 Yn ymddi'r hun, ddych chi'n gwybod. Yn ymddi'r hun, ddych chi'n gwybod. Mae'r ddiwethaf, y 2016. Mae'n gwneud, yma, yma, yn gwneud o'r cyfrifol yng Nghymru. Mae'r ddull yn ymddi'r ddweud, y mae'r ddweud o'r ddechrau'r forum. Mae'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r gweithloedd yng nghymru sy'n hyd. Mae'r ymddi'r gweithliadau chyfrifol a'r gweithloedd yng nghymru ..y'r cymdeithas yng nghylch, a ddweud y ddweud y cyfnod. Mae'n dwylo'r cyllid yn y gynllun. Mae'n dweud yw'n ymwneud i'w ddweud yng nghylch, ..y'n hynny'n ddweud yng Nghymru. Mae'r ddweud yng Nghymru yn y gynllun yn y ddechrau... ..y'n ddweud yn gweithio yng nghymru... ..y'n ddweud i'r ddweud. Mae'n gweithio'n ddweud yr oedd yn y minimum... ..y hoffi'r cyfrifio... Ac rym ni'n gobeithas i'r 3 panallysau a gafodd y sefyllfa gweithio'r rhan o'i bod ni'n rhoi'n gweithio'r gwaith i'r report. Felly, mae'n rhan oeddwn i'w celfeddu. First of all, rydym yn amlwg y peth yn Llywodraeth Cym, y director o'r company'r Samuel. Mae'n gweithio'r cyfeiledig, mae'n gweithio'r ar y cwmorth, mae'n gweithio'r cyfeiledig. Angel Sue is the EPI director of the Environmental Protection Index Director and Assistant Professor of Yale NUS College, Adjunct Assistant Professor of Yale School of Forestry in Environmental Studies. I'm very delighted on my extreme left to be joined by Cathy Cowpin, President and Chief Executive Officer of the United Nations Foundation. Hopefully we'll be hearing from you, Cathy, in a few minutes about how you intend to use data like this and similar initiatives to help pursue your goals. Kim, perhaps you can start by telling us a bit more about this year's index. Thank you very much, Oliver, and thank you everyone for being here this afternoon. This is the policymaker summary of the Environmental Performance Index, which you can get online and hope that you will read it. I have been involved with the EPI since its inception about two decades ago. At that time I was privileged to be one of the World Economic Forum's global leaders for tomorrow where I chaired the Environment Task Force. Of course it was already clear by then that climate change was a serious threat to life as we know it, and that environmental problems, pollution and resource degradation were putting many countries at risk. But back in 2000 the emphasis on measurement and data driven decision making was still at its infancy, especially in the environmental policy arena. So together with our partners at Yale University and Columbia University we established this pioneering index. Initially looking at environmental sustainability and evolving to a focus on how governments have managed the particular challenges they face. Today we are celebrating the tenth iteration of the EPI. The project has expanded and continues to advance novel methods and promote new data pushing the analytical boundaries to bring the best and most current scientific information to environmental policy makers. The 2016 EPI is the most comprehensive EPI to date. It gives a snapshot of the world's nations and their performance toward meeting key environmental targets including water, human, health, air and agriculture. It covers 99% of the world's population and 77% of the global land area. And it turns a spotlight on two broad areas of policy concern, protection of human health and protection of ecosystems. It ranks countries performance in nine high priority environmental categories by examining key indicators such as household air quality, change in forest cover, wastewater treatment and critical habitat protection. The result is a global and country level report card that shows policy makers the state of their environment helping them see where they're doing well and where they need more concerted action. Today we are pleased to reveal the top performers. Finland has taken the top spot followed by Iceland, Sweden, Denmark and Slovenia. These top five performers share smart policies that target improvements to their natural and built environments along with strong commitments to renewable energy. Finland's top ranking reflects its commitment to achieve a carbon neutral society that will not exceed nature's carrying capacity by 2050. The 2016 EPI's poor performers include Somalia in last place at 180th followed in ascending order by Eritrea, Madagascar, Niger and Afghanistan. These African and South Asian nations share troubled legacies of conflict and profound governance problems. These countries show that environmental performance is a governance issue. A well functioning government is critical to effective environmental management. What we find is that the EPI's value lies not only in sparking constructive competition but also in offering a diagnostic tool to help environmental policy makers drive improvement. Measurement matters to inject objectively into these debates, numbers and statistics and metrics that count and to help allocate scarce resources efficiently. New data also equips all of us to become engaged effectively. Sustainable solutions require ensuring that every voice is heard from marginalized groups such as indigenous peoples to local and regional governments. And when we're talking about the very survival of our planet, the stakes could not be higher. Last September's adoption of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which Cathy will be speaking about later, and the Paris Climate Change Agreement makes the need for accurate environmental data even clearer. The EPI can help track national and global progress toward the SDGs and a cleaner, greener, healthier and more sustainable future for us all. Likewise, as countries work to implement the emissions reduction commitments that came out of the climate conference in Paris, the EPI can inform data-driven decision-making and inspire collaboration around best practices. Our hope is that by holding up a mirror on where we are, the EPI will inspire policymakers and leaders in every sector to reach for what could be. For, as my fellow Canadian, the late Marshall McLuhan, memorably said, there are no passengers on spaceship Earth. We are all crew. And the only way to protect our planet is if we work together. And with that, I will turn to my colleague Angel Sue, the principal investigator and lead author of the 2016 EPI. Thank you so much, Kim, and thank you to the World Economic Forum for giving us this opportunity to share the 2016 EPI results. Kim introduced our national rankings and overall results, but the EPI also reveals trends in global environmental performance, showing progress in some areas and unfortunately decline in others. Here are a few of our high-level findings. In terms of human environmental health, countries have reduced deaths from waterborne illnesses, yet global air pollution is getting worse and more people are dying from breathing toxic air. In 2013, unsafe water caused 2% of deaths worldwide, while air pollution was responsible for 10% of all global deaths. These trends demonstrate that economic development leads to improvements in some areas, like the expansion of clean water infrastructure, while it worsens others. As industrialization and urban growth lead to increased human exposure to unsafe levels of air pollution. Air quality has worsened over the last decade and today more than 3.5 billion people, that's half of the world's population, breathe unsafe air. A third of these people live in East Asia and the Pacific region. In China and South Korea, more than half the population is exposed to unsafe air. In India and Nepal, this proportion climbs to nearly 75%. 23% of countries that we evaluated have no wastewater treatment, an important driver of water quality for human health. Sustainable Development Goal 6, to ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, aims to have the proportion of untreated wastewater by 2030. Our EPI data show, however, that we still have a lot of work to do, with more than 80% of the world's discharged wastewater untreated when it is released into the environment. Forests covering an area roughly twice the size of Peru were destroyed in 2014. Fish stocks are also in stark decline, with 34% more than a third of global stocks over exploited and collapsed. So that's the bad news. But there are some points of hope that world's nations have achieved successes in some environmental issues. First, the number of people lacking access to clean water has been cut nearly in half, from 960 million in 2000 to 550 million today. Still, this means that 8% of the world's population does not have access to clean water. Nations are also close within 2% to reaching global targets on biodiversity and habitat protection, with 15.4% of the world's land area and 8.4% of marine habitats protected in 2014. So we're close to achieving the global goals set by the Convention on Biological Diversity. December's Paris Climate Agreement, as Kim mentioned, secures climate action commitments from all countries. One-third of the 2016 EPIs countries are reducing their carbon emissions per unit GDP. But with 2015 being the hottest year on record, more ambitious actions will be needed if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. So the EPI demonstrates that measurement is critical to good management of the environment. When goals are clearly articulated and monitoring aligns with management practices, results can be achieved. And when they don't align, the environment and human health suffer. Thanks so much. Kathy. Well, first of all, congratulations, Kim and Angel, for the Environmental Performance Index. Indexes really matter because without the data, without these road signs, without these guide posts, we don't know what's going on. And too often, data is old and cold. So in this case, you've done a remarkable job of making sure that we have real-time data that allows us to compare performance. Let's us see in those five top countries what's working and allows us to share that information across the board. I have to believe this data was actually very helpful as countries were putting together their national plans that were brought to Paris for the climate agreements. We need to know what can be done to improve the air, the water, the land that we all depend on. And so thank you for putting this together. I just want to say how critical data is today as we are looking forward to the next 15 years of improving the air and the climate we breathe. And also as we build to a sustainable world in which we're reducing poverty, increasing prosperity and ensuring dignity for all. We can't get to those new sustainable development goals if we don't have information, data that can be shared, that can be compared, and that can be usable. So there's a new movement on that I think will actually help this process going forward to make sure that there's new, open and usable data that is available, that comes from traditional sources, like the material and data that governments collect and statistics that they use to guide them, but also the new data, big data from satellites, from telephone, cell phone usage, mobility patterns. We need to learn how to combine this data. We need to set principles for how to share it and leverage it. And we need to know how to build the collaborations so people can work together to take that data and make good policy decisions and then basting those policy decisions on that data, create new initiatives that can be measured, monitored and evaluated. So we know data is going to be critical to our future. Having indexes like this one that we can learn from and that we can build on I think will be increasingly important. One last thing about the sustainable development goals. This is an era in which we are combining our attention to people and planet at the same time. They're not in competition. It's not a matter of whether we put money or attention into development and then think about the environment in a separate pattern. They have to go together. You cannot have development if it's not sustainable. And we know that although there are 17 goals, they are linked. There's one on water. There's one on land. There's one on our climate. But there's also ones on education and health and poverty. Those things are all related in today's world and we're leaving no one behind. So in today's world, whether you're in a developed or developing country, we're addressing those issues that need to be taken care of, whether they're about poverty or the environment. So again, we can't get there without a new era of data. There will be a global partnership on sustainable development data launching this year. And we hope that this will be something that governments, nonprofits and the private sector in particular can all work together to make sure we have the tools we need to build the policies we want. Thank you. Thank you, Cathy. Do you have any questions? I'm going to compete with you because I've got a few of my own. Please give us your name first. Matthew Allen from the Swiss Info News website in Switzerland. First, a technical question to Kim Samuel. You say it's the 10th survey and each year you add new data. If I go back 10 years, am I able to be able to compare countries, the scores, to say they've improved or not? Yes, and that's one of the, I think one of the main useful points about this is the time series to be able to look at where countries have moved up and down. We've gotten more sophisticated every year and initially this began as an environmental sustainability index and then we found that it was more efficient to be measuring the performance and the sustainability. But you can go back, I believe online back to 2000. In fact I think you could even go to the pilot index which was 1999. Right, but Kim is absolutely right that we made a commitment starting in 2012 to collect time series data. So that countries would have the ability to backcast. So go back in time and to see whether or not they're improving in performance over time or if they're experiencing declines. And I should mention that the 2016 result show that nearly every country overall on their EPI score has improved. So that's encouraging that we don't see overall massive declines in environmental performance over the last decade. Everyone is doing better. There are governments that are investing in infrastructure to improve water and also to manage ecosystems and natural resources because it's a critical issue and resources are finite and limited. Just another quick question. You say you hope countries will use this data. Do you have any feedback? Do you go to countries? Do you go to governments? Do you put it under their noses? Yes, and actually Angel does that a great deal of the time so I will let her take that question. Kim is right. I'm in the unfortunate position of hearing all the complaints when countries do not like their scores. But that's one of the great parts about the EPI is that it is this critical platform for dialogue and exchange. And so we've heard from countries as diverse as China, Vietnam to Iraq for example. We hosted a delegation there a couple of years ago to Cuba and Haiti, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Morocco. And so countries do, they pay attention to their results, they dig into the data, they want to know which areas they're performing well in, other areas where they may be weaker. And they're also looking to their peers and their neighbors and saying well why is this country getting this mark and I'm only here. And so that type of competition that's built into these rankings helps to inspire a race to the top or competition to improve environmental results overall. I wonder if I could just add to the question about looking at this over time. But also to say, I'm not sure about what year we started it where it became interactive. So that anybody watching can go online and look at how their country is doing and weight the data in ways that are most important to them. And to see how the results come out which I think is very important that this is a policy tool. But it's also an educational and awareness building tool and better data building tool as well. Am I, because I'm only one person. Three questions. I want to get one of my own. Yes, this one's for Cathy Calvin. Post Paris, all the talk is okay, we've set some very general guidelines, targets. And so how do we achieve it, how the countries put together policies to actually make this work. What kind of oversight is needed? Is it needed that the likes of the UN come on board and say well we're going to be a central authority with oversight over what everyone does and comparing. Is there a need to sort of have a sort of comparative study of how countries go with their post Paris without making it presumably a name in shame. But to have this in the public. Yeah, well it was built into the Paris agreement that there will be benchmarking along the way. I think no one wants to just have pledges made but with no commitments to coming back and reporting. So there will be several opportunities to report. There's a major implementation deadline of 2020 but by 2018 we'll begin to see the outlines of how countries anticipate meeting that deadline and goal that they've set for themselves. And so we're already seeing that those pieces are coming into place. The UN will play several roles. There is an annual meeting that's the conference of parties that took place in Paris. The next one will be in Morocco in November. There's already planning toward that where countries will be coming forward with further detail about their plans. But more importantly what we're seeing is that countries internally at the national level made the commitments. But we're seeing subnational commitments and plans that are very exciting in the United States, for instance. Many cities are setting goals far more ambitious than the national government has set. And we're seeing that all across the world. And we're seeing collaborations among countries. Obviously the China-US agreement was incredibly important. And the comment about what's happening with air pollution is really a reminder that this is not just an abstract discussion about carbon and climate change, which sometimes people don't really understand or see. It's about air pollution that's killing people in places from London to Beijing. And there's a public movement now demanding that these issues be addressed. And then the final piece is the private sector, which is just moving ahead like gangbusters calling for some sort of pricing on carbon so that there's a level playing field for moving forward. So I think we're going to be seeing action at lots of levels in the UN through the UN framework on climate change. We'll be a big piece of that, but that can't be the only piece. We're going to see it taking place in many other multi-sector and multi-stakeholder initiatives. A question for me, if I may. So I launched reports at the forum. I launched my global competitiveness report on global gender gap report. And there's a similarity here indeed. The Nordics are strong, and the results more or less track GDP to a degree. We know why that is, but I guess my question is, are there any ways for countries with less resources to leapfrog in any way? Are you seeing any interesting trends for countries that, given their limited resources, raise up their performance? Yes, absolutely. So one thing that's interesting about the EPI results is that if you compare GDP per capita and the environmental health category, there's a very, very strong relationship. But in terms of air pollution, for example, as Kathy also mentioned, rich and poor countries alike are suffering from poor air quality. In the ecosystem category, we don't see as high or strong of a relationship at all between GDP per capita and ecosystem and natural resource management. And so what that suggests is that also we have a lot more work to do on better managing natural systems. And rich governments are not doing that as well. And you see many countries, particularly in that category, that are not as wealthy, that haven't had a chance to convert natural lands, forested areas into urban or industrial zones, actually benefiting from that lack of development. But I think leapfrogging is absolutely the answer. And so now you see rapidly growing countries in Southeast Asia that are looking to build more modern systems and adopt better models of growth that can skip these dirty and more dirtier phases of industrial development. And so I think absolutely, and the EPI can be that tool to start to compare who's doing what and what policies and frameworks can countries adopt to try to avoid some of these traditional development phases that are more polluting. One more question. The theme of the meeting is mastering the fourth industrial revolution. We've been hearing over the past four days about the dizzying velocity of change and the ways we don't even yet understand that technology is going to be interacting. We know data is going to be key, but apart from data, what are the emerging technologies that you think could have the most impact for better or worse on protection of the environment? Do you fear the industrial revolution, or do you embrace it? Well, I think we have to embrace it. And I actually, in the book, there's a reference to one tipping point that I thought was quite interesting regarding data, that 82% of the people believe that the first big government that will shift from an official census to using big data to draw those pieces of information about their population will happen within the next 10 years. That's pretty dramatic use of data, and that implies an ability to get over some of the hurdles and burdens that we're facing right now that don't allow us to really use some of the big data that's available. So I think data is actually going to be one of the most important tipping points as part of the fourth industrial revolution. Technology itself is going to make a huge change. We can't even begin to see the different ways we'll be able to clean the environment, as well as take carbon out of it. Do you want to go ahead, Kim? No, go ahead. I'll give you the last word. I completely agree with Kathy. I think that data is going to be that revolution, and so she's talking about big data from the 10,000 foot scale and going down, but I think also the bottom-up piece. This is the part that Kim and I are starting to work on, and I'm most excited about engaging citizens, ordinary people, and connecting them to the process through data and crowdsourcing, low-cost sensors, cell phone monitoring, social media data, for example, that already connects us in the world today, but needs to somehow be connected to policy processes. I may also add and perhaps expand your question a little bit to not only what technology do we see emerging in terms of the fourth industrial revolution. I would also talk about communications and building community and making sure that everyone's voice is heard. Wef, founder and executive chair Claude Schwab has said here in Davos that one of the key underpinnings of this is social inclusion along with economic growth, and I can think of a couple of areas where this is relevant. I'm sure there are many more. One of them is in terms of global climate change, we're seeing the emergence of climate change refugees who need to leave their whole country, particularly if that country is an island state. We're seeing more and more environmental migrants such as in my country, Canada, where flooding has driven many indigenous communities from their land and their homes, and it's very, very difficult to return, as well as to the pace of rapid urbanization and what that is doing to people living in cities into the quality of life as we see more and more of people on the planet moving into cities. So I would say along with technology in terms of data, I think it's also about, as both of you mentioned, it's about people getting involved in this. It's also about looking at some of the problems that are related to environmental performance and also just the way people live on earth and making sure that all are included and that we need to do better. And I think data can help. Call that out. We're doing okay. Your countries are improving, but we need to do better. What a fitting way to end. You guys are going to be busy for the next two years. We want you to come back in 2019, 2018, getting my years wrong and tell us all about it. Come back in 2019 as well. Thank you very much. Thanks for joining us. This press conference is now over. Thank you.