Sabrina Bachrach On The Ground At COP30

Hi everyone and welcome to Climate Proofers, the show all about those on the front lines of adaptation finance, tech and policy. I'm Louis Woodle, editor of the Climate Proof Newsletter, which you can read at www.climateproof.news. We're into the second week of COP30, the UN Climate Change Summit in Belém, Brazil, in a series of stuffy negotiating rooms diplomats from all over the world are trying to hash out agreement on a host of policy issues before the conference gathers to a close. High up on the list is the GGA. That stands for Global Goal and Adaptation, a central plank of the Paris Agreement that commits nations to strengthening their resilience and reducing their vulnerability to climate shocks. Diprimats are right now debating whether to approve a batch of universal indicators for measuring progress towards this goal. It's a big deal. If they're agreed, governments, NGOs and even private sector actors will have a common language with which to talk about adaptation and a simple means to assess adaptation gaps and shortcomings. The future of international adaptation finance is also hanging in the balance. The last adaptation finance target agreed that the Glasgow Summit in 2021 is expiring, and many developing countries are lobbying for a doubling and even tripling of flows to help climate proof their populations. Which nations, however, are not keen to open up the climate finance debate again after a messy fight over this very topic last year. Now the negotiations are in a constant state of flux and lots could happen between this podcast hitting the airwaves and the conference gabbling to a close. Still, I'd bought it worth doing a mid-game assessment with an old friend of the climate proofers podcast. So today, I'm very happy to again be interviewing Sabrina Backrack, an adaptation finance and policy expert who was actually the very first climate proofers guest back in May last year. She was on the ground in Belem itself last week attending meetings, hosting events and keeping tabs on the negotiations. On Saturday, she joined me for a recording session to reflect on the conference so far, and on the overall state of the International Adaptation Policy Agenda. She was so close to the action in fact that you may even be able to hear some of the protesting that took place outside the COP 30 venue while we recorded. We'll get right into the conversation in just a moment, but first, a reminder to regular listeners that if you enjoy and value this pod, please drop us a rating on Spotify or Apple podcasts and go ahead and write us a review if you're feeling generous. Also, a reminder that climate proof is a subscriber-supported production. There are no weird programmatic ads here or long-boring commercial messages from mattress companies and software giants, and I want to keep it that way, but I can only do so with your help. So please head over to www.climateproof.news/upgrade to become a pain member and help us to bring you the best in adaptation finance, tech and policy. Okay, without any more ado, here's my conversation with Sabrina. Hi Sabrina, where are you calling from today and what do you do? Hi everyone, I'm Sabrina Bechreck, Global Policy and Finance Advisor for the Atlantic Council, but also advising the GRP and KPMG on financing adaptation. And I'm calling in from Belém in Brazil. Actually, it's, I think, pronounced Belém. You don't really pronounce the M. Yeah, I've been practicing some Portuguese. So Sabrina, what's the atmosphere like in Belém? Are attendees enthusiastic, hopeful, glum and sober? What's the mood like? And what are expectations like for this summit? And how do they compare in your experience with expectations at previous cops? Yeah, I think, first of all, the mood is not really great in the venue, I have to say, because it's really, it's really, really hot to a point where your brain stops properly functioning. Really, no AC? There is AC in thumbroom, so especially in the negotiation rooms, of course, but in the, you know, pavilion space where, for example, the resilient hub is located, there is no air conditioning. Right, that makes it obviously really hard with 33 degrees and 99 percent humidity. So that, I think, the underlying situation, and it almost feels like a life experiment of, yeah, this is the reality we live in. This is what our climate looks like now. Good point. Yeah. So I think that is, that has been getting to the mood of, of a lot of people and to the point that they have been avoiding going to certain pavilions because it's just unbearable. I think for me individually and subjectively, what was enthused, enthused me, was that the Cups at E Presidency launched a women's group for the adaptation economy that I'm part of. And I think the energy, women in adaptation bring to the table is really great. So I think that for me was a point of enthusiasm. And you might have actually reported about the rise of the adaptation economy report for more more poses. So we all gathered behind that and want to now move forward in actually making this, this happened implementing it. But also I think the mood is also varied because the indigenous people coming to the venue, they want a space in these discussions, their very livelihoods depend on this, their homes are being destroyed. So I think for me that really emotionally touched me to a point that just, yes, I'm just very sad for the situation they're in, the fact that the Brazil government reacted with a disproportionate force of military has also not been received very well from combatendants. So that's the underlying. And then they've kept, how did the military get involved? So the indigenous peoples, on Tuesday they stormed the cup building which really requires security. So there's no debate about that. But then it was yesterday when indigenous peoples of the Amazon peacefully protested and blocked the main entrance, the line had to be regarded to the exit and then enter through the exit. And then in that context a big force of military godsend and made people feel unsafe instead of feeling safe. So that, yeah, that is the general context. I think I want to highlight one thing that is important though, that this is still a space of multilateralism where people come together for LDCs and SIDS. This is a place where they are heard, where they have representation. Other than the clubs like G7, G20 and the BRICS, where they're not represented. So I think despite all the difficulties around this process and the recognition that it is not working as efficiently as it should, people still have that space on the table. And that's really important. So I would say it's mixed for me individually and subjectively working on financing adaptation. It was extremely encouraging to see what is happening in the real economy. The big names coming to the table, coming with real solutions with financial instruments, transactions that still have to be scaled and we still need assistance, transformation. But that has been extremely encouraging. So I think in my little echo chamber, this is going really well and it's really, really important that we have emerged from the why to real how and what. And that we now in a position where we can exchange and actually discuss solutions and okay, for example, identify for a blended finance mechanism and investing into micro-finance institutions, maybe transaction costs are high. How could we reduce these transaction costs and I think for me that was extremely encouraging to see and also made me hopeful that the real economy is really stepping up to this. So whilst the negotiations are happening, this is happening too and that is really, really important. And that despite the global backlash on climate, on ESG, they have been here and they have been present in these conversations. That point about COP being a place where multilateralism is really at the foreground. I think it's so important because it feels too often when we're talking about geopolitics that it is only one or two players actually matter. I think the media has a role in creating this perspective as well, where it's what I like about COP is that as you said, countries get to be heard and we get to prove that international cooperation is possible, even if it is small scale, maybe it's not doing everything we want it to do, but it proves that humans can work together across political, language, experiential divides. So I'm glad to hear that that spirit is still alive in COP. Can I ask just quickly as attention to that though, what has the reaction been to the absence of a formal US delegation? And I understand there are US politicians have been there, Gavin Newsom was there. We also have representatives from US businesses there, maybe not on the same scale as before. But can you talk to that a little bit because, you know, a number of my listeners are Americans and they've been interested to know about how the absence of the US is playing in Berlin? Yeah, good question. One thing that I didn't know is that there is still a US negotiation delegation at COP because it takes up to a year until basically the exit is ratified. I think that bears risk because, as you know, consensus has to be reached with everyone in all the nations. So the US could, if they wanted, actually block that process. So they are still here. I've been speaking with a representative of a think tank or sits in Washington, D.C. and said, you know, we have to bring these conversations to D.C. and invest into disaster preparedness, etc. And I think there is a real tension of, do we want to work with that government and how do we want to do that? US companies are still here. They know this matters. They know that the risks have become so big, the physical climate risk, the material risks that they have to adapt. And there is no, there is actually no debate about that. Okay, now I'd like to turn to what you've been up to this week at COP 30 Sabrina. What initiatives have you been apart of and what events have you been attending? It's a big question because in just one week there has been so much going on. I've been organizing a lot of events. I've been involved in a lot of discussions and there were numerous lounges. I thought that I might talk about a couple of those that stand out or where I played a more extra role in them. So one of them is the resilience mustos that were lounged. It's a partnership from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the Global Resilience Partnership and Future Earth. And that was created with leading scientists, like resilient scientists in the world, and then tested with decision makers. And I think the subtitle is really interesting. It says, "Nine things every decision maker should know about resilience." And it's not only climate resilience but resilience in general. And what I really like about these nine main points is their qualitative. And I think it's a bit like of a counterweight to the global gone adaptation or other efforts that want to quantify physical climate risks, which is really really important. But I think it's easier for, especially, organizations or companies that start getting into the space to start with these nine resilience mustos. And one of them is that resilience pays off, which definitely highlights that investments now are basically the most sensible thing to do. So that's really interesting and close to my heart. So, yeah. Shout out to the colleagues of the Global Resilience Partnership who have been doing that. So that was one. The second one was really big. It was a lot of work in the need up to it. In 2023 at the Atlantic Council and together with climate champions, we started a dialogue with governments and the private sector on financing adaptation resilience. And we started it because we thought there is no collaboration, there is no dialogue happening, no one understands what the other side is actually already doing. And we found out then, okay, there's significant innovation in banking, investment and insurance. And we wanted to just go enabling environments can be created to basically uplift that and mobilize private finance. So that has created a collaborative platform that grew up to 60 organizations and governments. And one thing that we constantly heard was we have to make national adaptation plans investable. And I think for us fostering that's collaborative. We always knew that we have to become more tangible. So it's, you know, we had six main recommendations around financing adaptation that's all fine, but we have to implement it, right? So that's why at this COP and supported by the COP study presidency under the action agenda, we announced Finney, which is another acronym in this world. And Finney stands for fostering, investable, national planning and implementation for adaptation resilience. And that was created together with the Atlantic Council Climate Resilient Centre, the NRDC, and again with the Climate Champions team and the COP study presidency supported it. And what that does is it's a collaboration that really aims to bring standards into making naps investable. So for example, every nap should have physical climate risk assessments. It should evaluate economically and financially projects and you have to cost projects. We have to develop the respective capital stack responding to the specific analysis. So it's really like, it's not new, honestly, it's had, it has been, we just condensed what is out there and really put it front and center for everyone to understand this is what we need. And other parts are also cross ministry collaboration, but also international collaboration of all the different organizations, like the GCF, like the NDC partnership, UNDP, all these bodies that are supporting countries to come together and agree, okay, we need to actually make national adaptation plans, investable. And with investable, I want to be clear that that doesn't only mean private investments. Even if you want pure grant-based or philanthropic capital, you have to do these analysis and you have to have these principles in place. So we launched this now at COP and what we want to do is we want to showcase effective private sector tools, one of which is that insurance capabilities can be translated into physical climate risk platforms for four countries because the capabilities are there. Then another one is to create financial sandboxes where deal matchmaking can happen, so pretty much in the spirit of country platforms and just to come together and deliver and innovate for a final thing adaptation. Country platforms as a term that's come up a lot, this COP and also the previous COP can you give us like the two sentence definition of what country platforms mean. What are country platforms? I think one of the points that is important to note here is country platforms are country led because countries have to be the ones identify the priorities that doesn't mean they can't happen in collaboration with others, but I think that's crucial. And then the other part of country platforms is that it creates a space where the private sector can come together with ministries and planning departments and really identify investment priorities, so I think it's not only a place where you make deals, but also a place where you prepare deals for investing into adaptation resilience. They are actually not new, they existed before for mitigation, but now we have to do the same thing for adaptation. Let's turn now to the substance of COP 30 itself as regards adaptation, right? There are a number of key objectives that countries have, all adaptation coming into this summit and negotiations, I understand they're going to start in earnest this week. Can you talk a little bit about the key adaptation themes that are going to be discussed and what the kind of outlook is for them? Happy to, and I think I also want to provide some historical context because adaptation was actually first brought into the climate negotiations by developing countries decades ago, and it was the African group of negotiators who proposed a global goal in adaptation. So I think the reason why this is crucial is because adaptation is about justice, and while mitigation sometimes left developing countries out of the equation or was more about developed countries, adaptations really about climate justice, and I think we need to recognize in the adaptation discussion in general that we constantly say that adaptation solutions are hyper-local, but the absence of them sends cascades through our economic system, through our financial system, no matter where the impact actually unfolds. Now about the negotiation about the global goal in adaptation, so in the past year there has been a proposal of 400 indicators across systems, which was ginormous. They have now boiled it down to 90. These indicators are defined to measure adaptation, and I'd like to speak about the global goal in adaptation as an equivalent of the 1.5 for mitigation. So it will not only be one variable, it will likely be 90 or less or more, but it will help us operationalize what adaptation actually means, and it will be extremely important to send a signal to investors, to policymakers in countries, the private sector in general, to what adaptation actually means, and then they can go ahead and operationalize that in their national adaptation plans, etc. The issue is, there is a contention on the issue of financing, because LDCs and SIDS are pushing for finance indicators in the global goal in adaptation, but the general context of finance for climate and development is that it's been reduced. There are really little resources, and countries are not really willing to commit a lot of that, so the European Union, for example, says we need a global goal in adaptation, even if we don't agree on the finance, but yes, for the developing countries, that's really, really crucial. So we have to divide again, like last year, between developed and developing countries. On the indicators, it's interesting you said 90 indicators there, because initially 100 indicators is the objective, but for my understanding, of the provisional 100 indicators that this expert came up with, a 10 or 11 are like implementation indicators, which are finance indicators. So is there a sense that these might be sectioned off, like there are 90 indicators focused on things like water, land, regenerative agriculture, there's general agreement on, but these finance indicators are become the sticking point. Yes, absolutely, and at the moment, I really can't say where it's moving towards. I don't want to be too pessimistic, because traditionally, the biggest decisions are made in the second week, and last minute, and if the negotiations aren't going well, ministers are being sent in to actually bring consensus to the process. They swoop in, they swoop in, like it's one team here. So I can only give a description of what's happening, but it's unclear. I think from the COP study presidency side of things, where they're not actually supposed to mix into the negotiations, but because for them, it's an adaptation cop as well. It's the implementation cop, but it's also the adaptation cop. We need an outcome on adaptation. It will not be acceptable if there is none. And there are many ways where this could happen, but one is the global gone adaptation. The other one is Article 9.1 on the new collective quantified goal on climate finance. That was now translated into the Baku-Ben-Lem roadmap to 1.3 trillion. I know it's all very confusing and a lot of terms, but LDCs and SIDS came forward with the proposition that there is a tripling of brand-based finance for developing countries for adaptation. The COP study presidency, which is actually rare, prioritized there, in communicators to all negotiators that this should be a priority. Yes, it definitely seems coming into COP that, Anatoni, CEO of COP, President Lula as well, and the COP president have all been very focused on adaptation. And they're even saying words to suggest that they are open to adaptation, finance, doubling or tripling. Absolutely. And that is obviously a theme that's going to be running through this COP. It does seem like a big lift considering that the finance negotiations last year were so fraught, and they eventually came to this compromise where you had this kind of 300 billion public finance goal and this framework to get into 1.3 trillion of all finance, including private finance. Again, you can't talk, because you're not in the negotiating rooms right now, and the main discussions happen this week, as you said. But can you talk a little bit about how the finance, the factors unfolding, what different factions are saying? Yes, I can share a little bit about that, but one of the things that was actually mentioned yesterday in a session, and I think it's really important to put that into perspective, that the global economy is $113 trillion US dollars, like its size. And we're fighting about 1 to 2% of that, and it's so hard to get consensus on it. And I think just zooming out a little bit, it's actually concerning that we don't manage to value the various systems we depend on. So I think this zooming out sometimes is also important in negotiations, because the negotiators and the technical experts, for example, they really get focused on the intricacies of an indicator, etc. That's to your question, there is also the article 21C, actually, which is a really important article in the Paris Agreement, which says that all finance flows have to be consistent with a pathway towards no greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilient development. And I think that article is revolutionary, because what it says is that climate needs to be mainstream through every financial decision that we make. And the aim for this one is to, for example, have an outcome on harmful subsidies, etc. But at the moment it's looking really, really hard to get a decision. So we've had a couple of negotiators coming to a dialogue that we organise, and the negotiators themselves are not really optimistic around that specific one, also not really optimistic on the global-gone adaptation at the moment. And yes, I think that is the general context of the negotiations, with the caveat that it might all completely change throughout the next week. Have you been privy to any of the discussions around the dedicated UN funds for adaptation? So I'm thinking about the adaptation fund itself here, the fund for loss and damage should agree. What's called the special climate funds? Yeah, the special climate fund. Any discussion about the UN funds themselves, because coming into this court, there's an understanding that the adaptation fund in particular has to be reconstituted to be able to scale finance more effectively. And also there's been discussions about linking carbon markets to adaptation financing. So I'm not sure if you've been open to those discussions, but any intelligence you've heard would be useful. Yeah, I think in general there is still a lot of frustration towards the climate funds. So we've had a dialogue with a representative from the Ministry of Finance and Bangladesh, and they were sharing that an adaptation project that they have been developing took nine years from submission to concept nodes to final approval and disbursement. And that is unacceptable. It's unacceptable, and I know they have been working hard to accelerate these processes, but we have to really get to a point where it takes maximum, yeah, until these funds are dispersed until implementation, basically, of the projects. However, there is also the recognition that the money and the funds within the GCF, the adaptation fund, are really, really because if they use correctly, they can really catalyze. So for example, with first-low-strange or junior capital. And it's interesting that you mentioned the adaptation fund, because there was an announcement from the T2TI-launched Saffa, which is a facility that collaborates with the adaptation fund to identify which ones of the projects that are within the adaptation fund have actually a commercial or a semi-commercial component, and how could we actually use these projects and attract other types of finance. So I think that's a really, really important effort that is currently happening because it will do exactly that to move from projects more towards long-term sustainability and integrating these projects and the wider ecosystem of finance. And then also on the adaptation fund, there is still this really important recognition that the adaptation fund has a track records of data on almost everything adaptation that is very unique, that will support others to learn, to really understand how they quantify adaptation resonance impact. So I also want to emphasise that, because it's rare, and if you have been able to do that in the way the adaptation fund has been doing it, however, the replenishment of these funds is not looking very well either. Yes, there haven't been as many marquee announcements by countries on pledged finance, although there was an interesting one, Germany and Spain, put 100 million euros into this ARISE, a rise initiative, right? So maybe can you talk to those, what are you seeing in terms of individual countries making pledges? I have only been following that on the sidelines, I guess, the Germany and Spain commitment is one, but then I think there was also an announcement from the Government of Canada of 392 million Canadian dollars to invest into climate projects where the focus on agriculture and mobilising finance for adaptation. So this is something that was committed, but apart from that I haven't heard a lot, I know that the Gates Foundation has made a new commitment of 1.4 billion investments for especially farmers in sub-Sahara African South Asia, so yeah, that's the stats. One thing that actually speaking about stats I found quite interesting is that the philanthropic world has actually doubled their investments into adaptation from a 2021 level and reached 870 million in 2024. So we did have a provocative discussion if philanthropies are ready to, you know, catalyze climate resilience economies, but I think there has been significant movement as well, also to the marriage of the Climate Works Foundation that brought together groundswell of philanthropies. So I think my underlying message for your question is there has been movement and commitments from donors, from philanthropism, and I really hope we're going to see more next week because it's still not enough. Yes, there have been concerted efforts by philanthropies to step up into the gap left by the retreat of official development aid by countries. Of course they are limited to a degree and the bureaucracy around moving philanthropic funds can all of us be as difficult as it is for official UN funds, but I do think it's interesting the role of philanthropism I have to change from being seen as those providing catalytic and early stage capital to actually taking on more the heavy stuff, you know, that used to be done by MDB's and by governments and by the private sector. So it'd be just to see if that evolution of philanthropic financing continues. Okay, now to finish off, I'd like to ask about private sector involvement of this COP. How has it differed from previous years? Are we seeing lots of private companies getting involved and particularly on the adaptation side? Who have you been seeing around the pavilions? I would say absolutely yes, so the private sector engagement on adaptation and financing adaptation at this COP has been unique and really encouraging. I would say that almost all the big names actually showed up, so we had Bayer, Danoni for example, we had Ben case systems, AXA, A on howdons are agreed, so really heavy representation of insurance, Marshmick Lenin, and they even organised, I think it was a collaboration between several insurance companies that had the house of insurance for the first time at a COP to really dedicate all discussions around insurance and climate, then the big consulting companies were there of course, the insurance development forum with its members, the AXA investor group on climate change, the institutional investors group on climate change. And they want to give a specific shout out to B&P Patriba, who has been really involved in a lot of session of ours, and they are delivering real adaptation transactions in several countries, so that has been really encouraging for me to see. And what's also interesting is that they have been using the CBI taxonomy and whereas some of the investors are still complaining that it might be too complex, there was a big shout out from B&P to the Climate Bonds Initiative for setting it up, and I think that is the reason why I've been delighted to hear that is if B&P Patriba picks up the CBI taxonomy, I'm really optimistic that others will do that too, that's one, the other thing is the conversation is not circled around the small C is our project, some have or the theoretical thing of we are doing this and that, but really concretely describing this is what is happening in our supply chains, and this is how we address it, like with micro insurance for farmers, for example, Danoni supply chains, or for example, from Bentley systems, it was not producing cars, but providing a real physical climate risk inside and solutions, they said that the fact that companies understand the risks creates the business case oftentimes, because companies have a true blind spot in many areas and how, yeah, how physical climate risk can actually stop an entire production side and then the specific piece that goes into a car is missing and it creates damages in the billions, so I was really encouraged about the level of conversation that we're seeing from the private sector. Yes, it's interesting, there's always been this conversation about what was the demand for adaptation, couldn't services, where's that going to come from, right? And actually, I think the supply of data, the supply of physical risk data and insights is actually what's going to correct the demand for a lot of these companies, which is why there's been so much focus on data aggregation, making data clear and very tangibly linked to individual companies, supply chains, assets, et cetera. And I've been arguing both sides of this in the past, I suppose, I don't know why we're focusing so much on data. There's too much about this, but actually that data, that supply of information and understanding of how physical risks are disrupting businesses is going to create the demand for adaptation and concern. I'm coming round more to it now. After speaking a lot with these corporates, they can't justify anything in the boardrooms without any quantification. Even though the quantitative argument might be so compelling, they need quantifiable data, they need to be able to say, if this and that hazard strikes a production side that's going to create losses in the height of this and that in the next year or ten years. So these quantifications are absolutely crucial to drive decision making. And that's why the resilience must come into blame then. They create this qualitative angle that can be complementary to the quantitative aspect. But I think we need to really press on quantification and really connecting companies with these technology and data providers that don't only provide the data but can actually also provide consulting and say, okay, this is what we see in the data. And this is how we recommend you to change. And I think that is the decisive difference between just looking into the physical climate risks and errors but also being able to say, these are the adaptation solutions that can actually help and few are able to do that. Yeah, so decision useful insights, not just data for data sake but information that actually can be used, translated in a language that is understandable by folks in the boardroom. Yeah. Information that they get you used to make important changes to make themselves more resilient. Okay, Sabrina, to finish off, can you tell us a little bit about what we're doing? Where you're heading off to next from better and then also what you're hoping in a week or two, what's going to actually come out of this cup, what are you hoping to see achieved? What I hope to see achieved is that there is a strong outcome on the global goal adaptation and that there is an outcome. It's absolutely critical. I also hope that there is an outcome on article 21C. Well, basically, I hope that there are outcomes for adaptation finance also under the NTQG, the new collective quantified goal on time of finance. I think it's critical. We need that. The world needs it. The private sector is waiting for signals, so that's what I'm hoping for. And where I'm heading next is actually the heart of the Amazon. I'm going to Manaus. Very few people actually know that about me, but my career started off working in a free forest station in Costa Rica and Borneo, and I really got to learn about the tropical forests. So it's almost a bit like coming home, going into the tropical forests of the Amazon. And I think also important for me to go now after the cop and after we spoke in non-air conditioned rooms about the importance of nature and actually being in nature. Yes, you're going to get down and dirty in the Amazon, really get to grips of nature again. It's wonderful that you're taking that time to do so, and hopefully you'll come out. All that experience with some fresh insights as well that you can share and to help fuel your work in adaptation resilience. So safe travels to Britain have a great time and we'll connect after this. For now, thank you so much. I have a safe journey. Thank you so much, Louis, for having me. Climate Proofers is a climate proof media production. It is produced and presented by me, Louis Woodle, subscribe to the climate proof newsletter by going to climateproof.news/subscribe and to learn more about the publication, feel free to reach out directly using our LinkedIn page. Goodbye for now.