 So, welcome to this session about Understanding Biosphere Economy, a special welcome also to the panelists, Sean Paul, People Planning Holdings, and we have Alejandro Towsky from the Earth Security Initiative, and Per Olsson from Stockholm Resilient Center. And my name is Johanna McTaggart, and I work with a biosphere reserve that's situated about 450 kilometers north of here, and for us, biosphere economy is a very relevant issue that we're working with. We're right now trying to create a support system that would help stimulate entrepreneurship that is based on using the resources in the biosphere. So I'm very happy to lead this session. So I would like to start with you and ask you to introduce yourself a little bit more. My name is Sean Paul with People Planning Holdings. This is a private equity fund to invest in the expansion of social enterprises, working at the intersection of rural livelihoods and green economy or biosphere economy. And my come to this work, coming out of 20 years working with the organized rural poor in Latin America, who I've been working with on a number of models of bridging between what is effective community governance of natural resources with what are successful approaches to sustainable livelihoods. Hi, everyone. Alejandro Litovsky, the founder of the Earth Security Initiative. And my main interest and concern is to begin to address the issue of how reaching ecological limits, reaching resource limits, and coming into a new world virtually of scarcity of things and materials and resources, water, food, energy, and basic things we need in order to progress, essentially creates a number of new security and risk threats that we need to acknowledge and factor in to the way we think about investment and the way we think about capital and asset allocation. Yes, yes. You can hear me. Yeah. I'm Per Olsson. I'm, as Johanna said, at the Stockholm Resilience Center, we're a research organization within the Stockholm University. We are, in general, we're doing science and research on the sort of the governance of the planet and especially focusing on human environment interactions. We personally, I'm a theme leader for the adaptive governance theme at the center and working on transformations, sustainability transitions and how those happen, which I will come back to. Thank you. So I would like to, Alejandro, if you could start describing biosphere economy for us. Well, you know, in a way, the story of the idea, it was to create something that would create a vision of what the end game looks like. And the end game looked like an economy that worked in sync with nature's cycles. And for me, at the time, let's say, the most interesting challenge was to see that virtually every single industry that we've set up in industrial sectors, as well as government and policy regulation, in a way, is not in line with the sort of limits and to take the planetary boundaries that we need to regulate. So what would it look like, if we tried to imagine, what would it look like to have an economy, a formal economy, of large industrial sectors, basically, that are regulated by the boundaries of the planet, i.e. how much water is left, how much forest we need to preserve in order to keep rainfall cycles happening at the degree that is necessary to irrigate crops and so on. And the reality today is that, if you look at the agriculture sector, that is not happening. We've gone into a paradigm of very large-scale mechanized agriculture with huge sort of over-pumping fertilizers and chemical fertilizers that's leading to, in the planetary boundary sense, we're crossing the threshold of how much nitrogen the earth cycles can sustain. So very clearly, that's an example of how can we get this industrial sector back into the safe operating space. And so there's a critical bridge there that needs to be built, I think, between the biophysical, scientific sort of the data. What do we know about the carrying capacity of certain resources and ecosystems? And on the other hand, how do we think about, how do we rethink about the different areas of capital allocation and investment and infrastructure? And so for me, that was, you know, it was about the bigger picture. It was about the billions and trillions of investment that really need to change. And so the way I came at impact investing and, you know, the smaller projects, the sort of inspiring cases of, you know, eco charcoal in East Africa or, you know, forest conservation in the Amazon or sustainable fishing in a coastal community in Asia, the logic was that actually these were, you know, the early indications of a broader vision of actually how you could do fishing or how you could deal with agriculture or how you could deal with forestry, right? And so that's essentially the, I think, the key point is that within a vision of a biosphere economy, inherently, you have the question of how do we scale up these approaches. And if we are, you know, investing capital, some of the investors here thinking about, you know, in the threshold of one to 10 million for particular projects, and that's exciting. That's terribly exciting. And you're obviously dealing with a number of huge constraints because the system is not geared to that. And so if you're trying to do, I was involved in a project in East Africa with biochar, and basically a huge driver of deforestation in East Africa is that people are going and cutting down the forest and turning it into charcoal to be able to cook, to be able to have energy and so on. And how do you change that? So you had the typical entrepreneur, a very small scale that was looking for investment from people like you that was, had developed a very simple technology, and this was basically the old oil tank or barrels, you know, rusty and the whole thing that they cut them up and they created these little ovens where you would put biomass in and you would cook it and then have a biological charcoal that prevented people going off. But just imagine, I mean 98% of the population of millions of Tanzanians that depend on a market of wood charcoal that then is sold in the cities, you know, on the corners and so on. And here you had these guys with a new idea that could potentially transform the market. But it was, and when you talk to them, you realize it's impossible for these guys to reach that level of scale. And so I think for me it's always been a question of how do you work with that early stage investment that will enable them, you know, to prototype, you know, to learn about how to rival the distribution networks that are happening in downtown Dar es Salaam and other Tanzanian cities and progressively create an imitation effect and create the industry. And so that I think is the bottom line of that original idea of thinking about a biosphere economy that would enable us collectively to think about, okay, what does the end game look like? What do we need in order to solve this problem of charcoal, of deforestation driven charcoal sector? And so that requires, you know, thinking about that particular startup, but very quickly, you know, shifting the mindset to basically say, okay, what are the market infrastructures in which we need to invest in order to enable many more entrepreneurs getting into this particular sector, the right regulations to perhaps prohibit the selling of deforestation, of forest charcoal and so on. And if you think about any sector, whether it's fish, coastal fisheries, you know, it's happening in West Africa today, that you have, you know, the little boats doing a sustainable fishing and in the horizon you see these massive industrial trawlers that are scooping up, you know, football size nets of fish. And so I think that we are challenged and as a sector, as an impact investor investing sector, we are also challenged to how do we make the connection between these two things, the really exciting and particular investments and the broader scale of the challenges given that we really don't have enough time, we just don't have time. And so that I think is a very important question of what can impact investors do with that million dollars, with that $10,000 perhaps in order to try to shift that, you know, that conversation. So really, we also have huge challenges here on earth with the resources are very limited and we have also of course the planetary boundaries. So how can we work with the spies for economy within that framework? Well, just to say something about the planetary boundaries first, I don't know if many of you are familiar with that concept, raise a hand if you have heard it. Have, have heard. So it's a fair amount, about half maybe a little bit more. So the planetary boundaries is not really a new, a radically new thing. It's, it's, it builds on a lot of other concepts that have been developed throughout history, which builds on this idea that you mentioned that carrying capacity, that nature has a carrying capacity, that which has been transformed into, if you heard about ecological footprints, etc. Herman Daley also used that kind of thinking in his work and it's been used in limits to growth, etc. So the planetary boundaries is a way to, to sort of package that in a bit, sort of a new way on a really global scale, linking it to the Anthropocene, which is this geological time period that we're, some people argue that we're in now where we are, where we are a major, humans are a major force and not only biological processes, but also geological processes. And, and also focusing on nine sort of critical boundaries that we need to focus on and including climate change, ocean acidification, the nitrogen you mentioned, etc. So it's, it's to help policymakers to, to be more focused in their work and to give them some guiding, but there's no, there's no sort of numbers in it. It's not, not like if we pass this number, this threshold, then it will all go to, to hell, but it's more of a, of a, that's why they call them boundaries, planetary boundaries instead of planetary thresholds or tipping points. But I think when, if you link that to what you talked about and the biosphere economy, I think the big challenge is to sort of how do we, how do we feed nine billion people in the future and stay within these boundaries? That's the, it's a huge challenge and, and there's a lot of argue, still people argue or, or live in that sort of thinking that we, oh well let's take care of human well-being first and then we take care of nature. Let's fix the people's livelihoods and, and the problem with that and history has shown that, that's a very, it's, it's not a good way to do it. It's better, what we, the challenge now is to, to, to increase human well-being and at the same time as we increase the capacity of ecosystem, the biosphere, to produce the services that we depend on. Because if, if we only take care of human well-being first and, and wait with the environment, it will come back and bite us in the back down the road. And the green revolution in Asia has, has shown that, that it helped a lot of people out of poverty, but, but we're facing huge problems at the moment with the eutrophication and, and almost poisoned soils, etc. And, and also ruined a lot of social structures in the process and reduced diversity, both cultural and biological. So it's, it's, I feel like that's, that's the, that's the link here, that's the, that's the big challenge for me is that, raise human well-being and at the same time increase the capacity of ecosystems to generate service. I want to make that point again, because I think it's a key in this. I stopped there because otherwise I'd just go on forever. I should also actually mention that we will hopefully have some time at the end for questions from the audience. So if you have any really clever thoughts about things you want to ask us to feel free at the end of this session, we'll have 10 minutes perhaps. So, John, what does it mean to move capital into biosphere economy? I think, clearly I think one of the things we're hearing, you know, when we look at business or development, poverty reduction, there's a, there's a clear end business typically focused on financial and economic considerations. I think a lot of the conversation is saying, well, we also have social considerations that need to be valued, and I guess we might agree as a panel that we need to look at it together with the environment. So when we move capital into how do you support, I think there was some good framing that we heard earlier today around this issue of scale and scope. And when we look at a biosphere economy, we know we need to look at a systemic approach, a holistic approach. Yet there's a real challenge in doing that and moving capital into a holistic approach where there's a lack of focus. And when we have, you know, traditional, something that has worked for us to a degree in business, you know, focus on doing one thing really well and do a lot of it. And that creates silos and unintended consequences. So how does one move capital into a biosphere economy with those kinds of challenges? I think we need many kinds of capital. Just to give one example, some of my work was an investment capital, but it was the ability to create, in Honduras, getting communities to manage and protect their water supply. And they self-finance that so that they charge a voluntary fee to pay for their, to, for potable water. That fee is managed by community water boards that are elected by that community. And that becomes a seed fund of that community that they're able to grow, and that money goes into assuring clean water, planting trees, and it's been growing. So that's been replicating. It's been a self-replicating process of communities teaching communities how they can self-finance access to clean potable water. In that case, outside capital was technical assistance, grant finance technical assistance, but the ultimate sustainability depends upon those communities managing their own funds to invest in their own land and resources. When looking, and I think that's one kinds of fund. What I'm really excited about right now in looking at this biosphere economy, I think we're really at the early stages of impact investment social enterprise in this arena. We're beginning to see debt. There's a ways that trade credits, trade finance, so coffee. I've done a lot of work with coffee. Coffee co-ops want to sell their product at a premium price on international markets. There's a lot of increasing instruments from, I'd say, social, lenders, and there's beginning some learning of more mainstream lenders that's actually a good business to lend to organic fair trade coffee co-ops that are selling to large international buyers. What's missing in that equation, and we see this across the board, is the lack of equity. Help these enterprises that are inspired by nonprofits or values-driven entrepreneurs that we're seeing just a chronic lack of equity to help these companies grow smartly. So that kind of equity can go into a more traditional, go into what we see a lot in the agricultural sector in the developing world is often organized around co-ops or farmer associations. I think there are alternative approaches to how you can move patient capital to support farmer associations based on revenue participation. And we're seeing that work with commodities like chocolate, spices, tea. So I think again and again we're able to see different kinds of capital. I think we need an ecosystem of capital types to meet an ecosystem of needs to help social enterprise grow in building a biosphere economy. It includes grants and includes lending and includes different kinds of equity. And I guess the other thing I'm just pausing on this point, moving capital. Capital can only move, I think, successfully in this arena if there's good governance. So and governance for me really begins with communities. Hopefully there's a strong and effective state, but I find that often in my work it's really been we're relying on local good governance. So what are communities doing to really exercise and assure good governance decisions that I think is essential for capital to move effectively? That's very interesting because that's what we're seeing also in the innovation system that we're building right in the intersection of local indigenous knowledge and more scientific knowledge or you need that kind of community involvement in order to have a successful system I think. But we're just starting this now so we're kind of testing it out. But there's definitely a role for science and scientific knowledge in this innovation system. So how do you think that the support system would spur the biosphere economy when coupling scientific knowledge with indigenous knowledge? Say again. I didn't understand the question. So what role do you think science will have to spur the biosphere economy when coupling that knowledge with indigenous knowledge? Well, I think science can help both when it comes to the ecology, understanding the biosphere, understanding the dynamics that you talked about that we need to be sensitive to, just to understand how they work, how do you live with very dynamic ecosystems sometimes? How do you live with that uncertainty and change and that you have ecosystems, forests, etc. There are very complex systems and there are thresholds, etc. So if you push too hard, they might flip and become a grassland or they have... So just understanding that dynamics is one thing that we can help with and we do a lot of work on that at the center. A lot of the ecosystem dynamics of coral reefs, forests, agricultural landscapes. So I think that's one thing where we... But one thing that I feel like we also can help with and get in the way that we can be part of this process is that, and that's closer to what I'm doing in my work, is that this knowledge about transformations and how transformation happens and how these sustainability transitions happens because there's a scientific knowledge gap there because science and especially in my field of sustainability science, science is very good at telling us how bad things are and showing us the state of the planet, etc., etc., and also projecting things like if we continue what we're doing, we're going to end up in this place, this even worse place. And then there's the other side of science that talks about an alternative state, sort of the better place to be and the work that Eleanor Ostrom is doing, for example, is developing design principles for that better state and sort of what we should be doing. But there's very little focus on how to get from the bad to the good from A to B. And we often leave that to the decision makers, we often leave that to... We usually finish our scientific papers with policy recommendations, right? But what we're doing now is to sort of research that, the how of these transformations, of these shifts. And there's a lot of work out there on social change from a complexity perspective. But a lot of it doesn't link to the biosphere or the ecology. So what we're focusing on is that human environment interaction, understand that as part of this transformation. So for me, I'm quite new in this arena that you're in with the social entrepreneurs. But what we're doing now is looking at how innovations that makes that link between the ecosystems and the social system, the social ecological innovations we call them sometimes. How those are developed and how these innovations can have an impact, a large scale impact on how we interact with nature. Well, I was thinking maybe I thought you were making a thing there. No, I just wanted to drop a different note in a way on the discussion. Because something that for me was, at some point in my own work, I started to find not enough teeth in the idea of the biosphere economy. Because it was a bit abstract. And talk about the economy is almost like it takes you into a discussion of economics and models and externalities and valuation of natural capital. And a lot of the things that many of you are familiar with are going on today. My, in a way, motivation for creating the Earth Security Initiative was to try to begin a more pragmatic discussion of saying that actually, of course, the value of ecosystems is very important, putting a price on water essential. But the reality is that I don't think that these things will happen in the next 10, 20 years. And at the same time, the real challenge that we face, that we all face, is a challenge of quantities, how much water is left. And that applies to impact investors, it applies to a Coca-Cola factory that is saying we are increasing the efficiency per unit of water inputs to a bottle of Coke. But no one is really thinking about, okay, that's great. Actually, how much water is left around the factory and how is that distributed? And when you see a projections for a Coca-Cola factory, the efficiency per product is increasing, but the production is also increasing. And so the total water consumption is also increasing. So my sense is two things, perhaps, to provide us as input to the discussion. The first is that we need to shift the discussion from a sort of theoretical, in a way the biosphere economy is a bit theoretical as well, to one that is very firmly grounded on quantities of resources. And that will draw on science and it will draw on resource statistics and all sorts of things. We need to start thinking about how much we have and how much we have left. The second is just also drawing on Per's comment earlier. I have a very strong sense that the challenge of food security will redefine the sustainability agenda, just like we know it, even how we are discussing it right now today. Because population is growing very rapidly, because land and soil is being degraded and eroded. And this is perhaps the biggest loss of natural capital that is a bit below the radar, because soil erosion is not very sexy. I mean, not a lot of people talk about it, but it's massive. It's huge. It's the ability to grow something. Water is decreasing, forests are disappearing and we know rainforests are called rainforests because they produce rain. And we are altering all these systems in such a way that it's today becoming more and more difficult to grow food. And at the same time, the land that is traditionally been used to grow food is also being used to grow other commodities and biofuels, because our energy system now has directives that require biofuels to become greener. So a green economy in a way is accelerating risks in many ways. So my sense, and this is something we've been exclusively focusing on from the Earth Security Initiative, we just launched a big report in March that focuses on land as the nexus that brings all of these very practical risks together. And I think that this has a very, very big implication for impact investors in a way that I would feel is interesting not to think about how, you know, how impact investors invest in the biospheres is nice and inspiring. But I think there's a more pragmatic conversation to be had, which is what is the role of impact investors through their portfolios of creating stability in some of these very basic assets, and in particular in land. And so I think that the big three areas that I would look for in terms of portfolios going forward have more to do with real estate. And so we need to start talking about hectares of land and ownership and capital ownership of the territory in a way. And so we need to start taking a different look at real estate investments and understand how are these real estate investments actually stewarding these essential capital. So what is the percentage of forest that you would leave standing in, you know, in a particular. Anyone that is following the Brazilian political discussions on the forest code, the big drawback from the forest code right now is that it decreases the legal percentage of forest that you will be required to leave standing as a landowner. And so you can begin to see how all of these very different challenges that we face ultimately come down to a very practical asset discussion on land and how you're going to use it and how you're going to develop it. And so that, I think the first is real estate. We should have, we should incorporate this into the discussion. The second is eco-agriculture, right? So the second is agriculture, but actually how do we begin to bring in the whole sort of ecological agroforestry principles that are very practical, that will tell you that if you're going to develop a plant, you know, a particular crop field, then there's certain very physical limits to how much fertilizer you can use. Or there are very specific techniques on how you can increase the fertility of the soil without adding extra nitrogen-based fertilizers. And we need to get very good at that very quickly. And this is not an abstract discussion. It's basically a technology discussion, and the same with water intensity of irrigation. It's a technology discussion that we need to have. And I think the third is on Sean's point, which is commodities. At the moment, the discussion of impact investing and commodities is very small. It's sort of the cocoa producers in Ghana, right? Which is very important. But there's a commodities investment discussion that is much bigger, that I think many impact investors are in a position to play into today, given their assets and their portfolios, that also needs to start taking account of the security elements of the land, and how we will guarantee that the forest will be there, the water catchments will be stewarded, that water levels will be in safe levels. And these very practical things that I think will do a lot to move the impact investing discussion forward. So I think overall, this idea we're working on, that we're calling it the land security agenda, is basically taking a security the perspective on land, and how we need to guarantee a few things to ensure that, you know, I don't know if the whole plan, but at least that particular area and region will remain sort of resilient to some extent. We've been talking a lot about the challenges, but what are the strengths that we have? The local communities, is that a strength to have a close collaboration with local communities? Democratic societies, is that a strength, or is it, what do you think about that? Of course, I think, for me, one of the things that we're working with people in planet holdings is the issue of culture. So I think with culture, when you have strong wind, when I think about one of the, we talk about social environmental impacts, we're giving a lot of thought to the issue of cultural resilience. So especially with indigenous communities, we see that a lot of, there's a lot that we're able to succeed at, you're able to leverage what you might call social capital, community service that contributes to ecological restoration, that contributes to making sure there's reliable water for farming, for an activity that would be primarily commercial in nature. So I think that we do see a lot of trends. One trend I'm excited about with international trade is kind of with there's a current evolution happening at, with fair trade, and one of those, one part of that evolution is direct trade. So the idea of I want to know where my food comes from, I want to know the farmer or community that made that food for me. And what we're seeing is with those trends, one I think it helps, you know, it responds to a conscientious consumer, but we're also seeing it eliminates a lot of the middlemen in the traditional commodity value chain. So what that means for the farmer is where I'm actually just, in Belize recently, and we're seeing actually prices are going up to the community, the revenue captured by the community is going up. They get to do less work, make more money with direct trade relationships compared to what they were getting with fair trade organic. So I feel it's good competition for fair trade organic. How do we continue to improve value to be able to, from communicating the social, environmental value. I think one of the drivers is the conscientious consumer. And I think that that really is allowing a lot to happen with commodities. It's most developed with coffee, but I think there's some really important developments with palm. If you don't know about palm oil, it's in pretty much everything. We probably use it every day and don't know. And it has pervasive effects in terms of a, you know, what causes drivers of the loss of the rainforest, whether it's in Africa or Latin America or Asia. So now that there's a, there's a call for what are, for just standards of sustainable palm. So that's, there's been some new efforts around that. How would we make palm oil? Palm oil, it comes from originally from Africa. It's a nut. We squeeze it. It's vegetable oil. It's in industrial products. It's in our food products. And there have been really only very early efforts to declare some standards. And there's a huge demand. So I think these are some of the examples. We can do it by standards, by looking at these international trading relationships. And I'd say lastly, I think there's a lot around local living economies. How do we make this work at the local scale? I think part of we need to think global, but make it work local. So I think there's a number of examples I see in the United States where we see business associations building around the country that are, you know, promoting local. So I think that's another part of the solution I'm excited about is really seeing how to build the bridge between supporting local living economies engaged in global trade. Great. Great. Thanks. I would now like to, do you have some questions from you? If you have any questions, you'd have a microphone also. Right here. A pair. I wanted to revisit what you were saying in terms of flipping the scientific discourse around constantly talking about the problems and focusing more perhaps on, and I think this stems from the tendency of science to see sort of advocacy as something that it shouldn't be doing, as opposed to maybe using the language of design to help people to understand the core ideas that are really functioning within projects. And I get the sense that a lot of the projects that aren't working aren't actually the study of scientific research, that some of the ways in which we can be looking at these very highly situated, deeply embedded kind of like your project Joanna, looking across kind of the cultural issues, the ecological issues, the economic issues. And I'm wondering in terms of the Stockholm Resilience Center and the work that you're doing, what's happening within that to be able to focus more sort of research funding attention on being able to tell these stories in order to communicate the science as opposed to the other way around, which is usually kind of a shock in all tactic of scaring people of how bad things are. And then eventually, if you're lucky, you might get to a story about what humans are actually doing about it. Good question. I would say my sort of spontaneous response would be not much is done for that. It's just what you describe most funding, etc., is for that sort of general way of doing science and what they produce. I think there's another thing to that, why just talk a little bit about that, why I think a lot of scientists do a lot of these catastrophic kind of science and communication. I think there is, because media picks up on it, right? And if I'm a scientist and I want to be seen, like we all want to be seen and appreciated, so if I'm a scientist and I have some stories and the story about the catastrophe, how we were full speed ahead towards some cliff, that will get attention. But a story about a more positive sort of something they achieved, like a community achieved in Western Sweden, doesn't get the same attention. So as a scientist, I sort of oh well, I got a lot of attention there, so I continue doing that. I'll do more of that. I think there's this kind of relationship there. But I feel like it's almost like a slow movement, I think, within science, as a reaction to that actually, to sort of focus more on the positive stories or the storytelling of how things went well in one place. But the problem with that, of course, is we have to get away from just being descriptive and just sort of saying this is how it worked here, doing comparative studies of a lot of cases and really try to tease out the key mechanisms and under which conditions these kind of transformations can happen, et cetera. But I would say that the funding structure is still, I would say that a lot of the funders, at least in Sweden, don't know what to do with that kind of applications that we send in. Because they're transdisciplinary, because the problem is of that character, so you have to be transdisciplinary. So it ends up between the chairs. When these projects are going to be evaluated, is this social science or is it natural science? And there's a slowness and a rigidity there that is not encouraging this kind of work that you talk about. Okay, thank you. My name is Anna Balkfosch. I work with the Commission for a Socially Sustainable Malmo. Thank you for raising some very important, interesting aspects. My question is about what do you think about measurements and to be able to actually show the effectiveness of implemented issues and the effect of sustainability and social impact. We all know how to draw on dollar sign and we know the drawbacks of GDP. What do you think about to be able to agree upon a new way to measure outcome? I'd say I feel that we are in the early days of having a streamlined approach to measuring impact. And there are a number of experiments out there. One that I've been engaged with is B Corp. That's one new standard for benefit corporations. It's coming up with a standard. If you were a for-benefit company, how would that be defined? And there is a relatively new organization that is accrediting people in the U.S. as B Corp. corporations and I know that's kind of taking off in a number of places internationally. Related to that, I think the system that has the most traction around it for ratings, for impact investing, is GEARS. And I know they're presenting later at the conference, but again I think it's a system. If you think about what it took to have standardized practices in financial accounting that didn't happen overnight, there were decades to come with a standardized system for something as relatively simple as financial accounting. But I think we're really at those early days of figuring that out for the impact space. So I'd say that those would be the two that I would point to. There are many others. I think there's some really interesting work around carbon accounting, carbon disclosure project, and the water disclosure project. I think some of the more interesting work I see for companies is that are beginning to develop environmental and social balance sheets. So in addition to a traditional balance sheet, it's beginning to look at what are the positive and negative social and environmental impacts that their business is having. I think that's fairly, I'd say, innovative, far from a mainstream practice. But there are some significant companies that are beginning to do that. Do we have any more? Perhaps to add, you mentioned GDP and I think that there's a lot, there's a very active discussion at the moment around this. There's a commission formed by the World Bank that is working with six countries. India is very involved. And that needs to change. I mean, it's obvious that needs to change. Today, the way GDP works, if a country is driving deforestation, GDP is going up because it's increasing the goods and services that are being accounted for in the economy. If you stop deforestation, then your GDP is very likely to go down. And so I think there's a lot of experiments and Rachel, are you here, Rachel? No. She's from the finance lab. They're very involved in that sort of discussion. And also, how do you account for externalities? If you ask me personally, is this being translated to the impact investing sector? I would say, I don't think so. I mean, there's a lot of initiatives working with metrics and how do impact investors report on the results and so on. My sense is that those efforts are not taking the perspective that we're talking about into consideration. Yes, they're reporting on social and environmental metrics. But I think that there's a substantial space for innovation in terms of asking the metrics essential. But the question is actually, what do you have to measure? So if you were telling us that there's a new redevelopment in the city of Malmoor, in the harbor, and they're going to change this and that, then clearly there would need to be a number of metrics put in place to that. And I think in terms of this discussion, there should be metrics that will guarantee, say the government in this case and the taxpayers, that the ecological functions on which Malmoor depends are being incorporated and stewarded. And then you would ask, okay, but what are those ecological functions? I mean, I'm not sure. There would need to be a study that looks at, you know, sort of bring the scientists in and say, okay, we need to understand what are the ecosystem services on which Malmoor is actually depending today? How is rain happening? What is regulating our temperature? What is guaranteeing that this, you know, there's this marine life that the currents are going in a particular direction? And I think those methodologies also exist, but they haven't yet been brought together. And so I think there's a lot of space of innovation for those impact investors interested in that space of, say, the infrastructure of the sector to start bringing together those ecological methodologies with the impact metrics and try to move the agenda forward. I want to pick up on that because I got a bit excited there about that, because when you talked about ecosystem, one thing that when it comes to indicators and measurements, an example that I usually talk about is the coral reefs, and which is an example of how we not always have the right indicators for the dynamic systems that we're dealing with and complexity that we're dealing with. And coral reefs, often when they have used coral cover and measured how much is big an area, a coral reef is to, as a measurement of the, if the coral reef is healthy or not. But so how much, if that shrinks, for example, then you can talk about it's less healthy, et cetera. But it's a very bad measurement because it could turn, a coral reef can turn into algae mush system in a very short time. They can flip. So you can measure the coral coverage as much as you want, but you might still just have a loss of the coral reef in a blow. And that measurement won't help you understand where the system is. The better measurement is actually big herbivorous fish that grays the reef because that's a better measurement of the healthy reef. Because if you have a coral bleaching and something that kills the coral, in order for the coral to come back, you need these big gracing fish to grace off the algae. If you don't have them, if they're fished out and you have a blow like that to the reef, the algae can settle and prevent the coral for settling again. So that's a better measurement. So that's sort of, it's a measurement that is more linked to the resilience of these systems. And that's the kind of measurements. I don't know what that would be in the social domain, but it's worth thinking about, I think. Hello. My name is Mart. I'm studying Master's in Sustainable Science in Lund University. And Mr. Olsen state mentioned that this is a new space for Stockholm Resilience Center to involve and I've been reading and working with they work for two years. I truly believe that and this is the right space to be as well. And we've been discussing of new paradigms, of new ways of doing science. And I also see that Stockholm Resilience, works of Stockholm Resilience Center are also a field of sustainable science. They suggest right ways of doing science and also true way to go beyond the orthodox paradigms of science as well. And so as regards to that, we, I think, how do you see the way to go beyond this naive perspective and naive and optimistic perspective of that, okay, we are scientists going to produce the science and policymakers based their decisions on the science and okay, then we are going to go to the happy future and live happily ever after. But then how do you see, how soon the future that sustainable scientists or the scientists will go shift to the more transformational mode and act actually as entrepreneurs and through the methods of participatory action research. Thanks. I agree. And David, you touched upon that too, that the old way of decision making I think is a very scientific bureaucratic process, a science delivery knowledge to the decision maker. And then decisions are taking top down, you talked about that top down, which doesn't work very well. And that's, we've seen that. So I think, I think scientists have to ask exactly what you said involve in a different way in societies. One way is actually what we talked about here before with the, for example, your biosphere innovation system, for example, Johanna that you have, where you bring together scientists together with the social entrepreneur, the local people, and then you work together. And at least as scientists becomes part of that process, instead of standing outside and delivering in, throwing things over the fence of knowledge instead engage. And I think at least I come from natural science. And I think it scares a lot of them to do that, to engage in that way. But I think it's changing. I think it's happening. And and there's, I think there's also some, some literature on it actually now, how we can engage more others, other other disciplines have been have much longer history of engaging with communities and doing action research, et cetera. So it's there and we can, we can learn from them, of course. All right. I think we have time for one more question. Okay. Thank you, Bjorn. Thank you. My question comes to the social aspect of, of investment and environmental impact. And when looked at it holistically, we know that there's no economical sustainability if there's not environmental ecological sustainability as Alejandro very well put it. And it cannot be ecological sustainable if it is not socially sustainable at the same time. But usually the measures tied to social are financial measures. But there are no specific measures for social wellbeing and impact of enterprises in true social wellbeing. Do you see or are you working in the realm of social wellbeing and really relevant indicators of the impact of investment in the social realm? I mean, I would agree, you know, with the general characterization and it seems like the practical challenge is when presenting an investment, we understand financial metrics and it seems acceptable for the moment that we assume social wellbeing is improved when you increase income. That seems to resonate with a lot of people yet if you spend time in rural communities, we know that isn't necessarily true and nest is necessarily the best indicator of human or social wellbeing. So I think the only way I've been able to, it's stories. I don't have good quantifiable approach. I think this is something we're struggling with. Stories seem to be one of the ways that resonates. It's good but not sufficient. And I do feel like we need a new set of metrics to build upon some of the more, you know, traditional or currently more acceptable metrics. And one of the challenges around that again and again is if you're running a business and then you got to, you know, gather all these numbers, I mean the cost of collecting data to enterprises is significant around social environmental impact. So when we see in the developing country context, you know, there's value alignment but it just, it's too costly. So how are they going to gather this good data that we all care about? And so I think there's a challenge around that, getting accurate data to inform effective decision making, whether as an investor or as an entrepreneur but doing it in a way that is cost effective. And I don't feel like there are easy answers out there right now. One precedent I see happening out there, they get grant money to support or government support to do the data collection or you have an academic partner that they come in and do the data collection and work with the entrepreneurs on the ground to lessen the burden. I've seen that work actually often quite well to help to have an academic partner to work with enterprises. So that's, I think those are some of the answers. I mentioned, well I think that linking happiness to healthy environment is a really great idea and we need more of this. There's two things I think are interesting. One is the Burma, the country, has begun exploring how to do an alternative to GDP that would be something of a gross happiness. And this has been published already, so I think that's something to look up in terms of a reference. And the same with the New Economics Foundation in the UK. And the way they both deal with it is by proxies. So what they're asking is what are the sorts of things people need in order to be happy? And so there's something about education and there's something about health and well-being and having time and how do you account for having time. And I think they're very profound questions and it would be great if scientists and centres could take up the issue. My only caveat is that we need to find a way to overcome the fact that economic policymakers and real serious investors with serious faces would think that the word happiness is sort of less important. And the same thing for education and the same thing for a number of things that we care about. So there's almost like a cultural thing there as well to figure out of when we link happiness to healthy environment, how do we portray it as a serious conversation as well that needs to be taken into account. Thank you so much for contributing to us. Better understanding, biosphere economy. Thank you very much.