 Welcome to the World Economic Forum Sustainable Development Impact Summit. My name is Rebecca Blumestine. I'm a deputy managing editor at The New York Times and I'm talking to you from our news room today here in Manhattan. This is an important session that brings together top leaders from around the world from both the public, private and civil society sectors to discuss an important topic, how we break silos to achieve food and climate security. We have a lot of topics to cover but I'm very hopeful and confident that we're going to have a most productive discussion. Food has the potential to have an enormous impact on our climate goals. Food actually generates an incredibly high percentage of our global greenhouse gas emissions more than a quarter and the food and climate communities have shared a historic opportunity to come together to strengthen and unite their shared goals by breaking down silos that have traditionally existed between these two communities. The global milestones of the first ever UN Food Systems Summit later today and the COP26 climate conference later this year will bring together international experts, countries and global actors to discuss potential solutions. And today I'd like to introduce my most prominent panel. They're really the top leaders who are driving change. The first is Dr. Chu Dongyu, the Director General of the Food and Agriculture Association. Also joining us is David Beasley, Executive Director of the World Food Program which won the Nobel Peace Prize just in 2020. Ramon Legorta is Chief Executive Officer of PepsiCo and Helena Lorenz is Director General of Consumers International. Dr. Chu, I'd like to start with you. You mentioned today that it's a very important day in China where you actually were born to a rice farming family and have made food your life. Could you talk about why today is just so special both in China and here in New York? Yeah, and today is a very special day because we are going to have first ever World Food System Summit by UN Secretary General and secondly by Lunar Calendar of China. It's a day of the middle of the autumn. So and we just celebrated the middle autumn August festival yesterday. So and also now we are celebrating the first China Farmers Festival since 2018. So as you know, you mentioned I'm a star of the farmers and rice growers. So food is the basic human rights without food, without a human being, without food, without civilization, we are going to carry on. So that's it's a real essential food, no matter how to produce food, how to produce food more efficient, more effective, more resilient, and more sustainable for our future generations to come. It's another topic and definitely we need a lot of efforts as they say, but mention that they bring silos first and we do have a lot of silos across different communities. And we are from the Food and Culture Organization of the United Nations. It was first UN professional entities and running more than 76 years already. So we have a different mandate, different mission during the past 75, 76 years, but the one didn't change, food is for all. And food production, food consumption, always the hard topic globally. Thank you. And David, could we go to you next? How can we change food from from being something that is hurting our and detracting from our climate goals to something that's actually making an impact? Oh, Rebecca, that's a great question, because one of the things when I arrived at the the UN, you've got all these silos and we have really been pushing down breakdown silos, give us more, give us more flexibility. And in fact, when I'm going to speak into the United States and send it to the U.S. House, the U.S. or the Wundersaw in Germany or whatever parliament I may be speaking to, because the systems were designed based in the 50s and the 60s, where it was much different back then. But now you've got protracted conflict, you've got climate change, you've got so many differentials, we need to be flexible ourselves. Because when you're out in the field, a beneficiary, they don't care whether it's a humanitarian dollar or a development dollar. And so we're telling our donors, give us that flexibility. In fact, yesterday, I was speaking with a handful of senators that here in Washington, D.C. And I said, if like with a humanitarian dollar, you want me to achieve ABC with it. But I can also do DEF because the beneficiary not just wants food. They want to rehabilitate their land. They want to make their life more resilient to what they're facing on a daily basis because climate is truly impacting along with conflict, like in areas like the Sahel. And so, Rebecca, working, for example, with FAO and others, let me just give you an example of that flexibility has given us because when you get in the Sahel where the Sahara is moving down a kilometer per year and then the herders are moving down into the farmers in conflict and then you get al-Qaeda or ISIS wants to exploit that and create destabilization, which results in migration into Europe and infiltration by the extremist groups. And we can come in there and rehabilitate the land with old techniques, but they work and give an example with that flexibility. And if we get greater flexibility, it's even better. So we rehabilitated 3.5 million acres of land that otherwise was not arable, was not usable. Well, guess what? Those families living there no longer need our support in many of those places because they're capturing the water. We do water ponds. We have, like, 58,000 water ponds and reservoirs in the last few years, 79,000, 69,000 kilometers of feeder roads. So that smallholder farmers that Chu and I talk about all the time can get their product to the market. And I had a lady and this was in Niger. And it was on the hillside. And it was just, you know, what the hell looks like. It's just like, how do you survive? And so we were doing these half moons, working with FAO and others, rehabilitating the land and she stood there with pride and said, Mr. Beesley, we don't want outside help, but we want you to help us get our feet back on the ground. And so the projects that we were doing were capturing enough water to rehabilitate because of the flexibility of the funding that we otherwise would not have had. She said, I'm not now, I'm not just feeding my family, but I'm now feeding my village and I'm going to buy five more acres of land. I'm going to start selling to the marketplace. Now, when we have that flexibility and then to come on top of it with like school meals programs, Rebecca, let me tell you what happens. Migration drops off the chart. Team pregnancy and marriage rates of 12 and 13 years was dropped off the chart. Recruitment by ISIS and Al Qaeda, who used food as a weapon of war and recruitment drops off the chart. So just do the mathematics of all those. It's a lot cheaper to do it this way, give us the flexibility and then give us enough money to scale it up. So we're not just doing one little area. And this is one of the things I've really been hard on the donors about in the last year, Germany will do a little bit over here and the United States do a little bit over here and the UK will do a little bit over there in the EU. I said, look, we need to come together and be more scalable, more comprehensive so that we can truly in hunger in many of these places around the world. And when you look over the next few years, for example, to 2050, when we're looking at 1.2 billion people being displaced because of climate and a population of 10 billion people, we got to get all right together right now and drive these changes. And so I'm happy that donors are starting to be more fluid, more flexible. We still got to keep pushing and achieving even more. So I'll throw it back to you, Rebecca. Thank you. Great. Thank you. And Ramon, this is talking about this regenerative agriculture is a perfect segue to you. Pepsi is one of the world's largest food producers, I believe you have a footprint of more than seven million acres. Can you can you describe why you have made sustainability one of your key goals and why that makes business sense? Yeah, hi, Rebecca. Yeah, listen, we look at this from from two dimensions. One is a is a big business case for us. And I talked to a lot of peers, large food companies around the world. You know, if we want to have successful companies 20 years from now, clearly, we need to change the way we do things and how we do them. And I'm probably more about how we do them. If you think about Pepsi, you said we're, you know, we're sourcing 27 crops from 60 countries, think from tomatoes to peppers to oats to potatoes to oranges. I mean, like really a variety of corn and wheat and everything. You know, for us to, you know, to be successful, 33 percent of our gas emissions are from agriculture. So if we want to be a sustainable company, contributing to net zero, and we made that commitment and net zero by 2040, we have to change the way we do agriculture is critical. And it's important. We see this not only from the climate change perspective, but also livelihoods and some other impacts we can have in the sustainability of the food system. We think we have a unique role in this large ecosystem that Dr. Chiu and David were referring to is that we we connect farmers with consumers. And I think that's a unique capability we have and a unique responsibility that comes from that. So I think our our effort has to people around farmers, helping farmers move to new practices that will have long term a very positive impact in their livelihoods and also in the climate. And that's one dimension. But we see ourselves with our brands. We have twenty three one billion over one billion dollar brands, so large brands that are global in scale. We can educate consumers in in something that consumers don't know, which is understanding their consumer choices. The brands or the products they choose have an impact on the planet. And that is not clear in consumers mind. So it is a big responsibility. I'm sure Helena will talk more about that. But large brands can educate consumers, not only offering different products, but the way we advertise, how we talk to consumers, how we educate them. So we see this as a clearly a long term sustainability of our company, but also a responsibility at both ends of the food chain. Now with farmers and with consumers. And then the other dimension that I see more and more with all our people, we're all parents, we all have, you know, next generations. And, you know, I see this in our associate. We have three hundred thousand associates around the world. They are very passionate about this. And for us to attract the best talent for us to be a company that is, you know, highly engaged for our employees, we need to play in these spaces. And, you know, we all have sons and we will have hopefully grand sons. And we need to build something that is sustainable for them. And that's more of a personal responsibility, but it obviously flows into the business responsibility we have. And Helena, that gets us right to the role of consumers. Do you see evidence that consumers are are are caring more about climate and actually making purchasing decisions and changing the way they eat because of climate? Yeah, absolutely. Hi. Hi, Rebecca and hello to everyone from Geneva, Switzerland. So, yes, the issue is it's not as easy as it should be yet, right? So there are barriers in the way that stop consumers being, you know, being able to make those choices and act on their intent. You know, we see it. There are so many studies about the rising awareness of the impact of climate people's desire to change and even lobby on that topic. You know, point to the one of the recent ones was the Yale Climate Communication Centre, which was very good. I am inspired by our set of next generation consumer advocates around the world. And I think it's really interesting for us to think about, you know, something I heard from Peru, Elizabeth, who says it's not just safety and quality, health and sustainability are wrapped up in that. Patrick in Australia will say, we want to have the fairness imperative embedded in our marketplace, you know, it's that sense is really now deeply rooted in what we want the marketplace to be. The things that then make it difficult in the system. Well, we all know them. And the great thing is there are solutions. There are solutions that can also help us build a really dynamic, fair, safe, sustainable marketplace and economy for us to be in, for everyone. So, you know, for us, the summit was a great opportunity to explore some of those things. Share, for example, with with farmers, you know, as people coming to a people's summit, how do we drive and ask leaders in government for coherent food policy rather than trade and health and environment policy that perhaps undermine each other to talk with business about how do we really drive forward on marketing the extent to which children are exposed to unhealthy marketing, for example. You know, and then to explore, but how do we innovate together? So what are the data and digital models that actually respect people's rights in an online world, but start to address the inefficiencies in the system and start to create totally new business models, which we we looked at. And, you know, there are some great ones, not just in the rich world, but, you know, around the world, which I'd love to share a bit more about. Great, great. And that's a perfect segue to my next question. We have some of the world's top thinkers about food on the on the call. And I'm just wondering what excites you most? What is the most innovative idea or program that you think if there's something we could prioritize? And, David, I loved how you spoke about, you know, the on the ground in Africa, but but what what is the technology, the practice, the back to basics? Is it is it is a plant based meat? What are you most excited about that you think will will have the biggest impact on on reducing these greenhouse gas emissions from food? I might take the flu. And, Robert, thank you. Thank you for your good question. I think you see, if you look at the climate crisis, it's come from a spirit, scope, influence, impact from all sectors, not only a culture of food and also able industry, you look at all these sectors. And then we have to use a holistic design to attack those questions and the challenges. And there is a comment that David recently had a lot of discussion with two years. We change the effort, restructuring effort to more agile, modular management, because, you know, if you don't check, if you don't structure how to feed the new papers, new challenges. Second, I think you need to take the empowerment of a woman use with the innovative way, innovation on the policy, innovation on technology and innovation on the business model. Now we have so many tools, so I'm quite optimistic. Probably is there, but we are intelligent animal. And so we have a more solution than problem. If you are used to you are intelligent properly and holistically and solidarily. And that's, I think, and now come the global 194 members. All the ministers endorsed new strategy from work for next 10 years to transform a system more efficient, more inclusive, more resilient and more sustainable for better production, better nutrition, better environment and the life for even no one behind. And then we come to bad technology. Because we work with the bad coach and the Ramon is here and the Pepsi and other, no matter being a small companies, they are the key players to link with academic people to the farmers to change the way of their health producer, how consumer and how feed. I think that now the private sector like NGO international consumers here, Herana, they have to feed with a new message, scientific message, how to consume more sustainably. So I think that's a big, you know, team work. And that's not only breaking the silos with the organization first. And then we have to create the more coherent and the cooperation with all the key players from the farmers, consumers, from the NGO to the government. But the government should play the leading, the sensible first. That's no doubt because you are leading to game change. And last but not least, scientists should tell the truth. What are we are going to do for the future generations? Because we have more people, 10 billion people by 2050. We need more food. We need high quality food with more diversity food. That's our life to be improved. And so for that, we are prepared to work with all the key partners from the international system agency like WFB for emergencies and others for research for industrialization, for education. And also for private sector and the NGO and the Institute, Academy Institute through the hand-in-hand initiative. So I launched the hand-in-hand initiative as a platform and through also e-commerce, digital FIO. And that's a way to connect all the small holders to the bigger market, no matter you are in New York or in Beijing or in Europe. So let's work together. And climate change, you can't talk about one small piece, one small silo. Without global value mindset, we need a global value mindset and then work together. And we have a chance to change the reverse. That's kind of a deterrent situation. So you look at all the phenomena during past years. So I don't want to repeat. Solution, be a practical solution, be optimistic and a science-based and innovative way. That's it. So bringing these worlds and silos of food and climate together. David, I'd like to go to you. We're hearing about just how much more demand there's going to be for food because of the pandemic, increased population. It is the increased production of food that has led to some of these increases in greenhouse gases. What are you most excited about to make a dent to make sure that this doesn't get even worse? Well, there's so many different things that we're working on. And I know Young Chu talks about several of those things as well as we're out in the field with better seeds, better fertilizers, better practices, capturing water more strategically, using less water. And that gets into the seeds and the fertilizers. There's so many different issues. But Rebecca, also what we're doing is using artificial intelligence, satellite imagery, the use of the smart phone with farmers now, when to plant, what to plant, all the different things, open up access to markets. But one of the biggest things that we're also concerned about is food waste. You know, in the developed nations, it's mostly at the dinner table. When we look at the fact globally, when you talk about one third of all the food in the world out of 4.2 billion metric tons of food that is produced every year, one third of that is wasted. So think about the greenhouse impact of all that it took to produce that food and it was absolutely wasted. In the developed nations, that's one third. In the developing nations, it's about one third. So do the math. Now, that's about two billion dollars. That'll feed about two billion people. It's about a trillion dollars worth of food. And this is where the private sector really comes very important to help us out in the fields, working with a smallholder farmers that lose their one third, primarily from the farm to the fort or from the farm to the marketplace. And so how can we have better practices? How can we be more strategic? And one of the things, Rebecca, I have seen is that, you know, for years, the UN didn't integrate the private sector, in my opinion, more strategically, and I think we both paid a price for that. But there's a renewed spirit in the UN that we can't end hunger. We can't address global climate change without the private sector being front and center. So how do we move that ball along? And I've also been, you know, I know Ramon probably heard me talk about this before, but the big companies have really got to engage more strategically. And when I think of social responsibility, I don't think of just giving me more money. That's fine. That's nice. But that's not go in poverty and hunger with the issues that we're facing over the next 50 to 100 years. I need for them to be more strategic on the ground with us, partnering with us. How do we empower them? How do we inspire them? How do they work with us more strategically? But they've also got to talk to their shareholders and say, you know, we want to help these countries and we want to do it in such a way that it's resilient, sustainable, so therefore we need to make a little bit less money over a longer period of time. They will create more stability and it will be more comfortable. But it's a longer game than we've seen in the past. And these are the type of things we've got to rethink all come together because I've not met a beneficiary yet. And believe you me, Rebecca, we feed 120 million people and I haven't met one yet that really wanted outside help and that really wanted to leave. They love their homeland. But when they don't have peace and stability, they can't grow their own food because of climate change, a war and conflict. You know, they'll do what any mom and dad would do for their little girls and their little boys. And so we've got we've got a big task ahead of us, but it's doable. When you see that 200 years ago, 95 percent of the people, 94 percent of the people on Earth were in extreme poverty and now it's less than 10. But now we're going backwards because of manmade conflict and climate change. We've made so much progress. Let's get back on the game. And if we don't try, oh, my gosh, it'd be catastrophic. Anyway, back to you, Rebecca. Rubon, that's a great opening for for you and the role of private business. Are what are you most excited about? And do you agree with David's assessment? It might be a little bit less profit over a longer period of time. A few things that that I think are the last 18 months we've been working together on this food summit. And I think there's a few really systemic changes. One is what David and Dr. Chu were saying, the realization that this is a private public collaboration and that the addition of the two really makes a difference. So I think that that is a massive move forward. The second one, and David was saying, I think it's true. Board of directors, shareholders are more aware of this and they see the need for companies to be sustainable long term. And that might require a different allocation of resources over time and rethinking some of the business models. I think that's fair. It has been elevated to, you know, the boardrooms and these are a good share of the conversations that are happening in companies. So I'm not so sure that they will accept that we make less money, but clearly they're accepting that, you know, we can think differently about how we make money and there might be some investments required and different ways of doing things. So that's all very positive. That's a very high level at the very low level. The problem that we've identified and everybody would agree is the last mile, the last mile in terms of how do we get all this technology, all this know-how, all these solutions to the farmer in their, you know, in their specific reality and the ecosystem that they leave, they produce, they make money. And that is where I think we've made some good progress. We need to make more, like I give me two examples. One is the, you know, we created this innovation, innovation hubs through the World Economic Forum. And that's a great tool because it puts multiple stakeholders, technology companies, you know, food companies, the private sector, public sector, everybody in a particular country. We already have seven or eight of those innovation hubs. And we understand what are the problems the farmers are trying to solve. And we enable them with solutions that we with Dr. two, they are all available, but they are not there for that particular problem. So that's one, I think, very positive development in the last 12 months. And we'll take them to many more countries. The second is a tool we use and we see it works very well at demonstration farms. You know, one of the things we do is at PepsiCo, we have 400 demonstration farms around the world. You know, we do it very local, very micro, trying to put all the best practices in one farmer. And that farmer has influence over the community. Whatever we say is irrelevant. Whatever the other farmer says is very relevant. And what we're trying to do has a lot of cultural implications because we're asking farmers to change their practices. Sometimes the innovators, the first adopters are new technologies in a farm, in a local community. There are not well received by the other farmers. They see like, why is this guy using cover crops? So why is this guy not using tillage? And like, is he crazy or what? So this is reality. We need to help them demonstrate that there is a better way to have sustainable soil health. And that soil health will drive value for their families. So those are small instruments that look like very tactical. But when you put it in the landscape, in a particular area, it really drives knowledge, it drives adoption, it drives output. So these are things that excite me along with what I said earlier about private public, the board of directors and the owners of companies thinking very differently. I think we're in a moment of really an ecosystem transformation that is required to drive the set of multiple, multiple decisions that will be required to make this a reality. So pretty encouraged by all that. And I think we just need to be consistent, courageous and take this to the next level together. Polina, what are you most excited about in terms of innovation? Is there something that's going to actually lead to real change in behaviors? Yeah, so through the process, I think I've really enjoyed seeing examples of and as I think it was Professor Chu mentioned, you know, the innovation and the change has come from all sorts of different places. So, you know, let's take in consumer awareness, France and other countries taking leadership on how do we make sure that labeling is clear for consumers? You know, that may seem obvious, but it takes bravery and taking a specific step or Ethiopia and the way in which they're thinking about innovation and creating a sort of a hub to enable data management and for innovators to work together. I think in terms of business models, it's been great. You know, harking back to David's comments about food loss. How do we think about different ways in which we eliminate food waste in the system? In Chile, an example we saw was Ray de Elementos, which now reaches, I think, in 2020. Yeah, 2020, they reached 260,000 consumers, vulnerable consumers with food that would otherwise have gone to waste. And that's because we can think about different ways of using data and digital pathways. You know, that really is there are companies like Pinduoduo in China that now reach 800 million consumers per month and connect consumers and farmers directly. But frankly, I think, you know, and let's face it, it's been great and inspiring to see people's willingness to listen and explore what inclusive actually could mean. I think the most exciting things are, of course, yet to come. How do you factor in true cost accounting into all of this? The true cost of our system. How do we take into account data rights and transparency? How do we build a system where you can really think about, look at and check and monitor that we are meeting these goals? And then that point about, you know, innovation should never be for the groups without those groups. You know, how are we truly thinking about being inclusive? How do we make sure that sustainability is not just for people who can afford it as a time when we're really in economic distress? So the sort of those ideas and those groups and those coalitions of building it's seeing the progress and tracking that year by year, week by week and keeping in lockstep. So we have these this pivotal meeting today and also COP 26 coming up under their surface. There seems to be a bit of attention between the role of and responsibility of developed countries versus developing countries. How do you all look at this in terms of whose responsibility is this? Should we be hope leaving these forums with private businesses, making specific commitments and and governments as well? And how do we avoid a sense that that is the developing world that really should should bear the brunt of the changes here? David, I see you nodding your head. Yeah, you know, Rebecca, this is one of the biggest arguments out there that I run into. And I run it from different perspectives politically from country to country. That'll say, why should I send my money down to Niger or Chad or Ethiopia when we have road problems, school issues, health care funding issues in Germany or the United States? And I say, well, let me tell you why. Number one, you ought to do it out of the goodness of your heart. But if that's not sufficient, let me give you even another reason. That is, you're going to pay for one way or the other. And it's in your national security interest to create stability and sustainability and resilience in the country. Because we've seen firsthand, for example, take Syria, where the world, the international community and particularly the European community collected to address the problems in Syria in advance. We feed support of Syrian in Syria for about 50 cents. That's actually higher than the normal cost, but it's a war zone. It costs more money to move food in a war zone. That same Syrian ends up in Berlin or Brussels. It's not 50 cents a day. It's 50 to 100 euros per day for the humanitarian support package. And guess what? When you feed 120 million people, we survey people all the time. And in Syria, for example, we found that people did not want to leave, but they didn't have food, didn't have security. They did what they had to do for their children. And we also found that they would move two, three, four times and more. I talked to a woman in a refugee camp in Jordan, by the way, who said we moved nine times before we finally left our homeland. So it's a lot more expensive. I was down in Guatemala just a matter of weeks ago. Talking with Guatemala's, the Washington Post had just done an article. Somebody showed it to me while I was in the middle of the field and said, the United States was spending $60 million for shelters along the U.S. border. And it costs, Rebecca, of $3,750 per person per week in the field that I was standing in Guatemala with a resilience program helping the smallholder farmer and their family. It costs us between one and two dollars per person per week. Well, what do you think is a better investment? And I think when taxpayers hear this perspective, you're going to pay for it one way or the other, more migration, more destabilization, conflict, as well as famine. It's best to get out in front of it, do what's right, love your neighbor as yourself, wherever that neighbor may be, because if you don't, you want to pay for it tenfold. Another little thing real quick, I've said this to some of my congressional friends. I said, you know, just like in the ceiling, you've got all these leaking water lines and you're all fighting over where to put the buckets. In the meantime, the carpet's got to be replaced. The table's got to be replaced. The curtain's got to be replaced. It's cheaper just to go up there and fix the leaks, root cause. Let's do some common sense, move away from the propaganda and the politics and do what's best and what's right. And it will be a lot cheaper and it's the right thing to do. Back to you, Rebecca. So you're arguing and I'm eager if my other panelists agree that an investment in the developing world is going to pay dividends really for the for the developed world as we traditionally think of it. Dr. Chu, Ramon, others, don't we also need to make changes in the United States, in Europe and in other places? I think first during the past two years, I had two strongest impressions on the preparation for Fujifilm Summit. First now is ownership, ownership by the country, by the member and by the key partners, civil society, private, public, international. That is much stronger than before. Second, solidarity. Now they look at the cultural food system as a bigger picture. I always, now the push might be through you, Rebecca. You are an influential lady. And culture is not only food. Agrofood system is the best in food, of course. Second is the feed, animal feed. Second is fiber closing. We depended on the coating and other fiber crops. And the first is the biofuel. And the last now is talking about the friendly environment. So agrofood system at large is the 5F. So if you calculate, you say at the beginning, agricultural is the contributor, one quarter of the gas emission. You have to be careful because for fiber crops, for forestry, they are contributor. But for animal husbandry, we have to improve. And for the crop, we have to minimize the side effects. So we have to hard scale calculation to find the solution in different nations, in OECD, developed nations. You also, that's why we have any member of AFL have to buy production because you have to improve your own. And even in the big country like China, United States, each province, each county, each crop, each animal sector, you need to improve. So that's, I think, very important. Agrofood system is not only food. Agrofood system is the 5F. And last but not least, I think, during the past 20 years, the biggest deficit in globally because people in the developed countries, in the city, not only developed countries, developed countries, they saw the food is so cheap. But it's a civilization, progress. But somehow, more than people in the city, they have to raise the appreciation to the food production, food processing, and supply chain, and all this value chain. Otherwise, you know, you need the more comprehensive investment on the food, agrofood systems, and also rural areas. That's really the root cause of the displaced people, no matter in Central America or others. And of course, some is a conflict, but more young generation, they didn't have the hope. And that's why they displaced. So I think we have to look at the root cause from agrofood system aspect, what is the contribution to that? Label intensive industry should be located in the town, in the county town, in the small town, and let the young generation of farmers and women have a decent job and the bright future. That's what I expect with my experience with 20 years with Pepsi or others in China. So I think that's a hope for the young generation. Label intensive agrofood industry need more investment. Remeka, if I could add, I would agree with Dr. Chu and David, we don't look at North-South dynamics. We look more about having a sustainable supply chain in every country. For example, we grow potatoes almost in every country that we operate. We grow tomatoes. We grow, I mean, these are not global food chains. They're very local. So we have to find solutions for every specific market that makes sense. Even a country like the US, when you think about the adoption of regenerative practices very low and the farmers need some help. So there you might, we were employing certain tactics, not like we're paying a bit more, we're giving incentives to them for using cover crops or some of the practice that we think we'll get them to a better place. When you go to India or you go to China and our potato farm, we develop the rural areas in a very unique way, because we help the farmers with the seeds and we give them, you know, we help with the best agricultural needs, we help them with irrigation. So we develop the areas, I mean, and Dr. Chu knows from almost desert in some parts of China, we turn them into very productive, beautiful farms. So clearly, I mean, every country needs different interventions to make sure that we create the right ecosystem, the right livelihoods for the farmers. And that's what we are all thinking about. And that's also, if I can represent my other colleagues in the broader food industry, that's how we're thinking about. You know, clearly creating unique solutions for specific supply chains or specific markets that make sense for the farmer. And then we'll figure it out how we talk to consumers to help them understand the different value of food, which is one of the challenges that we have here, is make sure we educate consumers that there are different types of foods that are being created differently, they're being grown differently. And they need to value this and prefer those brands that are using specific practices. It doesn't need to be more expensive. It has to be like they have to choose the brands and the products that are grown in a different way, in a way that is better for them and better for the planet. And that's something that we're trying to figure out what is the best way to tell consumers this story. If you think about the nutritional panels, we've been able to somehow educate consumers to understand, okay, what are the proteins, what is the fat, what are the sodium in particular products? And we've been doing this for many years, they've been educated, they understand how to make choices. How do we do this for what we're talking about? The livelihood of farmers, gas emissions, packaging, waste, it's much more complex. It's harder to measure, it's harder to communicate. We're trying to, as an industry, figure out what is the best way to tell consumers this story so that they can also make choices on the best brands or the products that have been grown in a very particular way that is better for the planet. Still working on it. I think we're making some good progress. Technology will be required and simple communication mechanisms will be required. And Helena, are you seeing big gulfs in a sense or differences in say the awareness of climate and the need for changes to our food system and say Europe versus the US, the North versus the South? I would say amongst consumer advocates, it was one of the first things we talked about with a new council showing not just the state of how things were in our own countries, but recognizing the connection between countries. So the fact that if I don't recycle in my country, that plastic waste ends up on the other side of the planet. We're all connected. I think if we think about the sort of who's responsible, I would love to perhaps flag how many countries are actually meeting the Paris agreement at this point. I think there was something that came out a week ago saying there's one country, the Gambia, which may be on track to meet its targets. There is nobody who is actually driving ahead in the way we need. And as we keep hearing, we have eight years. So I would say there is a great sense of urgency and a great sense of increasing responsibility amongst consumers to act. The opportunity there for raising consumer awareness, but also a bit of a marketing revolution perhaps. A bit of a way in which we increase the level of awareness to consumers about some of these issues in a collective way in which we ensure that consumers are given more agency. People are given more agency into the system. That's perhaps another innovation that we could explore. So I think we're feeling all responsible right now in the world of consumer advocacy. And before we close, this session has gone way too fast. I'd like to ask all the panelists really quite quickly. What in a tangible way would be a definition of success after COP26 and this rush that we have right now where this is all in the headlines and everybody's focused on it. What would be, I'm many obsessed with plant-based meats. Is there, how big of a role will that play? What is going to be a definition of success as we emerge later this year from these talks? Dr. Chu, we'll start with you and we only have about a less than a minute per person. So I think for COP26 and this year is a super year, COP15, COP26 and for the summit and others. I think if global solidarity is there, all the politicians, businessmen, civil society had producers and the consumers, everyone take their own responsibility. And there is Chinese provided says, if you want a bigger fire, everyone edit a small, dry stick and then make a bigger fire together. David. Well, I think they need to understand the consequences if we don't act. It's going to be quite severe. You can imagine what happens with people in these years, don't have enough to eat, but what happens when the people in Paris or London or New York. So the world leaders need to come together and understand we have a crisis ahead of us. COVID is just a small snapshot of the devastation we could be facing. When you look at the climate change, the dynamics, the number of people that will be displaced because of climate change and more conflict. So Rebecca, we got to get our act together. There's $400 trillion worth of wealth on earth a day. No one on this planet should go to bed hungry, much left starved to death because of inaction. And so we've got solutions. We just need to drive it through systems around the world. And the leaders need to recognize that, speak out and be together on this issue. And so you're looking for firm commitments by governments, business, and people to take to them. And so it points out. A commitment and an awareness. And this is where you guys have got to help us, Rebecca. Because when you look at the news media, it's like so many distractions today on small things that are important. But we have major icebergs in front of the Titanic right now. We've got to focus on the big things for the future. And this is where I think the New York Times and other major media outlets can help us drive the right messaging for our times such as this. Thank you. Well, we have a very big climate team and a very big initiative also planned for COP26. So we are trying, but Ramon, what was your definition? I think that if we can leave the November meeting with clear commitments from, I would say, the top 100 economies and then the large 1,000 companies in the world to net zero by 2040 and by 2050. But I think 2040 has to be the time that that would be a major accomplishment. And then from there, obviously, we need to go into the details of financing and technology and everything else. But walking away from that meeting with commitments from, I would say, those big groups, countries and top organizations in the world, that would create the demand for the technologies, the momentum that we're looking for. I think we're getting there. I think there's more and more peer talks. And I don't know the country level really. I don't have that visibility. But I know at the private level, there is a lot of commitments and there's more and more a share of voice of this type of topics in the forums that we participate. So I'm very optimistic that this will happen. Now, the trade offs that we'll have to make are pretty substantial going forward. So that's going to be the tough moment when we have to make trade offs, allocations of investments, and business model changes that will drive the real change. And Helena, if you could please close us out. I will try. So first, sufficient investment to end hunger. Two, clear and coherent national pathways from every country. Three, that we think about how we build trust and work with people as we go through a time which will be extraordinary for all of us. That includes safety. That includes transparency. And last, that we track and we monitor and we act and we get there. I'd like to thank all of the panelists. This was the most provocative discussion. I could sit here for many hours and listen to you, but we're sadly out of time. I am going to pass the floor to Borge Brende, who's the president of the World Economic Forum. And he's going to help us wrap up the week, which has just covered so many topics and will help us distill what we both heard today and all week. So over to you, Borge. And thanks so much to the panelists. No, thank you so much, Rebecca. Great moderation and an amazing panel that shows the quality we have had the whole week. And also thank you to our global audience for joining this session on Breaking Salos to achieve food and climate security. But also thank you for joining our altogether 100th session this week. As we just heard and as we discussed also over the past four days, exiting the pandemic stronger than we entered it can only happen if stakeholders work together and we have sustainability at the core of it. And we need to share know-how, partner on innovation and coordinate on advancing global priorities as also was so strongly underlined in this excellent panel of real leaders. It's really the only way we can shape a more sustainable future. And indeed collaboration is the very DNA of the World Economic Forum. It is why we convened the network of 2000 leaders during this week from business, government and civil society. And it is also why we had more than half a million live stream views and 24 million social videos views of what took place during the summit. So all this is testament to the commitment among stakeholders around the world to work in common purpose. So this type of collaboration I feel leads to real impact. We're really walking the talk and that's why I want to share also some concrete examples from this week. We know that climate change is maybe the most urgent challenge of our lifetime when it comes to our planet, our planet is burning. And then that is also why I'm so pleased that the World Economic Forum's friends of Ocean Action launched three new initiatives this week. Oceans are also so committed, so related to climate change. And one of the initiatives that I'm particularly fond of is the Blue Food Partnership to strengthen ocean resilience, but also the blue economy. 150 organizations and industry leaders signed a call to action, urgent garments to enable a full decarbonization of shipping by 2050. This is consequential because shipping is one of the hard to abate areas. Our food systems team are hard at work at the first UN Food Systems Summit today, as you know. And there has been also announced the Digital Food Systems Coalition and the 100 million farmers platform to help develop a more inclusive and a sustainable food system for all. As also as said in this panel, one third of the global emissions come from food production. So this is incredibly important. Our 20 companies have pledged to conserve, restore and grow more than 2.5 billion trees as part of the one t.org global pledge that was launched in Davos in 2020. And the Forum Scale 360 project, which creates products that have multiple life cycles expanded from two to 20 countries. Thank you for joining. Our blockchain team launched a new accelerator to make this technologies energy consumption more sustainable. And the Forum's innovation platform uplink that I think you're familiar with with all the eco-entrepreneurs announced that its innovators helped advance projects that capture 39 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and brought safe drinking water to 2.7 million people. Protecting our planet is so important and so is empowering people. That's also part of sustainability, as we know. It's economy, environment and the social aspects. Nine social justice lighthouses launched this week to show how businesses can support the planet as well as people. Cambodia established a closing the skills gaps accelerator joining a global network of 11 other countries. Finland joined the global learning network to contribute its expertise in closing education gaps. The Edison Alliance that you're familiar with launched a new one billion lives challenge to bring one billion people affordable digital access to healthcare, finance and education by 2025. The partnership for global LGBTI equality launched a self-assessment tool to help companies identify actions to meet UN standards of conduct. The Forum and the Global Philanthropy GHR Foundation launched a new partnership to advance racial and social justice. Our partnering for racial justice in business coalition no compromises 60 organizations representing over 7 million employees. And the new community forum to encourage millennials and genset to pursue careers in manufacturing with a focus on reducing the environment footprint of the sector was also launched. Finally, the list could have been made even longer but it really shows that we have been walking the talk. We have delivered concrete action also on and during this impact summit. So finally, a little over two years ago the forum committed to developing a set of universal ESGs as you know, these metrics to help companies practice stakeholder capitalism and approach that accounts not just for profit but for developing of people and our planet. And I'm so happy that we announced this week over 50 companies are now using this stakeholder capitalism metrics and our hundred other companies support the initiative. So this week has given me so much hope because it really has been an impact summit. If we continue to raise our ambition and work together I'm so confident we can make even more progress in the run up to COP26 in Glasgow in November and the forums annual meeting in January in Davos. I would like to welcome you there. So before we close, let me also thank the Conrad Hilton Foundation for the continuous support of this summit and for its diversity and inclusion goals in particular. So this concludes the global closing moment at the Sustainable Development Impact Summit but please be sure to join us also this evening. The program starts at 4 p.m. central European time. And again, thank you Rebecca. Thank you to this great panel. Thank you also to my colleagues here in the programming team, the nature and climate systems team and all the people that have made this summit happen. Thank you and see you soon. Bye bye.