 the Regional Director of Sustainable Development for the Latin America and Caribbean Region of the World Bank. It's a real pleasure to be here and today to talk about this new report, Nature's Frontiers, Achieving Sustainability, Efficiency, and Prosperity with Natural Capital. The report is the result of a really strong partnership between the World Bank, the Natural Capital Project, and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, and we're really grateful to have colleagues from all of those institutions here with us in person and online. It represents several years of work in which new models on the cutting edge of science were integrated with big data to examine how we can change the paradigm through which we grow our economies. So over the past hundred years or so, we've really seen a great expansion in economic activity. It's caused unprecedented increases in living standards. We've seen critical indicators like infant mortality and poverty rates plummet throughout the world. We've seen access to basic services like water, sanitation, electricity rising almost everywhere. But that growth has come at a cost, a cost of erosion of the environment. Agricultural growth has relied on expanding our natural forest into our natural forest and intensifying ways we work that deplete and pollute our water supplies. An industrial expansion has led to our cities seeing unprecedented rises in air pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases which are changing the planet's climate. That challenge that the world now faces and one that the World Bank is working to address is to accelerate growth without having that same destruction of the environment. To put it simply, we aim to end extreme poverty, boost shared prosperity at the same time that we contribute to a thriving, livable planet. And what you'll hear about today is that it is possible. We can actually achieve both growth and enhanced human well-being while enhancing the environment rather than destroying it. So we can raise incomes, we can address food insecurity, and we can also sequester carbon emissions and protect critical biodiversity. And importantly, this can be done with today's technologies and the way we can do it is by using our natural capital better, more efficiently and more effectively use our land, our water, and our clean air. So teams from various parts of the World Bank, including those of my own in Latin America and the Caribbean are already using this to inform our discussions with government and how to deal with challenges at the intersect of development and climate change. And we're taking this work forward, building on the analysis that we hear about today to better understand what opportunities exist, for example, for the Latin America and Caribbean region and to move towards a low carbon greener future. Answering questions like how can countries of the region leverage their natural resources, their land, their forests better for more sustainable development. So what you hear today represents not only a great piece of analytics, but a whole new stream of work at the World Bank with the natural capital project. So now let me turn to Stefan Pulaski and Peter Hawthorne, who are two of the lead researchers at the Natural Capital Project. Stephen is a Regents Professor and the Felser Lambert Chair in Ecology and Environmental Economics at the University of Minnesota. And Peter is the lead scientist with the Natural Capital Project and Founder of Nat Cap Insights. We're grateful to have Steve here with us to tell us more about the study and what it means for the future of development and conservation. So we're all ears. Over to you, Steve. Thank you. So good afternoon. Thank you for coming and thank you, those of you online. So Peter and I are going to basically share the presentation here much as we share the work and then you'll see who was responsible for the real work when you see who does most of the slides. Okay, so does this advance? There we go. Okay. So as I said, so Peter and I are going to present. Also we have, this is work amongst a large number of collaborators. So there's an echo here. Okay, there we go. Good. And I just like to thank, you can see that maybe a little bit small on the right hand side here, but we actually have a number of co-authors also in the room. Okay, so as Anna said, the sustainable development challenge that we're all facing, we need economic development in order to raise people out of poverty, but we need to do this in an environmentally sustainable way or the economic development won't be long lasting. The record of the recent past has not been wonderful in this regard. We've had rapid economic growth, but poverty remains prevalent and we've had large declines in natural capital, which has led to the climate and biodiversity crises that we see currently. So the question is, can we do better? And that's really the inspiration and the motivation for this work is how do we address these sustainable development challenges of both achieving economic development and doing this in an environmentally sustainable way. So the part that we're going to talk about here is really focused on land use and, you know, sort of broadly speaking, how do we use the environment that we find ourselves in. And this encompasses then any action that we take in terms of land use or land management will affect climate, it will affect biodiversity, it will affect livelihoods and income. And so the tools that we're going to talk about are methods that account for the multiple benefits that can come from land use planning, comprehensive land use planning to improve both the sustainable environmental and economic outcomes. And we stress here that there's multiple ways that countries can attain or meet these multiple objectives. So I'm going to turn it over to Peter now and he's going to walk us through the sort of the modeling approach. Thanks. Yeah, I'm going to start by talking about how we did this analysis. Here's kind of an overview. I'll get into more details. Like Steve laid out, we're interested in identifying ways that countries can improve in both environmental and economic measures. And so what we're going to do is look at how they're performing in the current landscape and then consider a range of possible alternative management strategies. On the economic side, we're looking at returns to cropland production, forestry and grazing minus any transition costs that are required to reach these lands use alternatives. And on the ecosystem side, we've looked at carbon storage and emissions from grazing, biodiversity and a number of different metrics and water quality. Trying to take those outcomes associated with the different management alternatives, plug them into an optimization and generate a wide range of different alternative land uses, land use patterns for a country that maximize some combination of the economic and environmental outcomes. And those optimizations are going to basically be the way that we can illustrate where are these opportunities for sustainable development along both of these axes. So different land use alternatives that we considered in this study, obviously we start with the land as it currently exists. We do impose this set of sustainability constraints. So for example, in areas where there's irrigated cropland, but irrigation is considered unsustainable in the long term. We model that as rain fed agriculture. There's natural habitat. That's either protection of existing habitat or restoration in areas that have been converted, forestry production, grazing production, and then intensified crop production. Here we look at this in four different ways. So there's a combination of is it irrigated or rain fed and then is it done with or without a set of best management practices. So then given those alternatives for the way a given parcel of land could be managed, we need to model out what would the impacts be on those metrics of interest. So we're starting with the invest suite of tools, which is a bunch of models for ecosystem services that are maintained and developed by the natural capital project. And then for this project, we've added in new models globally scoped for grazing, forestry and biodiversity, as well as made improvements and modifications to a large set of the other models that were involved. The inputs, I'm not going to go through all of them right now, but happy to answer any questions if there are specifics. Basically, we've got globally mostly spatially explicit models for a set of biophysical and economic data that parameterize these models. And obviously the starting land use land management for our current land as it exists. And the outputs from these models basically provide the scores that we use to assess how well a given land alternative will perform. And again, I can take questions about those or point them to the appropriate person. Here's an example of what some of these look like. So for Brazil, the left column of graphs is showing the scores for the landscape as it exists. The right column of graphs is showing the maximum possible increase that you could get given the appropriate land use choices. And then top to bottom, we've got crop returns, grazing returns, timber returns, and carbon storage and species richness. And the important point here is that you can't get all of those maximal increases at the same time. Obviously, if you choose to maximize grazing returns, you're giving up crop returns and a large amount of carbon storage and species richness. So that's where the big challenge comes in. How do you select which parcel and which location for which land use? Which of these objectives do you want to maximize? And then at the national scale, how to coordinate all of those choices for sustainable development pathways. That's where the optimization comes in. So we take all of those model results, plug them into optimization and generate what's called the landscape efficiency frontier. And that's the blue line here. And that represents the best possible combinations of economic value on the x-axis and an environmental value on the y-axis. As to help you orient here, each point on that line represents a different configuration of land. The one at the top at the left was zero economic value, but a lot of carbon storage, that would essentially be 100% restoration. So going back to maybe the original landscape and way down at the bottom right, that's where every parcel of land has been converted to its most economically valuable use. So that would be cropland grazing or forestry depending on the conditions in that parcel. The pink dot shows our analysis or assessment of the current landscape. And what we're really interested in, in a lot of cases here, is this no losses zone or what economists call the Pareto space of this curve. And that's the part that's bounded by the orange dots. So that's where you can see you're moving up into the right. And basically it's a set of land use patterns where there's gain in both the economics and the environmental outcomes for the country. And so what we found is that basically every country has scope to move in that direction. Some it's very limited, some it's very great. But the potential is there. And what we really wanted this analysis to do is provide that signpost so countries can move in that direction, rather than say that the business is usual, we should be moving down towards the bottom right, giving up the environmental and focusing purely on the economic. I'll turn it back to Steve to talk about some of the global patterns we found. Thanks. Yeah, so we did this for 146 countries around the world, basically all countries above a certain size 10,000 square kilometers. And that had sufficient data for us to analyze. As Peter said, we found in almost all countries that there was significant room for improvement. That's good. We can both do allow economic development, but do this in a way that actually improves biodiversity and climate. So just to show you kind of some of the patterns that we found across different countries. So on the upper left is the figure for Haiti. Haiti is one of the countries, one of an example of a country for which there are large potential efficiency gains. So we're very far from the frontier. So by reorganizing or reinvesting oftentimes in this particular landscape. So a lot of Haiti has been deforested. It's grassland that is not particularly good either for the environment or for economic returns. So by investing in restoration and improving agriculture, we can do better on both dimensions. One thing that I'll just mention here is that this analysis is not prescribing to governments exactly what it is that they're going to do. It's saying here are the potential outcomes where you want to end up on the frontier, whether it's more weighted to carbon and biodiversity or more weighted to economic returns is not something that we're dictating, but these are laying out the options for countries. The upper right hand panel, Iceland shows that not all countries have a lot of room for improvement. So in Iceland, there's not many options actually for land use. It's sort of natural or grazing and so depending on how much grazing land you have versus how much natural you're moving kind of along that frontier, but there's not as much room for improvement there. And then the bottom two, Gabon and Japan are showing kind of different patterns. So Gabon, like many countries actually in Sub-Saharan Africa, there is currently a lot of natural land. It does very well on the environmental dimension, but not so well on the kind of economic dimension. And so you can see that it's kind of located to the upper left of the diagram. And then many developed countries like Japan, as our example here, are in the bottom right. So they're highly, they have done very well on the economics. There's not much room for improvement there. But as compared to what Japan looked like before, human modification landscape, there is a lot more room for improvement of carbon and biodiversity. So those were country by country, but you can take the same idea and think about how does this then stack up globally? So how much, for example, could we move up in the environmental dimension? So how much, in this case, how much more carbon could be sequestered without adverse economic impact? So this was this no loss idea that Peter talked about. So moving straight up, we calculate this 85 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide could be sequestered without adverse economic impacts. You could also think about moving to the right in this diagram. So from the current to the yellow dot and showing that there are an increase of over 300 billion dollars without loss to biodiversity or to carbon sequestration. This is a map showing that different countries have different orientations. So if you think Gabon in Japan, so Japan more economically oriented, so the kind of the red tinged countries here are sort of more towards the economic side, and then the green countries more towards the environmental side. And you can see sort of Latin America, parts of sub-Saharan Africa, more on that dimension. Obviously Europe parts, very densely populated parts of Asia, more on the economically developed side or economically oriented side. I'm going to turn it back over to Peter. So one question that we commonly get asked and we think is quite important is the frontier shows you what's possible. It also shows you where you are currently, but how do you go from here to there? Yeah, some things. So this is an example from Paraguay, coming back to the same frontier I showed earlier. Even within this Pareto space, the no losses zone, there's a big difference between those landscapes, how land is being used, what are the outcomes, the distribution of economic and environmental services. So that's a range of choices the country has to make. But even making that choice, these landscapes are very different from the current landscape. So the transition from here to there is extreme and basically impossible or unrealistic to realize in any relevant timescale. So what we've started doing at a country specific scale is thinking about, well, how can we use that information to develop more feasible pathways? So here what we've done is basically take all of the transitions that would be required to get from the baseline to a sort of arbitrarily selected point, and then broken them up into groups of 10% of the total parcel transitions that would be required. The green dot in there represents 10% of the steps that you could take to complete that transition. So then what does that look like? Just identified the first three of those steps. So that's representing 30% of the changes from the current towards that optimized landscape. The top row of maps is showing what is the land use pattern look like along those transitions. Generally green is natural habitat and yellow or orange is agricultural habitat, not habitat, but agricultural uses. The bottom row is showing what's actually changing in each step. So the green regions are places that we've targeted for restoration of some type, and the yellow regions are those that were targeted for intensification of some type. And so you can see that that represents a much more approachable combination of actions that could be implemented in a say a five or 10-year plan targeted with the right policies or incentives and investments. And all told, those first three steps are getting 65% of the potential gains of the complete transition and 61% of the gains of the complete transition for carbon storage. So this is representing a pretty significant movement in the direction of sustainable development without the complete transformation of the country that the fully optimized solution entailed. And of course this is just the straight line transition that we constructed. There could be different ways of tailoring that in implementation to reflect regional priorities or a preference for prioritizing one objective over another initially. So this is just an illustration of the way that this information could be used then in conversation with a country or region to help plot out a more on the ground approachable way to use this information. Some of the panelists will talk more about how this information is already being used. This is just an introduction. And I'll hand it back to Steve to wrap up. So what we've done in this report is to assemble methods and basically data at national levels to address some of these global challenges, sustainable development challenges. The analysis that supports these national efforts in fact can add up to have global scale impacts. But one of the really important things here is not to consider economic development and isolation or not to consider just nature-based solutions in isolation but to think about the package together and that by doing so in fact what we've shown here is that it is in fact possible to do far better to address sustainable development challenges by looking at this kind of integrated approach. And with that I'm going to wrap up this portion and I'm going to turn it over and introduce Mary Ruckelshaus who's the Executive Director of the Natural Capital Project and she's going to help us lead a panel. Thank you, Steve and Peter. How are we doing on time? We're okay so we could I think we could have time for a few just clarifying questions for Steve and Peter but the rest of the time here together we'll have a panel with our two guests online and three here and then we'll open it up to the audience for a Q&A, the online audience and the in-person. So there's time for more interpretive questions at the end but if you have clarifying questions for Steve or Peter please either the online community or in the room. Anybody? Hi everyone. So on the chart you were showing a trend line that has a negative correlation between the net economic value and the environmental value. Were you able to take into account any situations that might like have a they both like a situation where both the economic and the environmental value are benefited? Yeah I'll start. Great question. So partly what we show is when you get to the frontier that's where they're kind of we've exhausted the kind of doing well on both. From the current to the frontier in fact that's highlighting the point that there are wins for the environment as well as for the economy. The other aspect of that question now is thinking about sort of the sustainability. So one can imagine that you know for example if you push too far in the economic development or intensifying that you might have unwittingly crossed for example a threshold in the environment or tipping point in the environment that somehow you have not retained enough habitat and it's a biodiversity would go. That's why we actually emphasize the no net loss. So because kind of the further you are to the extremes that Peter was showing kind of the more likely it is that you have missed something important like that and so you know you say oh I'm going to develop but that's undermining the natural capital which is actually important for maintaining both the environment and the economic development. So but within the space of saying no net loss on the environmental side you know we hope that we are avoiding those kinds of unsustainable development paths. But excellent question. I just add one thing to that. So one thing that we did find is a lot of cases the choice of landscape management that was being preferred was intensified cropland with BMPs. So that best management practices sorry which in this case included addition of riparian buffers and maintenance of about 10 percent habitat mixed in with cropland. So that's a case where at the local scale if you can close yield gaps but then also set aside land that represents a choice of land use that provides benefits along both axes. So that shows up in a lot of the optimizations. Hi I also thank you for this for me. It's it's very exciting to see this piece of the analysis that we need to get to a sustainable future. I work in the energy side of things and I'm wondering about timeline because in a climate heating world that matters immensely and then I'm looking you know we talk about economics but in the end that's caught like where how do we balance the cost of whether it's reforestation or restoration. How do we I don't want to say justify because I could justify any of this but how do you how do you produce the data in a way that is is sustainable in terms of its own economics. I'll start I'll start. Great question so I'm gonna I'll start on two parts and then come back if I haven't addressed kind of the the complete suite of your question but the first one on the on the timing so certainly if you're restoring forest you're talking about decades as opposed to if you're destroying forest you're talking about pretty quick so one of the things that we're doing now it's not highlighted in this report is is to think about the time frame of when do you get the carbon stored and as you rightly point out that matters we need this near term rather than longer term so many of the switches other than other than reforestation you know many of the things happen fairly quickly but but you're exactly right on the on the reforestation question and so in these frontiers we're looking at what we call sort of a steady state or like if it's transitioning from agriculture to forest like here is the amount of land here's the amount of carbon that would be stored in that forest once it gets to its mature but that could take you know 50 60 80 years so it's an important point the other aspect that you raised is is is really getting to I think getting to the distribution like if we say oh this land is going to transition in this way how do we make sure that the particular landowners of their particular people involved are are being made whole and so one good thing about the analysis is that it is spatially explicit and we're you know knowing exactly what happens and we've got the economic return so this does in practice have to be put with institutions and like are there going to be policies that for example pay for ecosystem services and that's a whole additional set of questions which are extremely important but yeah great great points so yeah so something that we've started doing with that transition path analysis also is that that's giving us a more explicit timeline of which changes are happening where on the landscape and we've been able to quantify then not not only the the trajectory of economic value that's being produced but also what would be the sequestration rate of the areas that have been reforested so we can add in another constraint there to say well but we need to maintain at least this level of you know like instantaneous sequestration so it starts to account for that and then it could be part of the country's balance sheet on there for their carbon modeling yeah. Interesting questions coming online some of them are application related questions that if we I'm going to ask the more um sort of detailed methods questions here and I might have to put some to the end but we'll get to all of these. One question is a group of countries in Central Asia are not covered by the analysis and what would it take to include them and what data might be missing? Yeah we we we originally had all of the countries in Central Asia and at one point so I can tell you very specifically what what kind of knocked them out was actually our agricultural models and in particularly knowing where irrigated and unirrigated land was and the yields so basically improving the agricultural model data there would basically get us over the over the hump for most of the Central Asian countries. There were a couple of other smaller issues in various places but that was the basic one for for you know places like Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan and so forth. I mean the good news is we have most of this is globally available data so when we have the land cover which we have um and we have the we have access to the carbon models and we can apply the biodiversity model so so mostly it's not like we couldn't do anything there it was just one of the models. The grazing model have you looked at possibilities where regeneration could be combined with intensification and that this person notes the regenerative grazing practices in communal range lands as an example. Yeah that's a great question so we um you know when Peter talked about the agricultural crops we we talked about various different ways so it's not just cropland or not cropland there's various different management strategies. For grazing and forestry we were more limited in the study in the sense that we didn't have the kind of globally available data that would allow us to evaluate many of the like you know the regenerative grazing that's just mentioned. It's certainly on our agenda we would love to be able to talk about both in grazing and forestry the same kinds of you know not just is it on or off but what kind of grazing and what kind of forestry is there so you know there could be just as within agriculture there could be additional ways in which we can do things smarter by considering more of these kinds of options but we didn't have the data or the understanding at the to do this globally at the time. More and then we're going to move on um for now one another good question is did the mapping exercise take into consideration the proximity of processing facilities for wood or agricultural products? Yeah okay yeah so the the short answer is yes um uh did we we can't so we had transportation costs in there so we we know where the particular land parcel is we also know where um uh uh cities and towns are and where you know how how long it would take you to get there so we did do that kind of transportation cost. The thing we did not have globally was you know we didn't know for example where um meat processing facilities were globally so we we have an assumption about how far are you away from basically a market center and that's how we factored in um transportation costs. It would be you know most of these things the the principles are pretty straightforward so if you have better data like if we actually had a global map of here are where processing facilities are and the capacity is those processing facilities we could we could do a a more refined approach on that. I'm going to do one more pretty detailed technical one and there are a few questions I will not forget but we'll come back to them at the end um and so this last technical question is what new components or attributes were included relative to the existing invest models or was this analysis made outside invest? That's that's probably for Adrienne and Peter and Steve. So I'll start with that um the grazing and forestry models were completely new for this project. The biodiversity model I don't think we used the invest model at all right no so that was that was assembled from I think I don't know the slide is gone but there's a list of a bunch of different metrics that went into that and then we combined those into a single index. I think we've rebuilt a remote sensing based land carbon model so it's sort of using the same framework that the invest model does but rebuilt with the most up-to-date data we could find the cropland yield model was also sort of updated for this project. The water quality model was the the invest model but modified to be able to run in with the global extent which is a pretty Herculean computing project I don't know. Yeah that's right and then all the all the economics data to get the cost transportation um the transition costs and cost of irrigation cost of restoration that was all new data that was assembled. I'll just head off a question that I know I'm being asked later which is which of this data is available since we're on the subject of data now. We're basically trying to get everything organized in a way that's usable and accessible for people and then it'll be put online so the base input data and then the sampling of the the landscapes along the frontier will be downloadable at some point so all of this yeah hopefully people have access to and be able to make use of. Thank you so much Stephen Peter. So now I would like to call up the panel members please and we're going to start this session with our two patiently waiting online experts who are here at all hours of the night especially Johnny thank you so much for joining us at such a late hour and what I'll do is I'll introduce each person and ask them one just prompt question just to get their initial thoughts out and then what we'd love to do is have a little bit of an exchange after each panel member has presented a few introductory remarks then have an exchange among the panel members for a few minutes and then we would open it back up to those of you in the room and online so for those of you online who have questions that we haven't gotten to we will work hard to get to them in the Q&A after this panel. So first I'd like to introduce Johnny Ruta the lead environmental economist for the World Bank welcome he's joining us from Beijing and Johnny can you tell us a little bit about your perspective on this work based on how it's been implemented in China and also you've been with this analysis since the beginning so you've seen the whole arc of it in interesting ways that's probably unique so yeah please please share with us what you think about this in terms of that implementation. Thank you Mary and thank you very much for for having me this is a truly exciting event because it's the culmination of many hours of work by many brains so I in the middle as you said in the middle of the process I moved to Beijing and China is an amazing story right GDP that grows over a long period 40 years at an average of 9.5 per year is extraordinary and the same is the degradation that this rapid growth caused things changed recently in China with the with the concept of ecological civilization that is now enshrined in the constitution and with the Chinese Academy of Sciences here a long time partner of the natural capital project and the natural capital project itself we started to think what does it what can this tool the production possibility frontier do for the for this concept of ecological civilization so the methodology we use is the same that you that Peter and Steven nicely presented the data is actually drawn from the massive China national ecosystem assessment that was carried out between 2000 and 2015 and and what does the data show we took at we looked at this from three novel point of view basically we built on the work that was done in the in this global report and then the first piece of novelty is to look at the evolution of China over time because the data span 2000 to 2015 we could see whether China was actually moving towards the frontier away from it or parallel let's say to the frontier and in fact it was moving towards the frontier we looked actually that our two dimensions were food production versus ecosystem services and we looked at four different ecosystem services food production increased dramatically over 34 ecosystem services like soil retention water water retention went up wildlife habitat decreased slightly over over this period so that already gives us a sense of how you can use the frontier to assess historic trends the second thing you can do is to assess the present and and your current policies so what we did we took a two of the key policies that China is putting in place the first one is the concept of ecological conservation red lines that establish the no go areas for development essentially and we we we checked whether implementing those ecological conservation red lines would have would move China in what direction and same with it with the a more stringent concept of spatial conservation which is the ecological areas defined by the Ministry of Natural Resources and and in both cases there is an increase in efficiency so China becomes more efficient by implementing these policies but one of the two the the most stringent one actually comes with a trade off embedded it moves it reduces food production actually so implementing these ecological objectives can come at a cost in terms of other economic variables and the other key point that we looked at is what happens in the other key points of the frontier if we want to maximize carbon sequestration China has an ambition to to reach carbon neutrality by 2060 you know how much can nature be solutions of this kind offer so the movement the vertical movement straight up to the frontier when you measure carbon sequestration on the vertical axis shows that you can reach 34 percent increase in carbon sequestration and that that increase actually means 10 percent of offset emission by in 2019 more or less but it also means 35 percent over 35 percent of offset emissions in near 2050 so nature be solution by the time you approach that carbon neutrality here become very very important and that movement to the frontier that plus 34 percent becomes super important there was a question in the chat about biodiversity we also looked at as an additional constraint what if we impose the constraint of protecting 30 percent of the most biodiverse land in in the territory and still try to maximize carbon sequestration still we managed to get an increase in carbon sequestration of about 20 percent the other thing we did that is new compared to the global report is looking at provinces and where the trade-offs or synergies are stronger one of the provinces in the northeast elon ziang faces the most difficult choices because they have high agricultural potential high biodiversity and carbon sequestration potential and those come come may come at odds so overall in summary the type of analysis and i hope i'm giving you the flavor of that shows one in the case of china china is not far from the frontier it's highly transformed landscape so moving improving ecological outcomes means potential trade-offs so intensification and technological progress is crucial but that can come with other environmental costs and they need to be checked now synergies between carbon sequestration biodiversity are there are possible and and and the analysis shows that so so implementing this dual agenda of carbon neutrality with biodiversity is is possible and spatial analysis can help inform that and finally the the production possibility frontier treats efficiency as a spatial allocation issue which basically means that if you think about winners and losers among provinces you could start thinking even in terms of trading schemes in which efficiency in a way gets traded across provinces i'll stop there sorry sorry if i speak too much about china but this is this is a great tool that can be applied in many many different ways in in every country wonderful gianni no that's we could just listen to you all all night for you um but we'll come back to you because there's a such a wonderful rich example in what china has done to essentially downscale this approach so thank you for sharing that i'd like to turn next to dr carl folgate who's the chair of the board and the co-founder of the stockholm resilient center and he's the director of the bayer institute of ecological economics of the royal swedish academy of sciences and you have just a wonderful perspective about resilience and transforming people's thinking and societies carl so please we're eager to hear from you thanks a lot mary and they're really nice to be with you i think this is extremely exciting i think this report is is almost like a milestone of or really showing the synergies between economic development and the good steward triple of the planet's ecosystem and ecosystem services so i think it's so it's so very different from the way the economic world has normally looked at at incorporating a few things a few services as externalities into the economic model to really illustrate now that the work of natural capital and ecosystems is is really foundational for for economic development and i think this report extremely well clarifies that both in the space of in the space of health agriculture production water use and all these things so so in that sense i think it's a really really sorely needed if you would have had it 30 40 years ago so we have been more prepared for the changes coming now but it's excellent that is happening and i think it would have a big big impact so so what i'm trying to say here is actually i think that it can speed up the ongoing mind shift in mindsets that we are witnessing right now i think from from before looking at at the environment or something outside society to an increased recognition that if the planet and its biosphere doesn't work really well it will be hard for us to continue with a good civilization and a good economic development and i think this report is really increasing the speed of of that transition which is happening right now and it is happening actually as you will know very much so in the financial sector which to me has been a fantastic surprise if you back 10 15 years it wasn't hardly there but now we're just in the last two three and five years things are really starting to move and as you you've only you mentioned nature based solutions and these type of approaches and we have new task forces and nature financial disclosures and these type of things but i think what this report does enhances the significance of of not looking at nature based solutions in in sectors or in certain domains but really having this more systemic overview of what it means to be to revitalize to revitalize the environment for economic development i think that that to me is a really foundational contribution of this of this work i think steve talked about this as the package of nature and the economy together but i think it's really about showing the significance and the potential of of revitalizing and natural capital for our own progress and prosperity so so these are two two dimensions of the report that i find extremely nice and extremely well well done and and then the whole approach with the methods and the tools that are developed is makes it very practical and makes it very usable for a lot of actors in society thank you very much parle thank you so much it's really important to remember the the shift in mindsets that are underway and that we need to accelerate as you're saying as well as the the very practical arguments that we can make to to make that happen so we will come back to you as well when we come to the q&a and the discussion among panel members so can we now please have adrian and joha and nancy come join up here in the seats and we'll have some opening remarks from these three panel members and then we will have a little discussion so i'd next like to turn it to dr adrian vogal who's a lead scientist for the natural capital project and also has been with the world bank um seconded for the last two years so has a a great perspective on this work and can you can you talk a little bit adrian about what entry points you see for this work and how it might influence development finance in general well thanks sarian thanks peter and and steve for excellent presentation and i was really honored to be part of the team that put together this this report and and so yeah i'm speaking from my experience working with the natural capital project for over a decade working a lot with different countries in latin america and then more recently with the world bank through the biodiversity ecosystems and landscape assessment initiative which aims to bring these kinds of tools within reach of project managers in the country that they work with to to make these tools more useful for designing development projects for informing the dialogue with the country governments so speaking from that perspective i i am also a pragmatist and so i really love that this work is academic and is really well grounded in science but also to me has some really practical applications and i just want to touch on a few of those briefly um first of all i um one thing that was not emphasized much in the presentation is that also each of these frontier points includes an estimate of transition costs or implementation costs and so what that means then in a practical sense is that you can you know look at this no loss zone these no this there's no loss zone of options and can not only set a certain level of ambition for uh in a country for where they what they could achieve in terms of economic or environmental improvement without loss and other dimensions um can only set that ambition but have a clear sense of what it might cost for to implement that policy to get there which along with an analysis of funding gaps you know can give you a sense of what does the financing need to begin to make those steps towards the frontier um secondly another really interesting application of this kind of approach is that um you taking all of those no loss options together because this is uh spatially explicit modeling we can also see sort of parcel by parcel or place by place in a country which are the zones that are most often recommended to be restored or most often recommended to be intensified in agriculture regardless of of where exactly you choose to be on that frontier so we can produce things called like an agreement map which says what's the level of agreement around the recommended actions in specific places and this sort of information is really useful and in fact i'm using a similar analysis right now with some colleagues at the world bank working with the government of pakistan to help them develop a national action plan for restoration using this kind of approach to say where are the places where um you know regardless of exactly what your target is the places most often they give you the biggest benefits for restoration in almost all the scenarios and those are the places then that the government can target in their national restoration plans um let's see so just really briefly going through a couple of other examples um uh my mind just went blank i'm sorry but one thing that uh did want to touch on is also the project level design so when you're actually looking at investment projects again this is a national scale analysis but you can zoom in because it's spatial you're not limited to only looking at a national scale so we've also used similar approaches and results um uh from these kinds of models to look at at a regional scale or subnational scale how do you design a project for say investing in landscape restoration investing in payments for ecosystem services schemes um or investing in you know a joint project you know a way to to build dialogue between the agricultural community or the agricultural sector and the forestry sector and how can you design a project that will improve the condition of landscapes while while reaching both of these sectors and so from a sort of a a investment project design perspective i think that these these tools are also really really useful i've totally forgot what my other example was but i think i'm out of use enough time so i'll stop there back to you so no problem thank you adrian uh next like to turn to nancy losano gracia the lead economist in the latin america and caribbean region for the world bank and can you share with us nancy what potential impacts you see for implementing this this into your work in the world bank thanks uh well i'm i have to say that i'm super excited to to be here i think the potential impact that this work can have is sky is the limit i think we've heard several examples already but i think focusing on latin american countries i think this work can actually when one important contribution is that as we've heard in the presentation and the interventions before it can help shift the discussion from a discussion when we usually focus on okay if we want to conserve natural capital there is a trade-off i think this work is actually helping us shift that conversation to an area of opportunities to an area where we don't necessarily have to go into losses of natural capital or economic growth or give up carbon sequestration there is what this work i think is pointing at is the reason area of opportunity and there are possibilities to think about improving these three outcomes without sacrificing uh on on the others and so i think that puts this conversation and it helps us have a very strong conversation with on our counterparts i think the point that you mentioned just now it also allows us to have a stronger conversation that is cross-sectoral so if we're focusing on natural capital we often focus on a discussion with minister of environment this allows us to bring minister of environment ministry of agriculture minister of finance at a table to start discussing what are opportunities for lack this is particularly important because emissions in latin america and the caribbean 47 percent of emissions are actually coming from agriculture from land is changed from the forest station so thinking about how to move towards a low carbon path will have to or will require actions on better land use management start thinking about how to better leverage climate smart agriculture technologies or intensification and also how to leverage forest for carbon so i i think for lack it's very very important but if we focus also on amazon countries i think there's immense potential of using these tools to to really think about how is it that amazon countries can move closer to the frontier very fast i think this goes back also to the point that was discussed in the question on on time i think that's something that maybe needs to as a follow-up it's important to think about we know that that the amazon is at a very high risk of achieving a tipping point so bringing that dimension is going to be very important and starting a conversation now with amazon countries on how to protect natural capital sensitive natural capital while also not sacrificing economic growth is going to be very important i think these paths are these incremental steps that peter was showing in his discussion and are you going to be very useful to start having the conversation on what needs to be done and where the spatial differentiation on the prioritization we know we're all in the discussion also you were pointing at what is going to need to happen for those steps to be able to be taken and i think these kind of analysis can help us start a conversation but also very fast move to the how and to the where is it that this needs to happen and in that in our work we've we've we've already identified what are priorities on the how we know that this amazon countries will have to scale action in terms of land use management and forest conservation we'll have to start thinking very fast about what are options for economic opportunities that can replace illegal actions in terms of lodging or mining that are destroying the amazon but also actions to complement and improve the living standards of people living in the amazon so these are kind of the these are the discussions that this work can initiate and then we can start very fast discussing with countries how to move in that trajectory wonderful thank you Nancy and we'll we'll be able to come back to all of these wonderful points you're making so we'd like to turn to Juha so Juha is the chief economist at the IUCN and brings a really rich diversity of experience but also perspective especially on the biodiversity from the biodiversity community so Juha we'd love to hear how do you see this work being used for the broader community that's interested in biodiversity and sustainable development questions Mary and thanks Steven and Peter and to all authors of this report for a great piece of work it's a pleasure to be here i'm going to start out by noting at the outset that in conservation community i think it's generally recognized and has been generally recognized for quite some time that sustainable economic development is not possible if it doesn't incorporate the conservation of nature and on the other hand conservation of nature in a sustainable ways is not possible if it doesn't integrate economic development so this has been kind of ingrained in in work by IUCN and others for many many years it goes back to all the all the way back to probably Stockholm in the 70s and IUCN World Conservation Strategy in published in 1980 so this has been recognized as a challenge how to put this into practice this simple challenge that we all face is very difficult and I think this report in its robustness and rigorous analysis and comprehensiveness can represent an important milestone in making progress in integrating economic development and conservation so I think it's an extremely important and valuable piece of work to highlight the potential uses of this work around the world I'm going to focus on global biodiversity framework that was just agreed in Montréal, Kunming Montréal global biodiversity framework so all countries almost all countries in the world agreed to 23 targets under four different goals to achieve sustainable development and in the longer longer run by 2050 the goal of living in harmony with nature and there's a number of linkages here and I recognize that the linkages are not just the global biodiversity framework but I think the the linkages represent well the different uses potential uses of this work so I'm going to highlight four areas the first goal under the first goal the first target in the framework has to do with call for integrated and biodiversity inclusive spatial planning across the world in a way that then would bring in the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance close to zero by 2030 while at the same time recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and here I think it's quite obvious to us that this this work that you've you've done here can be directly applied to the principles of spatial planning we also recognize that one needs complementary approaches to to include and incorporate the rights of indigenous peoples and and local communities but if one can address the spatial dimension we're already a long way making progress now the second target or targets that are relevant here have to do with the restoration and protected areas so the restoration target target two in the framework calls for a restoration of minimum 30 percent of degraded ecosystems by 2030 and the famous target three 30 by 30 calls for the expansion of protected areas in all ecosystems terrestrial and other ecosystems to uh to 30 percent of their total area by 2030 and here the key question of course is how do we achieve this in a way that is maximally effective for biodiversity climate and economy and again your results and data here can directly help countries decide where and even how they should go about restoring their ecosystems and where especially uh you know especially where they should establish protected areas so that then in the end the combination aligns well with climate goals by the risk goals and economic goals the the third area of of global biodiversity framework where your your work can be very important has to do with resource mobilization and the kind of the underlying motivation in resource mobilization strategy for global biodiversity framework is that all economic activities should be aligned with biodiversity and climate goals and here again the linkage is direct it's this this thinking this concept is built right into your models it's also more specifically in the in the resource mobilization strategy there's a call and a commitment to repurpose uh reform current subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity so that they become biodiversity neutral or biodiversity positive this is a major call includes about 500 billion dollars worth of subsidies to be reformed per year how to how to achieve this will be difficult from social perspective economic perspectives but in order to do make progress there I think your work again can highlight how do we go about that reform in a way that is positive effective for climate biodiversity and economic activities and I think that that's sort of a final point that I want to make here is that the I think there's a recognition that we need to reform economies so that they incorporate the biodiversity and climate in a very integrated fashion that all not just conservation spending is aligned with with biodiversity rather all economic activities activities need to be aligned and I think your work is an important step in helping countries make that goal meet that goal so in some um the results here are are important and insightful but I might think that in the long run it might be these sort of additional follow-up analysis and and and and policy decisions and evaluations that your data and approaches enables that might might be equally if not more important the longer thanks very much again that that I mean all of your everybody's comments are there's so much richness here but I think your last point is very well taken and that's what I think some of these country applications are going to start to unearth so that's that's a really good point okay so we have a few minutes now just for the panel members to interact with one another and there were so many really good points that were made I wonder Johnny Carl Adrienne Nancy Juha would you like to just react to what one another has said or ask each other questions please this is a chance for us to talk among ourselves a little bit before we open it up to a Q&A with the larger audience I could I could just stress again what Nancy said said there about shifting from trade-offs to opportunities I think that's really that's really key key contribution of this report to really highlight the complementarity of of nature and economic development which which is which is very important and absolutely needed to to create enthusiasm and inspiration for for redirecting and transforming the way we do our business on the planet today into more sustainable futures I think oh I see Johnny is raising his hand go ahead Nancy go ahead to say something that relates to to your points Danny because you were talking about the provinces in China and how if I understood correctly what you're saying how objectives from the from the provinces may differ from the objectives of the country as a whole and I think that's a very interesting point and one that I'm actually very happy that we'll be working with the NACAP team as a follow-up of this work with a focus on on the Amazon because that's also a region where one could think that individual objectives for countries would maybe different if we think about the objectives of conserving or preserving the region or what or an efficiency frontier for the region as a whole so I think this is very important for regional analysis as well and to start pointing at areas where the individual and regional objectives differ and then start asking how is it that regional coordination for example can lead to a higher efficiency frontier or where is it that we need to start thinking about payment schemes to compensate countries to achieve an objective that they will not be willing to achieve on their own and who is it that would need to put money on the table so I think this work it will be very useful to inform those discussions I wanted to insist on the same point but Nancy put it in a much nicer way than me so I will not repeat it but just to stress this idea of the opportunity it actually can vary a lot by country and one part of the presentation from Steven and Peter show that you know when you get to highly transform countries very often those countries are not far from the frontier already so that's where the trade offs are biggest so it's really a challenge there because if you want to improve ecological outcomes whether it's carbon sequestration or biodiversity then you are facing some trade off or you have to push the frontier out so identifying where those elements are and then adding the spatial analysis by looking at the specific locations is it can give rise to a very rich agenda and just to echo also the point that Juha was mentioning in terms of the integration between the climate and the biodiversity agenda the tool here allows you to look at that additional dimension of the problem when you want to protect the most biodiverse and really thanks to Gretchen Daley for helping this team a lot on that and the team on that on that aspect when you want to protect the most valuable by diversity areas then you can do that selection of locations spatially and see what then your possibilities are at that point what your Pareto improvements really look like and then when it comes to reforming incentives you can link and there's probably some of the protagonists of this work you can link this work to an economic model and see how then they get translated into not only economic performance but also how economic policies can change then the movement towards the frontier. I'll just ask one more question to prompt all of you and then Juha anything you'd like to add there are several questions coming up online and all of you have touched on the unique spatial aspect of this analysis which can help mediate potentially trade-offs but also help sharpen visions for a region or a country or even a subnational scale and there are questions about how do we incorporate diversity distribution and equity issues into this and Adrienne I know you have perspectives on that so would you like to start there and then we can pass it along to your colleagues. Yes I mean I think that's a really critical point because with the trade-off curves that we were seeing in this presentation are really focused on the environmental benefit versus the economic benefit but we but the environmental benefit and the economic benefit can both be further disaggregated you know depending on how those benefits are distributed spatially and among different members of society and so in reality when it goes to when you go to implement each of the steps along the way you're likely to to have countries are very likely to face these issues of trade-offs in equity issues but I think that you know one of the one of the benefits of having this this spatial approach is that you can overlay information about you know demographics access to water treatment for example you know we've done this kind of thing in a similar study in Costa Rica a few years ago using some of the same approaches when they were a little bit more patient in our in our minds where we looked at helping the government design their I'm trying to remember what the acronym stands for but it's the nationally appropriate mitigation actions in the agricultural sector to help them achieve their NDCs and in addition to the targets of improving water quality reducing erosion control improving water regulation we also looked at where where people depend on or which people have access to treated water so the areas where you had greater benefit for water purification services were greater where people don't have access to treated water currently for example biodiversity services we were greater at areas that were highly dependent economically on tourism those kind of things can all be incorporated but I think that in the end it gets also back to the point that Steve made early on that that no amount of scientific analysis and data crunching is ultimately going to be able to make a political decision for you you know you have the what we're doing is making decisions more transparent providing information then that if we can get you know numbers and and data that people agree on then you can have the dialogue in a very open and transparent way about what social and equity types of trade-offs you might be facing and then how you can make it right for the people that might be potentially disadvantaged in some of these policies so Juha you'll have the last word and then we'll open it up to questions and further discussion with the group so please oh thanks I had a question but let me let me actually respond to to this previous question and then go back to my question later if need be on this issue of trade-offs so certainly we'll have spatial trade-offs within the economic trade-offs clearly and they may not be spatial they might also be trade-offs between different socio-economic groups and we of course don't have clear answers and guidance how to exactly go about addressing those trade-offs but maybe the best we can do at least or the least we can do is make those trade-off discussions based on data and the same data preferably so that the different parties can reflect on them in a meaningful way and make progress hopefully there will be a local national level process that would then then incorporate them in one dimension where we find at IUC and helpful to to to make these trade-offs explicit beyond spatially explicit data is between socio-economic groups and especially indigenous peoples and local communities oftentimes highlighting the outcomes that are specific to specific to them can assist in the uphill battle that they often face in in having their their voices heard thanks very much that's a really good point Juha okay I'd like to ask Steve and Peter to join us maybe just in your chairs and and let's open it up so anyone in the in-person audience and we have some really good questions coming in online that I'll help moderate as well but anybody in the in-person audience who'd like to make a comment or a question please yeah please and I think they'd like you to go to the microphones if you don't mind so the online audience can hear thank you oh you guys want to come see that oh um my question is on the cost of transition who had mentioned that briefly and I was wondering if you can elaborate on what sort of costs you know what's the number or what's sort of the ballpark or idea of how much it would cost to transition to get to that frontier line is that something realistic in your experience for implementing this sort of work and what are some of the questions that people are asking and so forth do you want us just to start with some facts and then I can bring us back to reality um so um what we tried to do in in in you know obviously when you're transitioning from uh agriculture to uh restored or you know something into agriculture they're they're obviously there is that cost associated so what we tried to do um to build that in was uh to look very carefully at the what evidence we had like what were restoration costs in various ecosystems to get to you know for reforestation or for restoring grassland so we basically harvested from the literature like what do we know about um what kind of capital costs if you will or it's kind of that uh that that cost of changing it from one thing to another so that's what we added into into the analysis um I'm going to turn it over to our panel to talk about you know so if there are you know somebody has to pay these costs and and typically they're upfront costs and so you know it's not something you can ask a poor landowner to do like I want you to stop growing food for the next 10 years so um you know there are some real important institutional um questions like where where do the resources come from so overall we can see on the the figure like if if you're moving to the right in our figure it means that overall there's more economic return coming but you need to make sure that the important decision makers are made whole and that may require a set of payments or some types of policies. Yeah and I think just to add quickly on to that that the um that the getting all the way to the frontier especially for countries that are very far from the frontier in the current scenario obviously is going to take massive investment to get all the way there that's why I I like the direction that Peter was taking this we're talking about you know steps along the way that they're doing for for Paraguay and another of the Amazonian countries now it's in the works um because then you can start thinking about you know on sort of project relevant timeline on a five-year planning timeframe or 15-year planning timeframe then what are the next best best steps you can make to move you in the right direction and those transition costs I think are because they're based on numbers from the literature they're based on the same kind of information that project planning documents rely on they're not we're not coming out with numbers that are radically different from what you would estimate from projects that would implement the same kind of activities um on those those shorter timeframes um and then the other thing is that because we've estimated you can look at the improvement in carbon storage that carbon storage is another aspect I'm not actually sure if the carbon value was included in the net economic returns or not may not so that's actually another value that can be added and considered on top of as a way to help finance those those costs so maybe just to add to that I think it's something that is very useful here is that it raises all these questions also you start with a number on what is the transition cost but then all these questions of for example okay if you have this additional carbon sequestration is there a possibility to leverage carbon markets to finance that transition this is not providing an answer to that but it provides some of the information necessary to start opening those discussions with the right questions can I follow up on that just quickly I had a similar comment that you know whether the costs seem to be sensible of course depends on the benefits and understanding something about the climate benefits and maybe the biodiversity benefits of their economic value can be can be helpful in this regard so there's a question whether in in your transition work and future work you've thought about using monetary values on the benefit side also to guide the analysis here and then maybe one final thing I wanted to mention on on this global piracy framework is that I think there's a recognition that we need to add funding to conservation from domestic sources from international sources and and from private sources so just yesterday global environmental facility jeff council approved global biodiversity fund that it will be the first key step in in mobilizing funding to to promote conservation of biodiversity especially in the in developing countries so it's a one I think 1.8 billion in that range but maybe not sufficient but but an important the next step thanks thank you and then we have Johnny will take the people at the microphone thank you very quickly just to to complement what you had just said in china we we tried to to mimic what it is cost benefit analysis of the different scenarios and for the for the cost part of course we looked at the cost of the transition for the to to the to the scenarios we looked at and for the benefit part we used the the concept of gross ecological product that china has developed which basically puts many economic and environmental values into a production function framework and and generates a number that gives you a sense of what are the economic benefits of of implementing different scenarios and and what came out of the analysis you are you will be super happy is that the most the highest cost benefit ratio is the scenario that maximizes carbon subject to the 30 by 30 target because of the of the co-benefits that come in terms of other ecosystem services that come with that so you get less carbon sequestration because you have an additional constraints but but you get other benefits which if you are able to monitor as you were saying then then can can change the balance over and i'll come back to you because there's a question related to the uncia online and i think the g e p connection is a great one there but i have two questions in the room that we'd like to honor first and then we'll come back to you johnnie so please again thank you and um with the apologies for being a imminently practical approach person um i'm wondering if there are any if you're thinking about i am um micro examples because i i find in in whether it is global leadership decisions or or us based or any one country based it's much easier to wrap arms around something if there is an example of for instance uh green industrial agricultural options alongside of others of other natural capital and nature based solutions along with well you know we could we could high in the sky but it's a way of demonstrating the economic engine behind both uh keeping the the natural carbon and the natural ecosystems intact as well as allowing a new form of capital of capital to form based perhaps on the carbon or greenhouse gas side of the measurement in there is anyone seeing the the carbon market bringing additive value additive finance as she's asking to some of these more you know in the context of regenerative agriculture or integrated watershed management things like that yeah do have please thanks so that's a great great question there is a um quite a lot of evidence and experience at the local level that supports the idea of of investing in restoration and conservation of nature so uh at IUCN we've been working and with many partners on this especially forest and landscape restoration where in many cases investments in improving or kind of reducing the degradation of soils and land in general can bring in returns through agriculture especially and through other economic activities that will eventually outweigh the expenses even at the local level so these are best oftentimes conducted as analysis at the landscape local landscape level because that's where the community who's working on this and the impacts are and the beneficiaries the challenge there of course is oftentimes the liquidity that those communities don't necessarily have the upfront capacity the capacity to invest upfront and there this kind of approach can be very effective in working for instance with bilateral multilateral donors and sometimes private sectors to bring in that funding that then in the end you know will break even or beyond but quite a lot of work on in that area we call it a restoration opportunities assessment methodology and it's kind of the micro-scale assessment of what has been done here at the national and global level thanks. Adrian is one of the architects of that restoration the Rome methodology yeah with a number of other people but that's a great example yeah we have another question here please and then we have a bunch online that I'll turn to. You know Kessler with the International Fund for Animal Welfare thank you and congratulations to all the panelists and authors this is an incredible body of work that will be so useful in so many conversations and guiding them my question is with regard to the frontiers and whether my very basic understanding of them is that they're maximizing efficiency for economic and environment and is it already included or do they go far enough to curb the climate change and biodiversity crisis so if we are able to inform policies such that all countries are looking to move into this frontier everybody gets there and magical lump sums of money and policy have we gone far enough to actually create something sustainable or have we just sort of slowed the eventual demise. That is the question isn't it no it's a great question and it's something that you know is motivating this work and I know you know Carl and some of his comments and you're thinking about the transformation that is needed in order to actually make this maintain a livable planet not just for us but for other species so you know one way of thinking about this is this is this is what the you know most of this is is done at the national level and it's it's basically saying you know what kind of country do in order to improve its biodiversity in order to improve its carbon sequestration on the biodiversity side and you has already spoken about you know 30 by 30 and you know so we could we can put and Johnny talked about you know we can put constraints on the analysis and say we think we need to you know get to 30 by 30 or we need to put on so the analysis can be done in fact with that and I think here is a case where actually if I can blend your question with the prior one you know the prior one is like look show me a story that works here and and but then scaling it up is like but we need all of these local stories to actually scale up so that we address a global problem and on the carbon side so I think I'll hold off on biodiversity you how you should come back on this one but you know on the carbon side of course what we're talking about with nature-based solutions or you know the natural climate solutions this is only a portion of the problem right I mean so we can sequester carbon in natural systems but you know it doesn't offset like even if we did all of the things to get to the frontier here that doesn't offset the emissions for more than you know somewhere it's less than a decade so it's it's a part of the solution on carbon but it's certainly not the whole thing but we also have one of the architects I believe Carl Focke of the planetary boundaries concept and so I could just wanted to say I could see a nice next step would be a union of this approach to the frontiers with the planetary boundaries to try and address exactly that question it'd be super interesting if I just I want I can go back to that question it's just said this question is one of the reasons why I'm so excited about the Amazon work because we all the the current work says what is Colombia with their with its resources how close it is the country to the efficiency frontier and what's the best they can do or how to move closer to that efficiency frontier of the country but we know the Amazon is a global public good right so there are many benefits that go beyond Colombia that go beyond even the the from the geography of the Amazon basin so then this is where we can start thinking about okay what will it how how can we think about constraints that actually preserve so much of the Amazon because we know that it's a global objective that brings benefits for everybody so including these constraints is is one of the reasons why we're so excited really good point okay there's a there's a couple of questions a lot of good ones we're not going to get to here we'll do our best to address these online but there's one that's really interesting that's going to be for you Carl and that is a combination of it's related to you has points about resource mobilization so the question is around financial incentives so what sorts of financial incentives might there be for the private sector for example to start driving some of this change that's needed to take the steps towards the frontier and related to that which is also something you think a lot about and of working towards is how what actions are we taking to change mindsets and what should we be doing differently or more of so would you like to take that on Carl and then we'll pass it around a little yeah i can try i can try to start a little bit there on the financial one i think that at least in the country i live in here in sweden and in europe there is an enormous awakening and action actually going on in the business sector that that i've been working with these issues since the early 80s and i have been quite shocked about the speed of it actually and and and that's very positive i think and i think the reason is basically that there's a recognition that we are moving out of the the conditions we have had during my lifetime to a new situation the Anthropocene where we have to do things in different ways and and generate new purposes so i can see a lot of a lot of financial investors in business adding adding a purpose of sustainability in a deep sense and not just as a compliance thing but more as a conviction for for this is the new space where where good business will take place in the future and i find that very exciting and interesting and that's part of the of this mind mine shift of course another dimension that i've been thinking about listening to this discussion is is to what extent the significance of for example reported response diversity that biodiversity provides is can be part of the approach given given given the given the combined shops that we are living with now that are completely new in many dimensions we often say that we are not just in a situation where the game is changing but the whole playing field for the game and we we know that there are areas due to climate change that we have we have very different patterns of rainfall or different climate situations that will cause migration patterns between nations and things like that to what extent are the these type of insurance building dimensions can they or they or can they be represented in this nature frontiers approach and further highlight the significance of revitalizing the biosphere that we're part of thank you that is actually a wonderful i think closing set of remarks for this panel thank you carl and thank you to all the panel members and also the audience in person and mine we really appreciate your engagement and we now are really honored to have some closing remarks from from valerie oh sorry i just lost my oh yeah she's here great thank you for joining us so much valerie valerie hikki is the global director for environment natural resources and blue economy at the world bank and you have some wonderful instruments behind you but we're really happy to have you and i'm interested to hear your closing remarks for this for this session thank you thank you so much mary and i won't embarrass myself for the whole world by trying to play my rebar or my remarks on a guitar i think that might lead us all to runaway screaming but i wanted to say a huge thank you to you to adrian to peter to steve to jenny to carl to adrian to nancy to juha and also to richard demania who isn't here with us but who has been our intellectual north star on this work within the world bank you know as i was listening to the conversation today and as i read the report and watched this come to fruition over the last couple of years four things have really struck me today the first is talking about environment is no longer the realm of just environmental scientists or people with mud on boots it's not a hippie dippy nice to have tree hugging discussion this is serious economics this is serious business and that matters i think the second thing that i really heard today and this speaks to the challenge that anna raised when she opened this meeting today is how much this report signals a paradigm shift you know for so long we've been told over and over again that nature has to be sacrificed on the altar of development because it's the only way for countries to grow it's the only way to feed people is if we sacrifice nature and it's not true all of us around this table today both in real life and virtually know that isn't true the numbers tell us it isn't true you know just this year 828 million people are going to bed hungry 58 million people in 58 countries are starving starving in 2023 and that's happening despite nature being degraded and deforested when we think about low income countries a third of them have not regained their income per capita today at the same level as they had in 2019 despite increasing and accelerated illegal deforestation just last year we've just seen the reports come out in 2022 illegal deforestation was 10 larger than in 2021 we're increasing deforestation we ended up deforestation last year 4 million hectares 16,000 square miles the same an area the size of Switzerland and yet 58 million people are starving to death and yet the income of low income countries has remained low and is getting lower and yet the incomes of middle income countries if you take china out of the equation have stalled against their high income counterparts so instinctually and when it comes to data we know that this either or agenda either you can have nature or you can have growth isn't true because both of them are failing and this either or agenda and you have spoke so so eloquently about this has to change this idea that either we talk about economics or we talk about environmental science clearly this report shows that we need both when we talk about either we work with farm farmers on the landscape or we work with indigenous peoples and local communities is wrong most indigenous people are farmers all farmers are part of their local community and all of them make up the landscape across which ecosystem services flow and across which agricultural productivity matters it's not an either or agenda we get told all the time and we talk now either we focus on the 30 by 30 agenda target through under the global biodiversity framework or we talk about food security again wrong it's both we have to take a ridge to reef approach we have to look across conservation and sustainable production it's not an either or agenda and my personal pet pet peeve either everybody talks about public finance and the need to provide concessional financing for environment or everybody's talking about private capital and that private money is going to rush to the rescue of environment the truth is we need both and we need to to marry the two so public finance can unlock private finance so that we can finance more green things but we can also green finance so this idea that we live in a world of either or we're either we have environment or we have economics we know it's wrong the data shows it's wrong and we have to stop talking about either and so both and agenda the third thing that really hit me is just how much this report has created a message that will be so easily digestible because we all know that how we message something is as important as what we're saying and in this case it's how much this report and the work that's behind it is narrating itself as an efficiency and affordability agenda it's in the title of the report and efficiency and affordability have never been more important in a world where 60 percent of our low income clients are in debt distress or at risk of going into debt distress it's never been more important to have an efficiency agenda at a time when the supply of money has been reduced and the cost of money has gone up over a quarter of emerging markets countries no longer have access to the capital markets in effect and for countries rated as C rated borrowers their costs of borrowing just since last February 2022 have gone up over 14 percent so efficiency is the watchword for today and talking about this report and talking about how we must marry both the environment and the economics and the economic growth and the development agenda together and wrapping it up in an efficiency wrapping is absolutely critical and then the final thing that really struck me from the report from the work that underpins it and from the discussion we had today is that it's important to have the data it's important to have a message that makes that data digestible but then it's important to tell people so what what do you do about it and that's important what's the roadmap to countries reaching that production frontier and that's what's been so important about this work is the discussions around how do you build regulation and policy that matters especially policies on incentives particularly policies around subsidies what are the institutions you need to make this work what about the public infrastructure and the incentives to build it what about access to finance and that matters laying out a roadmap for how without it being overly prescriptive without forgetting that there are trade-offs in reaching the frontier really really matters and so I really want to thank everybody for doing the incredible work to that went into this report but into the many other reports and the many dialogues and the many discussions this report in today's conversation is just one more whistle stop on what has been a long train journey over many many years now with all of the partners around the table that proves that we simply cannot have a world without poverty in a world without nature so thank you so very much Mary and congratulations again to everybody who put this together applause to you Valerie and to everybody for the work for your interest being here in person and those of you online it's really clear to me that we can now show what's possible in this integrated agenda that Valerie you just articulated so beautifully and now we need to get to work to help people see how to get there and also how to change this narrative so I think we're on a good path and we have wonderful people whose shoulders are to that wheel so yeah thank you very much everyone for joining we will be in touch online with follow-ups but before we sign off I wanted to thank Isabelle and Ilana and Laurie and Mary Jane for all of the wonderful support for making this hybrid event happen so thank you all very much okay good evening and good morning and good afternoon