 Felly mae'n gweithio'r ffordd mewn gwahod i'r bodd. Oses i dduchos wedi gweld cwerthu arall yn y cyfnod, mae'n hyn yn ddiddordeb yn amlwg ac yn gyfnod o gweithio yma, mae'n gallu'n gwahod i'r byw hwnnw, ac mae'n gweithio'n cyfnod i'r gweithio ffasgrifennu i'r amser ar Ymysgol Candradd, i'r amser ar y dyfodol. Felly, y gweithio'r gweithio ar y cyfnod, As I found out the hard way in the open working group for sustainable development goals is that we have a common DNA, we are both honest to the point of being rude and I hope I will not step on anybody's toes as I'm going to talk about what I think we need to do. Raise hands, who in this room knows what WRI is? Don't be embarrassed to raise your hands. OK, so everybody knows I'm not going to talk about who we are. I'm going to go straight into what it is about. I'm going to do through my talk hopefully three things. One is to talk about what we need to do to implement the SDGs and why it's really different than what we have had before. Second, how we actually do that and with whom we're going to have to deliver that agenda and why that is a remarkable transformative change from what we know of business as usual and why we have to think beyond aid. Why, if you're serious about eradicating poverty and leaving no one behind, we've got to think beyond development aid. Now it's sort of reflective of my career, right? If you think of sustainable development people always think about that green thing and when I come to talk very often I'm perceived as being shrek. Sustainable development really is about that balance between three pillars of our system. It's about the economy, it's about equity and it's about ecology. It's about these three things coming together. I'm an economist by background and it used to go like, first you think of the economy then if you're quite nice to the world you think about the people and then last but not least you'll think about the economy. That's sort of my career. I'm an economist by background. Then I spent years in the field trying to do the right thing from a development perspective and finally for the past eight to ten years I've been working on environment issues and incorporating that in my development work. Looking at those three pillars, if you look back to the past 20 years we have made remarkable progress. If you see the who's who, who's hobnobbing with who in the rich and powerful of this world in terms of GDP you see where things are actually really changing. This is no mean feat, it's all boys unfortunately, very few girls around there. You can actually see that reflecting in how income is changing and how you see that growing middle class that Peter was referring to and then you see that remarkable shift in where poverty is. I mean look at just 2005 and where we are in 2015. No longer the largest section of poor people are in a country in Asia it's likely to be in Nigeria by now. What a shift. Look at the first pillar economy, we have done a really good job. Then you look at the second pillar of equity and everybody knows that as the MDGs. The eight goals that everybody knows about how we are going to eradicate poverty in this world. We have made some remarkable progress. We have reduced income poverty quite significantly but we have also achieved the goal on drinking water. We have a remarkable reduction in maternal deaths. We have done some pretty good stuff but in all honesty there is a large unfinished business agenda particularly when it comes to gender, sexual and reproductive health and rights. Peter was talking about how important gender is and then you look at the third pillar just as an introduction. I mean boy whichever indicator you look at, it's bad news. It's bad news. If you look at any of these hockey stick curves and this would be the value of your stock portfolio you would take your duvet over your head and start to try and sleep for the next two weeks because it's bad news all over the place. So what we have done in the past 20 years actually we've grown our economies quite significantly. We've not been able to distribute that in an equitable way and we've grown at the expense of our natural capital. In other words, I have only one conclusion. If you look at it, we've done actually quite remarkably well. Without intending to do so, we have changed the properties of an entire planet's atmosphere. We're entering a new geological phase called the Anthropocene. It's not a bad thing for a bunch of fur free apes in just about 25 years. So what will the future hold for us? Well this is from the Human Development Report and this tells you just how deep that increase has been in human development over the past few decades. And look at what the opportunities are to bring people out of poverty. Yes there will still be massive inequalities but look at that shift that we can make. But we can't get there if we do not address the environmental issues. If we continue with environmental challenges such as climate change and desertification, you'll see that the growth in human development will be massively reduced because of largely what we up there produce and consume. And if we then add with that rampant deforestation and a few of the other environmental challenges into the mix, you'll see that almost all of the potential gain will be negated just because we grow at the expense of our natural environment. That is the challenge that we're dealing with. If we are serious about eradicating poverty and giving people a fighting chance to live a life in dignity, we've got to start taking much better care of our natural environment. And that is why the SDGs matter so much and that why it was so much fun working with the Aussies. It's time to accelerate, it's time also to do different things than what we have done. We've done a remarkably good job as development practitioners but it isn't good enough if we are really to leave no one behind. So I'm going to talk about five shifts that I would like to see, that I would like to see people addressing whether you are in the corporate sector, you're an academic, you're a development practitioner. One thing is that the SDGs are massively more comprehensive in scope and it requires a very fundamentally different way of thinking about what you do. If you look at the MDGs we had water as drinking water remember, that was the only water that was there. Well this is a little picture from the US Geological Survey. It depicts obviously Mother Earth. This is the total available quantity of water on earth. Unfortunately out of all that water only two and a half percent is fresh water. Right? So it's got us to begin with and out of this little bit only one percent is within easy reach because 77 percent is stored in ice caps and glaciers and about 22 plus percent is stored underground in fossil aquifers. So water is much needed. Many people live without love, no one lives without water. But we have to start looking beyond water for drinking water. So what's going to happen? Quickly click through this. What water dimensions do we need to look at? If you look at it from an integrated perspective and you want to bring people out of poverty, well where is the demand coming from? It's not coming so much from drinking water yet, but it's going to come from manufacturing. It's going to come from energy and electricity. So if we are to bring people out of poverty we're going to have to look at different sectors than we're used to. Why is that important? Because water is scarce to begin with, but already we're having 1.2 billion people that live in absolute water scarcity. Absolute water scarcity means that there is so little water that it risks to impede if not reverse the development gains that you and I have worked so hard for. That is how scarce it is. That's going to rise quite fast in 2025. So we've got to look at this in a much more holistic way. Now one of the tools we have as WRI is aqueduct based on 60 years of water run-off data that we get from NASA and data. Talking about private sector, I'll come back to this from Coca-Cola, they're bottles everywhere in the world and has the best water data sets that are available. This is a picture of water in a region that you know quite well. And already you see that 39% of irrigated agriculture is in area of water stress. Where it's coloured, that's where irrigated agriculture takes place. Where it's grey, there's no irrigated agriculture of any meaning. Ten years from now. Look at what this means. Look at what water scarcity is going to do to food security in this region. But look beyond that and what is going to mean for people across this globe. Where do you think that the Basmati rice in this area goes to? It's exported across the world. One kilo of Basmati rice, 5000 litres of water. It's not just a problem for people here. What happens if the rice bowl of Asia doesn't have enough fresh water to cultivate what is needed? Through global supply chains, the cotton that you wear in your clothes, the food that you have on your plate, a lot will come from this region. So what happens here matters for everybody. Often forgotten when it comes to water, energy is a very thirsty business. If you care about bringing people out of poverty, start looking at energy. One in five energy plants in this region is in an area of water stress. Two dots indicate hydropower, brown dots, thermal or nuclear power plants. Already we have a problem. Let's look at where the future will bring us. So these are the ways of looking at water and that's how if you want to grow an economy, the fuel of your economic growth is energy. Oil in the machinery is water and in times of scarcity it is always the poor people that risk losing out. So looking at it from a much more holistic perspective of where you need water, when agriculture and energy need water, they'll have the eyes and ears of the politicians. They're big and they're powerful. When two elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. It's these guys that end up at the bottom side of it. So we've got to look at how our economy depends on our natural systems. We can't just grow. We have to grow with respect to the healthy environment. And that is an economically rational thing to do. It's not an add-on. Look at what's happening in China. The equivalent of 9% of its GDP, that's what environmental degradation costs. And China is coming to terms with it. It's no longer just about growth, it is also about the quality of growth and how you make growth sustainable. Why is that so important? Two other examples. This is Brazil and India. In these countries GDP grew by 39% and here 120%. Fantastic. Normal economics would say this is a good job. Then you start to look at where human capital has gone. Brazil clearly investing in people and in food security. Look at what happened in India. That's a very different story. And then look at how much of that growth has come from natural capital. If you then look at inclusive wealth which is looking at the balance between economic growth or infrastructure from ecosystems and human capital, you come to a growth not of 39% and 120% but actually of 9% and 3%. And that is why the SDGs are such a revolution. We forget just how big that revolution is. When we went to Rio plus 20, nobody wanted this. The Africans didn't want that because they said that environment was a luxury. It was a distraction from what was really important which was education and gender and health and that is all still very important. But we cannot achieve what we need to do unless we start to look at this. So from one goal number seven we've gone to seven goals that deal with our global environment. This is nothing short of a reason. When I got appointed, the ambassador for sustainable development as was just referred to, you know what? My colleagues in the foreign office offered their condolences. And I'm not kidding you. And they said what have you done to deserve that fate because if you're serious about development you don't want to be caught dead in the green corner. We have got to change the way we think about these things. And if you see how all these goals are interlinked, just as Peter said, this is a mapping of how all these goals, how energy, how poverty, how cities, how water, how climate change, they're all interlinked. You know, we can no longer pretend that with just health and education we are going to bring people out of poverty. Life as a development practitioner has just become a whole lot more complex, which is why it's so good that we're having it here in a university. Climate action at the core. I mean you don't, you know hopefully what happened in Paris. It was to me one of the gratifying moments in my life seeing, you know, 189 countries coming together to finally come to grips with climate change. We've achieved a lot. We've got financial support, transparency, adaptation, a long-term goal to decarbonise our economies and a wretched-up mechanism every five years. Why is that so bloody important for poor people? Well, under a business, as usual scenario, four to five degrees climate change. What we have now in the Paris Agreement, if you add up all these INDCs, the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, in other words all the national climate plans, we are still at catastrophic levels of climate change and this is what we have agreed. We are not even halfway through where we ought to be. So we are going to need very smart policies to make sure we achieve this. And how do we do that by working hard at achieving the SDGs? Because if you look at the SDGs, almost all of them are climate-related and we've got to start beginning the synergies. Look at food, look at energy, look at inequalities, oceans, infrastructures, cities, jobs, water, all of them have a bearing on energy. We've got to stop this graph from moving on. Who in this audience is younger than 30 years old? That's too few. I thought I was in a university. Okay, if you are under 30 years of age, you have never had a month in your life, never a month in your life, the temperature was below the average of the 20th century. And it's not looking good for your future in case you weren't aware of that. But there's hope. It's a good news, bad news story. Who's heard of the new climate economy report that came out last year where we were the leading research party? What does the new climate economy say? Traditionally when we talk about climate change, as always when it comes to the environment, it's a cost. It's costing jobs, it's costing growth. And we had the stern report and we said, well, it can be compatible with economics, but then only in the long run because there will be long term costs. Now there's a report that will actually tell you why it's economically rational to investing climate action right now. And it looked at three different economic systems, cities, land use and energy, and looked at resource efficiency, infrastructure and innovation. And as a result, these are 8,000 pages. So if you have a sleepless night like I had last night, go and read that report. There's also a two page summary for those that are present. But in a three minute snapshot on cities, urbanisation, Peter was talking about this, this is a fundamental transformation of our society. Cities make 80% of GDP, but they're also 70% of greenhouse gas emissions. So what happens in cities really matters to poverty eradication. Take two examples, Atlanta and Barcelona. Similar population numbers, similar per capita income levels. And then look at how these cities are built. One urban sprawl, one connected condensed cities. And then look at the carbon emissions per capita. What a massive difference it makes. How you build the cities of the future will determine whether we lock in the right path or the wrong path. Another example, China and the US. Of course China keeps telling the US, come on, your per capita emissions are about three times as high as mine. Then look at what's happening in Beijing and look at how New York is doing. How we build the cities of the future and how we use innovation for building efficiency, for public transport will determine the future of mankind on Earth, including poor people in Africa. And it's an opportunity. It's an opportunity particularly in this region where urban infrastructure is going to be built at a rate never before seen in history. In India, 75% of infrastructure that will be there by 2050 isn't even built yet. We can do it the right way. We can build cities that are connected so poor people can have public transport to find jobs. We can actually really do it if we put our minds to it. Energy can't miss it. Everybody still talks about fossil fuels and yes they are still an important part of driving our economy forward. But where it's really happening, where's the excitement? Look at the patterns worldwide. All patterns in the energy sector and where the real innovation is happening. It's all in the renewable atmosphere and it's for a good reason that the costs of wind and solar energy are going down so sharply. Between Copenhagen and Paris, the cost of solar panels came down by 80%. 80% in just a few years. Unimaginable. Greenpeace was right. The international energy agency was wrong. And look at what's happening in your own backyard. Look at what's happening in India. Wait, they have now three gigawatts of solar panels. In seven years time they want to be at 100 gigawatts solar power. In the world, in total, all over the world at this moment we have 140 gigawatts of solar power. That is innovation. That is speeding up. And it's going to lead to more jobs and it's going to lead to distributed forms of energy that poor people can have access to. That is why climate action and that is why renewable energy is so important for the agenda we care about. Equally, obviously, deforestation. I mean, I just can't believe the statistics. Think of how many soccer fields of tropical rainforest have been chopped down as I'm here trying to talk and make sense to you. It's scary. But look at the opportunities that we still have to address some of those problems. And actually Australia is really a leader in this field. I know, and I've seen you do this in East Africa, but also in Timor and some other places, is restoring degraded lands. Restoring degraded lands, rather than chopping forests to make space for palm oil, we can use the degraded lands and put those palm oil plantations there. It brings carbon sequestration benefits. It brings economic benefits to the people whose land has been degraded. And it brings important co-benefits in terms of culture, in terms of loss of biodiversity and how we can address that. This is a win, win, win, win, win. If there's one tip I can give you in our's aid, start looking at restoring lands. It really brings also the gender dimension right up front if you're serious about poverty eradication. Look at a natural system. Last slide from the new climate economy. This is actually the only slide you have to remember of my talk, perhaps. This is the opportunity. They've mapped that in the world we are going to invest irrespective of what you and I do, or think about 90 trillion US dollars in infrastructure, in cities, in land use and in energy. 90 trillion dollars. That's no small money, right? Now you can do that the business as usual way and lock in problems, or you can do that the smart way, the low carbon way. Yes, it has additional costs to the tune of 4 trillion. That's no small money. I'd love having it. But if you look at the cost of doing it wrong, this is totally affordable. Don't let anybody talk you into the fact that climate action is too expensive and we can't do it. And if the aid people don't talk to the infrastructure planners and the private sector to get this right, these people will. Who knows who this guy is? Okay, this guy should be as famous as George Clooney. Not because of his looks. Not really, right? This guy is Mark Carney. He is the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chair of the Financial Stability Board of the G20. He's one of the most powerful man in the financial sector that you know. And finally in October he said, we've got to start taking climate change seriously because if we do not address climate change, it will disrupt financial stability and it will wreck our economy. So it won't just wreck your planet. It won't just wreck people's lives and dignities. It will wreck financial stability. I bet you that people are going to take an interest in dealing with climate change now. Role of the private sector. I'm going to skip through this quite fast because Peter has spoken about this quite a bit. Why is the private sector important? I mean it's a total no-brainer. It's where jobs are. It's where the capital inflows come. It's 60% of GDP, right? So in the negotiation rooms, do you think there was a private sector present when we made those SDGs? Of course not. You know, it's still the elephant in the room. We can't seem to deal with the private sector. Now I quite deliberately turned my back on the private sector. You know, my dad works for Shell and my entire family works for the big private sector and I was the only idiot after having studied economics and wanted to do something useful for society. So I never worked in business and I worked in development corporation and I've made a complete turnaround. I am totally and utterly convinced that we cannot do what we need to do unless we start to deal with the private sector. The market is not perfect but they're indispensable in the fight against poverty. How has Dutch done that? One is purely aid. We have just integrated as you know and I think that's happened here as well. We've got the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and we've got in that same ministry, the Ministry of Environment, sorry, not Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Aid and the Ministry of Trade in One. So you have your traditional aid policies. Then you have sustainable inclusive growth which is the aid and trade portfolio. This is a hugely important portfolio for poor countries to grow out of poverty. $1 invested in aid for trade brings you $8 in benefits for your average developing countries and $20 for an LDC. Why? Because they're compatible often at farm and factory level but then the cost rise because of bad procedures, because of customs, because of broken infrastructure. All of that needs to be addressed if you want economies to grow out of poverty. So that is a big part of what we do in the Netherlands. There's private sector support such as the national private sector and how we work with SMEs in developing countries and yes, then we have the multinationals. Of course trade for aid is extremely important. There can be no misunderstanding about it and part of that is just aid. And then there's this growing portfolio at least in our case in the Netherlands of public private partnerships which is an important vehicle to really engage the private sector, to bring them on board but does it always work? We've just done a major study with empirical evidence. Does it work or does it not work? And it's really a mixed bag despite my best hopes. We've seen too little evidence of effectiveness on the ground. We've seen that there is a huge interest in resource sharing but much less interest in risk sharing, let alone revenue sharing when things tick off. And we have seen that when it comes to it, there's hardly really any scientific evidence of counterfactual that it really works. Nevertheless, why am I so keen still despite all this to work with the private sector? Because they have seen the light of day much more so than most politicians have. This is the World Economic Forum. That is not the grey woolly socks brigade, right? This is the pinstriped suits of the CEOs. What you have here, the likelihood that a risk emerges and here the impact that a risk would have from a business perspective. What does this tell you? How interesting. In the top risks, the top 10 risks, climate change, water crisis, biodiversity loss. They are seeing that this is a threat to their business continuity. This is not just about the birds and the bees. They are doing this because they see that there is a business case of doing it very, very differently. Top 10 risks. Wow. This is on the mind map of your average politician. And surely for the private sector with global supply change they see that too. Did you see what's here? The pinstriped suits, water. I was talking about that. Climate change, extreme weather events, food crisis, profound social instability. And these things obviously all link. And if we don't address these, these will continue. That's why, for example, in the Netherlands we have the Dutch Sustainable Growth Coalition. That's eight of the largest multinational firms, Unilever, KLM, Shell, DSM, Axo, that actually work together to develop sustainable business models. And we're trying to help them doing that. If you work with the private sector directly through public-private partnerships, it is crucially important to work with transparency and accountability for results. That's how, as WRI, we try to engage with the private sector. One example I wanted to talk about is food loss and waste. Something we never talk about. But one third of food produced for human consumption is lost either at the fork or at the farm. Most of it actually at the level of the fork. That's you and me, guys. What that means, a loss of 940 billion each year. Just think how you could invest that in human prosperity if we were to address that. Use is an average size more than China. And all that food is just thrown away in your bins. If food loss and waste were a country, it would be the third largest emitter. We can do something about this. And the only ones that can help us are either the consumers or the producers. That's why we have a goal on sustainable consumption and production in the SDGs. And this is critical to address, if you're serious about poverty alleviation, the third largest emitter in the world. Fragility and conflict. I've got bad news for you. The easy job is over. Not only has it all been much more complex now with the SDGs, but where we find the poor is actually a sea change. We've dealt with the easy bits. Now we find poor people largely in fragile areas where they are hard to find, hard to reach and hard to bring development to. But what is fragile needs to be reconsidered and rejigged from a different perspective. It's not just politically fragile. Where you have lack of participation, lack of accountability, human rights abuses, these are crucially important politically fragile. But there's a much bigger centre of people that actually lives in countries that are environmentally fragile. And especially those here in the midst, no less than 258 million people that live in places where there are overlapping vulnerabilities that we need to address. And they are fundamental if your investment in poverty eradication are going to work. Let me give you the example of Syria. It may be slightly far from your rent, but it had major and global repercussions in Syria. Global pundits saw this as a crisis out of the blue. And I don't know if there are any diplomats in here, but I asked my middle east colleagues and they never saw this coming. But the signs of distress were already there long before the crisis erupted because from 2006 to 2011, 2012, Syria suffered its worst droughts in modern history. What happened is that 75% of crop yields failed completely, 80% of livestock died. The relatively prosperous farmers up in the north here migrated to the cities. Why did they have to migrate? Because they were, I would almost say, with criminal policies by the Assad regime, driven to an area heavily subsidised with water-intensive crops such as cotton and wheat, unsuitable for the area, and then the droughted and they had nowhere to go. So what policies you have and then what happens with climate change has a major impact. Then they went to the cities trying to find for jobs. But of course there were Palestinians and there were refugees from the Iraqi war, so it wasn't easy to find a job and they relied on food aid. And then what happened, something even further away, a drought in Russia. A drought in Russia that drove up the global wheat prices because of scarcity and what did the Assad regime do? It sold off its strategic stockpiles to cash in early on the price rise and buy arms and it had no food left in its stocks to feed the hungry people that came migrating from the north. One and a half million people. It's never the sole explanation for war or strife within or between countries, but it is becoming an increasing threat multiplier. Biodiversity laws, certification, climate change, water scarcity, it is driving people to move because they have nowhere else to go. That's why, for example, our water analyses are being used by national intelligence agencies. Taking it a little closer to home here, the Indus River Basin, this is by far the area where you see the groundwater level dropping fastest. By about a foot a year it's a highly food insecure region, but it's also a politically unstable frontier. I lived many years in India loving it very much, but I know also just how tense that relationship is. That's one side of the board. Go to the other side of the board. Here we are at the border of Bangladesh. Why do you think they're building this 8 meter high double barbed wire wall? Not because they think that Bangladesh will come to war, but because Bangladesh is ground zero for climate change, right? It's 150 million people, sea level is rising, so water is coming up from this end and water is coming up from that end in one big bathtub assembled, this is called Bangladesh, because of glacier melt. People have nowhere to go. What's going to happen with 150 million people that are so vulnerable to flooding with communicable diseases and waterborne diseases that come with it? That's why India is building this wall. That is why we have to start looking as diplomats to climate change, to sea level rise and to what it takes, because this is not the only country, obviously, where this is going to happen, but it will happen particularly in your backyard. Here in terms of climate change and food security, and it's going to be picked up also by the business. This is Maplecroft, this is a risk analysis company. They do this for commercial reasons. 32 countries see an increased risk for conflicts, but it includes emerging markets such as Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and the Philippines. It isn't just far away small places that will have no global ripple effect. Now, whether we like it or not, this is going to be increasingly our reality. Perhaps not as direct as this cartoon suggests, but lack of participation, exclusion, rising inequalities and environmental stress not only have an economic impact, a real economy impact, it has global political imbalances as a result. Last but not least, universality. When we embedded universality in the Rio Plus 20 document, nobody knew what it was. So we had many discussions. Universality is just, you know, we do more of the same, because we haven't finished our business yet. Or is it the MDGs but they're not having poverty, but going to 100% poverty eradication? This was what most people thought we should do. And it took a long while before we started to see universality as a shared destiny. As really looking at what it takes, not just having seven goals for the south, like the MDGs were health, education, gender, all the things that the south needed to do, and one goal for the rich which is funding all the seven goals in the south. This is really about how the north and the south are interdependent and we need actions by the north, by the developed economies to benefit the south, and we need actions by all benefitting all. Actions by the north, for example, one of these, addressing food loss and waste. Collective change, clearly climate change. One of these interlinked challenges in isolation. You can do all the work on health that you want and still not solve poverty. You can do all the excellent education that you want and still not solve poverty, because it is looking at things as, you know, islands of well-being in a sea of misery. So policy coherence for sustainable development is equally important to achieve the SDGs, all the other things that I mentioned, and maybe this is the one I'm most passionate about because it's the most difficult one to achieve. It means that we have homework in the developed economies too. One is to look at, you know, how these synergies across economic, social and environmental policies areas are in our home to address cross-sectoral synergies and reconcile domestic policy with internationally agreed objectives. That's not as easy as you think it is. Development cooperation is as important... Sorry, making sure that you've done your homework is as important to alleviate poverty as being a development practitioner. This is the Netherlands. I never mind talking about my own country when the news is not so good. I tried not to take Australia as an example. You may wonder why I've done that, but gender equality. You thought that the Netherlands were so good on this, like most people do. Well, gender wage gap, this is the Netherlands, and it's mapped around all the targets that developed economies really still have to deal with. Where it's green, we've largely achieved it. Where it's yellow, we have a job to do. Where it's red, we are really doing a bad job. The Bertelsmann Foundation has done this for all the OECD economy. I reckon that you should read that report. It's really interesting reading. The Netherlands, gender wage gap. Huge challenge. We have homework to do in my country. You have no idea. Air pollution, major issue in the Netherlands. Energy. We have 4.5% renewables in the mix. We are the shame of Europe. We're in the top three of worst performance when it comes to climate. You wouldn't think that of the Netherlands. So, from a development corporation perspective, I care a lot about my own politicians, about what my Ministry of Trade is doing, what my fiscal incentives are, and that's why I talk so much about all of these issues. Because in the end, if I do not get my own house in order as developed economies, we cannot lift people out of poverty. And then, of course, there's this huge inequality in how we are sharing the natural. Well, this is partly due to climate change. I think Australia has 28 tonnes CO2 emissions per capita, which I think is fairly high. The Netherlands is no better, no worry. But we've got to start thinking about all these issues, about the balance between economy, equity, and ecology in a balanced way. And we are literally in this boat together. It's the way the developing economies are seeing it. It is the way the world really is. We are so much more integrated and interdependent now. Whether that's through terrorism and trade, whether that's through communicable diseases, whether it's Zika, bubonic plague, SARS, avian flu, whether it's social media, foreign direct investment, and global supply chains, we are completely linked to each other, including through climate change. And that means we are going to have to address the footprint that we have as Western economies if we care about lifting people out of poverty and leaving no one behind. We cannot sustain this going forward. We're going to have to look at our lifestyle. We're going to have to look at the way we produce and the way we consume and sustainable consumption and production is not something that most development practitioners look at, but it is absolutely vital to make sure that we have a planet where we can all survive. So this is not, if you hadn't gotten the message yet, a southern development agenda where they do the jobs and they change their policies and somewhere in the north we dole out some money and get the thing fixed. This is a global political economy challenge that requires all of us to act, requires all of us to look at the political economy of how decisions are made at the global scale, at the national scale and at the local scale, whether these decisions are transparent, who's participating in these decisions and is their accountability for action. So we're going to have to see something very different from developing countries reporting to the financier to how we're in this together and how our policy coherence for development is actually going to change. We're going to all have to report on this, by the way, because this is not something that I thought of. This is embedded in the SDGs with a separate target under Goal 17. We're all going to have to report on policy coherence for development in conclusion. I think we know what we need to do. I think we'll have fairly steep learning curves, again, which I don't think we have all the answers. I think we know what we need to do very often. I find we don't want to really do it. We're going to have to look at finishing the unfinished business, understanding the economic challenges, working with the private sector, addressing climate change, restoring ecosystems, changing inequalities, dealing with the rising tensions as if we were diplomats and working at a governance system that will hold us accountable. This is not a socialist agenda, by the way. This is just a world agenda that all of us have to work in. Irrespective of whether you're in the corporate sector, you're a consumer, you're an individual citizen, you're a policymaker, you're a development practitioner, you're in an NGO or anywhere else, this has got to involve everybody. And if you think that you're too small to make a difference, start to sleep in a room with a mosquito. All of you have something to do and something to contribute and you owe it to your children to actually get a job done. Thank you so much. Thank you. That was just a beautiful presentation. Thank you so much. My name is Jo Hall. I'm a PhD student at the ANU. I wanted to ask what your thoughts are, please, about how this is all going to get monitored and measured and what's going to change in the way that, like you were talking about, how are we going to measure policy coherence? So what are your thoughts about how that is going to be given the complexity of this agenda? Look, it's a million-dollar question. You know, I think it's not going to happen unless we have a good accountability system. Are the SDGs fit for purpose in that sense? No. I'll be very honest. If you look at the targets, many of them either have no deadline or they have no quantifiable goal. So we're going to have to make that. We don't have the metrics yet. I mean, we're working now at developing the metrics for, how do you measure policy coherence? What is your baseline? And how can you start tracking progress? I do think that developing countries will push very much for this. Certainly when it comes to policy coherence for development. If you want buy-in from the G77 to do what is right, and in the end, as I said, we're going to be impacted if the SDGs do not get implemented, they will demand universality to become real and tangible. So we have now a compact of a number of developed economies that have some skin in the game. Sweden, Finland, France, Switzerland is considering. We'll all report to the first meeting of the high-level political forum in July of this year with a voluntary report how they're implementing this agenda domestically and how they're looking at the transboundary implications of their domestic policies. So we are helping them to prepare that to develop the metrics. Not easy, but it's getting there. I would hope in a year from now someone else will stand here and say that we've made measurable progress. If not, wield the whip, please, as civil society academics in whatever role you are, help keep your own government and the UN accountable. Hi, I'm Jenny Goldie from various NGOs that are dealing with population, energy and climate change. Thank you for an excellent speech. I agreed with everything you said. But there were a couple of emissions and I'm wondering if you could comment on it. Climate change has the potential to negate all the development gains that we've had in the last few decades. But what about population growth? We're anticipating another 2.3 billion people by mid-century. And the other question is with climate change, where if we are to mitigate and keep within the safe levels of climate increase, of temperature increase, we have to keep perhaps four-fifths of fossil fuels in the ground. Now, agriculture is heavily dependent on oil. What are the implications of keeping four-fifths of oil in the ground? Thanks, beautiful. Not easy questions. Population growth. Look, certainly when you're more people, when you're 9 billion, it's going to be more of a challenge to do it in the right way. But frankly speaking from my perspective, I would never enter any of these issues from a population growth perspective. Why? Because for me fundamentally this is about sexual and reproductive health and rights of women. That's where it has to start. Every woman in this world should have the right to choose with whom and how many children they have. Still we have 250 million women dying because they have the ability to give birth. I think that is unacceptable and we know what we can do about it. It's not so much about having more people, it's about how we distribute the wealth. My footprint is much higher than probably 250 Africans. So I am keen to address population growth but not from the perspective that we should start controlling growth because that's very often now coming from poor economies where there is little choice for women to make. It's got to start with giving women the right to have a dignified life and to exercise the rights over their own bodies in their lives. And then yes, through that you'll see remarkable reduction in population growth. On stranded assets, look, it's very, very clear if we want to address climate change we are going to have to keep a large part of the fossil fuels that are now on the balance sheets of the oil and gas companies in the ground. It's as simple as it is. Is that going to be easy? No. Is it going to be damn painful? Yes. Let's not forget that these are major employers that a large part of the stability in the stock exchange is because of the oil companies. So you need a transition. Will that have repercussion for agriculture but also for the energy sector for transport? Yes, of course. But as Peter was talking about innovation as you saw in the patterns, where is change happening? Where is innovation happening? It's not in the brown and in the grey economy. It's in the green economy. We will find those solutions. With agriculture you can do a lot with distributed energy such as solar energy. Can we do it everywhere at a scale that is needed? No, not yet, I'll be honest. Will we be still using fossil fuels? Yes. Should we phase out as fast as possible? Yes please. It's not going to be terrible the way we do it now. Thank you so much for a challenging, inspiring and really pleasurable presentation to listen to. I can't wait to have it up on the website and send it to my kids college so their science teacher can present it to all of them. My name is Paria Short. I come from a small natural capital consulting company in New Zealand called Terra Moana. We take, as we are building work in the ocean, seafood and fisheries sector, we try to take this economic equity and ecology triangle as our foundation for approach. One of the things we've been looking at over the last year or so with the development and confirmation of the SDGs is, I guess to use a Kiwi expression, what's the sweet spot? What is in the SDGs, or 17 of them, what does it look like for the implementation of them such that you get economy, equity and ecology together in a way that doesn't keep the economic development for poverty alleviation going to the extent that it's just economy the whole way and the other two for all sorts of reasons get left behind. It's very important in the fragile countries we work in, particularly in oceans and seafood and fisheries. Thank you. Look, what's the sweet spot? I wish I knew. You know, I would give my life for it and that just isn't an easy answer. I think it starts very much with really raising the awareness. I think we still work from an old-fashioned, I would almost say fossilized mindset. We're all still very siloed, whether we are development practitioners or diplomats or private sector. We don't connect the dots very well, so for me it's very much about bringing that analytical framework together, raising the awareness, learning how to best do it. We're going to have to take risks. We don't know what the best solutions always are, so learning to live with risks, sticking your butt out, sometimes doing it wrong, but then trying to get it right, and very importantly, looking at co-benefits. It's a narrative where I think there's so much to do. If you look at restoration, we have framed that for the longest time, as I remember, as environmental conservation, I would almost say. This is about the birds and the bees, but conservation isn't the only angle. If you look at restoration, this brings economic benefits. Very often in communal lands owns also carbon benefits, so trying to find entry points where you really can work on the three different strands of sustainable development, and when you look at it, when you open your mind and your mindset, there are actually many of those.