 Good morning and thank you very much for inviting me to speak with you today. I'm also a fashion research director at Stockholm Environment Institute. Day zero. What a great name. I wish every day was a day zero, starting afresh, lots of energy, everything is possible. I hope this will be the spirit of the conference. But as you know, in terms of the sustainable development goals, we are rather running out of time. We are on a countdown to 2030, only nine years left, and we're really working on overtime. So in this talk today, I wanted to share with you a global outlook on the SOGs, in the context of the current crisis we're in, more specifically, how do we exit this crisis. Of course, we could talk about the climate crisis, the ecological crisis, the multiple crises we're in. But I wanted to use the economic crisis as an end point to our discussion and also see what lessons from the past might be applicable for making progress on sustainable development more broadly. So as you know, we started out last year hearing from the UN a proclamation that we were entering the decade of action, only to shortly after that pays a global pandemic that has so far claimed more than two million lives. So I wanted to raise some questions today on the need for structural reform that this crisis has led there. How do we move from recovery to structural reform that will really help us make progress on this decade of action? So let's start with a quick recap where we are now one year into the pandemic. I think one of the first images that helped us understand implications of this minuscule virus on sustainable development were these images of how air pollution was temporarily decreased, in this case, northeastern China. But of course, we did not expect these effects to be permanent and not a sustainable development. Shortly after, we were starting to see the implications on the economy, on trade, supply chains, employment, and it became officially labeled as an economic crisis, attracting the attention of G20 political leaders. And you could also say that we started to have concerns that we were entering also crisis of multilateralism. Would we have international cooperation to take us out of the crisis or not? Later in the year, we saw even wider ripple effects of this virus. It was not just a struggling airline industry, but really looking at an increase in extreme poverty up to 9% of the global population. This hasn't been seen in many years, not even during the last financial crisis. Also a hunger crisis, some 15% increase in the number of people who are undernourished. As mentioned, we saw some effects on pollution, in this case carbon dioxide emission, but again, it became clear that these were only temporary and we saw this bouncing back as lockdowns were temporarily suspended. So it became quite clear that there would be negative impacts on many cities from the pandemic, both in terms of slipping backwards on poverty, hunger, but also slowing progress in general on things like decent jobs, on things like inequality. Some have estimated we might not be in a position to reach the SDGs globally until 28 to 50 years after the timetable. But interestingly, what the IMF now projects is that this will not be a particularly long-term economic crisis. There will be a rebound effect this year, next year, where we will perhaps come back to those pre-pandemic growth levels. And this of course raises the key question, will this growth be environmentally and socially sustainable? And how do we catch up with the SDGs and also accelerate progress? Of course also, you can ask, is growth as measured through GDP even the relevant metric to really assess whether we are building back better. So in this talk, I wanted to, together with you, look at a few historical examples of economic crisis and how we have exited them in the past. And using that as the basis, identifying some systemic issues holding SDGs back and what structural reforms are needed. In particular, I will propose that we are facing two such systemic issues, inequality and the recognition of nature. I'll mention towards the end some promising trends that might help us enable structural reform and then offer some conclusions. So a very quick history lesson. This is really a whirlwind tour, but I wanted to share with you three examples and try to identify what we can learn, what are the lessons. First of all, a really great example is the US Great Depression, where unemployment rose to 25% in industrial output halved in the early 1930s. And against this backdrop, President Franklin Roosevelt introduced a new deal. This is interesting because it introduced this idea of three phases in the recovery. First, the immediate emergency relief. So these were cash grounds to poor, support to farmers, but also quickly creating jobs, for example, in nature conservation, etc. And this was done followed by recovery programs, where the government sort of worked with industry by industry to regulate wages and prices and also invested more in sort of more medium term job creation programs. However, it also became clear that they needed to introduce some structural reforms, primarily the form of labor rights, regulating minimum wage, maximum working time, the right to unionize. So that was a very brief summary. But what we can learn here is that recovery is not enough to exit the crisis. In order to prevent it from reoccurring, you need these structural reforms, changing the rules of the game. Also interesting to see that the role of government is changeable. So what was previously quite unthinkable in the US context in terms of the size and the scope of the federal government became acceptable. So the role of government is not necessarily fixed. Of course, they relied on Keynesian economics, big fiscal stimulus packages. And this we have seen in the crisis since then, the search for multiplier effects. How can you create jobs that will also increase consumption of large in the economy, and perhaps also adding other societal goals, like nature conservation. Also, this example shows the importance of managing expectations. So the signaling effects of these fiscal stimulus, it can be also very important in terms of changing the mindset of people in terms of the beliefs in the future. Second crisis, the oil crisis in the 70s. So these were two crises, first in 1973 and then 1979. Also very complex political story. These were indeed politically motivated. But basically, the effect was a embargo or a severe restriction in the supply of oil on the global markets. This was a crisis for Western European countries and the US, who were import dependent on oil. The responses here, you can also see some immediate responses in terms of rationing gas, for example, in this case, but also some more media term recovery responses, investments in energy efficiency in housing, but also in the smaller cars, more fuel efficient cars, and also alternative energy countries went for different options here. Brazil invested in ethanol, the UK natural gas, Sweden and France in nuclear. So why I think this example is interesting is that during this period, we actually see the highest decarbonization rates ever in history. Sweden is the example of the highest decarbonization rates due to the large scale stateless structural change in the energy system. So rather than tinkering at the edges, a major nuclear energy program was lodged. I'm not saying that this was the nuclear is the right option here, but it's rather making the point that only this sort of real fundamental structural change in how energy is produced led to some lasting results in this case. Also interesting to note that geopolitics and the security of supply of critical natural resources is a really important driver for countries policy choices. Third and final example, the global financial crisis in a bit more than 10 years ago. Also a complex story behind this, I won't dwell on it, but it started as a crisis in the financial sector that then had effects on the real economy. What I think is interesting about this example is that already from the start, green recovery was presented as an option. So what can we learn from this? Well, so there were some good intentions here in terms of the green recovery. But really we did see a return to business as usual over the longer term, as you can see on this diagram. Around 16% of the total government spending was classified as green in evaluations of these programs. But it was, they were quite narrowly framed on renewable energy and energy efficiency in particular, not really taking into account wider sustainable development goals. So in the post mortem of this crisis and the analysis, a key conclusion that comes out is that the government spending on green jobs, investments in energy efficiency were not enough, but the absence of more structural reforms prevented more lasting change, this changing of the rules of the game. So for example, we didn't see carbon pricing reforms, no facing out of fossil fuels subsidies at a large scale, and no other regulatory reforms. So what can we learn for this crisis we're currently in, the pandemic and the associated economic crisis? We have seen some relief measures of different kinds, of course, in the south and the north, where we are currently, and I would say in the recovery phase, we are seeing now these government spending programs being rolled out. What we also know is that we are seeing record spending, 12 trillion dollars or more. And it has been estimated that this would more than actually cover the transition of the energy system to enable us to meet the Paris climate targets. So the key question is, of course, are governments or the world taking this opportunity? My colleagues are involved in some of the tracking efforts in real time to try and assess how these programs are being rolled out. But I think what we can see already now is that there is, again, strong focus on climate mitigation, renewable energy, renovation of housing to increase energy efficiency, road and rail infrastructure. So it's quite a narrow, well, perhaps both design, but also how we study the effects, strong focus on G20 countries. So we don't really know much about recovery in the south, where of course a huge part of the economy is the informal sector. We also don't know much about the sort of broader sustainable development effects beyond climate emissions. How about reform, more structural reform? Are we taking this opportunity to also change the rules of the game? So this leads me on to my proposition that we are indeed now facing two grand challenges, two systemic issues. Perhaps there are more we can discuss that I think on a system level prevent progress on many SDGs and where we would like to see more structural reform. Inequality first. Obviously, this is an SDG, SDG 10 to reduce inequalities. This is, I think, correctly a very multifaceted goal. So it's not just about economic inequality in the sense of incomes, wealth, but also about access, inclusion in decision making, absence of discrimination, to have a voice. And we should also say there are big data problems with this goal, but it has been assessed that we are lacking behind on reaching SDG 10. Also interestingly, it's the goal that is least mentioned in the voluntary national reviews. You will have seen graphs like this that show how income inequality is increasing globally, not in all countries, but there have been major shifts also in Scandinavian countries like Norway and Sweden, which is of course a problem in itself. But what I wanted to list here is again this issue of inequality as a systemic issue. So what we have seen in our research is that it's any measure to progress on any SDGs will almost certainly have distributional effects. And typically, it's these effects that make measures controversial or delayed. So it's really critical to tackle distribution head on to make this rapid progress we need to make. Inequality is also a driver, a coastal driver of environmental pressures. And this is a really interesting research field. It has developed a lot in the last decade, but as a very quick summary, we can see that both the very rich and the very poor often have the more environmentally harmful consumption patterns. And of course, really important equity dimension here, of course, the rich have a greater responsibility to change their consumption, but also a more kind of indirect causal pathway in that inequality reduces social trust, social cohesion, which is associated on a sort of macro scale with lower environmental sustainability. And finally, COVID-19 has been referred to as the inequality virus. And we are of course concerned that these, it will sort of make more permanent some inequalities and that poorer, more vulnerable groups are being more disproportionately more affected by unemployment, for example. So what can we do about this? Well, there are many options for structural reform. I would say the toolbox is already there. It's just about implementation and making bold decision to have clear plans also around redistribution of income and wealth in order to make progress on sustainable development. So I just show you here a toolbox presented by researchers at Harvard and you'll see it includes things like education, minimum wage policies, big job creation programs, social safety nets, but also things addressing the top earners like wealth taxes. Of course, we also need to think about inequality between countries, although this is actually becoming less of a problem compared to inequality within countries. And also here that there are options to address and make these structural reforms. Moving quickly on to the second systemic issue here, the recognition of nature. Again, if we first start looking at the SDGs as individual goals, we know that we are doing less well. We're doing bad on the nature related SDGs, number 12, 13, 14, 15. But again, here we are interested in how it's a systemic issue for all. And I think there is again, more and more interesting research from IPES and other places that nature, ecosystem health, biodiversity has a crucial role for many of the SDGs, pollination to secure agricultural production, to promote medicines and health, etc. But I think there's also more kind of fundamental worldview issue here. And it was mentioned in the introduction of the planetary boundaries framework, which I helped develop. This was a very exciting project in many ways, seen as very novel, but I would argue that it's really just one step in this clear line of ideas, starting with the idea of strong sustainability, that's the economy and society are indeed dependent on nature. What the planetary boundaries framework did was to quantify these limits that we must not transgress in order to still have viable societies and economies and a thriving nature. And this has since been also translated to the SDG framework. So this is a sort of intellectual journey for many years, too many years, too long time, absolutely. But I think we are also getting closer to a tipping point here. The solution starts with understanding and accepting a simple truth, our economies are embedded within nature, not external to it. This quote is from a major report released last week, the economics of biodiversity commissioned by the UK Treasury and Ministry for Finance. I mean, this also sort of builds make an even stronger case, builds momentum to make structural reforms that sort of recognize nature. And I think very interesting debates now on whether we should continue to sort of economically value nature, try to put a price on it, monetize it, or whether it's more about respecting nature, the intrinsic values of nature, protect it, use more regulator tools, or even go so far as to giving nature rights. We have seen some interesting examples in New Zealand, for example, where a river has been given a legal rights. This report also provides many tools and options for the structural reform. We don't have time now to dive into all of them. But basically these range from more protected areas, investment in nature based solutions, payment for ecosystem services, to new measures for economic success, like inclusive wealth, accounting for natural capital, but also more systemic issues, for example, how the finance sector operates, what kind of global standards we apply. And there we go. So two systemic issues and structural reforms. These are of course big ideas. But I think there are some potentially enabling factors now, some trends that we should look at. Firstly, increasing public support. I've been surprised to see the public opinion polls in the last year during the pandemic, where people really value the transition towards sustainable development, whether it's climate, a Green New Deal, or nature more broadly. And I just want to show you one figure here, showing in a number of countries strong support for a Green New Deal on the left hand side. A universal basic income, a bit less support that relates to our discussion on inequality. Of course, more support on the need to create good jobs. So I'll come back to why jobs is a critical factor in this discussion. Also, as I mentioned, interest in these alternative measures to GDP. Again, a very old discussion, but it's now getting new energy. For example, the UNDP Human Development Index was adjusted this year to account for the environmental footprints of countries. Finally, lots of changes in the finance sector, both in terms of the amount of capital now being available for sustainability investments. So it's really just about channeling, allocating them and making sure they go to the most vulnerable and needing places. But also holding the finance sector accountable for living up to standards and policies. And quickly then, conclusions. I hope I showed with these examples that now, the stage we're at now in this pandemic, it's not just the time to pursue recovery, but also really seriously pursue structural reform. And I propose that inequality in nature are two systemic issues that need this kind of structural reform. I would like to make a point here, though, that I think inequality is not just an end, a goal in itself. But really what we could see in this research is that it's a means to make progress on other cities. So that could perhaps reduce a little bit the political charging around inequality. It's not just the sort of ideology or norms relating to redistribution in societies, but it's also a concrete tool in the means. Nature, I would say, we have seen as a means for economic progress. We are talking about internalizing externalities, putting a price on nature. But I think we're now seeing a trend of discourse around recognizing intrinsic values, nature for its own sake. Finally, to make this structural reform happen in the short term, I think there are two key concepts, if you like, policy genders to connect to, to have this traction. One, job creation. What are the good green jobs of the future? And also, how can we use jobs as an economic indicator in addition to GDP? It's not just about reducing current unemployment, but also responding to the cold front from younger generations to have meaningful jobs, achieving the SDGs, and also considering how the future of jobs agenda will develop in terms of new technologies like artificial intelligence, etc. How do we make, how can we create meaningful jobs? Secondly, to connect to the circular economy, which I see is also rising on the agenda, both in the private sector and in government. We've had major progress now on companies, countries setting net zero climate targets. So the question is, can we build on that and broaden it? So we also see targets and commitments to limit resource use, introduce principles for circularity, new business models. So with that, I thank you very much for your attention and really look forward to the discussion.