Resources

• AIIB – Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
• Tropical Forest Forever Facility – New multilateral facility proposed at COP30
• AIIB Approves USD1 Billion Climate-Focused Policy-Based Loan to Support Brazil’s Ecological Transformation Plan
• Eco Invest Platform – Brazil’s climate and nature blended finance model
• Additional NGOs and Think Tanks mentioned:
  • World Resources Institute
  • World Wildlife Fund
  • BirdLife International
  • European Climate Foundation

Host and Guest

Host: Mike Toffel, Professor, Harvard Business School (LinkedIn)

Co-Host: Vikram Gandhi, Senior Lecturer, Harvard Business School (LinkedIn)

Guest: Erik Berglöf, Chief Economist, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) (LinkedIn)

Transcript

Editor's Note: The following was prepared by a machine algorithm, and may not perfectly reflect the audio file of the interview.

Mike Toffel:

Erik, thank you for joining us here on Climate Rising.

Erik Berglof:

Thank you for having me.

Mike Toffel:

So let's begin with a brief introduction of yourself and your role as chief economist, and a little bit about how you got there.

Erik Berglof:

I am the chief economist, the first chief economist at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I landed here in the middle of COVID in 2020. I'm a recovering academic; I've been in and out of academia, and also had a previous stint at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.

Mike Toffel:

And what led you to take the position at the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank?

Erik Berglof:

I had always had an interest in China. I also had an interest in these multilateral development banks; I think they are really unique animals, if you want, and the opportunity to be there at the beginning of a development bank's existence. When I came to the EBRD, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, it was about 15 years old, and I remember talking to many of my colleagues who had been there from the beginning and it sounded very exciting. So all that came together. Of course, overcoming the hurdle of COVID was another story. But it has really delivered what I hoped when I decided to come here.

Mike Toffel:

Great. Tell us a little bit about development banks, what are they? Are they quasi-government, quasi-private, or fully government? And what role do they play that's different from a typical commercial bank?

Erik Berglof:

We have 110 members from all around the world, so these are countries that are shareholders. They come together on a constitution that describes what the bank does, and they have to agree; most decisions are made by consensus. We have an interesting ownership structure, with about 25% China, 35% Europe, and 50% the rest of the world. For me, the most interesting part of this is the rest of the world, because you get a very different sense of the global conversation in our board than, for example, the one I remembered from EBRD.

Mike Toffel:

And your particular focus is on infrastructure, is that a common focus of all of these types of banks?

Erik Berglof:

I think most of them have infrastructure as part of what they're doing, but our focus is indeed on infrastructure. We have a broad definition of infrastructure in the sense that we also include social infrastructure. That's something that has come in a bit later, during COVID, that we realized that we had not done anything on health before COVID, and suddenly in COVID, we ended up doing almost everything related to COVID. So we were looking at health as a way to think more broadly about infrastructure. And now we have done this thinking around nature as infrastructure, which is something we can come back to later, which is looking at nature as the most important infrastructure that we have for sustaining life on Earth, and all economic activity ultimately, depends on nature.

Mike Toffel:

Yeah. That's a great segue to what I was just about to ask you about, our podcast focuses on business and climate change, infrastructure will be affected by climate change and has impacts in climate change, but what's the interest of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank on climate change?

Erik Berglof:

It's our number one corporate strategy objective. And when we talk about corporate strategy, about the same time as I arrived at the AIIB, we had four targets, and the number one target was to have 50% climate finance by 2025, this year. And last year, we had 67%, so we are overachieving this target. We also have ambitions to be 50% private, or non-sovereign as we call it, by 2030. So it's a realization that we cannot do this just with public funding; this has to happen with private finance. We have this advantage that we have this under one roof, so we can deal with both private companies and governments under the same institution.

Vikram Gandhi:

Erik, could you elaborate, when AIIB makes an investment or a loan, what are the metrics in the context of climate? What are the metrics you use, both financial and impact, or what impact it might be have, and how does that decision-making process work in a multilateral development bank?

Erik Berglof:

Yeah. This is, as I said, a methodology agreed among the MDBs. So we are looking at the effect on the carbon footprint, how this helps promote the deliverables that countries have, particularly under the Paris Agreement. We look at every single project for Paris alignment, so we say that if something is directly opposed or going in the wrong direction for the Paris Agreement, we cannot invest in it, and that's a deliberate process that we have. And you can think about, is this about promoting financial instruments that help raise climate finance, or is it directly going into electricity, transport, or water. In all those areas that we work in, we look at the climate impact as a key performance indicator.

Vikram Gandhi:

And how about the financial side of it? Is this concessional capital, no-cost capital to bring in private capital, or a combination of everything?

Erik Berglof:

Yeah. So maybe we should just explain how multilateral development banks work, because it is, as you said before, a unique model. We have some equity capital at the core. We use that equity capital to go out to the markets to raise funds. And the cost at which we raise these funds has to do with the risk levels we have, what kind of shareholders we have and so on. Then we use that capital and we on-lend it to countries; and the cheaper we can raise the capital from the outside, the cheaper we can on-lend to other countries. And we survive on that difference between what we can raise in the market and what we can on-lend. Here, it matters what the institution does. So if we are lending a lot to climate, as we are, that helps us getting lower interest rates when we seek capital from the market.

Vikram Gandhi:

Yeah. And do you use innovative structures, like blended finance structures or guarantees? Are there certain mechanisms that you're more inclined towards than others?

Erik Berglof:

No, some of these things are new to us because we are a new bank; I should have said that, it's 10 years old, and we have slowly been building up. We started with significant co-financing, and we're still the largest co-financier of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. Co-financing is a very useful device, because it forces us to agree on methodologies and recognize each other's standards and so on. That's how we work.

When it comes to climate, we have different instruments. We have project finance. We also have what you call results-based finance, where you lend money to governments and pay out when they have achieved certain objectives. And since last year, we also have something called climate policy-based financing, which is when you look at what the government has done over a year, and we can identify things there that are consistent with good climate policy; we call that the policy matrix. You have five or six components that you look at and then say, " This is a good climate policy." We will help this government implement those commitments that they have made. We can come back to it; we have just launched our first standalone facility with Brazil just before COP30, and that had different components of the policy matrix; we commit to help deliver them.

Mike Toffel:

Great. Let's dive into the Brazil story. Before we get into your work with them, you just returned from COP, which was in Brazil.

Mike Toffel:

Can you tell us some of the highlights, some of the things that went well, some of the disappointments from your perspective?

Erik Berglof:

Yeah. No, first of all, much of the news media coverage has focused on the kind of logistics issues around the lack of air conditioning, the noise levels in the facilities, and so on, and to some extent the lack of preparedness. But what stands out once you came out of it was that this firm commitment from very large parts of the world. The US wasn't there. The US federal government didn't have representation at all. But even from local, US states and cities, they were important representatives. So it was a very massive international effort. It was supposed to be an implementation COP and an adaptation COP, so focusing on adaptation. We got some plans and some commitments to triple funding for adaptation. Also, the overall resource envelope increased. We still don't have firm commitments on these things.

But what stands out for me is the connection that it made between climate and nature. For the future, climate and nature will be part of COPs. And that really is a contribution of Belem. The focus on the social dimension, and Belem, was one of the intentions of the Brazilian government to use Belem because it is socially complex and has issues that many emerging and developing economies are facing; we need to integrated and the new just transition mechanisms that have been discussed in previous COPs, but it was brought together by the Brazilians.

And the Brazilian government’s most important achievement was the launch of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility.This idea of creating a fund at the international level, to be managed by the World Bank to support the protection and restoration of tropical rainforests was important. The contribution to global moisture flows from these places is essential. And the thinking behind the Tropical Forest Forever Facility--thinking in landscapes, thinking about nature as infrastructure--is important. And that facility and their commitments now, in the order of nine billion, to that facility is an important achievement of the Brazilian COP30 presidency.

Mike Toffel:

Great. You'd mentioned the complexity of Belem, and that's why Brazil decided to have it there. Can you unpack that? Some folks have been reading about it and understand that Belem is at the mouth of the Amazon. There's the interface of indigenous and non-indigenous populations. It's a smaller city, doesn't have the same hotel infrastructure as some larger cities. Are those the aspects you're referring to?

Erik Berglof:

Yeah, no, that's it. And it's in your face when you are there. The city has this very... It's a former colonial city, so you have some of that architecture. You also have new beautiful renovations. But overall, it's a rundown city. The visibility, particularly around the COP, of these indigenous people who feel like their livelihoods are at risk because of what's happening to the Amazon. They're affected by mining, pollution of the water, all those things. I also had the opportunity to travel up the Amazon and see the precariousness of these cities and communities that live between the river and the dense rainforest where you can't live or it's difficult to live in those rainforests. So they're living at the edge of this. Anything that happens to the Amazon River is life determining for them or existential for them, but also more generally what's happening to the rainforest.

They showed how some droughts are affecting, for example, the Acai trees that are important for the revenues or income of these communities; these trees are drying out and berries that are so powerful and so rich in nutrients and proteins and so on, they are dying on a scale that we haven't fully appreciated yet. So all those things were powerful and you couldn't hide it even if you wanted to if you put the COP30 in Belem. And the Brazilian government wanted people to understand the complexities of the issues that they are facing because these are the issues that are going to be central to implement policies against climate change and nature loss. So they succeeded certainly in that respect.

Mike Toffel:

Yeah. Sounds like a influential, powerful experience for the folks who were able to attend.

Erik Berglof:

Absolutely. That's what stands out for me. As I said, there were these hardships, but with time, you forget about these things. And what stands alive in front of you are the images of these communities.

Mike Toffel:

Yeah. Brazil is an interesting place. It has many strong climate attributes; 80% of its electricity is renewable, mostly hydro, a bit of solar, strong biofuel sector, ethanol and biodiesel, lots of vehicles use that as a fuel instead of gasoline. With that strong basis, they have aggressive targets, I've read 53% greenhouse gas reduction target by 2030 compared to 2005, which seems like an aggressive target. That's the context in which your organization enters a relationship with Brazil.

Brazil's quite a distance from the Asian part of your Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank title. Can you tell us a little bit how the collaboration between the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and Brazil arise?

Mike Toffel:

I believe they approached you, their finance ministry.

Erik Berglof:

Yes. Let’s start with why AIIB got involved with climate in the first place. AIIB was created at the same time as the Paris Agreement, and it became obvious to AIIB that this issue of climate was important to our membership. We are mostly emerging and developing economies that are the ones most exposed to climate change. That was part of why we became associated with climate policy or why we drove climate policy. Another aspect of that is that infrastructure is so critical to addressing climate change. Whatever we do today is going to lock us in for decades. So we need to get it right. That became an obligation for AIIB to act. It's against that background that Brazil approached us. They knew of our study on China's net-zero transition and were underway with a study of India's net-zero transition. So what was triggered their interest in engaging with AIIB on climate policy specifically.

Mike Toffel:

Great. And what did they ask you to do? We'll get into what the report that you've recently produced said. But what was the scope at that initial stage?

Erik Berglof:

They wanted, as we had done in the Chinese and Indian cases, to try to get a systemic view of climate policy and also outline this kind of climate architecture. What kind of institutional structure do you need to implement a modern climate policy? And I think that those were the elements. They also wanted to learn for sure about the Chinese experience and the Indian experience, which are very different and emphasizes different aspects of climate policy. So China had a strong reliance on the planning element while in India it was about the private sector with the support of a government policy, but the whole renewable sector in India has developed from the financing and implementation of the private sector. That combination was very important to them. What came out is that they had a sophisticated view of how to think about climate policy themselves. Not all the things that we found necessarily reflected what we had found in India and China.

Mike Toffel:

Got it. They wanted to leverage your experience with India and China and apply it to the Brazilian context, it sounds like.

Erik Berglof:

Yeah. But they also had a vision of their own, which is important. It was not something that... They were keen to get a check on their own thinking. That was actually true in the Chinese and Indian examples too, that you want to get an assessment, and even if that's some assessment is associated with the international community to get the handle on whether you are on the right track, or you even need it with your domestic stakeholders that some affirmation that you are on the right track. To get something that just embraces everything you do is not in your interest. You want to also have some criticism and learn from that experience. There were those combination of factors that in the end influenced Brazil to talk to us. I should also say Brazil has stepped up its engagement with AIIB. It was a founding member, but it decided last year to increase its contribution and go up to what is more reflecting Brazil's importance for the global economy. It's the 10th largest economy in the world, It has a strong relationship to Asia.That was why Brazil was interested in engaging with AIIB.

Mike Toffel:

Got it. Great. Let's pivot and talk about some of the results. One of the key results, as I understand it, is this broad climate policy and architecture. Climate, as we all know, is a complicated multifaceted area. There are transportation systems, energy systems, banking and financial systems—so many different avenues that already have legacy regulations developed in a pre-climate awareness era. Tell me a little bit about what the report recommends or finds with regard to the broad policy architecture.

Erik Berglof:

Yeah. An important strong point of Brazil's climate policy is the integration into its ecological transformation plan. Its industrial policy and economic growth strategy integrate in an interesting way, in a novel way the elements of economic growth, climate response, climate action, and action against nature loss. That in itself is an important lesson from the Brazilian experience. Then trying to, on top of that, add an architecture that brings together different government ministries and agencies, trying to link up to the subnational level. That and the creation of a platform for engaging with the private sector and international investors are strong features of the architecture that Brazil has created.

Mike Toffel:

What does this look like in practice? Are these new ministries that you're recommending be created or consolidations, or just better lines of communication and joint projects?

Erik Berglof:

What's core in the Brazilian model is the centrality of the finance ministry. The finance ministry is the organizer. It was the secretariat of this ecological transformation plan. It is the core of this interministerial coordination mechanism that they have created. They were the drivers of this during the Brazilian G20 presidency. It's very clear, and this is an important lesson for other emerging developing economies too, if you don't have the finance ministry at the center, it's going to be very difficult to implement many of these policies. To me, that's the key to it. Then, having the ability to use the levers of the finance ministry to get other ministries to cooperate and bring in various agencies that they're responsible. I should say on top of that, there was leadership from the presidential administration in the sense that they gave the big vision, and Lula himself was personally very involved in this. The COP30 and the G20 presidency before that were opportunities to the domestic audience and the international audience that Brazil was committed to addressing climate change.

Mike Toffel:

Why is it so critical for the finance ministry to be at the heart of this? Some listeners might think, "That's a strange group to put in charge of a coordinated attempt on climate."

Erik Berglof:

Yeah, no, it's all ultimately about resources. It's about the allocation of budgets across government entities. It's about follow-up and all the tools that finance ministers have. And also I would say, this is something I was impressed by, is the capacity and the quality of the finance ministry in Brazil. The minister himself is a visionary and has thought deeply about the issues around climate and how that connects to nature loss and important social issues in Brazil. This is the reason, but this goes beyond that. This is something we're realizing increasingly that yes, central banks have done a good job globally to move forward the analysis of climate risk, but if you don't have the finance ministry at the center of this, it will not work. This is, to me, one important lesson from Brazil.

Mike Toffel:

Great. We've been talking about different federal level coordination, but I know that you're also involved with subnational, the states, the provinces, even municipalities. So how does this plan handle who does what in terms of the levels of government?

Erik Berglof:

Yeah. We know this is a global issue, how you get local authorities and cities. You would think that cities would be the best place. Often there's a mayor in charge of everything. But actually what you find is that issues that we are facing at the national level, often amplified at the local level, the siloization of activities. I see when multilateral development banks work with cities, they often don't talk to each other. Patterns we see at the national level are replicated at the local level. In Brazil, it's also very complicated because there is a centralized procedure for determining which authorities have the right to take loans, for example, from a multilateral development bank. That procedure is very complex.

For example, when we were doing emergency response to the Rio Grande do Sul disaster a couple of years ago, the flooding, it turned out we couldn't work with the states that were affected. We had to work with individual development banks active in those states and there's some municipalities we could also work with. So there is a... And understandable because if you don't control in some way the spending of local authorities, that have serious fiscal implications. But when you are trying to give local authorities the mandate to address climate change, and if you don't give them resources at the same time, it's not going to happen. Again, you can see how important the finance ministry and these mechanisms for allocating international financial support or resources are absolutely essential.

Mike Toffel:

Got it. What are some specific things that the report recommends about these different levels of government? Is it at the high level about saying you should make sure your roles and responsibilities are clear, or are you suggesting that they take on particular responsibilities that they haven't had in the past?

Erik Berglof:

First thing is to have them involved, the subnational levels involved in the overall climate architecture. That is, the first thing. You have to try to find specific financial schemes. We had some discussions about creating a guarantee fund, for example, that can be used for local authorities. Again, here maybe the development banks can be part of supporting such guarantee schemes and so on. In general, working on strengthening their fiscal capacity, the local authorities, also is important part of driving climate policy.

Mike Toffel:

Got it.

Erik Berglof:

And I should say a tool that the government has used and developed I would say also very much together with the Inter American Development Bank is something called Eco Invest, which is really about investing in climate, adaptation, and nature. And what is key there is that the government puts certain money on the table, but it uses then that to leverage resources from the private sector and from international investors. AIIB has been very proud to be part of that and the climate policy-based financing that we granted earlier this year has an important element which is supporting this so-called Eco Invest scheme, which has some novel features trying to iron out some of the greatest risks in when you look at external finance, the FX risk, the foreign exchange risk, and by using subsidies to try to take away the most extreme exposures there that really encourages private finance to come in. They have been innovative in this.

Mike Toffel:

Got it. These sound like public projects, they hire private sector to do, but I'm not sure if these are public projects that provide pure positive benefits to society, or if these are co-investments where there's some return that the private sector will gain from these.

Erik Berglof:

This is an very important issue. These are ultimately public-private partnerships. You always need a public part when you invest in nature and nature as infrastructure. But what we can learn from the experience of public-private partnerships in infrastructure finance for the climate, the nature space, is that you can also use the private sector to get in both the skills, the resources, and innovation into this space. And there are specific contractual forms that we use for PPP finance for traditional infrastructure that we can translate to nature as infrastructure and to climate adaptation and mitigation.

Mike Toffel:

Got it. But are there returns that the companies will gain from these projects? For example, like private roads where fees are charged?

Erik Berglof:

It's very important. At the core of this, the Brazilians are aware of this, you need to value nature from the public side. You need tools for introducing nature into national accounts, and to encourage local authorities to have a natural capital evaluation when they look at nature investment. You also need compensation schemes both at the national level that these need to reach the local level.

These are very important potential benefits for government authorities. What the government can do is to introduce guarantees, insurance schemes and to make sure that the risks that the private sector takes on. In the long term, the Brazilian government is also aware that the value of biodiversity credits and nature-based carbon credits. These can also help improve the bankability of these investments.

Mike Toffel:

Yeah. You could take us through an example of a biodiversity credit, something that doesn't get much media coverage. What is a biodiversity credit? And who stands to gain through the creation of such an instrument?

Erik Berglof:

The biodiversity credit is a credit that tries to look at some assets that have a natural... We talk about ecosystem services. These are services that could be carbon capture, air or water purification, cross-pollination, or even recreation. What you're trying to do with biodiversity credits is to ensure that someone who's benefiting from this is also willing to contribute to this. For example, we are looking at some biodiversity credit experiments here in China—we are looking at a salmon farm that is benefiting from the pure water from a national park, and this salmon farm should be willing to pay for ensuring that this water stays clean and contributes to the health of their fish stocks. I think that's how biodiversity credits should operate. It's not the silver bullet, but it's trying to bring in additional resources and make sure that we are using nature in a way that those who benefit from this water purification or air purification that this salmon farm is benefiting from should also be part of paying for that.

Mike Toffel:

I see. Let's talk about carbon credits because everyone knows that in the carbon credit space, that Brazil's a big player in terms of the potential for sequestration or protecting old-growth forests from being felled. Is there anything new in the report that speaks to carbon markets and voluntary carbon markets in particular and how those need to be improved?

Erik Berglof:

No. The report acknowledges that carbon markets have a long way to go in Brazil, but they have taken the first steps—they have passed a law establishing a carbon market. We haven't spoken much about this, but a month ago, we gave Brazil a major one-billion climate policy-based finance loan. A very important element of this was support for implementing this law for the carbon credit emissions trading scheme. Of course, carbon credits can come from different sources: industries reducing the carbon content of their production, investments in carbon-capturing forests, or carbon-capturing oceans. Brazil is very much on that journey.

I should say though that some of these benefits that come from, for example, forests are also the humidification, which is even greater, and some people say maybe four times greater value than the carbon sequestration. So that the humidity that comes, the trees are like rivers, and that humidity that comes is so important for agriculture. But we now also know, and particularly in Brazil's case, which is actually the largest contributor to these, what we call the flying rivers, these high up in the atmosphere, very intense moisture flows that goes from Brazil. Brazil actually on its own, it accounts for 43% of all these flying rivers. And these flying rivers takes moisture to Africa, to the US, to the Antarctic, but even goes as far as to India and China. And these things are very important to value properly so that we make sure that what's been happening, as we know in Brazil for a long time, this deforestation that now has I think the new government or the rural government has been able to slow down that or even maybe turn it around. But the Amazon is a key player in this or some key contributor to these moisture flows globally. So we need to preserve that.

And this is also, what is really at the core of the Brazilian government's interest when it comes to connecting nature and climate change or climate change and nature loss. And that was, I think we spoke maybe earlier on about the COP and the COP30. And one thing that really was significant from the COP30, not everything was achieved when it came to the so called adaptation COP, the implementation COP, there were some achievements, but the really big achievement I think is that nature and climate are now very closely connected and the agenda is emerging for global efforts on these issues.

Mike Toffel:

I see. Now, the report also talks about accountability mechanisms in terms of this energy or the net-zero transition. Can you tell us a little bit about what that's all about?

Mike Toffel:

What are some performance metrics that would be used to assess progress against this report that independent assessors or evaluators might use in the coming years to understand the extent to which this report just ended up on the shelf versus actually drove some change?

Erik Berglof:

No, I think obviously there are some... The advantage we have in the climate space is that we have a very clear metric. It's at least very clear conceptually and it's very clear to set targets for greenhouse gas emissions. We are not as fortunate in the niche space because there's biodiversity, many aspects to biodiversity, there is nature in the broader sense, so the measures are not as clear. But one advantage that we have on the nature side is that because of this new data, these new monitoring technologies, satellites, remote sensing, and so on, we have much better tools for monitoring in the nature space than we used to have. And even better, I would say, than we have on the climate side, because even if we can very clearly say something about the greenhouse gas emissions and how big they are, to monitor them at individual sites, for example, is not so easy. So I think here using these metrics that we have and constantly coming back to them.

We have to look at the finance side, to what extent are resources actually allocated to climate action and nature action? Those things need to be monitored over time. And different ministries, different agencies, involving the subnational level. Where are resources getting stuck? Where is the not sufficient implementation? All those things need to be part of these kinds of regular assessments.

Mike Toffel:

So Erik, we've talked about a wide array of topics in the context of a development bank.

Mike Toffel:

For those interested in learning more about how to engage either in a developing bank type context or working with Brazil in particular, what career paths or resources do you recommend they pursue? What resources, websites,experiences, or conferences do you recommend people become familiar with to learn more?

Erik Berglof:

First of all, this is a very exciting opportunity for young people to come into these organizations. They are extremely international, we are very diverse. I think we are, by some margin, the most international workplace in Beijing, for example, with people coming from, I think, close to 80 countries and coming together. So all that, I think, is a very exciting part of working in a multilateral development bank. For people who seek additional meaning in their work, I think these institutions are exciting.

Erik Berglof:

I would also recommend some of these very sophisticated organizations that without them, we wouldn't have been where we are today. So institutions like the World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund, the European Climate Foundation. There are many of them that are really both very interesting employers I think, but also just participating in their activities. Specialized organizations like BirdLife International have had an enormous influence on international diplomacy and action. Look for these institutions, work for them, and looking for the material that they produce, both in terms of reports and in terms of podcasts and so on,

As the Brazilian case shows, you need to think in an integrated way about what is economic growth? What is industrial policy? How do we do this in a sustainable way? How do we integrate climate policy? How do we integrate action against nature loss into mainstream economic policies? So really this is also when you look at new technologies, all those things will have to be happening within these planetary boundaries that we have. So I think keeping your eyes on this is going to help you in a future career because this is going to become more and more binding as we are progressing. So I very much encourage everyone to stay in tune or stay on top of these developments because I think they may go away for short periods of time, as we see in some countries, as a focus of governments, but it will come back. It will have to happen at the national level, at the international level, and in the individual companies and so on.

Mike Toffel:

Great. And we'll provide links to those organizations in the show notes of the episode. Thank you.