 Okay, let's get going. Good morning, everybody. For a Sunday morning at 9.30, this is the dedicated people that come along. So thanks so much. My name's Elwin Granger-Jones. I'm gonna moderate this morning. I'm the director for policy and operations at the Global Environment Facility in Washington, D.C. But until recently, I was leading IFADS Climate and Environment Department where I set up ASAP, the adaptation for Small Holder Agriculture Program, amongst other things. So that's why I know people in this crowd and why I was asked to moderate. I should also thank the co-host of this event, which is CJR, in particular, CCAS, the CTA, CDKN, CDKN, FanPran, and PricewaterhouseCoopers. They've done a great job putting this together. Now the format is very informal, particularly because we haven't got a packed room. I think we can actually have a nice conversation amongst ourselves. So really I want to turn to you and have your questions and discussion and make this actually a relaxed affair, especially because it's a Sunday morning. So please be ready to come in with questions. People I know will be putting you on the spot. Others, please just raise your hand and contribute to the discussion. But please be concise, because the worst thing in these things, if there are like five minute questions. So the morning is pretty clear. I think it is some opening remarks. I think Peter's not here, right? So Tony Simons will be opening. And then we have opening remarks also from Marion Guilot, the president of Greenham and a member of the CJR consortium board. And then Sam Bikesteth from PWC, who's going to tell us all about the INDCs. And we may have a few moments for Q&A there. And then we break into a really fantastic panel and I'll introduce that when we get to it, but that's where we really focus in on the INDCs and really get under the skin I hope of what's going on, what we can read from the INDCs that have been produced. And then we have an hour-long coffee break, which is kind of a long coffee break, but there we go. And then there is a high level panel with some great speakers. Might not be time for Q&A in that bit. We'll see how long people speak. And we have a poet in residence who's going to say something then, it will be interesting. And then we have a discussion on gender inequality and INDCs or more broadly social issue and INDCs. And Micah will finish. So that's the format for the morning. And why don't we start things off with a nice audio-visual presentation and then we'll go on to the opening remarks. That was beautiful. Right, let's have our first three speakers. Tony, thank you so much. Oh, what, starting again. Okay, Tony and Marion. Okay, why don't you sit at the front and we'll have three of you and Sam. Sit at the front and then we will start with Tony to say a few opening remarks and then turn to Marion. And then Sam will be telling us about INDCs. Good morning everyone and apologies that you don't see Peter Holmgren in front of you. He's been delayed and has asked me to step in and share some words on his behalf. Peter Holmgren is the director general of the Center for International Forestry Research, C4 based in Indonesia that is the driving force behind this whole global landscape forum. I'm Tony Simons, the director general of the World Agroforestry Center, a partner center, one of the CGR centers with C4. And the CGR is often accused of overexaggeration and we will allow the 800 people in this room and the 10 million viewers online to decide if that's the case or not. From farmers fields to landscapes. This is a session all about scale. Not only geographic scale, but scale of ambition and scale of implementation. We're gonna hear about the INDCs. 183 of them have been submitted. There's only 12 who are yet to submit. One has declared they will not submit and we're hoping the other 11 will contribute. The INDCs, I mean I thought the CGR was good at acronyms but UNFCCC is equally as good. The intended nationally determined contributions. And it's always nice to point fingers at other countries and nice to point fingers at other institutions. But the INDCs is meant to be a bottom-up process where there's national recognition. But even if countries have these wonderful ambitions and these intentions, it's gonna mean nothing if the consumers and the 7.3 billion people on our planet do not also make a contribution. And so perhaps we could all invent another acronym. And that would be the personal equivalent of INDCs. The not the intended but the unintended personally undetermined threats. Otherwise known as the you puts. So you put your house in order before you expect us to do the same. So we're gonna hear in this session today about how private sector partners, public sector partners, various institutions can look for new opportunities to work around technical assistance and around financing options. Because we know that agriculture is one of those few things that is both a victim of climate change but also a bit of a villain. And we're hoping we can come up with some ideas to make it a little bit less of a villain and a little bit less of a victim. Because we know that that one sector or one commodity or one stakeholder is not gonna fix that problem. It's gonna be about partnerships. And so we would ask you all for you to put your house in order as well. Thank you. Thank you, Tony. Tony had yet five minutes warning for that speech. Amazing, you just did that off the cuff. Thank you so much. Marion Guilu-Sharpa is the president of Agrinium and which is a public consortium that promotes the role of research and higher education on food security and sustainable development. But has a long history in this area was president and CEO of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research and is deeply involved in CCAS and the CJR and also the Committee on Food Security. So welcome. Thank you very much. So it's quite a challenge during this forum because we work on Sunday morning very early. So obviously you are the most courageous ones and I welcome you. So in fact, what are we going to do during that forum? I think it's quite challenging. We hope, we all hope that in the agreement there will be a part dedicated to agriculture. We heard yesterday night from Maria Elena Semedo that food security was mentioned in the preambler and we hope that there will be more. So in fact, at the moment you talked about INDCs, you opened as well, if I understood well, but maybe we will be a few of us to submit, but at the moment we have INDCs and in fact, most of them do reflect the importance of agriculture, mitigation and adaptation. When I will talk about agriculture, it's agriculture in a wide sense that is to say agricultural, forestry, land use and food and food systems. And so the sound implementation of the actions outlined in INDCs are key. Which appropriate technical assistance and climate finance will need to be mobilized? What is the estimated finance needed for realizing adaptation and mitigation actions outlined in the INDC? How can we ensure that the farmers and especially the small holder farmers who need it most get access to finance? What do we need for supporting women farmers and gender equality in technical assistance and financing? In terms of technical assistance, what is needed for countries, public and private partners and farmers to get going? In fact, the CGIAR system for itself is committed to dedicate 60% of its research for development efforts to climate smart agriculture. More globally, how can this be aligned with the needs of countries and farmers in implementing the INDCs? So today's event brings together our partners, including public and private ones. And I insist on private ones so that they feel welcomed in our public organization, including farmers organization, NGOs, international and national organizations, private sector and the research community. So what policies and partnerships are needed to support implementation and to achieve scale? Particularly, how can we address the growing number of small holder farms expected to reach 750 million by 2030? How do we make sure gender and youth issues is not just lip service? In fact, the CGIAR system will help implement and support initiatives that ensure agriculture plays its part in climate change adaptation and mitigation under the UN process. This includes joining Cat Pour Mill Initiative, which was launched recently last week in Paris by coalition of French research agencies, but more than 100 very diverse partners as well. The idea is to restore soils and soil carbon. And you know that the magnitude of order of the losses of soil carbon from the soils are huge at the moment. So the initiative is a good example of how both mitigation and adaptation can be synergistic. So what other actions do you suggest? We now know that incremental or systemic changes will most likely not be sufficient that we will need transformation, adaptation in agricultural system. We will need innovation. We will need change. So are the INDCs actually transformational or just too identical to more of the same? So there will be three interlinked sessions to answer this question during the day. And we hope to achieve the following outcomes. So now it's up to you to try to build those outcomes. First, to identify key issues and gaps in implementing INDCs, both in terms of technical capacity and access to climate finance. To identify ways in which technical capacity and financing gaps may be addressed, including of course the CGIAR roles in these efforts. Identify ways to ensure that gender and youth issues are at the core of INDC implementation. And understand if changes proposed at the moment in INDCs are transformational enough of or if not, how can those more transformational changes can be achieved in our sector globally? So it's a lot of work on the table. And now it's up to you. Thank you, Marion. Let me introduce Sam Bickerstaff. He's the chief executive of the Climate and Development Knowledge Network, CDKN, which he's led since its inception in 2011. He's an agricultural economist by training. And we worked together in DFID for some years. And so as part of his role, CDKN is hosted by Price Waterhouse Coopers. And Sam has promised me he's read the HINDC cover to cover. Isn't that right? So we're gonna hear from you about that now. Thank you. Thank you very much, Erwin. And thank you, everybody, for managing to get here on a Sunday morning. So it's the GLF, isn't it? But we're actually here for COP 21. And so we're trying to connect these two parts or not. Maybe a show of hands. How many people have a blues-owned past and have been into the negotiations this week? How many of you have sat in an INDC conversation there? That's surprising. There are an awful lot of side meetings on INDCs. And so I'm not just gonna talk to you about INDCs. I got five Cs I thought I'd throw at you. COP, we can do that quite quickly. It's just a minor diversion across in Le Bourget. Consumption countries, INDCs, cows and corporates, five Cs this morning. And let's see how we go. I've got no power points. You'll be pleased to know I want you to be engaged. And really, I don't wanna talk for too long. We wanna have a conversation here this morning in this group. So thank you again for coming. Thank you to friends from CCAFs and others involved in this event for inviting PWC and CDKEN to be part of it. Let's just remind ourselves, as Marianne said, where the text has got to that concluded yesterday, the ADP that goes forward into week two under the French presidency today, meeting even today, I understand, to keep the ball rolling. The preamble does still make a good reference to food security and ending hunger. And the article two, which is the purpose of the convention, talks about the convention's intention not to threaten food production and distribution, food production and distribution. Not quite sure what that means. It seems a slightly limited definition of what we might be talking about here if we're moving from, we're talking about consumption as well. But when we get to article three, mitigation, food security and agriculture remains bracketed, as a lot of the text does. And we get to article six on finance, finance for sustainable development, food security and poverty reduction, all that remains in brackets. Wow, that's quite a lot, isn't it? Yeah, because kind of where do we come from? We come from conversations where we can't see a way forward on food security, adaptation and mitigation without deep engagement with the agricultural sector. So we can stay at the GLF, or we can go across to Le Bourget, or we can try and connect the two and we can make a decision as to the importance and the opportunities of those spaces to do so. But Tony gave a very nice hook here. We can go from INDCs, which in a way have been an amazing process, an incredible process that 183 parties have submitted INDCs, unexpected, because they weren't obliged to do so. And unexpectedly, they've kind of brought agriculture in various ways into them by and large. But it's actually what happens in January, what happens on the 14th of December, post-cop for national determined contributions. But Tony's challenge is to think about our personal contribution, our outputs in this process. And that's why I wanted to touch on consumption. So Tony and I had a perfect planning beforehand to make sure we were well joined up. So let's just think about the crunch in food security that's coming up, and does that match up with the ambitions that we hope agreed over the next week at COP 21? 30 to 50% increase in demand of food by 2030. You see, the 50% by 2050. But kind of nearer in over the 15 years, a giant increase need for access for food production for a rapidly growing world population. And as business as usual, that is as currently consumed, global meat consumption will rise by 75% by 2050. Which would actually make it impossible to achieve a two degree target alone. So what are we actually doing about one of the biggest issues in front of us? It will just exponentially rise. And I've spent a lot of time conversations about energy systems this week. And we know that decarbonizing energy is the kind of thing that can be done with seeing decoupling in economies, happening in advanced economies. There's a giant way to go in many others. But what are we doing about the food side of this? And where we start to look at maybe a change in consumption habits, perhaps with respect to meat and other aspects of the food systems, this is mostly happening in developed countries. But actually the demand increases on meat and for food for the billion hungry people is happening in developing countries, overwhelming from the developing world. So a lot of giant dots to kind of join up here to look at the emissions gap just in food and livestock alone. So just a reminder of the facts here, agricultural forestry in land use makes up about 25% as we've really heard from these excellent films about 25% of GHG emissions present, which is more than many other sectors, industry and transport and so on. And then when you add in the food chains, a chain and factoring emissions from the non-production emissions, consumption, refrigeration, waste and transport, we're really talking about 30% of global emissions. So this is what we're talking about this morning, 30% of global emissions. Are we connecting that to things in brackets in the text? I do want to make that point. Of course the sizable part of these emissions come from somewhat unnecessary and totally unsustainable. Nearly twice as many people globally overweight, 1.9 billion overweight adults worldwide. Twice as many as the number who undernourished. A third of food is still wasted. So you're very familiar with these statistics, I'm throwing them out to keep you awake on a cheerful Sunday morning. But they really matter. Maybe we look at it from the other side. There's a great World Bank report that Stefan Halligat was presenting at a forum I was at yesterday. It's called, I'll just make sure I reference it, shockwaves managing the impacts of climate change on poverty. You might be aware, this is the one which talks about 100 million going back into poverty if we don't stay within two degrees. Good report. Agriculture's referenced quite a lot in that report as it is. And it talks a lot about transitory poverty, people coming out of poverty, people falling back into poverty and climate drivers that will increase that. And when they disaggregated some of the statistics of the poor and non-poor in Nigeria, they found that poor people were 130% more likely to be affected by drought in that country than non-poor. 130% more likely if you're a poor person to be affected by drought. It's fairly obvious, we know that poor people are highly vulnerable to shocks. But many of those people are going to be in the agricultural community. So when we look at solutions, and I thought this was a great set of videos because it moved us from the gloomy to the solutions, and that's a really important part of the narrative that CCAFs and others have been promoting very strongly. We can't really talk about low carbon, climate resilient development without talking about climate smart agriculture. It's normally on the list of things to do. And actually when you go across to Le Bourget, there are an awful lot of conversations about climate smart agriculture, both in the corporates pavilions and some of the country pavilions, which happen to be next to each other, the Africa pavilion and the Aida pavilion back one to another. And they both had events on CSA over in the first week of the COP. That's quite interesting. So agriculture sits at the heart of this and where are the solutions? That's what I think got us up this Sunday morning to come think about. So I was billed to talk about the INDCs. Yes, what happens at country level. There is actually a paper which CCAF colleagues have produced which is sitting certainly on some tables here and I don't intend to go through it all. But yes, they do address agriculture and that's quite interesting. I don't think that was obviously gonna happen initially. 80% of them actually refer to agriculture in some form of the 183 INDCs that already been referred to. And 80% of them including in some way in their mitigation targets and 60% in their adaptation targets. But of course, it's not clear quite how this will happen. INDCs, intended nationally certain contributions are a variable length and quality and credibility. In fact, there's a political credibility analysis of INDCs out from the Grantham Institute in London which is being presented on Tuesday here in Paris. But some of them are well thought through. I mean in the case of Ethiopia, they've outlined that livestock and crop cultivation is responsible for half of emissions in 2010 and highlights the need for support around that. It's land use management in Ethiopia and the completion of the Renaissance Dam to drive their massive renewable power capabilities that will enable them to achieve 64% emissions reductions by 2030 in 2050, I believe it is actually in their INDC. One of the most ambitious INDCs comes from that least developed country. And agriculture and livestock and land use management sits at the heart of their capability to do that. But they're gonna need financial support. Bangladesh, in Bangladesh's INDC, promotes various incremental measures around agriculture which again were continued on international support. They have a 5% unconditional, 15% conditional INDC in terms of the emissions reduction. And they see the potential to shift the share of organic versus inorganic fertilizer by a big chunk by 35%. So that shifting that ratio is one of the things they see as a measure that they can take. Jump to Brazil, which is the third largest agriculture emitter and restoring 15 million hectares of degraded pasture by 2030. So this whole land use forestry interface in Brazil sits very much at the heart of their ambitious number which is I think in the mid-40s for emissions reductions. So lots mention agriculture, lots mention food security, some go into some detail, those three I've highlighted there. But a real difficulty with actually getting the numbers, the organization I head, CDKN, supported some 10 countries in preparation of their INDCs one of which was Bangladesh. And they were essentially not able to set out in their targets their emissions reductions, ambition in agriculture. The data wasn't good enough. And this was my fear early on when the first INDCs were being prepared that agriculture would be left out of it because of the longstanding arguments about MRV for land use, the methodological challenges and the data challenges. So that comes through in the agriculture INDC. So the challenge in Bangladesh to a certain extent post-cop is actually to increase the quality of the data because the INDCs are only going to really work or the international process only work if there's adequate monitoring review and verification. So MRV in land use and agriculture and the data behind this really is quite a challenge going ahead. So final word on what it's all going to cost according to our friends in CCAFs. Their analysis is showing that delivering against the ambitions in the agriculture sector has set out in the INDCs, it might cost five billion US dollars per year. And that's a big number. That's not a number that's available and that's not a number that matches what's happened in terms of climate finance support to agriculture. So far, agriculture has received less than forestry even from climate finance. One of the analysis shows that 70% of multilateral climate funds has gone to agriculture which is a very small proportion if we're saying agriculture is one of where the area's solutions, where there's huge adaptation demands and potential in mitigation. Why is so little climate finance flowing to this sector? The INDCs are now setting this out. First look is saying this is going to cost about five billion. How is the money going to flow? The money is only going to flow if it comes from the private sector and other sources. Climate finance will come from domestic resources. It will come from private sector investment, whether it's small-holders or corporates. And it will also come from domestic resource mobilization by countries themselves. And many countries, such as Uganda, where we've been working recently, are putting considerable resources into this themselves from their own domestic resources. Climate finance is a challenge for the INDCs. So what needs to be done? Well, let's look at it. Let's look at it in different ways. Of course, we can produce differently. And the INDCs do touch on this to a certain extent. And we can change how food is grown and reared, improve resource efficiency, increase productivity, reduced environmental impacts. Even these images here start to give us some windows on this. But let's not get fixated in the solution just sitting in the production box. And I think that's where I've been most of my career and many of us here have been much in that. It's great to be with some of the other organizations here who are thinking about other aspects of the food supply chain, the storage and transport. What can we do in terms of efficient storage and logistics to reduce waste and improve infrastructure at a rural level and into cities? Are we distributing and selling stuff in the right way? Are we marketing the nutritional value or the carbon footprint of our food? You know, I raised this issue about food waste and overnourishment or overconsumption of food already. So on the business side, we do see some initiatives going ahead here. There's this tool that's being used, started up by Unilever and now being used by PepsiCo, Tesco and Heineken, the cool farm tool that some of you may be aware of, which is a greenhouse gas calculator for corporates in an agricultural sector, which helps measure carbon footprint from crop and livestock products. So there are tools out there. And what about meat? I said I'd mentioned cows. You may have seen the recent Chatham House report on this topic that got picked up to a certain extent in the British media. And some of the analysis behind that suggests that people are happy for governments to regulate, to a limited extent, to shift behavior in relation to meat consumption. We accepted a change in behavior around smoking. The report suggests shifting consumption habits through regulation or is it pricing or meat tax? This was the concept that the Chatham House report put forward. So how do we incentivize this shift really from the consumer side, from the way that corporates and businesses deal with this? In forestry, we've seen the Consumer Goods Forum and we've seen corporate step forward with zero net deforestation by 2020. So we're seeing this happening in the forestry side. Where are we going in agriculture? It's just to continue with my cow theme a little bit longer. I promise I won't dwell on it very much longer. But meat eaters can tribute a lot of greenhouse gas emissions. Seven kilograms of CO2 equivalent per day is the figure for a high meat eater compared to 4.7 for a low meat eater. So we can lower our emissions by a third just by cutting down on our meat consumption. Not giving up, we can turn vegan and go lower. We can turn vegetarian and vegan is the lowest sort of emissions. But we don't actually have to give up meat to start to do what Tony called to address our U inputs. So there is a consumption opportunity. And I think the looping back to Chatham House report is there's a sense that regulation, taxation, labeling and so on can help shift us in that direction. Of course, there is the production side and the political economy of this. The average cow in OECD countries is getting $190 a year subsidy. There's quite a lot of public money tied up in every cow standing in a field. $53 billion will livestock subsidies in 34 OECD countries, which could shift that to climate change action, couldn't we? That's a lot of money, frankly, in the wrong place. It would affect the price of our meat, of course it would. It would affect the livelihoods of many farmers, of course it would. But is that the most efficient way of tackling these dual challenges of adaptation, mitigation and global food security? So consumption linked to production, linked to climate change, linked to, of course, the political economy of winners and losers in this. One of the points I've made frequently about INDCs is if these 183 INDCs have been developed at national level, because they have been nationally driven, of course, and they've been done without anybody coming out of it with any bruises, have they been a worthwhile INDC? INDCs should be a difficult process. Of course, there's win-win out there, but there's win-lose and not everybody is gonna come out of this. And the case in which we've worked as CDK in some depth, which is the INDC, in Peru is particularly interesting. In Peru over several years, some moderators probably can tell me to stop soon, he's coming close. In Peru, Plan CC, which is the Climate Change Mitigation Plan, identified 77 mitigation options, which are quite specific, some hugely challenging into the forest management and changing forest loss, which is a giant problem in Peru. Others were trying to change the light bulbs in the whole of Lima. And in the end, they put 11 forward into their INDC 11 actions. So quite specific things. And when it finally came to that, that went out to public consultation and very open, typically less American process for the INDC. When it was finally submitted, they didn't name those 11 because they couldn't resolve it. Why couldn't they resolve it? Because does that political economy, the people are fighting their corner about who's gonna win and lose in that process. So we have to accept that this is a change. The transformation that's necessary is a change in which we're getting deeply involved in social and political issues. And agriculture doesn't escape from that, as you all know very, very well. So let me just jump to wear a corporates, one part of corporates. Others here who can speak to that, I don't feel have any particular truth on this. PWC, where I work, has been working with a group of CEOs from the World Business Council for sustainable development around an initiative called the Low Carbon Technology Partnership Initiative, LCTPI, one of those acronyms to take away. LCTPI is a public-private partnership to accelerate low-carbon technology development and has involved some 200 international companies looking at the relationship between the growth of social and ecological balance, a sort of triple bottom line, as some might call it, and trying to accelerate technology transfer in this space. And PWC's supported with looking at agricultural climate risk on crop failure was with modeling around various key commodities in supply chains of these corporates. And the point to make about LCTPI and the WBCSD, who have a major day tomorrow, actually, here at the COP, is that creating these coalitions of willing businesses will drive the process. So the INDCs, by and large, have been fairly private sector blind. Some have incorporated them adequately, but many haven't, have been government-led. We can't get there if we just focus on countries in national governments. We have to work with corporates, too. So I wanted to wrap up looking over this sort of review where we are on the COP, where we are with the huge challenges in the agriculture sector, notably in the livestock zone, thinking about INDCs, a national level, and the role of the private sector. First, the news is good. The INDCs have anchored in agriculture and food security, by and large. We can see that. The quality of that is variable, but I think the door is open. We'll see how the text goes in the COP. And for those of you who worked in this field, I don't think we should worry too much about that, because we need to press on in this direction. The INDCs will bend the emissions curve by 25% of where we need to be by 2030. But there's still a giant gap. We're only less than a third of the way there in terms of staying within two degrees. You've seen the data. The emissions gap report talks about 3 to 3.5 degrees with what the INDCs present. Forestry in land use, forestry in particular, more strongly than agriculture, is a major contributor, and it's set out there in the INDCs as part of that means of bending the curve. But we're only really picking the low-hanging fruit in the tree, and we've got to climb the tree to get to the more challenging parts of getting back to ratcheting up towards achieving the two degrees. And agriculture is going to sit there. We talked about that. Livestock issues are going to sit there very much. So at the moment, I think we know there are some early wins in some of the technologies around agroforestry and other aspects in reducing emissions in the sector, but I think we've got a long way to go to climb the trees to really bend the curve in terms of emissions in the face of agriculture. And if we only look at the production side, we're going to miss the point. We have to look at the consumption side, tackling this with respect to both food crop production and livestock. To do this, we're going to need new skills. I don't know how many of you come from a marketing background in here. How many of you are looking at regulation? We need to change consumer behavior. So I come from the production side. And agricultural economists, I work with the CGIR and other institutions over the years. And I don't think I've got all those skills. I'd be quite honest about that. So we need to bring in new partners to achieve these challenges. And I think if we accept that climate change is a development problem, which I think we've all accepted really here, and that food security sits at the heart of this, what we need to do coming out of Paris is to reach out to new communities, to bring in new sets of skills to bolster this effort, to take actions around climate smart agriculture, around agriculture, land use, and food systems in the context of changing climate. So with these words, an agitated Elwin, I will stop. Thank you very much. You read my body language. Thank you. Thank you, Sam, for a great presentation. Much appreciated. I just wanted to make sure we have time to move on to our panel. So if the panel could please come to the stage, that's Sonny, Anna Paula Tavares, Theo and Martin, just please take a seat up here. We will be drawing on Sam in the discussion as well. To perhaps follow up on some of those points. But let me introduce the panel. We've got a fantastic panel going from right to left, the way I'm facing. We have Mr. Sonny Vergese, who is the co-founder, group managing director and CEO of Allam International, which really doesn't need much introduction. I think everyone here knows Allam and knows quite what a significant player they are in this space. But Sonny is presently chairman of the board, also of the Human Capital Leadership Institute, Singapore, served on the boards of International Enterprise, Singapore Board of Trustees of the National University, was the first chairman of City Spring Infrastructure Management Limited and served on the main economic review committee, the Singapore government, for its economic blueprint in 2001 and has won so many awards, I won't even start listing them here. So welcome Sonny, thanks for joining us. We have Anna Paula Tavares, who is the president of the Rainforest Alliance and has been with that organization 15 years, so extremely loyal. And she, well everyone knows what the Rainforest Alliance is as well, but she was also the founding partner at New Frontiers Group, a financial services group in San Paulo, Brazil, which promoted investment funds of biodiversity, sustainable forestry, carbon sequestration and renewable energy, and was also the director of science development at the New York Botanical Garden. We have Martin Crick, who's standing in for Maria Helena Cemedo, who's in well. Martin is the, well not so new now actually, but relatively recently joined FAU as the, I believe the director of the climate and the climate group in FAU. So welcome, and thanks for coming at short notice. And then Theoda Djaga, who is the deputy president of Agri Sa, which is the Federation of Agricultural Organizations in South Africa. And he's also president of the South African Confederation of Agricultural Union, SACAU, and the president of the Pan-African Farmers Association. And also has a real farm and a big one, I'm told. So welcome, thanks so much for coming. Now, let me turn to you. I've got a bunch of questions I want to ask these people, but I'd rather it starts with you. And by the way, the people that have come in since we started, if you can move forward a bit, if any of you feel brave enough just to come and sit around here a bit more. If you want to come up, if you want an upgrade to business class, come and sit around here and then you'll get your question in. And it'll make us feel better because it'll be more crowded up here. So please move forward if you can. Right, let's just gather a few questions for this excellent panel. So who wants to start? I may just pick on someone if no one wants to step forward. So we have representative of pretty much all sectors to this problem. So you must have come here to learn something. What do you want to learn? Please. And if you could introduce yourself and please be concise with the question, thanks. Mike there. Thank you. Gabriela from Monsanto. We are co-sharing the climate smart agriculture with Olam, very good to have Olam here, the chief executive officer. Thank you. Thank you also for the great presentation before. My question is relate to climate smart agriculture and all this discussion. How can we go more in terms of science and action that's necessary and leave all the questions about the opportunity and agroforestry. How can we be more effective in this process considering that we really need to act now? Thank you. Thanks very much. Let's gather a couple more questions. Please, Bruce. So Bruce Campbell from Seacabs. So we heard that the INDCs are very nationally driven and then the WBSCD has a great initiative on the private sector. How do those two things come together? And perhaps I could ask a private sector and a public sector person to respond. Thank you, Bruce. And this gentleman behind you. Well, my name is Marcus. I'm from Organics International. And I would like to know from the panel the potentials of our agroecological method, particularly in terms of carbon soil sequestration. You heard the Catapumil Initiative. So where do you see actually potential when farmers driven bottom up processes in the agroecological process? Thank you. And gentlemen here. Yeah, thank you. My name's John Rexage. I was Director of Climate Change with the International Institute for Sustainable Development but I'm representing the International Fertilizer Industry Association here in these processes. I just want to make two observations that may be also in the form of a question. Sam, it was a great presentation. In terms of agriculture's profile in these negotiations, it's always almost been like the orphan. It was part of bunker fuels for the longest time, continuously marginalized. And we still have an awful lot of challenges in terms of how it's going to be addressed not only here in Paris, but thereafter. It's the one significant sector that continues to be challenged by, when you see all of the activities going around here, there's a massive gap between the UNFCC process and where they are in agriculture and where the landscape activities are in many others. So I'm just wondering, people's reflections, in fact, on how we can more effectively engage agriculture in the UNFCC process. The second point I want to make is in the number of presentations this morning, the one thing that I find striking is that we've heard a lot about INDCs but nothing about SDGs. And food security is after poverty, eradication, the number two goal in the sustainable development goal process. There's a presentation before Sam talking about how youth and innovation need to be a core part. And I would agree, but I would suggest that, in fact, within the INDCs, let's focus on the climate change component and make sure that, in fact, it's developed and designed in such a way that it takes into account those broader issues that are covered under the SDGs. And it's important that we keep those two clarified. Thank you. Okay, well that's a good start off. Why don't we bring our panel in? Sunny, do you want to kick off? And it would be great in your comments. If you could perhaps say a little bit about the two degrees Celsius call to world leaders that Olim has made at this conference, too. Thank you, Evelyn. Thank you for all those very interesting and insightful questions. To take first the point that Evelyn was making about our call to the industry and to government and policy makers to take action to limit global temperature rise by two degrees centigrade. I think it is driven mainly by the fact that according to the WBECD, the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, there is a need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from agriculture, which today, as Sam mentioned, accounts for about 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions by 1.6 gigatons per year, which is roughly 1.6 gigatons, which is roughly a reduction of about 30% from the current carbon dioxide emissions that we have from the agricultural sector by 2030. And to further reduce it by about 50% by 2050, which means about 2.8 gigatons of carbon dioxide equal in emissions per year. That is a huge task. And if you don't achieve at least one gigaton, you're not likely to reach or meet the target of two degrees centigrade rise. And that's very important. True cost, most of you would have heard of, in October published a study which says that natural capital costs in agriculture in crop production is estimated at about 1.15 trillion dollars. That is about 170% of the value of all crop production in the world. And because Mother Nature's back office is not set up and is not issuing us those invoices for our carbon dioxide emissions or for our water footprint or for our bio waste footprint, this is not being costed. On livestock, it is 1.81 trillion dollars. And that is almost 134% of the value of all livestock production. So if you really priced carbon and really priced water at a fair value and really price the pollution that is being generated in farming and agricultural systems, then that is 2.98 trillion dollars. And in the case of livestock production, about 77% of that, so in the case of crop production, 77% of all this natural capital costs that we incur is actually happening on the farm. And only the balance roughly 36% happens upstream in the inputs that go into livestock production. In the case of crop production, 77% of all these natural costs that we incur actually happens on the farm. So we can sit here 50 years down the road and beat our chest and say why the hell didn't things change? It will not change unless we price carbon, unless we price water at a fair level, unless we price pollution, 97% of all the service water in China is contaminated. China uses about 360 kilograms of fertilizer per hectare against say the US of 138 against European Union of 200, no wonder most of Chinese surface water, 97% is contaminated. So unless we are going to price it, behavior is not going to change. And unless we actually footprint our carbon use or carbon dioxide emissions or water usage or our bi-waste pollution footprint, we are not going to make any change. Thank you, Sunny. So you're really calling for effective government regulation to solve this market failure. In a sense, that's what Olam needs to be able to actually fully respond to the challenge out there, right? I think government regulation would help, but I don't think we can wait for it. By the time policy makers come around to realizing the serious notice issue, I think we've lost very, very valuable time. So I think companies have to take the lead as well. To first footprint, what does that carbon dioxide emissions? And it took us six years across the 65 countries and 44 commodities that we deal in to do a footprinting exercise. And then we put out public hard targets, not because there was a government regulation of policy, but because we feel that we won't be able to sustain our future as a company. It's easy to go and get licenses from the governments and the countries that we operate to do business, but very difficult to get license from the communities to operate for the long term. Very difficult to get employees who want to work for you if you're not doing the right thing. So it'd be great if the governments can wake up and act, but we can't wait for that. So we have to do carbon footprinting, we have to do natural capital accounting, we have to price carbon. If you don't do all of these things, we can sit here 50 years down the road and talk about the same thing with no progress. You've really started all this work, but you get a boost if you had better government regulation. That's what you're saying. It would help, but there is a fundamental dilemma for the governments because if you're going to tax, then you're going to increase the cost of food production. If you're going to increase the cost of food production, there are 804 million people going to bed hungry every day. You're going to increase that number. So how do you break this paradox? So how do we make sure that food is still affordable to the vulnerable parts of society, but at the same time, how do you sustainably grow more food to meet a growing demand? So if you put taxes, you're going to increase food production. So there has to be other ways of transferring and protecting like the food stamp program in the US. If you look at the US farm bill that has just been passed the 2014 farm bill, $956 billion over the period of the farm bill, about $750 billion is for food stamps. So the OECD countries last year paid about $380 billion of farm subsidies. It's perverse and cannot be justified. So one way of making sure that the vulnerable sections of society, the 804 million hungry people, don't have to pay a higher price for food is to really change that. But that requires action which I don't foresee. There'll be political will or brave and courageous policymaking. I don't see that happen. I'm going to resist the temptation to keep asking more questions on this, but there may be some off on the floor for you. Theo, I'm told you're fairly involved in the negotiations and tracking and following them. So I know there was one question about how do we further increase the level of awareness in this climate negotiation and discussion space on the agriculture issue. And I wonder if you have anything to say on that point. I know there was also another question about the actual agroecological methods. I think it was, are we there yet in actually knowing what works and what doesn't work? And it is more the problem now, the politics and the regulations and the policies and education or are there still some big unknowns about the actual methods out there, the methodologies? Please, there's a microphone there. Theo, I wonder if you could say a few things about that. Good on. Thank you. As a farmer, I sense amongst my colleagues, especially over the last few weeks, a growing frustration with this whole process. This morning I sense a kind of an excitement that food security at least is mentioned, but where's agriculture? If we can make such a difference in the emissions, why aren't we mentioned more specifically? And we are not asking about the nuts and bolts of it. We are simply asking to be included under a substar where we can accumulate more knowledge and wisdom as to how to go about to ensure that we mitigate and also adapt and also have mitigation co-benefits. Because as we said here, there's no fraternity in the world who is more vulnerable to climate change than the farmers, especially those who I represent, the poorest of the poor, the African smallholder farmers. And there's also no fraternity in the world who can do more to decrease emissions of the shortest space of time in a cheaper way than we can. And just having a reference to food security in the texts is simply not enough. We do not understand why we are not included. No one ever tells us this party or that group is against it. We've never been explained why agriculture has been left out. And we want to know. We want to know in terms of this 80% of countries who committed to make a difference in agriculture too, how they plan to do it without engaging the farmers themselves. We have structures today on my continent, from the continental to the regional, right down to smallholder level in cooperatives. There where the farming really takes place and we can communicate with them in one day down to grass roots level and back again. It is relatively easy today to get into the hearts and into the minds of the individual farmer on grass roots level. Makes me wonder, is this the time not ripe to go past these individual national commitments, to sectoral commitments too. Only end of last week, we had a conference which CTA facilitated where we had probably the most representative groups of farmer's leaders on the continent together, literally from Cape to Cairo and from Madagascar to Morocco. And I know it's only the African farmers, but it's a huge chunk of the farming population on the developing world. And when we discussed this, it was the farmers themselves who said, let's not only demand to be included, but let's also commit towards each other and actually police each other to what we can do to adapt and mitigate. Yeah, that's great. Just to understand what you would like to see from this negotiation process is, just could you clarify a bit more, what would he actually like to see? You mentioned sectoral commitments, beyond concretely, what would be your dream? At least include agriculture in the same way in which forestry is included. For many of us, from a farmer's perspective, those of us who live in forests or those of us who grow forests or those of us who have forests in our area, there's no real difference between, this is where the forestry stops and this is where the agriculture starts. I'm a forester as a farmer. Include agriculture in the same way as forestry has been included and let's also launch special programs. Forestry has got red and red plus. Include us in the same way as food and fiber producers. Thanks, thanks. If I could briefly bring in our other panel members, but then there'll be a bunch more questions, I'd like you to further engage on those. Was there anything on these points you wanted to add on these other questions? Yeah, okay, Martin. Thank you. Maybe it's worthwhile to say a couple of words about the negotiations and the INDCs because there is a blurred line and I think we need to clarify what was happening. So roughly speaking, before Copenhagen, there was the idea of there would be a top-down legal instrument that would trickle down to the nation-state and then end up in regulations. And since many, many countries earned the income from exporting and producing food, there was strong resistance to include agriculture. That's a bit of the heritage. Now as we all know, Copenhagen collapsed and the revival of the climate negotiations turned around the logic to a bottom-up approach. Now we have the INDCs. The INDCs are an expression of national sovereignty. The member states can define themselves what they want to do. And of course they feel much more comfortable defining on the basis of the national sovereignty. So now in the INDCs, suddenly, agriculture is all over the place. We heard in detail about 80% of the INDCs covering that. We were at far also monitoring the INDCs and there is an interesting little detail which is the wave of the INDCs really came in literally in the last days before the deadline. So many of these INDCs were done under tremendous political pressure often from prime minister and president's office and now they are out there. It is changing the dynamic tremendously. You have agriculture now all over the place but from the bottom-up and at the same time, you got many commitments and it was mentioned before many of them conditional. So where are we? I think this cop is really interesting because it breaks the old NX1, non-NX1 countries. We are finally in a space where we agree that globally everybody has to contribute. So we should be very grateful, particularly for the least developed countries to participate in this process and to have their INDCs put forward and we have to honor this commitment by bringing climate finance into their sectors and their sectors are the agricultural sectors. So I think if we want them to become in the mainstream negotiations as on the same level like forestry, it's the same logic. Forestry is there because there was always the perspective of money being transferred to honor good forestry practices. Now we got the INDCs and countries are coming forward and say we are prepared to do the right thing if you put money on the table. You mentioned five billion missing. Well by sheer coincidence, that's exactly the amount of money which is in the Green Climate Fund which after 11 board meetings managed to spend 1.7% of the money that is in the bank. Well I think we have a very good proposal where the rest of the money ought to be going. Thank you. Thanks and we could have an excellent all day discussion on MRV in agriculture too and how that compares to forestry but I don't think we've got time for that. I want to bring Anna in but perhaps after the next round of questions, or comments, please be concise and if we propose to count on a little bit longer than 10.30 since we have a luxurious one hour coffee break so we may just run on a bit, please. My name is Emil Frieson. I want to reiterate the question that was asked before about the potential of agroecology meaning a more radical change in our approach to agriculture incorporating both mitigation at a serious level and insisting also on the resilience that I mentioned that these processes can bring. I would like to hear from the panel what they think the potential there is. Okay, please. Dhanuj Dinesh from C-CAPS. I actually have two questions. I see with the convergence of different actors, we have farmers, we have technical assistance, certifiers, private sector and you complete the picture with finance. So the question I have is how do these different actors converge at a country level for our NDC implementation and just sort of comments you could also comment on that. Our second question and this could be for Sam or to Martin Frick is what Ms. Gio raised this morning. The INDC is actually transformational and if they are not what do we need to do make it transformational? I think GCF also has the criteria for transformational projects so maybe comment on that. Thank you, let's take a couple more and comments are good too. Please, this lady here. Hi, my name is Isabel Kosh. I'm with the International Agri-Food Network. One question I had was I think the issue of carbon and carbon pricing is very interesting, partly because it's a very painful discussion. Since we have a farmer as well on the panel, I wondered if you would want to exchange a bit of views about how do we actually do this because you pointed out the problem when you start pricing carbon and pricing water adequately, oftentimes the farmers are the one are going to get hit hardest because the price will come down and we've seen a lot of producers and manufacturers talking about it. We haven't heard much from the farmers about how they feel about seeing carbon and water priced in a way that reflects their actual costs. Thank you, and this lady here. I'm Marianne Lacoury from Latin American Future Foundation and I want to ask the panel about how to improve the relationship between protection and production. This relationship that traditionally has not been complementary between forestry and agriculture and how to make this or to highlight the co-benefits of making smart agriculture in terms of protecting forestry also. Thank you. Why don't we turn to our panel again? Anna, please comment on these or any of the other points before and it would be great also to hear your views about, given you come from Rainforest Alliance, about the extent to which certification standards can play a role in making this transformation that we speak about. Thank you and thank you all for joining us this morning. Just to put into context, Rainforest Alliance is, we've been working in this space whether we have called it or not on climate mitigation, adaptation, resilience for 28 years. So the potential for climate smart agriculture is huge. We are working with 1.2 million farmers in about, well, when we're talking about farmers and to talk about sustainable agriculture and sustainable forestry as well. And really working to help with a number of stakeholders to set up what is sustainable, what are the best practices within forestry and agriculture. And then providing technical assistance to small holders in 80 plus countries when appropriate, certifying them. And then working with companies like Olam but many others, Unilever, thousands of companies throughout supply chains to link the sustainable products to the companies that have made these commitments. And then ultimately to the consumers. As you mentioned earlier today, it's not only about the production but it's also, these are complex issues. So we have to use all, we have to approach it in many ways. So also rainforest alliance working, as we said in our mission to protect biodiversity and livelihoods and promote sustainable livelihoods by transforming land use practices, business practices and consumer behavior. So the role of certification in helping consumers have that choice and be able to differentiate a product that is indeed grown in a responsible way. And it's interesting to reflect here that while we are all negotiating amongst ourselves, this is really the planet is not negotiating, right? I think the planet has made a final offer and the issue is really, it's really about respecting the planetary boundaries. We have wonderful examples, be it in like today, 15% of the tea, about 12% of the cocoa, five of the coffee. We're working with cattle, we started working in palm oil. We see a very interesting and positive impact looking at increased productivity and protection of soil, enrichment of soil. So really working to bring carbon into the soil and off atmosphere and also in terms of water, access to potable water for rural communities as well as treatment and management of waste water. So it's great work that we are doing not only with companies but with governments and really seeing a lot that can be accomplishment through this public-private partnerships and really important to get the guidance from countries and INDCs on their goals. And one thing that we would like to see that if we could change or an improvement that could be made here is really on more specificity on the piece related to land use practices and to landscapes, what is the percentage of the goal that is related to that and more specificity on the ways in which each country would like to achieve those goals. So a lot more definition to slightly vague, a certain vagueness now in the text. Exactly, like if you don't know exactly it's much harder to get anywhere if you don't know where you are going and I think it lacks some, we think it lacks some from those that we have reviewed and analyzed. And there are some like Liberia, Ecuador, Costa Rica have a little more specificity in them but I think overall that's our take. Gotcha, now I got the sense from Emil's question that we didn't really do justice to the agroecology question. I wonder, Sunny, do you think we're beyond, how can I put this, do you feel that we're beyond the time when the notion of an agroecological approach is perhaps seen as a little left of center and a little idealistic? We reached a point where the orthodoxy is shifting and there's more consensus in this space and there's always this still, do you still send some differences of views out there and on the paradigm at least on what's best for agriculture, please? I think most of us saw an article in The Guardian the other day which said that we've lost about 30% of our arable land in the last 40 years which was a stunning statistic. I mean we all know that China for example is losing 0.6, 0.7% of its arable land each year as a result of urbanization and everything else but that number was quite stunning and it was basically talking about the rich top soils or the good to average top soils being lost due to intensive agriculture. So whether going to zero till or low till agriculture less input intensive agriculture whether it will be positive for the economics of the farmer in the long run I think there is enough studies and evidence to show that a balanced approach can result in better economics for the farmers. So I think the incentives to get that done is really not there at this point in time. So if you're looking for short-term gains then I think the input intensive way is probably the most easy way to do it but that's not sustainable in the wrong run but if you want to really look at making it more sustainable then I think the incentives have to be there and that's why the question that the lady raised earlier was also very important. So who was going to pay for this and the question is really to each of us in this room are we as consumers willing to pay for it, right? And that's where it starts. Then are the consumer goods companies which for example are making these products with the food ingredients source from agricultural produce are they willing to pay up to their suppliers and they have to put the money where the mouth is if they're not willing to do it and it's not going to change or happen. And it is not necessary that by putting a carbon tax the only party or the only participant in the value chain who will get hit is the farmer. That's not really necessary. And that's why I think it's very important to be very clear about what the incentives are and the frustrating thing about objectives and targets that we have in the INDCs or what is finally going to be the outcome of the COP talks itself is we are all sort of obsessed about it. But for me as a private sector participant it is less than 10% of the ball game. 90% of the ball game is how the hell you go and implement all of this stuff. What are the implementation properties? Who are the guys who are going to execute this on the ground? And there is really no attention of focus and that is why even if you achieve any of these goals and objectives and get a consensus or all of that the prospect of that being executed and implemented. And if you look at the SDG goals goal 17 is all about how do you improve implementation? The issue with the Millennium Development Goals is private sector participation was almost negligent. And it is not PPP, it is not just public-private partnerships, it's PPPP, it is public-private plural society. If the NGO is not involved it's not going to work. Right? And in all of this there's an imbalance. It's either public or plural but it's never been public, plural and private society all working hand in hand. And if you're not going to get that and you're not going to have clear implementation pathways all this is a waste of time. Thank you, Sonny. Can I ask a follow-up question? This is something I struggled with when we were setting up this program in IFFAT I mentioned called ASAP where we were trying to bring eight million smallholder farmers into a space where they're far more climate resilient at the same time as trying to help them enter markets and shift from subsistence agriculture. And there was this perceived or real dilemma that the vast gains of market entry, that's great and that was something to be aiming for. What about the risks that market entry may actually lead to monocropping?