 A very warm welcome everybody to this global agenda event at the World Economic Forum. Over the next hour we're going to talk about some of the challenges, the hopes, the ambitions that our panellists have for 2015. Already in this January we've had a very busy time with central banks changing their policies, with concerns about geopolitical tensions in Russia and other parts of the world. In fact there are many, many reasons why we are now seeing a great deal of volatility on global markets. But of course this panel is not only about markets, it's about many other things. It's about the agenda as our panellists see it for the year ahead. So let me introduce to you our panellists for this global agenda discussion. Let me start with Robin Niblett, a member of Chatham House who joins us, Catherine Garrett Cox from Alliance Trust, Roberto Igidio Setubal from Itao Unibanko, Winnie Bayanima from Oxfam International and Jim Yong Kim, the president of the World Bank, our panel ladies and gentlemen. So if I could start with you, president. You recently as an organization downgraded global growth expectations from 3.4% to 3%. Can I ask you, what do you think the consequences of that are going to be for societies around the world? Well, anytime you lose half a percent growth it's a concern. You know, last year was another disappointing year. And one of the things we saw was tremendous divergence. For example, the U.S. growth was robust and it looks like it's continuing. Europe and Japan of course were very disappointing. And one of the interesting things that happened is we talked about the BRICS countries and for a long time they seemed to be sort of growing in unison but there was great divergence among the BRICS countries. And now we kind of have run out of instruments. I mean, you know, before the financial crisis it was thought that central bankers could lower interest rates but then after that they were sort of done. But now we've seen that bond buying programs, QE that was just announced for example, has been tried now everywhere. But the policy levers, meaning the levers that central bankers have have often used at this point. And so we're left and I think it's been said so many times by so many of us the countries that need to make structural reform should move now. And now in a time of low interest rates with the European central bank's announcement and with low oil prices, now is the time to do it. Now in some places we're actually seeing countries doing it. India is moving very quickly, Indonesia seems to be moving quickly, Mexico has moved quickly. The thing that all of us have stressed is if you want to really lock in and assure medium and long-term growth, do those hard things that you have to do and do them right away? A lot of economists that I've spoken to while I've been here have said, do not underestimate the impact that the falling energy price will have ultimately in rejuvenating demand and bringing growth back to economies. Given that you're downgrading for this year, do you not feel that that growth will come through this year? Well, it's interesting because we've done a calculation so that the average price of a barrel of oil in 2014 was $96. Now it's in the high 40s I think right now. But if the average price throughout 2015 is 30% lower, so if it's around 60, the average price in 2015, that will add back that half percent of global growth which is very significant. But in the middle of that we're on the side of both the winners and the losers. Nigeria, Venezuela, Colombia, and certainly Russia are going to hit very hard. On the other hand, countries like Indonesia and India are already taking advantage of low oil prices to remove fossil fuel subsidies which we applaud very loudly. Roberto. I would like to comment on emerging markets. I think emerging markets have had a very good decade in the last decade because they were favored by commodity prices and by the interest rates environment which was a kind of tailwind for those economies. Now we are on the reverse mood. The U.S. economy is recovering, so monetary policy is changing in the U.S. and this is putting pressure in the interest rates for the outlook of interest rates. And this is also bringing commodity prices down. This affects emerging markets a lot, especially those who produce not only oil but also iron ore, iron ore or sign beans or any agriculture or mineral kind of commodity. So this is affecting emerging markets which is reversing that very good moment that they had maybe 10 years ago. I know both you, Roberto and President Kim have expressed concerns about changes in monetary policy in the United States specifically and whether the Fed perhaps should be thinking not only about the U.S. economy but about the global economy and the consequences of its actions. Catherine, if I could bring you in because this falls very neatly into what you do at Alliance Trust. Do you think there is some possibility here that actually Janet Yellen might not pull the trigger on interest rates this year given the volatility and some of the economic weakness that we've seen expressed already? I mean I think predicting interest rates is always a strange game. I think there's certainly a possibility. I think it depends how the year unfolds. I mean clearly we've had quite a volatile start to the year. I expect that to continue. And I think the market is struggling to digest what will the new injection of QE mean on a global basis. How does that unfold? Because quite apparently the whole world is much more interconnected now. So I think it's possible that everything is on hold for a period of time but the markets tend to look through that and I think that's really the long-term vision that we need to be focused on. Winnie, let's bring you in on here because global growth is good for everybody. It helps hopefully lift everybody. If, as President Kim has said, we get slightly weaker growth than previous expectations, are you concerned that it will hit disproportionately poorer communities? Growth is good. It's good for the rich and it's good for the poor. It's good for everybody. But that growth must touch everybody and it must lift the majority so that for it to be sustainable. But that growth too must be sustainable to the extent that it's growth that's achieved not through increasing carbon emissions. So it's capacity to reduce poverty and it's capacity not to increase global warming are both important. So we must look at growth, looking at it from those two aspects as well. And I think this year is a defining year 2015 because this is the year that the traditional community will agree a framework to eradicate poverty and will also agree a framework to curb carbon emissions and set the world on a path of clean growth and development. So this meeting has been very important for me as a civil society activist to find business leaders and political leaders who are talking about that kind of growth, sustainable growth and who want to make commitments on poverty, under climate change, the two defining challenges. Catherine. I was just going to follow on from Winnie's comments and say that I think 2015 is going to be the ultimate test as to whether public-private partnerships actually work. And I think that we all have a responsibility to say, do you actually want to be part of shaping history or do you want to be consigned to it? And I think that's really critical. There's a wonderful quote from Abraham Lincoln where he said, you can't escape tomorrow's responsibilities by evading it today. And I think what I'm taking from the meeting this week is a huge sense of urgency, but particularly from the business community's perspective, a sense that we have a fundamentally important role to play. But critically, we are willing to do so. Robin. Well, I just want to comment on this from a political perspective as well. I mean, there are many reasons why 2014 has been one of the most turbulent years we've seen geopolitically in terms of security and may see an equally turbulent 2015. One of the reasons though, I think, is economic. I mean, it's this sense of a lack of progress, whether it be in parts of Africa, whether it be in parts of Europe where populism is risen, if not violence, and the sense that at the moment states are not able to provide the kind of answers that keep up with the changes in globalization. Whereas before, in a way, politicians had time to deal with this and adjust their policies, there's an expectation of immediate change now. If you don't get it, the technology communicates the frustrations. Those groups who have different types of agendas take advantage of it. Governments are being delegitimized in many parts of the world and I think they're struggling to keep up. So we can have an economic discussion that allows a time for pace for cyclical growth, for structural reform, but there is an expectation of a need for pace of change that not a lot of governments are matching. It's interesting that you talk about government actions. I mean, we had a very good debate over the recharging of Europe earlier this week. And on that panel, George Soros singled out QE, quantitative easing, and the actions that the ECB has now taken as probably going to lead to further senses of inequality in Europe. Have European governments that have resisted fiscal policies been irresponsible, and will the consequences this year be that we only see those who own assets get richer, while those who own little get poorer? Winnie, what do you think? Well, I think that around the world, we're seeing citizens distrusting their governments more and more, and also angry with business. And that's not good. And it's a result of what has happened since the financial crisis, that business or financial institutions that were responsible for the crisis got bailed out by citizens and are now healthy and back to life, like in the United States. But the ordinary citizen, the average citizen's income, hasn't returned to where it was before the crisis. People know this. And they are seeing that the policies of austerity are about them absorbing the consequences of the crisis, while those who caused it are comfortable and are getting away with it. So political leadership has to be more courageous about designing the solutions out of this situation. It cannot be about the poor paying the price and the rich getting away with it. President Kim. Well, we set two goals for the World Bank Group. The one was to end extreme poverty by 2030. The other one was for the first time, we focused specifically on the bottom 40%. We have found that the World Bank, extremely difficult to know exactly what the assets are of the wealthy. So we found it difficult to have really good data. I think what Winnie and Oxfam has been doing to point out some of the huge inequalities has been important. So what we've decided to do is, because we know a lot better what the income of the bottom 40% is, we're going to focus on that. And so throughout the institution, we're asking a very tough question. And that's exactly related to what Winnie said. So in all the work that we do, what are the really key things that we need to do to ensure that growth has an outsized effect on lifting up the poor, especially not just the extreme poor, but the bottom 40%. And we've looked at many different scenarios. And so our most optimistic scenario for global growth over the next 15 years is an average of 4%. Now I don't know that anyone sees that. I mean, it's hard to imagine how that would happen, but if we were able to reach that number, we still wouldn't get below our threshold of 3%. So what we have to do is we have to find ways of changing the impact of growth on the poor. In other words, we have to increase the impact that global growth has on the poorest. And so we're looking at things like there's no question that better health outcomes, for example, actually contribute to growth. Larry Summers did a study last year that showed us that in low to middle income countries, fully 24% of the economic growth between 2000 and 2011 was attributable to better health outcomes. We also know that equality of opportunity, just as a fundamental idea, is so linked to quality of education. We've been focusing on building schools and getting kids in seats, but we've been focusing less on the quality of that education. And I couldn't agree with Bill and Melinda Gates more that we can actually dramatically improve educational outcomes with technology. So we're even looking at road building. We found that if you build roads that very specifically target farmers who haven't had access to markets, you can lift them up pretty dramatically compared to people who don't have that access. So there's a lot of money out there being invested in a lot of things. What we're gonna try to do is for every single project we do, every single loan we make, we wanna understand its impact on poverty and try to learn as we go so that we change the formula. Thomas Piketty last year, the big book last year, he said that capital will naturally grow a lot faster than the economy and so inequality will inevitably grow. But he also said on page 21 that the two things, the two things that have in history reduced inequality both within and between countries is the diffusion of knowledge and the improvement in the skills and productivity of people. So we're gonna do everything we can to make sure that the best examples, we wanna use swaps and catastrophic bonds to support the poorest. We wanna make sure that every bit of knowledge that's used by the wealthy is available to the rich to try to change the formula. Okay, Catherine. I really wanted to build on something that Winnie said, which really comes down to leadership. I sometimes worry that we've lulled ourselves into a full sense of security about the financial services system. And whilst I don't doubt that it is probably better in some cases compared to what we were facing in 2007, at the end of the day, we've actually probably perversely increased the risk because a lot of these financial institutions have got significantly larger than they were in 2006 and 2007 by virtue of the fact that others just frankly folded. So the bigger have got bigger, but therein lies the dilemma. So the risk is potentially larger in terms of what could happen the next crisis and in terms of how that could unfold. But on leadership, that's the biggest opportunity. So if you actually have these organizations managed and guided by leaders who fundamentally believe that to be justifying their future, they have to be much more socially useful, then I think therein lies a real hope for 2015. You have said I know that you don't think that we have seen the cultural change in banks and financial organizations that we should have seen after the financial crisis. Is 2015 the year that we should lock up some bankers? Yes. So it's winning. For what? Sorry, can I just actually say that I think that it was the behavior of a few that have tarnished the reputation of many. There are a number of people who are doing really good work, but at the end of the day, my frustration is it's not happening fast enough. Now, as many people have said on the panel, 2015 is a definitive year. This is the chance that the business sector can actually step right up to the plate, stop talking about stuff, actually do stuff. We can help finance the climate issues. We can contribute to sustainable development. We can embed responsible business behavior. There is so much more we can accomplish, but we can't do that from behind the bars of a prison cell. Winnie, you wanted to come in on that. I didn't want to say that they should be locked up. Well, Roberto sat next to you. He looks very worried, I have to say. No, but what I wanted to say is that we want to see a real change of values and norms in the financial sector. It's very important. I think this is one sector that has been driven very much by making profits without thinking about the social impact, the environmental impact, and we're not seeing that repentance after the financial crisis. We are seeing them quickly going back to the old ways, big bonuses again, and so on. And big fines. So, but we are seeing. And big fines, 4.3 billion worth so far just for the FX probe. But they are good signs. So they are being punished. And there are good signs of good leadership, as we have seen. I think we have heard of initiatives that are even led by faith leaders to challenge people in the financial sector to think about the ethics of what they do. So that's good. But I wanted to go back to prosperity, shared prosperity by the bank. We agree with lifting 40% at the bottom out of poverty. That's a good goal. But if it isn't seen in relation to the top, then we miss the point. Because the evidence is strong that you cannot eradicate poverty when there is extreme inequality. So unless you have a measure of inequality and how it is reducing, your ability to lift the bottom is limited. I understand that Martin Sorrell said here, there's no proof that equality brings prosperity. That's a different argument. We're talking about economic inequality, not equality. They're not the same. They're not. One does not. I can't get the English word. But if you're making a case about economic inequality and its impact on growth, that is on poverty. That is not the same as equality having a reverse impact on growth and poverty. It doesn't follow. Roberto, let me bring you in. Because the financial sector I know would make the case that actually it's critical to the global economy and growth and prosperity. So do you feel that the legislation that we've seen implemented since the financial crisis is actually constraining and holding back activity in banks and the financial services sector that would help the global economy? Yeah, let me just step back for one moment and then I will get to your point. I think that to have inequality reduced in the world, we need growth. In the short term, that's the best answer for reducing an equality's growth. And we have seen in Brazil in the last decade inequality coming down a lot. Great progress. We have very good growth in the last decade, 4%, 5%. And now the last two years, inequality stopped coming down. So it's now stable because growth was gone. We had less than 100% growth last two years. So it's essential that we get growth back. And this is very complex. We all know all the complexity of this situation that we are going through right now. I'm more optimistic now because the US economy is coming back and is the engine of the world, I believe. And we will see better results in the next five years than we could see in the last five. But talking about the financial system, I think that financial system is a very important part of this growth. We can really do a much better job financing growth because credit is part of the growth process. And what was done in terms of regulation was to make the financial system more stable, more safe, let's put this way. Inputting more capital, requiring more liquidity. So a lot of measures were announced in order to make the financial system more safe and stable. This on the other side have side effects. This means that they'll be less able to offer credit. It will be a little bit more expensive because we need more capital now to do the same things that we were able to do. But definitely we will have a financial system that's much safer. And this is quite good because we will avoid those kinds of crises that we had like this one. But are we too reliant on the US recovery alone when you look at the global picture? I think the US recovery, it's very important. I think this can drive the world out of this low growth. I think all the countries will benefit from US growth. So we expect that this growth is really sustainable and robust for the coming years ahead. Robin? Well, it's a term where you started out, which was Europe. I'm always very careful about commenting on something George Soros would say. He obviously knows his economics very well. But when we talk about how we get the world economy going again, Europe always gets kind of relegated somewhere because it's just seen as the problem. But obviously 25% of the world economy, roughly if you put all of the EU together, larger than the United States collectively, Europe succeeding is vitally important, not just for Europe. It's vitally important for the rest of the world as well. It's a wealthy part of the world that needs to get itself back on a track of growth. And the problem that Europe has is it's going through an absolutely systemic shift from a social market model that it was able to afford when it was at the top of the global income ladder, when it represented the apex of global development, to one in which it's being competed. And many of its workers are getting competed out of the rights that they expect to come with their economic model. Changing this, which we avoided, most European countries avoid attacking in the 2000s, is now being addressed. It is painful because it goes to the heart of the political bargain in Europe that keeps political parties in power and keeps people happy. Hence the rise of populism. People are getting taken away from them. What they see is at the heart and the essence of their global compact. So right now, they're doing structural reforms. The only way Europe will be competitive again is structural reforms. Labor market, pensions, education, et cetera, takes a long time. Four, five years more. Sigmar Gabriel sat in this seat saying he was exasperated in a session I moderated earlier this week, exasperated that some countries in Europe, some of the biggest, he said, it was on the record, so I can repeat him, some of the biggest are just starting on structural reform right now, still debating whether it's needed. While these structural reforms happen, the ECB seems to be the one actor that can act. And sure, the asset takers may take a bit of the profit, but banks have got to start lending to small, medium-sized businesses. Gotta get some of it into the real economy. And I think that extra money that's being injected now, net, will be positive, and will help tide Europe through a bit the structural reforms that they are now undertaking. It's good to hear a champion for Europe. But let me say we have, I think, seven significant elections set to take place in 2015 in Europe, and there is a question mark as to whether some of those reform programs will actually get implemented, depending on those election results. How concerned should we be this year about the political process? I think we have to be very concerned. I mean, as I said, the ECB action might be right, but we have to be concerned. We have to be concerned, not least, because taking this action has put Germany and Angela Merkel on the back foot. You know, she's a very consensual politician. A step has been taken that's put her outside the mainstream if she defends it. And therefore the kinds of bargains, the lack of trust that exists amongst governments in Europe right now, will mean that when we hit bumpy roads, and we will through these elections, we have Greece this weekend, we will have Spain later in the years. You mentioned a number of other elections at the moment. Yeah, we could get some surprise results, but people have put a lot of effort in so far. They've paid a heavy price. And I think most electorates don't see an alternative. They're frustrated, it's represented in a good 30%. Populous parties in some cases are scoring majorities in the political system, but they are not the majority. So you might have a 30% even, but a 60% is not that way. They're divided. I think we'll see turmoil, but I think it's the right step. Catherine, just before I bring Roberto in, how worried are you about the UK? We have elections in May. Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, clearly political uncertainty isn't great. I mean, it's not great for markets. You know, it's not great for consumer confidence. But at the end of the day, I mean, the way that I think about it is, you know, we step right back from this. You know, as a global investor, I mean, we've been going for 127 years. We've ridden much worse situations than this. So actually, you know, periods of stress in markets just present opportunities. And I think, you know, it just comes back to this hideous, I would say, you know, issue of short-termism in markets. I mean, it drives me mad. You know, how about looking at the opportunity rather than seeing every single hurdle in pitfall? So I think you can probably get the gist that I'm a perennial optimist and I like to look through the noise and see, but how can we actually take advantage of those situations? Roberto? Now, my point that I would like to comment is on ECB and the reforms in Europe. I think what ECB has done is basically gaining time, gaining time for what? To do the reforms. So we need the reforms done in Europe. Otherwise, I don't think this is a sustainable system. So the reforms are needed. And reforms are always very difficult to get approved and to get political support because basically reforms means reducing rights and things from one part of the population to benefit everybody else. But they are very difficult to get approved. And we are seeing how hard it is to approve those in Europe. I think that you mentioned elections. I think that we will see how the voters in Europe are willing really to go ahead with reforms to keep Europe together. Robin? Well, just one quick additional point. Structural reforms don't necessarily create jobs immediately. Yes, that's right. And one of Europe's biggest problems, as we know, is unemployment, especially youth unemployment, running up to 40, 50% in some countries. That is our inequality in a way. It may be a different type of inequality other parts of the world. I know employment is a huge issue in Africa, but unemployment when you see others with fairly safe jobs is a huge source of the popular discontent and the rise of new parties, especially on the left. Not all populist parties are on the right. We have plenty on the left in Europe as well. Again, getting money into the system and letting banks start to lend to companies that can create jobs in the near term that can then be made sustainable by the structural reforms is the key hinge point that Europe's involved in right now. While we're on the issue of reforms, Premier Lee came here and spoke and talked about the new normal in terms of growth in China. But President Kim, should we have heard more about the reform process in China, both economic and political? You know, we've followed this very closely. And if you look at a document that we put out and I think it was 2011, called China 2030. Now, what my predecessor, Bob Zelik, just did this brilliant exercise with the Chinese, where they look specifically at, you know, how can we make our state-owned enterprises more competitive? How can we really shift our growth model from one that was so focused on investment and exports to one that's more focused on consumption and services? They were very thoughtful. It took a long time to really think through it. But once the NDRC was able to make sense of it in the Chinese context, he himself committed to it and they've continued. So the fact that their growth has dropped from, you know, the levels of the 10% years to now seven and a half percent, but that they have persisted in continuing with these reforms, I think it's admirable. And I think we'll see where they end up on growth curve. But then if you look around Asia, and this is something that in Europe, if they want to get a sense for what the future looks like, look at these countries, these enormous middle-income countries, like now India, for example, Prime Minister Modi has instituted reforms in a short period of time that are extremely promising. Now, whether he'll actually be able to deliver, but for example, just a little thing about India. Indian trucks travel about 250 kilometers a day. US trucks travel 800 kilometers a day because in India, trucks have to stop at the border of every state to pay taxes. This has been going on for decades and Prime Minister Modi in the first few months of his leadership put in what is gonna be, we hope, a goods and services tax that equalizes it, makes business easier to do. Now, that's the competition. That's what's happening in these countries who have a sense, a very clear sense of how they're gonna insert into the global economy. Now, can I just go back to the inequality thing for just a second? Very briefly, is that what would like to move us on? Here's the point. Here's the point on, and I heard, I actually watched the debate Martin Sorrell. Look, it's really hard. IMF came out with a study that said that high levels of inequality can actually slow growth. But this is, it's difficult to know, but here's what we're trying to say, and it gets right back to the reforms. Countries have to find those reforms that will at the same time reduce inequality and lay the foundation for growth. Now, look at the issue of youth unemployment, a huge issue in Europe, a fundamentally destabilizing, or a potentially destabilizing issue in Europe. We have faced this problem in so many developing countries, and we actually find the programs that really work. There are programs where if you specifically focus not on just technical skills, but actually off skills, leadership, ability to work with others, and then adjust the technical skill training to what the market wants at a particular time, we've had tremendous outcomes, both for men and women in Africa and Latin America. And so what, as an anthropologist, I focus on these micro issues of, well, what actually will change the prospects for job growth among youth, and we have good data, and we'd be happy to share them with the European countries if they'd like us to. But I do want to come back to China. And Roberto, maybe the Brazilian Chinese First of all, I'd like to mention about China economy. We have seen this week headlines about the low growth, lowest in 24 years, I think, growth in China. But I think that the good news out of that is that consumption is growing in China. It's going much above GDP. Consumption grew last year, 8% in China, and made it go above 50%. So now consumption represents already 51% of GDP in China, which is, I think, very good news. China is a too big an economy to be export driven. They have really to do this homework in order to make consumption and in the internal market better developed. And I think they are being successful. And that's the good news. And he said very explicitly in his speech, he wants to ensure that the increase in consumption in China is beneficial for the world. So I mean, this is about taking steps to help other countries sell goods in China. And I think that's real, Winnie. There are huge opportunities for growth and that a region like Europe that has slow growth can reap from. If you think about the millions of poor people in the developing countries and see them as people who want to consume, who need the goods and services that will make life better for themselves. And that in all these countries, there are opportunities to engineer growth by investing in those countries and helping to build the goods and services, to produce the goods and services that will lift people from poverty. I think that sometimes we do not, we look at regions as regions and don't see just what can be generated or unleashed if there was closer integration, if there was closer, if there was more risk taking by business leaders to invest and grow and lift people out of poverty. They will be the market for the countries where there is now stagnation. Well, let me take that point to Roberto because obviously companies create jobs as much as governments sometimes create jobs in the public sector. Roberto, Winnie, if you'll forgive me, I just do want to take this on and maybe you can pick up from what Roberto might have to say here. But corporate confidence is quite low, it seems to me, in many parts of the world and you're not seeing that kick up in capex that we all talked about in 2014 and thought it would come through in 2014. So Roberto, in terms of corporate confidence, do you think this is a year of higher or lower business spending? I think that confidence will improve along the year, especially if this growth in the US really happens. We are talking about 3.6 growth for 2015. If this really happens, I think that this will change the mood in many areas. In the case of Brazil, for instance, I think that we have a new finance minister there which has announced a completely different set of policies internally and those policies have been very well received by the companies and executives in general, market players, so confidence is coming back also in Brazil. So this is what I would expect, better confidence along the year, so improving confidence. But will that translate into higher capital spending and investment in people? It takes some time, I mean, confidence is back, then capital spending increases. It's not something that happens overnight. It takes some time between those two things to happen. Robin, what about conflict as a drag on growth, then, and on corporate activity? We know that there are a number of hot spots around the world, not least here in Europe, with the Russia-Ukraine story. How much is that going to matter in 2015? Well, it's an unfortunate and badly timed drag on Europe. There are several economies. Central Eastern Europe has been growing pretty well through the crisis in a number of the countries, partly on the back of Germany, Germany partly on the back of its good performance in emerging markets, which included Russia. You've seen some German companies losing 20, 30% of their export levels already to Russia, despite the fact that the sanctions are still fairly targeted. So conflict can certainly play a problem. I think the Middle East where really, which has become a cauldron of conflict, to a certain extent, is so unintegrated in the rest of the global economy that it's this terrible tragedy that in many cases other governments either muck around with or don't get that involved with and companies are very selectively engaging and not committing more than they need to. Energy companies will tell you anytime we've made money through conflict or not through conflict, like you've made money maybe through unstable times and stable times. So I don't think it needs to be a global drag on growth. Let's remember last year at Davos, it was all is 1914, 2014. And is China and Japan going to move into some really negative type of conflict environment that would hit global growth? And if China slowed, it really would affect global growth. This year that's moved off and China and Japan actually have patched up pretty well. So one of those really systemic areas of potential conflict has been moved back. I think the tragedy is a lot of the conflict we have, we can almost live with. It's terrible for the villagers, the people, the families, whether in Europe, whether in Africa, whether in the Middle East. But the global economy somehow is sort of overriding it at the moment. It is disturbing rather than destroying globalization for the moment. So we need to take this moment and try to fix them before they really start to impact the global economy in a much more serious way, which I think they will if they're left unchecked. To what degree does the panel feel that 2015 could be a year of fear and insecurity for many people just because they perceive the rise of nationalism and the acts of terrorism that we've seen in Paris and in other parts of the world over recent weeks and months? I think this is a major concern. I'd be interested to know how you feel about it, Catherine. I would agree with you. I think that 2015 is going to be characterized by fragility and fragmentation, which, to be honest, in certain cases has been caused by human behavior. So I think actually the onus is on us, regardless of the type of leader that we are, to try to put it right. So I think the word that I haven't yet heard mentioned is one of this sort of trust issue that has been so fundamental to the theme of the meeting. And I really do think that societies need to trust us more. We need to trust society. I mean, we need to work in partnership. The power of collaboration is just so much stronger than working alone. But at the same time, I think we need to recognize that we are in a very fragile state. And it's not going to be straightforward. It really won't be. Winnie. There were some real risks this year, I can see. I think there is a serious clash of, if I can call it, cultures that is playing out in ways that we sometimes can't even predict what's going to happen, but conflict erupts very suddenly. And I see that, especially in the North Africa Sahelian region. I see it in, of course, as it's playing out in the Middle East. There are real risks. But there are also great opportunities that I think are not being seized even in countries where there is a potential risk, but there is opportunity. If you look at the growth that's going on in Africa, a lot of it is driven by the extractives. But there are also some countries there that have been achieving growth that is coming from investing in agriculture, investing in infrastructure, both social and physical, investing in tourism. And all these are opportunities that can be seized upon to generate more growth and for investors from outside. But there is fear. Business leaders have a hedge. They want to have minimum risk. And what we are seeing is that, actually, the emerging economies, the business people from the South, are taking more risks, are studying, and are willing to go and engage and live in these countries and put their money there. And they are reaping, and they are reaping. So I think business leaders should challenge themselves, change their tools, reassess risk, and there are real opportunities. And that can also stabilize those countries. Robin. Just quickly, I think there's two types of instability that don't fit into the normal conflict pattern that we need to talk about, which are particularly prevalent in 2014, but I think will only accelerate. One is cybersecurity. I mean, the one global public good, in a way, at the moment, is the internet. We are connecting more and more with it. We're probably at the front end of the level at which we'll connect. But the speed of disruption is so much faster, in a way, than the speed of developing resilience. It is easy, as somebody said here during the conference, to conduct cyber offense. It's very difficult to do defense. And I think this is a problem that can just accelerate and expand as we go on. And could become a friction and a drag on growth, so much of which is about not going through the big industrial models we had in the past. A lot of Africa is about health care online, banking online. That assumes there's online, and that online works. If that were to be threatened, this would have a really systemic effect on the global economy. The other I quickly thrown is migration. When Europe has woken up to the fact that it is a zone of stability, and migration is moving in a big way. So just two quick points. Catherine Roberto, maybe just quickly to you on the cybersecurity. From a corporate perspective, how worried are you and what actions are your organizations taking to make themselves more robust? I mean, it's a huge issue. I mean, fortunately, from our own perspective with Alliance Trust, we're a relatively small organization, but really the key issue is the reputational damage that could unfold should people be successful in attacking you. And we do regular simulations. I mean, we actually did one last week. It was pretty scary, and we came through it okay. I'm delighted to tell you. But I think it's really being aware of all of the new techniques that these frankly criminals are going to use to take your organization down. And I think for me, the sort of issue of cyber threats in terms of what that can do to your own brand and your own organization, that's right at the top of our risk register. And it will probably stay there for some time to come. It's a big issue, definitely. We are a big company in Brazil. We have 60 million clients. So a lot of data, a lot of things. And banks, we have information, and we have money. So it's a real target for attacks. Every day we suffer attacks, every day. So far we have been able to manage this, to add all these attacks, but it's something that really worries us. And we have been basically investing and investing a lot to make it more secure. You wanted to come in? Oh, I was just talking about, I'm just gonna go back to fragility, but I can, well, here's what, I've been going around asking a lot of people. So to what extent is this an ideological problem and to what extent is this an economic problem? Because we continue to invest, we continue to try to find ways of seeing if growth and more jobs can help the situation. And so there are people who are convinced that this is such an ideological problem that there's nothing you can do. But I think that has to be sort of the last thing that we resort to. So one of the things, and we talked about it with Klaus at lunch, is there a way for this forum to think about ways that if we can't change the ideology of the leaders of these groups in the Middle East, if we can create some growth and jobs, especially for young people, maybe we can reduce the number of potential recruits. We've covered a lot of areas that are quite worrisome. The new global context sounds like a fairly scary place to be, given what we've discussed already. But I don't really want to wrap up on that kind of note. I do want to cover the topic of climate change because at the end of this year, there is a very important meeting coming up in Paris. Perhaps we can find some optimism about progress being made in this area. President Kim, maybe I can start you off on this. So last year at this conference, we talked about a bunch of issues, carbon pricing, removal of fuel subsidies, agreements between the major emitters, without any sense that it could possibly happen. But look what happened. So now at the UN General Assembly, we collected the support of 52% of global GDP, 1,000 companies agreeing that we need to have a price on carbon. So this was unprecedented. Then we had the China-U.S. agreement. Now India is coming out and saying we want to be a leader. They've quintupled their aspirations for solar energy. So I think we're in a different position. I sat, I mean, this was one of the great things about the World Economic Forum. I sat next to the CEO of the third largest emitter in the world, and he said to me, we've got to move forward on carbon pricing. And it struck me that that's different. So if we can do that, the most powerful aspect of that is it will unleash the ingenuity and entrepreneurship of people to find those solutions that can even more dramatically, I think, lower carbon emissions. Okay, Winnie, did you want to come in? Yes, on climate change, I was here last year, and I was also at the Climate Summit of the Secretary-General. And now what I find and what I think is interesting is that business leaders are ahead of political leaders, and that's good too. I've been really excited and made optimistic by business, certain sectors, not all of them, some of them, coming together and putting down real commitments to reduce carbon emissions in their supply chains. Great, we're working with them. MoxFarm works with a number of companies in the food and beverages sector. They've moved ahead, but I see not enough leadership from political leaders. So coming to Paris, I really hope that the conversations we have had here and that we will continue throughout the year will lead to a real leadership coming, especially from the G7, the rich countries, on moving the world towards a clean energy path where we, by the middle of this century, we've phased out fossil fuels. I also hope that we can have an agreement to fund adaptation, because really inequality is exacerbated by climate change. The countries that didn't cause it are suffering its worst impacts and need support. So support for adaptation, which is also lucky from the rich countries. Okay, Roberto. I think climate change is a very important issue, but I don't feel really comfortable to talk about that. Let me bring another thing to be optimistic about the world, which is technology. I think that technology, by the way, we have seen a lot of discussions these days here at the forum on technology, and I think technology is an important thing that will help to create wealth. I think the world is looking for means to create wealth, to get back to growth, and I think that technology will play a very, very important role in the future for that. We are already seeing a lot of impact in many business, especially in my area, for instance, we have seen a lot of things that is already happening and will be happening in the coming years that will make a big transformation in the way we do business. And I think that's very positive, because productivity will increase a lot, and I think this is very good for society. Okay, Catherine, we can take this back to climate change. I'm going to take this right back to climate change, because I think this is one of the issues of 2015. I think, echoing some of Winnie's comments, I think the business community has struggled to come to terms with what role we should be playing as far as climate change is concerned, but I felt that the mood and the conversations here have been very different than in previous years, and I really believe that business leaders are not only committed to coming up with particular solutions for financing climate change initiatives, but also they're going to practice it in their own organizations. And I think that really is going to be the way forward, just very briefly, and one of the things that we've been doing for the past few years is to work with companies in which we invest to really force them to address this issue head on. And as a result, we now know that our portfolio emits 60% less CO2 than the mainstream benchmark indices, and at the same time, we've shown significant outperformance. So you can translate issues of immense global importance and then do something about it and create that long-term shareholder return. And if you can create that virtual circle, perhaps its own circular economy, then I think everybody can truly benefit. Can green tech companies thrive and survive in a world of $40 per barrel oil? Well, I think that therein lies the opportunity. Actually, certain companies can get oil out of the ground at $25 a barrel. You just need to find them. I think what it will really come down to is technology and investment. So I think that the future is very bright. The future is certainly green. Robin. Well, just on this point, I thought Dr. Kim made some very important points about the shift that's happened in the lead-up to this year of the Paris Agreement, which give us some optimism for a decent agreement. But the technology point is so important here because, sure, the price of oil has dropped, but during this period of very high-priced oil, there's been that real commitment to renewable technologies. And solar, for example, has dropped by an even larger percentage over the last four to five years. So during that high-priced period, we're not gonna go back to the same high price of renewable technology. It starts from a more competitive position in its ability to play within the energy mix. I think the optimistic part for the future, potentially, is that we have a chance in the next five, 10 years to allow big growth to happen in countries like India, parts of Africa, even continuing growth in China and Asia, which we need for the wealth and welfare of those populations, but start to disconnect it from and decouple it from the pace of resource usage. Because if we don't do that, the growth won't be sustainable. I'm gonna bring this to a close. I think we've had our time pretty much, but before I do that, we've talked about the global context, but I want to personalise this just as we wrap up. And maybe if I could run along the panel very quickly and just ask you about personal ambitions that you may have for this year either related to your career or perhaps hobbies and interests. Robin, we'll start with you. Luckily, we had a bit of a warning about this, but I came and sat down here without a clue of what I was gonna say. And I thought I might be last, but actually, luckily I have an answer on this in my mind. It's rather parochial given how global we've been here, but the parochial thing for me is I'd like to see in 2015, I'd like to see that I can contribute somehow to an intelligent debate about the benefits of Britain being in Europe and the benefits for Europe of Britain being in Europe. Because however the election pans out where the front end of a critical debate both for our country, for Europe, and I believe where Europe sits in the world, for the world. Catherine? Well, I have a couple of very quick ones if I might. So I have a personal ambition to really learn how to meditate this year. I've been to some wonderful sessions on mindfulness and I'd like to think that I will be a better leader if I took time to reflect. But perhaps more on a work-related basis, I would like to feel that in 15 years time, my children tell me that I did something that changed the course of history around sustainable development and climate change. Roberto? Well, I have a very personal ambition which is to get married again this year. Congratulations. Have you found someone? Yes, for sure. Those are my plans for the year. Excellent, excellent. Winnie? Well, two things. One, I want to go back to my Latin dancing classes and learn how to do a decent tango. And the second one, I'm going to become a vegetarian. Excellent. President Kim? On a personal level, I want to help my 14-year-old son become a great tennis player and not let his opponents win because he feels sorry for them. We have a bunch of people together. Right now, what we saw with Ebola is that we're completely unprepared for pandemics. I would love to work with all the people. There is a fantastic session, private sector, Margaret Chan from WHO, that we actually come up with a program or a system that includes financing, early detection, response, good systems in all countries that will actually protect people, especially but the global economy, from the number one potential risk for the reinsurers. The two top ones are pandemics and natural disasters. And we don't have a system. So by the time I come here next year, I hope we can announce that we've built a system. Well, let's thank our panelists for their contributions over this hour. And thank you for tuning in to this special program on the global agenda from the World Economic Forum. Stay seated because we have a musical treat coming up for you in just a moment. And if I could invite the panelists perhaps to leave the stage. And thank you so much for being with us here for the global agenda debate. Thank you, Winnie. Thank you. Good, good.