Hi, good afternoon everyone. Thank you so much for taking the time to listen to Guy's wisdom It's an absolute privilege for me to hear it as well Guy founded Sneak a business that was originally the idea was to look for and look and fix Open source vulnerabilities in codebase. He founded in 2015. It's an amazing business. It's grown to over 1,200 people. It's it broke through a hundred million ARR just over a year ago So it's been through many journeys many manifestations guys going to take us on that journey But one of the things we look for when we're working with great founders is what is the founder market fit? Why is this human being? uniquely sort of place to solve this problem and I think Guy and Sneak is an example of that So before we kick off with Sneak's journey, can you just let us know maybe guy like what's the you know What did you do prior to sneak Thanks Tom and thanks everybody for taking the time here. Hopefully there's some useful tidbits here for you to take on So my background I'm born raised in Israel been through the cyber parts of the Israeli army and then found myself as a software developer within The application security space when it was very nascent building the first kind of automated Penetration testers. So this is an Israeli company acquired by a Canadian company acquired by IBM And I moved over and became product manager basically spent a decade in the kind of the creation of the app sex space And we were trying to get developers to embrace like even back in 2002 I was saying shift left on on app sec trying to get developers to To use the products earlier because it's a hundred times cheaper to find a problem early versus versus late in the cycle But we didn't quite succeed with that We sort of got developers to get succeeded financially by sort of selling to security people but not Didn't get developer adoption and then I left and I founded a Web performance company that made websites faster in the DevOps scene And I was a part of the DevOps wave that company got acquired by Akamai where I was CTO for a bunch of years So I sort of spent the next six or so years of my life in the sort of the DevOps space And so and I moved with them to London. So really the two journeys combined a bit in sneak You know trying to bring what I've learned from DevOps into kind of what I've tried and failed To do in there in app sec and and you'd also spent a time actually kind of evangelizing about the space You'd built a bit of a profile and it might be that that also kind of helped you bootstrap the early versions of sneak So maybe we'll jump into that in a moment, but what's the founding story of sneak? What was that sort of moment? Was there an epiphany or was it just all of these things coming together? Yeah, I think a lot of it is very much the combination of my journeys and so I guess from the sort of this stretch of time in DevOps, I've kind of come to appreciate that This need to shift left or sort of run security earlier has gone from a from a nice to have to a need to have The world has split up teams are you know, like we rely on these fast-moving independent teams that build software and Security hasn't gotten the memo hasn't really been adapted to it And so we have to do it we can't fix we can't secure a software from the outside more than ever before And so that was needed and then the DevOps playbook Was the inspiration was to say hey now we have like fine We have this need but also there's a whole horde of great companies that are building amazing tools that Get to developers and so can we build a security company that is modeled after these great developer companies? And and actually succeed and break through in that sort of holy grail of getting developers to embrace security So that's the epiphany like the idea literally came to me in the shower, but the the sort of the path to it was Was really these learnings over the over the different times make sense But I mean that is a big problem that you wanted to solve at the point So you have to make it tractable and you sort of had an early idea of what the minimum viable Solution to test this might be I think you've got your own description for that. Yeah, I think so so the core Notion was we want to get developers to embrace security and that's very hard And we're gonna model after the dev tooling companies of the world in fact We define ourselves as sneak is a developer tooling company the tackle security not a security company So we very much designed everything about the company the conversations We had around the color schemes to sort of make it, you know warm and welcoming like dev tools But when I tell you you have you know a high severity vulnerability I want to I want to scare you just a little bit, you know Like you do need to worry about not fixing that problem and so doing those the logo, you know conversations You know like the guard dog by an animal logo and sort of so a lot of that We built a whole company to be like a developer Tooling company that's designed on that and then modeling after dev tools We we really focused, you know, I guess the best practice We've seen was taking a specific niche or a specific ecosystem and really really focusing on that You see New Relic and Heroku they were built in in Ruby land and they stayed there for years So for us it was no to JS and we said no JS is Is the Ruby of that time, you know, it was big enough and small enough sort of small enough Sort of big enough to matter, you know enough enterprise adoption enough general use But small enough that we can be a force within it. And so we really focused on that and And kind of built build the tools and then subsequently developer security is also massive and so as you mentioned before we picked a specific Space which is open source security basically finding the timely opportunity of you know developers being afraid of dependencies, you know everybody has some horror story about using some library or changing or upgrading and it broke something and so Helping tackle that problem, which was especially kind of finicky and well-known in the npm space in the node JS space And so we focused on that we went very deep. I find myself kind of hustling and you know every meetup of node JS meetup that knows me that that would accept me. I had some reputation from the performance days So I was kind of using those Where I could You know sleeping on air mattresses that friends, you know sort of doing these, you know 3% event there and you know 17% event there Trying to build it and we succeeded like the first phase of it was very much around being being a real Presence that if you're in node JS you would have known about sneak love that and So sort of phase one was very much founder driven sales Staying close to the customer and it wasn't we often talk about a kind of product market fit It sounds much more like a product developer fit at this stage or product user fit. Yeah. Yeah, correct and I think So so a core part so we built this bottom-up motion for in security Which generally is a very top-down motion that we're going to talk about that a lot more The bottom-up really means that you focus on the user and we're saying the whole lens the whole reason for existence for sneak is You know developer first securities if you all if I am a developer and I want to secure the code that I'm building What do I need? Where do I want to find my tools? What's the company? I want to be associated with but then in the product that you ask, you know What is it that I that I need and so we built the whole product from sort of that ethos We built it I believe in iteration and so we we shipped a crappy little product, you know Just a couple of months into the company's existence. We said it's beta We didn't charge anybody for it, you know, and we iterated with the community and we built it up you know as I was going to all these different meet-ups and And what we found was you know, we had a command line interface And we had you know as I've been referring to this this minimum unit of value like our smallest unit of value that we Could provide was help a developer write their code like write secure code And the smallest version of that was a command line interface that they could download and run locally And it was premium because if you know, it's such an easy action such a low friction action But if you introduce the credit card into that you'd lose a lot of people and so We built that you know, we built the CLI and we got good adoption pretty much right away And then that grew and people would download the CLI would and use it They'd run the test they find vulnerabilities They'd tweet positive things about it and they wouldn't put it in the build They wouldn't continue using it and so we We we you know we dug into it and we talked to them and all that and eventually we realized we haven't made it easy enough yet to actually get into the Continuous relationship the continuous security motion and Are our that drove this whole evolution and significant tech innovations that we've had to do But they came from a product lens to integrate into github But really and what we've done in github is you do a next-next-next experience and we figure it out and we connected and we install You know github all off app at the time, you know install it and they just Automatically now integrates into your workflow around collaborating around code editing Love that and the beauty of that what's important to kind of maybe generalize here is that it made the relationship continuous So now we did this next next next. We still had the CLI people could still use The even lower friction kind of installation, but then the people that installed it through github We have this ongoing relationship with them and we can evolve it And it opened up one more path for the long answer here They'd open up one more path around virality And so what also happened with github sneak has always been free for open source so open source developers could use it when they Used it on their command line interface. It was hidden Nobody saw it when the when an open source developer open source maintainer installed sneak as a github app on their Open source repository Suddenly it was very visible to all of those that consume that open source project We would find the vulnerability and one of our claims to fame was we actually fix the problem because the developers job isn't to find problems It's to fix them so we would find a problem We will package up this fixed pull request this set of code changes needed to fix it and we'll open this pull request onto the Repository and then everybody watching all the open source kind of maintainers watching that repository because they're using it They would get an alert and so that really created some virality and it raised awareness not just to the notion Not just the sneak but also to the very concept that this is a security problem We should work about and that worry about and that this is a type of solution you could get I love it So a few few observations just to sort of synthesize that I think are useful for all of us including me as I look at Kind of investment opportunities. The first is guy had a kind of maniacal focus on the right user So in this case a kind of product developer focus we talked about that He was contrarian in the way. He did it because he certainly wasn't out there selling to security Buyers like most others instead. He started with the early adopters I think one of the other things that inspired me in what you described is just remembering that actually Initial adoption is not the same as engagement and engagement is often about taking the friction out of using the product so at this point you had Pretty fantastic kind of you know developer Adoption, I think we started talking together in 2017 and you suddenly hit an inflection point when we were at the point we were investing you went from sort of sue 600,000 ARR up to 2 million ARR in two quarters from memory It suddenly just was an inflection point. What was it that drove that? Yeah, so I think as we built this up We you know, we got this good success with the developer usage and nobody would buy and It's a common pitfall for sort of dev tools And so over time as we've sort of explored that and we learned that we realized that while we built the sort of the Product market fit for the user. We haven't been satisfying the needs of the buyer Which is the security person some of that was features a bunch of different gaps But probably the most interesting is Observation is back to that unit of value So for a developer, you know, they like depth, you know I'm coding in JavaScript and I couldn't care less if you support PHP or not not because I'm never minded But rather because I'm it doesn't affect me. I'm coding in JavaScript for a security person. They need Brett They're gonna tackle this security risk and they can't have every director of engineering Kind of tackle that security risk in their own different ways And so they need Brett they need support for many ecosystems and elements And so their minimum unit of value was much broader and so really fundamentally We we kind of cracked the code on developer usage But then until we've expanded that to multiple platforms, which is a dev tool Typically you care about a lot less, but as a security tool is fundamental We couldn't really get to that But once we cracked that and we did it then then the momentum of the developer Adoption and that sort of tailwind really kind of pushed us up. I love that So sort of depth for the initial adoption you then need breath to get a kind of product buyer fit in this case Do you as you look back? I think this is also the point that you started to think about bringing in sales teams and that profile changed a lot If you'd thrown which a lot of founders do a lot of sales people at this problem at phase one that we just described You probably wouldn't have been able to iterate. So how did you think about building a sales team to actually drive? Yeah, so so if first of all, it's worth noting that we did introduce at the end of that beta when we g8 Self-serve, you know pay this thinking the floodgates will open and the developers will now They've been using the product and now they will happily pay for it and they didn't And we realized that the budget for what we were offering that Organizations budget for keeping itself secure sits with a security person and so we still get a lot of purchases from developers but the majority of the budget comes from from security and So within the security industry the traditional sale is a top-down enterprise sale But within the dev tooling world, you know continuing that motion. It's a much more transactional Path and so the key decision was really I spoke to a lot of different sort of heads of sales Interaction and by the way before that we we hired two salespeople To try and sort of help sell the product without really a big plan and two salespeople is important because if they if you hire One and they don't succeed. You don't know if it's a salesperson or if it's your product. That's problematic So we hired two and two months later We separated from one and and sort of stayed with the other and that was a really good call And then once we knew that you know the decision was really, you know Talked to a bunch of different VP sales some coming more with the enterprise motion that are used to sort of large deals longer engagements, you know sort of top-down and then the other with someone who came more from a transactional background from a dev tools and that really helped our fight that for us We wanted the continuation of it the muscle we wanted to strengthen in the company was the dev tool motion and so we built we prioritized That motion and we hired someone who was really really good at this transactional fast velocity sales And over time as the company grew and our enterprise motion grew We did need the head of sales to be someone that comes from enterprise and make that part to be a division And so that's what we did We sort of got a top similarly at the beginning We then brought another head of sales because this one was a bit more America's biased and the next one was sort of more Global and so each of them was amazing and the right person for the fit We got pretty lucky there But but you have to think about what is the right center of gravity you want to have and again It's an example of you just can't skip to the end here. You have to go progressively through these stages Yeah, you as you kind of thought through the opportunity Back then you brought in some sales, maybe you were creating a hell of a lot of developer demand I mean, I don't know if you can recall the numbers But it was huge Adoption amongst the developers and the first thing that the sales people coming in would think is these are leads I remember getting the business slightly wrong back then thinking, you know All of these github IDs would be genius because you'd be able to point them to specific businesses You'd be able to then sell to that business. It didn't work out like that. I learned from that just observing you So help us understand how you use the sort of freemium Community it wasn't just as easy as picking them off and pointing them at sort of leads How did you think about that and what did you learn? Yeah for sure So we you know we did the first of all, you know We we connect on github and a lot of people use their personal emails on on github And so I'd say about half the users probably even to today get their gmail So it's oftentimes kind of hard to classify them if you use these enrichment tools to know where they come from And you know what we did was we took those users and we try to score them So we called we took everything we knew we started from saying everything we know about this user Okay, like how engaged are they did they invite other people? We did go through the enrichment process Do we sort of know them and we try to get a bunch of these tidbits and give them some score And if they passed a certain threshold they became a product qualified lead a pql And that showed up on some salespersons kind of Q and they decided if to put them on to like an automated sort of email sequence Or if they want to reach out and we work that way and that helped us that fed us for a while One evolution that happened over there was that we learned to flip it around so it's you know This was useful But it was was a bit of a messy signal and we've learned that the better way to do it was actually to start from the Sales process so we defined a user profile and it said when you're trying to assess a sales opportunity What questions do you want to ask and then we looked at the data and we said? How best can we answer that and the key thing for me that was a learning was Not being afraid to ask so for instance because a lot of these users were sort of gmail users But the fact that someone used the gmail user didn't mean that they were assessing the product for personal use versus not At some point we introduced a question to say hey Are you here for your personal projects or you're here for sort of a business to assess a sale and we'll help you We tuned the sort of the downstream Workflow a little bit to sort of make it realistic And and that was a really light-shed moment for us because first of all People didn't run away. I was very afraid of them like you know hitting the funnel and all that was very minuscule And there was a skip option And the second is that suddenly our analytics were very different and we saw very different patterns of behavior And we could optimize the personal users for advocacy and spread the word and such and the business users for conversion And it was very significant and this is an extraordinarily exciting bit of the business because you've kind of taken a vertical approach to appeal to the developers You've gone broad in order to actually be kind of minimum viable for the buyer the security buyer And you've created a sort of product like lead growth engine here So a lot of businesses don't invest that time to create the sort of loop Instead they'll take a linear approach where they say actually we throw more sales people at the problem We have more outbound lead generation, but you created this kind of engine in the business that could really scale Yeah, for sure and I think and that evolved itself into like from the PQLs at the beginning They were always combined with like some form of outbound founded like that first and then with sales Because like when we get in through a developer and they want that depth Sometimes the journey between that developer and the security person that might be sort of signing the check in most larger companies It's just harder to do internally. So the PQL lets you do that internally or maybe it's the security person using it But oftentimes, you know, we'd go outside and engage and our brand and our broad reputation would help and at some point We introduced this notion of product qualified accounts of PQA's in which we track Accounts that have active users in them whether they're using it on company code or on their personal code And then we'd use that in the outbound and today that plays a big role And and so the combination this sort of pincer movement is important because sometimes it's easier to bridge that gap that way And I think today about 70% of the deals that we that we land Have sneak users inside the company That that have been active and so it's sort of it's a big motion that presence Even when we do outbound that sort of bottom-up presence is very significant to to the success And we saw something similar even with our investment in slack this sort of you have such a soft landing When you already have product option inside the organization now look back in 2018 you were signing up these Customers and it was something between six thousand dollars or sixty thousand dollars a cv It's now potentially multi millions on many cases. So there's been a huge expansion Is this kind of does this reflect the third phase maybe where you started to think about customer success Expansion enterprise sales. Yeah, what does this latest phase look like? Absolutely I think it's it's actually the the evolution of both aspects of the company on one hand You know we've gone from From the sort of the single developer or development team That's the minimum unit for the user for the dev user to kind of a single business unit Which was the minimum unit within Security to to secure a business unit and then you know grew to multiple business units and across And we have a lot of these examples in which we won over through outbound or through inbound You know some company and then another another like some business unit another business unit And then we go to the mothership and we go broader Especially by the way Leaning into modern companies that have been acquired by a larger company those have oftentimes been a good lead in So that's kind of win month path and one growth path that's been very significant for us Is that developer account we charge by developers on the other side? We started with opens for security as the product But you know the vision has always been developer security and so over over the years we've added You know the container security and infrastructure as code security and code security and and cloud security now Now we have five products And the expansion is very significant and we're tracking like the growing percentage of customers with two products with three products And so generally that was another growth element to us which is Tackle more threats and I think that's super super important One thing I love about it is the sort of the authenticity of it people expand with you because you are a good solution for them You're a good company for you to work in and so all of the investments in customer success in truly valuable product They pan out they want to do more with you and people reach out to us But also it's important to assess your market opportunity and understand Is the right thing for you to double down for us We believe that the true eventual solution is to help developers write secure code And we don't want to sort of say help developers write you know use open source libraries securely We want to sort of talk about something broader. So there's big opportunity over there I love that one one thing we haven't really touched on through the course of this is just you know Partner ecosystem you touched on github. You went there because that's where your initial user was You took the friction out of for them How do you think about partnerships whether it be channel strategy or anything else? Yeah, I think um, so so it's it's really interesting and as you grow also It's super super important, you know, because you want to get leverage You can't just grow by throwing more bodies at it and the product is viral, but you still you want leverage Channel channel has never been terribly exciting for us. It's a little bit more tricky in uh, like straight up redistribution You know, there's some of that but it's sort of less the focus because it's less It's also in general. It's a little problematic in sass. It's sort of but What has been very insignificant for us is alliances And the difference there is that these are actually When you stop and you think about the problem not from the lens of your product But from the lens of the customer Then sometimes I'm you understand that the customer prefers to consume your product through some broader lens maybe Maybe the customer is outsourcing all of their security kind of practice around product security to some Some other vendor and so unless you really want to displace that you need to fit into how that other vendor provides it Maybe a developer expects to get there So we partner with gsi companies and security mssp companies to do that, you know on on the on the other side Maybe a developer, you know, really you oftentimes they want security capabilities to be built into the tool that they're using If they're using at asian bit bucket or if they're using, you know docker to sort of install containers Snake is built into those and those alliances come in and so those are very important It's important to understand that these are slow burners and you don't control the timeline So you need to have a lot of balls in the air. You don't really know when would they materialize And a lot of them are going to drop to the ground But they're worth investing and I'd also recommend Separating the backlogs. It's very hard. You have some pie in the sky a vision of some massive company embedding your product It may or may not happen But it's very hard to weigh that against some very real functionality You have to kind of build to close a deal And the reality is in that reality that I can set situation the customer needs would almost always win And so what I would what we eventually did and and really work for us is to just separate the backlog Resource isolates, how much do you want to invest within the business side? And then have kind of battle and prioritize between different options there But sort of carve that out of the customer backlog and that really worked well for us and continues to be I love that one of the things that just to sort of re reiterate Something you said I like your framing around alliances because they're actually partnerships that are symbiotic And I think a lot of businesses will build a dependency on a third party Who don't get the synergy in the same way as they do you've done a phenomenal job of two things It's finding alliances where they benefit from the same and they're not in competition And then secondly equally kind of as importantly they're going to celebrate that we have the last minute and a half together final couple of questions for you The business is kind of profoundly different from day one when you first envisaged it What's actually changed the most? What surprised you the most? Yeah, I mean, I think I think I was a bit of a puritan around the relationship between product led growth and and sales Like I think I I kind of saw them as a bit more binary And I think in practice there are a lot more symbiotic and there are a lot of cases even in the case of slack You know in which if you if you really want to think about sales as an assistant as an assistant As something that sort of helps a customer figure out. What is it that they need? Or sometimes helps a champion navigate the organization and close it out And so from an efficiency perspective Like you always want to basically adapt what you are providing to how the customer or the user wants to consume this And If you're a techie if you're sort of a developer and you like your sort of you know your products You know to be sort of just installed and self-serve then you have to provide that for them But if you're engaged with others for a lot of people it is actually quite complimentary There's been like a million learnings say in the context of what we talked about right now That's been a key one. Yeah, incredibly important one. Look, thank you so much for the time I've genuinely learned a lot as always. I hope everyone that joined us this afternoon has so please thank you join me and thank guy Thanks again. Thanks, Tom


Why did we never go back to the moon? Undoubtedly man's greatest achievement, a feat which has apparently never been attempted again. There are many conspiracy theories surrounding the moon missions, some for good reasons and others not so. A mission to the moon or indeed Mars should be an experience which unites humanity under a common goal, yet alas this unity rarely occurs. It is a well-known fact that knowledge is power, yet unfortunately this fact can often breed deceit and deception. For it is believed by some that knowledge only makes one powerful when it is concealed from another, regardless of whether this always be accurate within reality. Because of this system of accumulating and protecting power, space-going nations have gone to tremendous efforts to conceal things from the public, and indeed each other. The United States government, for example, demands astronomers, astronauts and many other workers at NASA sign an oath of confidentiality. Upon breaking this oath, you could face a conviction of treason, a crime which carries the death penalty. However, regardless of this, over the past few years, more and more individuals from around the world have bravely began to blow the whistle on these secrecies. Dr. Ken Johnston, former director of NASA's Department of Photographic Evidence, stated that during his stay at the agency, he was able to see original photos of countless ruins, pyramids, and intact temples all resting upon the moon. Not only are there now a number of independent testimonies, made by numerous figures from within these space agencies, and the accompanying programs, confessing to the concealment of ancient ruins on the moon's surface, but we also have compelling physical evidence of such structures, including photographs released by NASA themselves. One was snapped by the Apollo 17 astronauts in 1972. Subsequently, uploaded to the official NASA website, it was originally labeled as overexposed. However, as technology has evolved, and computer software has become more inept at refining images, it has revealed something amazing. Along with apparent pyramidal structure, clearly seen within this image, some investigators have also highlighted a possible monolith in the foreground. Is space Odyssey trying to tell us something? Predictably, many people have come forward attempting to discredit this discovery, yet fortunately for us, in the December of 2008, the Hubble Space Telescope took some extremely intriguing images of its own. Images which seem to corroborate the once overexposed Apollo photo. Do these images actually show ancient ruins upon the surface of the moon? If this is the case, how did they get there, or more importantly, who could have built them? Are these relics proof of an ancient space-going civilization? Or maybe extraterrestrial activity? Regardless of how they got there, we find their existence highly compelling and could be perceived as a possible motive for turning the space programs into black projects. Maybe we did go back to the moon, it's just most were never told about it. After all, knowledge is power. Thanks for watching guys, and until next time, take care. What did the Apollo 10 astronauts experience on their legendary transit far beyond Earth contact as they ventured around the dark side of the moon? Our often illuminated satellite is to our perspective here on Earth, seemingly rotating on a fixed axis, thus only one side of the moon has ever been seen from Earth. Additionally, although known as the dark side, it does indeed receive sunlight. In May 1969, Apollo 10 was the fourth manned mission in the United States Apollo program. It was a real-world or real-space operational training mission, an in-depth research and preparation rehearsal in planning of the eventual moon landing. Successfully testing componentry, procedural drills, along with several contingencies for if something went wrong. The mission was completely successful, doing all short of an actual lunar landing. What we find the most enigmatic part of the mission, however, the audio transcripts of what even the astronauts termed alien music was heard by all aboard as they lost contact with Houston as they went behind the moon. Learning the theory of an alien transmission are recent discoveries of pulses leaving our planet from several locations, such as Antarctica, Bosnia, Peru, etc. The perplexing purpose for false doors and so forth. Furthermore, due to the sheer mass of rock that would be between the Earth and the far side, if the moon is receiving any directed transmissions, it's stationing strategically perfect to not only observe us, but avoid detection. The other cause for the music, a personal hypothesis, is that instead of the static we receive upon our television, residually from the Big Bang, outer of space, especially away from our own statically-generating planet, this noise could, we believe, indeed sound like an eerie melody. Additionally, due to Redshift and the Doppler effect, sound would warp through vast space time travel, even from our closest neighbor, Proxima Centare, yet indeed, if of intelligent and extraterrestrial origin, it would be received as pulse of sound, having moments of silence distorted from interstellar travel. However, who knows what advanced technological composition could be possible? The truth is out there, or maybe it's here already. Since man landed on the moon, countless conspiracy theories have surfaced all over the web. Some so virulent, they spread like a virus, seeping into many areas of the media. Some of these theories, predictably, hold more water than others. Some claim we never went to the moon, this regardless of the proof that has continued to surface over the years. NASA claims to have lost the telemetry from the moon landings also. The motive behind this claim is unclear, yet no matter how unlikely, they continue to claim that it has been missing for decades. Conspiracy theorists often overlook the astonishing contributions which NASA has also made to modern society. Yet some theories actually claim a literal polar opposite of moon landing conspiracies. Scientists not only agree that we did indeed land, walk, and even drive on the moon, but claim we have been back in secret and to explore a rather astonishing thing. According to numerous sources, the most compelling of said claims began on YouTube, with the release of some extraordinary CGI footage of a claimed moon landing, and the exploration of a simply gigantic alien spacecraft. Due to the moon being so difficult to reach, and the fact that anything which either crash, landed, or was possibly even abandoned on the moon even billions of years ago, would have been preserved in an incredible condition. In April 2007, videos began appearing on YouTube under the username RETIREDAFB, telling the extraordinary story of a supposed Apollo 20, a secret lunar mission that had discovered the existence of intelligent alien life on the moon. Then on May 23rd 2007, Italian UFOologist Luca Scantaburlo managed to secure an interview with an individual who claimed to be the creator of the channel, a man by the name of William Rutledge, who later claimed to be, in fact, himself, a retired secret American astronaut, who at the time was living in Rwanda. Rutledge claimed to be the commander of the Apollo 20 crew, and to be the owner of the retired DAF-B account. However, the interviewer never met Rutledge in person, as the interview was conducted over Yahoo Messenger. During the interview, however, Rutledge claimed that Apollo 20 was a top-secret mission launched in mid-August 1976 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, near Santa Barbara, California. He also claimed that it was conducted jointly by the United States and the former Soviet Union. He also alleged that other missions were made by American astronaut Leona Snyder, a now-established fictitious persona, and former Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, the first human to perform a spacewalk. The purported landing site of the mission was near Gayo crater, a feature near the much larger Del Porte crater. Rutledge said the videos show that he and Leonov discovered the remains of an ancient lunar civilization. He also said they brought back artifacts to Earth for study, including a hibernating female humanoid. It is a story which we found highly compelling. Our moon. A strange thing, don't you think? Have you ever gazed upon a full moon and wondered, wondered how it got there, what strange forces could have possibly built it? There are many moons within our solar system, yet few are as strange as ours. No others are known to ring like a bell when struck. No others possess such luminosity as our moon. In the 1970s, Michael Vassen and Alexander Shysherbakov of what was then the Soviet Academy of Sciences created a thesis that the moon is actually the remnants of a very ancient spaceship created by, as yet, unknown civilization. The article was entitled Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence, and was published in Sputnik, the Soviet equivalent of Reader's Digest. The suggestion of a hollow moon first appeared in science fiction when H. G. Wells wrote about a hollow moon in his 1901 book The First Men in the Moon. Michael Vassen and Alexander Shysherbakov's hypothesis is based on the fact that large lunar craters, generally assumed to be formed from massive meteor impacts, are generally too shallow for scars made upon an organic body, and can have flat or even convex bottoms. They propose that small meteors are making cup-shaped depressions in the rocky surface of the moon, while the larger meteors are drilling through a rocky upper layer, hitting an armored hull underneath. Does George Lucas know something we don't? It seems he couldn't resist adding just one crater. The authors referenced earlier speculations by astrophysicist Iosef Shiklovsky, who suggested that the Martian moon Phobos was an artificial satellite and hollow. Interestingly, Phobos has been claimed to appear to be hollow by numerous astronomers, who have stated that it appears to have an opening on one side, making it, in a sense, similar in shape to an empty shell. Phobos' orbit is also a complete mystery. Many who have researched it claimed that it should have crashed into the surface of Mars many moons ago. Between 1972 and 1977, seismometers installed on our moon by the Apollo missions recorded strange moonquakes. The moon was described to have been ringing like a bell during some of those quakes. The support of evidence was then brought to popular attention in March 1970, in an article in popular science. When Apollo 12 deliberately crashed the ascent stage of its lunar module into the moon's surface, it was claimed that the moon rang like a bell for an hour, leading to arguments that it must be hollow. Several YouTubers, most notably Crow777, have supposedly recorded what is now known as lunar waves, if confirmed to exist. This may prove there is some form of functioning shield or scanning system being seen working on its surface. The fact that the moon is less dense than the Earth is also strong supportive evidence that it is indeed hollow.


Good afternoon everybody and welcome to the Mr Geopolitics Seminar on COP26, recognizing the role of trade and the private sector in adaptation. We'll get started now with the presentation and I'll introduce to you the speakers. Next slide please Ian. My name is Magnus Benzi, I'm a research fellow with the Stockholm Environment Institute and I was a work package leader in the first phase of the Mr Geopolitics programme and we'll hear some of the results from that in just a moment. Next slide please Ian. Today we have some great speakers for you starting with Annette Mona who will moderate today's session. Annette is from the UNFCCC Secretariat, then we'll have Frida Lager who is a research associate at Stockholm Environment Institute and Maria Therese Gustavson who is a senior lecturer at the Stockholm University. So many thanks to the organisers who have provided photographs of all speakers looking at least five years younger than they currently appear, so very flattering, big thanks to the organisers for that one. I'll start with just giving you a little bit of background on Mr Geopolitics and where today's seminar came from. So the programme is looking at the intersection of changing geopolitical dynamics and environmental and climate change and changing security dynamics and it's a partnership of leading policy institutes and universities that are based in Sweden and we also have two international partners Adelphi from Germany and E3G from the UK and the Mr Geopolitics programme is in two phases. We've just recently started phase two but today and this phase two has three core themes which focus on decarbonisation, food security and sustainable oceans but today we're hearing some of the results from the first phase of the programme and in particular drawing on a work package that was entitled impact pathways in a changing environmental and geopolitical context and this looked at how changes in one part of the world affect other parts of the world through these impact pathways and it had a focus on armed conflict, on human migration and the SDGs and on transboundary climate risk and climate governance. So this is the background to the two research presentations that you'll hear from in a minute but the Mr Geopolitics programme achieved more than just the research outputs. Next slide please Ian. It was also instrumental in laying the groundwork for a new initiative called the adaptation without borders initiative and this looks at how to build systemic resilience to transboundary climate risks at the global scale and how to convene dialogue and synthesise knowledge to impact decision-making planning and the implementation of adaptation at a global scale and I think it's really important to recognise where research programmes such as this Mr programme also create and give room for the birth of new initiatives and stakeholder engagement as well as new research. So it's the themes around the adaptation without borders programme that we'll be discussing in relation to the COP and in particular this COP occurs as we start to emerge from the COVID pandemic which has focused our attention on the cascading nature of risk in a globalised system. It's shown how interdependent we all are and what happens in one country has big implications for what happens in another and the crisis has also revealed the critical role played in supply chains and trade by private actors and how much societal cohesion and social services ultimately depend on the role of the private sector and this is an area that we'll problematise and look at in more detail in a moment. So without further ado I would like to introduce the next speaker who is Annette Mona. Annette's been with the UNFCCC for about 16 years working on adaptation and she will also be working on the global stock take and its first iteration coming up soon. Annette was awake this morning working at about 4am because for those of you who are aware there are negotiations going on at the moment and so Annette was up working for that time zone supporting negotiations at 4am so we are doubly pleased and honoured to have you with us today Annette. The floor is yours. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Magnus for the very warm introduction and indeed but the good news is that even though I was up very early at least the results that come out of these virtual sessions are rather promising so we've seen that parties have acknowledged the seriousness of the problems are and are intent on laying the groundwork for ensuring a success later on in Glasgow. At the beginning of the seminar I would like for those of you who are not that familiar with the UNFCCC process to put a little bit in context the the trans-boundary risk trade in the private sector in adaptation as included in the climate change process and more specifically the Paris Agreement. Some of you may know that the agreement adopted in 2015 elevated the visibility of adaptation and recognised that it's not just a local challenge as it was perceived previously but that in fact it has it is a global challenge with local, national, regional and international dimensions and that without adaptation we cannot protect people livelihoods and ecosystems. Parties also acknowledged that in order to be successful adaptation needs to follow a country-driven and participatory approach and the idea was also not to have it as standalone but to see how it can be integrated in various environmental but also economic policies. You may also know that as part of the Paris Agreement we established a so-called ambition cycle and it rests on three cornerstones one is where parties themselves take action they implement adaptation plans take measures and then subsequently they report on them and then every five years countries will come together at a collective level and assess to what extends we have addressed and been successful in reaching the goals. Many of you may be familiar with the temperature goal we're seeking to limit temperature rise to well under two degrees ideally not more than 1.5 but also we seek to enhance resilience and also provide the necessary support to developing countries. When we look at the aspects of transboundary risk trade in the private sector there are three distinct levels and timings at which we can consider those one as I mentioned the very first is planning and implementing at the national level the second is how do we review and report on what has been done and then finally how do we take it up when we collectively review whether or not adaptation has been adequate and successful. When we look at the planning and implementation at the national level parties in 2015 agreed that everyone should develop and enhance adaptation plans and as part of them they should also build the resilience of socioeconomic systems. One of the more one of the important processes in support of developing countries is the process to formulate and implement national adaptation plans for those developing countries also receive support. As part of the guidance countries will assess their adaptation needs but it was just recognized earlier that some of the transboundary risks are not adequately reflected while countries themselves can very well assess their risk to the agriculture sector their risk to their coastal zones they're less able to see what kind of risks they're facing from outside their borders and also to what extent some of the more trade related or private sector related aspects would feature in it. For that we have a number of processes and committees one of them is the adaptation committee 16 experts who provide advice and they will look at how can we address some of the knowledge gaps so that we have a better understanding of what needs to be done at the national level. At the same time in the beginning when we look at adaptation planning it wasn't very much government setting policies stakeholders were engaged to some extent but not necessarily early on so we've now also devised guidance in terms of better integrating the private sector early on to know what what are there and it's knowing that the private sector is of course diverse and as such there are different motivations for engaging in adaptation for them for some it may just be they look for new markets and profits however for others it's the desire to reduce their business risks and I'm really happy that we'll learn more from one particular sector later on from Marie Therese. Of course the other thing when it comes to the national adaptation planning is as I mentioned the transboundary aspects and also trade which hasn't been really well understood and I'm looking forward to learn more from Frida on that aspect how we can better integrate that to have a better understanding. Of course adaptation also has limits we cannot address all impacts and as such the Paris Agreement itself also recognizes that countries need to work together to avert and minimize loss and damage arising from from such impacts and they agreed to share to share knowledge in that regard knowing that even if you're faced with sea level and hurricanes if you're a small island and you rely on tourism it doesn't make sense to build a higher and higher seawall because that will hurt you in the long run so the question is where does adaptation end and at what point do we accept losses and if we accept those losses who would pay for those losses. So assuming that all countries are planning the adaptation they're involving the private sector what's the next step we then look at them to review and report on their action and under the Paris Agreement we have two distinct mechanisms for that one is an instrument called adaptation communication which provides the forward-looking aspect what is each country trying to achieve what are their goals what do they want to do what is their priority sector and the other aspect is the so-called biannual transparency reports meaning we're looking back what have we done what have we achieved but also where are the gaps why didn't we achieve what we set out to achieve why didn't we implement our national adaptation policy was it because we didn't have sufficient resources or was it because there was a resistance from the private sector or did we have other priorities and as such could not devote sufficient resources all of these instruments will be developed in the coming two years through various expert bodies and all of them rely on expert input and as such seminars like that are important to provide the necessary research to allow them to draft these expert bodies the the necessary guidance to ensure that aspects of stakeholder engagement such as the private sector but also aspects of transboundary risks including as their related trade are adequately affected included and then finally as I mentioned so countries have planned and countries have reported but then how do we know that we're all going in the right direction and are reducing the risk that's when the so-called global stock take comes into play we'll have the first process is actually starting this morning we had an event where parties shared the ideas of how that process should look like what kind of inputs do they want to consider inputs from researchers inputs from the private sector inputs from civil society but also what kind of questions do we need to ask in terms of what are the risks we're facing and how do we want to address them and as part of the global stock take we will also look at how well we have adapted collectively so we're looking how how well we're progressing towards achieving the global goal on adaptation which seeks to enhance adaptive capacity strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability so here it is important to to find ways to collate but also aggregate the information we are receiving from the national level at a collective level and that's where we currently also still looking at gaps because if each country only looks at its national aspects and when we collate it we won't get the full picture we won't get the transboundary risk and we wouldn't get any trade related aspects so it's so it's important here also to provide the expert inputs we have upcoming workshops over the summer were organized by the current Chilean but also the upcoming UK presidency to see what is needed how can we ensure that the process actually provides a good overview of where we are so as I mentioned many of those will feed into the COP and Glasgow there will be pointers at how we will assess global progress at the same time Glasgow will also be important to further catalyze actions at different levels on the one hand side we need to increase our efforts at the national level I mentioned the national adaptation plans currently we only have 20 countries who have concluded those we need more we also need more support including through the green climate fund but we also need to have systems in place to address the incurred losses and that support in that regard could look like insurance schemes we can have social protections and finally in general what we need at the international level is also further financial support for developing countries in terms of many countries saying that through the global climate fund global green climate fund they do have problems of accessing resources and we need to address some of those because otherwise you may have the best laid out plans and you have wonderful reporting but at the end of the day you're not able to implement them we will fail collectively on on ensuring that everyone is reaching the necessary levels of resilience and then in line with the sustainable development goals that no one is left behind and with those with this introduction I would like to conclude at this point and as I mentioned we're happy to have two speakers who will provide us more input on their research and will illuminate some of the aspects and I would like to very much invite the first speaker but before I go to the first speaker I'd like to invite Ian to quickly run us through the house rules. Thanks very much indeed Annette for setting the scene so well we're blessed to have the UNFCCC actually represented in a session like this so we can hear it directly so the scene has been set and we will shortly hear from two research presentations from Frida and Maria Therese and I encourage you all to post your questions in the Q&A function which should be on the right hand side of your screen. These questions or comments will be then filtered to the speakers so please record any queries or questions that you have there and I should have said at the beginning apologies this meeting is being recorded and it will be made available after the event on the Mystery Geopolitics website for people to catch up on or for you to go back and check your notes so thank you very much to Maria Cole and Ian Coldwell for hosting this event and I'll pass on now to Frida to give us her presentation thank you thank you thank you Annette so yeah my name is Frida Lager I'm a research associate at the Stockholm Environment Institute and I'm going to present to you some piece of research that we've been doing me and Magnus actually as part of this mystery program as you can skip ahead yeah perfect so we call this research a new risk horizon Sweden's exposure to climate risk via international trade you can skip ahead again we wanted to basically inquire into if you look at trade and try to inquire understand climate risk for one country what can you say basically what can you find out and we decided to look at Sweden for a number of reasons it's a very data-rich country so if you could find good information somewhere it should be here I'm also I'm also based in Sweden so I might I might refer to Sweden as here quite often through this presentation it's a small very open economy very important expert dependent as an example recent research shows that at least one third of all Swedish jobs are dependent on experts not experts exports directly and more than half of the food that we consume is there if the input it you can skip ahead again so I'm just going to talk you through just really briefly what we've done in the study and why what kind of the results show like an overview of that and what that means for adaptation basically so this research has two parts one is assessing climate risk broadly in Swedish trade relations and for that we use so this is the picture on the left for that we use three types of trade data one is national toll logs representing physical flows of goods into Sweden one is input input output tables which is kind of monetary models of imports to Sweden inputs to Swedish sectors and the third one is research footprint so land and water use embedded in Swedish consumption and then the second part of the project this week did kind of a really in-depth assessment looking at one supply chain and one commodity and inquiring into Brazilian soil for Swedish consumption and looking into that supply chain and really seeing if you if you look at one specific supply chain and one commodity and one trade relation for Sweden what can you what can you say about climate risk so looking into climate risk in transport of Brazilian soil to Sweden but also production of soil so you can skip ahead again Mia this is first part of the results for the study so this is overall trade dependencies for Sweden this is imports to Sweden according to national toll statistics you can see that Germany is really pronounced and this is share of imports to Sweden the redder it gets the more important country Europe and the Nordic country is also a similar importance I can skip ahead again Ian it's going to show you these maps because they they show well kind of an overview of what kind of different type of information you get with different types of data this is input output tables so you get a little bit further into second and third tier of of these kind of import relations where you the kind of us China and smaller economies in the rest of the world are seem more important you can skip ahead again looking at land use the geography changes quite a lot Russia stands out are very important so does economies in Africa but also China and smaller economies in Asia and the Pacific but also really South America and skip ahead again and the last one here is water use embedded water use for Swedish consumption where we got a lot of our embedded water use from China smaller economies in Asia and the Pacific India but also the US Spain and the Netherlands and skip ahead again yes so matching this data with climate vulnerability index called and the gain index for ease of understanding the green the green kind of countries represented in these circles are have low domestic climate vulnerability and the weather it gets the more domestic the higher the domestic level ability so for the national toll data and the input output data in trade Sweden seem to be connected to countries that are fairly low climate risk domestically can skip ahead and this is the resource for the land and water resource such traded land and water resources where you see that the climate vulnerability is substantially higher if you look at this kind of data you can skip out again but it's a lot of clicking here thank you so this is I'm not going to go in depth with this kind of the Brazilian this is maps of Brazil for those of you who haven't been there or seen the map a lot I'm not going to go in depth in this study just to show you that we find it important also this kind of results show that you get kind of different information if you go very in depth into inquiring into traded climate risk so this is a municipality scale assessment of a climate risk to Swedish consumption of Brazilian soy and in the top it's production risk so risk of drought and kind of globally gridded crop models showing changes in yield to the bottom right there's a shows the transport risk from farm to port in Brazil and the green map on the bottom left this Swedish specific kind of sorry Swedish specific consumption of Brazilian soy where it comes from exactly in Brazil and I think the most interesting thing that we found in this study was that for the supply chain the most climate risks are not associated with production risks as we often think about when we think about climate risk but because of the way or the geography of Swedish consumption of Brazilian soy it's actually might be more interesting to look into transport risks in this specific case can skip ahead again so just to draw a few conclusions that we found super interesting from this study is that as I've shown you Sweden has important trade links both with countries with relatively low exposure to domestic climate risk so the Nordics Germany other European countries but also with countries that are of a higher exposure to climate risk such as Brazil China Russia India and smaller economies in Africa and Asia and the more detailed understanding of trade relations and supply chains the larger the spread in geography for a country like Sweden that is and also it kind of really diversify the the climate risk exposure that you saw before and many of these trade relations are sticky with quite a few options for diversification you can skip ahead again so the last thing to mention is just what does this mean for adaptation and so we basically need an increased knowledge and awareness of these cross-border climate risks they're rarely addressed in in depth in national adaptation plans for example traded risks are often complex systemic and also sticky which in itself done as a call for international cooperation on adaptation to these cross-border climate risks also addressing these risks and they kind of have new questions for for what does what does actually building global resilience mean and what does what might adaptation spillover effects have if we adapt only in the kind of a national context and how do we take into account these cross-border climate risks I know I'm running for like one minute over but that was really everything for me thank you thank you very much Frida that was very enlightening and I have to admit I haven't came across I haven't come across the term sticky risk yet but I like it a lot with that I would like to turn to our second research presentation I would invite Marie-Thérèse Gustafsson she's an associate senior lecturer at the department of political science at the Stockholm University Marie-Thérèse the floor is all yours thank you very much Annette so next slide please so private companies have recently studied to disclose information about their exposure and responses to climate risks however we still know little about how and with what societal consequences private actors engage in adaptation and today I will present some ongoing research on private adaptation in the mining sector and this is a collaboration together with Lisa Delmuth and Jorge Rodriguez Morales at Stockholm University next slide please so until recently scholarly and policy debate has mainly focused on adaptation designed and implemented by public actors however business association UN agencies and researcher increasingly emphasize the critical role of the private sector in adaptation governance especially in developing countries the private sector is expected to provide for financial resources and develop new technologies and innovative solutions how the private sector and in particular large national and multinational companies respond to climate risk and however have foraging both positive and negative impact on society next slide please when it comes to the mining sector it really plays a critical role in the low carbon transition and the fulfillment of the UN 2030 agenda the demands on minerals and metals are expected to grow significantly in the coming years and mining is also a driver of greenhouse gas emission and it is often associated with grave social and environmental risks in producing sites but mining is at the same time extremely vulnerable to climate risks and climate risk could aggravate water scarcity mining requires a lot of water and damage mining infrastructure and this in turn could have serious consequences for local communities next slide please so the reserves of minerals required for the low carbon transition are overlocated in countries identified as highly vulnerable to climate risks the negative development outcomes of resource extraction have many times been discussed in terms of the resource curse and to overcome the resource curse institutions and governance play a key role however many of the countries that are highly dependent on mining also suffer from poor governance and weak environmental protection and in this map we can see climate vulnerability and mining dependence for 182 countries and on the figure you can see where mining dependency coincides with climate change the size of the blue circles shows the degree of mining dependency and the color on the map indicates the vulnerability ranging from the light pink which is represent the low vulnerability to deep purple which indicates higher degrees of vulnerability and this maps help us to identify the places where you sort of the mining dependency and climate vulnerability are intersecting next slide please so as I mentioned before the adaptation literature still tends to focus on public adaptation and in our research we have analyzed how private companies have responded to climate risks and we distinguish between institutional infrastructural or community oriented responses often also discussed in terms of soft and hard adaptation institutional responses refer to the integration of climate change in the company's risk assessment and in their water governance infrastructural responses to what extent the companies have adapted their infrastructure to climate risks and community oriented responses to what extent they have developed responses that are primarily or partially seeks to enhance the adaptive capacity of local communities and we have also looked to what extent the private adaptation responses are transparent and accountable to local communities and states and finally we have looked upon how private adaptation is regulated in four countries in which mining plays an important economic role and that are at the same time vulnerable to climate risks so I will now present some of our key findings next slide please so here we show the adaptation responses of the mining companies we see that institutional responses that is the integration of climate risk in water governance and risk assessment is the most common a little bit more than half of the companies have integrated climate risk in these procedures 43% of the companies have made investment to adapt their infrastructure to climate change and in contrast only 26% of the companies have developed community oriented responses that is the adaptation in interventions that are or aimed at enhancing the adaptive capacity of local communities however only half of the about half of the companies have not developed any response at all and three of these companies for example have operations in the democratic republic of Congo which is ranked as the fifth most climate vulnerable country in the world by the end and the gain score DRC has important deposits of cobalt that will be needed for the low carbon transition and unless companies handle climate risk in these areas the intersecting impacts of mining and climate interest stressors are likely to increase the climate vulnerabilities of host communities the next slide please however it's not only important that companies are addressing climate risk it's also important that these responses are transparent and accountable to societal actors with regard to transparency we see that 61% of the companies disclose information about their exposure and responses to climate risks to investors investors increasingly demand reliable data on the exposure and responses to climate risk however only 19% disclose information to local communities and to national stakeholders and with regards to accountability 30% of the companies sweepingly mentioned being responsible for protecting local communities from exposure to climate risk but without actually specifying how they do this similarly only 22% of the companies report that they engage in collaboration focused on adaptation with relevant actors at the local and national level and none of the companies report that they participate in national adaptation planning processes next slide please and finally we analyze how private adaptation was regulated in four countries highly dependent on mining and at the same time vulnerable to climate risk we largely found that although adaptation have gained traction in policy debates in all countries the integration of climate risk in key sectoral governance instruments such as environmental impact assessments water licenses closure plans of the mines and so on is generally weak and largely depends on voluntary measures however this is changing and adaptation is currently gaining getting relevance for instance in environmental impact assessment we see some interesting development there in for instance in Canada however more needs to be done as the existing regulatory context give companies few incentives to effectively address climate risk in a way that could help to improve societal resilience next slide so to conclude about half of the largest mining companies have started to engage in climate adaptation this trend is mainly investor driven and focused on ensuring business resilience in the context of a change in climate we think in this context that it's really important that stringent regulations that are forcing or incentivizing companies to address climate risk in a way that helps to improve societal resilience is very important that they are developed thank you very much thank you very much for that very interesting insight into the mining sector looking at it's interesting to see the ambivalence on the one hand side they're contributing to the problem but on the other hand they're also suffering from that I would now like to move to our next part in the seminar and invite you all to a panel discussion we're fortunate to have Frida Marie Therese and Magnus on the panel also like to remind you that we're happy to receive your questions so please post them and then Maria will ensure that they'll reach the panelists what I'd like to do start off is by saying that all three of you refer to the need to enhance resilience but also looking at the risks that are being faced by local communities on the one hand side through mining but also through climate impacts reaching the agricultural sector and that the goods that they're importing or exporting and those that are importing them are addressed you also mentioned the importance of just resilience and I would like to ask that question to Frida and Magnus whether you could illuminate a little bit more what you mean by just transition and also why does it matter it hasn't come up in the negotiations or in the climate change process so far so why why does it matter now and I'd like to start with Frida please thank you there's a little bit of delay on my mute button so I hope I'm all right now thank you Annette also my other it's really interesting to hear yeah and thank you for the question I think I mean we've been justice has been treated in my climate change debates and and also adaptation for quite a while but I think when we when we do realise and accept that we have this kind of interconnected dimension our climate risk also raises new questions on on what does justice actually mean and in this context it also is one of the most kind of automatic replies to this when you notice that okay we are so in like in the as in the case of Sweden and trade okay we are reliant on really climate vulnerable regions what we do and so really one of the core I think issue one of the core reasons for why we address justice why I think we should we really need to just address justice specifically and this is that we we really risk abandoning really already vulnerable regions if we don't or just read just really building risk globally and I think there's also maybe minus you want to come in on this topic of because when you talk about the food system for example you don't have there's really might not even be possible to kind of to kind of diversify your supply chain in a way that that really makes you less less vulnerable to those risks but you you just kind of redistribute to risk globally or sorry or you or you make regions even more vulnerable because you kind of abandon them through changing suppliers etc and you really do the opposite of contributing to a global resilience through that maybe do you want to come in and kind of elaborate a little bit on that yeah sure so I think when we take a chance framing of climate risk you can have effective adaptation to trans boundary climate risk from one actors perspective but it's very harmful to another and so one to look at the mining case that marita is presented in a drought prone region that's got water challenges a mining company could successfully secure it the access to water that it needs to continue its operations and from the mining company's perspective they're successfully adapted to that risk but they might have done so at the expense of agriculture and livelihoods in the region where they're mining so successful adaptation for one isn't necessarily good adaptation for everyone it can be actually redistributing risk like Frida said so there's another way of looking at risk which is if we build resilience particularly in supply chains at the production end and we have a more more sustainable and more resilient use of water in the country where the mine is presented it can still be effective for the mining company they might still get access to the water they need but through a resilience building measure in that region that can build resilience for all so taking this justice framing of adaptation is very important including in the negotiations where there already is a discussion about the justice dimension of mitigation and discussion about response measures to compensate parties who miss out from aggressive mitigation policy it's a UN process and it's it's good and proper that justice should also be discussed within the framework of the convention in relation to adaptation and how national adaptation is planned and implemented thank you very much Magnus for that very interesting perspective was interesting how you mentioned that on the redistribution in that context I'm interested to hear from Marie Therese how she sees the private sector contributing to resilience Marie Therese and you mute it okay now now it should be fine okay thank you very much Annette yeah I think it's really important to get this private sector on board to improve resilience international trade as Frida shows could have huge impact on societal resilience in producing site and we know that private adaptation funding is far from sufficient for all for addressing all the adaptation challenging in the next few years but I think it's also important to have this more kind of critical lens that Magnus introduced that we know that unless the private sector adapts to climate risk this could constitute due to risks for societal resilience like the example with water for example if the mining companies continue to withdraw large amount of watering areas that are where there is a lot of water scarcity this could undermine the climate resilience of local farmers and so on but there could also be a lot of accidents like we see the accident with the hydropower plant in February in Himalaya where over 200 people died or went missing it's a clear example where you don't need to sort of factor in climate risks in the business of these kind of large infrastructure projects but so far I think that the debate on the private sector in relation to climate governance has mainly focused on climate mitigation and this also go for the mining sector because now the mining sector are increasingly seen as a sort of solution to the climate crisis because of the low carbon transition but I think it's very important to look more into adaptation it's really hard to it's much harder to measure and it's not so much at the center of the global climate agenda but I think it's high time that we focus more on the private sector in adaptation as well and in particularly in the global south and there's much that needs to be done there as well in terms of the regulatory context that needs to be stringent regulations in place that ensure that companies are not able to define adaptation interventions in the way that is more like convenient for ensuring their business resilience but also in a way that is coordinated with public adaptation planning that for instance in certain areas there should perhaps not be a mine or a hydropower station because it's too dangerous and then there could be other places and this needs to be factor in these kind of decisions of economic activities and so on. Thank you so much Marie Therese and we're now also receiving lots of questions from the participants so I would now like to throw it back to the panel you all mentioned who should do what and why and we looked at one is doing something but it has negative effects so when we look at if our goal is to improve overall resilience in a just way so that no one suffers the question is who has to act and why is it the private sector and or is it more the national governments that should put in place the stringent regulations or is it the global process that we need more signals from there and there was a question how global institutions could bring the private sector more on board so who has to act and why and possibly also with whom together so I would like to start with Marie Therese and the private sector and then hear from Frida how she sees the the national governments in in that regard Marie Therese. Yeah I think it's I mean it's really important that the the private sector acting but I think it's also a matter of regulating the mining sector to steer business behavior in a way that improves societal resilience I think there are many ways to and I don't think that only public regulations are needed but I think there is a need for a combination of sort of soft governance and public regulation and I think in particular now I think it's very important to have human that human rights need to be fully integrated in climate intervention because there is a risk that all of these sort of global negotiations about adaptation and about mitigations contribute does not fully take into account the interest of local communities in the global south so they could be well intended and so on but not fully capture all the complex adaptation needs of these communities which regards to the regulation I think it's I think that there are many interesting initiative by the part of the private sector right now standard settings in the in the mining sector that we have looked closely into they are developing their own standards about how to adapt the mining sector to a change in climate they are also looking into the community aspect there but this is not very well developed yet but I also think that separate to the climate negotiations and there is obviously a big role for the national governments there to adapt to the sectoral governance like if you look at environmental impact assessment for the mining sector the closure plan the water licenses these kind of regulatory contexts in many countries at least the four countries that we looked at are are still quite weak and this kind of regulation that incentivize the mining companies and other companies in other sectors to act in more responsible ways needs to be in place and also the national adaptation planning processes need to sort of make a better play a better role to to invite the private sector and make sure that there is coordination between public and private adaptation but just like a last reflection I think it's very interesting separate to the climate negotiation we see we currently see that okay so we currently see that several European countries and at the EU level are already adopting different types of human rights and environmental due diligence regulations and this is up and up for possibilities to to regulate what what companies are doing in producing sites in terms of not contributing to undermine resilience and I think that these are quite interesting and promising these new regulations that really could hold companies accountable in complex supply chains thank you so much for your interest and I thought it was very interesting how you said that it would be good for the private sector to have these regulations and I would like to turn to Frida in the trade related aspect the question is who regulates whom especially knowing that many of those company are transnational would they be regulated of the seat of origin or in where they're actually operating or more in one country how would we ensure that we're not having a race to the bottom but instead have something that profits the people rather than the shareholders at the end so what are your thoughts on the role of the national governments Frida over to you thank you not indeed that's the question I think where we are at right now first step is really knowledge inventory or like awareness racing and gathering evidence and understanding how these risks really uh what they are and how they function and work right and what that means for for national government and and action on a national level so first step for most countries I would say is really to to take these risks seriously the trans boundary effects of if that is via trade is that one example but there's also trans boundary effects via movement of bifysical flows financial flows movement of people etc so really awareness racing is one one step and really incorporating these issues into the national adaptation plans and also lifting it on the kind of international agenda for these for adaptation in general I think also that the state the national statement like has a role when it comes to also when it comes to the private sector in supporting small and medium sized enterprises for example in really understanding what this is kind of risk mean for them and really this question of who does what we often frame it as kind of the risk ownership so who has mandate to do anything about these things is it really the state or is it really big private sector firms or is it maybe also a lot of the time kind of these medium sized enterprises so I think we're really not to it maybe it's a boring answer to your question but I think we're really also in a phase where we will be to understand the kind of what's it called the arena where we're at still when it comes to these risks. Thank you so much Frida and with that I would like to hand over to Magnus to then say if it's difficult at the national level and difficult to incentivize the private sector what are the opportunities we have at the global level or even at the regional level we saw how the EU has included transbandary risks and trade in its recent adaptation strategy what can we do at the global level to ensure that everyone will be covered. Magnus over to you. Thanks Annette so in the results that Frida presented it was clear that a country like Sweden is linked to several other countries in other parts of the world through its trade relations and there's no way that a country like Sweden can manage these risks on a bilateral basis with so many countries across so many different sectors and supply chains so the option is only really to work at the global level where there's international cooperation to build resilience to the risks that face a country like Sweden by its trade profile but fortunately there are a lot of features in the global climate governance architecture that can be used and the Paris agreement really sets out a number of tools that can be used to address this systemic risk dimension that we've talked about today so the global goal on adaptation as you said is an opportunity to state the importance of collective action on adaptation and so progress towards the global goal like you said in the beginning Annette really needs to include this transbandary dimension so we can we can measure the amount of climate risk in global systems like markets and whether that's increasing or being reduced through adaptation and we can track the the flow and extent of cross border risks and see are these being addressed by national adaptation so concretely the first global stock take should hopefully include analysis provided by experts and and also non-party stakeholders that assesses the the state of play with transbandary climate risk and another really important element at the global level is that all parties should contribute adaptation reports whether that's adaptation communications or summaries of what they're doing in their national adaptation plans and that doesn't just apply to developing countries who are appealing for climate finance to implement their plans also rich countries should be submitting reports on their adaptation plans and crucially we need to move to a point where parties disclose what risks they face what the transboundary dimension of those risks might be for others but also to assess the impacts of their own adaptation at a transboundary scale so how will national adaptation plans potentially help or even hinder other countries in their adaptation efforts and that's where we need to reach a point where naps and biannual transparency reports and ad comms really take a global view and assess the transboundary effects of risks and adaptation thank you so much Magnus and as you mentioned yes we would need to work together but also developing countries need to be supported and one one question posed by Lisa was to what extent international institution can also work together with the private sector and to that I would like to point out that many of the big green climate funds and the global environment facilities have funds to encourage private public partnerships whereby the public would cover the either the underlying risks or the upfront investment and then the private sector would also bring an investment and then ensure that whatever project is there would be maintained so that there is an incentive for the private sector to engage and bring in the necessary expertise but also capital and with that I would like to move from here you all mentioned what what kind of barriers we see what kind of opportunities we know about the importance of the global stock take very quickly in your related areas of expertise what concrete steps would you like to see within the next five years that would really make a difference and I'd like to start with Frieda then Marie to rest and then finally Magnus before we conclude things. Frieda. Thanks a lot so more or less concrete I think first of all we really have to address this trans boundary sorry I have a flying ration in my home. First of all we really need to make sure that these kind of trans boundary climate risks are taken up in national adaptation plans and as Magnus says also lifted on the global level and I think sorry I think that's it from my side. Thank you so much Marie Therese what would you like to see in the context of the private sector? Yeah okay very quickly I think it's important that human rights are being ensured in private adaptation so that human rights is fully integrated in in private adaptation responses I also think that it's important to include the role of the private sector in adaptation in for instance the biannual transparency reports from the UNFCCC and I also think it's important to step up these regulations at a domestic level to ensure that the private sector are effectively integrated in national adaptation planning processes and that sectoral governance instruments are in addressing the climate risk for the private sector. Great thank you and Magnus what would be your ideal outcome at the COPPA November and beyond? Okay three things at the COP26 I'd like to see a statement in the text that refers to trans boundary climate risk so either a party or a group of parties who explicitly acknowledge the importance of trans boundary climate risk for global cooperation on adaptation framing is important. The second is to see innovation within the climate finance space for funding of adaptation projects that go beyond the national scale so regional that could be more than knowledge sharing so addressing shared risks either at a regional scale or financing adaptation within an international system like a market. I'd like to see that within the next three years and I'd like to see new dialogues under the adaptation without borders initiative that bring parties from different parts of the world and non-party stakeholders together to have more detailed conversations about the division of labour when it comes to adapting to trans boundary climate risk. Thank you so much Magnus for clearly laying out what is needed and I thank you all very much for this very interesting panel discussion but also for your presentations. I think it's apparent that through this we already have a good idea of what do we need to do we know the problems we know who should act the private sector the national governments and the global level we identified some barriers and gaps including lack of coordination the coordination but also we identified opportunities of what can be done and in terms of more incentivizing investors disclosing risks but also having better regulations possibly even instigated from the global level so I think while the problems are still there we know the opportunities we know the possible opportunities of when to act so I think it's just a matter of trying to influence the necessary policymakers to ensure that it is then fed into national but also international policies but that I would like to thank you very much and hand over to Maria. Yes thank you all for your interesting presentations and perspectives and moderation thank you Frida, Maria Therese, Magnus and Annette and also thank you all to the audience that have listened and participated in this discussion very interesting. If you want to know more about Mr Geopolitics you can visit our website or you can also follow us under the Mr Geopolitics hashtag on Twitter and with this I want to bid you all then good afternoon.