 to moderate on this side event, which is actually, I think, the most important side event that we are having for the Stockholm Plus 50. Why? Because we are discussing science, and we know that 50 years ago, the first United Nations Conference on Human Environment was actually driven so much by the evidence and knowledge that came from the scientific community. So it's my pleasure, as we start to be able to have all of you here. We have had, over the last one year, colleagues from the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Council for Energy, Environment, and Water of India working on the scientific report to inform the Stockholm Plus 50 conference that has been going on. So today we have the privilege, of course, to hear from them in terms of the report itself and some of the recommendations that we have to take forward. Without wasting much time, I would like, of course, to first recognize the presence of the representative of the government of Kenya, Dr. Chris Kipto. Dr. Chris Kipto is a distinguished economist. He serves as the principal secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry in the Republic of Kenya. Those of you in Sweden that is equivalent, I believe, to the director general. And he steered, of course, part of his responsibility, has been, of course, to oversee the process for the Stockholm Plus 50. So Dr. Chris Kipto, it's my pleasure to welcome you to give the opening keynote. Let's give him a round of applause as he comes. Thank you very much Osano and may I say all protocol observed. Let me first start by thanking the organizers for inviting me to this forum. And I would like to take the chance to congratulate the Stockholm Institute through the executive director as well as the Council for Energy, Environment, and Water of India for this independent scientific publication, which I think is good. I have read it and it looks a very good report. And I also want at this point to thank also our co-host, the Swedish government, through the Ministry of Environment of Sweden, for providing the finances for the production of this report. I would like to loud the authors for a job well done. It's a 163-page document. I've read about six or seven sections. And I like the recommendations because if they're implemented, then the world will move to where we want, which is a sustainable and a just world. Kenya is a co-host to this Stockholm Plus 50, working together with the government of Sweden. And for this forum, which is looking at a theme of a healthy planet for the prosperity of all. So we are looking for a prosperous world where no one is left behind. All of us would be prospering in the same manner. But we are also saying it is our responsibility, all of us. But it's also our opportunity. So we are reflecting 50 years ago when a group of visionary leaders set a path and a direction for us. And now we are looking back to those years and seeing how much we have achieved compared to the vision that was set. And clearly, reading this report, one can see clearly that it is science that was the main driver for the first UN conference on human environment in 1972. And again, it is science that is at the core of our discussions in this Stockholm Plus 50 today and tomorrow. Including the leadership dialogues that we shall be having starting this afternoon and the tooth of tomorrow. So it's a sober moment for me to read in your report. And I read it once, especially the executive summary. I think we don't have a good scorecard. If we reflect the 50 years when we met in 1972 and now, your report is indicating that we have only achieved 10% of the goals of the commitments we have all made. So it seems we have done well in commitments, in promises, and less on action. So we have a deficit of action. So implementation, scorecard is weak. I think that's what is coming out of your report, which we are going to be seeing already before you. But this report has very concrete recommendations which have been made. And I believe those recommendations will form part of the discussions for today and tomorrow. And looking at the planetary crisis and the extreme inequality that requires substantial systemic action, including addressing our economic systems as drivers of many of the problems. So we gather here in Stockholm Plus 50, well-equipped and with a growing momentum for change. We call for bold and science-based decision-making to accelerate the pace of change. So I want to conclude my remarks by making three observations based on the report. Number one is that I agree with the report that we need to align our national statistics with sustainability goals. The Secretary General for UN emphasized this point early this morning. We have been measuring our progress based on gross domestic product. I am an economist and I was trained that in GDP, you measure GDP through three approaches. You can do production approach or value-added approach. You can do expenditure approach or income approach. And you can measure the progress of the economy. In that one year. You can go ahead and also do gross domestic product, national product or what you call GNI. But all of them don't help us to give us progress. You could be doing well in one year when you have forest products that is part of the inclusion. But is that it could be... So it doesn't bring in the impact of degradation, the environmental degradation. So we need to start shifting away from just GDP and adopt measures and metrics that will help us to measure genuine progress on human development, especially on aspects of environment. The second point I want to emphasize is on the issue of finance, both public and private. We need to ensure that we have sufficient capital levels that are directed to all the sectors, especially those countries that are suffering most and yet they have contributed very little to the costs, the problems that we have now. This is a critical step in ensuring what is being now called just transition. In Kenya, even though we contribute less than 0.1% of greenhouse gas emissions, we have said we will not sit back and just complain about those who are causing. We have taken the bold steps ourselves to work on our renewable energy and we have moved away. Now over 80% of our energy is renewable, is green. And we have moved away from low levels when we used to use a lot of fossil fuel. And if you look at our updated NDC, we have also been very bold. We have taken a more ambitious target of 32% reduction, relative to business as usual, which is 2% higher than what we had submitted earlier. And we have looked at a number of sectors on mitigation, industry, transport, agriculture, waste, and I can't remember the others. But I think those are the main areas that we are looking at, especially waste, where we think we should focus more on circular economy and green transition. So finally, I want to emphasize on the need to strengthen multilateralism for environment and climate action. We know environmental problems are transboundary. They know no borders. And so what is required at this point in time is synergy and collaboration and better coordination among countries. In the current challenges of weak multilateralism, Kenya is committed to playing the leadership role in promoting multilateralism through the United Nations systems and within the region of Africa. Climate change is one of the pillars of Kenya's focus. As an elected member of the United Nations Security Council and as the host of UNEP, we will continue to champion multilateral action for global environmental governance. As you read this report, you will see that it emphasizes that we have the keys to unlock a better future by redefining our relationship with nature, ensuring prosperity that lasts for all and investing in a sustainable future. Leveraging these shifts and closing the action gap, the conditions for change must improve and stronger accountability, policy coherence and solidarity for a more muscular multilateralism is what we need. Stockholm Plus 50 recommendations made in this report demonstrate the ample opportunities at Stockholm Plus 50 for taking action and seeding transformative change. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my message to the Africa Dialogue on the Stockholm Plus 50, which is, none of us is safe until all of us are safe. Thank you very much. Thank you. P.S. Kipto, may I request you to just stay on stage for a bit. Please remember those three things, changing economic paradigm, finance and multilateralism. Thank you so much for that. I would request Dr. Osa Passon to kindly officially also share with you the report so that as a co-host, you can take it forward in the conversations that are going on. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Dr. Kipto, and we appreciate your input. I would now of course request Dr. Osa Passon to give us the presentation of the report and all of us are waiting eagerly. So, over to you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Dr. Kipto, and thank you everyone joining us today to discuss not so much the scientific underpinning of this report. We really want to discuss with you the recommendations for action. We have heard very clearly from the plenary today. It's urgent that we need to take action. So we want to be as concrete as we can in this event. You will get two invitations to engage with the full report, and I hope you take that opportunity. I will provide a very short overview of the report, and we will then watch an artistic interpretation of the report, a short film. But first, I wanted to also thank the team behind the report, including experts of the advisory panel. Some of you are here today, contributing authors and the communications team. So this report is a synthesis report. We have reviewed the latest available science, and based on that, we have identified three shifts, broad shifts for our societies to embark on. Three structural barriers. We need to start dismantling more seriously, and we provide no less than 52 recommendations. I wish we had only one recommendation, that's silver bullet, but this is really an all-hands-on-deck moment. We need a new watershed moment. We have heard this many times today. We had a watershed moment in 1972. I will say, despite the geopolitical turbulence, despite the north-south tensions at the time, despite that we didn't have the scientific evidence basis that we have today. So we need that new moment. But rather than going through why all the science, from IPCC, IPES, et cetera, we know what we need to do, have the emissions by 2030, hold biodiversity loss, reduce resource use. You are all familiar with the science. Let's instead talk about the positive momentum for change that we identify in this report for things. A broader and robust global public support and taking action. Public support varies, of course, and we need to work actively on securing public acceptance and making sure that transitions are just and inclusive, but the baseline for that public support is increasing. Secondly, technology and technology uptake is increasing, accelerating. We are expecting key technologies to shift from niche markets to mass markets with the right policy support before 2030. Thirdly, we have better evidence than ever on all the positive co-benefits of taking action on health, on labor productivity, and also evidence on the cost of inaction. Finally, we have a very strong voice and agency of the youth today. They demand change. So we need to harness this positive momentum for change and close the action gap that Dr. Kiptu also mentioned. So in the report, we tried to do a very stock take of global environmental governance over the last 50 years. It's a big task, but one of the key findings is what Dr. Kiptu mentioned, that when we look at all the more than 400 targets that have been set on environment and social sustainable development in the last 50 years, they again have been achieved or shown significant progress. We provide some explanations why in the report, and we actually go back to review the original framework for environmental action conceived in 1972. But the conclusion is, of course, that we need to accelerate. So we also look at ways to compress the time scale for decision making in the report, trying to ensure it's still legitimate and robust. This is a real difficult dilemma, but also extending the time scales. Future generations and the idea of intergenerational equity is no longer a kind of afterthought in sustainable development. It's getting very concrete and real. The consequences that our children are going to face in their lifetimes. For example, seven times more heat waves during their life course, or they will have to make do with one-eighth of the carbon budget of their grandparents. So, in a nutshell, the overall challenge is, of course, how do we get to that sweet spot of sustainable development in that left upper corner there? So far, no country has managed to improve human development while not starting to over-consume and transgress planetary boundaries. So, on to the action proposals in this report. How did we approach the identification of these three broad shifts? We felt that we have excellent roadmaps today for energy transition, food transition, transport transition. We know what we need to do up until 2030. So, for this report and for the Stockholm Plus 50 moment, we wanted to look more on the foundations for transitioning more broadly to sustainable development. We looked for whether there is potential for action where issues are not yet high on the policy agenda and hopefully also that they resonate with the leadership dialogues held today and tomorrow. So, the first shift is to redefine the relationship between humans and nature from one of extraction to one of care. We have been discussing at length how to value nature, how to price nature, bring nature into the economy, but we argue in this report also from taking more of a behavioral science approach that we need to ensure human nature connectedness also in our everyday lives. So, some of the recommendations for this shift is to ensure access to nature in urban areas even more than we do today. Also think about our relationship with other species. We can start mainstreaming animal welfare as a sustainable development issue, not just an ethical issue. We know the climate footprint of industrial animal agriculture and the risk of new pandemics. In education, we can do a lot. Revise curricula both in primary school and higher education to make it more nature conscious, more aware of sustainable development, science and policy, and also enhance the incorporation of indigenous knowledge in accordance with existing international agreements. The second shift is ensuring prosperity for all, and here we look at the economy at large from the very micro scale up to the macro scale. Looking at lifestyles, business model, supply chains, job creation, and the macroeconomic indicators that we use, but also innovation. What kind of goods to enter the market and what are the sustainability criteria we set? So here some of the recommendations is to elevate the discussion on sustainable lifestyles. We think it's time to do that. So elevate action on SG12 and maybe considering a regular UN forum to co-develop these pathways so we converge on sustainable lifestyles. We need to shift from selling products to function, so how can we remove any legal biases in our legal frameworks to enable that? On supply chains, there are a lot of initiatives at the moment, but we see scope for increasing ambition, harmonizing these initiatives and maybe making them more binding. Job creation, ensuring not just green jobs, but decent jobs and targeting youths particular, and it was interesting to see it was an initiative focusing on exactly just this launch today. And as we heard from Dr. Kiptu, also considering alternative well-being metrics, and I know this is also a big focus here, stock on plus 50. Oops. So the third shift, investing in a better future. So we have a rapidly growing interest from private capital in the final sector to invest more sustainability, but we argue that there is still a strong need for government to help align financial flows, not just to green investments, but also away from the unsustainable investments. We see that sustainable investing today is not really a volume problem. It's a problem of allocation and access for lower and middle-income contexts. So some of the recommendations we mark here is again taking that look at innovation and technologies. What do we actually invest in to put on the market? There is still a strong need for public R&D funding to in line with this idea of emissions and sort of green industrial strategies, really interesting examples of this in some countries. We also call for ambitious rethink, to paradigm on technology transfer. This has been an ineffective means of implementation conceived in the 70s, but not really delivered. So we need to rethink that more in terms of co-development of technology so we don't increase the technology gap now when we embark on the green race, as it were. We call for financial actors to engage more in active investing in addition to the passive investing and the ESG metrics. More joint de-risking initiatives to enhance the availability of domestic credit in low-income countries and emerging markets. And also maybe start thinking more seriously about ways to disincentivise unsustainable investing. So these were the three broad shifts. Many of these ideas have been around for a long time, of course, circular economies, sustainable consumption and production. So why hasn't more happened? From our expert advisor panel, we did get a strong encouragement to, in an honest way, look at the structural barriers that we are still facing, that we need to start dismantling. So the first one is policy incoherence, which is very familiar. We have environmental policies in place. There are incentives in place, so they are simply not strong enough, or they are counteracted by conflicting incentives. But the good news is that there are many tools today. We can improve policy analysis to ensure that our policies are more integrated, more systemic. The ESG framework is an excellent checklist to implement in a systematic way. But this is also a procedural question ensuring that relevant interest groups are represented in the policy process and ensure that we look at this broad set of goals that all the countries of the world have committed to. The second barrier is the lack of solidarity, and so we need to foster renewed multilateralism and build that trust, not just between institutions and citizens, but of course also between countries. An important way to do this is to deliver on the promise of climate finance. But we also look at some new ideas, for example, around new mechanisms to deal with chronic risks. And again, this new paradigm for technology transfer, how can we start thinking about co-development of technology? And the final barrier, which I think we have also heard a lot about now in the lead-up to Stockholm Plus 50, the lack of accountability, that there is this feeling that we have produced a number of targets, number of pledges, commitments, but how are they actually followed up? So here we can do a lot at the sort of technical level with better data and information flows, making it easier to track how we're doing basically, both on the state commitments, but also on the many thousands of multi-stakeholder pledges. And we of course see this very clearly in the domain of the net-zero targets. But it's also a more political question, of course. How do we, based on this information, how do we ensure answerability and consequence, which are key elements of accountability? And of course, the consequence does not need to be only negative, but also positive. So for example, how can we start these summits with an accountability summit where countries are actually invited to report on their progress and together with other actors? So the goal here is to build a mutual accountability. We are in many actor groups now having to make changes. It's not only national governments, of course, and also a constructive accountability so it becomes this positive race to the top rather than sort of reduced ambition. But we think it's important to lean into this question of accountability rather than sort of wait and take a more defensive approach. So that was the short overview. I hope it gave you a taste of what's in the report. And let's see, final words. I think I will stop here and then, as mentioned, give you the second invitation to get a different version of the report in a beautiful format. So our colleagues at the Council on Energy, Environment, and Water invited a young poet, a performance poet, Simar Singh, 21-year-old from Mumbai to make his interpretation of the report. So can we please show the film now? Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Ausa. I'd appreciate it. Ralph Emerson once said, A house is made with walls and beams but a home is built with love and dreams. The earth is not just a house built with walls and beams and skyscrapers and malls and roads. The earth is our home full of breathtaking forests and waterfalls, vast blue oceans and also malls but with people and all kinds of different beings. The earth is filled with love and dreams but our home is crumbling, our dreams are breaking. We have changed ecosystems, made our homes sick, then we ignored the symptoms, waited for it to get tragic in a world where nature is worshipped. Actions don't match the words of the leadership. Rising emissions is a call for urgency and now, now is the time for us to take agency because families of our own swept away in floods yet we don't see pain till we see blood while our forests shrink in front of our eyes we renovate our home to where we cannot recognize but 50 years ago at stock home an effort was made to save our home 50 years later there is no accountability but it is time for us to take responsibility let's craft a key to unlock a better future and redefine our relationship with nature our home isn't perfect but it doesn't need renovating it needs compassion our home needs healing it is already 2022 but there is hope I see hope in the eyes of our generation as we are learning how to cope young voices, young voices are becoming an inspiration how dare you continue to look away our home doesn't need heroes in capes or superheroes who change shapes our home needs people like you and me people who act and people who make policies we need to invest in a better future reform, finance and technology we need to heal nature build a world where all get prosperity as this may be our last chance this decade our last window despite the clouds and the storm there still can be a rainbow great communication really great thank you so much ladies and gentlemen at this stage we are going to have three panel sessions so may I start by inviting Dr. Runabha Ghosh director CEW who will be sort of introducing this panel and the panelist Dr. Sebastian Treya please come in front Isabella Lovin thank you, good to see you Andrew Noitson Andrew, I think he was here thank you Andrew Jay Nikam representing the youth Professor Salim Hu Professor Salim, I saw you thank you and then Mats Engstrom lastly so we are going to have Dr. Runabha pitching three sessions different sessions and then our panelist will respond to some of the issues and we are resting against time so my request is let's try to be short, crisp and fast so Dr. Runabha, over to you I am supposed to first of all welcome, thank you so much for joining us today I am Arunabha, I run CEW but I am supposed to make a pitch I rather make a provocation we have got 52 recommendations the provocation is will we take 50 years to implement those recommendations that is approximately one recommendation a year or will we take 52 weeks to implement these recommendations that is about one recommendation per week and can we convene one to say we got it right so here is my provocation what do we need to do to establish a culture of accountability number one, we have got to make sure that multilateralism, the international cooperation deals with the chronic risks that we all face how do we create an insurance cushion for the most vulnerable across the world number two, how do we hold ourselves particularly the rich countries to account for the delivered promises on finance not just 100 billion dollars but the trillions of dollars that need to flow by de-risking investments into developing countries at scale number three, how do we make sure that we build a community of practice within and across environmental domains so we can learn from each other and make sure that our data, our evidence, our communication all aligns towards delivering on these promises number four, how do we make sure that we create a forum of accountability can the United Nations convene an accountability forum to hold all of ourselves to account when my daughter saw that video a couple of weeks ago she's just nine years old and instead of saying nice video she said you've already wasted 50 years thank you and then I will go just immediately to Sebastien Sebastien Trez, the director of Idry from France Sebastien just one thing based on the pitch what do you take home from here I think it's important to underline the fact that this report is by CEW and SEI I think this is really important in a moment where we have a lot of distrust between northern and southern countries and I think I want to underline the significance of the report when we look at my starting point which is the extreme inequality in today's world between and within countries and how it will be increased by environmental degradation and the continuation of the current trends while the sustainability transformation can be either an opportunity to rebalance that or is at risk to increase this structural asymmetry structural asymmetry that is an old story I mean 1970s you had the non-aligned movement talking about new international economic order and that hasn't changed and the recent crisis has actually increased and deepened the structural asymmetry between economic powers so in this context I think the recommendations are very easy you have things in the report that are bolder than what you have just said because what you have proposed is has to be metabolized by the political context but there are bold and disruptive ideas and I think this is really important beyond the idea of, I think to rebuild trust of course the idea to the first step is at least to have accountability on climate finance that's for sure but I think what we really need to look at is how we can deal with the new stage of globalization where we'll have the digital revolution of de-globalization or disentanglement of the economies and the shift to net zero and how to ensure that this leads to supply chains that are delivering a fair share of value of jobs and on power in the supply chains between countries and my main questions there I'm sorry for this I'm coming to the main question that is I see a lot of you have these recommendations on co-development of technologies that are absolutely central you have these recommendations about sustainable supply chains and I'm not sure that we have a solution that is multilateral regulation on that I would go first for instance for social rights for workers as the thing that we need to advocate for but nobody here is in capacity to negotiate that in Stockholm but that's the type of maybe next steps that I would like to discuss I think that's why we're having this conversation that solutions come from this conversation we've had solutions before and disruptive ideas and I think I go over to Isabella Lovin from our Minister for Environment Sweden, Deputy Prime Minister I mean you've had a scorecard less than 10% achievement in terms of the commitment and we're talking about bold and disruptive ideas what in your space given your experience do we need to do in terms of reaching where we want to go Thank you very much I'm the former minister now even to read the reports which is quite good so I can really want to thank the Stockholm Environment Institute and everyone who contributed to this excellent report with its recommendations and I think what you said about being bold we actually are very much at a point in history where we need to be bold and we need to rethink and being 50 years after the Stockholm first ever conference on the UN environment on the environment there's a lot that has been missing during these 50 years and we don't want to meet again in 50 years and just making the accounts that we failed so we need to do some things differently and for me two of the recommendations from the report stand out as the strongest ones the first one is to redefine our relationship with nature because the present logic that is really driving our economy and politics is the one of extraction and destruction of our planet and of its resources and if we're really going to change we have to re-establish the value of the living nature of animals, of ecosystems and really factor that in not only in economic terms but actually as a moral value that we have something to protect that leads me to the second one and that is about accountability the suggestion about an accountability forum I think is excellent because if we listen to the young people you mentioned your daughter I mean what can they expect from us I mean we've had 50 years of conventions negotiations and still we have a climate crisis we have the oceans full of plastic we have biodiversity loss each day where species are going extinct why are we not living up to the promises made in all those conventions in all these fantastic conferences where we meet and we make these grandiose speeches but why isn't there accountability and I think that is really an idea that needs to be tested and I think we need to really not be afraid, I think also mentioned that we have to have a race to the top but there has to be some kind of a gain of living up to what we need to do it could be preferential access, different types of venues but we also can't shy away from saying that some partners and some stakeholders are not doing enough because otherwise the public trust in what we're doing is eroding and we hear that from the young generation in the streets they're saying shame on you and you're just blah blah blind so we need really to test that idea and I don't know exactly how we're going to do it but I think a compliance committee would be really nice to see the you know follow up on all the promises where are we at and not shy away and if I may just yeah one second more and I was listening to Margaret Thatcher speak speech at the General Assembly in 1989 when she was urging the world to convene and negotiate a new climate framework a climate convention and she said that it has to be also binding protocols effective regimes to supervise and monitor their application and now we fail with that but maybe we have to return to that idea, thank you. Thank you, thank you so much Isabella redefining relationship with nature accountability seems we missed a bit part of that so Arunabham just you know one of the things with this report is that for the first time ever there was a group of young people that also produced a report you know which is quite unprecedented and as you're going there I mean what as you go into the sort of like the second panel on the issues there what do you see moving forward? Yes because we are talking about young people we have Jai there I know she led the writing for the youth report and I think that's quite unprecedented as well so over to you. The most important message that comes out of the new youth report and just to give some context the colleagues at CW and SEI and others young colleagues they surveyed nearly 1000 youth across 91 countries but at least the most important thing I took away from there is we don't have voice in the rooms that matter we have voice outside the rooms that are making the decisions on our behalf so that's the most important message now how do we convert this culture of accountability that we need with the agency the youth are demanding so could I make a provocation? So again I was asked to make pictures I'm going to keep making provocations Gandhi said be the change you want to see so the most important thing we have to do is if we cannot build a sustainable planet if we don't change the way we live and if we don't change the way we live we cannot change the planet on which we live so one of the things we come out with in this report is that we need now a UN forum on sustainable lifestyles and what would that mean how do we nudge behavior how do we create the enabling policies and most importantly how do we completely change what is aspirational in terms of what progress means what Dr. Kiptu was also referring to the other thing is how do we make sure that government policies deal with that incoherence in policies at the end of the day people will need decent jobs economies need growth and the planet needs to be sustainable this so-called impossible trinity of jobs growth and sustainability can be squared if we make sure that there is a constant effort to secure the policies and finally this issue of having transparency if the youth are not in the room where decisions on their behalf has been taken the least they deserve is transparency about how those decisions are being taken and why those decisions are being taken so that they can hold decision makers to account Thank you so much Arunabha I'd like to go to Jai Jai is a research fellow at the Stockholm environment in Asia so youth don't have a voice and we've had about even this bold suggestion about you know something on regulating sustainable lifestyles now you have a voice what is the one thing that you'd like the audience to take and the commitment of the young people because I think it's one thing to ask of others to do things it's one thing to say that you will in I don't know five years, ten years I'm not here to blame you I'm not here to blame the older generation I'm not here to say it is a you versus us war yes the planet is trying but it is mainly because of all of us so I'm going to take a slightly different approach and I'm going to say now that I'm here no I'm not here to blame you I'm not here to blame the older generation I'm not here to say it is a you versus us war now let's go further where I'm going to craft some of us are going to have to face it for a longer part of our lives than others and I understand that climate change has been an unfortunate side effect of development and inventions that we all are taking advantage of from high-speed internet to fast когда most of us have used to ride this venue of these technology that we had in the environment. But now that we did, and now that we have officially acknowledged it, well, not now, 50 years ago, at this very event, since then, there has been very little done to address it, like you said. And there has been very little accountability, and this is going to cost us and the future generation much more efforts to limit it. And for example, our studies have shown that a child born in 2020 is going to have to emit 10 times less carbon dioxide than her grandparents to in order to limit the rising temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Hence the, our main motivation of the youth report was to provide not just complain, but to provide key suggestions and recommendations that need to be done through intergenerational collaboration and solidarity. And we also believe that policy makers play a major impact-oriented role amongst all stakeholders. And that's why our recommendations are primarily for the policy makers. And just to echo what Dr. Goh said, the youth is here and the youth is passionate and wants to work towards tackling the climate change issues at the local as well as international level. And they've already done it, mostly at the local level. But our representation on international platforms like negotiations is very limited. And it's largely tokenized, which I hope it changes soon. And as, just to give a statistics of that, as of 2022, only 6% of the youth participants have run for the office. And 6% is almost nothing given that we are 50% of the population in the world right now, almost. And additionally, many youth from low income backgrounds are unable to voice their opinions. And that's mainly due to lack of funding or visa limitations or requirements. So as a youth, we would like the policy makers to enable higher youth participation in key negotiation and not only listen to our suggestions, but also work on implementing them. And additionally, the policy makers need to ensure a long-term thinking in policy making and have more solution-oriented policies and not just policies that address the challenge, but also provide solutions. Yeah. And the policy makers also need to be accountable, like Dr. Ghosh has said, and transparent in the processes, but allow us the youth to openly challenge the status quo and suggest creative solutions and not shut us down. And lastly, the only way of solving climate crisis, climate change crisis, is through inclusivity and a collective collaborative effort, irrespective of sector, gender, age, location. So I would just like to take this platform and say, let's solve this together and not fight over it. Thank you. Thank you, Jai. Really interesting. But it is not lost on us that in 1972, there was no youth forum, there was no youth report. I think we are making progress. But I want to go to Andrew Norton. I mean, you are an anthropologist. We've heard about sustainable lifestyle. We know the youth are driving lifestyle in terms of demand for good and services. Do you think what is being proposed here is possible? Yeah, sure. Look, thank you very much indeed. And thank you for your opening comments as well, which actually cover many of the things I've written down, which gives me a little bit of freedom now. And there are a couple of things I want to say. One is that in terms of the trajectory to a sustainable and just world, we're not missing it by a little bit. We're missing it by a mile. If greenhouse gas emissions had started to reduce in 2000, it would have been 3% a year to hit the 1.5 carbon budget. Now it's over 15%, if that's even possible. So the first thing to recognize is the scale of the challenge. My organization, IID, was intimately bound in with the first Stockholm environment. And Barbara Ward was a co-writer of that document. And she put her faith in the notion that, although there are always divisions between nations, they would see enough common interest to be able to act effectively. And it seems to me the biggest question we have to ask is why that hasn't been the case and why we have not been able to make that fundamental, intuitive rationality a reality. But I think what she would have been hugely encouraged by is the social movements and the sort of explosion of energy, particularly from youth, but from others as well, for climate justice and actually for social justice as well. I think to make that a reality, it's more than just having voices in the multilateral meetings. It means having sort of radical democratic processes and structures at every level, at the local level, at the national level, as well as at the global level. And maybe that's part of the reason why we haven't been able to fulfill the promise of the first Stockholm environment. And I love the emphasis in the report on that, I should say, I thought it was brilliantly done. And let me just pick up one other thing in the report which I really want to emphasize, which is the emphasis on inequality and the connections between solving the world's inequality crisis and solving its multiple environmental crisis, which I thought was very well placed. So my sense would be that the leverage points that will produce real change are fundamentally political and then the technical stuff is really useful stuff that follows on, but that's where change will really happen. And three things, if I may, if we look at inequality and the links to a positive trajectory forward, we need to acknowledge that vaccine inequality in the last two to three years has been a massive problem and has broken a lot of trust and we need to fix that. And also, incidentally, it means that poorer countries are growing much more slowly out of the pandemic. I think the WHO target was for 70% vaccination in all countries, low income countries are at an average of 16% of the first dose. So that's fallen, again, a long way short. Where there is more potential to move, there is debt. There is a debt crisis coming, but debt should be forgiven in ways that empower the debtor countries to move forward on the climate and nature crisis. Debt for climate swaps, debt for nature swaps, whatever you wanna call it. That's a way of seriously energizing action for resilience and for just transition. And my final comment really is about meaningful action to tackle this massive growing wealth inequality at individual levels as well. Why not have wealth taxes that can be used for climate finance and can be used to support the poorest communities on Earth who are at the sharp end of the crisis. So that's what I wanted to say really. The report is full of excellent technical recommendations. Absolutely need to rethink GDP, but underneath that there will be a need for these political shifts, particularly on inequality. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, thank you so much. I mean, really very, very interesting reflections. Much appreciated. I wanted us to go to the third, I don't know, but to the third pitch that you make, but I wanted to make an observation that in 1972, the one thing that's been unprecedented in terms of change is technology. I mean, when I read, for example, the process for negotiation during the Stockholm Conference, I read the book by Lars Gorang-Enfeld, a distinguished diplomat from Sweden. You realize that even communication that time was such a huge thing, but now I can use my phone now and pay my bills in Nairobi when I'm from here. In 1972, I think it was costing $6 per minute to just make a call. So you can imagine how far we've come, but I guess, I don't know, but this is the irony of it, that we've made a technological leap, but at the same time, we have increased inequality in terms of different parts and regions of the world. At the same time, we've actually created more environmental problems. So can I invite you to take us through what your report says on innovation and technology and how we need to go forward on that? Thank you. And provocation number three, just to pick up on Andrew's point that we need that political support. Provocation is there will be no political sustainability for sustainability. If a sustainable planet widens the technology divide. And therefore, we have to find ways in which we are making the planet both sustainable but also inclusive in terms of technology access, but also technology development. So the first thing that the report, and also I also talked about it, is this new paradigm of technology co-development. No more waiting 50 years for technology that is not getting transferred. No more waiting for vaccines that don't get delivered. As we all know, there is no vaccine for climate change. What we do need to do is pool resources, technical, financial, and human across developed and developing countries, jointly therefore on the intellectual property that then gets created and spread the technologies, the clean technologies faster. But what is also needed is a lot more public investment and de-risking at the early stages of technology development for the technologies that haven't yet come through. Unless we have that mission oriented approach, we will end up with suboptimal outcomes. And finally, we have to rethink how industrial policies become green industrial policies so that industrial decarbonization doesn't just end up with de-industrialization. Thank you so much, Arunaba. I want to go to Professor Salim Hook, Director of the International Center for Climate Change and Development. I mean, you spend a lifetime working on climate justice. You bring the voice of the southern countries into the global negotiations. When you listen to what is being proposed around technology and when you think about the different dimension of development and how it intersects with the triple climate monetary crisis of biodiversity, climate, and pollution, what needs to happen? Well, I agree entirely about the need to co-develop technology, but I also think we need to re-define what we mean by technology. It's not always hardware. It's not always hard technologies. It's not always, you know, IT. And the way the area that I work on, which is adapting to the impacts of climate change, that happens to be something that poor people around the planet actually know more about than rich people in the planet. And they are developing technologies, social technologies, of adaptation to climate change at the local level that the rich world needs to learn from. And so this co-development is a two-way street, in my view. Not just the rich teaching the poor, but the rich learning from the poor. And when it comes to dealing with the impacts of climate change, that is exactly what we are going to have to do. If I might also pick up one of the other provocations that Anurabha gave us with respect to accountability and the youth in particular, I'd like to make a very concrete suggestion on having this annual accountability event by not creating a new event, but using an existing event that we already have. And those of you who follow the climate change negotiations, I'm sure you all know about the annual conference of parties that we have every year where all the countries come together. Last year in November it was in Glasgow in Scotland. This year, coming November, it will be in Sharmelchek in Egypt. But one of the events that we have just prior to the COP is a pre-COP. Last year the pre-COP was held in Italy in Milan, hosted by the government of Italy. And they did a very innovative thing, in my view, which is something we can learn from and build on, which is they made it into a youth pre-COP. They invited Greta Thunberg and all the youth from around the world to come. And this year the pre-COP for Sharmelchek is going to be held in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I suggest, and this is my suggestion to SEICW, UNEP, the governments of Sweden and the government of Kenya, let us make this annual pre-COP that already exists into a youth accountability COP. Not just climate, all the other decisions that we've done on environmental and social agreements, we let the youth design the COP and we make the adults, the leaders, come and explain what they've done every year to the youth in fulfilling the obligations and promises that they make at the official COP. Thank you. Thank you so much, Professor Salim. I mean, Dr. Kipto is here. I guess you have to pick up the gauntlets. Yeah, so I think he's given the thumbs up, so let's clap for him again. That's a good commitment. I think I have a bit of a lack of time and I wanted, I think Salim, the other thing, we talked about one of the recommendations, you know, rebuilding relationship with nature and I think you're also uniquely placed because I mean, when you look at a lot of indigenous community or traditional societies actually, you realize that we might have a lot to learn from them. I think one of the things that I missed in the report is actually how do we not just think from having this instrumentalist approach in terms of how we do our activities, economic activities, but how do we humble ourselves, appreciate the knowledge from, I mean, particularly for climate adaptation, we know the knowledge from indigenous communities and traditional communities is so important for us to learn. I mean, do you have any reflections on that in your many years of work? Absolutely. I think one of the biggest ways backwards that we did is we modern human beings feel we know more than the indigenous people on the planet and that has been absolutely wrong and we need to accept that and we need to correct it and it's very good to see that this is being acknowledged but not good to see it's not being implemented significantly and again, you know, we talk about youth, indigenous people also need to be given space to be at the table, to be in the decision-making process and particularly when it comes to preserving and protecting the left over biodiversity that we do have, we've destroyed a huge amount of it, but whatever we have left, they are the real custodians and they need to be in the room making those decisions. We haven't solved that yet, I'm afraid. We're giving it lip service, but we haven't done it yet. Thank you. I mean, I hope we will, of course, as we looked towards implementing the recommendations, keep that in mind because I think it's very important. I now turn over to Matt Engstrom, who is a writer, analyst, and advisor, senior advisor at the Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies. So, Matt, you know, as a writer, you have a lot of reflection on many things and I was just wondering, based on the pitch that was made by Dr. Aruba, what is your take home and is there one thing that you think you can pass as a message for us to do? Thank you very much and thank you for this excellent report with very many good recommendations. I personally think the recommendations on co-development of technology is a major step forward and if this can be put forward in the also intergovernmental discussions, that would be a real progress, I think, and I agree with very much of what has been written here and what has been stated by Dr. Gosch also in other contexts. What I would like to say is perhaps a few words about also obstacles or key issues around this because, as Andrew said, there is now this trust gap for different reasons and I think it would be a real mistake, for example, by the G7 countries to think that if they just develop these green technologies and it's then somehow diffused to other parts of the world, that is the solution. I think it's really crucial to understand, as was said here, that technology is much wider than a specific patent or process. It has a social context, it has different ways of being used in different parts of the world and there's really advantages in co-developing technologies. So I believe much more in climate alliances in working together with the global north and the global south in this and that also means that in addition to different processes underway now between public-private partnerships, for example, it's also important to connect this to the multilateral processes like the Convention on Climate Change and it would be a way for the richer countries also to bridge a part of this trust gap to show commitment, to give, for example, more financing to UNIDO and other parts of the UN system to let the climate technology central network at Copenhagen be giving the right resources to really work on this. So I think that is kind of concrete steps the rich countries need to take. And the other thing I just wanted to say is the misconception, I think, that it will somehow be a disadvantage for industry in rich countries if these countries also supported investment in low and middle income countries, for example, to develop their industry. I think certainly sometimes there is a conflict of interest in the short term, perhaps, where should you produce the green steel, for example. But I'm quite convinced first that it's politically unacceptable to kind of erase trade barriers to other parts of the world because your own industry is greener. And second, that, for example, if you look at now the rush for green hydrogen that there is really a need for a multilateral process to have an acceptability for this really global change, this really global system that is now being built around the green hydrogen. So I'll stop there at very encouraging recommendations but we also have to deal with the obstacles and the misconceptions. Thanks. Thank you, thank you so much. Very good reflection. I want to come back to you, Arunaba, in terms of having listened to the different sides. But if you allow me, I just wanted to take maybe just two minutes and ask Isabella, this one half of the world population that over the last 50 years has not had a voice as much in the decision-making space and that is women. And so I want to take this latitude to just, if you have just one reflection around, how do we make sure that in the next 50 years that changes? Because there are many parts of the world where that has not changed and we have to say the way it is. So I just wanted, as somebody who also has been in the decision-making, do you have any reflections or any recommendations? I know, for example, in parts of the developing world, there are even very few women in science, you know? And so we'd appreciate that we also have some forward-looking ideas about how we want to deal with this challenge. Thank you for a great question and really it's a question about how sustainability is all interlinked. And of course, if we're going to make the leap for a really sustainable world, the 17 SDGs with their agenda 2030 and giving women a central role and listening to their voices and their knowledge, I am quite convinced we'll also accelerate that transition to a sustainable world. And without half of the world's population or almost half of it, we will not have a sustainable world. And I think that links in also to peace and security and peace building and all of that. So of course, giving women a voice in many countries also is linked to giving girls education and the possibility to actually develop their full potential and not becoming young mothers when they're teenagers and so on. So really creating a just and sustainable world means that we need to make changes on all levels. So I think that's the beauty. That's really what's the revolutionary narrative around agenda 2030 that we seldom talk about. It's not only the 17 SDGs, but it's the preamble. It's the whole vision of a sustainable world where we actually respect both next generations but all living creatures here and now. And I think women very often have a sense of the solutions that really, you know, you find the values in your heart and then they're not afraid of expressing that as well. So I think giving a voice to women is extremely important. Otherwise we won't have a just world. So that's as simple as that. Yeah, thank you. Thanks so much for those reflections. Thank you so much. Okay, back to you Arunabah. In three minutes or less, what are the next steps and what are reflections about the responses? I'm running out of provocations. No, I think it goes back to that 52 weeks versus 50 years time horizon. That's really, I don't need three minutes for that. It's really about how do you set the action agenda. What Salim just said, right? We already have platforms that can be adapted to new things that we want to do rather than, you know, these ossified processes that we keep going through. You know, I recently I wrote about making the UNF Fripples Sea a bank of actions, not a bank of commitments, because a bank only increases value when it creates value, not just with the, if it doesn't create value, people will stop putting deposits in it and they'll be a run on the bank. And all we have is depositing of commitments that are not delivering value. There will be a run on this bank. There is already a run on the planet. So how do we shrink that time horizon from 50 years to 52 weeks? That's number one. And number two, the point that Mr. Loven just mentioned about women. I just want to use one example. A couple of years ago, just before I visited a rural Andhra Pradesh, a state in the south of India, where the world's largest program on natural farming is going on, 800,000 farmers. I visited the farm of a woman. She owns a half acre plot of land, growing 15 different crops through agroforestry. No fertilizer, no chemicals introduced, etc. This lady, she was a widow. She was putting her two children through high school and college. And I asked her, I said, why did you take the risk of moving away from farming that everybody knows, that gets the subsidies, etc. Towards trying out something that is risky, that you don't know, that you don't have all the evidence. And she said something in her local dialect. She said, in our dialect we have a saying, we look for solutions where we lose our loved ones. So she had lost her husband and she had taken on his farm and she had said, I'm going to find my solution, which is going to be sustainable, out here. And that's the point. It's about empowerment, not just about women, but the vulnerable communities. It's not about giving them voice, it's about giving them the opportunity so that they take the voice. They have the money power to have the voice, so that's the most important thing for us to give them a podium. That's really shrink the time horizon and empower communities. Thank you so much. Okay, one final round of applause to our panelist. I can now release you to kindly take your seats. And as we conclude, we are privileged to have former president of the Slovenia, president of the club of Rome, and currently actually is having as a member of the United Nations Higher Level Advisory Board on effective multilateralism. We've talked a lot about that this afternoon. We want to benefit from your wisdom, reflect around what has been discussed, but also share with us in terms of your experience, and of course also based in your role as a member in the advisory board where we can, how we can take this forward through that forum. So please welcome. Kindly let's give him a round of applause as he comes. Thank you very much for the introduction and for giving me the opportunity to say a few words at the end of this fascinating panel, which I have to start with by congratulating the Stockholm Environment Institute and all those who participated in the preparation of this fascinating report on Stockholm and 50. Now, obviously I have listened to the discussion, to the panel, with great excitement because the statements were really very pointed, very clear, and they express a profound understanding and a profound experience, which I think is extremely important in this time when much of the world is thinking about how to improve and how to make multilateral cooperation real. Now, for decades the multilateral world hasn't been exposed to the level of stress that we see now. Multilateralism is in grave danger and there have to be a strong mobilization of forces around the world to save multilateralism, make it effective. One element in that picture, an important one, is the U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres who produced the report last September called Our Common Agenda. And in that report he laid out a vision on how a future multilateral world should look. Part of that vision obviously relates to the issues that we discussed today. And he asked a group of people, an advisory board, chaired by former Prime Minister of Sweden, Stefan Löfven, and former President of Liberia, Helen Johnson Cyrlif, plus 10 other members, and we have a very good gender balance. We have seven women, five men. So, you know, on that score we are well established and also people who are composing this board and experienced people. Now, I have come to Stockholm after three days of very intense work of the advisory board, including a meeting with the U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres which we had yesterday. And I can tell you right from start that in that conversation with the Secretary General, questions of youth participation and youth involvement were really very central. We have a member on our board, by the name of Miss Poonam Gimire, who was Youth Power Climate Representative at COP26, who is probably known to many among you, and who really makes sure that the voice of youth is heard and that the Secretary General is asked how he in his organization intends to provide better space for young people. Now, I come from Slovenia, a country in Europe which obviously has some problems, but not that dramatic problems. One of the problems that we have seen in the past years was relatively low involvement of young people in public policy issues. When I was president, I had really serious difficulties with engaging with young people in discussions of the kind of things that we are discussing today. But this has changed. In the last three years, an enormous change has happened very quickly, and now the young people are driving referenda for issues of water. They are moving population towards elections and the whole change and transformation has really become the property of young generation. And I think that this is a fascinating development, of course, which is happening in different ways in different parts of the world. Now, coming back to the question of the Global High-Level Advisory Board on effective multilateralism, that board is expected to make proposals to the Secretary General and to the UN member states who will meet sometime next week in what is called the Summit of the Future. And we would like really to make sure that the kind of ideas that we heard today in the panel are fully represented in what we propose to the Secretary General and what we as panel will do in our communication with the United Nations member states. So it's really very important that we have received the 52 recommendations and that I was witnessing a very important discussion this afternoon. Now, before concluding, I would just like to give you a flavor of what we have discovered in our own conversations about multilateralism today. In that discussion, obviously, we started from the point of the need for people-centered network multilateralism which goes beyond interstate classical intergovernmental communication and cooperation. And as we started with that and as we developed ideas on how that can be done, obviously the questions of climate change, protection of environment and the future of sustainable development come very much into the center. So that's really the central theme. And that theme obviously has then various political, financial, technical and other aspects. We have spent quite a bit of time in discussing the question of mobilization of financial resources on the subject. And obviously there is a need for a much stronger involvement of public funding. However, that public funding should be seen as a trigger for a much larger mobilization of financial markets up to 3.5 trillion dollars, something that has been discussed in this group today as well. So I'm trying to tell you that in fact when you start discussing issues of multilateralism in a group like ours in the United Nations you come immediately to the same kind of conclusions to which you have come. And of course we would I think in the future months learn a great deal from your report and from your discussion. Now this is a kind of a small amount of flavor from our recent work. I wish that we continue our cooperation and in particular I would like to say this is the time for young generation and young generation has to lead. I was very pleased to hear this idea about the pre-corp youth plus accountability aspect. I think that that's a great idea on which we can work together, we can work further and I'm sure we'll have success. Thank you very much. We really appreciate. We've run out of time. So I just wanted to acknowledge a few colleagues very quickly. Arunaba, this is part of the team that's in the room. Please just stand up so that colleagues can see you. Fiona Lambe, Henry Carlson, Nina Witz, Priang, Jane and Osa. Let's give them a round of applause. This is the team that delivered the report. We appreciate the work you've done. It is a game changer. We appreciate it. And lastly, can you clap to all of yourself for coming in and listening? And we look forward that each of you picked one or two things that you're going to do. All of us have a responsibility. Just pick one thing to do it. Leto and Gary Madai from Kenya used to say don't think that you're small and the small action you do is what makes the difference. So let each and every one of us pick one thing and we do it. Thank you so much, ladies and gentlemen. I wish you a good afternoon.