WEBVTT 00:00:38.000 --> 00:00:45.000 Um, we will be covering the insurance methodologies. So we launched a new Part A, and also a new Part C. 00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:49.000 Um, which now covers project insurance and treaty reinsurance. 00:00:49.000 --> 00:00:57.000 Um, so we'll start first with project insurance. have some time for questions after, and then do the same for treaty reinsurance. 00:00:57.000 --> 00:01:02.000 So, it will be around 30, 35 minutes presentation, and hopefully we have 10 minutes. 00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:13.000 Um, after each presentation for a Q&A. Um, so, a lot to cover, I don't want to take too much time, but I want to introduce our speakers today. 00:01:13.000 --> 00:01:23.000 Um, in the next slide. Um, so, my name is Madeleine Martiz, and I am part of the PCAF Secretariat, working with the standard development team. 00:01:23.000 --> 00:01:30.000 coordinating, um, all of our working groups with the core team, and the development of the methodologies. 00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:34.000 Um, and I am joined by the two co-chairs that. 00:01:34.000 --> 00:01:37.000 helped a lot in developing this new Part C. 00:01:37.000 --> 00:01:44.000 So we have Hannes Peakman from Allianz, who worked with the Project insurance methodology. She will walk you through it. 00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:47.000 Um, and we have Daniel Steib from Swiss 3. 00:01:47.000 --> 00:01:52.000 who did, um… who led the working group for treaty reinsurance. 00:01:52.000 --> 00:01:58.000 Um, and with that, I want to hand it over to Hannah and kick it off. 00:01:58.000 --> 00:02:08.000 Great, thank you, and thank you for the, um, introduction. Um, just to give a bit of background to me, as mentioned, um, I work at Allianz. 00:02:08.000 --> 00:02:15.000 Um, and had the project insurance group looking at the, um, new methodologies. 00:02:15.000 --> 00:02:24.000 Um, I was previously working in Munich when we were writing these methodologies within, um, the sustainability team. 00:02:24.000 --> 00:02:33.000 There, um, however, I've since relocated, um, back to the UK, um, as you can probably tell from my accent, I am, um, from the UK. 00:02:33.000 --> 00:02:48.000 Um, so appreciate I am also a native speaker, so if I'm going too quickly or say something you don't quite understand, feel free to call me out in the chat, um, or the Q&A section, and, um, I'm happy to kind of recover whatever. 00:02:48.000 --> 00:03:02.000 Um, we go over. So just, um, to reiterate, thanks for, um, joining, um, and I also just wanted specifically to say thank you to anyone that's been involved in developing this methodology. 00:03:02.000 --> 00:03:12.000 Um, but also anyone who helped in participating with the, um, consultations that we've had, um, whilst developing the methodology as well. Um, they were really useful in terms of getting feedback. 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:26.000 Um, and an understanding. Um, of everyone's thoughts, um, so thank you very much if you did provide some feedback during that process, and hopefully we've encapsulated that feedback within the methodology. 00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:38.000 That was, um, developed. I did just want to say at the beginning as well, um, we had a great team working, um, on this methodology and developing it with us. 00:03:38.000 --> 00:03:53.000 Um, and so there was a broad experience across people who work in sustainability and those that work more specifically in construction and underwriting. Unfortunately, I am not someone who works in construction and underwriting. 00:03:53.000 --> 00:03:57.000 Um, so I'm not in the detail on that, so if there are any questions. 00:03:57.000 --> 00:04:04.000 Um, I might not be able to answer all of them, but I will definitely take them away and get the answers, um, where I can. 00:04:04.000 --> 00:04:08.000 But we will come on to, um, Q&A at the end. 00:04:08.000 --> 00:04:14.000 Um, so if we, before that move into the details of what was developed for project insurance. 00:04:14.000 --> 00:04:24.000 So if we move on to the next slide… Um, this is looking at project insurance in terms of the definitions. 00:04:24.000 --> 00:04:30.000 Um, from a line of business. perspective, so we considered what lines of business. 00:04:30.000 --> 00:04:35.000 could be included in the definition of project insurance. 00:04:35.000 --> 00:04:40.000 And we came up with the four lines of business that you can see on the screen there. 00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:49.000 So the first one was constructional risk. Um, so this is the physical damage to, um, any construction works. 00:04:49.000 --> 00:04:53.000 Um, and this is from the, kind of, start of the build project. 00:04:53.000 --> 00:04:58.000 Um, up until the point that project is handed over to its, um, owner. 00:04:58.000 --> 00:05:04.000 And this applies to static structures, so your buildings, roads, bridges, etc. 00:05:04.000 --> 00:05:16.000 We then had erection or risk. Um, and this is similar to construction, um, but involves, um, and implies to structures involving processes. 00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:20.000 Um, so the example given there is industrial plants. 00:05:20.000 --> 00:05:24.000 So those two were quite heavily linked together throughout, um. 00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:31.000 working on the methodology, and it was quite clear that they were kind of the… some of the key lines of business. 00:05:31.000 --> 00:05:38.000 for project insurance. Um, we then also looked at inherent defect insurance, or IDI. 00:05:38.000 --> 00:05:48.000 And this is, um, physical damage to newly built structures that are caused by defects in the design workmanship or materials that are used. 00:05:48.000 --> 00:05:56.000 And we found usually this tends to be for a period of around 10 years after the constructional risk policy ends. 00:05:56.000 --> 00:06:01.000 Um, and the new structure is handed over to the owner. 00:06:01.000 --> 00:06:09.000 We then also considered serity, and this is financial guarantees of the contractor that's securing the good completion of the. 00:06:09.000 --> 00:06:15.000 project, and this is a bit more of a unique. 00:06:15.000 --> 00:06:20.000 line of business, um, in that there's 3 parties involved. 00:06:20.000 --> 00:06:28.000 So we've just referenced those three parties there, where you've got the insurer, the beneficiary, and then the contractor, or the client. 00:06:28.000 --> 00:06:34.000 So we originally looked across all these four lines of business, trying to understand what we could include. 00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:40.000 in the project methodology, hoping to be able to include as much as possible. 00:06:40.000 --> 00:06:47.000 Um, however, we didn't end up including all of these, so I think there's just a next bit that should appear on the screen. 00:06:47.000 --> 00:06:52.000 Um, which just highlights what is and isn't included. 00:06:52.000 --> 00:06:59.000 So you can see there that we did include constructional risk, erectional risk, and IDI as well. 00:06:59.000 --> 00:07:10.000 But unfortunately, we found that it was difficult to include surety in the same way as the other lines of business, and really, given its unique situation in terms of having those. 00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:17.000 three parties involved, um, it needed its own methodology to really be able to do it justice. 00:07:17.000 --> 00:07:25.000 Um, rather than just including under project insurance. So, surety is out of scope for the purpose of this. 00:07:25.000 --> 00:07:38.000 Methodology. If we move on to the next slide… Um, this hopefully just brings that to life a bit more in terms of the different insurance policies. 00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:44.000 and lines of business that we looked at, and they are covered across the top. 00:07:44.000 --> 00:07:49.000 Of the diagram here. So you can see that there's the orange line. 00:07:49.000 --> 00:07:52.000 that looks at constructional risk and erection or risk. 00:07:52.000 --> 00:07:59.000 And that's from the point that construction begins, just past the point of practical completion. 00:07:59.000 --> 00:08:04.000 So, where that, um, newly built structure is handed over to. 00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:16.000 the new owner. There's also then the IDI referenced here, and that starts from the point of practical completion and runs for the policy period. 00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:22.000 As mentioned before, we found that usually that was around about 10 years. 00:08:22.000 --> 00:08:28.000 And you then also have referenced here that the property policy, and that will overlap with that. 00:08:28.000 --> 00:08:33.000 kind of chain of completion, and that property policy will come into force. 00:08:33.000 --> 00:08:42.000 Um, once the structure is built. Um, and be in place until the end of the project's useful life. 00:08:42.000 --> 00:08:46.000 What we then did is kind of break that down into those different stages. 00:08:46.000 --> 00:09:00.000 So, we've looked at here the production stage. And so that is before any of these policies start, and this is looking at the extraction and upstream production of anything that is going to be used on the site. 00:09:00.000 --> 00:09:10.000 the transport of various materials. to the factory, and then the manufacturing process of any of the materials that are being used in that construction. 00:09:10.000 --> 00:09:20.000 Um, as well. And with that period there. You can see, um, according to the red line, um, it's kind of known as the cradle to. 00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:25.000 gate. So, from the very, very beginning, um, up to the point that it reaches. 00:09:25.000 --> 00:09:29.000 the site. We then looked at the construction stage. 00:09:29.000 --> 00:09:37.000 And I think this is… it's quite self-explanatory, it's kind of everything that's involved in bringing that structure to life. 00:09:37.000 --> 00:09:46.000 Um, and that's looked at. from the beginning of the production stage up until the end of construction stage, um, known as cradle to site. 00:09:46.000 --> 00:09:54.000 We then looked at use stage, um, so that's everything that happens with that structure once it's actually in operation. 00:09:54.000 --> 00:10:01.000 Um, so mainly applicable to the, um, period of the IDI policy, but also. 00:10:01.000 --> 00:10:06.000 the property policy as well, and then that's referenced as cradle to operation. 00:10:06.000 --> 00:10:11.000 And finally, the end-of-life stage, so everything convolved with decommissioning or. 00:10:11.000 --> 00:10:18.000 demolishment of that structure. Um, and that would be, um, from cradle to. 00:10:18.000 --> 00:10:23.000 grave. Um, so just to give an idea of the full life cycle of. 00:10:23.000 --> 00:10:33.000 um, projects… insurance, um, and how we see the different coverages overlapping with those different stages. So hopefully that just. 00:10:33.000 --> 00:10:38.000 helps, um, bring that picture to life a bit more, and also. 00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:44.000 will aid in terms of what we're going to look at moving through the rest of the slides in terms of some of these. 00:10:44.000 --> 00:10:56.000 stages and different namings as well. So on that basis, if we move on to the next slide, we can start to look at what we've actually included. 00:10:56.000 --> 00:11:03.000 Um, within the… project methodology in terms of the emissions that we have looked to cover. 00:11:03.000 --> 00:11:10.000 So, as we've just mentioned, there was 4 different project stages that we identified. They were cradle to gate. 00:11:10.000 --> 00:11:15.000 cradle to site, cradle to operation, and cradle to grave. 00:11:15.000 --> 00:11:25.000 And across all of those. Um, the emissions that would be associated with all of those stages, uh, were… is what's known as life cycle emissions. 00:11:25.000 --> 00:11:35.000 And in terms of the wording of these, um, different stages, um, and different kind of emissions as well, we very much tried to align with wordings that have already been used in. 00:11:35.000 --> 00:11:44.000 some of the other methodologies, so hopefully just. making it clearer and linking in as much as possible with Part A and Part B. 00:11:44.000 --> 00:11:49.000 Um, so that was quite purposeful in terms of some of the language that has been used. 00:11:49.000 --> 00:11:56.000 Especially in terms of the emissions covered. Um, so that is still what we would name as the life cycle emissions. 00:11:56.000 --> 00:12:04.000 Um, but we… um, discovered quite early on, there was a lot of challenges when it came to project insurance. 00:12:04.000 --> 00:12:13.000 Generally, in terms of data challenges, um, I think that's something that came out quite heavily when we were looking into the feedback from the consultation as well. 00:12:13.000 --> 00:12:18.000 Um, and that played quite heavily into the fact that we just. 00:12:18.000 --> 00:12:22.000 didn't, um, feel that life cycle emissions could be calculated. 00:12:22.000 --> 00:12:28.000 Um, at this point in time, as mentioned, mainly due to those data challenges. 00:12:28.000 --> 00:12:41.000 Um, so we therefore started to look at. lessening those, kind of, including all those stages, um, and started to look at lifetime emissions, and this is just looking at the construction stage. 00:12:41.000 --> 00:12:53.000 And the U stage as well. And then we also narrate that for you even further, and looked at just the construction emissions, so just the emissions that came from the construction. 00:12:53.000 --> 00:12:59.000 stage. And those last two are the two that are included in the methodology. 00:12:59.000 --> 00:13:05.000 And we have included the construction emissions. Um, as being compulsory. 00:13:05.000 --> 00:13:12.000 Um, so using this methodology. needs to be calculated the, um, emissions from the construction stage. 00:13:12.000 --> 00:13:18.000 And we have also included the lifetime emissions, so the construction and the use stage. 00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:24.000 But on a voluntary basis, is there's still data challenges when it comes to a project. 00:13:24.000 --> 00:13:30.000 Um, so we didn't feel we could include lifetime as compulsory, um, at this point. 00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:36.000 That means that life cycles, so calculating the emissions from all stages. 00:13:36.000 --> 00:13:48.000 is, um, excluded from this methodology, as mentioned. reduce the data challenges, but also the fact that it doesn't align with the other methodologies, um, and what they are looking to calculate. 00:13:48.000 --> 00:13:55.000 And we have also excluded embodied emissions. Um, and this will be looked at, um. 00:13:55.000 --> 00:14:05.000 separately, as it requires a review across all of the different, um, parts of the methodologies, so it is out of scope for the purpose of project. 00:14:05.000 --> 00:14:11.000 Um, but will hopefully be looked at moving forward. 00:14:11.000 --> 00:14:25.000 So if we move on to the next slide… Um, here we've just kind of touched on, um, different formulas to calculate emissions associated with the project insurance portfolios. 00:14:25.000 --> 00:14:29.000 Um, just in terms of some of the different policy types that we found. 00:14:29.000 --> 00:14:37.000 Um, so if we first see maybe just jump to the bottom of this table, um, we've got IDI noted there. 00:14:37.000 --> 00:14:45.000 Um, and that very much links straight back into what we've already referenced around IDI insurance, so… um, cover for hidden structural defects. 00:14:45.000 --> 00:14:59.000 Um… the insurer's knowledge of the project, we found, might vary depending on the policy type, and that might then vary how we do the emissions accounting. 00:14:59.000 --> 00:15:04.000 Um, so if the project is known, if the business is project-specific. 00:15:04.000 --> 00:15:08.000 then we can get the emissions from that specific project. 00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:15.000 And if we are covering a contractor on more of an annual basis, then the proposal would be to use the annual. 00:15:15.000 --> 00:15:25.000 Um, emissions. And this kind of split between project-specific and annual, um, can therefore be seen in the two rows above. 00:15:25.000 --> 00:15:30.000 which link back to construction or risk and erection or risk policies. 00:15:30.000 --> 00:15:34.000 And we found when looking into these that there were generally. 00:15:34.000 --> 00:15:39.000 two different types of ways of writing these, um, policies. 00:15:39.000 --> 00:15:45.000 Um, and for project-specific, this is generally where there is one named construction project. 00:15:45.000 --> 00:15:50.000 We therefore have a lot of detail about that specific project. 00:15:50.000 --> 00:15:59.000 Um, and we can calculate the emissions. Um, for that specific project because of that level of detail, um, that we have. 00:15:59.000 --> 00:16:11.000 However, we did also find that there are annual policies as well. Um, so this is where we are covering all the construction activities during the policy year for that specific contractor. 00:16:11.000 --> 00:16:26.000 Which means that we may not have as much level of detail in terms of the specific project information, so we therefore looked into a different way to calculate the emissions for policies, where they are on an annual basis. 00:16:26.000 --> 00:16:31.000 Um, and this is… the missions are based on the insured's total annual emissions. 00:16:31.000 --> 00:16:42.000 Rather than specific, um, project emissions. Um, so we've categorised them differently, as you will see, um, throughout the methodology. 00:16:42.000 --> 00:16:53.000 So if we move on to the next slide… So here, you can just see that the approach for project insurance was very similar. 00:16:53.000 --> 00:17:03.000 Um, to the approach that was taken for commercial lines and also personal motor, um, so the first edition of the Part C methodology. 00:17:03.000 --> 00:17:07.000 Um, and this is based on the insurance-associated emissions being calculated. 00:17:07.000 --> 00:17:15.000 by taking an attribution factor, which is the share of the emissions to be associated with the insurer. 00:17:15.000 --> 00:17:19.000 timesing that by the emissions, and as we've just referenced. 00:17:19.000 --> 00:17:27.000 Um, this could be the emissions of the individual project, or it could be a portfolio of projects. 00:17:27.000 --> 00:17:36.000 Um, as with annual policies. If we just bring some for further detail up on the screen… oh, next. 00:17:36.000 --> 00:17:46.000 Next slide. Um… So this is going into more detail around how we actually calculate the insurance-associated emissions of. 00:17:46.000 --> 00:17:55.000 project policies. Um, so starting firstly, on the left-hand side and looking into the attribution factor. 00:17:55.000 --> 00:18:01.000 As mentioned, this is to show the share of the emissions to be associated with the insurer. 00:18:01.000 --> 00:18:05.000 And we've got two different ways of calculating here. 00:18:05.000 --> 00:18:11.000 So, for project-specific. Um, we have the premium over the total project cost. 00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:16.000 Um, as we will have the specifics of the individual project when we're ensuring. 00:18:16.000 --> 00:18:22.000 Um, through project-specific policies. However, when it comes to annual policies. 00:18:22.000 --> 00:18:30.000 Um, the attribution factor. is calculated, um, by taking the premium over the revenue. 00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:37.000 of the insured, um, for the contract year. Um, so for the period that we are on cover. 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:45.000 Um, as part of that annual policy, and we will take that, that revenue rather than the specific project costs. 00:18:45.000 --> 00:18:50.000 as referenced, we may not have that level of detail with annual policies. 00:18:50.000 --> 00:18:57.000 to be able to apply the project-specific. attribution factor. 00:18:57.000 --> 00:19:01.000 And then in terms of emissions, um, quite similar. 00:19:01.000 --> 00:19:11.000 to the other methodologies, so hopefully you've kind of seen these terms before, um, but in terms of kind of the hierarchy and preference, in terms of the emissions that we were looking at. 00:19:11.000 --> 00:19:21.000 We've got economic activity-based emissions at the bottom. Um, then the physical activity-based emissions, and then finally, um, and kind of a best-case scenario. 00:19:21.000 --> 00:19:29.000 Um, the reported emissions. for that project, um, or contractor. 00:19:29.000 --> 00:19:33.000 So if they move on to the next slide. 00:19:33.000 --> 00:19:45.000 Um, so this just looks into further. how the emissions are calculated, um, depending on the contract type, but also the project life cycle stage. 00:19:45.000 --> 00:19:52.000 Um, so on the… left-hand side there, you have the view around project policies. 00:19:52.000 --> 00:19:59.000 Um, so this… can be for constructional risk, erectional risk, or IDI. 00:19:59.000 --> 00:20:07.000 And this is basically looking at the insurance-associated emissions by taking that attribution factor we've referenced, the premium over the project. 00:20:07.000 --> 00:20:13.000 Um, and then, um, calculating the emissions. And time zone, sorry, the emissions. 00:20:13.000 --> 00:20:22.000 which are based on the specific project, um, as well. And that is for our construction stage emissions. 00:20:22.000 --> 00:20:30.000 But as we mentioned earlier, we also were looking at including new stage emissions on a voluntary basis, and that calculation for that can be seen. 00:20:30.000 --> 00:20:39.000 Um, on that bottom row. So this is the attribution factor, um, so the premium over the total. 00:20:39.000 --> 00:20:47.000 um, Valley… Oh, and then, um, that is timed by the, um, emissions. 00:20:47.000 --> 00:20:53.000 Um, from the use stage of that construction project. 00:20:53.000 --> 00:20:57.000 And then, on the right-hand side there, we've got the view when it comes. 00:20:57.000 --> 00:21:03.000 to annual policies. Um, and this is, again. 00:21:03.000 --> 00:21:12.000 Looking at the premium, um… Over the revenue for the insured year, um, given that we don't have the project specifics. 00:21:12.000 --> 00:21:20.000 Um, and then that uses the emissions similarly from, um, the insured year as well, rather than from the specific. 00:21:20.000 --> 00:21:31.000 Um, project. And we don't have… for you stage emission calculation for our annual policies, um, as it just wouldn't be feasible. 00:21:31.000 --> 00:21:39.000 Um, to cover and calculate those use stage emissions when it comes to those annual, um, covers, because we're not. 00:21:39.000 --> 00:21:49.000 Looking at, um, the specific project, um, as we are with the project policies on the left-hand side. 00:21:49.000 --> 00:21:57.000 Hopefully that gives a bit of an insight into the, um, calculation. And then here we've just got an overview of what some of those, um. 00:21:57.000 --> 00:22:04.000 individual terms mean, just to bring the definitions. Um, to lights, we've referenced premium. 00:22:04.000 --> 00:22:14.000 Um, which, um, is the gross written premium. for the contract, um… for the insurer for its shaft. 00:22:14.000 --> 00:22:20.000 We've then also got the total project cost. Um, so this is the total insured value of the project. 00:22:20.000 --> 00:22:26.000 Um, then the revenue. And this is the revenue of the insured contractor. 00:22:26.000 --> 00:22:31.000 Um, or the construction expense of the insured principal for the year of the contract. 00:22:31.000 --> 00:22:42.000 say, linking back to those, um, annual policies. And then the emissions of the insured client for the year of the contract, again, for the specific annual policies. 00:22:42.000 --> 00:22:48.000 Um, the emissions for the project, um, the individual project or a portfolio of projects. 00:22:48.000 --> 00:22:54.000 over their construction stage, so up until the point, um, that those. 00:22:54.000 --> 00:22:57.000 Um, new structures are handed over to the owner. 00:22:57.000 --> 00:23:04.000 Um, and then the emissions of the interview project or project portfolio as well, for its use stage. 00:23:04.000 --> 00:23:13.000 Um, and so… This is, um, at the point that those projects have been, um, handed over to the new owner. 00:23:13.000 --> 00:23:19.000 Um, and they're kind of now in there. kind of lifetime, um, of use. 00:23:19.000 --> 00:23:23.000 Um, and noted here as well that for multi-year contracts. 00:23:23.000 --> 00:23:32.000 Um, that require an annualization of the premium value, um, construction and new stage emissions shall be annualised over the same contract period. 00:23:32.000 --> 00:23:37.000 Um, as the premium, um, to ensure that they are, um, both. 00:23:37.000 --> 00:23:43.000 correlating to the same period. 00:23:43.000 --> 00:23:47.000 So if we move on to the next slide. 00:23:47.000 --> 00:23:56.000 Um, this just gives, um, a bit of an idea around the aggregation of input on portfolio level. 00:23:56.000 --> 00:24:03.000 Um, so it's noted that in many cases, um, a single policy might cover multiple individual. 00:24:03.000 --> 00:24:10.000 projects, um, and so we looked into the aggregation of the inputs of these. 00:24:10.000 --> 00:24:17.000 on a portfolio level, um, to understand how they could be calculated and reported. 00:24:17.000 --> 00:24:26.000 Um, so here we've just got an example with two different projects, so Project A and Project B, and we've got the construction emissions. 00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:32.000 the total value of the project. Um, and the premium of the. 00:24:32.000 --> 00:24:41.000 project as well, which means we can then calculate the insurance-associated emissions, which is in the right-hand column. 00:24:41.000 --> 00:24:47.000 say, for project A, that has been calculated by taking the premium of the project. 00:24:47.000 --> 00:24:55.000 um, dividing by the total value of the project, and then timesing by the construction emissions of that project. 00:24:55.000 --> 00:25:03.000 similarly for Project B as well. And so the emissions for Project A is shown as 20, and for project B. 00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:14.000 as 16. And if you break that calculation down, you therefore get a total of 36, so the 20 plus the 16. 00:25:14.000 --> 00:25:20.000 However, if you had, um, added together the construction emissions across both. 00:25:20.000 --> 00:25:24.000 the value of the projects across both. And the premium of the project across both. 00:25:24.000 --> 00:25:28.000 And what here is noted is the aggregated method. 00:25:28.000 --> 00:25:40.000 you'll see that the emissions here. have been inflated, um, to 60, as the calculation ends up being the 100 over 200, so the premium over the value of the project. 00:25:40.000 --> 00:25:54.000 Times by the construction emissions. Um, so if you just bring up the… text box on screen should hopefully follow this table. Um… As this shows, that you can use. 00:25:54.000 --> 00:26:05.000 The aggregated method to, um… calculate the emissions, but it shows a much higher estimated insurance-associated emissions. 00:26:05.000 --> 00:26:10.000 So, as such, we have stated in the methodology, um, that we shouldn't use. 00:26:10.000 --> 00:26:19.000 Um, the aggregated. method, and we… use the breakdown method, um, instead. 00:26:19.000 --> 00:26:26.000 We found that typically insurers know at least the premium and the project cost, so we can calculate that on a project basis, rather than needing. 00:26:26.000 --> 00:26:44.000 to calculate on a portfolio. basis, um… And so then this just gives us as much, um… more detailed view of the emissions, um, with the breakdown method, rather than the inflated view, um, by using the aggregated method. 00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:51.000 So, just to highlight here that, again, we will be using the breakdown method as per the methodology, um, and not. 00:26:51.000 --> 00:27:01.000 the aggregated method. Um, but hopefully that just brings to life why, um, that decision was made. 00:27:01.000 --> 00:27:08.000 And then if we move on to… The next slide, um, and so this just looks at. 00:27:08.000 --> 00:27:16.000 Um, the aggregation method, um, from the perspective that insurers are likely to write more than one line of business. 00:27:16.000 --> 00:27:20.000 Um, or potentially participate on 7 different layers of insurance program. 00:27:20.000 --> 00:27:26.000 Um, so the premiums from each of the contracts, um, in which the insurer is involved. 00:27:26.000 --> 00:27:34.000 can be, um, aggregated. So, on the left there, you've got customers with multiple project-specific policies. 00:27:34.000 --> 00:27:36.000 Um, and here the premiums can be added together. 00:27:36.000 --> 00:27:49.000 Um, over the total value of that project. Um, and then similarly on the right-hand side, whether it's multiple annual policies, again, the premiums can be added together. 00:27:49.000 --> 00:27:54.000 Um, and divided by the total revenue of that, um, customer. 00:27:54.000 --> 00:28:00.000 To, um, be able to calculate. the attribution factor. 00:28:00.000 --> 00:28:04.000 Um, and so you can see, um, an example of that at the bottom there in the table. 00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:14.000 Um, where we have the premiums. for the constructional risk policy, as well as the IDI policy, so those premiums have been totaled. 00:28:14.000 --> 00:28:23.000 Um, we then have the value of. Um, the… the revenue for the annual policy, or the total value for the project-specific policy. 00:28:23.000 --> 00:28:29.000 Um, and then the, um, associated emissions, um, for those as well. 00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:35.000 So that is possible in terms of the aggregation approach, specifically when it comes to. 00:28:35.000 --> 00:28:42.000 the premiums, um, and insurers having more than one line of business. 00:28:42.000 --> 00:28:52.000 And then if we move on to… The next slide. Um, and so, um, from an aggregation from a one customer point of view. 00:28:52.000 --> 00:29:00.000 Um, so here we've just noted that the project insurance will be on entity level, um, when it comes to, um, accounting. 00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:08.000 And reporting, um, so for calculating the customer attribution factor, um, in a situation where. 00:29:08.000 --> 00:29:13.000 one insurer writes more than one line of business, um, with the same insured customer. 00:29:13.000 --> 00:29:18.000 Um, for multiple lines of business, as we've just referenced there, in terms of, um. 00:29:18.000 --> 00:29:26.000 Being able to add those premiums together. So I think just conscious of time. 00:29:26.000 --> 00:29:39.000 And maybe if we, um, move. on… to the next slide as well. Yeah, perfect. Um, just to look at the, um, data quality score table. 00:29:39.000 --> 00:29:49.000 Um, specifically for the… Um, project policies, um, there was many discussions, um, around the, um. 00:29:49.000 --> 00:29:57.000 data quality table. Um, so again, thank you for everyone that helped with this, and also gave some feedback when we were working through. 00:29:57.000 --> 00:30:08.000 Um, the process, um, of looking into those. data quality table, um… as mentioned previously as well, we have tried to align as much as possible with other methodologies. 00:30:08.000 --> 00:30:13.000 Um, either in terms of wording or, um, what falls into. 00:30:13.000 --> 00:30:20.000 Um, each of the kind of buckets that you will see here. Um, so hopefully you've kind of reached a view that is best case. 00:30:20.000 --> 00:30:25.000 Um, across all of those different factors that we tried to look at. 00:30:25.000 --> 00:30:34.000 And you'll see here the scores, um, running from 1 to 5, and then the different, um, scales of emissions that we touched on earlier as well. 00:30:34.000 --> 00:30:46.000 So with economic activity-based emissions at the bottom, and moving through the reported or physical activity-based emissions, and ending with that option one, which is the best-case scenario, and the. 00:30:46.000 --> 00:30:54.000 Um, reported, um, emissions. So, for in terms of that score one, reported emissions. 00:30:54.000 --> 00:30:58.000 we have where they have been reported, and they have been verified. 00:30:58.000 --> 00:31:08.000 Um, moving through to kind of a school. Um, 2, that 1B response where they've been reported but are unverified. 00:31:08.000 --> 00:31:12.000 And then moving down the table, um, until that kind of score 5 point at the bottom. 00:31:12.000 --> 00:31:23.000 Um, which is the total project cost. Um, multiplied by the customer's emission intensity. Um, and this aligns with the. 00:31:23.000 --> 00:31:30.000 Um, current commercial lines methodology, um, and can be used as an alternative. 00:31:30.000 --> 00:31:34.000 Um, when the project level data, um, is not available. 00:31:34.000 --> 00:31:47.000 Um, just… giving that consideration to the fact that we did find some data challenges, um, in terms of the construction emissions, and it was quite a lot of feedback that we received during that consultation as well. 00:31:47.000 --> 00:31:54.000 Um, so hopefully provides an option for calculation, but obviously the preference, um, is that we. 00:31:54.000 --> 00:32:04.000 Gonna look to use… Um, some specific, um, emissions-related, um, to the construction. 00:32:04.000 --> 00:32:09.000 Rather than that, that score 5. Um, position. 00:32:09.000 --> 00:32:24.000 I think if we just move on to the next slide… Um, yeah, this is just for the, um… annual, um, premium policies, um, and just highlighting that this is, um, essentially the same. 00:32:24.000 --> 00:32:34.000 As the other, um, commercial lines policies. Um, so I won't dwell on this one too much, and then I think, yeah, there was then. 00:32:34.000 --> 00:32:41.000 Um, an example, um, of insurance, how to calculate the insurance-associated emissions for project policies. 00:32:41.000 --> 00:32:51.000 Um, specifically here for construction or risk. Um, so taking the premium, um, taking the total value. 00:32:51.000 --> 00:32:57.000 And the construction stage and new stage emissions from a Scope 1 perspective and Escape 2 perspective. 00:32:57.000 --> 00:33:04.000 Um, and then also stating here that data quality score of over 2, um, say. 00:33:04.000 --> 00:33:09.000 These are fictional figures, but assumptions, therefore, that these are the, um, potentially reported omissions. 00:33:09.000 --> 00:33:14.000 Um, just unverified. 00:33:14.000 --> 00:33:20.000 I think if we… work through. There are some other examples here. 00:33:20.000 --> 00:33:24.000 Um, to just in terms of, um, sorry, how that would be. 00:33:24.000 --> 00:33:29.000 Um, calculated by having all of those, um, different factors available. 00:33:29.000 --> 00:33:34.000 Um, so being able to calculate the SCAPE1 emissions. 00:33:34.000 --> 00:33:48.000 Based on, um, the. attribution factor by taking the premium over the total value, and then times in by the construction emissions, and then also by the usage, similarly for a Scope 2 perspective as well. 00:33:48.000 --> 00:33:54.000 Um, and then that provides the construction emissions, in this case, of 56.4. 00:33:54.000 --> 00:34:04.000 Um, which is compulsory. And then the U-stage emissions of 26.8, which is voluntary to report. 00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:20.000 Um, and then that data quality score thereof. 2… Um, so I think there are some other examples in this pack as well, um, but I think just conscious of time and wanting to get to the Q&A. 00:34:20.000 --> 00:34:32.000 Um, maybe if I just stop there and see if we've got any questions, um, and focus on some of the questions rather than working through some of these more… more of these example slides. 00:34:32.000 --> 00:34:41.000 Yeah, thanks a lot, Anna, for the great presentation, and… For all the work that you put into this, and the working group put into this, I know. 00:34:41.000 --> 00:34:46.000 It's quite a effort, and… almost 2 years of developing. 00:34:46.000 --> 00:34:52.000 Um, the methodology, so I just want to give a shout-out to you and all of the working group as well. 00:34:52.000 --> 00:34:58.000 I see there's one question. you know, if anybody else also has questions, feel free to. 00:34:58.000 --> 00:35:01.000 Put them in the Q&A now, or as we go throughout the presentation. 00:35:01.000 --> 00:35:08.000 Um, but maybe I will just… start with the question that I see now. 00:35:08.000 --> 00:35:17.000 Um, so, from a reinsurance perspective, calculating emissions for project insurance relates only to facultative portfolios. 00:35:17.000 --> 00:35:25.000 Because for treaties, there is a new methodology. 00:35:25.000 --> 00:35:26.000 So, I'm just reading that one. 00:35:26.000 --> 00:35:32.000 Yeah. I don't know if that's clear? 00:35:32.000 --> 00:35:46.000 Is it maybe one that I'd bring Danny in just to clarify in terms of what's… his methodology. Maybe with no further questions as well, an excellent segue into the reinsurance presentation. 00:35:46.000 --> 00:35:51.000 Yeah. Indeed, I mean, I don't see other questions. 00:35:51.000 --> 00:35:52.000 3. 00:35:52.000 --> 00:36:03.000 just related to treaty. So I'm… I'm also happy to… to hand over to Dani to explain a bit about the treaty methodology. 00:36:03.000 --> 00:36:10.000 Thanks, Motherna and Hannah, and yeah, I think I'll take over and keep that question in mind. 00:36:10.000 --> 00:36:17.000 And, I mean, that's exactly what we… will explain, or I will explain on the treaty method. 00:36:17.000 --> 00:36:24.000 Um, so I get to this during the… chat. First, hello from my side as well. 00:36:24.000 --> 00:36:30.000 I'm working with Swiss 3, and have led the working group on, uh. 00:36:30.000 --> 00:36:38.000 on treaty reinsurance, we had a number of companies, also professional insurance, participating in developing this methodology and was. 00:36:38.000 --> 00:36:46.000 Great collaboration in the team, and to get to this point and present a methodology for the second version. 00:36:46.000 --> 00:36:53.000 of the standard. Myself, I'm within the corporate and sustainability reporting, um. 00:36:53.000 --> 00:37:01.000 unit of Swiss 3, so we're doing sustainability reporting on a… On a group level for 3-3 in our team. 00:37:01.000 --> 00:37:05.000 And I've been also already involved in the first version. 00:37:05.000 --> 00:37:14.000 Um, of, um… The… the methodology for insurance-associated emissions for commercial insurance. 00:37:14.000 --> 00:37:18.000 insurance. So this has been kind of a natural extension. 00:37:18.000 --> 00:37:24.000 Um, to go to treat the insurance, um, since that is the majority. 00:37:24.000 --> 00:37:31.000 of our book of business. Can you go to the next slide? 00:37:31.000 --> 00:37:39.000 So, let's start with the definition. So what is treaty insurance, um, exactly? 00:37:39.000 --> 00:37:53.000 So basically, it's, um… contracts where the reinsurers agree to automatically accept all risks from an insurer that fall into the conditions set out in the contract. 00:37:53.000 --> 00:37:57.000 Um, the insurers are also called cedants, or seeding companies. 00:37:57.000 --> 00:38:03.000 Um, and this is basically big portfolios of risks that are transferred. 00:38:03.000 --> 00:38:07.000 Where the risk is transferred from the inshores or decedents. 00:38:07.000 --> 00:38:11.000 to the reinsurance. And this can be really a very broad range. 00:38:11.000 --> 00:38:22.000 of business, it can be… Um, a treaty that is covering motor insurance, for example, just in one country. 00:38:22.000 --> 00:38:27.000 But it can also, it can be engineering risks or construction risks, as we've just seen. 00:38:27.000 --> 00:38:34.000 before, but it can also be, um… a contract where we reinsure. 00:38:34.000 --> 00:38:45.000 large global insurance companies against natural catastrophes globally. So there could be any type of property, houses, commercial risks. 00:38:45.000 --> 00:38:49.000 All covered in such a treaty, so it's a very, very broad range. 00:38:49.000 --> 00:39:00.000 of contracts with here. We have here, and I think the key is that, basically, after you agree on the contract definition, and which lines of business regions. 00:39:00.000 --> 00:39:11.000 And sizes of risks fall into that treaty. Um, the reinsurer will accept those risks and cover, um. 00:39:11.000 --> 00:39:17.000 cover potential claims that come up for these risks. And this contrast with facultative for insurance, where each. 00:39:17.000 --> 00:39:25.000 risk that is reinsured or insurable asset. Um, that is reinsured, is accepted or declined. 00:39:25.000 --> 00:39:35.000 Individually. So, um, basically, in addition to that it can be different lines of business, there are also very different contract designs. 00:39:35.000 --> 00:39:42.000 Uh, for, uh, traitory insurance proportional contracts typically, um. 00:39:42.000 --> 00:39:47.000 covered for each risk that is reinsured a share of these risks. 00:39:47.000 --> 00:39:52.000 So there's quite a lot of transparency on what risks are in such a contract. 00:39:52.000 --> 00:39:59.000 But non-proportional contracts or aggregate contracts over the year. There's, um, much less, um. 00:39:59.000 --> 00:40:15.000 transparency, and basically, um… Depending on the claims that the insurer, um… exhibits, it will, um… the reinsurer will cover a share of these. So it's a very broad range of types of. 00:40:15.000 --> 00:40:25.000 contracts and lines of business. And as you may understand, is that the reinsurers are basically one step further down the value chain, so the. 00:40:25.000 --> 00:40:30.000 Um, further removed from the insured assets, there's limits in data. 00:40:30.000 --> 00:40:36.000 availability to the ranger, so not the full transparency on such a portfolio. 00:40:36.000 --> 00:40:46.000 is, um, typically available. And, um, also there's limited control, so the distance reduces influence over the assets. 00:40:46.000 --> 00:40:54.000 And it's associated emissions. And then, obviously, you have other factors playing into influence, so market competition. 00:40:54.000 --> 00:41:00.000 Um, between reinsurers and prime insurers, reliance on reinsurance also affect. 00:41:00.000 --> 00:41:10.000 The reinsurer's level of control. Due to this heterogeneity of treat reinsurance business. 00:41:10.000 --> 00:41:15.000 And, um, and the many lines of business involved. 00:41:15.000 --> 00:41:18.000 Um, the method relies on the negro gate approach. 00:41:18.000 --> 00:41:25.000 And when you go to the next slide. Um, I like to touch on this. So basically. 00:41:25.000 --> 00:41:33.000 Um, the primary insurance company estimates the insurance-associated emissions for the business. 00:41:33.000 --> 00:41:40.000 Uh, for the different lines of pieces, where there's methodology available, and that is with all the methodologies available, it's based on a. 00:41:40.000 --> 00:41:48.000 premium approach, so typically it's premium over revenues, in the case of commercial insurance or premium over construction costs, as we've just seen. 00:41:48.000 --> 00:41:59.000 of projects insurance. And the simple assumptions for the returns contracts is, since we don't have this data transparency on an individually insured. 00:41:59.000 --> 00:42:04.000 Risk within a contract rely on an aggregate approach. 00:42:04.000 --> 00:42:13.000 And we already have. In the future, potentially, that primary insurance or insurance companies will estimate emissions for these portfolios. 00:42:13.000 --> 00:42:17.000 And then, based on this emission estimate, we can. 00:42:17.000 --> 00:42:22.000 Determine which share. will be, uh, born by the. 00:42:22.000 --> 00:42:33.000 And we'll be there at the Rangers. And we use premium to allocate that in the approach, and on this pie chart, we see stylus, so it's just. 00:42:33.000 --> 00:42:41.000 relative sizes, it's not, um… Um, it's basically an example where a reinsurer has a big participation. 00:42:41.000 --> 00:42:55.000 We can see that the big part is the net premium that is aligned with the prime insurance, the reinsurance commission, so… commissions the reinsurance companies pays to the primary insurance are borne via the prime insurance and the fronting fee. 00:42:55.000 --> 00:43:05.000 As well. For the reinsurers, they carry the seeded premium. Basically, it is roughly a quarter. 00:43:05.000 --> 00:43:17.000 Excluding external quotation costs and reinsurance commissions. So. Basically, if you have a portfolio of, um… That we reinsure, and the perm insurance. 00:43:17.000 --> 00:43:25.000 definitions… We determine by the share of the reinsurance premium to the overall premium, how much of these emissions. 00:43:25.000 --> 00:43:40.000 will be accounted for by the reinsurer. Um, you could also apply this approach to others, like the reinsurance broker, or an insurance broker by just taking the share of the premium, but that's not in the standard. 00:43:40.000 --> 00:43:51.000 And obviously, the accounting of the primary insurer is still on the cross basis, so he will… there will be a bit of double counting, right, so if the… we look at the primary insurer. 00:43:51.000 --> 00:43:59.000 Um, um… emissions, it will take the cross premiums minus external acquisition costs, so that. 00:43:59.000 --> 00:44:05.000 the top part here, and that will determine the emissions, while the. 00:44:05.000 --> 00:44:11.000 The reinsure will account for the sealed part of this, so this part will be double counted. 00:44:11.000 --> 00:44:22.000 Between the two. Let's move on to the next… slide in terms of what is covered, and this relates a bit to the question we already. 00:44:22.000 --> 00:44:29.000 head. So basically, for all lines of bases in the PCAF standards for, um. 00:44:29.000 --> 00:44:35.000 permissions… These should be also accounted for reinsurance. So if there's no standard. 00:44:35.000 --> 00:44:42.000 For, um… for the insurance sector or facultative insurance. 00:44:42.000 --> 00:44:46.000 These should not be a counter within 3-tier insurance. 00:44:46.000 --> 00:44:55.000 So, in… at the current stage, in the second version of the standards, it's commercial lines, it's projects, so construction-related insurance. 00:44:55.000 --> 00:45:09.000 And it's personal motor lines. So, that's just lines of basis in scope, and then the same is for the… scope of emissions that should be in scope, so it's scope one and two. 00:45:09.000 --> 00:45:20.000 absolute insurance-associated emissions of the insurer. And, uh, what shall be covered, and then, um, Scope 3 emissions. 00:45:20.000 --> 00:45:26.000 Or… so Scope 3 emissions of the insured, um, entity, um, are not. 00:45:26.000 --> 00:45:42.000 Um, mandatory, but maybe should be reported. Um, other lines of business, which are not in the PKF Part C standard, are out of reinsure as well. 00:45:42.000 --> 00:45:51.000 Good. So… here, like, to illustrate the two options to calculate reinsurance-associated emissions for treaty. 00:45:51.000 --> 00:46:06.000 portfolios, as you can imagine. It will take quite some time until, really, the insurance companies will estimate their emissions, and they will share the data with reinsurers, so reinsurers can base their calculations on it. So there's a second option. 00:46:06.000 --> 00:46:12.000 In case we don't have data. So these flowcharts basically shows you how you should go about this. 00:46:12.000 --> 00:46:18.000 Um, so first step is to determine your sedent. Does it provide treaty level data, or. 00:46:18.000 --> 00:46:25.000 maybe company-wide data. If… They do not, um, the student does not provide that. 00:46:25.000 --> 00:46:31.000 Method A is out of scope, but if there's data from the sedent that I get for a portfolio. 00:46:31.000 --> 00:46:35.000 We should go for an FOD to calculate emissions. 00:46:35.000 --> 00:46:44.000 So what happens if. decedent does not disclose on the line of business or company-level data or treaty-level data. 00:46:44.000 --> 00:46:50.000 Um, so basically, if there's no data available at all from the sedent. 00:46:50.000 --> 00:47:09.000 We go to the right side of this chart, and we use sector-level proxies, and I'll go into that as well, so… emission intensities, emissions of revenues can be used to estimate emissions for such portfolios, and that could be on the sector level. 00:47:09.000 --> 00:47:15.000 Or even just on the country level, if it's, um… If there's no data available. 00:47:15.000 --> 00:47:22.000 If there is some type of data from. Sorry, can you go back, please? 00:47:22.000 --> 00:47:28.000 Um, so just to clue that off for, um, if there is some company data not on the portfolio. 00:47:28.000 --> 00:47:38.000 a reinsured portfolio, but on an aggregate level. Um, um, a proxy… of insurance associated emissions. 00:47:38.000 --> 00:47:41.000 from this company can be used. So maybe there's an overall. 00:47:41.000 --> 00:47:49.000 commercial lines emissions published by the insurance company, and the reinsurance could take that. 00:47:49.000 --> 00:47:56.000 to estimate, um… an emission intensity, and then estimate emissions for reinsured portfolio. 00:47:56.000 --> 00:48:02.000 With that, I will move on to the next slide. 00:48:02.000 --> 00:48:12.000 And basically, here again, here's these two methods. Um, so method A, as I just said, we have data from the sedent, um. 00:48:12.000 --> 00:48:21.000 Maybe in the future, emission data is also shared with submissions when, um. 00:48:21.000 --> 00:48:23.000 A treaty is renewed, for example, and we get this data. 00:48:23.000 --> 00:48:33.000 And then it's fairly straightforward, and the ringer gets the state, that's very straightforward to calculate. So basically, we take the ratio of the sedent. 00:48:33.000 --> 00:48:39.000 premium, so the part of the premium that. the reinsurer gets to the gross premium. 00:48:39.000 --> 00:48:48.000 Which is the insurer's, um… premium he gets for that portfolio. So that ratio determines. 00:48:48.000 --> 00:48:53.000 Which share of the insurance associated emissions. The regional account. 00:48:53.000 --> 00:48:59.000 So, it's basically based on the reported insurance-associated emissions by decedent. 00:48:59.000 --> 00:49:04.000 So it's an overall treaty approach. I don't go into each. 00:49:04.000 --> 00:49:16.000 individual risk and see how much of. this risk, um, is the premier of the insurer and the reinsurer, but it's really top-down. What's the aggregate premium? 00:49:16.000 --> 00:49:21.000 seated, what's the aggregate premium gross of the insurer, and that the perimensions. 00:49:21.000 --> 00:49:34.000 to share. And, um… that maybe make a segue to what was mentioned for project insured was advised to take an individual, so single risk, and calculate bottom-up. 00:49:34.000 --> 00:49:39.000 So this is not what we do for traitor endurance, and there can be. 00:49:39.000 --> 00:49:45.000 you know, over or underestimations, depending on the type of portfolios, but we speak of portfolios. 00:49:45.000 --> 00:49:49.000 that will typically, um… average out. 00:49:49.000 --> 00:50:06.000 Good, um. Yes, I think that's method A, pretty straightforward, and it can be applied to all, um, contract types, independents, where it's a proportional contract, a quota share. 00:50:06.000 --> 00:50:15.000 for example, or a non-proportional contract type, and this type of information, the gross and deceased premium, is typically. 00:50:15.000 --> 00:50:35.000 Um, available. good. Let's go to Mesopi if there's no… data available. So, um… from SOP, there's different approaches between commercial lines, including project insurance and personal motor, and I will go quickly. 00:50:35.000 --> 00:50:45.000 into that. Um… So, BSP comes to insight when decedent does not provide treaty-level insurance associated emission data. 00:50:45.000 --> 00:50:53.000 So what I have to look for is for emission intensity. So, I… There may be a portfolio of commercial risks. 00:50:53.000 --> 00:51:00.000 in a particular country, in their insured portfolio, and they could say, um, okay. 00:51:00.000 --> 00:51:11.000 These risks are typically from a particular sector, and they could take an emission intensity of that country for the, let's say, for the retail sector. 00:51:11.000 --> 00:51:15.000 And use that, um, as a proxy for the. 00:51:15.000 --> 00:51:24.000 reinsured portfolio. And then I would only need to multiply it with the received premium, so to see the premium the reinsurer has for these portfolios. 00:51:24.000 --> 00:51:32.000 to calculate the emissions. So it's straightforward, so basically, in mass of B, I have. 00:51:32.000 --> 00:51:36.000 In addition to the seeded written premiums, I don't need. 00:51:36.000 --> 00:51:41.000 Anything on top from the primary company to calculate. Obviously, I need some know-how. 00:51:41.000 --> 00:51:48.000 to choose the type of data proxy needed for this portfolio, so what types of risks. 00:51:48.000 --> 00:51:52.000 Is it, um… and what is a good proxy. 00:51:52.000 --> 00:52:07.000 emission intensity for this portfolio. And this is. very closely landed to the primary standard, right? It can be applied to both project and commercial lines, so it's about finding an initial intensity. 00:52:07.000 --> 00:52:11.000 And then multiplying by the premium received by the insurer. 00:52:11.000 --> 00:52:19.000 So let's move on to method, uh… For, uh, sorry, for, um, motor. 00:52:19.000 --> 00:52:30.000 Here, very quickly, again, the seed does not provide 3G level insurance associated emissions, and here it's a bit different, because the attribution factor. 00:52:30.000 --> 00:52:37.000 For personal votes or for insuring personal motor. is, um, a global attribution factor. It's basically. 00:52:37.000 --> 00:52:46.000 Um, 6.99% of, um. The overall emissions of the insured cars. 00:52:46.000 --> 00:52:55.000 And to get to, uh, the… emissions for the reinsurer, I would take this attribution factor, the global attribution factor. 00:52:55.000 --> 00:53:04.000 Um, and multiply it… By the seeded premiums to the gross premiums on their portfolios. 00:53:04.000 --> 00:53:09.000 And then the emissions for the insured vehicles within. 00:53:09.000 --> 00:53:14.000 these portfolios. And here, I could go about, say, taking the same. 00:53:14.000 --> 00:53:19.000 proxies, as are explained in the personal motor standard, so if there's. 00:53:19.000 --> 00:53:37.000 Um, limited, um, data available on the insured vehicle portfolio, you can use the same proxies. So, let's say it's just… Within a country, a motor portfolio that is representative of the market, like, so there could be. 00:53:37.000 --> 00:53:46.000 taken an average, um. emissions per vehicles, type vehicles, and then I use that together with the. 00:53:46.000 --> 00:53:54.000 session rate and the global attribution. effect to calculate the emissions of the insurance company. 00:53:54.000 --> 00:54:09.000 Good. Let's go to the next… Slide… hear a bit more on data proxies that could be used for commercial lines in particular. 00:54:09.000 --> 00:54:17.000 That could be valuable, so… Um, for property and liability, for example, if we have a nationally active. 00:54:17.000 --> 00:54:27.000 Ensure, um, that is… Writing a broad range has a substantial market change, writing a broad range of reasons across. 00:54:27.000 --> 00:54:36.000 the country and sectors, um, a very simple proxy could be just the gross output emission intensity of the whole country. 00:54:36.000 --> 00:54:44.000 Um, where the primary insurance company is headquartered. So that's obviously a very high level, um. 00:54:44.000 --> 00:54:53.000 benchmark or proxy to use, but if we have a big nationally active insurance company and the portfolio of that market. 00:54:53.000 --> 00:55:03.000 It may be, um… first approximation to estimate these emissions. And in the work, we actually did some calculations and. 00:55:03.000 --> 00:55:12.000 And did some bottom-up calculations and compared to this top-down, very crude on a gross output emission intensity. 00:55:12.000 --> 00:55:17.000 And the results were actually quite promising. So, I mean, there was. 00:55:17.000 --> 00:55:21.000 Um, a deviation from the top down to the bottom up. 00:55:21.000 --> 00:55:26.000 But for larger countries where we had a bigger, um. 00:55:26.000 --> 00:55:34.000 sample of risks. Uh, the difference was maybe 10-20% plus minus between bottom-up and this top-down. 00:55:34.000 --> 00:55:43.000 Approach from a, from a country level proxies. If you have non-life accident workers comp across, um. 00:55:43.000 --> 00:55:53.000 different markets, we could take premium weighted. gross output across these countries, so estimate how much of each country is in there. 00:55:53.000 --> 00:56:00.000 Um, and then… We take that to share, uh, to estimate emission intensity. 00:56:00.000 --> 00:56:12.000 Um, if we have information about occupancy data, so the industry, we could take… go into more details of a commercial portfolio in Germany. 00:56:12.000 --> 00:56:18.000 And you have, you know, how much is car industry, how much is manufacturing, how much is machinery, and so on. 00:56:18.000 --> 00:56:24.000 Um, within the portfolio, and you could take the emission intensities of the different sectors in. 00:56:24.000 --> 00:56:30.000 In Germany, for example, from the PCAF database, and take a weighted average to estimate. 00:56:30.000 --> 00:56:35.000 Um, the emission intensities, and then calculate the emissions in the end. 00:56:35.000 --> 00:56:45.000 Um, yeah, and obviously, if you have agriculture insurance, you could take the revenue-based mission intensity of the agriculture sector of given. 00:56:45.000 --> 00:56:51.000 country, or if it's a multinational portfolio, you could take, again, the country. 00:56:51.000 --> 00:56:59.000 But a weighted average of the. Emission intensities of agricultural sectors in the underlying. 00:56:59.000 --> 00:57:08.000 countries to estimate these emissions. So, this gives a bit, um, an insight what kind of proxies can be used to estimate these emissions. 00:57:08.000 --> 00:57:16.000 And I mean, it's clear this methodology, the Part A is basically where we want to head in the future already. 00:57:16.000 --> 00:57:22.000 industry will go to in the future if we… if the emissions are. 00:57:22.000 --> 00:57:26.000 estimated by insurance companies, and this data is being shared, and we get a. 00:57:26.000 --> 00:57:31.000 A good way to estimate emissions, and the more, um. 00:57:31.000 --> 00:57:41.000 a reliable way to estimate emissions. But that reinsurers can already start now, we can use this method and use emissions intensities. 00:57:41.000 --> 00:57:51.000 to estimate emissions get a sense how big these emissions are. Obviously, if you have such high-level data, steering a portfolio on that basis, or setting targets. 00:57:51.000 --> 00:57:59.000 Um, on… on such a basis is not, um… Um, advisable approach. 00:57:59.000 --> 00:58:15.000 Good. Let's move on to the next slide. Um, so, calculation example for tree insurance using method A. So, um… just, I mean, figures are just made up, right? So we have, uh, 3 TAs, one portfolio. 00:58:15.000 --> 00:58:24.000 One treaty, and uh… See the premium is $4,000, the gross written premium of this 3-insured portfolio of the insurance. 00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:33.000 company is 10,000. And the insurance companies estimate that insurance-associated emissions-based portfolios, which are 1,300. 00:58:33.000 --> 00:58:45.000 Um… kilos. Um… of CO2 emissions. So… We will then calculate, um, taking formula A, so you have the attribution factor. 00:58:45.000 --> 00:58:52.000 Which is, uh, 40%. So 0.4 times 1,36520. 00:58:52.000 --> 00:58:59.000 cadence of CO2 emissions. Of, um… for this particular treaty. 00:58:59.000 --> 00:59:08.000 And data quality score, I will not go into details in this, but we also had quite a lot of discussions in order to align the data quality scores. 00:59:08.000 --> 00:59:16.000 Um, from, um… the insurance throughout the admission stands to the Treaty Reinsurance Associate Admission Standards. 00:59:16.000 --> 00:59:24.000 And in this case, method A, basically, the score of the reinsurer will follow the primary. 00:59:24.000 --> 00:59:29.000 insurance state quality score, so from 1 to 4. 00:59:29.000 --> 00:59:34.000 We kept out 5, because that's reserved for MFP. 00:59:34.000 --> 00:59:43.000 Good, let's go to, um… The second method, method P, again, a commercial line example. 00:59:43.000 --> 00:59:58.000 Um, the seat is written premium in this case is $4,000. We remember we don't need the, um… The gross rate and premium in this instance, and then we selected, um… A revenue-based economic commission intensity. 00:59:58.000 --> 01:00:04.000 for this portfolio, which is, in this case, 245 tons of CO2 emissions. 01:00:04.000 --> 01:00:18.000 permitted USD, and basically you calculate. taking the… To… and uh… seat premiums… times don't intensities to calculate. 01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:26.000 Finance Insurance Associated emissions. So it's the ideas of 4 million divided by 1 million, because it's a. 01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:35.000 Millions times 2 and 14. 5 gives you, um… 0.04 times 245. 01:00:35.000 --> 01:00:39.000 close to a ton of CO2 emissions in this. 01:00:39.000 --> 01:00:47.000 instance. And here, um… We have a data quality score of. 01:00:47.000 --> 01:00:56.000 for, um… Because in this instance, there was a proxy used for the mission intensity from the company. If you take, um. 01:00:56.000 --> 01:01:03.000 company level emission intensity to score, data quality score would be 5, um, which is the lowest. 01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:10.000 Uh, for… in this game. Good. Let's move on. 01:01:10.000 --> 01:01:17.000 And, yeah, I'm actually… Already at the end, so we go back to Mottolina. 01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:20.000 Yeah, thanks very much, Donnie, for the great presentation. 01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:25.000 And again, thank you for all of the work getting up to here now. 01:01:25.000 --> 01:01:32.000 With the final methodology? Um, I see some questions in the chat, so maybe we can try to. 01:01:32.000 --> 01:01:52.000 Cover those. So… I guess maybe the first one that we had, um, spoken with Hannah, and maybe if you can read along, that's easier, but… Um, the first one, from a reinsurance perspective, calculating the emissions for project insurance relates only to facultative portfolios. 01:01:52.000 --> 01:01:58.000 Because for treaties, there's this new methodology. Is this correct? 01:01:58.000 --> 01:02:07.000 Yes, I think, I mean, for faculty insurance, you would use, um, the… insurance associated emission methodology. 01:02:07.000 --> 01:02:14.000 that was just presented. A border case, or so-called facilities, which are. 01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:24.000 kind of, um, treaty-like. structures that are written within facultative business units. There you could use the treaty approach. 01:02:25.000 --> 01:02:30.000 As well. So, facilities would cover that, but, um, otherwise, for faculty, if you use. 01:02:30.000 --> 01:02:35.000 To… to methods which are all applicable for… for insurance. 01:02:35.000 --> 01:02:46.000 And, um… Yeah, and the reason is because there, for faculty, if you have the data as a reinsurance company on the individual risk, and you can. 01:02:46.000 --> 01:02:49.000 calculate, um, this bottom up. 01:02:49.000 --> 01:03:01.000 Yeah, clear? Um, so, next one a bit long, but… For proportional treaty reinsurance, the standard indicates that emissions should be attributed based. 01:03:01.000 --> 01:03:12.000 On the reinsurer's share of risk. How should insurers proceed in cases where treaty structures include multiple layers or changing participation levels over time? 01:03:12.000 --> 01:03:17.000 And the data availability differs across sealants. 01:03:17.000 --> 01:03:26.000 Yeah, I think, um, I tried to explain this in the presentation. I think in the PCAF standard for insurance-associated emissions. 01:03:26.000 --> 01:03:32.000 The assumption is that the premium. Um, it's an indicator of the risk. 01:03:32.000 --> 01:03:36.000 Transferring both. That's for all messes that are currently developed. 01:03:36.000 --> 01:03:41.000 Basically, that's a determination. And then, obviously, that's… it's accrued. 01:03:41.000 --> 01:03:49.000 method we've discussed extensively in the first round to develop the standards where you could use different. 01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:54.000 method, so just the expected losses, for example, could be an indicator. 01:03:54.000 --> 01:04:07.000 We know premium is distorted by market movements. and so on, but in the end, we landed on premium because it's the most broadly available method. 01:04:07.000 --> 01:04:15.000 And it's, um, all other approaches are… have shortcomings that will not make them useful to calculate emissions. 01:04:15.000 --> 01:04:24.000 And, um, so basically. in certain… where you have a portfolio, like, multiple layers, um. 01:04:24.000 --> 01:04:41.000 Um, of, um… Reinsurance for a given portfolio, the idea is you would have, just for your part of the business, you have your seeded premiums, and you would have the total premium of this overall portfolio of the insurance company, and that ratio determines you. 01:04:41.000 --> 01:04:51.000 The share of risks you take. So, and basically, with that approach, what you need to know is how much is the premium the insurer has. 01:04:51.000 --> 01:05:00.000 And how much is the premium of the contract? Whether you have multiple, you know, if you have multiple proportional structures, or you have a non-proportional structure. 01:05:00.000 --> 01:05:07.000 underneath the proportional structure, so, um… an excess of loss in that sense. 01:05:07.000 --> 01:05:11.000 doesn't really matter. You take the premium for all these structures. 01:05:11.000 --> 01:05:19.000 Um, that you get, and put it into the relation of the overall premium of this contract, and that ratio determines you. 01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:28.000 How much of the premiums of the primary insurance companies you'll take over. In the case of method B, where you don't have the emissions. 01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:41.000 from the… from the sedent. You basically need only your premium for the part of, um… Um, for the contract you have, and there are times the initial intensity that gives you the. 01:05:41.000 --> 01:05:48.000 The… your emissions as a windshield, uh, insurer. 01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:57.000 Okay, great. Um, I see also one asking. How do you ensure that reinsurers and insurers do not engage in double counting? 01:05:57.000 --> 01:05:58.000 So maybe… can you… 01:05:58.000 --> 01:06:07.000 Yes, I mean… We… it's not insured. Basically, there is double counting, we know that. 01:06:07.000 --> 01:06:20.000 Um, and… Um, that's a fact, so… but that's only really… Yeah, it matters if you have reinsurance and insurance within the same company, right? So if you basically. 01:06:20.000 --> 01:06:24.000 I have an internal reinsurance, where you pool your data. 01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:31.000 then this has an impact on the sectoral level, as I indicated, there will be double counting, so if you take the. 01:06:31.000 --> 01:06:40.000 into the emissions of the insurers, and… You had the emissions of all the insurers, this will be counted twice, and that's… that's acknowledged. 01:06:40.000 --> 01:06:47.000 Um, but, um, yeah, that's not an issue in that sense for the purpose. 01:06:47.000 --> 01:06:52.000 On a company level, too. To estimate that. 01:06:52.000 --> 01:06:57.000 Exactly. Yeah, we always say, I think, in nature, Scope 3 has a lot of double counting, but. 01:06:57.000 --> 01:07:03.000 In VGAF, we… we say a lot how you disclose it, and just being transparent of what are you measuring. 01:07:03.000 --> 01:07:09.000 And disclosing separately, for example. Um, just so people can understand what the value is. 01:07:09.000 --> 01:07:10.000 Hmm… 01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:18.000 Um, another one, I don't know if… you have some examples, but they ask in Swiss, how will you select or find proxies? 01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:19.000 To use for calculations using method B. 01:07:19.000 --> 01:07:35.000 Mm-hmm. Yeah, I think I already touched a bit on that. So, for sectoral-level proxies, we would go to the PCAF, um… database, where you have emission intensity, so emissions of revenues. 01:07:35.000 --> 01:07:41.000 by country, by sector, and, um, Swiss is already using these. 01:07:41.000 --> 01:07:52.000 To estimate emissions for facultative for endurance. Where we don't have data from the insured companies, and that's something you can apply. 01:07:52.000 --> 01:08:02.000 And then, obviously, for each street, you would need to estimate, you know, how is the sectoral composition, but sometimes there's dedicated sectoral treaties. 01:08:02.000 --> 01:08:10.000 And so that's one area, and then for the global output emission intensity, so the country level, so the most. 01:08:10.000 --> 01:08:23.000 Um, I think the easiest starting point just to go to a country level and use that as a… As a proxy, there's, um, I think the examples are in the report, um, from… there's data from World Bank. 01:08:23.000 --> 01:08:26.000 that can be used, and examples provided on how to. 01:08:26.000 --> 01:08:32.000 rebates and adjust these emission intensities to use them. 01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:41.000 For, um… For this purpose of calculating emissions for reinsurance treaties. 01:08:41.000 --> 01:08:46.000 Um… Yeah, another one I see coming in on data. 01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:52.000 Um, do you expect emissions and emissions intensity proxies to take longer to be published? 01:08:52.000 --> 01:08:58.000 for U.S. Commercial real estate. 01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:00.000 Maybe because, I don't know. Your point of view. 01:09:00.000 --> 01:09:10.000 Maybe, um… But I think that, um, has two dimensions to that question, right? One is the data availability. 01:09:10.000 --> 01:09:20.000 Um, where, I mean, I think it's… would be PCAF to know what's in the database, so I don't… I mean, we estimate also for the US. 01:09:20.000 --> 01:09:33.000 for Swiss portfolio, but I didn't know about real estate, so that I don't know, but the political… I mean, the other side is the political… dimension, right, um, in the US, there will be… it will be taking longer that, uh, companies. 01:09:33.000 --> 01:09:49.000 would start reporting emissions, given the… Current political push in the US to go away from any kind of climate policy. I think that's, that's, um… independent of the data question, but maybe Matalina, I know if you know about this in more detail. 01:09:49.000 --> 01:09:58.000 Yeah, I think I would… I seem… from Alistair, I would recommend sending an email to the database. 01:09:58.000 --> 01:10:05.000 Um, team, or just our general info? At CarbonaccountingFinancials.com. 01:10:05.000 --> 01:10:11.000 It should be included in the database. I know we have, like, a separate database on European buildings. 01:10:11.000 --> 01:10:15.000 But in the general PCAF database, it should cover also the US. 01:10:15.000 --> 01:10:22.000 Um, but I would check with the database. 01:10:22.000 --> 01:10:28.000 I see also a comment. about US data on commercial real estate being limited. 01:10:28.000 --> 01:10:35.000 Yeah, and the next update will come in a few years. 01:10:35.000 --> 01:10:41.000 Um… 01:10:41.000 --> 01:10:51.000 Maybe you know this, Danny, but is there a practical example of a reinsurance company that already counts the insurance-associated emissions of its 3D portfolios? 01:10:51.000 --> 01:11:05.000 Yeah, Lugo, thanks for all your questions. You're hitting on quite a few points there. And I think, um, I think Munich has done some estimations in the past in relation to. 01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:11.000 to coal and oil and gas emission intensities, but I don't know what their methodology. 01:11:11.000 --> 01:11:20.000 Um, our approach in this respect was. I mean, one of the ideas of the treaty methodology was to establish. 01:11:20.000 --> 01:11:23.000 this common framework in order companies can start doing that. 01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:28.000 We are fully aware that, currently, Method A is. 01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:37.000 It's maybe for a few companies, I believe Allianz, for example, or Zurich Insurance, they publish some insurance-associated missions. 01:11:37.000 --> 01:11:42.000 But method A will… it will take time, right? And that relates to your last questions on the role of brokers. 01:11:42.000 --> 01:11:47.000 in facilitating this data. So that will take time. 01:11:47.000 --> 01:11:56.000 Um, until it's calculated by the insurance companies, it's shared in a systematic way, hopefully moving that direction at one point. 01:11:56.000 --> 01:12:01.000 And, um, the idea of the PCAS stand was to establish this baseline. 01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:06.000 So, we have a methodology that treats the insurers that want to do something can use. 01:12:06.000 --> 01:12:12.000 and base their calculations on, so we don't have… competing approaches later on. 01:12:12.000 --> 01:12:21.000 In the process. And, um… Yeah, and with SOP, you have an approach to just get a sense on how big is this. 01:12:21.000 --> 01:12:31.000 The emissions of this substantial part of the portfolio. 01:12:31.000 --> 01:12:40.000 Yeah, great. Um… I see another question from, um, Dubos on, are there minimum portfolio coverage thresholds? 01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:46.000 For example, percentage of premiums, assets. Or underwriting exposure. 01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:56.000 number of legal entities. Um, especially for groups, holdings committed to PCAF to be considered compliant with PCAF. 01:12:56.000 --> 01:13:10.000 Oh, I'm not sure if I understand… correctly, um… So maybe how much of the image… how much of the… for how much of the overall portfolio, the emissions… emissions need to be. 01:13:10.000 --> 01:13:19.000 estimated that PCAF. it's considered PKF compliant, is that… Probably what it refers to, maybe Matalina, you have. 01:13:19.000 --> 01:13:21.000 Background on that. 01:13:21.000 --> 01:13:30.000 Um, yeah, I think if you're speaking about how much of your portfolio you need to be covering to be compliant with PCAF, we don't have any requirements. 01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:38.000 Um, so we really just ask. you know, the whole goal is for financial institutions to start measuring. 01:13:38.000 --> 01:13:42.000 Um, and to start disclosing, so how much of your portfolio you're covering. 01:13:42.000 --> 01:13:47.000 is up to the financial institution, depending on what method you have available. 01:13:47.000 --> 01:13:54.000 data, etc. So there's really no… value that it needs to be covered, it's. 01:13:54.000 --> 01:13:59.000 It's up to the DeFi. 01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:04.000 Um, and I know, Lubos, you sent some questions over email. 01:14:04.000 --> 01:14:10.000 Um, maybe some more related to what PCAF is envisioning for this and planning to do next. 01:14:10.000 --> 01:14:16.000 Um, which we'll get to you back over email, um, also speaking with our insurance expert over at PCOV. 01:14:16.000 --> 01:14:27.000 And, uh, to give you proper answers. Um, and then maybe a final one, I'm not sure, Dani, if this is specifically for treaty insurance? 01:14:27.000 --> 01:14:34.000 Um, do you expect residential property to be covered in the future once bedded down for commercial reinsurance? 01:14:34.000 --> 01:14:41.000 I mean, that's more a question for the insurance standard. Currently, we have only commercial property. 01:14:41.000 --> 01:14:42.000 Mm-hmm. 01:14:42.000 --> 01:14:48.000 And personal lines or residential is not in scope of the standards, and I don't know, you know better the. 01:14:48.000 --> 01:14:50.000 The timeline on that, Montalena, and what the proposed next steps are there. 01:14:50.000 --> 01:15:00.000 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I figured maybe this was a more general one. Um, we don't… so… how we work, maybe, to close off. 01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:07.000 Um, we work in standard development cycles. Um, so we start with setting up a core team. 01:15:07.000 --> 01:15:12.000 Um, we send a survey out to signatories to see what else, um, they feel. 01:15:12.000 --> 01:15:17.000 pickup would benefit for developing a methodology, and then we set up working groups, etc. 01:15:17.000 --> 01:15:22.000 Um, so now we just close off this new cycle, we developed these methodologies. 01:15:22.000 --> 01:15:26.000 And a new one will start soon, so we haven't defined priorities. 01:15:26.000 --> 01:15:35.000 Or which topics will be developed next. Um, so, yeah, I don't have information to give you on what's going to be developed. 01:15:35.000 --> 01:15:42.000 Um, but hopefully soon, that's something we can kickstart with our signatories. 01:15:42.000 --> 01:15:48.000 Maybe Madelena on Lubo's last question, on the reinsurance brokers, maybe just to. 01:15:48.000 --> 01:15:58.000 make that clear. I mean, ideally. Data collection would start at the very entrance of the insurance value chain, so not necessarily reinsurance brokers, but. 01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:04.000 The insurance companies, or the agents, or if it's independent agents, that they start collecting information. 01:16:04.000 --> 01:16:16.000 And then share, at least aggregated emissions. down the value chain, that's a bit, uh… the thinking around the treaty insurance standard, so we really do, kind of. 01:16:16.000 --> 01:16:22.000 efficient, so we don't re… Calculate down the value chain, the same things. 01:16:22.000 --> 01:16:27.000 But also, we have consistent results because it's based on the same. 01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:32.000 calculation methodology for the insurance company, and then. For the insurance company. So, we hope that. 01:16:32.000 --> 01:16:41.000 goes into that direction that, um… One more day also involved in charity stayed alone, but obviously it's long. 01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:44.000 Long way there. 01:16:44.000 --> 01:16:50.000 Yeah, great, thank you very much. Um, I don't see any more questions. 01:16:50.000 --> 01:16:54.000 So, I'm happy to close it there, and thank. 01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:58.000 thank Hannah and Daniel for the presentations, and everybody that joined in. 01:16:58.000 --> 01:17:03.000 Um, we will upload the recording on the website. 01:17:03.000 --> 01:17:07.000 Um, Big Alf's website, all of the recordings of these webinars will be up. 01:17:07.000 --> 01:17:12.000 For example, the one for the first webinar where we covered use of proceed structures. 01:17:12.000 --> 01:17:17.000 And the avoided emissions and forward-looking Matthews, that's live on the website already. 01:17:17.000 --> 01:17:20.000 And then, um, we will add the other ones as well. 01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:26.000 Um, and again, if any questions pop up after the session, you can always email us at picaf. 01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:33.000 info at carbonaccountingfinancials.com. And we are happy to answer any questions. 01:17:33.000 --> 01:17:36.000 Um, and with that… I will close it off and have all a good rest of your day. 01:17:36.000 --> 01:17:44.000 Thank youThanks