 Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome. I'm going to talk a little bit about the global environment outlook, which comes out every four to five years. And this report is based on the work of scientists. And they look at the existing literature. So it's basically a meta-study of the existing literature. And this work has been done because there was an assignment from 193 governments some years ago that they wanted to know what the state of the environment was and how it links up with the healthy planet, healthy people. So that is basically the topic of this report. In this presentation, I will run you through a little bit about the substance of the report, the process of the report, and a little bit about the output, the outcome, and the impact. In terms of substance, we use what is called the DPSIR model, Driver's Pressure State Impact and Responses. And this model was then modified a little bit to include a whole section on policy responses as well as a section on outlooks. And we look at air, freshwater, oceans, land, and biodiversity. And then this is all done as part of a theory of change. And this basically means that when the report is finished, we are expecting to mobilize a large number of actors in different parts of the world to try to take these results and make their decisions. So the key message of the report is that a healthy planet supports healthy lives. An unhealthy planet affects human health. The drivers and pressures need to be affected. And actually, if you want to promote healthy people in a healthy planet, these are very synergistic. So why does a healthy planet support healthy people? Well, if you look at nature's contributions to humans, whether it's biodiversity, supporting, regulating, provisioning, or cultural contributions, these are substantially more than the global GDP. In 2007, they've evaluated at $125 trillion, which was much more at that time in comparison to GDP. Now, this is not only important because it serves the business interests of the world, but it also provides clean services to 70% of the world's poor to live healthy lives, eat, and work. So it's really a very important narrative that a healthy planet supports healthy lives. However, we are in the middle of an unhealthy situation. And the drivers of an unhealthy planet are fivefold. First, of course, population, because there are more people going to be here and we are all graying. There is some debate about whether population is the driver or its inequality. Then there is urbanization, which is 6% in 2050. This increases consumption, but can also lead to much greater efficiencies. However, the big challenge is going to be informal settlements growing with people without access to services. Then you have growth. On the one hand, growth is really important for all countries because it enhances welfare. But it is increasingly inequitable. The rich tend to pollute more. The poor face more existential threats. Technology is really good because it helps to enhance welfare. At the same time, technologies can be very risky. And for the first time, we look at climate change already as a driver because we've already passed the 1 degree centigrade mark. And by 2030, we expect to pass 1.5 degrees centigrade if we cannot change our behavior. And this is cascading impacts on all sectors. So if you want to address the drivers, you need to look for policies on education, gender equality, health care, changing consumption patterns, better design of settlements. Apparently, a US $1 investment in water and sanitation can have a fourfold result in terms of health benefits. We need to redefine development, dealing growth from population address inequality. Technology means also adopting the precautionary principle. And of course, climate change requires decarbonization. We also looked in this report at cross-cutting issues. We looked at a whole range of issues, but I've just taken out a few for the discussions. In terms of chemicals, we have more than 100,000 chemicals in use every year. And more than half or less than half have been researched for their impacts on the environment. We have a growing waste problem. Urban waste is between 7 to 10 billion tons per year on the one hand. On the other hand, 2 out of 5 people don't have access to waste facilities. However, the waste market could lead to good business opportunities. If you look at extraction, right now, we are using 90 billion tons of resources every year into the system. And at the same time, we have 90 billion tons of resource-related waste. Now, these two 90 billion tons are not related. They come from completely different calculations, but they happen to be the same number. In terms of energy consumption, we are using 13.5 billion tons of oil equivalent. But at the same time, 1.2 billion people lack energy access and 2.7 billion used traditional fuels. And food waste, this is really a big challenge right now, because most of the food waste takes place in rich countries. And on the global scale, it's 1 third of global food is being wasted. And this is a huge amount in terms of loss of dollar income, so $750 billion we lose annually to $1 trillion. And this amounts to a 9% emission of greenhouse gases. So we just stopped wasting food. We can save or reduce 9% of greenhouse gases. So we're in the middle of a very unhealthy planet. If you look at air pollution, there's rising urban air pollution, indoor rural pollution, increasing temperatures, climate change. The ozone depleting substances still have to be fully phased out. The POPs are very serious, including mercury. If you look at biodiversity, we are in the middle of the sixth mass extinction event. 10 out of 14 terrestrial ecosystems are already in trouble. Global fish stocks are over exploited, rising from 10% of over exploitation in 1975 to 33% in 2015. 22% of the population look after 80% of the biodiversity. And this is the indigenous people and local communities who are being displaced rapidly through what is called land crabbing. Oceans suffering a lot because of coral bleaching, declining fisheries, ocean acidification, plastics, and marine pollution every year. 80 billion tons of plastic waste enter the oceans. Land, degradation, deforestation, you know it. And water, of course, a large number of issues here. So if you actually try to compare all these different systems, what you see in this graph is that if you look at green to red in terms of irreversibility of systems, then you find that biodiversity is most affected, followed by air, followed by oceans, then freshwater, followed by freshwater oceans and land. If you then look at the human impact, then clearly, air pollution has the highest human impact followed by water, then by biodiversity, oceans, and then land. And then there are also some dotted lines. And the dotted lines are supposed to indicate the impact on the poorest, which is not always looked at in terms of numbers. And all these systems, of course, are interrelated. So if you want to look at the numbers, then one fourth of all health impacts are caused by the environment. Plus, disasters killed about 0.7 million people and affected $1.7 billion at a cost of $1.4 trillion US. And alone in 2016, disasters displaced 26.2 million people, environmental disasters, which were significantly more than civil war. If you look at air pollution, that is the largest cause of disasters within the environmental family. And it leads to a huge amount of welfare losses of around $5 trillion per annum. Land affects 3.2 billion people. This is degraded land. The losses are between $4 to $20 trillion per annum. Water affects causes 1.4 million deaths, but 90% of disasters are slow onset disasters. And water is increasingly laced with chemicals like antibiotics. And we are afraid that by 2050, antibiotics in the water might become a leading cause of death in the human race. Oceans provide huge amount of food security, so the proteins that you get from the cheap fish provide 3.1 billion people with 20% of their protein needs and support the livelihoods of 58 to 120 million people. And of course, biodiversity, which some people value at USD $200 billion per annum, is declining affecting food security. And zoonosis or the diseases that come from the animal world into the human world is now 60% of infectious disease. So what we are finding is that the impacts of the environment on human health are increasing rapidly. And it's not just the health of the rich, which can be measured sometimes, but also the health of the poor, which can often go unnoticed. Then we have a whole section on policies. And I'm going to go fast through it. Basically, what it concludes at the end of the storyline from a scientific perspective, what we learn is that we don't have enough meta-analysis about when a policy works, what policy mixes work best. We don't have that. Governments don't seem to want to get, invest money in that kind of research. This is really a pity. However, the conclusions that come out of the research are that you need to consider policy effectiveness at the design stage, have a verifiable baseline, sounds very logical. Perhaps look at cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness, ensure policy coherence, which is extremely difficult to do because all the ministries and countries have different goals. Conduct independent post-evaluation studies, which is not often happening, engage key actors, and try to identify policy-sensitive indicators. The report basically concludes that the way we are moving ahead, we're not going to address most of the SDGs or reach the targets that we have in most multilateral agreements. However, it also says that even though we seem to not yet be on track, there is still time to make some changes. And so in the outlook section, there's a process where we discuss that if you go and our business is usual pathway, then most likely we will become extremely unsustainable. We need integrated policies, but more than that, we need transformative policies. But the question that we have is, will governments be willing to listen? So is there any good news in the report? So I had to go through the entire report to try to find the good news. It's not very obvious, but you do find that in the report, there is some successes mentioned in relation to persistent organic pollutants and ozone-depleting substances. We know that protected areas are going up, although the effectiveness of protected areas is questionable sometimes. We know that we are able to protect some of our seeds in this world-bought global seed world. We know that in Germany and China, there's more investment in renewables as well as GDP. So it's not as if you invest in renewables, your GDP goes down. Norway is a success story in trying to push electric cars, and they're doing that through state subsidies or reduction of tolls and taxes. Nigeria and China are experimenting a lot with green bonds. Bangladesh, Eritrea, Kenya, China, India, and the European Union are regulating plastics. And that China has just banned the import of plastics, single-use plastics from other countries. Chile is experimenting with territorial use rights for fishing, although some of my students have some questions regarding whether this is a success story. Canada is using also individual transferable quotas on fishing, so that may also be working. And as I mentioned before, apparently, if you invest $1 in water and sanitation, you get a $4.3 return. And there is some research which shows that if you invest in a two-degree world, that will cost you $22 trillion US, but it will give a return of $54 US trillion. And this is mostly in health, employment, and those kinds of returns. If you go for a 1.5-degree goal, then there are huge benefits for China and India. But for the European Union, the net benefits maybe not so much. So financially, there are good reasons to take action, but you need to think long-term. The good news is industry can innovate. That doesn't mean that they will, but they can innovate. Solar industry provides twice as much jobs as coal in the United States. The recycled waste market is growing. Digital technology and smart meters can help save a lot of money in avoided electricity infrastructure. There's a lot of innovation taking place in the supply chain. There's increasingly greater comprehensive reporting. And there is a lot of work being done on dematerializing, decarbonizing, and detoxifying. And everyone wants to move towards a circular economy, but whether that's really possible is still a challenge. Then if you look at what's happening bottom up, all kinds of projects are taking place worldwide. We have a whole series of projects that have been listed in the report, which tell you about how bottom up processes are trying to create social movements. For example, there's a plastic waste footprint calculator, urban farming, the green roofs projects. There's a youth key avas, which is talking about storytelling to convince people there's something called Swapaholic to exchange clothes, DIY waste management systems, et cetera. So there's massive amounts of things happening at the local level. The question is, will it all add up to change? But basically, the narrative is that the society, as we move into the 2050, 2100, our demand for energy goes up, while our need for fossil fuels needs to go down drastically. But there are huge co-benefits in terms of reduced depths from air pollution. If you look at food, we need 50% more food by 2050 to feed 10 billion people, but we have a global waste of food of 33%. And so maybe that could reduce a little bit. The environment impact of food production is huge. The impacts of such food production may have to be reduced by 2 thirds. So you need a whole lot of actions, like reducing food waste, drip irrigation, meat light diets. And the co-benefits are reduced health risks from antimicrobial resistance, but many, many other co-benefits are also possible. If you look at waste, then again, we have a huge amount of waste, and we use a large number of resources. So the need to move to the circular economy and the co-benefits is reducing extraction, waste related pollution, and related health impacts. So basically there are trends, and we need to deal with those trends. And so the report says we need to talk about transformative pathways, and this needs a vision. It needs social and policy innovation, the phasing out of unsustainable practices, policy experimentation, and engaging and enabling actors. And in the last part over here, we're talking still about the fact that two degrees can be in the long term, significantly financially viable to society as a whole, and that 1.5 is a good reason for the developing countries to start revising the way they think. Having said that, what the report doesn't really do is talk about the equity component. Although equity is running through the report, and we do mention statistics on this, what we find is that there is an increasing concentration of wealth in the top 1%, and that top 1% has also a large environmental footprint, not just because of their direct consumption, but because of their pensions, or because of their savings, et cetera. And so what you find on the right side is that the privilege of polluting significantly more, whereas those who are marginalised are worse affected in terms of existential value, not in dollar value. In dollar value, it's possible that if you are very rich and you have a house near the oceans, and the sea level rises, then of course you make a huge loss. So this report does not look at how do we actually deal with the equity component, but it has the equity component covered in every single chapter. During the presentation of the report at UNEP, there were a lot of discussions and there were some terms that came up, such as unpack less, feel more, use what we can reuse, buy light, pedal more, drive less, sunlight. So there was some kinds of slogans to mobilise people. For business, I was thinking we could say something like innovate more, sell less. I don't think that will work with business, but we have to think in terms of how do we move people around? Let me tell you a little bit about the process. It's really complicated, this process, because you have a high level intergovernmental and stakeholder advisory group telling you the kinds of stuff governments want to hear. You also have a scientific advisory panel checking every single word you write and your methods and approaches and whether you got it right or wrong. And then, of course, you have the UN Secretary that's trying to say what needs to be done and what's in line with the rules of the UN system. For the first time, they had two co-chairs, so that was myself and Paul Aikins, and the two of us spent some time trying to figure out what our role was, and it was only towards the middle that we actually figured out that we could take some initiative. But it's very difficult to do an integrative story once the contents page of the report is set by governments or by the agencies that are involved. You cannot change it. A little example of that is that when we wanted to integrate the results, we were not able to integrate it in the report. So ultimately, we had to come out with the messages from the co-chair which tried to do the integration. And then you have a number of different authors and cross-cutting issues in this process. If you look at the process and how it functions, then basically you're writing the report at home, then you come and you work together in authors' meetings, and then there's the high-level panel telling you all the time what is good, what is not so good, the scientific advisory panel is telling you what to do, and there are a whole lot of review processes taking place. So we had 145 authors in the main report, 250 in the policymaker summary. We had advisory boards that had 78 people, quality assurance, UN reviewers, lots and lots of work, and seven face-to-face meeting, 100 virtual conference calls, et cetera. So it's a very complex process. And then we had the negotiation of the summary for policymakers. And this was really exciting for me because everybody told me that the negotiation is complicated because you're told by governments what to say and what not to say. But actually, I felt that at the end of the week, every single government official in the room knew what those 35 pages said because they were negotiating a lot amongst each other. And sometimes they would negotiate on words and they would cancel each other out so the text that the scientists put on the table would be accepted. But like, for example, the term, we had also recommended somewhere that meat production, meat consumption should go down, not production, consumption. And of course, the Latin American countries objected very much to the word meat consumption, so it became, in the final report, a healthy diet. So things changed, but I know, for example, the precautionary principle is a big issue between the European Union and the United States because the precautionary principle is something that the European Union pushes for a lot, especially with respect to nanotechnology and with all these new types of scientific knowledges, whereas the United States is not very keen on it. An interesting story is that the government of United States was in lockdown during the negotiations, so there was no formal mandate from Washington, so they did not object as much as they may have done if the government was not in lockdown during the process. So actually I found this a very tiring but very, very exciting process because in that process, I felt the government officials got to understand the process. Then we presented the Geo6 to governments and let's look a little bit at the output outcome and impact. So we basically brought this out to the press conference and why I'm talking about this is that the press really covered this issue. I stopped counting after we reached 150 newspaper clippings worldwide. It was in all kinds of countries, including in the United States, which I thought would not cover it. However, in the Netherlands, it was hardly covered. Though the University of Amsterdam and PBL sent out press releases, there was only one piece in the trough but for the rest, it was pretty much blanked out. On the other hand, the Indian newspapers actually covered many of these issues and looked at the question about how government of India should develop. So the newspapers took a critical approach to how growth is organized and they really wanted to engage with it as did many other countries. The Western press, when they were asking us questions, were focused more on nanotechnology and antibiotics. The African press, when they asked questions, was about why and how can Africa prioritize the environment. And unfortunately, we didn't do those kinds of issues. We really need to engage more with that. And the Indian press kept talking about how should we define development? Can we sacrifice growth? Does growth need to be sacrificed? How do we organize the concept of growth? During this meeting, there were also a large number of resolutions adopted by governments and I'm really happy with those resolutions. There were around 22 resolutions if I'm not mistaken. There was a debate about whether this report that we put up would be adopted or endorsed. And as you can see in the title, it says endorsement, but the United States government was not willing to endorse it. So ultimately, they just welcomed it. And I don't know what it means because it's just a scientific report. It's not legally binding, but they spent hours discussing how to frame it. Anyway, then another one of the reports was really interesting because it was, it's a resolution of governments on sustainable consumption and production. And I thought it was really nice because they said at the end that they decide taking into account national circumstances, that they would look at full lifecycle approaches, go for low carbon economies, sustainable consumption, production patterns, focus on a circular economy, go for sustainable ecosystem restoration, et cetera. So they really talked about the environmental issues that were presented at the report and they made their decisions. The question is, will they go home? Will they discuss this with their colleagues? And will this lead to action in their home country? So that's where we are now. And of course, this process is based on a huge amount of free work. So all the scientists in the process have worked free of cost in this writing process because there's no resources, but all the meetings were funded generously by a large number of countries. On Monday, we present this report also to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and I'm really curious whether they are going to move with all the resolutions to take actions within the Netherlands. I stop there. Any questions? What are green bonds? Green bonds are financial instruments to encourage the investment in green technologies. And it is also state, in the case of China, it is a state-oriented initiative. And other countries, more Western countries have more private-oriented initiatives of selling these green bonds to people. Yes? Yeah, great. Yes, that's true. So, I don't want to be so bogged down as opposed to, you know, global power for example, and I don't want you to say what we should do. So let me split this question up into two. The first part is that one hope of this process was that we would link up with the health ministries. And so in some way, the environment ministries are less powerful in most countries. So if the environment ministry could link up with the health ministry and they could come up with a joint strategy that could perhaps strengthen both ministries in their negotiations. That was the first part of the narrative that we are trying to bring forward. But during the United Nations Environment Assembly, there was a brilliant German girl who was standing there in front of us and she said, we are 50% of the world's populations today and 100% of the world's population tomorrow and you governments have just failed us. And it was a really powerful speech. So we desperately need the youth to hold our generation accountable because I have a feeling that when it is a discussion between business as well against science and NGOs, business tends to win. And most of us are also locked into our way of lives. So it is now becoming a, there's a changed axis of negotiations, youth versus seniors. And so this narrative can become very important but direct action is not enough. They have to go onto the streets but I'm also seeing go to court. So both in Pakistan, India and the US and several other countries, a large number of youth are going to court to demand that their own government takes action. So I think that has to be the way to go because science is not going to do the trick. And you can already see that when we come up with our scientific narratives, the politicians just see that as not adequate. We are seen as just a stakeholder, a stakeholder that creates problems, talks about risks. And you see that also in the policy pushed forward by Trump, which is that he doesn't want any research done on issues related to risk, whether it's health risk or environmental risk. So we need to do two things. We need to know how to communicate our story. And the second part is we need to get the youth to really get their actions organized. But I can also tell you something about gender and how that relates. There are some articles have come out which show that women economists tend to take environmental issues more seriously than male economists. And women economists tend to see the role of the state as providing instructions on how a state should develop much more seriously than male economists who see that the market will solve everything. So there may also be a gender perspective in the way we do our work and research. So we're following on a bit from how the Canada just started coming forward. And it links a bit to sort of this idea in their system. So you say, okay, it's not too late for it, it's the same way we do it. And we'll all be able to do it in a minute because I suggest we're not going to ask for these six pathways as opposed to the one that we take to meet the powers that we want. But there's also a huge lag in the other. It's a day you might be able to seize in 2014. And then at the same time, that position, my stuff's in the news. So I guess my question is, how fast, and even if these changes are fixed, how fast can we move on? Because we've even changed like now. We've worked out of a serious culture who's still got this life of listening to the issue of the system. Can we actually answer that question? You know, that's a really difficult question to answer. The outlook section was written by a plan bureau, and they tended to feel very strongly that there's still hope in the system. But if you just take the issue of birth control and inequality and child mortality, which was also discussed quite heavily in the report, if you can reduce child mortality between zero to five, then very soon thereafter, families will choose less children. But you have to get rid of the zero to five mortality rate first. But we won't get to that if we don't address urban air pollution and rural air pollution or water pollution. So you really have to move very, very fast. And that is why the youth have to be much more organized because I don't see it, but I can't really answer your question as to whether we are going to get there. But what I can say is that if I look at the politics of decision making, then you'll find that most governments, democratic governments, are there for only four, five years. So they don't want to take unnecessary and unpopular decisions in their view. To take action. However, the courts are there for a much longer time and unless governments intervene with who is going to be the judge, which happens in a few countries, the courts can be a much stronger protector of future interest. And the courts are taking science worldwide into account. They're looking at IPCC reports and saying this is what needs to happen. So if you look at the political arena, we have to put our hope now on the stick, the stick of the courts. There's a court injunction in the Netherlands by 2020 that the Dutch government should beat up its efforts. To reduce emissions. To reduce emissions by 2020, so yeah, and that stands. So the Arcanda case in the Netherlands shows that even in civil law countries, which are very, very conservative, we are taking action. But that court, that more than 1500 court cases right now worldwide on these issues. So if you can couple the mass movement with the court cases, we have a much higher ability to change policies. But I don't see our politicians being able to take decisions that easily quickly. I'm experiencing, perhaps it's a little bit. I'm making the decision last moment. That's the big thing. You need someone who's willing to stick their neck out. Are there other questions? A nice story, thank you. We have something, especially on dams in the report. I'm sure we have something on dams. We, the water chapter must have covered dams. I'm pretty sure it's there. I've read so much about dams. I can't actually isolate whether it's there, but it must be there. We, what happened was because of page limits, some of the issues had to be dropped at a certain point of time. And we also wanted to cover new issues like antibiotics and nanotechnology and things. So those were some of the limitations. But we also didn't cover issues where the knowledge between 2012 and 2017 was relatively less significant in terms of its changes. Yeah? So you mentioned that India and China starts to gain more of them from the 1.5 degrees. So have the people been more or less, I mean they look more or less on the 1.5 degrees. I don't know whether the, it's difficult to answer this question, but if I look at the Chinese negotiator who was there during the line by line negotiations, he was extremely constructive and did not, did not try to get the 1.5 out of the report like happens in other negotiations. So and his whole message to all of us was we need these kinds of reports. We are trying to go as far as possible to a fossil free universe, but of course it's not going to be easy. The Indian negotiator is a little bit more complex because every time there was a different negotiator from India. So it looked like this issue was not so much on the top of the Indian government's agenda. Having said that the Indian government has reduced last year its fossil fuel investments significantly and its renewables have gone up much more. And we are finding that that maybe because the business model, business case for renewables is growing in India compared to the fossil fuel. There's a reason why they have a bigger interest in keeping with the 1.5. They don't have an interest yet. They have not said that they are really interested in the 1.5 yet, but the market in India is different from the policy process which expected that there would be more investment in fossil fuels. So the reason for that is the 1.5 is more beneficial for India and China. Oh, this is science is saying that. The government's not saying that. The scientific analysis of the economic costs of these two compared with the benefits to human health show that it is significantly better, larger benefits for both China and India if they invest in a 1.5. For Europe, it's a two degree has a higher benefit. 1.5 means you have to spend more. On the other hand, that research did not take into account whether there would be migrants into Europe. And apparently, I think a few days ago, there's been a whole discussion in IMF with Christiane Lagarde about whether there would be more migrants into Europe if Africa becomes much warmer. So then the costs for Europe may also go up significantly. No, they don't. Just look at the health costs. One of the problems with the statistics in this report is that the statistics are done. Firstly, the person who's trying to collect a meta statistic is just adding statistics from different parts of the world and putting it together. So there may be problems with that. So these statistics need to be beefed up. But when you compare the statistics, it doesn't always work out. So I gave the example of 90 billion tons of resources in the system and 90 billion tons of extractive resources related waste. But they're not the same 90 billion tons. So how does it add up and how is it brought together is very complicated. One of the things I noticed if there are any social scientists in the room is that social scientists who don't actually work with numbers and try to collect data on this, tend to get ignored in the process because unless you come up with numbers of inequality or numbers about who's getting affected or how many papers cover this, it doesn't sort of find its way into a report. It doesn't help if you just say there's a lot of power politics. So. The reports are like how the people might be displaced in the last 50 years as part of it. So the report only covers numbers that are there in the literature. So we use numbers from the global displacement report or something like that. And that has numbers in it. And those numbers come back, but the report did not do new and original work. So then I guess if there are no, are there any last questions? No?