 We are ready to start our next panel. Where's my pen? Thank you, Her Majesty, the Queens of the Belgians, for doing that wonderful speech. And especially I want to comment on the quality of education. I think those are really critical elements that we should all be looking forward to. And thank you all for being here today. I think this is an exciting place to be the second day of the ICSD conference. This panel is co-organized by the Center for Sustainable Development. We are at the Earth Institute, and with Jeff Sacks as our director, and Dr. Yanis Benamore as our executive director. We do a lot of cross-sectoral work with real heart implementation on the ground, trying to meet the SDGs with the various partners, local governments, as well as national and state level partners. So please, I think we are ready to start our panel. This panel is on culture, cities, and communities. There have been four different elements or four different events that we've done in this conference. The first one was on education for sustainable development, which happened on Monday. The focus there was education as the medium to reach sustainable development. This panel is on cities specifically and focusing on the inequalities that we see in the cities. Tomorrow, we have two panels. The first one is on localization and use of data to do local level planning. It's from one of our partners in Nigeria. So Kaduna State Government is our partner in that particular panel. And the last one is on gender. So gender, focusing on gender as a medium to achieve all the rest of the sustainable development goals. Today, we have two very extinguished speakers. Dr. Anglias is from Indonesia, and Mr. Aruma Ravi from India. We are very, very privileged to have both of them here today. They are experts in the area. Dr. Anglias Hotaian is the Deputy Director at the Coordinating Ministry for Maritime Affairs in Indonesia. He has had more than 15 years of experience in both scientific and policy perspectives, which I think is very unique because people belong to either one of the sides, but he has a very unique perspective where he does the science part as well as the policy perspective. Dr. Anglias is very active in developing program on ocean climate change, coastal livelihoods, in particular related to blue carbon coastal ecosystem services. He has a PhD in oceanography and is currently focusing on providing analytical and strategic thinking for actions to achieve Indonesia Ocean Agenda Bowl, SDG-14, on marine plastic debris, coastal resilience, and livelihood at national and regional scales. So really, really key in terms of meeting the SDGs and keeping the cities in mind. And then we have Aruma Ravi, who is the founding director of the Indian Institute for Human Settlements. And if you don't know about the institution, it's one of the premier institutions in India, really cutting edge in terms of the training that they provide. He's been engaged with the institution for over a decade in terms of leading the education component, research, training, advisory, implementation, and also focusing a lot on multi-sectoral work that is involved in urbanization or in cities. He is an alumni from the IIT Delhi, Indian Institute of Technology, again, one of the premier institutes in India. He's had a global practice of 35 years being a thought leader, a practice person, an educator, interdisciplinary experiences and sustainable development, including public policy, governance, human settlements, global environmental and technological change. He's a part of many UN standing committees and groups that are engaging in making sure that the urbanization agenda is included as a part of the SDGs. He has been a keynote speaker for 250 addresses, speeches, seminars, and has made public appearances all over the world. We are lucky to have him here today because he has to rush after this event to the UN and do his daily job. So we are very lucky to have him here. He has lectured in over 90 universities globally. He walks at the intersection of sustainability and climate science, which is this new emerging area of urban sciences. I thought that was very unique because usually climate people are separate and urban people are separate. So I think this intersection of urban science, which is a new field that he's promoting, is something I think very, very unique. So I would like to give both of them an applaud and thank you for coming. We'll have two. We'll follow the format where each of the speakers will speak for 10 minutes. Then I will have questions for both of the speakers. They'll get to answer the questions one after the other. And then if there are any questions that the audience has, we have a Twitter handle. So please feel free to use the Twitter handle and send us the questions. I will have my colleagues send me the questions and I'll go with the questions on the stage. So having said that, I'll invite Dr. Andreas to start his presentation, please. Thank you. Thank you, Radhika. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Radhika, I already mentioned, explained about myself. Myself is Andrea Suthayan. I am from Indonesia. I'm here to be, will explain a bit about the progress or activities or programs related to the issue of the Marine Passing the Breeze in Indonesia. And I think most of you I think know about the issue. It's very hot issue in the world at the moment when we are talking about the plastic issue globally. So I would like to show you some very short video about the activities in Indonesia related to the issue of Marine Plastic the Breeze. Please, can you? Plastics play a key role in our economy, but they have led to an unintentional crisis in our oceans. Plastic production has increased exponentially from the 1950s to now. Eight million tons of plastics are dumped in the ocean each year. That's about one truck of garbage per minute. Plastics can remain in the ocean for hundreds of years as they break down into ever smaller particles. Of major concern is land-based leakage of plastics into the ocean. Experts say if Indonesia, China, the Philippines, and Vietnam reduced 75% of plastics leaking into the sea, the flow of plastics into oceans would drop by nearly half globally. Indonesia has set an ambitious target to reduce marine plastics by 70% by 2025, and addressing land-based solid waste is a big part of the solution. With an estimated 80% of ocean plastic coming from land-based sources, improvement of solid waste management becomes highly essential. The government of Indonesia, supported by the World Bank and other development partners, is investing in a $1.2 billion solid waste management program. This project aims to improve collection and management of waste in up to 50 Indonesian cities. A new multi-donor trust fund supported by Norway and Denmark is also addressing marine debris and strengthened coastal resilience in Indonesia. It's looking at innovative ways to address the plastics challenge. One example is an innovation to promote waste plastic into plastic tar roads, which is also improving access to transport. Another innovation is the conversion of waste into much-needed energy. In Central Java, Indonesia is exploring options for waste to energy. From the government side, maybe we can give incentive. We have to see this bring some economic activities. Otherwise, people are not going to fall. If you can create something like waste to energy, electricity, they make money out of it. So they can do it. Industry is also playing a role in finding solutions. We have an innovation coming out as we speak, which is the first for Indonesia, but only the third in the world, 100% RPT bottle, which basically means this water bottle from Aqua is made from bottles and can be recycled into another bottle again. And this, what we call the 100% bottle, is a real innovation for Indonesia and for Aqua that shows that actually innovation can help to drive circular economy. There is also innovation at the community level, from cleanup actions and development of alternative plastics, such as cassava-based plastic bags. Indonesia is not alone. Countries around the world are taking bold actions to address marine pollution. This is the global issue. It's not the Indonesian-only problem. So the Ocean Conference, I believe, can create something, not only talking on sea, but at the high level. How do we see the implementation? That's, I think, very important. So if we can establish a very strong, solid collaboration among the countries, stakeholders, then I believe this can be reduced significantly. The video was telling us some information about what is going on in Indonesia. As you maybe know that, actually, Indonesia is a big archipelagic country. We have more than 17,000 islands. And we have also the second longest coastal line about more than 108,000 kilometers. So this number gives us some information about how big the country is. So in general, we have, in Indonesia, we have about 75% of our territory is marine. So marine ecosystem is very crucial for our daily livelihood for the country itself. And 25% is terrestrial. Even though in 25%, we have 25% inland waters. So this can give us information that water is a part, more than a part of our life in Indonesia. Indonesia, as again, we have two big problems in general. First, how to keep our ocean into very clean. And the second is how we get able to fight against climate change. So both wars are very crucial at the moment in Indonesia. But now I will explain about the first one, how to have the clean ocean, particularly in Indonesia. The issue about marine plastic debris coming up because of this issue in Indonesia. First, when we are going to the coastal Indonesia, we found many plastic debris laying on the sand beaches. And also this is very difficult to see. And then also in the sea floor, we can see many, plenty of plastic garbage there. And also the influence of the microplastic already we can found into some of this organism, including fish. So we can say that maybe most of the fish in our ocean or in our earth, somehow have contaminated of the microplastic debris. So this is some data, very good information, telling us that about 700 species of marine organism are already influenced or contaminated by microplastic. So you can see in the upper layer in the, here the total is 100% already contaminated. So this number gives us a big alarm that we should fight now, there's no time for tomorrow. And then also for the fish consumption is more than 25% already contaminated by plastic debris. Where is the source of the plastic debris? This study carried out by the World Bank and in Indonesia that we found that about 80% of marine plastic debris is coming from the land leakage, so land-based leakage. So through the sea water, through the river, they carry out to the sea. So this is inconsistent with this paper, very good paper mentioned about the export of plastic debris by a river into the sea. So and they found that about 95% of global debris can be coming from this particular 10 rivers. So the first is here, very big in the China area, Yonsei river, something like that. Beside that, I think we are agree that marine plastic debris is not local issue, it's a cross boundary issue, it's international issue. This is for example, when we are visiting some area in Indonesia in the border with Singapore and Malaysia in one particular island where there is no inhabitant there, we found many of the plastic bottles from different countries there. So we are quite surprised when we found that there's a lot of plastic sase or from food or the meat drink, something like that. So this telling us about this. And also I think many international organization, multilateral organization also care about the ocean, about the marine debris. So just recently, I think in ASEAN, in IPEC, in G20, in G7, Eora, and other international meeting, marine plastic debris is very hot issue. They are talking about silkware economy, solid waste management, and everything related to our environment. What is the composition of waste in Indonesia? Our data from our statistical office mentioned that from the total of our waste, actually about 16% is plastic. The rest is mostly about the organic waste. So, but this is very difficult to handle because the total of our solid waste production is about 63 or 65.9 million tonne in 2016. How about in the ocean? In Indonesia, the total percentage of marine plastic debris is about 31%. Most of them are plastic bags from the food or from the plastic or use plastic, something like that. This is the data coming from the World Bank. So once our commitment, from the previous video, I think I already stated that we have a commitment to reduce of marine plastic debris as much as 70% in 2025. I think this is very challenging for us to have this. And in order to conduct this or to fulfill the target, we have already established, we call it national action plan for reducing marine plastic debris with five targets. One is about the behavior change, second, reduce sea base leakage, law enforcement and research and development. So this is our target, our annual target. I think I will explain it later if we have time. So every year we have our target to reduce our plastic debris. So some activities have been done mostly for the education and campaign. And this is some of the activity in the Jakarta. I think you can see very here, program of the cleanup here in the port, in the North Jakarta. You see on the May, the changes from the May, 2017. Now in July, at least the debris already disappeared. Now we need to improve the water quality. But here you can see the plastic debris from this location we can use for the plastic taro. And this is some of the area in 2017, 2018, lot of more and then inform more than 20,000 people all over the country. And also some project we have doing now is about the H2RI Cleanup Project in Jakarta. This is together with the Ocean Cleanup. I think you know very well about the Ocean Cleanup. So we're working together with this guy to clean up the H2RI in Jakarta. And another activity is about the Chitarum Harum. Chitarum is a very big river, it's very long river. It's about 297 kilometers from the south to the north of Jakarta here. So it's very important resource for the people, about 27.5 million people are depending on these resources. So this is the figure when we found in Washington Falls on March 2017, 2017 here. This newspaper mentioned that Chitarum is the dirtiest river on earth. We were quite unhappy with this news anyway. But this news trigger us to do some more action in quick. You can see here the condition after now. This is on the upstream. And now this is also the Chitarum river on April 2017 and now it's January 2018. There are some changes. This is also in this area. Some changes here in the Bandung area, in the Chijagra and then this is in Bojosoang. I think they are reducing a lot. But now we need to make a better water quality of the river. So regarding to the law enforcement and research and development, we have also some program here. Some of them are related to the waste to fuel, waste to energy, also alternative material using like cassava, seaweed or palm oil becoming alternative material for plastic, not using the oil as the ordinary plastic one. Although now the price is very expensive at the moment. This is some example of the Plastic Tarot. We have been working together with the India University to implement the Plastic Tarot. So we are using the single use plastic bag here. It's abandoned in many places, I think. Not from the pad bottles, but this is plastic bag. So we could able to reduce more than 1,000 tons by implementing this project since 2017. And actually it could save the cost of production about 10%. So it's good for economy, I think. And then also protect the environment and then it's very stable compared to the normal one. Besides that, we also have a program working together with another stakeholder, private sector. And also the public with the program, we call it MPS, Alliance for Modern Plastic Solutions, particularly for in the form of the circular economy. So this is working at the moment now. And one of them is Danone. And also there's Nestle and other things, big company that would like to have to participate in combating modern plastic debris in Indonesia. And these are the last slide, the conclusion. What actually the conclusion? Nothing, we need to have the comprehension solution at the local and regional scale. Which means it's not good if we import or we send our plastic or our debris from one city to another city or from one country to another country. So we should able to create or to establish a new system at the local scale. So including redesigned material and production, reduce plastic in the waste stream, improve the solid waste management, increase the capture and the issues, and also clean up what is in the ocean already. I think these are my presentation. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Andres. Now we'll ask Aruma Ravi to present his lecture. Thank you, Radhika. I'm not going to show you any slides. I'm just going to maybe have a conversation. It's really nice to be back to ICSD. I mean, you know, many of us come here every year for the UN General Assembly. And it's also really important apart from talking to politicians and bureaucrats to talk to fellow researchers and practitioners. Because in some senses, you're not only changing the world, you're preparing people to change the world. Like we saw at the climate summit just a day before yesterday, young people are getting both impatient and eager to really be and make that change. So I'm going to share with you some of what Radhika sort of laid out. I have had sort of, let's see, I've been very privileged to be part of four different processes that spanned between, let's say, 2013 to 2016, four of the major sort of global compacts that emerged. The first being the SENDI agreement, and the framework which looked at disaster risk, and sequentially how it happened. Then the SDG summit here and the SDG process, which many of us were sort of critically involved, especially from SDSN, in negotiating. And then, of course, Paris, because I have a life in science too, as somebody works on the conference between climate and a whole range of other processes. And finally, in 2016, the new urban agenda and how this comes together in cities. So, you know, the world is very complicated. It's also, in some senses, more connected and more divided than it's ever been. And we can see that, because social media sometimes gives us pictures that are not completely true. But how do we make sense of this process? Everything seems to be important today, because everything is in crisis. And why does that seem so? That is because we're living in a world with a lot more people than they used to be. About 100 years ago, there were less than a billion and a half people. We're now at, you know, seven plus going to nine, maybe 10 billion people. So the first thing is, this world is full of people. And a lot of the challenges we see of plastic or of waste or of climate impact basically comes because there are lots of people everywhere. And our systems and our thinking comes from a world that had much less people. A world in which you can let go of things and they can go into the ocean or the atmosphere or they can go into the rivers. And it didn't make a difference. But in actual fact, they're coming back not only at the local scale, but at the global scale to try and impact us. So at one end you can say, we can't do much about it, the people are here. So what can you do? But in actual fact, if you're able to harness the power and the interests of all of us to make a difference, lots of things can change. And that's why I think this connection between community, local processes, and all the way up through countries to the global processes is very important. And the reason that's important is because historically we've depended very often on other people to do stuff for us. So governments would look after certain sets of things. Companies and firms would do other sets of things and other sets of people would help us live our lives. Actually today, they're all connected and we have to make this change which connects all those levels and actions and processes. So it's not only that the governments can make a difference or individual consumers through behavior change can actually change things out. We have to connect the dots between these processes because the world is deeply connected and you make a small change in one place and have an impact to somewhere else. So people may wonder in a country like ours why the monsoon in a sense is becoming very erratic and what connection that has to the Arctic melting or what's happening in Amazon and Amazon and fires. The fact is this is a connected world and we are interfering with planetary boundaries and limits and they'll eventually come back and impact us. So having said that, the sustainable developments are actually quite special. When we negotiate this, I was talking to colleague yesterday at the UN and we were saying over 2013, 14 and 15 there was a very special thing that was happening in the Trustorship Council. People from across the world, often at each other's throats in the Security Council it's less than 50 meters away from that. We're coming together and saying, look, we have a real challenge here and we cannot solve the challenge independently. Countries can't do it on their own. They have to work collectively. So the really interesting thing that happened was we have and we were able to build a political agreement that this was important because very often you say, I can do something or somebody else will do something else but we don't have the political will to make the change. This actually reflects a long and complex process of negotiation and many of us had said the goal should be simple. There should be only 10 of them. We've landed up with 17 and whatever, 169 targets, et cetera. It's too complicated but the reason that is complicated is because we heard voices from across the world. We heard voices from citizens. We heard voices from civil society. We heard the voice of science very strongly and more important, we were able to try and make the connection between the multiple interests that countries and their people have. Indonesia, for example, has a great concern about forests, about natural resources, and about water. That's a very important concern. That's what their life is about. If you go to a land-loculation like Mongolia, for example, their concerns are very different. So how do you bring that together because we're living in an interconnected planet and we have collectively agreed to end some things that should have ended a long time ago, to end poverty, to make sure that there's no hunger in the world, to make sure that everybody has a decent quality education and everybody's healthcare, apart from many other things. So where did this idea come from? The idea, of course, came from the fact that our economies have grown so dramatically that we now have the resources across the world to make this possible. So if you look at the global economy today, it's $90 trillion and growing every year and cities, the things that I work on, $1.5 trillion of value added every year. So we have the resources collectively to be able to address this question. So effectively, if all the governments of the world, all the local authorities decided that we were actually to work an income transfer, we could actually move just by using income transfers. We could move everybody out of, at least, particular definition of poverty, literally over the next year or so. So we have the resources, we have the technology. In some senses, the SDGs represent a coming together of the political will to make that happen. So I guess the core question for us is, what is it in our way of thinking? What is it in our way of doing? What is it in our institution structures and processes that is holding back this happening? One of course is, of course, the vested interest, there's so many people and so many institutions that are rooted in the old way of doing things. The most obvious example of that, which is this whole week has been part of, is the question of climate and energy systems, right? So we are addicted across the world, including in poor countries like mine, to the use of fossil fuels. We cannot imagine that our whole systems would actually collapse if fossil fuels went away. The collateral question, of course, is if we didn't have fossil fuels, if we didn't have liquid petroleum, in some senses, there would be a big constraint on the availability of plastics, because plastics essentially come from that sort of fossil empire that we're building. Similarly, as far as fertilizers are concerned, global agriculture today is dependent on fossil groundwater and on the availability of fossil fertilizer. So when we're thinking about this change in which we say, okay, we have to deal with the climate question, it actually has a connection with pretty much everything else, because if you take away fossil fuels, you take away the ability in some senses to be able to produce food the way that we do in industrial ways, which of course creates its own challenges. We also will have to take away the way that we're actually producing food in our, in my country, for example, by exploiting a tremendous amount of groundwater because you have the energy to pump it and much of it is fossil water. So effectively, once you start changing the system, it starts connecting itself to a whole range of other things. So the power of the SDGs, and maybe the confusion is, there are lots of goals and targets, but actually they're interconnected. So the question for us as agents of change, whether it's researchers or it's practitioners is, where do you make your entry points? Because when you go in, it's like a network, it's a web. You can start from one place, you can start from plastics, you can start from inequality, but eventually you have to navigate many elements of the web and you have to be prepared for that as educators, as researchers and practitioners. You cannot work in silos anymore because of this connection, but that is the particular power that we have. You can start from one place, but you can have impacts in other. The challenge is, we can say, okay, this is very complicated, it'll take a long time and it may take 20, 30, 40 years to make this happen. The fact is that we do not have time. The thing about the SDGs, apart from the fact that they are negotiated, is that we put a time bound on them. We said, okay, we have to get this thing done by 2030. Now what does that mean? It means a very simple thing. We have 4,000 days to make this happen. Think of that. When some of us helped write the Brunton report or provided inputs into it in the 1980s which helped define sustainable development, part of the discourse was, you're doing this for your children. Of course, you're doing this for your children. And we saw our children in a sense, stepping up and saying, how dare you do this to us? We saw that happening on Monday. But the fact is that we have to do it extremely quickly because these are non-linear processes. When we started the process of negotiation around many of these things in 1992 in Rio, we were at 0.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial average. We fought and we've had the Kyoto Protocol, we've had a whole range of processes, but basically we wasted 25 years. And what's happened? The temperature's gone up by 0.5 degrees. I know because I co-led the most important report which everybody's quoting all over the place of 1.5 report last year. The challenge for us is, because the changes are happening so quickly, within less than a generation, we're gonna hit 1.5, which even the IPCC, when we were writing about this, you know, six, seven years ago, we would say that two degrees was a guardrail. We're actually saying now 1.5 is desperately dangerous because of impacts like this. The difference between 1.5 and two, as far as agriculture is concerned, is the difference between 30 million people and 300 million people actually being severely food scarce. Of course, in a sense, the end of all the coral reefs and of course the food security that you've just seen for countries like Indonesia and many other countries. So we are entering a non-linear regime. So every 0.1 degrees makes a difference. The reason that we need to act now is, before we reach the tipping points in which these things can actually not be changed, which will have unalterable impacts on the natural environment. We know a fair amount of that from the science. But the more challenging thing is, it's impact on the human environment. And we can see that. And the human environment, of course, plays itself out, not only in, let's say, relatively simple things that many of us work on, which are very complicated, like dealing with poverty, dealing with gender injustice, et cetera, et cetera. But it also leads to the breakdown of social systems, community, and political systems. And we see that. I mean, the world is a lot more safe than it was after the Second World War. Interstate conflict has gone down. But we've dramatically increased the amount of conflict that we have inside societies and communities. We don't see it, it's hidden. But it's not very far, just like it is in the climate equation, from the tipping point, where conflict turns into violence. And in a society and a planet with so many billions of people, our country has 1.3 billion people, a little spark can actually set up a huge conflagration which can take away 50 or 60 or 70 years of development. So that's in a sense at stake. So we've got 4,000 rays to try and do this. Why? This is a promise that has been made by the governments that we've elected to make this happen for everybody in the world. And that is the really interesting thing about the SDGs. Apart from all the wonderful things and everything being connected to everything else and having this holistic view of development, there were three very important promises that were made that we often forget. But that changes the complexion of what we're doing. The first one, of course, which people hear more often, is the idea of leaving no one behind. Now, that's a very difficult thing to implement. Those of us who have ever implemented something in the real world know it's really tough. It's like dealing with smallpox or polio. You know that you've got to get to 95, 96, 97, 99% of vaccinations to make it work for everybody. So to get to something where you actually bring everybody means a completely different way of thinking. The second thing which is much more insidious and we kind of wrote it into the SDG 11 which I helped negotiate is the idea of leaving no place behind. It's the idea of dealing with spatial inequality. So we hear a lot about inequality in terms of income and race and stuff like that which is very, very critical and it's growing pretty much across the world and Piketty showed us how that connects into development and stuff like that on the economic side. But the idea of spatial inequality is really, really important because in a world that's connected where everybody can see what's happening on Instagram and YouTube and whatnot, the immediate understanding which was not possible earlier because people were not connected is why is it that the place that I am in or why is it the community that I am in is actually being discriminated against is not part of the mainstream. So dealing with spatial inequality is a very difficult challenge because our countries, our curriculum, our institutions are designed from the 19th century or late 18th century onwards to work in silos because that's very efficient. That worked very well. That's how the corporations are also designed. So you work water separately from energy and you work there separately from health and even the SDGs are framed in that way. They're framed to measure the way that governments are organized. But if you have to deal with spatial inequality, you have to integrate along and across these processes and that's where the power of local community processes and that's where the power of local government becomes very critical because if you're in local government or you're in community service and mobilization you can't split the stuff up. If you're a mayor, you know, we work with mayors and I've known both Mayor Brunberg and Mayor Blasio here. They have to deliver on an everyday basis otherwise forget it, they're not going to be re-elected. They've got to collect the garbage, produce the water, deal with housing inequality, they've got to deal with traffic, they've got to deal with everything. They can't afford to deal with things in silos. So you have the power of local integration, fine. The SDGs talk about this doing at the global scale but we do not have a way of connecting what is happening locally in the communities in a piecewise way so that it actually adds up and that's what the young people are saying. They're saying, look, we're looking at a fractured world, why should it be so? Our lives are not like that. So I think the really interesting challenge for us as educators, as researchers, and as practitioners is to enable the local connection because you can see it, you can make this happen because you're dealing with five, 10, 15, 20,000 in our case in India because it's fairly big, you may be dealing with 100,000 or maybe a million people. It's something that's tangible that can be actually executed. The question is, how do you connect that with stuff that happens at other scales? And I guess the magic answer to that is very simple. It's tough because you've got to bring in all the stakeholders who are involved. It can't be just the government. It can't be just the private sector. It can't be civil society. It can't be only the universities. They have to work together and this is a very tough business because we are not used to working together and this is again what young people are saying. I mean, it's stupid. Why can't you guys work together? Why can't you solve this stuff together? It's, you know, you do this in a family, you do this in a community. Why can't we do that in a much more institutional regime? And that for us, and that's why Gold 16 and 17 are so important because they talk about this question of building active partnerships. So we break down the world, the specialized world that we saw, which is not so connected. You didn't need to do that when you were building a corporation before the First World War or you were running a country, you know, in the 19th century. But today we have no choice but to actually connect the dots up. So we need a new science. We need a new form of education and we need a new form of practice where people can boldly go out and say, look, we know how to make the connections. We know how to pull this stuff together. We started something small, but if the hundreds of thousands of us we can actually make it happen. So, you know, I was talking about this at the UN yesterday and I was saying, look, there are 193 countries. You cannot do this. You cannot do this in the 4,000 days. You know, I mean, it's impossible for you to do this. So you need to form a new set of partnerships with at least 10,000 places, if not more. We have about, you know, 500,000 places across the world. Places meaning villages, small towns, you know, villages, whatever, cities and mega cities like this. So you've got to create that process and the ability to do that. And that's why educators are so important because we are very critical to taking the message and building the skills out to make this possible in thousands of places simultaneously. So just think about it, 4,000 days, if I take 10,000 places, we have to add, you know, whatever it is, 2,000 places a day and take them to sustainability. There's no other way that we can actually make it happen without that. Okay, so we have to think completely out of the box. We have to change our institutional structures. We have to change our way of working. And interestingly, we not only have the technology today, we have the resources if we're able to deal with inequality, but we also have, and we see this, you know, I work in many parts of the world, we have the willingness and the eagerness or in some cases I would say the passion and anger and we saw it on Monday to really make it happen. Because sometimes you have to get angry and say, look, enough is enough, let's get on with the job, forget about talking about this stuff. You know, whether it's doing the science or doing the research of the social science, we have to try and make it happen. So the connecting up of the dots is important. We have to think differently. We have to act differently. And it is in the solidarity of collective action that we will find the ways to solve this problem. We are not in competition with each other. We are a community. And working as a community and co-creating is what we have to do. Else, we know what the, you know, I don't want to go into the scare and the consequences. That's the place that we have to go. So I'll leave you with that thought and then we can pick this up at the conversation later. Thank you so much. Thank you, Arumar. I think those were very, very insightful words. And just to put the picture on a local example, which I experienced a couple of weeks back. And I think you've touched on a lot of topics, but maybe just to get your remarks and also to add on to the next question. I was speaking to an urban development minister in one of the states, my state in India. And I was obviously talking about education. That's my specialty. And he said that that's, you know, this is great. We definitely want to focus on education, but we have also other issues like a sewage issue. We have waste generation. We have plastic issue. We have bad air quality. We also have a lot of unemployment. So there are all these things that are there. He didn't talk about SDGs. He talked about, there was no SDG language. And I think most of you, and again, Dr. Andreas and Arumar will tell us more. When you talk to these leaders at the state level, do you see SDG language percolating or is it more of a topical issue again? Sewage, plastic, do they get the bigger picture or not? And the second part or second observation that I had was, I came back here, I live in Jersey. And USA SDG, which is again led by Jeff Sacks and Caroline Fox, they came up with a report, SDG index report on every state in the US. I live in New Jersey, so I was very interested to know our indicators. And again, the same problem, waste management, landfills are increasing apparently, New Jersey has 600 landfills and we don't know what to do with them. Our waste is increasing 4% every year. So a lot of the same issues, plastic air quality, we know about the lead issue in Jersey. So same issues came up. It seems like it is on a much more global level. So are we getting best practices? Is there a platform at the UN where we can get best practices? Are we relying on reports? Are there exchange between state ministers? And so where are we heading with all of this? So just two remarks on SDG language as well as the localization and global level changes. So maybe we'll start with Anves and then Parma. Thank you. I think this morning I have been spoke with the person from the UNDP talking about the SDGs. There are many target goals and I tell him that I'm focusing on the SDG 14 in particularly 14.1 about marine pollution and more specifically about marine debris, plastic debris. And I was thinking that even though this soup target is very tough, it's very tough. Thinking about the real condition in our environment, how could SDGs with those number of targets could able to implement in the proper way in a sustainable way until 2030? But I think this is very challenging for us. And back to the issue about the SDG 14, particularly about the marine plastic debris. It's telling us that every single action is very important for us because we are facing this problem directly now. There is no way to say, waiting for tomorrow. Today is the right time to do that. If possible yesterday, but yesterday is not possible anyway. So under another framework like the UN framework, I think it's difficult to say if you're facing the real problem. But because we have to have some common or more adaptation project or program related to the particular target of SDGs. So it means one country maybe they have on, depending on the priority, they have on target. For example, Indonesia now we have our target for SDG 14.1. So we have to carrying up very quick to fulfill the target. But maybe 14.2, 14.3 is not so or less. So this is different depending on the country's priority. But apart from that, I agree that all of the SDGs goal or target has to be tried to, it's very hard to achieve without the target. I think that's it. Thank you, Dr. Andres, Arumal. So I'll be very frank here. I mean, the thing is most people in the world have not heard about the SDGs. Yeah, I mean, it might be what we are interested in, but most people have not heard about it. Certainly most politicians have not heard about it. Some national leaders have and some countries have embraced it, but most have not. In fact, in many ways, in most parts of the world, even the idea of integrated development is not in place. So I mean, we should be fairly pragmatic about it. Having said that, people have a sense of what needs to get done at the local level in many places. But many of the things that you pointed out are actually the symptoms and not the cause of the problem. The SDGs give us a framework to start thinking about it. It gives us a frame which I hope we can think of as a 21st century frame to deal with the wicked problems of the 21st. You can't use ideas and technology that were developed in the 16th and 17th century to deal with current challenges. So part of our challenges, educators, as researchers, is to bring people into the 21st century. And I think the people on the 21st century are on Twitter and Facebook and on Instagram and some people are not. So that's one way of doing it. So the thing is it's a way of trying to problematize and trying to engage with the question. And in that sense, it's useful and itself it may not be useful on its own. And I think one of the really powerful ideas of the SDGs, and you can see that in the SDG index that you talked about that we bring out from SDSN or the US SDG index which you were talking about or we've done the same thing for India. My colleagues are sitting in the audience who have done the same work for India. It's a very simple idea. There was an idea that is 60, 70 years old that the world was broken up into poor and rich countries, the developer and the developing. And the developer going to help the developing or they were fighting with each other and that's part of the challenge of Kyoto. But the SDGs show us that even the most highly ranked countries, the Scandinavians, it goes between Sweden and Norway et cetera at the top of the bank. Even they have challenges in meeting the sustainable development goals. So basically it's a very simple idea. The idea that we are all developing countries, it doesn't matter whether you're like Qatar at 80,000 dollars per capita or you're sitting at 500. The fact is on one of those 17 dimensions, you have a challenge. Look at the city for example. I did this at the UN many years ago. I compared Bangalore, the city that we spent time in where our university is built and New York and people were really shocked. And it's pretty obvious if you live in the city. Bangalore has a lot more green than New York has because that's an accident of fate as far as Manhattan is concerned. You have Central Park and many much less. We have lots of gardens there. But in actual fact, this city has much worse gender relations, much worse inequality in some senses. And it's come back, it was like that in the 80s and it's come back again, then in other parts of the world. So in some senses, this is a really important wake up call. We are all developing countries. The conflicts that you see, whether it's in the UK or you even see in North America are about the fact that there are a whole range of places to go to, especially on environmental questions, on questions of equity. There's a very serious nutrition crisis in much of the developed world because of the kind of food that we eat. So that's an important question to understand that we're all part of the same frame, but in different places inside that. So if we can learn from each other and we can apply different things, it's actually quite useful. But I think one of the most important questions and this came up again in the UN yesterday is, we have to ask a very simple question that most of us who have not lost touch with community are able to still ask. And that is, how much is enough? It's a very simple question. How much is enough? And part of the challenge of ocean plastics and of air emissions, which are going to be very difficult for us in dealing with climate emissions, et cetera, et cetera, is a response to that question of how much is enough? And that's why I'm saying it's not only community at the local level, but it's a wider sense of understanding that if you were able to contain your need or your greed, it would actually have a dramatic impact on everybody around you and everybody in the world in some senses, because the choice of your action over the 80 years that you're alive is going to impact not only yourselves and your children, but everybody else all around. And that's an act of solidarity and substance. And that's an act of acknowledging the humanity and the right of somebody else to be able to participate in the world that we live in. So by taking too much of it from yourself, for yourself, or for your community, which a lot of us say is the best thing to do because that's what competition is good about and that brings out the best for us. Actually, an interconnected world can become a real challenge. I'm not saying that efficiency is not important. I'm not saying that firms don't have to do various things, but I think we do need to think about this very simple idea, how much is enough? Because the impact of our actions, and that's the real story of what's coming out in climate. We started 30 years ago saying, this is about your children. Like I said, the children have come back and talked back to us. But in actual fact, we will see the impact of our actions in the climate space in our lifetimes. That's what Sandy was about as far as the city is concerned. That's what the storms are about. And we know the physics from the science, unfortunately, that they will get stronger, they will be more frequent, and they will be more damaged. We're just launching something in a few hours in the van which is trying to address this question. But that's at the institutional level. We have to ask this question of ourselves and we have to connect the dots between our own actions and the consequences will come back and connect us. So in that sense, I think the minister was right, they've got XYZ issues that are there. But if you don't go to the deep questions, because this is a systemic problem. It's not something you can fix by getting more landfills or doing XYZ, that's not the way it's going to happen. Not with 9 billion people on the planet, it just won't happen. We know that. I mean, you don't have to be rocket-side to that, you can do a math. If you're in high school, you can figure that out, like many young people are doing today. So we have to think systemically, we have to find systemic solutions. And part of the systemic solutions is working together to make a difference. And we did that in the SDGs. We're not doing that in about a dozen other things, including the trade wars and all the other kind of stuff that's happening at the current point of time. And I'm known for being frank, but zero-sum games don't work in this space. It's an interconnected system. It's going to come back to Baichu. But there are much better reasons for doing some things than it coming back to Baichu. So I think this panel will not end with these two amazing, there's so many amazing questions from Twitter that we got, so thank you all the participants. The two questions that I want to ask, and if there can be like a rapid fire round, maybe one minute answer each, sorry, because we're running out of time. One question is for Dr. Andrias. Very amazing question. I don't know if you will have an answer for it because it's not simple and certainly not in one minute. Is the solution just to find a different resource to supply our wasteful demand? What are the side effects of these new supply chains? Yeah, that's more than one hour, maybe. Yeah. In fact, we know the environmental condition at the moment. Changing the behavior of the human is not so easy in many countries, including Indonesia. So of course there will be changes some supply and demand about this. But by the time, it can be becoming optimum in one point. I think at the moment, the demand of the plastic from the oil, the ordinary one, is still high. And at the same time, we are trying to find out another solution, let's say from the cassava or other things. Of course the price is very much expensive, but I'm sure in one point, at one point in the future, there may be some balance. So, but we don't know when this will be. But I think, yeah, we will be going for that point. Thank you, Dr. Andreas. Aroh, question for you. Amidst all the global actors at hand, which leadership competencies do you see as the key to achieving the SDGs and how do you teach trained accordingly? Simple answer, one word, empathy. Empathy is the most important thing that we have to be able to enable at all levels. Once you're able to really empathize with the situation that other people are in, then solidarity and building on that becomes whatever. So as educators, and I imagine many of us are educators here, this is something that machines can't teach you. People can, and it could be anybody. You may not be very literate, but you can learn empathy. This is a 2,500 year old culture. It came from the Buddha. We've been trying to practice it unsuccessfully for a long time. Thank you, this was super fascinating. Thank you, Aroh, and thank you, Dr. Andreas, for taking the time out to be with us. We really appreciate all the suggestions and you have really given us a lot of food to think about and to reflect and to act accordingly. As we had, I think, discussed action, is speaks louder than words. We are all armored now with a lot of new thoughts and we are ready to change the world. So thank you for this panel and thank you audience for the great question.