to give some of you inside a tip in this conversation or already in the first question because my second question is then since you all have been in Sharma Shack during the COP and have covered different venues and different arenas it is to ask you about your inside a tip what has the media reporting missed or what has not been on the radar in the public discussions that are important for the outcomes of Glasgow and our assessment of sorry Sharma Shack of course that are important for our assessment of Sharma Shack. Should we go the other way right now and start with Tunici if we can make contact with Sharma Shack? Okay, do you hear us Tunici? We'll come back to Tunici and Malika would you like to go ahead? Yeah I think some of the same resolve of the small islands developing states that I mentioned before that shouldn't be underestimated. There's been a palpable shift in tone from these countries where they are no longer reticent and pushing back against the big countries and they're organizing to look into more sophisticated ways of applying pressure to rich countries and I don't expect that to change so I think that maybe some attention should be paid to that because I don't think that will change anytime soon. I think they will continue to build on this sort of momentum that they've established at this COP. Thanks Hema. I think we have seen a lot of focus on the challenges and the urgency and perhaps a little bit less of the opportunities and also the solutions that we have in place and something that really struck me throughout these two weeks in Sharma Shack but also previous COP's and not least Glasgow last year is the severe disconnection between the negotiations and also the very much solution-based discussions that we see taking place in the in the blue zone where several pavilions are being I mean showcasing really front-running solutions from scientists but also companies that have solutions in place and I think the interesting part is when we have been interacting with different negotiators and world leaders and minister for climate for several countries even for small island states that will no longer exist if we do not reach the 1.5 target or limit when we're asking them what do you need what is needed what solutions do you need in order for us to transform they don't really have the answers to it so we see that the severe disconnection and also lack of knowledge between the challenges and the problems and the issues and actually the solutions and the innovations in place and that is something that we see could definitely be matched if we talk the same language and if we have time to talk to each other and something that we've been discussing throughout these weeks would be that what would happen if we actually would have some round table discussions where we have matchmaking or pitch pitch sessions between the different negotiators and different states where they're lining up their NDCs and their and their NAPs and their challenges and then on the other hand we have scientists and the companies presenting their solutions to really match the the the challenges and the solutions and perhaps that would give us other outcomes from from the negotiations if the world leaders knew actually what solutions that we have in place that can be matched with the with the crisis and the challenges that we have today so that is something that I see that we've been missing out of in the media coverage but also say something that we've been missing huge missed opportunities at COP considering how much I'm I mean fantastic innovations and scientists and people that actually travel to COP that have so much to offer to the negotiations I am that's my biggest learnings or to take away to take away from from this COP thanks Richard thank you yeah what what has the media missed or what has not been on the radar my answer is a bit of a process answer I think what the media has reported is that there was very limited progress at some point in the negotiations there were many open agenda items and it only really came to a close at the very end of things and but it didn't really go into the why that was the case and and one of the reasons I think was because there was less time than usual to actually talk about various of these issues first of all because just like in Glasgow Egypt's invited heads of state to to come to Charlotte Shack which eeded up time of the negotiations and many of the negotiators weren't actually available to negotiate because they had to accompany the head of state but perhaps even more important the Egyptian presidency decided that it wanted to have a covered decision on top of the various individual decisions of the agenda items which is something that was sort of taken taken for granted as if that's always the case but it's a relatively new phenomenon to have a covered decision that sort of summarizes the state of of play and the ambition and and the covered decisions that I'm aware of they were either there to highlight a particular achievement or to you know in a way flatter the the host those governments in Glasgow made the government decision into an opportunity to summarize the the pledges and other important things were said by the heads of state there um but in in Charlotte Shack there really wasn't that much um sort of new that came out of the heads of state segments I think this cop could have done easily without a covered decision but the president decided he wants to have one and again this was a major distraction from the actual negotiations it'd be interesting to hear what what Matthias has to say about that thank you okay so I was going to ask the same question to you then of course and you will have a chance to say that Matthias but maybe you want to respond since you got a direct question from Richard thanks well I I'll think I'll actually pick up on the point which which Emma made in terms of what not has been reported as much and I mean I I would actually look to the non-negotiate outcome um what has been showcased in all the various pavilions and of course from a spiritual perspective I particularly like to highlight the work of business freedom and the many companies that they brought together in the Swedish pavilion and the kind of opportunities that they highlight and can offer to countries globally to facilitate the the an accelerated transition in in those countries I think it's interesting to see the statement which John Kerry put out after COP 27 on sort of US achievements during the COP quite a long statement but a very short piece in that statement was actually about the negotiations themselves most of it was about various types of initiatives that the US had been part of launching and and sort of engaging in during the COP so I guess that sort of shows maybe potentially the the role of the COP no longer only being focused on the negotiations themselves but being an arena where a number of various types of and sort of climate action related activities can be highlighted um and and thereby showing the kind of of um progress that we need to make at the COP so I think that's maybe something which was not as reported I mean at least Swedish media I think were very much more focused on the negotiations themselves I mean rightly so but I think there's a lot of go a lot of things going on outside also negotiation space when it comes to the covered decision in particular I mean um I guess you know you could probably argue the benefits of having a covered decision or not but with Glasgow it has now turned into one of the key pieces of how the COP is being assessed and if we wouldn't have had a covered decision I think that from a sort of a from a negotiator's perspective we would have seen that as a failure and that you know we couldn't agree a cover statement and now we have and I think it's meaning we as has been expressed also other you know in other channels we would have liked to see it being more ambitious but there are still a couple of elements in there I mean just to highlight one the decision to launch something which is called the the short most shake dialogue on article 21c or the Paris Agreement which we as the EU couldn't get on the agenda because other parties resisted that but it's now part of the covered decision itself and it's not reflected in the other sort of in the other outcomes during in the other agenda items so it provides also sort of a space and a vehicle for highlighting issues which are maybe not part of the agenda as such so in that sense I mean I would think it's um it is a useful vehicle but I mean I take the point that it sort of takes time also from the other items which are on the agenda side thanks that's very interesting your answer also touches upon something that I have but that I thought about asking you but I haven't but we can maybe we can return to that towards the end then that is that is Shamashake has really spurred the discussion on on a reform of the cup and to find alternatives ways to do this and that that is super interesting to follow now it's through sort of bit of ketchup effect after Shamashake even though this discussions have begun on for a long time of course but yeah we'll see if we can return to that and have your your insights on that later on but for now I would like to then continue to do with you Matthias towards the end of the the summit the EU climate sheet the past 10 months made headlines in the in the news threatened to walk out from a bad decision I'm warning that the EU could not accept that the 1.5 dies here and today as he said which and I got got a lot of questions and what do I think will it crash or not so so well I didn't think so I thought they would stay and they did but in spite they stayed the EU still back the deal that there were no progress on the mitigation work program or and no mentioning of the fossil fuels face down so really there was nothing more that ensured the 1.5 degree to me to my knowledge that was decided after the threatened to walk away so was it the right decision to stay for the EU but I mean definitely I think it was the right decision to stay and I think also it was the right decision to make that public announcement at the time when it was made and when it was it was quite a forceful statement and of course one could always sort of discuss afterwards the tactics of all of it but I think it was an important point to make and you know we might have had a different outcome if we wouldn't have made that statement that publicly at the stage of negotiations but I mean when we put forward from the EU side our suggestion on on the fund I mean it was a different suggestion than the G77 had proposed so it was sort of our way of how we wanted to go about the fund that was also made in the context of us making progress on mitigation as well because we want to sort of to have to sort of to cover other areas on the agenda as well and we didn't see that we caught that kind of response when after we had put forward that that suggestion on the funds I mean that that this the statement was sort of part of highlighting that we want us to see progress across the agenda items as well so I think it was the right thing to do to make the statement but it was also the right thing to do to ensure that we actually had an outcome at at the 27th okay so we should not interpret it that the G77 called the EU bluff I mean I don't think it was bluff I mean if we it was as also as our our minister said you know we those words were not uttered likely it was after serious consideration within the EU on sort of where we were in the negotiations we our assessment at that time was that it wasn't looking the outcome was it wasn't it wasn't good and we felt the strong need sort of to highlight that also publicly and to make sure that we our voices were sort of the voice of the EU was heard in terms of what we wanted to have as an outcome okay so should we also interpret it that that the EU still thinks that 1.5 is alive indeed I mean I think that's of course it's it is challenging to be to be to keeping temperature rise to 1.5 but it's but as the IPCC says and I mean I think that comes back also to the to the point on opportunities that Emma made there are solutions in every sector to make sure that we to actually limit temperature rise to 1.5 and those are the solutions that we should be looking for yeah Emma I mean I definitely agree and I think it's really important also to also understand that the I mean of course at the 1.5 degree target slash limit this is obviously a matter of survival not for for the existence of us but also actually for the for the companies and that's also why they're coming to to COP because they're saying we have the innovations in place and we are ready to do our part however we fail to scale these innovative solutions that can support other countries in their transformations because of different regulatory I mean yeah hinders and the legislations is is yeah kind of blocking the the transition so that's why they're coming there and saying that we need to fossil to phase out fossil fuel subsidies we need a price on carbon we need to have a robust I mean standards and regulations on how we can measure and and also report on CO2 emissions and to have a trading emission system for negative emissions and and have a level clearing field and also drive the right incentives so that we can scale these innovations that we have in place so that's why also the 1.5 degree target is really really crucial for for the companies and and their existence as well well yeah so but I follow the negotiations for quite some time now and I think for the Paris Agreement business evident has played a really important role and not least within when the the global climate action agenda started and so on but for several years high hopes have been placed on the business to deliver actions and and I think it was perhaps in Glasgow it was really evident that that all the hopes go to to business to deliver the fast action needed to 2030 at least and but still the emissions continue to rise one at least one percent last year right so are we too optimistic about the role of business is that question to me yes that's to you I mean I would definitely not say so actually I think there's also I mean there's also so much that the companies can do right and but the message I mean from the companies are that yes we have the innovations in place we are ready to scale but we need the right preconditions for us to actually to actually scale and and I think that is really the the issue here that we they're eager to do their part they have solutions in place but this is the severe disconnection once again between the between the actually challenges and the solutions that we have in place the companies if we just look at the Swedish journey for example it started off with the political incentives and regulations back in the 90s I mean even before as well that when we put the first tax on carbon the companies needed to innovate more resource efficiently they needed to innovate complete new ways of working and that has led to them now being I mean from the Swedish point of view when the switch private sector is being really ahead and driving the green transition but now they are saying that once again we have the solutions we have the innovations now we need the politicians support so that we can actually scale up and both I mean for them to reach their net zero targets and also support other countries and their transformation and we see that the companies are collaborating cross borders and cross sectors and they're even collaborating with their competitors to find new solutions and they're also teaming up with scientists to see how can we do even more but once again there's also I mean it comes to a certain point where we actually need to work more with the private sector between the private sector and the public sector to together push each other but also work together to scale it together. Thank you to Nietzsche would you agree about the rule of business are we placing too high hopes since the emissions are rising or are you are you more on the line with Emma's view that the initiatives are on their way just so they get the right incentives if I paraphrase you correctly. Yes well I echo the the general intention of trying to create the proper circumstances for business to scale up and I think that you know even one can even argue that with this COP you know that it's been a 20 year a 20 year process to get to it because of political pressure and really trying to create the right circumstances for a public and private partnership right because in truth you know there is huge resistance from or at least with regards to concepts and intentions you know there is huge resistance by developed countries and businesses as well but you know really that crumbles slowly because of the weight of moral imperative which translates into political pressure so we can't really take those two apart so I would I would be in agreement there right but and but to echo something else really is a role of mitigation with regards to mitigation and emissions with regards to creating these circumstances that are ripe for climate action really in both in the public and the private sector you know we for a lot of for a lot of people working in in this sector and really in the in the front lines of COP it's really the main uh main work stream for them truly and with regards to trying to create that and putting it properly on the agenda text it's really it's it becomes very difficult when you try to consider all the all the geopolitical you know conventions and modalities that people have to you know really work uh and you're not really sure whether or not you want to work towards it if you want to work against it it's a lot of these small intricacies that really build up what we can really describe as something that isn't as for lack of a better term cohesion proper with the proper work streams in place especially so I know I don't think we're being too optimistic with regards to you know uh placing our hopes on business and to deliver carbon neutrality I think that it's always been a public and private partnership but in the next I say in the next 10 years as well you know we have to start thinking about whether or not uh the ways that we approach approach these um different intricacies should change or not really and but it's really at but honestly in asking that question that again we engage the public right this is part of our partnership is trying to you know try and get our answers so really chasing guards um I'm sorry I think we get everybody to experience a bit of the bad internet connection again from Sharma Sheikh so sorry I think we lost you Tunechi okay so while we wait for Tunechi to come back well I'll continue with the loss and damage so I was going to ask you my like if it was a success or not of course that's in in in the general discourse that's how it's presented now but I also seen some dissident voices but if you were clearly on on those who think that this was one of the most important outcomes so but still there is so much details missing right so what will we need to see happen at the next cops 28 and 29 for us to in two years time say oh yeah it was a success yeah I think as you said it has been attributed as a as a success um for this copper but I would hesitate to fully call it a success until we see what comes next um there's a lot of talk during this cop about it being an implementation cop and I think the key question for a lot of small island developing states is exactly that will what will it will it be operationalized or will it be consigned to the same museum as past promises and pledges um and so I think I would I would hold off and sort of saying it's been a success um purely in that sense and I think we also need to consider the outcome of other funding pledges and promises um because those are equally pressing but then when we focus only or overly on loss and damage then we risked by working attention um from those other equally pressing fronts and then cop the failure or success of cop becomes gets narrowed down to just one focus so just sum up I think it would be we need to keep a close eye and keep pressure up and keep attention not to see what comes out next before we can really say it's been a success but what do you think too would need to be in place what do we have to because how will the mechanism look like for it to for us to assess or the instrument I think well I think that uh for for small island developing states or for developing countries um they need to see something concrete um more than just to have this this um this existing fund um what what comes out of that how does it um where does the funding come from and then who gets the funding and how is the funding um utilized I think those are some of the the sort of important issues that we can't get away from um when we're talking about this fund and TS from the negotiators point of view what would would be and from the point of view since the year was very very active in suggesting how the loss and damage should be set up to be accepted but also effective well I mean as I mean we have now quite some work ahead of us to to um during 2023 to make sure that this is set up in in the best possible way I mean again we don't still don't think that this is the ideal solution um but I mean it is also part of this mosaic of solutions which uh has been had been discussed also in the run-up to corp 27 and I think it's fair to say I mean this has been quite high on the agenda since I mean a number of years but I mean I think it started coming up already when we when we launched the Santiago network for example in in at corp 25 um so what we've been calling for also from the Swedish perspective is sort of to have this kind of overview of what is already available and that that was the intention of the Glasgow dialogues is sort of to have that kind of overview in place because we still believe that there are so many various channels which are being made available and that is something which will be I will be bringing into the conversation now as to how to make sure that we have something which is being fit for purpose and I think sort of it's it sits also you know not sort of going too much ahead into the details but I think now that we're here we might also bring in to bring in reflection on the climate finance landscape more generally I mean one of the reasons one of the main reasons for us not being a proponent of the fund to start with was the fact that we have so many climate funds already and that there is there are access issues being raised and frustration among among sort of accessing the finance in those funds should we maybe have a look at those more generally to see sort of is it really is it fit for purpose to have what is it five or six various types of climate funds I mean the GCF being sort of the the one sort of the biggest of the climate funds but also that that having having said that I mean the majority of climate finance through flows through bilateral funds or bilateral agencies SIDA and Swedish case or through the multilateral development banks the World Bank African Bank Asian Bank and so forth that is where it's sort of the I would I would say almost 80 or 90 percent of climate finance goes through bilaterals or the mdbs so you know how do we ensure that we have on the one hand sufficient finance also to meet the needs and when it comes to loss and damage but also how those those institutions today are geared towards meeting the needs which developing countries themselves put forward to us as donors in the dialogue that we have with you know that in that kind of donor dialogue that we have and that is a dialogue which is not held within the UNFCC context but rather in our case then either a dialogue with SIDA has with partner countries you know with their finance ministries or planning ministries or ministries finance and economy and so forth that is where those kind of priorities need to be need to be put forward in order for us to be able to respond as efficiently as possible you know be it in a mitigation adaptation or what we within the UNFCC context for loss and damage so I think hopefully that can be part of this conversation as well as we move forward in establishing the fund during the course of next year but the loss and damage is not only about the finance then or these funding sources the the Barbados prime minister Maria Martilia has spearheaded the the rich town agenda which makes a specific point raising funding is not enough for loss and damage depth relief is also essential what's the EU take on that I don't think that we have a joint EU position on the Bridgetown agenda per se but I mean I think it's definitely part of the conversation that you know the the various elements put forward in the Bridgetown agenda is something which we will need to be responding to through those channels for example in the in the Paris Club for when it comes to debt in within the the boards of the MDBs when it comes to MDB reform I think it's also worth highlighting that the UNFCCC in as far as I know for the first time called now for the reform of MDBs practices and policies and priorities I'm reading now from the decision text here where and I think that's an important signal from from sort of from the climate community to the wider community that we are aiming for this sort of transformation of the economy in order to be able to keep to keep the goals and of the Paris Agreement both when it comes to 1.5 and as well when it comes to resilience and I think that also speaks maybe to the wider point which Emma made also on the you know what is needed for countries to accelerate their action well there is what is the investment climate in each and every country what are the kind of institutions that we have in place in order sort of to set the right kind of climate policies how do we integrate climate action into our national budget and planning processes for example in order to be able to deliver the kind of climate policies that we need and also to attract the kind of finance needed for for accelerating action so I think that's that's a conversation which is I would think would be useful to have as well as in terms of what do all countries need to have in place in order for them to accelerate action according to sort of their own needs and priorities they've set out both in terms of their indices but also through looking to sort of a wider development agenda as well. Thanks to Nietzsche I don't know lots of damage has been an important topic for the Angus for quite some time yeah so what would you agree about with the with the with the funding uh suggestions here but also the the importance of depth relief and how can we then be realistically achieved it was as Matthias pointed out addressed at least the reform of of the the banks but that provided development was funding but still that's a long way to go how can this a depth relief that we had discussed in what we've seen it from time to time of course but but it's been discussed for decades can it really be a realistically achieved now? Well with the with the question of whether or not it can be realistically achieved I do believe it can you know with the right uh with the right safe guards in place I mean or and you can actually see that very closely you know in COP 27 that it's been brought to the to everyone's attention that the G77 and the and other vulnerable vulnerable countries we don't have the same priorities when it when it comes to loss and damage funding so this this modality of it being that relief of it being a you know a depth relief and whether or not it could be trigger based financing it was a very great way for uh in truth it was a very great way for and putting a price floor really on it is a it's a very great way for the developed countries to really try and so that division in the developing countries but yes it should be accessible and requirements to access the function be should be as these owners as possible really because for loss and damage it means you know reducing the bureaucracy that comes with drafting the concept notes and applying for grants as well as lessening the number of signatories who have to sign off parts the release of the amount needed you know and for a lot of the developing countries as well as their negotiators really we see it we see that their positions are very experience based right because when climate induced disasters happen we can't go to these communities and talk about mitigation and adaptation so how can we do that when we're experiencing the when we're experiencing events that need funding immediately right we don't have time to think about resilient and long-term solutions of course we have time for it but we don't have the immediate time for it and it's not just the time and energy you know the time and energy is quite a lot so adaptation is not particularly the answer to what everyone's already experiencing loss and damage itself is a global obligation for restitution right and I think that the MDBs like the World Bank would really you know in our conversations with them really would prefer actually that that line really because these people in communities need to be restored and to be at a better place in the future yes but we need to design it properly because that's that should be the main difference of it between the other funds right that it should benefit the poor it should benefit the benefit the poor really because many of our financial mechanisms of the UNRCCC are designed like that but rarely do they benefit the basic sector so for a lot of vulnerable countries really loss and damage is an element of social protection right it's not particularly the it can't for us it can't be disaster financed can I mean of course it should be but it should be it should be adding layers to it so at least that's what we're thinking of when we're in regards to kind of how we're building this fund forward. Thanks Malika you just reached on from Fiji as I mentioned and even had the chance to not only talk to villages but also to discuss loss of damage with the prime minister so so what is your perspective from that trip on the on the funding and the the relief and the whole support mechanisms full of damage? Yeah I think that I want to agree with what Tanechi was saying in terms of where the finance when it's released and who it's released to and the difficulties in accessing that support because one of the things that stood out very clearly from being at that workshop in Fiji was the opportunity to listen to people who were representing communities that were actually on the front lines and that's a term that we use is sometimes overused but these are people who had experienced the loss of their homes loss of their communities some of them had to be uprooted and relocate and one of the things that they were talking about was the distance between them and not only the decision makers but the financing so they don't see that financing forthcoming in a way that that is tangible to them yeah and they also see a distance in the terms of that a lot of decisions are made in in in conference rooms or in board rooms or fancy workshops as they said but they they argued that more of the discussion should take place within their communities so that policymakers decision makers could actually see it's not an abstract thing when you're talking about loss and damage in these communities so I think that that's not something that we should shy away from doing as well because sometimes it comes across as being very paternalistic to communities whether it be at the community level or whether it be at the country level the sense of that these countries should just be sit back and accept whatever it is that's distributed to them or promised to them thanks Richard this was an African cop and adaptation at least that was the expectation after Glasgow that adaptations should be high on the agenda and progress should be made on the global global global goal on adaptation was was adaptation overshadowed by loss and damage no I don't think so I mean there is I think loss and damage of course comes out of a failure to be effective and ambitious enough on adaptation the global gold adaptation as in the Paris agreement is it's there because it's important to have a global gold adaptation as well as one on mitigation but it is much less precise than the one on mitigation or the temperature goal so to speak and as a result in trying to make it operational what does it actually mean how do you know if you achieve progress towards the global goal you know several years of sort of methodological and empirical and conceptual but also political challenges made it impossible to really make much progress and that's when in the Glasgow they agreed on a two-year work program on the global gold adaptation which in a way was a form of kicking the can hopefully by having eight workshops in total parties would create a better understanding of of what the global gold could be now we're halfway we've had four of these workshops four more planned and part of the conversation in a shovel shack was about you know topics and themes for for these next four workshops but but something other something else happened which was interesting there was a suggestion to take a structured approach towards developing a framework on a global gold adaptation and and that actually made it into the decision that was adopted and and it's it's very weird because that framework is not specified particularly well in particular it doesn't actually say what the purpose of the framework is so whether that is a relatively small framework to sort of guide a choice of indicators that could be one thing or whether it's like a really big framework that organizes how adaptation is negotiated it's like the Cancun adaptation framework that's completely open but it is clear from the decision that this is something that should exist beyond the work program because it says it would be reviewed before the second global stock take in 2028 so this is a bit of a question Mark as to what that framework would be and whether that is just another way of kicking the can forward which is worrisome because a concrete understanding of the global gold adaptation is going to be important by by the latest next year when the global stock take needs to be able to assess collective progress towards achieving the global gold adaptation that's I think I think adaptation is a bit of a is becoming a bit of a problem on the negotiations because on the one hand it is so incredibly important and necessary on the other hand it also appears very difficult to become concrete as to what adaptation ambition that actually means we know we're not doing enough the UNEP adaptation gap report specifies that the IPCC report has said it but what then do we need to do better what do we need to do more of is it just a matter of more finance and if so what we'll be using the money for or is there something else more system more systemic that needs to that needs to change and and something else that happened which I thought was was sad in in Sharma Shaik the IPCC talked about impacts of climate change becoming increasingly complex it referred to compound and cascading and cross border climate risks which at some point were mentioned both in the cover decision and in or in a draft cover decision and in the draft decision on the global gold adaptation but in the end it disappeared maybe there were parties that felt uncomfortable about it maybe there were parties that felt that if we are going to open up the adaptation space that that might lead to more demands for funding I'm not entirely sure what happened but but the fact is that we are cop after cop failing to become more concrete on what adaptation action is actually needed and what it means to ramp up adaptation ambition great thanks so yeah are we kicking the the adaptation can forward Matthias and can I ask the question what would we require to as Richard what was was mentioning that what we'd be required for this the global gold adaptation of the whole adaptation framework to be operational meaningful and and legitimate and ultimately effectively I think the what was raised in the adaptation rooms is a question which I think has been raised many times before and that is in essence you know how do we define success when it comes to adaptation in the same way as we can do for for mitigation in for mitigation we have the 1.5 degree target or limit and with and adaptation is not in the Paris agreement is defined in the same sort of focused way and and that at least is my sense of what we are trying to achieve when we launch the work program on on the global gold and that adaptation last year in Glasgow and then that's Richard you know highlighted that there was a suggestion of the framework which was put forward by by the by the g77 and the african group on the very first day of negotiations and I mean as as highlighted it was it eventually made it into the final decision text and and and of course now it's up to parties to elaborate on that during the course of 2023 to see what actually what comes out of that at 28 but I mean there was a decision to aim for a deciding on the framework for the global gold and adaptation at COP 28 so now it will be elaborated during the course of 2023 but I think it's worth highlighting maybe this is more sort of a Swedish and maybe a personal reflection from my side you know there's a we and I think this also speaks to your point you know la on sort of the reform and the future of the UNFCC process as such because there is a tendency for us to sort of when we have when we're faced with a challenge or or you know an issue that we want to deal with there's often calls for new types of reports and we need new data you know we need to get a work program going we need sort of we need workshops when most often I mean the data limited as it may be but the date that we have is already there you know it's it's and we have have we have had various types of reports already sort of basically outlining what the problems are and what we need to do so it's not that we sort of need to do workshops on what we need to do we rather need to do it in the countries themselves and just as a case in point I mean and of course we all have different starting points but Sweden presented first its first adaptation communication now at COP 27 based on the kind of work that we're doing and I mean there is a call for countries to come forward with their adaptation communications there are various types of guidelines both in terms of the NAPS and of course for the NDCs and for the adaptation communications what are the kind of data which is the kind of data which needs to be included in these various types of reports so in a way I mean you could you could start using those maybe in a more coherent fashion across the various agenda items and across the various constitutive bodies as they're called which are already working on this I mean we have we have the adaptation committee for example we also have other committees working on adaptation the least developed countries expert group for example where there is work ongoing so how can we make sure that we're actually using sort of synergies or creating synergies between these various work strands already before we start embarking on new processes which also we should recall are you know creating capacity constraints in in all countries not only sort of in developing countries but also for us so sort of we're creating more work for ourselves maybe not before we start looking into what are the results that we've already achieved and so just sort of as a not related specifically to adaptation but more generally for the process itself in terms of how we're using our limited resources to make the best results we can within the process. Thanks yeah it's really interesting that I expect that we can return to the reform of an idea somehow to to to organize the cops in the future maybe that's a the topic for a new for a new seminar like this that will be super interesting. Emma I would like to come back to the role of business I mean we address the leadership of business and the important role in mitigation actions and so on and as many of you know the a lot of these initiatives are listed that they're in the global climate action portal which I think lists almost 14 000 companies and more than 1500 investors globally in actions almost in all over the world but if we just look at what they do on adaptation it's only seven percent of the companies and 11 percent of the investors that have that target adaptation in any other actions so is that I think you you mentioned I think you gave us a bit of an answer in your introduction is but I ask you now again anyway is adaptation the blind spot of business? I mean yeah I think I would like to definitely agree with what Mathias just said but also look back to what Richard mentioned earlier regarding actually the lack of understanding what adaptation means and what are the needs what are the risks what are the goals and how can we then bridge those challenges into the solutions and I think when it comes to mitigation the companies and the private sector they kind of understand that and they have set their net zero targets they understand the 1.5 degree target and they have set their own strategies to try to contribute to that goal but then when I mean also especially after this COP I think adaptation definitely will be even more of an important topic but that's a challenge ahead of us to try to really make it more understandable what the challenges are what are the risks and how can we then match those risks with the innovations that already exist or need to be innovated so that we can speed up the adaptation agenda as well and what business Sweden is currently doing or been doing is poking a lot a lot of on the mitigation agenda where we've been trying to act as some kind of matchmaker or we sometimes jokingly say that we are a climate tinder when we try to match make the largest CO2 emitting markets and the largest CO2 emitting sectors and also then look into those different countries to see what are the action plans what are the indices what are the concrete actions that needs to be done in order for them to reduce the emissions within those sectors and then what we're trying to do is then to match make that with the Swedish innovations that we have in place but also maybe policy frameworks and green finance is similar to support with the mitigation agenda in those countries to speed up the global transition however this is something we really need to do on the adaptation agenda as well so that we can also act as a adaptation tinder so to say but then we also need to we need more tangible yeah actions and we need a clearer tool yeah clearer tools and also I think a lot of support from not only scientists but also work closer together with different public sector stakeholders so that we can together try to to crack this dilemma so to say because really the cost of an action is higher than the cost of action and for every dollar invested in climate in adaptation and resilience we save six dollars and and that also says a lot that I mean obviously we know it's urgent but it's also it's a matter of survival once again not only for the countries but also for the companies Richard adaptation tinder is that is that the recipe for business contributing to the collective adaptation effort so sounds like something for you yes no that's that's that sounds like a great idea I I think part of you know in Chalmershark I was part of an event held at the Swedish rebellion by Business Sweden and co-hosted by the Global Challenges Foundation which dealt very much with this question and the representatives of several Swedish companies there I think that traditionally adaptation is very much seen as something that is that is local in every case is unique and mitigation is global and I think we need to move away from that what I think is a false dichotomy there are plenty of examples of why adaptation is also a global challenge as it says in the Paris agreement and that's private sector has a role to play in governing that global challenge in in the old days so to speak you know I think maybe still for many companies their interest in adaptation is to see you know how does climate risk affect them and what do they need to do themselves and how could they benefit from dealing with climate change or helping others to adapt so there is the so the self-interest in terms of addressing the risks to which they are exposed and there's the self-interest in terms of the opportunities that exist in in making money out of adaptation and I think those are obviously very important motivations for companies to look into adaptation and I think there is an additional one which is that companies are one part of the of the governance structure that has a shared responsibility to reduce climate risks around the world and that includes also looking at what actions they are taking themselves that may actually affect positively or negatively the exposure to climate risk of others and let me just give you an example and there's links to the discussion on what's called just resilience a term that the EU has introduced in its in its adaptation strategy that came out in February last year the idea of just resilience being that it's not just resilience that you need to build up but it's also how you build it up that that could be winners and losers as a result of adaptation and you know for example we look at supply change of agricultural commodities say coffee you know we drink a lot of coffee in Europe and much of it's imported from Brazil much of that's produced by smallholder farmers who may well become victims of climate change or climate shocks as a result of droughts and heat stress and so on. Those smallholder farmers are basically at the mercy of the big companies at the end of the supply chain who buy their crops and for whom it might be very easy if the quality or quality of their supply diminishes to move some morels and get their coffee from so that means that these smallholder farmers are at risk not only of climate change but also of the decisions made by corporates at the end of the supply chain on which they have no influence at all so this is where you know one example of where companies have a role to play to ensure that their adaptation decisions don't actually impose additional risk on others at the at the beginning of the supply chain. Thank you. Thanks. Well yeah time is running out but I have two questions that I would like to ask you before we let the audience in and so maybe the answers can be a bit shorter but maybe it's not possible to ask the next one shortly Matias. Article six and we got some further clarity in the Paris rulebook in particularly article six or some argue that it was more muddled and became much more unclear what can be included or not and under what terms has the decision on article six taken the COP 27 moved us closer to the temperature goals of the Paris agreement. I'd actually be a bit hesitant in making an assessment in terms of how much closer we were brought to limiting temperature rise with the decisions on article six but I think it's fair to say though that there's still work remaining to be done. We had from the Swedish and the EU side wanted to sort of ensure transparency in reporting for example when it comes to article six and we're not quite there and we have already started from the Swedish side through the Swedish energy agency in elaborating bilateral agreements with a couple of countries in applying article six but so that can progress but we would have benefited from having even more clarity coming out from COP 27 which we still don't have so there's still work to be done in ensuring the reporting systems and transparency of those before we can say that we have as much as possible in place and that goes for sort of both both strands of article six both six two and six four so this sort of the bilateral parts and also the the multilateral parts of article six so still work to be done. Richard? Yeah thanks I think whether or not we're getting any closer to the temperature goals of the Paris agreement is in part perhaps determined by article six but in general of course that's what much of COP 27 was was about. Let me just reflect a bit more on whether or not COP 27 sort of succeeded or failed in that sense. There's a lot in the media about COP 27 failed because you know 1.5 is now out of reach or maybe not depending on how you how you see it. I think you know the whether or not a COP is a failure of success is not just determined during those two weeks it's determined in the in the whole year leading up to it and if we go back to Glasgow where the UK government's you know called on you know more ambition and lots of pledges were made there was an agreement to update or enhance NDCs for example. I think you know only you know not even 30 countries have actually updated or enhanced their NDCs this year. UK being one of them there was also a pledge to enhance or strengthen finance during 2022 that hasn't really happened either so whatever happens during a COP is to a light extent also a reflection of what progress has been made during the year and perhaps for very reasons in 2022 with the geopolitical crises with the economic crises and and and other important priorities for global policymakers the world has simply not made much progress and this this could be seen. I think COP 27 as a whole delivered pretty much as could be expected. I think we would all have liked to see more ambition on on the key issues of adaptation mitigation and finance but we shouldn't just leave it to those two weeks in the end of the year to to ensure that ambition actually exists. I think all countries including Sweden need to start doing their homework COP 28 already now. Thanks, thank you Richard. Tonecia we discussed a lot on the role of business and the the carbon markets under article six and so on but Greta Thunberg did not go to COP she argues that we need to change up economic system so and that's hardly going to to happen at COP which she also said she also said so would you agree with that? Is there a change of economic system we need and if that's not going to happen at COP are you at the wrong venue? Well you know in regards to that and Tonebrae's decision to not go to COP you know our colleagues at Friday store teacher as well also have to weigh in whether or not her presence would be you know disrupting the COP as well so you know before we actually go into that answer it's pretty I think it's pretty important to know and for everyone to know that you know young people nowadays you have the most informed generation of young people world I think or in the history of the world rather and and not there's that because you can see now that even activists in the bilateral sector very much consider the geopolitical spectrum with regards to the gatherings of the UNFCCC right so it's not particularly particularly that you know when we're focusing on the need to change the economic system that comes obviously from an emotional standpoint it does come from the heart with regards to our frustration with the young people and the youth and our frustration with the current system yes and whether or not it's hardly going to happen at COP is very it's a very two pronged question really and and that's something that you know that on its own has to kind of take fruit really and you know and that leads us actually to the other question of whether or not young people and activists are brought to COP only for mobilizations and activations you know are the our views being really considered with regards to decision tax and the agenda at the end of the day the late action is probably the root of all this frustration and and you could really see that in COP 27 and trauma check that you have about you have a lot of monitoring and activity correct so in that in that and really it leads if then again it's it just keeps taking fruit at least another question of whether or not um the bilateral sector is given proper uh for time and proper work streams at COP really to to be to be given great thank you I have so much more I wanted to ask but uh now it's if we don't turn to the Q&A session our times will be completely out and uh well gone so uh that now I leave over to Maria Cole to to ask you some of the questions from the audience what do you want me to post them we have questions posted in the Q&A chat so you can see some of them if they're particularly that you want to pick up uh for example we have here questions to um to Matias and to um Richard I would say uh from Maria Janas for example in Glasgow the agreement to increase the frequency of updates of the NDCs was highlighted as one of the main achievements these updates has not been delivered as expected and in light of early concerns uh already before Paris of the fragility of NDCs as a building block for an international agreement what are your reflections on the potential of the NDCs as a tool for driving climate action I would say Matias or Richard I could go first then um I think I mean we we need to see the NDCs as sort of at the core of the Paris agreement and I mean I think it was encouraging to see ahead of COP26 a number of NDCs that were updated in line with sort of the first NDC cycles and that they were expected to be out of date but still of course we it's clear the level of ambivalence which countries have and these are still nowhere near where the way it needs to be so enhance the call from COP26 to update and we revisit and strengthen as the text was which is then also retained and repeated now in the in the COP27 text that those countries have not yet done so to do so so I think that will be part of our work through the EU during the course of 2023 and going forward also that we want to see repeated updates of the NDCs in order to ensure to deliver as high ambition as possible and that was also sort of the what we had hoped for in the mitigation work program which is now established that creating that kind of space which would facilitate the updating of the NDCs in line with the latest science and also again with the opportunities and kind of solutions that business for example could offer to to accelerate both design and implementation of the NDCs yeah I have very little to add to that I you know as I said in my previous answer I think the fact that only well less than two dozen new NDCs were available before the COP started was one of the factors and that led to the relatively limited success of COP27 and you know as I said I think countries need to make sure they don't just show up at COP28 but they show up prepared and knowing what ambition they could offer. We also have questions from George for example saying that we might remember COP27 as the COP that brought the 1.5 limit out of reach. The parties did not agree a way to nearly have emissions until 20 to half the emissions until 2030. Three years without strong mitigations are already gone in this decade and time may have run out. What is your comment on this? Malika for example. Yes I actually you know when I had the opportunity to speak with some Pacific representatives as well as the Prime Minister of Fiji one of the things that they said was that they're not optimistic about 1.5. They think 1.5 is there to use their word and if someone else pointed out if the sort of developed countries aren't willing to make the changes that need to be made but then we just continue sort of having these discussions and talking shops then we don't have a realistic hope of reaching that 1.5 and we can continue speaking and speaking about it but then nothing changes. It's hard to maintain some level of optimism when there isn't enough evidence that enough is being done. Yeah what about you Emma do you have any comments on this 1.5 goal? I mean I think once again coming back to the urgency but also the importance of that we're talking the same language and that we are aligning the negotiation agenda with the solutions. The sooner we actually understand what what the challenges and the risks are and the needs are and actually the existing solutions that we have in place today. We do have innovations bold enough to make a real difference and we do also have companies ready to do their part so yeah the sooner we can meet and talk to each other to ensure that we actually can align these agendas the sooner we can actually reach the targets and reach the I mean yeah turn the the goals into actions. I think that is my comment on this. Could I come in there Maria? Yes of course. Just I think it's you know we need to keep in mind as well I mean I mean there's a state in the obvious maybe but 80 percent of global emissions are from the G20 countries so in order for us to be able to limit temperature rise to 1.5 the G20 need to do their part. The largest emitter is China we all know that and I mean we we need as the G20 countries to ensure that we are doing what we can to to limit temperature rise within our respective jurisdictions within the EU. As you know when we've set our target to be at least reducing by 55 percent by 2030 we're probably seeing that to be increased during the course of next year maybe in the trans-timber man has mentioned that we're already at the minus 57 and we've seen those kind of signs also from the US but of course we need to see those from all G20 countries to make sure that we mean that the voices suggesting even for the covered decision to mention peaking by 2025 on a collective scale. So those mean it is the G20 which needs to deliver mitigation ambition for us to be able to limit temperature rise to 1.5. Yes of course. Anyone else want to chime in on this one or otherwise we have a question around also loss and damage and funding there's been a lack of climate funding and much of the funding promise was not made available. How will this new fund for loss and damage be different you think? I can try and respond at least in part of that. Yes there are other funds many of which could fund activities that at least help to minimize the vert loss and loss and damage. The adaptation fund, the green climate fund, the global environment facility and other funds that are not necessarily under the convention but funded by donor countries. The problem is in part that there isn't enough money. The problem is also that the procedures for countries to access the money are very very cumbersome and that it is a priority for in any case the adaptation fund. I spoke at some length with the people heading the secretariat of the adaptation fund to make it easier for countries to access funds and also to work with that board to make sure that some of the difficult decisions about whether or not funding actually goes to adaptation or whether this is seen as development and so on that some of these decisions are not deal breakers when it is obvious that projects can have a positive adaptation benefit. So I think it's yes funding is important and there needs to be more of it that at the same time it needs to become easier for countries to access the money and at the same time of course that also needs to come with clear transparency and accountability on how that money is then being used. Yes we have also someone here who who says that they wonder if you see the timing and location of the COP 27 as a negative feature that had impact on its result suggesting bad timing as the G20 at the same time in Egypt as a location. What do you say and maybe you also can chime in here Björn Ula on the discussion of is this the right format? You're muted. Yeah I'll let the panel start and then I can also chime. So what do you say Mattia for example on timing and location? Timing yes I mean we actually last year ahead of COP 26 we had maybe sort of a the successive timing of events including the G20 summit was maybe more favorable but I think we shouldn't maybe make too much of an issue of the timing it's it is when it is I mean it's usually during this time of year as is the G20 summit and as to the place I mean I think it's that also that's part of the regular rotation scheme within the UNFCCC so it was Africa's turn and now next year it's Asia and hence we'd be in Dubai so it's that's that's part of the structure of the process. Yeah of course it was not ideal to have it in a repressive country like Egypt evidently for the civil society engagement also the lobby presence was I think unusually high this year might be an explanation where it was located but still I think it's brilliant that it goes around and I know many have complained why is it in Poland so many times well this is the only country in Eastern Europe who offers to host it but at the same time if it's been also hosted by the countries who don't want to be in the forefront that that builds a lot that a really robust process because even if it survives there and moves forward when those countries are hosting it it creates a legitimacy for the whole process that said I think it's a lot to be done to reform how the cops are set up but I like the fact that they run each year and they have also other functions we talk about this fair and then sort of the the display functions which we're talking about in the role of our business but when it comes to peace building and trust building in the world I think that it's phenomenal success from the UNFCCC that all countries in the world agree on is a problem and agree to deal with it and also that we saw that this year the China and and the US took up their dialogue which they started in Glasgow and and then cancelled when Nancy Pelosi the speaker former speaker of that no she's still the speaker the speaker of the house until the January visiting Taiwan the China took the drastic measures of cancelling that and that was regarded as a can't drastic measure to cancel the climate talks with the US which tells us something about the the prominence of the issue and the importance of climate change also to be bridge between the US and China and now that dialogue is open again so that function of the the multilateral negotiations I think can't be underestimated and it's also a part of the whole process which you sometimes forget thanks for asking me as well yeah maybe maybe we speaking of thanks for giving me a chance I should leave we have a teaser left from from the introduction which to Nietzsche never got to to give this insight too but before I do that I would just like to thank Maria Cole I think I forgot to introduce you as well right didn't I yeah so you're the lead of communications in Mr. Geopolitics and together with a fantastic communication team Stockholm my mental institute which you see the resource of today that we can have this event together with CSBR if you're interested in following the news and the newsletters I think we will post in the chat function where you can sign up for the newsletter and also the website where you can go in and see the news yeah and speaking about news then what is your insight tip to Nietzsche all right well actually I'll keep it short because I'll just echo something that I and some of the other panelists have said before that really regards the loss and damage finance loss and damage fund really it was born out of cooperation really and this unity between the G77 and vulnerable countries but we really saw in COP 27 that even the different negotiating groups really at its core different parties have different intentions for with regards to what the LND what LND will bring them down the line we saw that with discussions and interventions by AOSIS and small island developing states as well as other Asian countries as well because you know really for us the the uniting force of it is really or what were what really developing countries are fighting against is really the fear of liability and compensation right and it really is such an unfounded fear in this discussion you know it puts it puts the it puts developed countries and campaigners towards it in a very bad light because historical responsibility and liability obviously is will always be a statement of play really but something that the media wasn't really particularly reporting on was really that divide between the vulnerable countries and really what our intentions are because in you can see in some interventions that certain parties are yes some certain parties are okay with it being insurance based because of course they're they're going to get that insurance right and it really goes goes back to whether or not these climate impacts are are so are happening so often that yes we can anticipate insurance right and whether or not we're okay with trigger-based financing you know and we I think actually the LND fund really is a very politically good outcome you know it's good that while it's being created and designed that we should already pilot things on the ground right institutions such as the Stockholm Environment Institute which supports a lot of our projects on the ground as well you know it's a good thing to pilot these things. Thank you thank you so much and you get the final word because our time is up I should just say thank you to the panelists fantastic contributions it's so valuable that you took your time to share your your expertise and your insights that was was was great and thanks to the audience with tons of other great questions but and thank you for contributing and well too is a trend and thrice is a tradition so welcome back after COP 28 for what would then be our traditional post-match analysis hopefully with in a brighter mood and the future ahead thanks you. Thanks. Thank you.