 Well, thank you everyone for coming again, and thank you for joining the closing plenary. This plenary will summarize the lessons learned from expert clusters and case studies that you attended today. A network cocktail will follow directly after the closing plenary, and I invite you all to stay. After this event, please continue visiting our website for updates, videos, blogs, and check our outcome statement. I will now ask Eric Usher, the UNEP Finance Initiative, to come to the stage and present our final panel. We're almost at the end of a long day, a very packed session, so we're going to try to round it out with a great panel, I think which shows the overall, the types of actors that need to be working together, they need to be playing different roles in moving ideas to investments to impact. Over the last couple of years, there have been some significant breakthroughs both in terms of global policy and also in terms of corporate behavior on the area of encouraging sustainable land use. In 2014, we had a number of the leading companies committing to achieving zero deforestation, and then last year in 2015, we had the landmark, both the 2030 Agenda on the Sustainable Development Goals and the Climate Agreement in Paris. I think we all in the room would agree that, and hopefully more than just those in the room, that if these goals are to be achieved, it's not possible if deforestation is to continue and the millions of small holders lack access to markets and financial services. We're told that billions of dollars are ready to be invested in sustainable landscapes and yet funds are still not reaching the landscape level, and those seeking investment opportunities are complaining about lack of viable project pipeline. Risk is certainly a key factor in the puzzle. Investors and companies alike are shying away from the high risks and some would say the high perceived risks associated with these new types of investments, and small holders and others working on the landscape level face a different set of risks. High cost of financing, insufficient financial literacy, price volatility, and also increasingly climate related hazards, yet at the same time the risks are also, or a different set of risks are embodied in the environmental and economic costs of inaction. So we've heard a good amount of focus today on small holder finance, on the availability of information and new types of tools and products, to process information and inputs for more informed financial decision making, and certainly the importance of partnerships for realizing sustainable landscapes. What's clear is that nobody can do this alone. So what our panel is going to try to do is to try to tie it together, maybe to try to make some sense, maybe to try to give us a little bit of a to-do list of where we need to be headed. Leaving this meeting, hopefully to be able to come back next year with a different set of reporting back in terms of the progress we've made. My name is Eric Usher, I'm with the UNEP finance initiative. I think probably many of you will have met today. Different members are already know, different members of the UNEP team. We have a lot of us here today because this is part of the importance, a very significant area of work, both to UNEP as an organization, as the leading global authority, intergovernmental authority on environmental issues, but then certainly UNEP finance initiative as a UN finance sector partnership, trying to work with the leaders in the banking finance and investment communities on moving the sustainable landscape forward. So with that, I would like to introduce who we have on the panel. It's an all-star cast. Just to my right, we have Mark Burroughs, and I'm sure many of these panelists you know well already. Mark is currently manager, director and vice chairman for global investment banking at Credit Swiss, and has had a 40-year career in investment banking, principally in partnership with Bearings in Australia and ING Bearings in London. He is a senior advisor to UNEPFI, where he works with us in addressing issues of how to finance sustainable growth. Mark is also a dendrologist, something that probably means he's not fish out of water in this community, but I think within his investment banking colleagues, maybe often he is speaking languages and helping them understand the issues that are so dear to our hearts here, and how do you move the capital markets to become more aligned with the needs of sustainable development. Mark is an adjunct professor of finance at Sydney University. He's going to speak really from the finance perspective, and he's going to actually start us off with a rather interesting analogy of where are we today? Mark? Firstly, thank you very much, and I'd just like to say I've been to three of these, and I'd just like to thank the organizers for the high quality of today. I think it's been exemplary, and I just think that the quality of all of you there just gets better and better, and as Eric said, the key part of all of this is the conversations that take place, and where that leads us all. Thank you for reminding me that I'm a dendrologist. When I first went to the G20, most people thought I was a dentist, which was a pretty unusual sort of represent, but I wanted to say I just had two thoughts, very quick thoughts. Firstly, last weekend, which is completely dissimilar, last weekend I took my eldest granddaughter, four years of age, to Richmond Park to Horseride, and the voice from the back of the car in the child seat said, as I was plustering trying to find my way there again, type the address into the computer so we don't get lost, right? That's pretty daunting coming from a four-year-old. So here was this clarity of how we got to our destination. Now then you take what we're all about here with no clear understanding of the path or the destination. And I, two years ago at a similar conference in Jakarta, and then again in Paris, likened what you're all involved with to something I know a little bit about, which is a long-term wave theory of economic cycles. And I liken the journey you've all been on to a long wave that's been going for 15, 16 years. Some of you may say a lot longer in terms of addressing carbon. But this long wave, and I'm here to tell you as someone who is definitely the oldest surfer in the room, that the wave has broken. And the important thing is that the wave has broken and the world that I come from is a wash with money that would like to put it into green finance. And Fabian from my office spoke earlier about the two to three trillion dollars, which sounds an enormous amount of money when you deal with the micro issues around financing farmers and dealing with the minutiae of getting money to people that really needed to make change. But the great thing about a wave is that it has momentum. The bad thing about a wave is you need to navigate it properly and move your feet and your weight around to make sure that you don't come off the wave and crash. And who knows, there are a lot of sort of sharks in Australia. But I really need to tell you this, that I've heard a lot today. We've talked about the specificity or lack thereof in some of the projects. We've talked about equity investments. We've talked about debt investments. We've referred to green finance. But from the world that I come from, and I thought we had a very interesting interchange in terms of where the media comes into this. From the world that I come from, within a year's time, what you people do and what you talk about will be equal space in the financial times and all the other financial journals. Because basically everybody wants to participate. Frankly, everybody who's younger than I needs to participate. And this change is going to be very sudden. And rather like a wave, it goes on for a long period of time building up, then it breaks. And then you ride it down, which is a millisecond of this long theory before it falls. So my, and being an investment banker, I'm naturally optimistic. But my point to you all is that when we all meet again next year, you will have seen, in my view, an enormous change in terms of the attitude from the global financial institutions to financing sustainable development. That doesn't mean that you're going to get a lot of easy money, ready money. Frankly, it shows the problems of getting money down to the sorts of investments that you need. I'll just give you one very quick example. All the Australian banks had green bonds. They raised $3 billion. They don't know where to put the money. There aren't enough projects that meet their parameters for green investment. Now, I wanted to say, having talked about the wave theory, I want to say about what needs to be done. And in terms of, from my point of view, transforming the financial system is, I've just said, the key to promoting green transformation of our economies alongside environmental regulations, pricing reform and fiscal policies. What we need urgently is the scaled industrialization of green finance which requires international harmonization of definitions, products and standard. Now, market-based innovations are supporting the development of green finance, including green bonds and the associated principles, standards, definitions. But public-private collaboration is needed to support the smart design and effective scaling of market innovations and policy advances. Now, green bonds are a case in point. Total issuance, as you've heard, $100 billion. Similarly, impact investing and other product innovations have been market-driven from specialist funds, high-net-worth individuals and family trusts, and increasingly from the sort of institutional investors we've heard from today. But it's largely the broader public concerns rather than public policy measures that have driven demand for negative screening to reduce the presence of environmentally intensive and high-risk assets in the investment lending portfolios. But my point is that today, green finance remains a cottage industry. It's 1% that you heard earlier of the total bond issuance and total infrastructure investment. The core challenge is to move beyond green finance as a cottage industry to industrialize, to realize its potential. Now, just quickly, governments have a major role in contributing to overcoming barriers. Robust and predictable policy environments are of critical importance, including everything from adequate enforcement of environmental regulations to green smart public procurement and through to country and international action to establish effective carbon pricing regimes. We need broad policy signaling. We need specific report in scaling green finance. We need to encourage multinational institutions to develop a common set of criteria for it constitutes green finance. And we need to set specific investment standards to help grow the market and create, as many people have spoken of today, investor certainty and mobilized investment capital, which can help institutional investors in achieving the goals. But I think the main thing is to demonstrate in the wider sense how climate shop will affect the financial system. And to my mind, as someone who's had some experience with the G20 and the B20, is that the theme for the last couple of years of those organizations has been in the minutiae to try and support SMEs. Now, SMEs are the largest employers globally, and they're always seen as being disadvantaged. I think we should try and push the Financial Stability Board, which is the default mechanism for the G20 in terms of how they control the global financial institutions, that we should push the Financial Stability Board to actually look at how they can enhance through how they dictate to insurance companies for long-term investment, how they dictate to banks, what they do for banks in terms of how they look at risk capital, how they actually judge it, how they value it. I think there are a whole lot of mechanisms that haven't yet been looked at. And my view is that they will be looked at, they will be on the agenda. And I think the voice of all the people in this room, the comment was made on the media, I think that is all building up to the interaction and you've seen in terms of where, say, the G20 is going in China, where the colleague on my right will tell you that there's an enormous emphasis on green finance, not green bonds, green finance. It goes to Germany next year, that it goes to India. I'm very optimistic. I won't take any further time from you, but to say that you've got to be careful riding the wave. You've got to be diligent. Make sure you don't fall off the board. But if you don't fall off the board, I have this theory that a lot of the hopes that you have will be recognized far earlier than you ever would have thought possible in the last couple of years. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mark. And now that we're staring at this wave, let's move to China. Deborah Tan is the director of China Water Risk. And it's essentially become the go-to resource on water issues in China. She spearheaded the development of the brand and website a couple of years ago and has since written extensively about the water energy food nexus, as well as a number of reports and she's gonna speak to and advising financial institutions and others on how to integrate water risk as a financial risk. This is a topic that UNEPFI has also been significantly interested in and contributing to in some ways. Deborah started her career in finance as a Chartered Accounting Investment Banker and has now come into the NGO civil society space in trying to understand some of the issues that bear. Deborah. I'm actually going to use some slides because I feel like I'm a little bit of the odd one out here to help me illustrate some of the waves that could be breaking so that investors can sort of avoid this. So it's called Shifting Perspectives. I think we were set up to sort of move investors' perspectives of how they could think about water. We all know that water's severely undervalued and especially also in Asia. So then why would you want to pour millions or even trillions of dollars into it? We also know that it's the most vulnerable sector vis-a-vis climate change and more finance will be required later. So I'm just gonna walk you through a bit of the China landscape, if you will and hopefully you're not going to show you a bit how to navigate this. But before I start, I just want to know how many of you would actually drink out of the tap in Beijing, let's say? Right, none, right? Wise choice, I wouldn't either. I think pollution is an issue often talked about but less talked about is really water scarcity. So I'm gonna start a bit with that. Because I talk, so this is a number that we see a lot. China has 20% of the world's population but only 7% of the reserves. And because I speak to investors, this is the kind of thing that you get from scientists and nobody understands this. So we talk about it in bathtubs. China has 27 bathtubs per person per day and that's their annual renewable resource. So this is the water cycle that goes round and round. It's kind of close to Iran. The US enjoys about 120 something. On a bad year of rain, China's looking at 20. Bath tubs of water. So this is really difficult to manage. If you're going to reach a GDP per capita of about 33,000 US dollars or so, you're gonna need about 20 odd bathtubs. So when you sort of hear China has no option but to do business unusual, this is really why. This is their real liquidity constraint here. So kind of Waltz saying to these gentlemen earlier that I've just Waltz from one liquidity crisis into another and if we don't resolve this then this is going to be really difficult. Unfortunately, these bathtubs are not really distributed properly. So the bit in red is actually the North China Plain. It's where you China plants most of the food. It has less than 500 meters cubed of water. So think Oman, Syria, Palestine. And yet quite a lot of this groundwater is polluted and you have a population the size of Indonesia there and quite a lot of China's food. Also, you can sort of hear a lot in China about the water diversion project, transferring water from the South to the North. China spent more than 50 billion US dollars on this and this is why they have to send water from the South to the North, from the Yangtze River to the Yellow River so that they can deal with that red bit there. So are they willing to spend the money? Absolutely. They've drawn red lines on water cap users and I can go into this if you want to later. But also in that red bit is this. 12% of China's coal and about 20 a quarter of China's cotton. So this is where your land and your energy and your food starts to compete for water. 12% doesn't look like a lot, but it's actually more than the entire coal production of Indonesia by about 20%. So we're talking significant numbers here and it will compete and it actually is competing. So actually last week the Chinese government announced that they will actually for that region put in maximum water use cap and also coal extraction caps because they are worried about this. But this is what throws investors off. You think coal uses a lot of water, but look at cotton. It is actually the same as one North to South water transfer pipe. So China's already stopped farming subsidies in the North China Plain growing cotton. And from a water perspective, every ton of cotton I grow, I can grow four to six tons of wheat. So this doesn't work for China on a non-edible crop. Also the discharge by the fashion industry is actually two times the size of the entire coal industry in China. So sometimes these risks are not so obvious to investors and these decisions made in China at a very local level have actually got global implications for trade and it's not just in energy but also for farming, land and so on. So China has tough choices to make. If they pick the wrong one and it's primarily coal at the moment, but nobody wants them to do too much hydropower because they start damming trans-boundary rivers and this causes a problem. Nuclear, there's only certain amount of places on the coast and so they're massively pushing into renewables and you can sort of see why because the coal reserves are kind of in that red bit. And obviously if they pick the wrong thing, glaciers will melt and unfortunately in Asia it doesn't look like this. This side took an Iceland, it looks like this. This is the longest, second longest glacier in the Himalayas. This is actually all rock sitting on rubble on ice. So those sheer walls are actually ice. So I'm actually on the glacier itself. 30% of this has disappeared. This glacier goes into the Indus River. It starts in China, although this particular glacier is in India and the Indus relies 40% for water on these rivers. So from a water perspective, forests and water are friends. You know, you provide watersheds for water and also you help combat climate change and so we don't get to a running out of water situation. And if you're totally depressed and if you're an investor in this room and you want to do something, you can help us quantify these risks. But what we've showed a lot of mainstream investors, these results of these risk quantifications for 10 listed Chinese companies, it's sort of the feedback has been like, I'm glad I've dumped my cold stocks, but I'm actually now way more bullish about my renewable stocks and actually pushing into renewables more often. I'm considering selling fashion stocks, et cetera, et cetera. So it's important to ride that wave correctly and not be bold over some regulations. But forest, land, landscapes, plus energy decisions today matter for our water tomorrow. So thanks. Great, okay, thank you very much, Deborah. Let's move to Mark Campanale. And I think many of you know Mark for many things, including being the founder of the Carbon Tracker Initiative and he's gonna talk about, well, unburnable things. In a moment, not only carbon, but other types of environmental assets, environmental goods. Prior to forming Carbon Tracker, Mark had 25 years experience in sustainable financial markets, including setting up some of the first responsible investment funds at Jupiter Asset Management back in 1989. And then at MPI, AMP Capital and Henderson Global Investors, he served on the WBCSD Working Group on Capital Markets leading up to the 1992 Earth Summit when he was in middle school, I think. He's been a member of UNEPI's Global Steering Committee. Mark, take that as a compliment. And continues to advise a number of investment funds. He, Mark, is the BA in Politics, Economic and History and an MSc in Agricultural Economics, Mark. Thanks for that introduction. So I trained as an agricultural economist. I kind of thought that living in London, there's more money in fund management than in farm management, so I went in for a job in the city, analyzing equity markets. And really since then, and you know that we're going up into the 92 Earth Summit, I was thinking about the relationship between global capital markets and sustainability. And what I want to do is just thread a narrative between looking at forestry, agriculture and carbon and thinking about what's happening in equity markets. But sort of maybe 10 years ago, myself and my colleague Nick Robbins, who was working with me at Henderson at the time, we saw just a tide of coal and gas companies coming into the city of London to raise money. The more we talked about coal and climate risk, the more investors in London seem to be keen to finance it. And I was thinking, well, maybe there's a baseline, we have to work out what this really means. And the baselines we chose are the simple ones which we know about in nature, the carbon budget. The idea of there's around 900 gigatons of carbon dioxide we can release before we exceed two degrees budget. These columns on the right shows the total embedded CO2 in the world's known fossil fuel reserves around 2,860. And the remaining balance that we can burn, well, I didn't want to use this word safely, but what we can burn roughly to avoid more than two degrees, which is around 975. So we have a problem with time. Based on current emissions, we know that we break through the two degrees carbon budget. We exceed two degrees and at some point after that we lock in two degrees, somewhere around 2031 and then three degrees and around 2045. I was reading just recently that 1.5 degrees, we passed the emissions threshold for that in around seven years' time, probably a little bit less than that. And so time is another fact. So we have a carbon budget and then we have time. So we know we've got a race against time to limit emissions and yet the city of London and New York is still backing the companies that develop fossil fuels. And in fact, the oil industry is predicting that the use of oil will increase by 25% over the next couple of decades. We know the Paris Agreement was to reduce the use of fossil fuels, ideally around 25%, but most of the companies are planning an increase in the use of fossil fuels and they're planning themselves accordingly. So how do we wrap this to capital markets? So what we did is we took the top 200 coal oil and gas companies, we looked at the embedded CO2 and their reserves and their resources and then we tied it back to capital markets. So where these point to is London's a crucial one, New York is important because of Rosneft and Gazprom, Russia's important and then there's obviously a lot of coal in China. So what they show you is the equity market, Sydney, Johannesburg, New York, London and the black is the oil, the gray is the coal and the blue is the gas. And so you can link this carbon budget back to publicly traded companies and we launched a report called Unburnable Carbon on the markets carrying a carbon bubble where we coined the phrase a carbon bubble and then with Lord Stern, a couple of years later we launched our kind of pretty well-known stranded assets and capital markets which is if we can't burn what is already publicly traded why are we pouring billions into finding more? And then that's got essentially our work. But why do we call it a carbon bubble? The resources owned by Shell BP and all the rest of them reserves and the resources, if you look at the CO2 amounts to one and a half thousand gigatons. So and that's before you even include governments. So that's just the publicly traded ones. The carbon budget to the publicly traded companies we've given 225 gigatons. So the red doesn't fit into the green. The blue is the reserves. And so hence you've got this idea of stranded assets on burnable carbon which is why a lot of pension funds are divesting from coal, seriously reviewing oil. So how does this tie back to forests and agriculture and so on? In the early 90s and those of you who knew me then really I was obsessed by the listings of logging companies around equity markets. And I remember attending a lunch of an Indonesian logging company at the Savoy here in London in 93, 94 where they're raising 300 million to clear forests for palm oil and for a pulp mill. And each one of us got a Mont Blanc pen with the name of the company. You want to hear those gold tips? I still have my Mont Blanc pen with the name of the company on it. And because it was a Savoy, a lot of investors turn up. Savoy is a nice place to do a lunch in. And then there was this kind of race to list on equity markets. And who were the investors? Well, it was American pension schemes, British pension schemes, you know, all the usual suspects. A lot of these companies which we looked at then were going with Saurak. It was Myanmar, it was Laos, it was the Solomon Islands. Some of these have gone by the wayside. Some of them still remain. And this was a, you know, there's still a regular following. This was all the headlines, really, of companies like Gold and Ferris, Burrito, Pacific Timber, and Rimanan, Hijau, and others that were going on. But it hasn't stopped. So just even just a few years ago, some British and American banks tried to take an area of Siberian forests the size of Belgium and listed on the London Stock Exchange. So what are they doing? What are we really talking about here? What we're doing, whether it's forests, agriculture, carbon, is we're taking natural capital, nature's capital, and we're converting it into financial capital for the benefit of pension funds and insurance companies. This particular IPO didn't get away. But what it points to is that there are people all the time, bankers all the time working. This is quite a negative presentation I'm doing, isn't it? But it's just the reality. It's very negative. We're doing terrific work finding the positive stuff, but there's still people whose day job it is to take whether it's forests or agriculture and think of clever and smart ways to sell it on to investors for investors to take on the risk. And this was, I don't know whether they're good guys or bad guys, I have no idea. Well, I have some hunches. So they're buying because they're working on this all the time. So this is my last slide. So Carmen Tracker, we started off where we were funded by a bunch of foundations. We have a budget of around $5 million a year to do research. We use Wall Street analysts to analyze the risks. I'm now just working on the launch of Fish Tracker because the reason for that is I discovered that there is a Chinese fisheries business listed on the London Stock Exchange that claims to process 5% of China's fish. Now, that could be a lot of fish. It could be not very much fish, but it's a lot of fish. So what's driving me about is whose job is it in our community to analyze and follow what these companies are doing. So what I'm going to be doing next, hopefully, is to take the world's 30 or 40 publicly traded industrial fishing companies that are listed in places like Taiwan, Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and then take the canneries and processing companies which are listed in Mexico, they're listed in Indonesia, they're listed in the States, so take the fish and process it. And to play the same analysis, are we taking more fish from the sea that we know can be extracted sustainably? The answer to that is almost obviously yes. And going back to the forestry companies, I couldn't get anyone interested in analyzing the logging companies. So I know that some other people are doing terrific work on that. But we can take the same idea of looking at nature's sustainable management for whether it's the fish and the seas or the air with carbon or forests. And then we can look at actually how to do global equity markets. New York and London, because we're the two biggest, really. What is our relationship with them? Can we create a sustainable management program not for the assets, but for the capital markets? That's really what we need to do is incorporate these planetary limits to how equity markets function. And that's what I had to do next. So here are some of the questions. How much of the world's unprotected forests is owned by a listed company, the concessions? I didn't know the answer to that question. Which companies which are publicly traded own frontier forests? I know what to look, but I don't know the answer to that question. Do we know the answer to that question? Where are these industrial fishing fleets publicly listed? Do we know where they're listed? They're going to mean, which pension funds that we're involved in will be financing those companies? Do I need to look in Spain? Do I need to look in Greece? Those equity markets? So there's a lot of research we can be planning to do. And then obviously which banks and institutions are financing it. So how does this all wrap together? So I think that what I've noticed from people looking at climate risk and carbon track is carbon bubble analysis is the divestment movement was launched off the back of our work. A lot of people have divested from coal. And they're now looking at oil. And gas has to go, obviously, is too. But what those foundations that led the divestment movement are doing are asking themselves, where should we invest? And what I've learned is really that what investors start with best is risk. It's the first thing you do is don't lose money. That's the golden rule of investing, don't lose money. And I think that's what they're doing with the coal companies and increasing the oil companies. And I think when it comes to forestry and agriculture and fisheries, I think they'll look at it the same. And then they'll begin to look at where should we invest? And the foundations divesting from coal are now the first foundations and endowments are beginning to look at investing in clean energy. And I think probably when we come back in a year's time, we'll have a movement of foundations which are investing in clean energy. And we'll do the same with sustainable agriculture. And we'll do the same with sustainable fisheries. And the great initiatives by groups like Althilia, they'll come up with the products which the capital markets won to finance sustainable fishery and get away from the bad industrial fishing practices that we've seen. Thanks. Thank you very much. All right. OK, we're going to round out this session's discussion by taking it to one of the more best known corporate perspectives. And also coming back around, how do we tie this in experience from water, fisheries, I think some references to clean energy and renewables. What does this really mean for the sustainable land use space? Jeff Seabright is the CSO's Chief Sustainability Officer of Unilever with responsibilities to drive transformational change under Unilever's Sustainable Living Plan, which works across a number of areas, including climate change and eliminating deforestation. But a number of other areas, agriculture, smallholder farmers, water sanitation, et cetera. Previously, he was Vice President for Environmental Water Resources at Coca-Cola. Another perspective certainly critical, including on sustainable land use, but also the water space. He's served in various positions in the US government, most recently as Executive Director of the Climate Change Task Force of the White House. In 2000, Jeff left the government to work for the CEO of Texaco as Vice President in Policy Planning. And he serves on the board of a number of organizations, including the World Economic Forum, the WEF Global Advisory Council on Forestry. He's a master's degree in international relations from the London School of Economics. Jeff. Great. Well, thank you so much, Eric. And being the last speaker of the last panel of a very long day, I'll try to be brief and hopefully a little bit provocative. I'm a bit of a pretender on the panel because this is meant to be a wrap-up. And I have to admit that I was at Unilever House in business meetings for most of the day. But hopefully many of you had the privilege of meeting Melissa Miners, who's really leading our forestry policy and advocacy work, who's here with us today and has been here all day. My title is also a bit of a misnomer. For those of you who know and have seen Paul Pullman, you know that he's the Chief Sustainability Officer at Unilever, not me. But I try to keep up with him, and that's no easy task. I just want to build a little bit on Eric's introduction around the critical challenge and momentum that we see in this space. And Mark Burrow's analogy around the building momentum and the wave. Clearly we are not going to be able to achieve anything like the one and a half degree aspiration that came out of Paris if we don't raise the level of ambition around land use and forest. There is simply no way to get there from here without that. And most of my experience, and so that will color my remarks, have been through the lens of the avoided deforestation, very much picking up on what we just heard from Mark to my left here on decoupling supply chains from deforestation, primarily the trajectory from the Consumer Goods Forum commitment in 2010 to the creation of the Tropical Forest Alliance in 2012. And I think Marco Albani is in the audience and spoke earlier to the New York Declaration on Forest that brought together truly a unique set of strange bed fellows in 2014 to Article 5 that we saw in COP 21. And of course, the overarching SDG framework, which I know has been touched on earlier. And I think that we've heard today, throughout the day, I understand a fair degree of discussion and alignment around the importance of taking a landscape level approach, in fact, because these issues are connected and that we really do need to look at it at a jurisdictional level. And I think from where I sit, there's tremendous momentum behind this. But the thing about momentum and waves is that if you do miss that wave because you're not attentive to the timing, you end up in the water and potentially worse outcomes. And I think that's the moment that we're at. We've built a broad coalition. Every year that this meeting occurs, I think we see more and more voices and partners coming together. And I think the challenge is how do we move from what I would maybe provocatively say, admiring the problem to getting on with doing something about it? I think there's ample finance. I think people in the private financial world are prepared to finance a lot of this effort. And if the deals are structured in ways that enable that to happen, and I'll talk more about that in a moment. And there's certainly increasing amounts of donor finance. I see Neil Scotland walked in a little bit earlier but DFID and the Global Environmental Facility, the Norwegian government, the Dutch government, many others, the US government are very actively engaged through the TFA and other venues. So I think really that the issue is not finance. It's about building a pipeline of investable projects that we can look to. And here I'm really speaking about the avoided deforestation and the link to supply chains and the sort of produce and protect, the development and climate protection requirement. We at Unilever every year have a summit with our top 10 financial partners, the top 10 banks that support our business globally. And last year we focused on a handful of sustainability challenges that we highlighted in the discussions with our CFO and the leadership from these 10 banks. Among them was how do we finance the expanded productivity and incomes of smallholder farmers in the palm oil sector. And of the 10 bankers in the room, five of them followed up with extensive bilateral meetings with Unilever to share their ideas on what role they could play. They're clearly ready to play, but there are really critical barriers, including clarity around legal rights, land tenure being key among them, the importance of intermediation, so big chunks of money interested in investing, but large financial institutions are not going to make micro loans to smallholder farmers. So how do you intermediate and create that kind of connectivity? And the clarity around standards, around high carbon stock and what are the standards for moving forward. I think there are a handful of barriers that we have collectively begun to identify. I think there are many willing and able partners on the consumer good side, certainly on the financial side, increasing numbers of local jurisdictions that are keen to engage, certainly donors who are willing and anxious to step up. And I think what we collectively need to do and the challenge that I would just lay out that we need to work on is how to make sure that when we come back together a year from now, that we're not simply talking about this, but that we can actually point to some place-based initiatives that we're investing in collectively public and private to reward the kind of land use planning and good policy and projects that we think are part of the future that we need to build. So with that, I'm going to conclude very hopeful that we will get there. The divestiture movement five years ago was a voice in the wilderness. Today, it's mainstream. It's trillions of dollars involved. And who would have thought just five years ago that we would be where we are today? Let's make that reality in this space in less than five years an outcome that we can all be proud of. Thank you. I think what I'd like to do is take some questions to the floor. We have some minutes for discussion. So if anyone has a question, please put up your hand. I don't know if we have any roaming mics here. I would like to put out this challenge. And Mark Burroughs, you mentioned earlier, you've been involved with the B20 process a little bit and the enthusiasm for green finance, whether it's green bonds or within the public sector mind, the idea of financing green. To them, the wave is getting bigger than ever, which is a very positive thing. I think when it comes into this discussion, are they only talking about renewables or how do they see agriculture, other aspects of value chain management within their thinking today? And I would ask that from the B20 perspective. Well, from the B20 perspective, and you know, green finance is everything. It's forestry, it's the supply chain, it's renewables. If you want to be really simplistic, you can say that a green bond is nothing more than accelerated infrastructure investment. Probably right. And the point I made earlier is how do we move that type of investment into a wider field? And half of the discussion going on at the moment is, how do you actually broaden the definition of green finance? So it's one, it's not in itself a niche product. And two, it's not perceived as being a niche product with all of the attenuate responses from the investors. Okay, thanks. Deborah? What is quite also interesting is water is also a big part of green bonds. And I think if you looked at the green bonds that have been issued, green bonds for water is a big component of that. In China, coal is, financing coal is included as being a green bond. So because we're not moving away from coal, it's still going to be a core fuel, although less. So it's about how do we burn coal cleaner, more efficiently, with less water, and so on and so on. So it's included in green financing if you meet all those caps. So it is a bit of an anomaly, but that is what it is for that area. So I think in each jurisdiction, I think we have to sort of think about little slight side causes to sort of help the landscape along a bit. And Jeff, when you go out to the markets to raise capital for Unilever, is work in this area, is this, what's being financed? Is it the Unilever brand, or is it what Univer is doing in terms of getting impacts through the supply chain that you think is what turns a good offering or a mediocre one into a good offering? Well, I mean, we try not to draw a distinction between our sustainable living plan and our business. They're one and the same. It's not sort of a CSR initiative for Unilever. It's really a go-to business strategy that we have embedded across the way we go to market. Having said that, we were I think among the first corporates to issue a green bond about two years ago and it was very competitive. It was oversubscribed by a factor of four and the proceeds largely went to investment in green infrastructure within our broader global supply chain. So, and I think as Mark Burroughs well knows, I mean, the amount of capital flowing into the green bond market has continued to rise rather steeply in the last three years from virtually nothing to quite a substantial base. So, that's what we're doing. Mark, you read the example earlier of the Australian banks who did a green bond and the question is where is the capital gonna go? Are the pipelines there, project pipelines? Within Unilever, when you raise green capital, you have no problem in finding the places to invest it? No. I think there's a distinction between a large sort of prestigious company like Unilever sort of raising and obviously they needed a purpose anyway to a definition. I think the Treasury, one of the problems is that you need to go through a process whereby you have a regular authorization and certification of it being a green bond. So we don't get into the sort of nonsense on green finance that sort of really destroyed the industry about 15 years ago. But I think that so a green bond for a large corporate that actually has a lot of infrastructure investment to do that meets the definition, that's actually understandable, that's easier frankly, than a large bank that seeks to raise money as a green bond. And then from a definitional sense has to actually satisfy that in terms of the people that it lends it to. But I think the market is changing. The pipeline is, I know that people in this room sort of say, well, how can this possibly be? We've got all the demands enormous, but it's a question of putting it at scale, how do you deal with investors? But I just give you two very quick responses is that yes, the banks have had a problem, they're working their way through it. They're employing people, the sort of people who are in this room, suddenly banks employ a whole lot of people that are trained in sustainable development. They're people that are trained in agriculture. So you actually change in the nature of how the banks look at their constituent clients. I think the other thing I'd like to say to you is that guess what? In agriculture, there's real money to be made. In times of low interest rates or put your money under a blanket or put it in a sort of cave in Switzerland, instead of sort of paying them to look after your money, guess what? There are really good investments in terms of leveraging the sort of carbon credits that you can use or coming back to water, sorts of things that are done in Australia recently by the Nature Conservancy who were here earlier and it was mentioned it's the Murray-Darling water bond. We guess what? The returns are four to six percent, not a bad return in this environment and the capital's guaranteed. So these are all, that's a very innovative bond, I have to tell you. It's greatly admired in terms of innovation and I think that when it deals with water, people are looking at licensing, how do you value that? How do you price it? How do you mix it into the product? So part of my natural optimism is actually sort of really, I suppose, tempered by the reality that people are getting on and creating all sorts of ways, different mechanisms and I have to say that it really was the case that in Jakarta two years ago, I mean, most of the questions from the floor of a highly educated group of people was what has unilater done and what does this mean? And as Jeff said, we've moved from $1.5 billion, which was on the table then to $100 billion now. Okay, I'm gonna take a question here in front. The mic carriers, I think we have, maybe if you can, oh, here we have, excellent. In particular, we're looking at almost a risk tracker and on the other hand, somebody who's sending in terms, the second mark, sending signals and in some cases seeing them pick up rather dramatically. My question has to do with the session that I chaired this afternoon on mapping sort of regulatory developments. And I wanna bring us back to something that was said by James Cameron, that he was assessing in the driving test and also this morning, when we are thinking about ways to make strategic interventions and we are comfortable that we're working in a place where there are private sector investors and their policy and their even law, can we identify a few places where the law is already an obstacle that needs to be overcome or where something innovative is happening that's tailored to a local reality and can be encouraged and in particular, from our session, one of the things we can answer was what does the landscape give us? If we look at this on a landscape level in a space where almost everywhere we look, the sectors right now are working across purposes and as one of the speakers said in our session, we say compliance but actually at the landscape level that's impossible because the guy who got the court permit is automatically contested by the guy who's got the same permit over what he can do with his water or his energy. Is the landscape approach going to give us entity of difference, not just as investors but also as a space in which to be able to create a different mixing board, a different policy environment? Enabling the conditions, thank you. Great, so the landscape, is it the solution to this tied up spaghetti of obligations and liabilities and responsibilities? Yeah, Mark? Yeah, so the thing that struck me on the regulatory side is something that I think about a lot, if you read the prospectus of a couple of large coal companies that listed in the last 10 years like Extrater which became Glencore and Coal India, these run to 400, 500 pages and the amazing thing is is that you don't have to put anything about the sustainability of your business plan into the prospectus so climate change and risk in those two companies, in the case of Extrater in a 400 page document it ran to 20 lines as a risk assessment. How could it be a coal company raising money and not mention climate change as a key material risk? So today you could be a forestry business or a fishing business, you could list on the London Stock Exchange and not mention the sustainable resource use of the products which is core to your business, doesn't have to be included in the prospectus. So this is clearly a regulatory issue and part of the FSB task force on climate risk that Mark Carney set up with Mayor Bloomberg is to look at can we change the way capital markets are regulated? Can we look at disclosures that companies have to make about core risks? And I think it's a very important area because it does seem bizarre that you could raise money. You're not allowed to make lies or false statements but you don't have to present the obvious which does seem to be in the case of a fishing business the sustainable management of your resource base if you're a coal company you don't have to mention climate risk. How is that possible? And yet you need all applicable laws and regulations. So that's something which I think about a lot in my work. Okay Mark. Okay, I think there, well, Jeff, how do you perceive that issue? Well, I think there are two really powerful incentives to make the jurisdictional approach work. One from the public policy perspective and the other from the private side. Currently a company like Unilever in terms of assuring sustainable supply of palm oil has to do a traceability going all the way back to the mill and from the mill to the plantation which is kind of retail. It's very time consuming and costly and high transaction costs as opposed to being able to go to a jurisdictional level to say, I'm on a wholesale level which makes a lot more sense from a transaction point of view. So from a business point of view, it makes more sense. From a public policy point of view without having the, by having an approach taken at a district level, at a provincial level that puts together the right kinds of measures and land use planning and policy and the right legal rights, that then attracts the support of donor governments, of private investment. We've made a commitment that we wanna put our sourcing, procurement, euros and dollars, et cetera, in jurisdictions that are actually getting it more right than wrong. And so we're really trying to push that agenda forward and we're having that discussion within the consumer goods forum. So if you get public support, public funding support for good policy and capability and private investment and create a virtuous cycle of win-win for the economy and for the protection agenda, others will take notice and try to replicate that. And so it's that kind of upcycle of virtuous investment and support for good policy that I hope we're trying to ignite at a public policy level. Great, okay. Thanks, last word here. So I'll just give an example on the waterfront with textiles. So a new law came into effect in China which kind of has harsher punishments and et cetera, et cetera. But there was also a water prevention and control plan. And previously you could pollute and do whatever you want and you would get away with it because the compliance standard was very low. But when they actually sort of like raised this, we made a calculation and we wrote this in the report for a bank that 90% of the factories would actually go out of business. So this is a mega consolidation in the textile producing space. And these guys provide two thirds of global synthetic fibers which make up about 50% of global textiles. But yet this is going to have a huge impact on fast fashion but nobody dares to write a report on this. They're like, the risk is very obvious. I'm gonna spread my risks Deborah but I'm not going to make a call on stocks like Nike, Puma and Adidas and so on because they're tied to those companies. So sometimes the risks are there. The laws are in place and catching up. There is a compliance deadline allowance because you can't be expected to comply immediately. So you have years to comply but we're talking about two, three years here and that's the gap. And a lot of people don't want to wake up to that Kodak moment where you've kind of lost the film but you have to go digital. And I think this is where we're standing now for many things but that's not sort of saying that Chinese regulations are perfect because there are a lot of holes there. Okay, great. I think what we're gonna have to do is unfortunately close up the session. I think it's been a great overview. I think to some extent it's a very, the day there were many things discussed. Maybe we summarize some of them. I'm sure we brought in maybe some new ideas. World is a wash of money, green finance, maybe still a cottage industry but the wave is actually what has built a lot. I think starting or 2015 was a great year I think in bringing visibility and governments are quite enthusiastic and corporates and the finance sector is also very agrees getting on board. There are certainly risks. There is a question as I think Mark would point out that one thing is pulling capital out of the bad things. The question is getting capital into the good things. They don't necessarily follow one from the other. How do we move from admiring the problem to actually doing something about it? How do we build the pipelines of investable supply chains? And Jeff, I think very pointedly is everyone appreciate pointing out the issues of governance, challenges and intermediation. What are the instruments and who are the ones who are gonna do that? I think with that I'd like to give a big thank you to the panel. Thank you for the organizers for running out today. I think one of the voices that is not on the panel but it certainly has been repeated over over today. The role of the public sector, not only in terms of governance but also in terms of public finance. So I think it's very fitting if I can hand it over to Paola Agostini, global lead for resilient landscapes at the World Bank to give closing remarks and I think offering up from the bank perspective where do you see us headed to get us doing it by next year? Thank you very much for this last few words. Let me give you just a couple of takeaway messages from this very long and very productive day. First of all, I think that we can all say that it is an incredible momentum for sustainable landscape. This forum really shows how we need the private sector and we need the public sector. Someone during one of my sessions said we like it or not, we really need the government and I would like to add we like it or not, we really need the public, the private sector as well and really this is what this forum is about and these last remarks on the regulatory aspects also really show the need of working really together. And if I think about my own experience, for example, this would have been impossible 10 years ago when I was working, let's say in Liberia on forest 10 years ago, we were trying to do partnership, we were trying to do initiative, we had the public sector, we have NGOs, but we didn't really have the private sector and if I now work in Liberia, I can see that IDH is there, I can see that the Tropical Forest Alliance is there, I can see that many of them are there or if I work now in Paraguay, I see that a company like Kitaipu are doing work in landscape restoration, something that was not really apparent 10 years ago, so important to really work in partnership and to have both sides together. Then another takeaway message for me is that at the end of the day, if the private sector is here, it's not anymore only because there are reputational risk if they don't work in landscape restoration, it's not only because of the social responsibility, but there is, it's not only because of the consumer pressure, et cetera, but I think that it's clearly showing that in the long term there are important returns, there is profits. If you don't invest in sustainable landscape and you invest in your cocoa farming, et cetera, you're depleting your capital and then you're depleting something that is your assets in the longer term if you don't do it in a sustainable way. So there is an interest for a longer term profitability as well. It is complex, but as many of you made a parallel, investing in sustainable landscape is complex, as it was complex to invest in renewable energies 20 years ago and now it's much more mainstreamed. So I think we have a very bright future in some sense. I also want to measure from the World Bank point of view that this investment forum, together with big platform, knowledge platform as Pro-4 or knowledge platform as Terafric and many others really helped shape also the work we are doing inside the World Bank. Many years ago we were stepping out of the forest in the sense we are not investing in forest anymore and now we just had a forest action plan approved that not only works in forest and the more traditional if you want conventional sustainable forest management as a very important component, maybe the most important component it's about forest smart investment which is about landscape investment at the end of the day. So that's really a major change and we will really work with all of you to make sure that our investments with the client's government are forest smart. And the last thing I want to just to leave you with a very simple challenge. We have been talking a lot about innovation, we have been talking a lot about incubators, new funds, the land, the neutrality funds, the work of the private sector and I'm wondering shouldn't all this innovative financial mechanism think about a way that people can adopt a landscape? From the little person that wants to invest $50 to the big company that wants to invest millions from whoever is interested in investing for one year to people that want to adopt a landscape for 20 years. Just you know, I'm sure it should be easy to design but think about it and I think we will all be putting a little bit of our effort into it. Thank you very much. And I have to give the floor to Peter just to do the real closing. Thank you. This has been an exceptional conversation. Thank you all for contributing. First I want to make one reflection about what is a landscape? Somebody brought in oceans today. I thought that was great and I don't have a problem with it because landscapes are actually about people and those people that use the oceans live on the land so we're still fine. Oceans are good. We also have very different types of landscapes. They're very small landscapes like farms and also some very, very large landscapes. I also don't have a problem to look at China as a landscape, it's fine, still there. I have a slight problem with the tendency that we talk mainly about landscapes as an environment issue. I'll come back to that in a minute. So my ABCs, have we been ambitious? Yes, for sure. Have we been brave? Yes, I think we've walked into communities that we don't really understand what they say and we still pretend that we do and want to do something well. So yes, clarity, absolutely. I think we are getting clearer about that this is really capitalism. It's about making money and that we want to take that opportunity to many, many more and to do it in a good way so we get sustainability as well. We're being clear about that. I think that's a healthy development in parts of our communities. Now, I want to take this opportunity also to look ahead and challenge your thoughts until we meet again. I've detected two, I'd like to call them, distractions or anomalies maybe. The first one is that I missed the poverty perspective. This is the perspective that we must have. Our development goals cannot be met without providing opportunities to many, many poor families in the world's landscapes. I missed that perspective. Let's not lose sight of those that struggle here to put their kids in school, find ways to improve their livelihoods through migration and remittances and live with a constant risk in their lives. That's the perspective I'd like to bring back. So, instead, now I come back to this environment question. It's a bit tough because essentially I'm also from the environment background and this is an important topic but aren't we policing the planet a little bit too much by talking about climate change and conservation finance most of the time? Should we bring back the discussion to those main businesses of the poor people in the landscapes and then perhaps reverse the narrative and say that those climate benefits that we want and need and must have and the conservation benefits that we also must have are actually co-benefits. They are the co-benefits and we need to fix poverty first. That's the ethical way to proceed. That's my first anomaly. The second anomaly is that we're getting better, I think, but there is still some urge that we want to talk about investments in finance and we want to say exactly what that finance and investment are supposed to achieve on the ground because otherwise we won't invest. And my point here is that there are two risks here. One is that if we're too specific about the investment proposition what's going to happen on the ground then scaling will be very difficult. And secondly, if we're too specific about the conditions on the ground then innovation on the ground will be less stimulated. So we have some things to think about here and my question here is shouldn't we be better at separating on one hand the finance services and the capital markets and on the other hand the solutions on the ground and instead embrace that there's a diversity of solutions on the ground which we don't control. I mean we don't want to control to the extent that we often try to. So those are my two anomalies. I think we have a good reason to continue the conversation. And in doing that the partners of the Global Landscapes Forum and it's not just the investment case we also do other things. We have a main forum every year. We're planning ahead for the future and I think we all agree in this room that the conversation on the investment case should continue. But we also think between the partners that we also need to commit to real change. So one of the objectives we want to build into the future of the Global Landscapes Forum process is that we want to reach a billion people. One billion that know and embrace the importance of sustainable landscapes. That way we would be reaching a bigger crowd and I think for the finance sector perhaps these should be looked at as your future customers. These are the real dragons then, the real jurors of success. So we want to build that into the discussion for the future. So, maybe a bit serious. I can see that you're all waiting for the drinks now but I thought I'd take this opportunity to provide some thoughts. Thanks to everyone, everyone here. Thanks to all our valued partners. Special thanks to the C4 team that's worked so hard for many months to make this possible. Especially Kamal and Ankitrin, especially Kamal and Ankitrin, you see them all of you during the day and Jonas led the team and many more that have been involved. The only distraction anomaly left now is drinks and network. So I'll close here and I promise there is nobody else that's going to speak. So thank you everyone.