 I would now like to invite the three panellists to join me on the stage. Philip, Kaisa and Christina, if you would like to stand over here. Great, so as I mentioned earlier, we would like to look at how this post-2015 agenda can be turned into a pre-2030 action agenda. Is there going to be this global transformation that the SIGs talk about and what would we need to change to make that happen? So we are delighted to have us with us today, Kaisa Olofskort in the middle, our Swedish post-2015 ambassador who's been leading the Swedish delegation. And we have Christina Borge Fibar, head of sustainable business at Sandvik. And for all the non-Swedes in the audience, Sandvik is a global engineering company today, nearly 50,000 employees, very established in 1862. And you produce tools and machinery for metal cutting for sectors such as mining and construction. So potentially a big impact on industrialization and infrastructure in developed and developing countries. And Sandvik is also an active member in this network that CEDA hosts, Swedish Leadership for Sustainable Development, some leading Swedish corporations joining there. And finally we have Philip Osano, our recent colleague at the SEI African Center. Philip, before joining SEI, he worked for the African Union Commission on Developing and Strategy and Implementation Plan for an African Agricultural Transformation Strategy. So we hope that you can share some experiences from that sort of more implementation work at the regional level with us today. So I'd like to ask to explore a bit this idea of transformation and transformative goals, but first asking you some questions relating more to your specific roles or the context you're operating in. Starting with you, Kaisa, we want to look at implementation, but just if I ask you to look back on the process, has there been anything surprising in the negotiations? Do you agree that it's a miracle what we have now? Well actually until now I haven't discovered very many surprises. And I mean that's compared to the result that we had in the open working group, of course. Unfortunately I was not part of the open working group, so maybe I missed some of the comparison here, but to a large extent what we have been doing the last five months or since we started the formal part of the process, the intergovernmental negotiations, is building on what was done by the open working group. So we have continued to have these very open-ended, very inclusive and very kind of positioning discussions. That was probably changed now with the serial draft that we had like 36 hours ago. That will be when we will see new formations I suppose. One thing that has surprised me though. I would say there are two things that really have surprised me, and one is you were talking about the discussions that we had earlier on the goals, because we thought that we got into the intergovernmental negotiations with the proposal from the open working group, but the G77 really sees this as the result of the negotiations. So that is one of the things that have surprised me how keen so many countries are to keep the goals as they are formulated right now. It's understandable given the escalation that you have already given on the inclusiveness and the really impressive process that I was on the process for the open working group, and I think really we should be careful also about the result. The other thing that has surprised me is the very broad engagement that is out there, that is in the breath of the Swedish society, that is finding the breath of the international society. When I go to New York, the Swedish civil society wants to, they are part of the Swedish delegation to start with. They want to interact very directly with me, but also international CSOs do want to interact very closely with the Swedish representative. And the other thing is that so many countries have started already to implement what came out from the open working group. Sorry for being a little bit long. Thanks a lot. Just a short follow-up. Do you see, is there any convergence in these approaches to implementation at the national level, or do they approach this completely differently? There are some convergence. The countries that have started to implement already things that they do are putting more focus on coordinating inside governments, the internal coherence of policies, and another thing that is very clear that governments do is to work very closely with municipalities and other local regions, and this is something that we have found out also in Sweden that this is crucial in order to have a result. And I would say also to engage the whole breath of society, because this is something, and that is understood I think quite broadly, this is something that we can neither formulate nor implement on a governmental level. Thank you so much. Christina, moving on to you. So how can the SIGs be made attractive? It's a question we heard. And does business have a responsibility in this agenda? And it would be interesting if you comment both as an individual company, but also from the perspective of the Swedish leadership for a sustainable development network. I would say yes. From the business, we have been looking for relevant goals for a long time. So when the invitation came from SIDA to take part of this network that you mentioned, the idea was that we would be able to take part of the development process of the new goals. This was one of the success factors. So the interest from the business society is big, because the MDGs or the Millennium Development Goals as they stand now are, not all of them are relevant to many, if I can put it that way. As an industrial company, and I really want to make sure that you don't misinterpret me now, but some of the goals are really not relevant for our business. So when it comes to environmental goals, yes, but they haven't been very explicit. When it comes to maternity or it doesn't really, I mean, we have our internal, but we can't really influence these goals as much as we would like to. So therefore, some of the new goals that are coming up now are much more relevant to us. When I did a mapping, and this is when I speak for Sandvik now, but I think I can speak also for the network so that when we start mapping the proposed goals now, I realized that we have been reporting on many of these goals, a majority of these goals for a long time, since 2007, for the natural resources, for example, for the climate change or emissions and so on. We report on these things, we measure them, and we see business, and that's actually the key success for the network, but I think actually there was this question earlier here, why would business care? And my very simple answer is because it's good business. It really drives good business, and that's really key, and that's the way you need to work on these issues. Thanks a lot. So, Philip, you've been working, as I mentioned on this, I believe it was a 10-year strategy for agricultural growth and transformation that fed into a much bigger and even more long-term process, a development vision for Africa for 2063, so it's a 50-year time perspective. In your view, can these high-level long-term strategies and goals really steer markets and technologies and people's behavior? So, in a way, are there these inspiratory inspiration frameworks or action agendas that Nina referred to? No, thank you for the question. From my observation, I think there's a validity to the fact that these strategies can create inspiration. The reason I'm saying so is I'm taking an example of what I was working on. The 10-year strategy for African agriculture from 2015 to 2025 is not a process that started last year. This is a process that started in 2003, and it started in 2003 under the framework of what was called the new partnership or what is called the new partnership for Africa development. So, that is itself was a vision for Africa to say that as we move towards almost getting to 50 years after independence across many countries, what progress are we seeing and what progress are we not seeing, and can we therefore develop a common agenda for the continent to develop? And insofar, SNAPAD was therefore adopted in 2001 by African heads of state. They then moved into implementation through developing specific strategies for specific sector. So, in the agricultural sector, they adopted what's called a Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program in Maputa in Mozambique in 2003. So, the strategy just finished developing, was actually also reflecting back on the last 10 years of the cut-up. There were lessons, two key ones were fast and foremost. The inspiration that the African leadership gave in 2003 was a dedicated commitment to ensure that countries invest 10% of their GDP to agricultural sector. If you look back 10 years, 13 countries at one point or the other invested more than 10% of their GDP to agriculture. Four of those which consistently invested and in a smart way had huge achievements in terms of the objectives of making agricultural growth and also reducing poverty, and that is Rwanda, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, and at some period Malawi. So, yes, I can say that these broad visions, if interpreted smartly and implemented by the technocrats in a well-articulated way, they can inspire transformative change. So, continuing on this topic of transformative change and transformation, I think it's too many of us still a little bit mysterious what this is. So, can you, the three of you share with us how you think about this? I mean, what does it mean in practice, or how would you approach it in your different context, in the business context? I mean, a government, how would the government sort of understand this? Christina, do you see yourself sort of leading transformations or contributing to them? I think what we are doing is stuff that we've been doing for a long time, it's just that we've called it something else, but I would actually like to give you two very concrete examples of how we are trying to transform our business, if I may. The first one is we speak a lot about circular economy these days. This means that we need to recycle and reuse much more of the material that we use. One material that we use, one metal and one mineral is tungsten, Wolfram in Swedish, tungsten. Tungsten is a very thinnest material. There is about 100 years more in the ground, 100 years more of use in the ground. We have five different business areas in Sandvik, four of them use tungsten. So, tungsten to us is an extremely important ingredient in what we do. So, many, many years ago actually, about 15 years ago, we realized that we need to start recycling. We need to start using more used material, if you wish. So, we have started this buyback system. So, we buy back used material from our customers, which means that we get a pretty steady supply of material. Our customers don't have to deal with the pretty hazardous material that we're speaking about and we do not dig it out of the ground, which saves us a lot of emissions. It saves us a lot of, well, energy obviously, which is also cost. So, it drives down our costs. And now, with the latest legislation coming from the US on conflict minerals, tungsten has now been classified in the US as a conflict mineral and it may actually be classified as such in the European Union as well. We get around that because we know the source. So, there's a lot of benefit to this. So, we help the customer. It's a smaller cost to us and it actually has a positive impact on the environment. And in order to increase this, we actually purchased, we acquired a company in Austria with a tungsten mine, but also a big plant where we can actually recycle in order to increase the level of recycling. So, that's what we strive for. And when it comes to the metal material that we put into the stainless steel that we do, 80% is scrap from the start, 80%. This is business to us, but it's also very good environmental programs. Do I have time for a second example? Very recent one. As you know, we produce equipment for the mining industry. So, we wanted to develop a new truck, sort of a dumpster kind of truck in Australia. And we did that together with a customer and we listened a lot to the environmental and safety requirements they had. And we put in about another 60 different things from a safety perspective. It weighs about five tons less and it actually consumes a lot less energy. This truck has gotten from 15 to about 80% of the available orders on the market in less than a year because of the lesser fuel consumption, lesser emissions and increased safety. It's good business. This is what I'm trying to do. It's really important that you show these concrete examples of we're not doing, I mean, obviously we want to be a responsible company and so on. But if you want to have a sustainable drive for these issues, you need to find the business benefits where environment, safety and social issues go hand in hand. So, not only the risk perspective. No. Thanks for those concrete examples. I think that's really helpful to grappling with this idea of transformation. But just follow up the time perspective here. So, for the SDGs, we have a 15-year time perspective, like drawing on these examples and in general, do you think that's sort of a realistic time frame? Is it a good time frame to be working in or should we have like more shorter term goals or even longer term ones? I think it's a really difficult question for me to answer because in the business, I think we're a little bit faster sometimes, if I may be slightly politically incorrect here. But I think sometimes it's just easier for us because we can, since we measure most of the stuff that we do, even the water recycling, we know exactly how much water we use, for example. And we do recycle everything in water stressed areas because it's good business, because water is expensive. So, for us, it doesn't take 15 years. This truck that I mentioned, it took less than two years. But what may take time is actually the development of more such products, specifically when it comes to more complicated products. Something that we have a lot of research on is fuel cells, pencil cells in Swedish, which we really believe in. And we've spent 10 years of research, of time for that. But now we're getting there. We have found an industrialized way of producing them, which is a breakthrough. So now, hopefully, it will hit the market. So that's a 10-year perspective. But it's still faster than 15. Kaisa, from a government perspective, you obviously have perhaps less control over markets and resources and sort of doing these transformations. But in the sort of initial discussions across the government ministries, can you make sense of this idea of transformation? Or is it sort of just paralyzing or distracting? Or what's the sense? On an international level? Yes or no? It's obvious that to change the planet needs more time than to change the production of specific items. And in that sense, of course, 15 years is not such a long time. I do believe that the process of coming together governments in negotiations in New York, but maybe more in bilateral meetings and regional meetings among policymakers, and to discuss and put on the agenda the issue of sustainable development is in itself transformative. And it's also necessary for the global society to have kind of framework to follow up, to have somewhere to meet, to discuss the issues and need the global efforts to focus in a way. That would be one of the answers. The other answer would be that, in a sense, we very often like to see ourselves as leaders of such processes. But to a very large extent, we are also the servants of a process that is really going on anyhow. I mean, there's a big push from the breadth of society to have this change. There's a big need that has been shown not less by academia. And then we need to kind of gather this push for a change. That leads on to a question. So I know you have a background in trade negotiations, because trade could be one of these trade rules, frameworks, agreements can be an enabling factor or a disabling factor. And I know some of the SGG targets are actually addressing trade and reforming the system, in particular making it better for the least developed countries. But we also hear about this limited progress on sustainability and trade negotiations, and we hear about the investment agreements like the TTIP that could potentially undermine environmental regulation. Do you see the SGG agenda and the trade agenda sort of going separate ways? Or are there, do you see scope for win-win opportunities, at least that they are compatible? No, I definitely would say that also the trade community and the trade policy community feels this push from society. And the need to use trade policy also for sustainable development. And there are kind of two aspects in this, of course. It is not inhibiting progress on sustainable development. And you're talking about the transatlantic free trade agreement and the specific dispute settlement mechanism. We have heard about a lot of examples internationally, international examples lately that have certainly with these negotiations come into the common discussion. This is a system we have had for a long time, but now it is very much on the agenda. And we're not there yet, but really I think it's encouraging to see how the European Union, the Commission and also the Swedish government is very much taking this discussion on board, trying to learn from the discussion. This has really shown the need to have a modernized system for dispute settlement in the bilateral agreements. We should also remember that the bilateral trade agreements are very often used to enhance the dialogue on sustainable development. There is not one simple new trade agreement that does not enhance a chapter on the dialogue and cooperation on sustainable development. And then there's the other part of it, the development part, the possibility for developing countries to reap the benefits of the international trading system. Just as Johan pointed to, they are not so much talking about the need for using these environmental purposes. Rather, there is quite some suspicion among developing countries for us using, this is an excuse for protecting our own industry or our own agriculture. And they do have good reasons for that. We need to be very cautious when we look in how to use the trading system for sustainable development. And we need, I think the European Union has shown some very good examples also when it comes to making our markets available for the least developing countries with the full duty free and quota free entrance for goods and also being the first more developed partner opening up for the least developed countries also in the services sectors. We can, there could be much more done, but there is a change also in the trade policy environment I would say. Okay. Philip, we talked earlier about the role of technology and transformation. And I think many of us have read in the media these stories about the technological transformations going on in the African region with mobile and ICT technologies. Is there still a lot of potential in that? And could that sort of be beefing up the potential for SDG achievements? I think technology is an enabler. And to achieve SDGs, you need many enablers. And some enablers facilitate other enablers. So to accelerate technology adoption, you need the right policies and the right incentives. When you talk about ICTs, you know, 2000, when we're discussing or they're developing the millennium development goals, access to internet, access to cell phones and so on in many parts of Africa was very limited. As a matter of fact, I remember reading a research from, I think it was IDRC that was quite shocking. It was saying that on average an African university with about 40,000 students had the same bandwidth as a household in Europe. That's how bad it was. And you expect these people to do research, you expect them to be competitive globally. Over time, we've seen a big shift in that, particularly in some countries. Kenya, for example, which therefore created policies that enabled private sector to come in, sort of liberalized the telecommunication market. And the impact has been phenomenal. Two weeks ago, the governor of the central bank of Kenya was giving a report that says 4% of the country's GDP is traded on mobile phone transactions. This has really revolutionized life, businesses, small enterprises, which were previously not doing well. And now people are able to transact money. If you look at farmers that need to market their produce, who are being ripped off by middlemen because they couldn't know what the prices are and so on, right now they're able to actually just access prices on their mobile phone and so on. So I think this is all for technology. The only thing is we need to ensure that technology isn't one that would also be undermining some of the visions that the global society would need to have because there are also those kinds of technologies. Thank you so much. We actually need to start wrapping up already, but thanks for commenting on this really broad agenda. Maybe in a year's time we can meet again and have a better idea of specific priorities in this agenda for Sweden and for other countries. Wanted to end this with a question for all of you with some brief answer, if possible. So if you could choose one target or issue area where you would like to see the most progress in the next five years in order to have a shot at this 2030 bigger than the, which one would it be? Christina? Can I start? The one that we haven't mentioned today, which is the governance one, number 16. And I think this is something that we have in common, all the companies that have joined this network. I think we're approximately 25 because it keeps changing, so I don't really know. We represent more than half of Swedish GDP. So we are really a strong force and we are all convinced of sustainable development and we all strive towards the same goal. If we are to be able to expand and grow in the countries where employment and more social benefits and so on are needed, we need governance. We need better institutions. We need less corruption and so forth. So that would be the main topic for us, I would say. Giving us the basis for good business. Thanks a lot. I would refuse to answer that question. Really what's the novelty, what's the important thing about the agenda is that we take on board all the challenges and try to solve them at one time and also the balance between the aims, the objectives that we put in front of us and the means of implementation that we present. So sorry. Okay. So we have corruption, we have all the goals and targets and Philip, what's your take? I mean I think I'll go back to the basics. I think the target on poverty, poverty reduction still remains as valid as it was. And actually not just poverty reduction but increasingly we are seeing also huge rising inequalities. Countries developing economies that are having very fast economic growth, that's not trickling down and it's very few people benefiting but the large majority actually their conditions as a situation are getting worse. So I think attendant to that is the need for inequality, attention to inequality as well. Very good. Thank you so much. Warm applause.