Good afternoon and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to Zero Emissions Solutions Conference at COP26. Our session today is Economic Response Towards COVID-19 Resilience. My name is Guntur Soutiono from Climate Works Australia and I will be your moderator today. And I would like to thank the SDSN for inviting us to host this session. Before I introduce our panels, let me start by quickly refreshing again what this session is about. During the pandemic and post-pandemic recovery, governments are urged to focus on green recovery. A green economy would significantly enhance the resilience of both economies and societies in the face of future economic recessions and environmental challenges. But many governments are unsure about what green economy economic recovery means for their countries. How can they demonstrate the benefit of it? And this discussion discusses why green recovery is important, including to the developing countries. What governments can do to start a green recovery? How can we align green recovery with countries climate ambition? And most importantly, how can we rethink the governance of public investment and steer it towards implementing green investment policies? Joining us today are our wonderful panels. We have Olga Miqueva joining from London and Berli Martawardaya joining from Jakarta, Indonesia. Our first panel, Phoebe Kunduri, regretfully sends her apologies for not joining with us today due to conflicting schedule with her COP agenda. However, she has shared her recorded presentation. And with that, let me quickly perhaps read her bio. So Phoebe Kunduri is a world renowned environmental economics professor and global leader in sustainable development. She is listed in the most cited women economists in the world with 15 published books and more than 450 published peer reviewed scientific papers. Books chapters and reports. She is elected member of the World Academy of Art and Science. She holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge and has been affiliated as researcher and lecturer with Cambridge University College London, London School of Economics, University of Reading. And since 2006, she is a professor at the Athens University of Economics and Business. I think we are ready. So Phoebe is going to be our first panel and I will introduce our other panels shortly before they turn to speak. And again, I'd like to say welcome everyone participants and thank you to the panels today. And I think we are ready to listen to Phoebe speech or Phoebe speech is about what and why green economy recovery is important to create resilience. What is the risk of not doing it how the European Union address the green economy recovery, what policies, etc. Okay, so I think we are ready. Let's listen to her. Hello everybody my name is Phoebe Kunduri I'm a professor in economics at the Athens University of Economics and Business and co chair of you and sustainable development solutions network Europe. We are at a point in time that we are facing many crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, the huge economic recession that derived from climate change crisis biodiversity collapse. And finally, we have policies that are trying to respond to this crisis UN agenda 2030 with the 17 SDGs and 169 target within this SDGs, the parties agreement, reflecting SDG 1313 trying to keep global temperature well below two degrees and if possible 1.5 degree increased compared to pre industrial levels. 2019 we also have the European Green Deal, the new growth strategy of Europe climate neutrality by 2050 protecting a human life animals and plants from pollution and clean tech leadership for European companies doing this transition without leaving anyone behind. The European Green Deal is supported by one trillion and a half of it from the EU budget and the other half to be leveraged by public private partnerships. Unfortunately, in 2020 we have the COVID-19 pandemic and we have the short term responses together with the long term response from the European Commission, the EU next generation instrument which is 750 billion. In addition to the multi annual financial framework of Europe, trying to finance a green and digital recovery so the pathway for recovery is green and digital the growth strategy of Europe remains green and digital even after the huge nonlinearity of the pandemic to be financed from the EU next generation instrument and investment has to be at minimum 37% climate related and 20% digitally related. And of course 2021 is a year with many laws being drafted implemented and transposed into national laws from European to national laws the climate law the first time that the commitment to reduction of CO2 emissions becomes a law and late 2020 the leaders of European member states agrees to an increase ambition with regards to greenhouse gas emission reductions by 55% until 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050. We also have the new taxonomy identifying exactly which investments can be considered green climate, mitigation, adaptation, sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources, circular economy, pollution, prevention, biodiversity and at the same time we have the proposal for a corporate sustainability reporting directive that requires auditing introduces detailed reporting requirements and needs a digital attacking of the reported information. Together with this we'd have the feet for 55 package a major package with 13 legislative proposals trying to create the regulatory and legal framework for the implementation of the European Green Deal, the revision of the ETS climate action social facility revision of the offshore in regulation revision of the land use regulation proposal for a carbon border adjustment mechanism revision of renewable energy directive energy efficiency directive energy taxation directive the EU forest strategy, the revision of the directive on deployment of alternative fuels and infrastructure, and of course revision of the regulations that have to do with mobility cars, vans aviation marine time space. It is great that we have this huge policy momentum, although policy documents and laws exist mainly in Europe, but there is a lot of discussion on the targets across the world, Canada, US, Latin America, Africa, Asia and importantly China committing to climate neutrality by 2016 and of course we need to fast very fast because we know that the latest assessment of the IPCC identifies that we need to act fast because we are already very close to exceeding the 1.5 degrees Celsius and targets as a maximum of increase in average global temperature. So what do we need to do we have all these policies how are we going to really implement these policies how are we going to really implement the sustainability transition. So I'm going to direct the cluster for sustainability, trying to transform the research and innovation into sustainability action and puts together the research and innovation efforts of the Athens University of Economics and Business where my professor sits at the Athena Research and Innovation Information Technology Center, the EIT Climate Kick, which is the biggest public private partnership for accelerating climate neutral innovations in Europe and is partly financed by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology, and of course, the major strengths of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the biggest network in the world that tries to communicate the technologies and innovations and research results that are producing universities and research institutions to all other stakeholders that need to implement the sustainability transition, the financial institutions, the companies, the NGOs, the civil society, and importantly the policymakers and the politicians. I'm honored to co-chair as the European SDS in Greece and work on research and innovation projects, innovation acceleration, deep demonstration projects, education, training and policy interface that allow us to understand where we are and where we want to go. And SDS in Europe publishes every year the Sustainable Development Report that assesses the progress of each and every member state country and starting to include neighboring countries as well with regards to the implementation of the 17 SDGs. Together with this report, every year we produce a report on the transformations needed for the joint implementation of the SDGs and the European Green Deal. And this report basically tries to connect the four major policy initiatives, the SDGs, the European Green Deal, the European semester process and the EU next generation to support policy makers with actionable strategies that can guide the national economic recovery in European member states in line with Europe's overreaching sustainability agenda. And of course we know that beyond the fiscal stimulus that the EU next generation is bringing and is expected to boost aggregate demand, this crisis calls for transformative public investments that will shape sustainable fair green digital transition and leverage private sector investments. We showcase with machine learning methods that the European Green Deal and the SDGs are very closely related and we also make a transposition exercise that tries to find the connection between the level of the achievement of the SDGs and the recommendations of the European semester process. This is the page for Greece. We have a page for each and every European member state and we find for Greece that there is 80% alignment between the difficulties with regards to implementing the SDGs and the recommendations of the EU semester process with regards to making, putting more effort in achieving relevant objectives. And on average we have 72% alignment between the European Green Deal implementation and recommendations and the SDGs. And because we have this alignment, it is very helpful and it identifies the way forward. It is good that we have different policies but these policies are aligned and based on this alignment we need to sketch detailed technological and investment pathways for the actual implementation of the policies. The technologies are renewable energy, circular economy, nature-based solutions and other pension projects and what we are doing this report is that the European Green Deal and the SDGs implementation should be conceived on a systems for inter-disciplinary approach that is definitely science-driven and needs to simultaneously address multiple objectives and promote the right mixture of policy instruments and technological solutions that can be used across the various sectors of the economy. The report provides explicit recommendations for the power sector, for the land use sector, for the mobility sector and it also provides recommendations with regards to the finance pathways that need to support the technologies, the implementation of the technologies. And basically what we say is that countries need to reconceptualize their financial stability and also their financial missions both at the macro level in terms of the European Investment Fund and the European Investment Fund missions at the at the meso level in terms of the national public investment organizations that need to provide sources of long-term patient finance and at the micro level companies need to understand that those that switch towards sustainable practice as soon as will be the most competitive, most innovative and most successful over time. And of course it is important not only to schedule the financial technological and policy pathways, but also to care about those that are vulnerable and might face a regressive effects due to climate policies. The European Green Deal will create approximately one million jobs, most of which are highly skilled, so we need to invest in a major wave of reskilling and upskilling in order to keep the cohesion of the society and in order to have an inclusive growth. And we also showcase in our reports that those that are negatively affected from climate policies can be mitigated for this negative effect through fiscal policies through a package of fiscal policies. And we showcase this in a detailed microeconomic modeling exercise where we show that redistributing climate policy revenues through ransom taxes, implementing targeted efficiency measures, long-term job training programs and funding of subsidies for low carbon technologies via general taxation can really achieve the implementation of climate policies but also ensure more equality increased GDP and employment in all regions of Europe. I would like to close here and say that the science has spoken, climate crisis, biodiversity collapse is here, we have to face it and we have to face it. Because we have the technology what we need now to achieve during the COP and during the other UN conferences before the end of the year is to agree on the pathways, the technological, the financial and the policy pathways that will get each and every country where it has to be by 2030 and 2050. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Phoebe. Participants don't hesitate to pose any questions during the session through the using the Q&A function in your Zoom app in your screen. We'll address them after the all panels are complete their their speech. Now, let's move on to our second panel, Olga Mikheva. She holds a PhD in public administration and technology governance from Taltek Estonia and is currently a Mary Curry research fellow at the University College London II. Her research work is focused on how governments can implement strategic investments in innovation and development, what policies and agencies are required. She has a strong interest in policy oriented research and has recently co-authored a number of IIPP policy reports, including on the European Investment Bank's advisory support to the circular economy and the Norway's green industrial strategy. Now, Olga's speech today is about the need to rethink governance of public investments, how to strategically design and implement green investment policies. Now, Olga, I'm not going to spoil the whole story. I'm sure you have a great present, great speech today. And with that time is yours. Thank you very much, Gunter. Good morning, everyone. And thank you for inviting me for having me here today. I did be perhaps building to some extent of what Phoebe's already touched in her talk about various policy ambitious targets, a lot of strategies that are already were announced and currently being designed in the EU and across the world. I would like to bring in the question of financial governance to today's discussion. The moment after governments was spending during one and a half years almost to support economies firms households. There are serious debates and going currently about post COVID economic governance, and particularly public finance public spending public investments. These are also marked by very visible political events. There are national elections going on. There are changes in political collisions. But I have to say that also these debates over post COVID economic governance are quite sobering. What I mean by this is, for example, in the European Union, there is ongoing conversation about revising the fiscal rules that are at the core of how member states are monitored and what type of public investments within which they can think of public spending. So the 3% of GDP in regards to budget deficit 60% these are major numbers that are quite important when making a national investment or spending decisions. In developing countries the question of obviously public finances no less acute high public debt is typically thought as very important because it higher public debt would decrease investors confidence. It would amplify the risks of capital outflight outflows for incapable leave this economies in a very short notice and reduce economic activity even further. This type of economic reasoning leads to concrete political choices. Namely, there are a lot of there is a lot of advocacy already coming and raising rising in favor of fiscal consolidation across the board across political spectrum across the world which means basically reducing public deficits and spending and controlling the levels of public debt. This conversation not from last year, not from next year but from 2023 and this this type of conversations are happening in developed but also in lower income economies. For example, even given the recovery facility that we mentioned in the you very ambitious spending but this is still a one time measure. What about economic financial governance beyond the seven year European budgets. At the Institute of innovation public purpose where I work as a researcher we think that these economic thinking poses serious obstacle to the opportunity we all have to reconsider economic and financial governance. Because to implement the green transition. To design policies for major structural change. We need a different type of governance mechanisms, a different type of policy interventions and by national by financial governance I mean here not only green mandates for central banks. Not just green investment taxonomies, which in their own right, they can indeed help alter or change behavior of private financial agents, but only to some extent. What I mean here by financial governance is a broader take on strategic public investments the alignment of key public finance agencies central banks, finance ministries, financial supervisor authorities, state investment banks, development finance institutions. The development of this key public financial agencies to commit long term, therefore beyond, or despite political cycles, and directly intervene and create financial markets to shift financial behavior. There's a step beyond greening existing financial instruments or investment or business models. So in other words, not to spend the next nine years and making low carbon sectors more attractive for private finance. Even the European investment bank acknowledges openly explicitly that we can leave the discovery of low carbon sectors to the private sector alone but it will take way more time. But this therefore the argument I'm trying to make, and also in the work we're doing currently with colleagues at IPP is to we need to commit also public finance to green sectors. And there are various direct and indirect instruments to do that I would like to make three points related to this. First, is that such proposition. It's not really novels. It's nothing new and it derives. It's, it's more like a conclusion from the work we have been doing with colleagues at IPP while looking in a retrospect and at the financial governance of the previous major and quite dramatic structural change namely industrialization that occurred throughout the 20th century in most of the countries. The type of structural change was characterized by more direct role of public investments, both in developing and also in high income countries. And by structural change here I mean a change in economic activities that dominate national regional economies it was unthinkable that building new economic sectors, investing in new technologies, making massive infrastructure available. In the 20th century, it was unthinkable that it was all would be left to the private businesses. Second structural change necessarily means long term horizon for developing countries, many of which have by now been experiencing premature or negative deindustrialization there or they are stuck in the middle income traps. This transition can bring in the question of long term economic strategies, for example, promoting green sectors for exports, linking green transition with the possibility to, to produce higher value added experts can be a possibility. Third, there are other emerging analytical frameworks that can help in rethinking public and private investments. We can align finance with the goals or needs of productive economy. And for example, circular economy is one of such frameworks. Based on our work with the European Investment Bank and the Innovation Finance Advisory Services we published a report last year. It seems to observe that circular business models supply chains various challenges of how to define how to understand circularity they actually force financial sectors, particularly banks to relearn what productive firms do to make banks understand the real economy. To conclude, to build and scale up green economic sectors while phasing out fossil based activities, we need big and serious investments obviously. And but they will not happen without more strategic more direct take on public financial governance. And economically speaking, this means creating new financial technology markets and using policies to shift financial flows into carbon sectors, not just to wait, and not just to wait and make for the private sector to come in and make green financial instruments or make low carbon sectors more attractive. It seems like credit policies were used throughout the world to support industrial growth earlier we need, as I keep saying again, we need also green public investments. Politically speaking, even if we continue being obsessed with public deficits, there are also various self balance sheet mechanisms to implement public investments. Finally, what implications for developing countries. Despite being oftentimes dependent on foreign aid and foreign investments, but also on on the types of economic policies promoted by international donors and international agencies. There are still possibilities to carve out policy space for domestic green industrial strategies and green investment strategies. China is a good example using green transition as an industrial policy tool but obviously this is not to say that we need to replicate China's mode of governance. It's not possible, and it might not be desirable. But despite uneven global order, whereby donor countries exercise a lot of power over economic decisions into in emerging and low income countries, developing countries can take a broader take on green transition. To integrate over the question of justice of the just transition to rethink the way their economies and industries are integrated into international economy to design policies fit for local needs to put climate to to broader policies of financial stability to use policies for reducing policy imports from international development agencies. It's a very difficult task though so no illusions about that, given imbalances of power I mentioned, but, and, but I think it's useful to also understand the short run costs of these types of policy decisions are very high overall, not just for developing countries but for developed as well. And for all societies but but there is, I'm afraid there is really no other way. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Olga. I think we, it's great it's interesting and might have a follow up question but I will post it a bit later after after we finished with with barely speech. Our third panel is barely Marta Wardaya. He currently serves as a research as the research director of the Institute for development of economics and finance or in depth in Indonesia. He's also a lecturer at the Department of Economics and at planning and public policy graduate program University of Indonesia. His research covers topics such as development economics, public sector finance environmental economics and behavior economics. Now, barely coming, you know, as comes from from developing country. His, his speech is about why green economic recovery is important for developing countries recovery. What, what opportunity presented in Indonesia, what Indonesia has been so far or should be doing in a near future challenges, etc. So it's a bit broad topic, but we are happy to have him to have him here with us. And barely time is yours. Yeah, thank you for, for inviting me. It's a pleasure to be here and sharing the panel with very distinguished speaker more than Phoebe. Okay. Yeah, I mean, yeah, spend my grade school in in the land and in Italy so have a lot of and still keep in touch with the, with the economics from from European especially yeah but I'm also happy that there are a lot of participants from developing a country especially in Asia in Africa. So let me begin with quoting about Shakespeare. For developing country, most of the, the biggest question is to be sustainable or not. Yeah, yeah, because it's still seen to be to be costly, especially for, for energy, coal and diesel and your fossil base is still seen to be the cheapest, especially with country with significant deposit. So in the, yeah, in the three sphere of social environment and economic environment I'll still often put on the lower range of priority. First economic, yeah, as long as does not create social unrest, yeah, and then environment. Yeah, so, yeah, the quotation. Yeah, so, I think, yeah, the cradle of many developing countries is give me sustainability is good, good plan is good reputation. Yeah, but not yet. Not yet. Yeah, so that's another. Yeah, I think you familiar with the quotation. So, even, even then, yeah, I think some of the country already seen the, or have a long term enough perspective here that they need to start somewhere, or because it will also affect their country. So, actually, country in the topical area, country with archipelagic state, country with a lot of potential for natural disaster. Yeah, so we see, yeah, like, Maldives, for instance, Maldives has been getting some headline, well, committed or declaring they are in danger country, even held a cabinet meeting underwater because that there will be if the change is not coming enough. So, then, going back to Tunisia. So in 2009 and Asia is one of the few country that make a commitment commitment explicit commitment in 2009 in peace but meeting that we will discuss all we will try to decrease and reduce our, our mission. By 26% by my internal effort and by 45% with international support. Yeah, so this has been getting some headline and has been followed through with domestic effort and regulation. Yeah, yeah, so, yeah, but when the, the, the second term of the president, do you know that came out with the commitment ended, let's say the commitment has been reduced. This is not as strong as before. Yeah, and the latest data 2009 here put Indonesia in the top 15. Yeah, I mean, yeah, not as large as the larger one. Yeah, but yeah, in part with Saudi with Korea and with Canada. And looking at the rate of development is some emission projection is not sustainable if we continue or we slag down then Indonesia we could could go to or even higher than 3%. Yeah, well, we actually as a logic, we have, if, if just five meter of sea, sea level rise, yeah, that many of an edition 17,000 island will be disappeared forever from the face of the earth. So, looking at the data. So the economics, especially the environmentalist in the last year, especially in the last seven years has been quite worried looking at the end the trend where the emission from energy from transport and forest and land use has been dominating. Yeah, there has been still follow time for all change from forest here to palm oil, especially and to mining. Yeah, so with only very recently last year that Indonesia change the regulatory. Well, before it was the, the authority of the local government of the city and agency to give up license on forest use. Yeah, now it has been taking back to the, to the national level so so hopefully you will see less less change of the land use especially topical forest that has been that we have lost quite so much. Then, yeah, okay, that's this. Yeah, there are a lot of hope, yeah, a lot of hope, a lot of angst in Indonesia, green, green community, green activists, green economists, yeah, that we will see the COVID with open new door and change Indonesia behavior. We are looking that the sublime stimulus in 2008 2009 is actually quite green. China lead the way in terms of the number but in terms of the proportion China, you and Korea so the stimulus has been quite green in 2008 and nine. Yeah, but quite recent analysis comparing, comparing several countries show that it is India that has been managed among developing country has been quite successful in inserting green element into the COVID stimulus. In Indonesia, yeah, my country has, yeah, it on the lower level of the level, yeah, the level of the level, yeah, even though yeah, there are some other country that rank even lower. Why is that, yeah, I've been in contact with several high official we have meeting we are invited, yeah, yeah, publicly. So, because the COVID is not seen as, as long term is seen as a short term problem, yeah, that once we take away the COVID then we will then the, yeah, it will goes back to the old normal. So that's why a lot of the stimulus are going toward demand creation, yeah. Social assistant, social assistant to the needy to the poor wage supplement. And of course the health. So we, yeah, the community, the green community has been in, yeah, my team has been producing a report here quite recently, yeah, how we can use this, this, this, this crisis into potential for time forming into form extractive base here to sustainable base. One of the most, let's say that we fight the most is the subsidy passive subsidy for, for biofuel. Yeah, so, because, yeah, the one want to reduce the import, yeah, I mean they have less, less foreign currency. So they want to replace or reduce fuel import with biofuel, yeah, but yeah, I mean it's still burning, it's still burning, it's still producing emission. Yeah, yeah, so let me close with the plot twist. So, in the last two, three months, yeah, the green systemic epistemic community in Indonesia has been very surprised, yeah, so we call it the COP and G20 effect. So Indonesia is, yeah, is taking the chair of the G20. Just in the last couple of months, yeah, the policy that we have been fighting for, yeah, are suddenly enacted, yeah, yeah, so suddenly the very powerful Minister of Resource announced that there will be no more coal power plant, yeah, which we are the developmentalist presidency of Jogori has been building 20 gigabytes of 20 megabit 20 gigawatt of new power plant, which about, yeah, about half are coal power so we have been protesting that. But yeah, then, very suddenly, yeah, there's a change of heart, yeah, so yeah, I'm actually writing a paper on this, and the state electricity company has announced the phasing out, yeah, phasing out. And just one or two weeks ago, there's a new carbon tax, carbon tax will be enacted to coal power plant, yeah, so make the coal power plant more, more plysi, yeah, so making the energy more, more effective, yeah, and carbon market are currently under discussion. So, so it's a, yeah, so this should be an analysis of saving phase, yeah, I mean, for the Japanese concept of power because Indonesia is untested with big, big position, we are very in the spotlight so suddenly the style are aligned, yeah, so the government change into deliver what we have been asking, even though this is the last point that we are still sticking at 2060 for net zero, yeah, so that's one point that we are still still fighting for, yeah, to move the target to 2050 or even 2045. Yeah, so what I think in here, yeah, in the lesson in the last 30 years second is to know the problem is, yeah, to look for, for opportunity and timing, and keep pushing, keep pushing until the policymakers are facing the situation where they must bring a concrete progress here to the global community in this case, yeah, the COP energy 20. So, yeah, that's what all of you fight outside, yeah, keep fighting, yeah, things can change. Okay, that's it for me, thank you. Thank you, thank you, barely for that very delightful presentation. So follow up question for, for Olga and thank you so much for that great and inspiring talking points earlier, and especially I'd like to highlight this, you know, the role of domestic banks in developing countries, and many developing development countries, you know, and most often state owned banks in developing countries are already thinking about implementing green investment policies. But they're facing a number of, of, of issues and, you know, from, from most importantly, you know, capacity issues, that's one example. So they have this, you know, question or fake trying to figure out how, how to do it what to what to prioritize what is the first step that we need to do to get there. And so, you know, in your view, what can you suggest for these, you know, actors to start getting there. Thank you. Yeah, very useful question. I, let me go back to previous challenge, previous challenges of industrial transformation, they were no less uncertain for developing countries how to industrialize, they were no less complex than today. The political economy of that was also no less complex. It was different, but it was no less complex for domestic financial sector for financial system that for example in Southeast Asia, it was also dominated by a lot of foreign banking groups, just for historical reasons. We can draw some parallels with today, globalized financial capital right. So a domestic financial sector to learn about the needs, the local needs of NASA industry, let's say that was when we talk about post World War two. It was similar, similarly challenging. In this country, some more successfully than others designed and implemented how to nurture your financial institutions in such a way that they will actually act as vehicles to channel finance, private but also let's say public if you are a developing finance institutions. I did my fieldwork in Malaysia they have very interesting setup of national development banks. In Indonesia, a lot of other countries in Southeast Asia and yet we have some successful stories and some not so successful cases when developing finance institutions ended up having acting more like a manager of self loan schemes without necessarily doing strategic investments. So, there ever right I don't have a clear cut answer for you, I'm afraid, going through but the point here is that this, that's why there is a need for, for domestic policy space to align your financial targets with the green markets. So it's not about finance. It's not about public subsidies or incentives to attract more foreign capital to supposedly come into your emerging low carbon industries it will not happen that way, you have to set up your low carbon industry strategy first. What would it be, how, what does it corresponds to your longer term vision, where do you want to go as a national economy. I mean, these are very important questions and I obviously am very, very well aware of imbalances in how economic ideas and policy advocacy is also very much forced on a lot of developing and low income countries, you know, guided by this mainstream So, so I mean it's a kind of broader question right it's not just about banks, it could be domestically owned banks in developing countries but they will be still not willing to go and obviously why would I mean everything is still guided by short term Yeah, so I have another follow up on that so you mentioned about the, you know, the importance to align with the green target right so it's not just, you know, we expect the banks or financial decision just to change their need to be aligned with the long term climate or environmental target and in this case I want to bring that to the net zero, for example, how would you see and, you know, given the, you know, the experience for example with the developed country or in other countries. How these financial institutions can can actually link with how or how net zero is actually play a role in this in this sense. Well if not zero is that kind of umbrella goal but then you go kind of you descend from it and you think what does net zero mean for Indonesia. I mean, what are the, what are the qualitative but also quantifiable perhaps targets that that you can, you can use in your political commitments medium term long term. And, of course, we also with my colleagues, we don't deny the, the importance to give that first move that this technocratic tools like axonomies. Investment frameworks can give that that's great but it's just it's not enough it's it's a one policy tool. We should think in terms of, maybe it's just me trying to say that well maybe for many countries, they should think about green industrial policy. It will not be, it will not be the same industrial policy they were thinking in the 50s or 60s obviously it's different but, but it's still about thinking of your domestic.  The same happens with the circular economy. It's a very well developed conceptual framework, and I feel that it sometimes actually poses more dangers, because you import conceptual framework without really analyzing like what it what are those circular supply chains that I needed for my economy domestically. What happens also in Europe is well I mean, we can think about ease we can think about North and South divide there are similar dependencies, lack of domestic deliberations to align policy goals that I imported let's say from commissions or from other countries that were that are more ahead with developing circular strategies so importing them without really thinking okay what is my economic structures what am I dominated sectors where I want to bring them in five years and 10 years 15 how circular can help me doing that. Of course it requires a lot of different types of capacities among let's say. Ministries and agencies that structure design those policies, I mean it's really not very. It's not limited to problems of developing countries it's it's so to answer your question. And zero is is great as overall but still there is how to go there right, I mean, these are really people sitting there every day thinking okay how shall we strategize. Thanks Olga I think that's that's actually a great segue to my next question to to barely. So, you know when it comes to, you know what it, what does it mean that zero for for in for developing country for for Indonesia, and then with with, you know, we're talking about transitioning the economy as an Indonesia as you know many other developing countries also highlights the affordability of the transition, and also considering that Indonesia like other developing countries there are huge discrepancy disparity economic disparity between between regions. So there's this kind of, you know, affordability as well as avoiding negative impact in regions inside the inside the country. Now, my question to barely is, how can Indonesia and other developing countries address this, you know, affordability, or, you know, transition affordably. Yeah, just before the pandemic. Is Asia. Is Asia Pacific. In the meeting in Bangkok where they invite policy maker and academics from all over Asia Pacific. So we have a chance to discuss the progress and comparing notes. I think the most common thread is, you need to be able to convince the policy maker, the government that in the end is economic. So if you do the green transformation, yes, it's not just cost today. Because they have to sell it to you have to finance it you have to find money for it. They have to sell to the parliament they have to convince the industry, especially the industry that will be at the cost, but they have to convince that in the end, it will bring economic return, it will make it will glove their name into eternity. And put it nicely so they will be remembered well because they take the breath straight here so it's a big combination of economic and string and as psychology say I said you have to convince them on, and there is a grass root of people that demand it. Because, for instance, it's always, at least for now, it's still cheaper to use coal for the power plant. So it's still more expensive to use the renewable. So you have to convince them with people support with scientific and empirical data that the price is declining and you have to give them money. So there's the, the, the money that the financing that can be channeled by from the national agency from, from green bonds, from, it's helped a lot. It helped convince the policymaker to make the change. And lastly, as I put on my last slide is, is the perception, put expectation on them, put expectation. Yeah, so that if they're not taking the step, they are left behind, they are failing the global public expectation. So, like I said, it requires a lot of effort to make them change the calculation. Yeah, because after all, the policymaker, the minister, prime minister, president are have a need to have the political sense. So if the, the both are aligned, yeah, the economic calculation is still doable is still beneficial to the country in, in quite near future, not too far distant, and the political and public support is with them and many will take the step. Yeah, so it's a, it's a good cup with a bad cup strategy that each of the each of us in each country we know the situation the actual better but you have to make sure that all of the steps, all of the frontline are being taken care of. So, so they will not take the short-sighted cheaper first, cheaper first, cheaper now first. Yeah, so we, we, we make them, you are a legend in the future, if you take the step, you know, I think, yeah, that's what's at least partially behind the calculation of Indonesia president in 2009, that's what we do, you know, and also partially in the back of the mind of the current president, but the change have make a big, big uterine in policy into more green and sustainable. And I think there's one question which I would like to reframe, because you also mentioned about, you know, political, you know, political process and, and is that, is that how you would, you know, you would share with two other developing countries to win the political support over such a commitment like net zero, all of these calculations all of these, you know, short-sighted, avoiding the short-sightedness of, of, you know, planning, etc. But, you know, you know, if, if in one minute, what can you share to the other colleagues in developing countries on how to, to, to secure that domestic political support for such a great ambition. To short-word, I think Greta and Tesla, yeah, yeah, Greta is the sound of the youth, yeah, make them heard, make them, give them platform, yeah, to, to voice out their demand or their concern, yeah, so they are ready to willing to pay more and put effort, yeah, for, for the future, because it's their future. The second is Tesla, so being green is cool, is, we're being green is bring investment, yeah, so Indonesia has been toying has been persuading has been trying to invite Tesla to invite Indonesia to invest in Asia for so many years is, so it's the, but it's their demand that Indonesia switch into more green, yeah, reduce the, yeah, the coal power, reduce the emission and pollution that partly that I think play, play the part that Indonesia really recent change of strategy, so you need to make it both way, you need to have the carrot, the stick and sometimes the pitchfork as well, okay. Thank you so much. Obviously, situations will be different, but that's that's actually what works in Indonesia, so thank you very much for that insights and for the participants. Yes, this session is recorded, I've been told by the, the organizer by the STSN that this session is recorded and will be made available on the web so you can revisit and perhaps download if needed. With that, we are on time, so I'd like to thank once more to Olga and Babeli for your wonderful insights. Also, virtually thank to Phoebe for her presentation as well. And thank you very much for your participation audience from all over the world, I've seen many from coming from joining from Africa. And I hope I can see you again and talk to you again. Good afternoon and good morning. Thank you very much, Olga. Thank you very much, Babeli. Thank you very much.


Okay, so just to start with, I want to ask if there's anyone in the audience from the public that would like to offer any comments or ask any questions. And if so, if you could please go up to the microphone. And since there's not a mad dash to the microphone, we'll go ahead and open it up to council now. If there are any comments here and others, please feel free to come up to the microphone at any point. And again, for those on the phone only, if you do have access to a computer, please email to the NHGRI comments at NIH.gov. And I've got the inbox open right here, and we'll read your question. Rick. So, I see, I'm glad you added the reasons why you want to do this at the end, the advantages. Are there parts that are really broken right now, I mean, meaning, I mean, I think the idea is now that you have, it's not that it's hierarchical, I guess, but each of those divisions will have sort of, they don't necessarily report to the director on every, in the way that some of them have been now, right? Careful, which, when you say director, do you mean the institute director? You. So, at the moment, only the division director reports to me. Right. So under this model, the four division directors would report to me. The ones that were not divisions, but offices. Right? Yes. Currently they, how would they, how would they operate differently than they do under division? So, to be honest with you, the administrative division and the division of policy communication and education will, that will not change. I mean, that's, that is essentially a name change. Those directors, Laura and Janice Malaney, report to me now as office directors, and they will report to me as division directors. So that, that's actually just a, that's not a substantive change in, with regard to reporting authorities. And I really want to emphasize, no, I don't mean to imply for a minute that anything is broken, but it's, it's much more looking towards the future and trying to anticipate where I think we need to be at a lot of different levels, including how various things are done that I, I believe that, that now is the time to sort of situate ourselves in a way to anticipate the, the new challenges we face with a broadening scientific portfolio. I think you want to be careful not to look, you, you may have said this, at least from outside and almost kind of, almost inside, but the outside, it looks like everybody works well together and, and it's very cooperative. It's an unusual group compared to other groups that I've seen before. So Rick, I really want to, I really want to echo what you, I want to guarantee to you that we have talked about that issue internally more than any other issue. And, and the real key is, is this slide here, is that how do you, what we're trying to do is thread the needle here of trying to put enough, there's a lot of reasons why structure is good for an organization, but if structure creates siloing, compartmentalization, the antithesis of the genome institute, then it will be a disaster. So the way we've organized this here, even with the colors and even with, you know, the way we've thought about it, talked about it is we are trying to get the best of both worlds. I believe if there's any institute that can get the best of both worlds, this is the institute that can do it. Amy? Yeah, thanks Eric. So I think this, I have two questions. I think this makes a lot of, a lot of sense. And I, so I guess there's the internal running of your office. And I told, and I can see how this works really well for that. My first question is given sort of the cross-cutting nature of the green boxes, for the extramural investigators who are funded through NHGRI, how does this impact sort of who they're accountable to, and especially for those who have cross-cutting sort of scientific and genomic medicine projects that overlap, is how does that get impacted? We don't believe, we don't believe, I think you're doing something on this keyboard, so I don't mind saying to blow up here, we don't believe that necessarily this reorganization would result in substantive differences to the program directors that you're reporting to.  So I think the direct relationship you have around a given program, a given consortium, a given project, it'll remain the same here. That person's boss might be different, but that person, their supervisor might be different, but that person and that program, because I believe that where most of you in Iraq with are around the green things as much as anything, and those are not going to change. Okay, and my follow-up question, just can you say, you said before that the Division of Genomics and Society was going to incorporate the LC research program, but be broader than that, can you say just a little something about what you mean by that? Well, I mean, it goes to the same set of issues that were discussed extensively during the strategic planning process that led to the publication in nature, is that there is, I believe, and I think I've heard from others, that we shouldn't, that the LC research program has been wildly successful, but there might be some areas that, and behavioral research might be one, and there might be others where some people felt that maybe they don't quite fit into those three letters, and that if we simply could broaden it, and without losing it, but just broadening it, and incorporate that, that we could get a win-win. So once again, I think we're looking to thread the needle here of building on our past successes, and not getting too constrained with just three words, and maybe making the words a little more diffused, which would give us more freedom to operate, but I don't mean to imply anything but actually growing enthusiasm for that set of activities at the Institute. So I think it's a really good idea, the way you've organized it with the cross-cutting themes, but I would be interested in hearing a little bit more if you have thoughts about what the roles of the divisions themselves would be, not to create silos, but if you're going to fund a lot of the activities with these cross-cutting themes, what's for the division to do? So I would say there's two things the division to do, the divisions to do. Number one is to provide intellectual, you know, areas of concentration. I mean, I do believe that the, you know, where the the greatest concentration of expertise in genome science is going to be in that division, and won't be exclusive, and I do believe that the more population oriented, clinically oriented, medically oriented concentration will be the division of genomic medicine, and so forth. So I think one of it is to try to sort of provide that local, you know, the organizational chart, that sort of local grouping of expertise, and then I think there's a secondary issue of we are a growing organization in terms of sheer numbers, and I think, you know, it's really hard to have too many people reporting to any one person, and by dividing that up, I think there's more mentorship, more professional development that can be done by these division directors by having it broken into smaller groups. So I think, I think making sure that's happening as well would be very beneficial. Carlos? Eric, can you comment on the relationship of these three proposed divisions to the other divisions that appear here on the website, namely the Division of Intramural and Extramural Research? So how does this end? Okay, so let me be clear, let me be clear that, so what used to be the Division of Extramural Research now becomes four things. So the Division of Extramural Research will go away, and replacing it will be four new divisions on the far right. Division of Intramural Research will remain essentially the same, but right now we have one Intramural Division, one Extramural Division. There is, I mean, I've lived now on both sides, or I've lived in different parts of the institute. I mean, there is some interaction, a lot of intellectual interaction, but they each have very separate missions. One is to do grants and contracts and oversee extramural programs. The other is to do active on-campus research, quote-unquote. So I would say that those interactions will remain absolutely the same. The interactions between intramural and extramural will remain unchanged. It just, it'll just be, you know, distributed across more extramural divisions, but I don't think that'll have any impact on the interactions. You look puzzled, Carlos, did I? You know, I'm just curious, what, so do you view this in some sense as a way to give more direction to the extramural funded projects that you aren't able to do now, or is it a way to flesh out the best ideas that are out there and put them under a broader umbrella so that folks can work together in terms of their extramural funded programs, or what's the advantage of having four divisions versus one division of extramural? Well, I guess I could put it, I could try it another way, is as the extramural program continues to grow, having a single person responsible for supervising 30-something individuals gets to be a bit much. And so I would, I would make an analogous to maybe a department of internal medicine where at some point you want to break it down into divisions because it almost gets to be too big. And so to me, this sort of strikes that right balance. So first of all, I think this is really good to do this, and it's super important that there's structures aligned to what you're trying to accomplish as a goal. So I think it's the right time to be doing this. So with these divisions, where you show that cross-cutting slide, how are you going to make decisions and budgetary assignments and things like that so that the divisions are working cooperatively rather than competing with one another because ultimately you're all trying to achieve the same thing, but I could see some kinds of tensions there perhaps. Maybe that's a healthy thing, but I was just curious if you could comment on that. So it's a very, very astute and fair question. I'm gonna answer it in two ways. First of all, I'll answer, I'll just give you that in general how's it gonna work. It's gonna involve a huge amount of transparency and group process involving the leadership of these divisions working very extensively with me. So that's the short answer. This will be group decisions. And what I can tell you is that even without going to a reorganization, just facing the budgetary realities that we are facing right now, and perhaps even difficult outcomes even more so. Next year, we have already been working through group processes of prioritizing. I can't say more about that right now, but council will learn more about that because they have opportunities to get in and learn about such things. So you will be hearing more about that in council's sessions. But what I will say is the short answer is it's a group process to build consensus and compromise and argue and debate and all the very productive. And we've been doing this now for certainly the past four to six months and it's going extremely well. But we just want to come on that. So you don't know you'll also... Well, and this group here will have significant influence on making decisions on how big some of these green boxes are as you did in making even most recently decisions about our genome sequencing program. That was a very inner process of evolving workshops and then advisors and then you folks and then our sequencing advisors and then staff and lots of that will be done. At the end of the day, if the question is who's going to make the final decision, me. But as much as possible, I hope my decision making is more influencing and getting people to come to consensus. Yes. Can you maybe put your microphone on? That's right. Going back to the Division of Genomics and Society, not to make too much of a deal out of names because they do matter and they don't matter. But obviously changing it from Elsie to this is intentional and has been discussed quite a bit. So I guess what I'm wondering is if certain things have been left out in the past, what do you imagine happening within this division differently that would bring those things in? So the first thing I'd say is that I fully expect the Division of Genomics and Society when it gets a director and I want to give leeway for the new director to come up with the fine-scale architecture of it will absolutely include the current Ethical Legal and Social Implications Research Program. I could imagine other things that are not being done now, being done under that, General Rubrik. I would also tell you that increasingly what we are seeing is that our staff in our Ethical Legal Social Implications Research Program are called on to do an extensive amount of consultative work. And not just worrying about getting grants and funding opportunities and overseeing grants but in fact they are being called on at various stages of project development to be experts and I think that should be more prominently featured as part of that division, that this division not only has this Elsie Research Program, it has a whole set of consultative responsibilities that go towards the rest of the institution. It turns out it's going the rest of NIH because once again we are the leaders in this and I would like to see that more formally part of that division as an example. Just following up on that, I think that's been some concern is that because we are positioned to move out into the rest of NIH I think in a very important way there's something perhaps to be lost by the lack of branding. So Elsie is a term that's internationally known and there are many people who when they say they want, they'll say it's an Elsie issue. Without really even knowing what those words break down to. So I think it would be unfortunate to lose that especially at this moment. No intention to lose the branding. I would give an analogy would be the other thing that has a great brand name is the $1,000 genome. But I'm not naming a division, division of $1,000 genome. I'm going to say that within the division of genome sciences their genome sequencing technology program and the thousand should continue on or whatever the next name is. I think we can get both. By not, we're not extinguishing the brand Elsie. We will keep it. It will be a prominent feature of the division of genomic society. I just don't think we need to name the division that. Pearl? Thanks. I also think this is a great model. And I have a lot of enthusiasm for expanding the division of genomics in society. But I would wonder as it expands would there be any different relationship or collaboration with the Office of Communication and Policy? So, well absolutely it won't necessarily have to be different in a bad way. I think this is a great opportunity to enhance those interactions. No question. In fact there was some very good discussion about that in the webinar. Some questions that came in exactly related to that. I would absolutely think that division and I don't probably need to keep going back. But needless to say, I mean part of the reason why I sort of like these seven divisions are sort of an equal footing. I could absolutely imagine like lots of arrows we could draw of interaction but without question the division of genomics in society and the division of policy communications and education will have wonderful arrows going back and forth and integrated in great ways. And they both will be prominent divisions at the institute. And I'm just going to interject here and say that I think we also anticipate and look forward to building those same kinds of bridges with the other research divisions because particularly going into genomic medicine there are a lot of questions that have to do with the domains of expertise that we have over in OD and we look forward to increasing those collaborations. Ross? Well I want to echo the comments that this reorganization does make sense in the sense of moving the institute towards the direction of the strategic plan. My question, I'm glad this is up there, anytime someone sees what used to be a simple structure breaking out into something far more complicated the question arises is what's the cost? In particular will there be an impact on the research funding and I wanted to give you the opportunity to address that. Yeah absolutely not. I mean there's some very basic and simple things that are done at a very early stage of the fiscal year to how much money goes to each of the major and I would absolutely, there's absolutely no intention to adjust the percentages going to the different areas. And to be honest with you I don't actually believe that changing the structure should have much budgetary impact even on how we do business to be honest with you. Any e-mails? No we haven't had any e-mails yet. Are there any other questions from the audience or from council? Okay. So thank you very much. If anybody thinks of anything the e-mail inbox will stay open so please send the comments.


Hi everybody, happy Monday. I'm Joe for jaspyscasebrakes.com coming at you at 2020, Panini Mosaic Football Salah Pack Break number 185 with six of those football mixer spots being given away. Big thanks to this group right here for getting in on it. Appreciate it. All teams are going to do the break first, as always. And then we'll do the giveaway part of the different dice roll at the end. Six into two, eight times for names and teams. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eighth in final time. Six into two, eight times for the teams. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eighth in final time. All right, there's the first half of the list right here. And there's the second half of the list right over there. No trades in these little filler packs. Column B, print, the right pack, right? Yeah, the one with the Mahomes on it. Pink Camels. Making sure, just making sure. All right, there is the final print out here. Let's see what we got here. Tyler Boyd, Antonio Gibson, Devonte Adams, Pro Bowler TJ Watt, all right, nothing too crazy there. What do we got over here? Roquan Smith, Julian Edelman, and NFL debut, Pink Camo, Cam Akers for the Rams. All right, now let's flip back over here. Let's gather everybody's names from one through 32, new dice, new list, and it's the top six that'll get into the mixer. Good luck. It's top six after nine, five into four. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and ninth and final time. So top six after nine. So from seven on down, it's going to be sad times. Scott Cooper, very close, no cigar, at least for that spot. Seven through 32. Thank you, everyone, for giving this a shot. But ultimately, sad times. We do have to do a couple more of these fillers. So if you feel like trying again, jaskyscasebreaks.com. But sad times for here. Top six, happy times. For Corey, Corey, Kevin, Scott, Cooper, you made it. Corey and Nestor. So congrats, the top six will see you in that football mixer a little bit later, jaskyscasebreaks.com. Bye-bye.


Welcome to the rich TV live podcast. I am your host Richard de Sousa and today we will be speaking to safe supply streaming Corp. I will be speaking to the VP of corporate development set to Cascarella and board member Ronan Levy. I want to bring your attention to the symbol on the Canadian securities exchange SPL why I must remind you that rich TV live is strictly for information and education purposes. And if you like these videos, please smash the like button, comment down below, share the video everywhere and subscribe. Hello, Seti. Great to have you and Ronan back on the show. How are you gentlemen doing today? Amazing, Rich. Thanks for having us back on. Hey, Rich. How are you doing today? Doing great, Ronan. Good to see you. Always a pleasure. Now the stock launched on Tuesday, October 3rd and had a pretty wild day. Stock opened up at 21 and a half cents, went down to 12 and then closed the day off back up around 21 cents. Can you go through opening day for us and what your thoughts were on all the volume that came in? Well, look, I think we were really pleased in how it performed on day one. I think we traded about a million and a half shares across all the exchanges, which is actually pretty good for, you know, obviously just launching and getting this story out and then starting to get people aware of what it is that we do and why we exist. Again, it just shows, you know, there was about a million and a half shares worth of buying that day. So obviously there's some interest from early stage investors that like this story that think that there's an opportunity to sort of compound their investment over time. And that's really why we exist, you know. Again, I was really happy with how it went. Yeah, I think it was a great first day to be quite honest, you know, clearly the story is reaching a lot of people and we're just getting started, which is important. And I don't think you have to be such a fortune teller to see that the story around the war on drugs has changed and policy is changing all around the world. And we're the first mover. We're the first ones out there doing this focused on investing in this ecosystem, diversifying exposure, supporting our companies. And so I think it's early days, you know, we're just starting to create awareness. But the fact that we've reached so many people already, the story is resonating, there's lots of buying happening. I think it was really well, it's been a certainly tough time for small cap stocks like we are for us to have such a great first day is really a side I think of things to come. Yeah, it was a very encouraging result, I think. Again, like, you sort of have your thoughts when you're when you're trying to craft these these companies and take them public. And really, there's a little bit of, you know, I hope people find it as compelling as we do which is why we're spending so much time on it. And then to see that on day one was, again, like it was, it was something great to see. And I think that we've got, you know, obviously a great team in place, a very good strategy. And I think over the coming months, we'll be able to execute on a number of great things that continuously create more and more value for our shareholders. In an emerging industry, everyone always asks, when is the company going to actually generate revenue? And what is the marketing strategy of getting the average retail investor to learn about the company? Can you tell us what are some of the steps safe supply is taking to address those two main concerns? Well, I think again, first and foremost, for us, it's on establishing the strategy, communicating what the strategy is and then executing against that strategy. For safe supply is an investment company. We go out and try to find early stage entrepreneurs that have a unique approach to tackling this challenge. Like the, you know, as Ronan always alludes to, and I agree with him a thousand percent, like we believe that the war on drugs is coming to an end and that there's going to be this new world that forms out of it. And with that, we think that there is an extraordinary amount of opportunity and a lot of smart people are working on very innovative things that can help that new world establish itself. Over the coming months, you know, we were already in a number of active discussions with companies that we think have a more than viable chance at creating a tremendous amount of value. And I think, you know, over the next three, four months, we're going to have more than a few announcements on some of these early stage investments as we make them. And that'll give us sort of a huge portfolio of news to talk about because not only is it what safe supply is doing, but it'll also be what all of these companies that we've invested in are doing. So that's going to create, you know, a nice tapestry, let's say, that we can help communicate to shareholders in terms of here's what we're doing, here's why we've invested in this, here's the progress that these companies are making. And I think for a lot of those companies, as this industry starts to develop, there'll be tons of opportunities for them to go public as well. And that's really where we see a lot of the value creation for our shareholders. You know, if we take equity positions in these companies, and then either through our help or through their own wherewithal, they can go public. That creates a ton of value because we're buying at, you know, fairly attractive valuations. And when they go public, if they do as good a job as hopefully we do in terms of attracting investors, then that creates, you know, value and wealth for everyone. And I think that's really where this industry is going to go over the next 12 to 24 months. You know, it's really no different than what happened in cannabis. It's no different than what happened in psychedelics. You know, you have a lot of smart people that put together compelling business plans that go out, raise some capital and try to execute against it.  So I think that's probably something that, yeah, raising all boats, right? I think that's something that's definitely going to happen in this space. And then it'll just be on operations. Who are the ones that are going to execute? Who are the ones that are going to operate better than others? Who are the ones that have sort of been through the initial tumult of running a company and, you know, have learned from, you know, some past mistakes and obviously some successes. And obviously focus on the things that do well and sort of downplay the things that are shy away from the things that don't. I think we've got a great team that has a tremendous amount of experience. You know, so that's really what our plan is going forward and how we want to create value. And then, you know, in terms of just generally attracting shareholders, again, like shareholders, I think come into a company because they believe what the company is doing. They believe that the management team has the wherewithal to execute. And I think if the management team has the ability to showcase that, then, you know, you start attracting investors. It's a result of, you know, the success of the company, not the other way around, right? You know, and for us, we think that this really is a global story. And, you know, that's why we're out making applications to list the shares in other exchanges around the world because we think that, you know, a story like this is going to resonate in Europe. We think it's going to resonate in the US. We think it'll resonate all over the world because this isn't an isolated problem. It's not something that just affects Canadians or Americans or the Swiss or the Australians or the Germans. It's everybody. So, you know, the market potential and opportunity to go out and actually help save lives is astronomical. And I think that if we can bring that opportunity to the masses, the masses will respond. I would just add a couple of points. I agree wholeheartedly with Sadi. You know, first of all, we're a team of innovators. We've all been innovators in different ecosystems, different businesses. And we bring that lens here, too, right? We're going to be innovative in how we structure our investments and not only invest in companies that offer promising returns, but also position some investments in ways that may be able to generate shorter-term revenues for us. You know, we really think of safe supply, not just as an investment vehicle, but as, you know, the web that we've together an ecosystem of companies that can generate synergies across all of our investment opportunities. And that means we don't just necessarily take a passive role in our investments. We take much more active involvement in ensuring the success of our partners. And that can involve procuring opportunities between them, which can create shorter-term revenues, which I think is important in what differentiates us from, like, a traditional fund model, for example. And then, yeah, just really emphasize, because we're the first mover, and this is a story that's just gaining momentum, you know, taking a cue from what we saw in the early days of Psychedelics and Field Trip 2019. We were just on the front of that curve, and we intentionally got out to be on the front of that curve. And safe supply is very much on the front of the next curve. So awareness, I don't think, is going to be a challenge for us, because we are already proving ourselves to be some of the more thoughtful voices in this emerging space, not just the industry, but the policy, the social discussions, and beyond. And so it's going to float, and as we list on new exchanges and create access to a global market, more and more people are going to have the opportunity to participate in this evolving ecosystem. Again, one of the things that excites me about safe supply is it's not just a good investment opportunity, which it is. It's also a great opportunity to have massive impact on this world, and so I think it's going to excite a lot of people. Yeah, I'm excited to see how things are going to roll out. Obviously, day one was very explosive and exciting. I had investors calling me from everywhere saying, oh my goodness, look how it's doing. How high is it going to go? So it was very exciting to see, and it's been a while since we've seen an IPO come out like that. So that's a very good sign, in my opinion, for what's to come.  We've talked about it, one being the cannabis sector and the second being psychedelics. These companies in these emerging sectors wasted a lot of money without actual returns on capital and the legal framework around the industries took a long time to create an environment for success. Knowing this, what steps are safe supply taking to make sure that you don't burn through money chasing ventures that don't create returns? And second, how are you navigating through the legal framework to make sure that you go into a venture that is going to be held back by regulation limitations? I'll take a jump on that one. Listen, we've certainly learned from the experience of cannabis. I was involved in the cannabis industry and the psychedelics industry. And two important lessons was if you were early, like we are, and you invested early like many people did, you can make potentially fantastic returns. Yes, on the backside of that, it's come down and many of those stocks are down. Not just cannabis and psychedelics, all biotech stocks, many of them are off 80 or 90%. So let's not limit that story to cannabis. Yes, there's a lot of money for cannabis and psychedelics. Yes, there's a lot of money spent, but there was plenty of opportunity to make substantial, substantial 10x, 20x, 30x returns for people who are, you know, invest in the space, believe the thesis, but also make smart investment decisions. We've also bring those lessons here, which is we've got to be prudent with capital. This is not, you know, 2015, 2016, 2017, where interest rates were virtually zero. This is a challenging market where sophistication and discipline is going to be rewarded. And so we're certainly bringing that lesson into the equation right now. And it's a core focus for us. In terms of more shorter term opportunities, you know, some of the things we're looking at are companies that can hit the ground running, you know, when we look at opportunities and fentanyl test strips and technologies to ensure safety of the drug supply. That's a real need right now. No, no legislative change, nothing happening. We're looking at first movers who are going to dominate that space. And so it's going to create short term revenues. Again, we're bringing the discipline that we've taken from those lessons and we're going to be actively involved in ensuring that our investee companies bring those lessons while there's discipline. But some of them are longer term opportunities. There's no doubt about that in terms of what we're looking at. Some of them are very short term opportunities where first movers will get an incredible advantage in what's certainly going to be a large market. You know, the way that that I tend to look at it. And this is no shot on cannabis or psychedelics. I think a lot of those companies were born out of a nice to have. It was nice to have cannabis and dispensaries. It was nice to have the ability to potentially experience psychedelics. Yes, there's opportunities that we saw with the maps data to actually treat some really serious problems. When you look at things like safe supply, it's not a nice to have. It's a need to have, right? There's more people dying now than did from COVID and it's primarily caused from a tainted drug supply. You know, we cannot just put our heads in the ground and say that this problem doesn't exist. I think we've done that for about 40 to 50 years. And now when all of this starts bubbling up to the surface, I mean, there's only so much stuff you can sweep under the rug before the rug can't take it anymore. And I think that's exactly where we are right now. So as this stuff starts to bubble up to the surface and we start to see all of these news articles coming out, you know, how many people are dying per day in the US, in Canada, in Europe, all from tainted drug supply. It starts to change your point of reference. Away from something that is, again, let's call it a more punitive approach to something that's more compassionate. We need to help solve this problem, not put people away for it. And that's, I think, the real underlying catalyst for why this industry is kicking off, why we've come out the gate, ideally as the first one, and why we think there's going to be a whole host of others that come right behind us. Because, again, unlike any of those other industries, this isn't, you know, I hope it works, or gee, that sounds like something kind of interesting. No, we need this. Governments are calling for it. They need it. I just saw an RFP from the government of Canada that's looking for a call to private enterprise to actually help them supply and provide products to help tackle these problems. Like that's the point where we're at now. Governments are looking to private industry for help. That's what we've been saying from the beginning. It's just going to add, yeah, it's just going to add like, I just saw a letter, you know, signed by about, it looks like about 40 Congress people in the US demanding that the Biden administration take action on dealing with the fentanyl and opioid crisis. You know, it's just, it's just happening, and it's not just happening at a grassroots level. It's not just happening at a business level. It is happening at those levels. It's happening at the highest levels of office as well. And we're right there at the forefront of it. Well, we're happy that Safe Supply Streaming Corp is bringing these services to the public, which is obviously something that's much needed. It's something that has touched myself. I have a lot of friends that have dealt with these issues in the past and have had really tragic endings to their lives. So I think you guys are doing great work. Thank you for joining us today. Setti Cascarella, VP of Corporate Development and board member Ronan Levy. I must remind you guys that anyone that's watching the Rich TV Live is strictly for information and education purposes. Please do your due diligence and do your research whenever you're looking into investing into these types of companies that are early stage companies. I do want to bring your attention to the symbol in Canada on the Canadian Securities Exchange. It's SPLY. And like Setti and Ronan spoke on, they are looking to get listed in America and Frankfurt, Germany. So I know there's a lot of American and German investors and investors all over the world that would like to get into this security. So those symbols when they do get listed in America and in Frankfurt, we will make sure we let you know about that right away. Other than that, gentlemen, is there anything else you'd like to talk about before we say goodbye?  I really do believe that over the next coming months, we're going to have some fundamental investments that will, at least in our view, create some serious underlying value for our shareholders. So, you know, for us, it's really just a function of getting to work, getting these things across the line, no different than how we got, you know, safe supply public. At times, just a lot of work and heavy lifting of getting things across the line. That's the stuff that we do. So, you know, we're in the final stages of negotiation on a couple and, you know, and probably the medium stages of a few others. So I think by the end of the year, we'll have, you know, some meaningful investments made and we'll be here to share all the details as soon as they cross the line. We're very excited to hear everything as it happens. Thank you guys for watching. If you're not winning, you're probably not watching. We bring you the winners, CEO interviews, breaking news, trending topics, and we bring it to you first. Sethi and Ronan, thank you for joining us today. Thanks, Rich. Thank you. Always a pleasure. Look forward to seeing you guys again soon. And for those of you guys that are watching at home, have a great day. We'll see you guys soon.