 Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the session where nature meets conflict. So current security paradigms were developed in a world that no longer exists. Human activities have brought profound changes to the earth, the results of which are frequently unpredictable, rapidly evolving, novel and intricate. While we have been framing the ecological disruption narrowly in terms of climate change, it actually encompasses a wide array of issues such as biodiversity loss, water scarcity, loss of fertile land, pollution, plastics and biogeochemical overabundance with diverse societal and security implications and immense challenges to risk management. But the relationship between security and earth system stability is yet to be considered in high-level decision-making. Some attention is being given to hotspots such as the western Sahel in the Horn of Africa and the intercession of rising temperatures, food insecurity, weak governance and ultimately collective violence. But the impacts of extreme weather events and resource scarcity and migration flows within and beyond national borders are still to be studied profoundly. There's also a debate in security circles about the risks of climate shocks and stresses in relation to military redness, but the issue also needs to be mainstreamed. Furthermore, the discussion tends to be one-directional, focusing on the association between climate change and nature degradation and insecurity rather than also on the other way around. This is very clear in the region where Antonella and I also come from, the Amazon Basin, where we see widespread environmental crimes generating massive deforestation, taking us very close to tipping points that are very dangerous for both climate and nature. So we need to take a look at the broader picture. At the Global Future Council on Nature and Security that I co-chair, Weorgan Vagley from the World Bank, we are calling to different stakeholders to reimagine human, national and global security on a changing earth. Security can no longer be conceptualized as a zero-sum game. This new context demands cooperative and systemic security strategies that our current systems were not designed to provide. And we urgently need massive investments in risk mitigation, adaptation, and resilience promotion, especially for those communities that are least resource to cope and adapt to the short to long-term implications of climate shocks and extreme events. And to discuss what to do about all this, we're extremely lucky to have with us here. Antonella DiCiano, Global Shaper from the Caracas Hub, Venezuela. Fakie Siebesman, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Royal Phillips, Member of the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum. Amy Pope, Director General of the International Organization of Migration. And Jojo Manta, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Stop Ecocide International. So after an initial discussion, we'll have a Q&A. So think about what you want to ask to this amazing panel. And if you'd like to share about this session, please use the hashtag WEF24. So Amy, I'd like to start with you. So the migration issue I think demonstrates very clearly this multiple crisis at the human, national, international level. And I think you are the best person to give us the sense of how the disruption of earth systems is driving migration and displacement and amplifying conflict and humanitarian challenges. So thank you very much. And thanks for having the conversation. I mean, I think it's increasingly clear to those of us who work in the humanitarian and development space that the impact of climate on already very vulnerable communities will be catastrophic unless policymakers and other actors start to take very urgent action. You know, we see it firsthand in places like Somalia, right, where we know already communities that have been devastated by years of conflict, where there's still ongoing conflict, now facing the impact of years of drought season after season where people are unable to grow food or feed their livestock. And the result of that is massive displacement pressure, right, for those who are lucky enough to be able to leave. For those who are less lucky, it often means death, right. But for those who are leaving, we're seeing millions of people who are being displaced within their countries, within systems that are ill-equipped to manage the movement of people. And then when those people are unable to remain in country because of insufficient opportunities or continued conflict, we then see movement across borders. So this is increasingly important that we collectively begin to grapple with ways to build resilience to climate impact and to do so in ways that are conflict-sensitive. It's a very underdeveloped area of work for all of us who are working this field. We should go back to that because I think most people think migration will only occur across borders, but the impact within the countries, within the cities will be immense. And I think this has to be really highlighted. So I'll go to FAKEIT because I think we don't think about nature as, let's say, the source of our economies. So more than half of the world's GDP depends on ecosystem services. The services provided by planet, by nature. So how can businesses adequately address risks emanating from nature disruption? Yeah, good. Not only how, they must. I totally agree with Amy. I mean, we don't need to go to all the devastating impacts of climate. I think we all know that. And by the way, as often say, especially in Europe, by the way, we should realize that because Africa, next to Bangladesh and other region, Africa is hit hardest and people will not find a boat to Canada, but will find a boat to Italy and to Europe. And Europe cannot handle the migration of today already not. And the only solution is to help Africa and not to find all kinds of migration issues and whatever solutions in Europe to do it on the ground there and to take care we don't suffer. And we don't cause these further problems. As Makisal quoted him often last year, said in the Climate Adaptation Conference that I co-chaired with Ban Ki-moon, we Africans suffer the most. We Africans are the most vulnerable. We Africans cause the least. And you, of the West, dot, dot, dot. So, and some people say, well, if we start like this, it's not helpful. And I said, and I repeated, I think it's inconvenient for these things, but it is totally not incorrect. So we need to do something. Now, as you said correctly, almost half of our global GDPs are agricultural and input-related streams. And next to the fact that we need to work on loss and damage, because there is a loss and there is a damage and somebody costs it and somebody needs to be compensated. Next to the fact that we need to work on mitigation to prevent that this whole devastating actions continue. We need to work in parallel on adaptation and help the people, especially in Africa, because they need help right now. We don't talk about streets who are flooded or whatever. We talk like Amy is saying, they don't have enough food anymore, so people die. That's something else than that the seller is on the water or whatever. And I still don't understand, I'm not smart enough for this maybe, why business is so absent on climate adaptation. Business is globally financing about half a percent of the global adaptation budget. Really? I think there are two reasons why business should stop up. One is a self-interest of business. I don't get that one either. If you are dependent, like you indicated, from agricultural input streams, they will be disrupted over time and that will harm your own business and your own operations. So there's all kinds of self-interest of business to prevent and to take care and to adapt to ourselves. The second thing, businesses have the solutions to help. For example, in Africa, a lot of drought. Some Bangladesh, a lot of flooding. There are new seeds, new agricultural techniques, etc., which can provide food also when it is flooded or drought. Those things should become available for the most vulnerable. They need that right now. So both of a self-interest point of view, businesses need to stop up. And that is what we try to do also with global climate adaptation centers. And I don't even find the rational argument for business not to do that next to the humanitarian, next to the responsibility and all kinds of other arguments which are there. So therefore say, does business have to be missed for several reasons? I think we all agree with you. Go back to that on how to raise ambition. And I think, Jojo, you come with an issue that since we have to accelerate action and ambition from all sides, not only business, governments as well. And I think also there's a lot of individual change that we have to promote, to just really get where we need to get. So you work on a very new concept called ecocide. So many people don't understand what this legal definition is and what does it bring. So can you please explain a little bit to us but also tell us, in your opinion, what has to change in current business and investment models to make sure this long-term thinking and ecological considerations are included in decisions and practices? Absolutely. So, I mean, ecocide as a word is becoming more, it's becoming better known around the world and the concept is generally mass damage and destruction of nature. But legally speaking, what our organization and other collaborators aim to do is to have this recognized legally as a serious crime. Because one of the issues that sort of pervades all of this discussion is that we have a kind of cultural, very grained habit of not taking damage to nature as seriously as we take damage to people and property. And that, I mean, if you're campaigning for human rights, at least you know mass murder, torture, all of these things are serious crimes. But there's no equivalent in the environmental space. And so, and you know, unlike an international crime-like genocide that involves a specific intent with ecocide, what we see is actually what people are trying to do, what businesses are trying to do is make money, is, you know, is farm, is fish, is do all of these things that are, you know, producing energy and so on as well. But what's missing is the awareness and the conscience around the side effects, around the collateral damage that happens with that. And so putting a sort of outer boundary, a safety rail parameter in place that simply says, whatever you do, it should not create this level of severity, severe long-term and widespread harm. It actually starts to then steer decision-making and steer business projects and effectively all of those high-level decisions that actually end up with the suffering that we're seeing on the ground have those all sort of steered in a healthier direction. So something that's not really covered by loss and damage, mitigation, adaptation is actually deterrence and prevention. You know, we're all talking a little bit as though, you know, the changes that are happening and the shocks that are happening are inevitable. But actually there are quite simple, for example, you know, with ecocide it's really straightforward kind of intervention at the legal level that could actually start to steer everything in a healthier direction. For governments as well, right? Absolutely, for governments, for individuals, for businesses, yeah. It's interesting because increasingly you see now in the legal systems the question, who have rights who can be defended? And normally in our normal thinking, it is humans, people who have rights and can defend it. Things, nature, countries in itself, fields cannot defend themselves. So they have no rights. And in the legal system, there's increasingly the question, people cannot defend themselves, things that cannot defend themselves, could they still own rights? And then you come into the area of Jojo, although I question not a question. I think we think a lot on the solutions, I'm not sure we think always alike, but on what is happening we do. I quote Kuminaydo, previous good friend and previous... Big fan of Vika Sardló. Sorry? Big fan of Vika Sardló, too. Although I quote him and he's a good friend of me also, and he said, from dream peace, I don't care about nature, one of his statements. He said, listen, I care about mankind. I mean, when you are expelled, nature will restore itself, don't worry. And so I'm not caring about nature at all, I care about mankind. And to your point, if we kill nature and we do that party, is that something that we do to nature? I quote Kuminaydo, he said, well, or indirectly we kill people. And that is the issue. I don't know how you say that. I mean, absolutely. I mean, ultimately, this is about its protection of nature, but we are utterly dependent on nature. We're utterly intertwined with nature. And so, you know, if we don't take that into account, we are, you know, on a path to some very big problems. No, absolutely. I think it's people and planet and people because we will vanish, as you said. The planet, you know, somebody else will take care of it. But this brings, Fakim mentioned something very interesting, Antonella, because nature doesn't go to the police station to tell what happens. So for many, many like countries, what we call environmental crimes or nature crime are very underreported. This was an issue of secondary, let's say secondary crime for many police forces, including until today in some parts. So we have very hands-on experience and would love to hear from you because your country, your region are struggling with the association of environmental crime and organized crime, an issue that I'm also very, very keen to collaborate with you. So how do you see this nexus between nature and security when it comes to social conflict and violence? So what prevention strategies could be applied? So yes, so talking about big problems, I come from Venezuela, I'm 28 years old. I worked for six years for the FCDO, the UK FCDO in the region in Venezuela. And that's when I first came across the environmental crime concept, which was completely unknown to me. And since then I continued the research and I'm now a Fulbright grantee in Duke University, continuing the research on environmental crime in the Amazonian rainforest. So Southern Venezuela, what we call Boliva State, has something very controversial called the Orinoco Mining Arc. The Orinoco Mining Arc was stated by the Venezuelan regime in 2016 in the midst of oil pricing reduction and the production of oil failing for Venezuela. And it is a zone that is completely dedicated for mining purposes. It is a zone reach of gold called 10 diamonds and we all know what comes with that, which is precisely ecocide. This mines are in hands of irregular groups, transnational crime. We have local, what they call sindicatos or armed working groups. We have the Brasilian Garampedos, which are like the art design miners. We have presence of the ELN and FARC dissidents in there, Guyana miners as well. So this is like a big soup of organized crime in control of the mines. They are interrelated and they created sort of a symbiotic relationship with the Venezuelan government because they're all collecting revenues from this huge environmental degradation because they're using illicit products such as mercury to explode gold. So talking about GDP, transparency, international, the chapter, the Venezuelan chapter recently had some numbers exposed saying that 16% of the Venezuelan GDP now is because of illicit economies and it comes in its great part because of gold and the illegal mining that is happening. So this is a huge environmental degradation. It's one of the, because of the mine, the orinoco mining art is part of the Amazonian rainforest. It's one of the fastest growing deforestation in the entire rainforest. 70% of the gold that's collected there has gone to smuggling and illicit crimes and talking also about human displacement. This mining communities overlap with indigenous communities who have been displaced and they're now in phases of tremendous violence, conflict and health hazards. There was a local NGO recently doing studies to the health of this indigenous communities that were displaced and most of them have mercury in their blood systems precisely because all of the rivers have been contaminated with mercury and the waste there are irregularly exploding gold. Yeah, we shared this border with you, the Venezuelan border in the North of Brazil and it's super tough and we see the migration issue. So Amy, I would like to go back to you because these are, let's say, very visible crisis today and we know this will be exacerbated and climate and nature and again, we're trying to explain this nexus that this becomes a stability issue when we disrupt nation and we just also don't provide the livelihoods to people. So, you know, that nature, nature ends up paying the bill. So can you give us a bit of, let's say, hope here on how international, national, subnational strategies to address this nexus could be, let's say, we're not talking at the decision-making level. How can we increase the importance of these issues to then mobilize finance, improve the partnerships that are there today? And I think the migration is, nobody can deny, it's an issue that today put us, it's in all election ballots that we're gonna have this year. This would be decisive for so many countries. So Jojo put it very well when she said that we don't need to take as a given the impact of climate change on vulnerable communities. In fact, the evidence shows that in 80% of the projected displacements that fairly straightforward interventions could help stabilize communities and build resilience. But there are two different problems that I think we need to address. The first is where the climate impact on vulnerable communities will fuel conflict, right? We see that across the world where there are scarce resources and persons, particularly those who are dependent on the land, either for agriculture or pastoralists for feeding their livestock, are both using the same water resources and then the conflict results because of that scarcity. So there, it's a question of identifying ways to build resilience. Some of it's water infrastructure management. Some of it is identifying additional skills that people could rely on. Some of it is even identifying where else people in the world may find economic opportunities and sort of moving away from the particular zone of conflict. But the second, and this one I think is a little bit more complicated, it's where we see conflict in communities that are severely climate impacted, right? So you go back to, I was in chat on Wednesday, right? We're seeing over 600,000 people have fled the conflict in Sudan. Their chat is already extremely vulnerable to climate impact and the ability to operate and create more resilience in a community that is already impacted by conflict and already extremely vulnerable is much more difficult. So then we very much need to look at what are the adjacent communities where we can build resilience? If it's not safe to build up climate resilience or bring in adaptation measures because of conflict, well, what's the downstream impact, right? And how can we work with neighboring communities in order to build their resilience? Yeah, I mean, we see the impact on cities and I'll just go back to you on the raising ambition because you mentioned very well that there's also, let's say, it's in business self-interest, there's opportunities with this crisis. There is also, of course, the intent that we continue to have an economy in the world. And I think we have all the science. Yesterday we were speaking here to one of the members of the Nature and Security Council, Johan Rockstrom, science is there, but we don't have the narrative. Some people don't get it, we're not connecting. So how do we raise ambition for net zero, for nature-positive practices? And I think more and more business will also have to do the public-private partnership. So from your perspective, in business, with your counterparts when you have to go into public partnerships, how do we do that? Why we're not touching people? Yeah, I think we all agree that we have devastating issues and that the most vulnerable countries and the most vulnerable people are at this moment the victim of that first, and that is a fact. Now we need to move. I think everybody would agree we need to move and we need to move faster. Question is how. And I think what you see in the world is that we do that how for multiple directions and actions. If we see crimes, we can say it is a crime and we bring them to justice. We define the right of nature by calling equal sides things as they are and therefore defend and therefore attack the people who are not adhering to that. That's quite a push, quite a pressure. And that's helpful. You can debate whether you can be criminalized if you did not influence laws. Jojo will say, but I'm going to change the laws. And then you can be criminalized if you influence the laws which need to be created and I'm an advocate of creating those laws. Okay, I think you need to be careful because that is not our global system to criminalize people who did not influence laws. Although you can condemn them from a moral point of view, from a humanitarian point of view, if you do not take up your responsibility. That is a kind of pressure. And at this moment, there are more than 3,000 lawsuits against companies infringing the rights of nature. Real lawsuits, 80 lawsuits against countries, 3,000 against companies. So something is happening and companies will say, well, this is far away from me. I would say be careful, that's not the case. That is the pressure and it's happening. And I think you need to be careful how you do so because if you have criminalized companies or people, maybe then they're after, they are not the best one to help you also with the solutions because they feel threatened. So think about that. But I see the right or I see the effects of that. The other thing is to seduce companies and to help companies getting more insight. Now here at the forum, to be honest, I've talked many times about adaptation. And still also this week, being in another session, some CEOs said, help me if I could, how do you define exactly the difference between mitigation and adaptation? And I think that's also a nice way of phrasing or asking that you have really no clue what is the difference between the two and that you did not dive into that. And I think we need to bring the knowledge level much higher and seduce then companies to bring them together, to use their power because the private sector has the power, the public sector has the legal power but not the implementation and innovative power that need to come from the private sector to implement. The other thing is building coalitions where the web is doing here very much and building coalitions of the willing. And then we have always a discussion also with the web of naming and shaming and I'm not for naming and shaming, I'm more from the naming. This is our alliance. And you know what, NGOs, media, et cetera, they will find out who is in that progressive coalition and who said, I don't want to be part of it. Well, that other part happens by itself without us doing that. So I see that we take multiple directions of solving these issues. What I'm concerned about is the speed. Are we moving fast enough? And for many people in vulnerable countries, there are 50 island states in the world. They see the whole country, the whole future disappearing in the coming decades. Gone. No place to live. And we cannot easily, we found that out in the Middle East, pick up a lot of people and place them in another area. That does not work easily. So what do we do with that? So I'm concerned about that. And therefore I put all my effort here together with the web of building this coalition. We have this coalition of CEO climate leaders and not everybody wants to be in there. Okay. I cannot force people, but some companies want to step up and do that. And therefore this week together with Eric, with Eric sitting here off the web, we started a community with small, too small, but the business community on helping on adaptation. Do you have the technologies? Do you have the solutions? Yes. They have the obligation, oops, to help also implementing that. Jo Jo want to interrupt me. Please go ahead, Jo Jo. This is quite a short panel, but yeah, now I'm in a couple of things. One, you'd probably be surprised at how many CEOs, including CEOs of major extractive companies, have told us in confidence that they really hope that we get this law moving through, which is happening because then they're actually able to say to their boards, hold up a sense, if the law is there, we all know where we are. You know, it's ultimately, you know, the people who are already going in the right direction don't need this, you know. It's those who perhaps are not thinking about it, that actually just need that framework. And I think the other thing is the slight misconception of criminal law, if you forgive me, are slightly detecting your approach, which is that it's seen as a means of punishment. Now, of course that's true, that's how it works, but that's not what it's for. I mean, murder isn't a crime to punish murderers, it's a crime to stop us killing each other. That's the whole point. So the idea is that when you put something like that in place, you start to shift the kinds of decisions that are being made because that's in place. So, you know, in our ideal world, we don't see anybody in the dock because everybody's going, oh, of course, you know, we can't do that because actually that oversteps a certain line. And I think the other thing that's interesting is you were talking about island states, and actually it's those small island states who are really sort of driving this. And it's interesting that it's the victims, both in the climate and in the conflict context. So Ukraine is a very vocal supporter of ecocide law. I think it's very interesting that those two really key global problems actually kind of coincide at this same legal gap. It's very interesting. Jojo, the only thing is not the only thing. Wrong start. The maybe struggle question I have. At this moment, there are 3,000 lawsuits against companies. And companies in the world realize that that is happening. And I know that a lot of companies are saying today, I'm not going to set targets anymore of my reductions and my contributions because if I set targets, don't achieve it, then I can be brought for court. So I stopped setting targets and it is happening right now. And then I think we go the wrong direction because I want them to set targets. And I even want them to be responsible to achieving the targets, but maybe not in a criminal way because I understand that then they won't set targets. Here is a little bit the difficulty and how do you help them responsible in a legal way, in a moral way, in a publicitary way, in whatever way? And I don't know the answer, but I only see the effects which are happening right now. We're just adding to fake. And then if you want to just, I think we do need the transition plans because we need the companies to make the commitments. We need the goals. And of course, we need to understand who is actually doing something towards the goals and who is just putting the goals to just shy away from the debate and leave me alone. So I think we need to find the balance, which is in this world today, this is very hard. But would you like this to comment on, because I was thinking the other way around, I think, wow, this can nudge companies to actually accept and put forward transition plans with goals. And how do you see that? It's interesting. I mean, we sort of see it as a bit of a kind of reality check law, if you like. I mean, and it is in a very different sphere to the kind of treaties and agreements that don't hit on the criminal side. Because, I mean, yeah, boards of directors are going to take their responsibility. I'll come back to what you were saying earlier about creating new crimes. This actually doesn't create new crimes. It builds on and supports existing law. That's one of the key aspects to it. But companies take their responsibilities a lot more seriously if they understand that there's a level of criminality involved. And that doesn't really have anything to do with targets. We call it a kind of a reality check. I mean, at the moment, I mean, actually, interestingly, the EU is moving quite strongly in this direction. In the revised environmental crimes directive, they've actually included cases comparable to ecocide across a range of existing crimes if they go that serious. But one of the things that we see is that when you give people a list of things that they shouldn't do, specific behaviours that they shouldn't do, they'll put a lot of effort into making sure that what they do doesn't fall into that list. The important thing with the concept of ecocide and the way that it's moving with the international definition that has triggered political conversations all around the world and many proposals of law, in fact, is that what it aims to do is to say it's almost like a criminal version of a health and safety law in the sense that you say that whatever you do, it should not create this level of hazard. I mean, you wouldn't design a factory to almost break people's heads open on a regular basis. You design it so it's not going to break people's heads open. It's that kind of attitude. And so when you do that, you create a slightly different... When I say reality check, you create a different attitude. So instead of your risk managers and your legal councils looking at how do you avoid falling into a certain category, and let's not forget that a lot of the greatest damage is created by large companies, large multinational corporations. Instead, what you're going to be looking at is talking to your operational people and saying what on the ground is happening that might trigger this law, and therefore you're actually having to make that connection with what's actually happening as opposed to it staying sort of up here with the how do we avoid the... How do we gain the system? It becomes a kind of connection to what's actually happening on the planet. And I think that's something that is desperately needed. We have a big tendency to talk about incentives and I'm not saying that incentives aren't a great thing, but I think we also have to keep coming back to the fact that we live on a planet that our biggest companies are regularly creating harm to. Whether or not that's what they actually intend to do, that's what's happening. And so putting that sort of reality check law in place is super, super important. And it's not an innovation in the sense that it's not... You know, it's not a completely new crime. It's building on existing environmental law that is currently being ignored or gained because there is no really serious impact to breaking that. And I think that the other thing with criminal law is that when you bring in individual responsibility, and here we speak to the conflict in Ukraine, for example, when you can point to an act that actually creates a massive level of damage, I mean, the Kokovka Dam being a classic incident, you know, should you not be able to hold people accountable for an act like that that is effectively massively destructive to the environment but currently not adequately addressed? But crime is an infringement of law, right? Yeah, so you have to put that. We need to be clear what the laws are before you can be condemned for the crime. You also have to have a system to enforce those laws. I mean, that's the major... This is the major tension, I think, in this conversation. When we're talking about conflict-impacted areas of the world, it's very unlikely that they have the systems in place to hold people accountable for the level at which we're talking. So that's where I think we have to try to build in... Where's the jurisdiction where you can actually hold someone accountable? Well, I 100% agree, and that is by company. If we have a factory in Europe and put things into the river, you cannot do that. You build a wastewater treatment system. You cannot dump it in the river. Full stop. OK, then in some other countries, for example, China, you can put it in the river. It's legal, it's allowed. The competition is doing it also. It's changing now rapidly, but there are different jurisdictions in the world. And my question is, if we build a wastewater treatment for the same factory here and not over there, we are totally legal. In my company, in ours, you cannot do that because although it's fully legal, it's not a crime, it's morally totally wrong. If we think we cannot spoil the people here and poison them here, we cannot do that with people there also. Whatever is the law system in that country. So therefore, I want to go further to your point, Amy, I want to go further than the legal system. And then you go away from China and you go into a country like Sudan, where you have no governance, right? You are in the middle of a war, and then what remedies do we actually have? And if we move a little bit further, what if it's not only companies perpetrating these crimes? What if it's actually the state? How do you hold them accountable? How do you pose an entire legal framework and an entire legal system to a state that is actually perpetrating these environmental crimes? That would be easier on the ones that are signatory for the Hague company. So that's actually something that is already happening there. Yeah, and that conversation is building that very. Yeah, but I mean, I want to give the audience a chance, but I wanted to finally, a final question to you because this is, we know around the world that younger people are feeling anxious about what they know is happening without, let's say, the power to change. And I've fragmented, unfortunately, of all that we need more cooperation, we need the enforcement, and we don't have even the conversation. So we're here at a weft to build trust, right? To go back to the table, we really need that. So how can we bring this intergenerational perspective? We're discussing at the UN now the rights of the future generations, but I think we have to include not only the future generation, but the children, the young people that are here now. So how do you see that and how can we bring you to this conversation? Well, we're starting right, because I think including young leaders into the conversations is one of the big steps. I heard some data yesterday from WEF saying that more than half of the population is considered young under 30 years, but we currently do not represent even 3% of the decision-making positions worldwide. So that's the first thing, that's the basis that needs to change because we need to give young people the expectations to be able to, okay, if I can seat in the table, if I can at least have my voice be heard, then this is worth it. This is worth investigating. This is worth having. And there's so many young initiatives worldwide that are taking over and that are tackling this topics. I have the pleasure to work with instance, a Brazilian NGO called InfoAmazonia, which is currently doing a technological advances in reporting environmental crime. So they're doing satellite monitoring on the Amazonian rainforest to map the forestation. So they're working on this incredible project and giving governments irrefutable information of how deforestation is working and how it's actually linked to serious organized crime. So I think if we actually give these young leaders opportunities to sit on the table, to be part of the decision-making processes to the legal of everything, it's going to start moving a bit faster. I agree and I mean, meet the global shapers and they're going to see that we have the responsibility to live like, you know, when you take the pen, the world has to be yet, you know, like we have the possibility to save it because they're amazing. So make sure you connect to the shapers during this, during this weft and beyond. And I would like just to ask, who would like to ask questions to our panelists? We have a short time, so very brief questions. The conversation is too heated. Maybe nobody wants to get in. We'll continue. There's one here, please. Antonela DiGiano, is the situation in Bolivar State a question of the collapse of the entire Venezuelan state? Yes, of course. I think it's one of the answers because of the collapse of the entire Venezuelan state. That's why our GDP has moved forward to illicit economies. That's why the whole answer of the creation to the famous Arco Minero or the Orinoco Mining Arc, we're moving a bit more towards illicit economies and illicit economies come with environmental degradation as we see it in illegal mining. So we have illegal miners now moving from other countries to Venezuela and even there's internal displacement because it's more profitable to work in mines and in gold mining now in Venezuela than any other job. So yes, it's a complete response of the economic collapse in Venezuela. Anybody else? One here, one there. Maybe we'll take the two and then let's first the second and then we'll come back to the panel, please. Hello, good afternoon. Thank you very much for the discussion. I am a global shaper from Bogota. That also works on forest protection and conservation, especially in the Amazon. And environmental crimes is one of the most a thing and challenging drivers of deforestation to tackle because it's on a regional scale. And I wanted to ask the panel what strategies do you see, for example, to be able to address these issues on a regional scale taking advantage that Latin America is somehow aligned politically and that there's a lot of importance put in the Amazon in the Masonic biome. Thank you. Let's get a second one and then we'll come back for a final round here. Hi, Rebecca Varazval, Land Life. My question is, how can you anticipate the potential risks in, say, you're able to reverse or protect the environment and the potential social backlash for those high-paying jobs all of a sudden being taken away? How can we make sure that environmental protection and restoration also provides meaningful futures for these people in this country? Thank you so much. Maybe Amy, just to answer any of them with your final reflections, please. I actually think there's tremendous opportunity in building out a workforce for the future, right? Especially when many of the communities where we work, people are reliant on things like rainfall agriculture, which we know is going to become increasingly difficult. At the same time, we know that we will be unlikely to meet the Paris Green Climate goals because we don't have sufficient migration in order to get the people who have the skills to do things like, for example, manufacturing of solar panels. So there's an alignment of interests that I think can work out very well here if we start to connect the dots across borders and invest in training, particularly of young people, so that they have the skills in order to enable them to be part of the future. So thank you for bringing that, Jojo. Yeah, I mean, we obviously focus on the outshot knots, I suppose, that side of things. But what's interesting is that what it's bringing up, for example, in the discussions at the ICC at the International Criminal Court, are issues of restorative justice, for example. And those aspects are becoming an ever-increasing focus. And I think things like, I mean, to speak to your point earlier about our capacity to deal with these things, the trainings, the reporting, the education around investigation, the data mapping, all of these things are kind of developing in parallel. And this would actually bring me, as a last point, back to you again, actually, because I completely... Careful with me. No, no, I just wanted to agree with you about the cultural aspect of the concept and how important that is. And what we've realised is that the two things kind of move along in tandem in terms of a narrative. Because actually what the concept brings, you know, that effectively, you know, we already know it's bad, wrong and dangerous to damage people and so on. But to actually have that equivalent around the natural world has those implications for people. And it has the beginnings of what we might need, which is a kind of a taboo, you know, to have a taboo around mass destruction of nature. And, of course, it's a balancing act, because you can't build a house without damaging something. You know, so effectively, it is all about balance. And I think at that point, we also need to look to those local communities, those indigenous cultures, that have never lost that understanding of that connection. And actually realise that it's an issue of balance. And that, you know, beyond a certain point, it's out of balance. And we are, obviously, right now, very out of balance. Thank you so much. We have 30 seconds for each of you. OK. I could go... Going back to Alfonso's question on... I think cross-border policy is key. For instance, I don't know if you've seen, but there's a recent research on OECD, an illegal gold mining. And one of the solutions they propose is... they post an entire baseline on how to identify Venezuelan illegal gold. So we could hold companies accountable if we actually know they're buying illegal Venezuelan gold. And that's how, from the outside, you're starting to put constraints into illegal mining and actually not make more profitable what illegal mining is causing and the high-paying gaps. So I think that's how I wrap up both. It's sad, by the way, what's happening in your country. I've been there over 20, 30 times in such a beautiful country. Yes, it is. To your point, I've been several times also to Somalia, Ethiopia, refugee camps, and still close to me, if you stand on a hill in a refugee camp and can look to the horizon with shelters, displaced people who have no future and increasingly no future to the horizon. I mean, this is devastating. What I think is, and you made your point, that not every country has a rule of law or can enforce it. And I think before, because the word crime and criminal was used a few times in this conversation, and I understand the pressure created by that. And I like that there's pressure created. In addition, I would be careful with the word crime because officially you can only do a crime if you really influence the law. Now, you can say, but laws over time are changing, absolutely. And we want to change laws, absolutely. But there need to be a rule of law in countries also that you can trust that if you do not infringe the current legislation, you cannot be condemned for a crime. So I think we need to be careful on that word, crime and criminal. But I understand the pressure being created because I totally agree we're not moving fast enough. I want to close positive because a lot of negative things and concerns were raised, and Eric and I discussed also this morning, the technologies, the solutions, the innovations, which especially the private sector can bring, it is enormous. And instead of using that for negative things, let's mobilize all that technology, all that innovative power to change the world to a better place. This is, by the way, the slogan of the forum and why we are here, committed to improve the state of the world. Well, if we look to the state of the world today, there's room for improvement. So I think let's mobilize all those forces to do that. So on this positive note that I think everyone agrees, thank you so much for the audience, for these immense panelists, amazing panelists. And to be continued, this is a hot topic here to stay. It's about ourselves and this balance with the planet. So let's get going. Thank you so much.