1 00:00:09,550 --> 00:00:14,140 Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Oxford Martin School. 2 00:00:14,140 --> 00:00:17,320 My name is Charles Kofi, I'm the director. 3 00:00:17,320 --> 00:00:24,420 It's my great pleasure to welcome the first of a series of talks for having this term on things around food, 4 00:00:24,420 --> 00:00:28,160 the many different aspects of the global food system. 5 00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:35,560 And it's a particular pleasure to introduce an old friend of mine, Michael Steiner, who's going to be giving the talk this afternoon. 6 00:00:35,560 --> 00:00:39,370 And you can see the title there, and it's special for all sorts of reasons. 7 00:00:39,370 --> 00:00:44,620 One is that Micho has had a very distinguished, distinguished career, 8 00:00:44,620 --> 00:00:52,360 most recently as programme director of the Ecosystem Services Management Programme at the in Luxembourg in Australia, 9 00:00:52,360 --> 00:00:56,530 where he's really led on systems approaches to many issues, including food, 10 00:00:56,530 --> 00:01:00,820 has just moved to Oxford as the new head of the Environmental Change Institute. 11 00:01:00,820 --> 00:01:07,780 Nothing since your first formal talk at Oxford outside your department. 12 00:01:07,780 --> 00:01:10,870 Michael, as I said, has had an extraordinary distinguished career, 13 00:01:10,870 --> 00:01:17,230 has published on an enormous range of different topics and is very influential outside academia. 14 00:01:17,230 --> 00:01:27,970 For example, he says on Units International Resource Panel and have been involved in many separate chapters in advance. 15 00:01:27,970 --> 00:01:36,040 And as a steering member of UNHCR, which I probably can't remember exactly what that acronym Global Assessment Report. 16 00:01:36,040 --> 00:01:47,170 So please come and give us your talk. Thank you, choice. 17 00:01:47,170 --> 00:01:53,230 Thank you very much, and it's really a deep on the big pressure to actually be here in Oxford. 18 00:01:53,230 --> 00:02:00,220 This is my new home now and I think up to now I was really very well received. 19 00:02:00,220 --> 00:02:06,100 And it's a super vibrant atmosphere and I'm sure it will be continued. 20 00:02:06,100 --> 00:02:11,350 And maybe I can even spike it a little more and you will. 21 00:02:11,350 --> 00:02:16,720 I will try to do my best. Now, even so, I chose this title. 22 00:02:16,720 --> 00:02:23,740 Sustainability scenarios for the global food and land use system and to many people scenarios, 23 00:02:23,740 --> 00:02:31,360 is this so where you basically you do something and then immediately happens and then you have the outputs? 24 00:02:31,360 --> 00:02:35,170 And it's actually when we invented the bakes, 25 00:02:35,170 --> 00:02:45,010 which is kind of the dominating negative emission technology currently in the in the IPCC scenarios and now we'll actually go into it. 26 00:02:45,010 --> 00:02:50,320 We submitted it to nature and then I got a phone call from someone I didn't know. 27 00:02:50,320 --> 00:02:55,450 And he said, What is this disease? This is the only scenario analysis. 28 00:02:55,450 --> 00:03:04,420 This is not serious work. This is no evidence. And then we basically I gave up and we published it somewhere else. 29 00:03:04,420 --> 00:03:09,130 And and so I thought, I'm not doing really serious work. 30 00:03:09,130 --> 00:03:16,750 And maybe after this one now you have a little bit more patience with me. 31 00:03:16,750 --> 00:03:23,980 And in our work, because, you know, making a science out of the future is not an easy thing. 32 00:03:23,980 --> 00:03:33,760 So what I would like to talk about these scenarios and what role they played for the formulation of a few science based targets. 33 00:03:33,760 --> 00:03:39,280 You know, the planetary boundaries, but this is actually a broader field. 34 00:03:39,280 --> 00:03:44,260 Then I would like to give you some work we did recently with the Food and Land 35 00:03:44,260 --> 00:03:50,830 Use Coalition on multi sector transitions in the food and land use space. 36 00:03:50,830 --> 00:03:57,250 And then something we just recently published is the idea of is in a town. 37 00:03:57,250 --> 00:04:06,640 So now I can get my Wikipedia entry on on a word which we just created didn't do that yet, but we'll definitely do it. 38 00:04:06,640 --> 00:04:13,330 So that's a scenario. Send a ton or haircuts on where we play actually with countries. 39 00:04:13,330 --> 00:04:15,010 And then at the very end, 40 00:04:15,010 --> 00:04:23,230 I would like to talk a little bit about algorithmic policymaking and crowd centred on really kind of down scaling it to individuals 41 00:04:23,230 --> 00:04:35,230 and probably into a little bit of a controversial discussion on this because this is quite the few ethical issues associated with it. 42 00:04:35,230 --> 00:04:45,160 OK. Before I really dive into the details of of scenarios here in India in the episode, 43 00:04:45,160 --> 00:04:50,050 I'm an old IP based guy, so I always pronounce it a little different. 44 00:04:50,050 --> 00:04:55,810 We came up with this scheme where we associate scenarios with the policy cycle, 45 00:04:55,810 --> 00:05:04,720 and what you see here is on the policy side, the agenda setting where you actually use exploratory scenarios. 46 00:05:04,720 --> 00:05:14,020 Then in the design phase, you actually go for Typekit seeking scenarios and you look at pathways on how to get to a particular target. 47 00:05:14,020 --> 00:05:20,770 Let's say a climate targets and then what you do is you do policy screening scenarios. 48 00:05:20,770 --> 00:05:29,200 I'm not super happy with this term, but that's what we agreed upon where you basically model out policy instruments, 49 00:05:29,200 --> 00:05:34,480 a subsidy, a ban of certain behaviour and so on. 50 00:05:34,480 --> 00:05:42,620 And then see how this this particular policy or a bundle of policies actually gets you to a certain target. 51 00:05:42,620 --> 00:05:47,150 And then then in the end, you have monitoring and evaluation. 52 00:05:47,150 --> 00:05:55,360 And we at my previous institute at Yasa International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 53 00:05:55,360 --> 00:06:04,210 we were involved in quite a few scenario exercises which really informed the formulation of science based targets. 54 00:06:04,210 --> 00:06:09,340 So I want to mention here I will actually go into details on the first one. 55 00:06:09,340 --> 00:06:20,950 So when I started my career, 400 PMP in the atmosphere was kind of coined as the safe target that the word should should go for. 56 00:06:20,950 --> 00:06:26,620 So this is well above three degrees temperature. 57 00:06:26,620 --> 00:06:31,720 And then we basically invented our Olympics and we showed what is possible. 58 00:06:31,720 --> 00:06:39,730 And and nowadays we are talking about something many people think and consider infeasible is actually the 1.5°C scenario. 59 00:06:39,730 --> 00:06:45,530 So here really a that the scenario community in. 60 00:06:45,530 --> 00:06:51,050 On the policy process, that more is possible in the policy process really followed up. 61 00:06:51,050 --> 00:06:58,100 What we also did this was together with WWF in the year 2010 2011, 62 00:06:58,100 --> 00:07:06,320 where we really were investigating how can we formulate a target for avoiding deforestation? 63 00:07:06,320 --> 00:07:12,680 And and what we came up with was a zero nets target formulation, 64 00:07:12,680 --> 00:07:22,580 which actually now is even a nest egg invested in what we are currently doing and that will show a few slides on this. 65 00:07:22,580 --> 00:07:27,170 Is this huge discussion currently ongoing? 66 00:07:27,170 --> 00:07:34,370 What's the target for the CBD? What's the biodiversity targets in the works with short form? 67 00:07:34,370 --> 00:07:41,480 And here we do a very similar exercise where we are kind of equivalent to a temperature target. 68 00:07:41,480 --> 00:07:48,230 But see how far how ambitious can we actually go by transforming actually the the food sector? 69 00:07:48,230 --> 00:07:54,300 Mostly. And then this is the new acronym of the UN SDR choice. 70 00:07:54,300 --> 00:07:59,720 So it's UN Deodhar disaster risk reduction. 71 00:07:59,720 --> 00:08:03,350 And here we just start then not even a negotiation, 72 00:08:03,350 --> 00:08:15,350 just a discussion of whether we would be able to formulate this systemic risk targets for global society in the context of of disaster risks. 73 00:08:15,350 --> 00:08:26,150 However, here we we just start with more discussion rather than real quantification, but it's definitely also something that's that's on the horizon. 74 00:08:26,150 --> 00:08:42,170 So let me get into into the nitty gritty details and some of the undesirable aspects of the scenarios the community, the scenario community created. 75 00:08:42,170 --> 00:08:46,520 So this is a paper that just appeared three days ago, 76 00:08:46,520 --> 00:08:59,810 and what it shows is it shows you the the the scenario bundles that consistent with the two degree and 1.5 degrees scenario, 77 00:08:59,810 --> 00:09:12,200 and what you see here is that we really go in free for reduction off of fossil fuel emissions and then even in 2040 or even before 2040. 78 00:09:12,200 --> 00:09:16,850 But most of the density of the scenario is actually around 2050. 79 00:09:16,850 --> 00:09:27,440 We go, we go negative and and then afterwards we actually go negative quite dramatically. 80 00:09:27,440 --> 00:09:32,870 And and I will I will elaborate on this a little more. 81 00:09:32,870 --> 00:09:38,600 However, the bad news is that this is what the pledges see. 82 00:09:38,600 --> 00:09:48,980 This is what the countries that went to Paris and said, yeah, our ambitious pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 83 00:09:48,980 --> 00:09:58,980 but they are absolutely not in sync yet with what actually is needed for the 1.5 or two degrees scenario. 84 00:09:58,980 --> 00:10:03,770 So there's a huge it's called ambition gap between the two. 85 00:10:03,770 --> 00:10:10,460 And when we look at the land use sector, the picture is this. 86 00:10:10,460 --> 00:10:17,930 So here you have what the countries the countries expect the emissions will be from the land use sector. 87 00:10:17,930 --> 00:10:24,200 And this is what the that time the intended national contribution was saying. 88 00:10:24,200 --> 00:10:29,030 However, you could equally say that this is technically because it is hot the air. 89 00:10:29,030 --> 00:10:36,650 So these are kind of overstated emissions because there is an incentive to overstate 90 00:10:36,650 --> 00:10:40,610 your baseline emissions because you might get credited for this difference here. 91 00:10:40,610 --> 00:10:48,500 So, so they are. There are incentives for countries to do this kind of red red scenarios, 92 00:10:48,500 --> 00:10:54,950 and this is what countries really should do in order to go to the 1.5 degrees scenario. 93 00:10:54,950 --> 00:11:00,110 So here this is. This is something which is quite alarming, 94 00:11:00,110 --> 00:11:11,060 actually how little we actually progressing on the international negotiations based on the contributions from individual countries. 95 00:11:11,060 --> 00:11:15,440 But let me come back to the to the slide, which I showed before. 96 00:11:15,440 --> 00:11:19,820 So this is kind of the optimal control schedule of negative emissions. 97 00:11:19,820 --> 00:11:28,370 So what you see here is you, you don't talk too much and you do most of the you undo most of the emissions you did 98 00:11:28,370 --> 00:11:37,160 that we are doing now in the last 20 years and and then you hit the two degree target. 99 00:11:37,160 --> 00:11:45,730 However, this very little thinking of what happens afterwards and what the climate models are doing, they basically look. 100 00:11:45,730 --> 00:11:55,100 The year two thousand one hundred and one, and then they say, OK, we just balanced the non CO2 greenhouse gases. 101 00:11:55,100 --> 00:12:00,820 And then we just continue on with time. However, this is to everyone on the street. 102 00:12:00,820 --> 00:12:08,470 This would be a completely nonsensical strategy to do so. So here is a lot of work still to be done. 103 00:12:08,470 --> 00:12:17,980 And when you when you look at the masses of emission scenarios here, you have two different models. 104 00:12:17,980 --> 00:12:27,010 Here you have the different baseline conditions. So to say and here you have different targets and this is the the pathways of the 105 00:12:27,010 --> 00:12:32,110 negative emissions that you actually see basis for an agreement that we should undo. 106 00:12:32,110 --> 00:12:42,340 This is the emissions, the fossil fuel emissions, which we are emitting today just in the in the very last at the very last minute. 107 00:12:42,340 --> 00:12:53,120 And when you look at and we looked at the financial implications of this, so we basically performed the financial stress test of this strategy. 108 00:12:53,120 --> 00:12:59,770 So basically, you go to 2050 then and then afterwards you do negative emissions. 109 00:12:59,770 --> 00:13:03,340 And here what you see is this is the zero line. 110 00:13:03,340 --> 00:13:14,650 And here you have an expected two percent of GDP that is necessary in 2080 in order to just pay for for the negative emissions. 111 00:13:14,650 --> 00:13:20,230 However, you actually see it could even go down to this is 10 percent of GDP, 112 00:13:20,230 --> 00:13:27,990 and it's it's present in the sense of in 2018, we will be six times reach it and today. 113 00:13:27,990 --> 00:13:31,480 So this is a lot of money which we would have to spend at that time. 114 00:13:31,480 --> 00:13:38,320 It's 10 percent of GDP. This is health budget and the education budget together for typically always countries. 115 00:13:38,320 --> 00:13:43,540 So this is quite serious and not very well thought out. 116 00:13:43,540 --> 00:13:50,920 However, we can get lucky and we get negative emissions for much cheaper than then. 117 00:13:50,920 --> 00:13:58,600 This is not so much of a problem. However, in all of these these scenarios, we assume that everyone on Earth pays. 118 00:13:58,600 --> 00:14:09,340 If you establish a rule which is called the Brazilian proposal, where countries pay according to their historical contribution of of emissions, 119 00:14:09,340 --> 00:14:17,950 then a country like the UK would spend its entire governmental budget basically our pensions, 120 00:14:17,950 --> 00:14:22,000 our health care costs and so forth just for negative emissions. 121 00:14:22,000 --> 00:14:30,130 If we get unlucky and there's a small little note in all of these scenarios, there steady economic growth. 122 00:14:30,130 --> 00:14:31,110 So if all any, 123 00:14:31,110 --> 00:14:41,440 the sudden we get the financial meltdown or we might actually start some new Warsaw and destroy a lot of our capital and growth potential, 124 00:14:41,440 --> 00:14:45,880 then we could actually not repair the the atmosphere anymore. 125 00:14:45,880 --> 00:14:55,750 What the climate system. So this is a rather risky strategy to postpone the restoration of the atmosphere. 126 00:14:55,750 --> 00:15:05,610 I call it to the last 20 years. So what what we propose is basically it here. 127 00:15:05,610 --> 00:15:19,620 This is the the current mainstream thinking on how to do this scheduling of negative emissions and the the emission reduction scheduling. 128 00:15:19,620 --> 00:15:25,020 There is one scenario this is quite clearly this scenario would come back to that later. 129 00:15:25,020 --> 00:15:35,370 This is really you try not to incur not to do any of these negative emission technologies and you do very rapid decarbonisation. 130 00:15:35,370 --> 00:15:45,240 But you can also do is you can start very early with the negative emissions and ramp them down later on such that you get to zero net quite early. 131 00:15:45,240 --> 00:15:55,950 And with the benefit that you don't get that a carbon dioxide and temperature overshoot and you might not disturb the the climate system too much, 132 00:15:55,950 --> 00:16:00,780 or you're just smooth it over time, which we call minimise. 133 00:16:00,780 --> 00:16:06,660 So there are different ways to do that to shock you even more. 134 00:16:06,660 --> 00:16:11,100 In most of these scenarios, we did not calculate in climate feedbacks. 135 00:16:11,100 --> 00:16:18,420 And yet one example is permafrost and additional emissions due to permafrost thawing, 136 00:16:18,420 --> 00:16:25,140 which you would have to counteract with negative emissions in in addition. 137 00:16:25,140 --> 00:16:36,630 And what we calculated in this paper in 2018 was the reduction and this is what is shown here, the reduction in the remaining carbon budget. 138 00:16:36,630 --> 00:16:47,190 So this is the additional amount of carbon we can still put into into the atmosphere and still be compliant with at one point five degrees scenario. 139 00:16:47,190 --> 00:16:57,450 However, if we now take into account the permafrost feedbacks, that might be associated also with a 1.5 degree scenario, 140 00:16:57,450 --> 00:17:03,270 which is an ambitious one, the the remaining carbon budget might actually be gone already. 141 00:17:03,270 --> 00:17:12,630 So here you see this 09 and be calculated that since about five percent of the probability that the carbon budget is gone today. 142 00:17:12,630 --> 00:17:17,850 So this would mean we have to stop fossil fuel emissions today and see that we can 143 00:17:17,850 --> 00:17:22,830 actually ramp up negative emission technologies and five percent is not a small number. 144 00:17:22,830 --> 00:17:30,450 Just think about the five percent risk of anything. And now we have got really interested in this. 145 00:17:30,450 --> 00:17:37,050 This is yet unpublished, but I really find this very insightful why? 146 00:17:37,050 --> 00:17:40,890 At least this is the fun of a model, let's put it that way. 147 00:17:40,890 --> 00:17:54,270 So what we did is we we run a mitigation pathway out to two thousand one hundred with the goal to preserve 30 percent of the permafrost. 148 00:17:54,270 --> 00:18:01,680 And here is the emission pathway associated with this target of the permafrost. 149 00:18:01,680 --> 00:18:07,890 And and it's it's really interesting. So you have here free for emission reductions. 150 00:18:07,890 --> 00:18:13,320 You go negative quite early on. And then for about 150 years, 151 00:18:13,320 --> 00:18:20,070 you go into a deep type of negative emissions afterwards because what you have to do so to say you 152 00:18:20,070 --> 00:18:26,220 have to refreeze the Earth in order to freeze the permafrost that it actually actually stays. 153 00:18:26,220 --> 00:18:34,620 And and so if you kind of think about a little blip, which we are doing now in terms of overshooting it, 154 00:18:34,620 --> 00:18:42,270 which we might trigger permafrost thawing, we will regret this for at least for 150 years. 155 00:18:42,270 --> 00:18:51,510 And here the assumption is that this is actually reversible. And this is also a debate whether or not once you trigger a thawing of the permafrost, 156 00:18:51,510 --> 00:18:56,580 whether you can actually refreeze it properly because of microbial activity and other things. 157 00:18:56,580 --> 00:19:09,930 So yeah, this is something really a plea to think longer term and not only formulate targets out for 2100. 158 00:19:09,930 --> 00:19:16,800 OK. So that's exactly what this slide shows really goal for for the long term. 159 00:19:16,800 --> 00:19:21,630 And also think more for intergenerational planning. 160 00:19:21,630 --> 00:19:32,340 And especially when you look at the land use sector, which is one of the hope for negative emission technologies through nature based solutions. 161 00:19:32,340 --> 00:19:44,520 I show you here a a a map, a capacitor map from Austria, f from the year 1823. 162 00:19:44,520 --> 00:19:50,880 And this is basically two hundred years later. 163 00:19:50,880 --> 00:19:57,900 So what it tells you is everything you determine to be determined in this country. 164 00:19:57,900 --> 00:20:01,780 Two hundred years ago. Most of the elements actually stay. 165 00:20:01,780 --> 00:20:11,980 So there's a lot of memory. If so, if we go for nature based solutions, we will see the effect of it in the in the in the very long run. 166 00:20:11,980 --> 00:20:19,420 And so here you have the forests, here you have the houses of the farmers with the livestock and this is where the future. 167 00:20:19,420 --> 00:20:29,620 And unfortunately, in this case, we had urban sprawl. But it's just fascinating how what kind of path dependency you see over time. 168 00:20:29,620 --> 00:20:35,350 When you when you do certain things in in landscapes. 169 00:20:35,350 --> 00:20:49,300 So just to conclude on this bit of the talk is, I think we really need to think long term, we need to do financial stress testing of these scenarios, 170 00:20:49,300 --> 00:21:00,340 which we are creating because we might run into financial feasibility of what what we propose the ice, especially on negative emission technologies. 171 00:21:00,340 --> 00:21:08,230 Take these two technically readiness level. We have quite some uncertainty is whether these technologies will really deliver. 172 00:21:08,230 --> 00:21:12,970 And then on the demand side, so to say, like with the case of the permafrost, 173 00:21:12,970 --> 00:21:19,600 but there are other tipping points in the in the Earth system where you could expect some some feedbacks. 174 00:21:19,600 --> 00:21:23,650 We need to hedge these kind of risks and we need to prepare for them today. 175 00:21:23,650 --> 00:21:32,350 And this was also the original idea of of of BECCS as a technology to actually hedge risks. 176 00:21:32,350 --> 00:21:40,690 However, we in the integrated assessment community decided to make it the regular technology that brings us to one point five, 177 00:21:40,690 --> 00:21:46,600 rather than just being a risk hedging technology, which was a mistake, I would say. 178 00:21:46,600 --> 00:21:52,270 And and then they are, and we will go a little bit into that. 179 00:21:52,270 --> 00:22:00,640 There are environmental and also social trade-offs, which we will have to consider, and they are past dependency. 180 00:22:00,640 --> 00:22:05,060 Just like you think about the Cadastre map, which I showed to you. 181 00:22:05,060 --> 00:22:10,990 And what? We really didn't discuss too much a huge inter-generational equity issues. 182 00:22:10,990 --> 00:22:20,350 So migrant child, she will actually pay for many of these negative emissions and probably go to a lesson down 183 00:22:20,350 --> 00:22:26,770 to university because we will have to to invest quite a lot into restoring the atmosphere, 184 00:22:26,770 --> 00:22:35,050 so to say. So my conclusion on this one is we really need a new set of scenarios and we really 185 00:22:35,050 --> 00:22:41,440 need to go very long term and really think about the long term consequences. 186 00:22:41,440 --> 00:22:48,450 And we also, I think just having a temperature target this we have in today's probably not sufficient. 187 00:22:48,450 --> 00:22:55,750 We really have to go towards a more informed than potential targets like permafrost Typekit, 188 00:22:55,750 --> 00:23:06,760 which really tells you more about the functioning of the Earth system overall, and we are doing first steps in this direction. 189 00:23:06,760 --> 00:23:19,510 OK. Let me now go into the co-production of mighty sector transitions, and this is something we did within the Food and Land Use Coalition, 190 00:23:19,510 --> 00:23:26,170 and we just published now in September, a report which is called Growing Better. 191 00:23:26,170 --> 00:23:33,130 And it's quite important to mention that this is this is a consultation report. 192 00:23:33,130 --> 00:23:42,100 So this is just the outcome of the consultation. Is this not something you know where where you do very authoritative research or so? 193 00:23:42,100 --> 00:23:47,410 I think we ended up also doing that one just very, very shortly. 194 00:23:47,410 --> 00:23:58,450 This is a rather new initiative, mostly from people coming out of the energy sector, who I think think that the energy problem is largely solved. 195 00:23:58,450 --> 00:24:05,020 The land use problem is really the big elephant in the room where we still have to do a lot of work. 196 00:24:05,020 --> 00:24:21,460 And it's it's self-governance. It's rather influential network, both in terms of linkages to businesses, governments, but also to the NGO world. 197 00:24:21,460 --> 00:24:35,110 And it has global coverage with deep dives into into a few countries, and the overall mantra is that we should work as much as possible with evidence. 198 00:24:35,110 --> 00:24:43,900 What we ended up doing was commissioned a few deeper dive papers, 199 00:24:43,900 --> 00:24:59,100 just sketching out some of the most important issues that I associated with the transition of the of the land use sector and in a in a from the. 200 00:24:59,100 --> 00:25:04,410 Came up. How do we actually communicate in a consistent manner? 201 00:25:04,410 --> 00:25:13,440 And then me as the little little model, I raised my my my voice and said, you know, modelling this is really what quantification. 202 00:25:13,440 --> 00:25:19,620 This is a way to have a conversation in order to come up with a consistent story. 203 00:25:19,620 --> 00:25:27,790 And also, it's an elegant way to to battle out certain controversies because in the end, you need to agree on a number. 204 00:25:27,790 --> 00:25:39,730 And so so we used really the modelling quite extensively as a communication tool and to organise the overall consultation process and. 205 00:25:39,730 --> 00:25:52,440 So this pyramid is this is the visualisation of these 10 transitions, and we we partitioned it into kind of nutritious foods. 206 00:25:52,440 --> 00:26:03,160 S. Nature based solutions section. And then why the choice and supply section and opportunities overall here on the nutritious food. 207 00:26:03,160 --> 00:26:08,530 We looked at healthy diets. We shortly go a little bit into more detail. 208 00:26:08,530 --> 00:26:18,580 We also tried to do some modelling on the health consequences of of better diets, not necessarily better diets for humans only. 209 00:26:18,580 --> 00:26:23,050 So it was really more a nurse system focus. 210 00:26:23,050 --> 00:26:33,460 And then on the nature based solutions, we looked a lot into protection, but then also regenerative agriculture, and we also have an ocean component. 211 00:26:33,460 --> 00:26:41,200 Then on the wider choice, we looked into kind of resource efficiency, 212 00:26:41,200 --> 00:26:49,390 but also a circular economy concepts and then food reduction of food loss and waste, 213 00:26:49,390 --> 00:26:56,320 and also which is a big topic diversifying protein supply because they are people 214 00:26:56,320 --> 00:27:03,640 thinking that we are into a phase of complete protein and then supporting issues. 215 00:27:03,640 --> 00:27:12,250 Digital revolution, stronger rural livelihoods where we actually looked at it at the employment consequences, 216 00:27:12,250 --> 00:27:23,530 rural employment consequences of an enhanced transition because most of it will actually trigger a resource of production efficiencies, 217 00:27:23,530 --> 00:27:25,660 which will pay off quite a lot of people. 218 00:27:25,660 --> 00:27:33,610 And here we can easily talk about half a billion of people who would come onto the labour market much earlier than than expected. 219 00:27:33,610 --> 00:27:41,200 Like in many countries like in this country, for example, the transition to the industrialisation went very, very quickly. 220 00:27:41,200 --> 00:27:48,460 However, at that time, we had the demand support from the industry and industrial sites in in our times. 221 00:27:48,460 --> 00:27:56,140 This demand is not that strong anymore. And then we also have an agenda and demography issue down. 222 00:27:56,140 --> 00:28:03,610 OK, now I will go quickly into the detail of the scenarios that get the feel on what were 223 00:28:03,610 --> 00:28:08,830 the discussions behind the pinning down those scenarios and the overall arching. 224 00:28:08,830 --> 00:28:15,700 The overarching question was really is a better future actually possible? 225 00:28:15,700 --> 00:28:23,110 And what is possible? Very shortly. This is a visualisation of the model structure, 226 00:28:23,110 --> 00:28:34,630 which we developed and used where we start with geospatial information on the supply side and then go all the way up to to demand for food, 227 00:28:34,630 --> 00:28:43,390 fibres, energy. And we also added on a an ocean component that the sea food component and we use a 228 00:28:43,390 --> 00:28:51,040 rather simple representation of the markets in order to be sufficiently transparent. 229 00:28:51,040 --> 00:28:59,320 So what kind of assumptions did did we make on the policies related to climate mitigation we have? 230 00:28:59,320 --> 00:29:03,580 First of all, a current trend scenario where you see, for example, 231 00:29:03,580 --> 00:29:13,960 global energy demand decreases by 52 percent and we have biomass coming in quite quite a bit. 232 00:29:13,960 --> 00:29:20,170 But these are the second generation biomass. 233 00:29:20,170 --> 00:29:26,350 And then in the better future, what we assumed was this l e d scenario, which I mentioned before. 234 00:29:26,350 --> 00:29:35,260 This is the very resource efficient scenario with a lot of renewable energy in it. 235 00:29:35,260 --> 00:29:44,650 We have high carbon prices. We don't use any banks at the bioenergy is really a small components in order 236 00:29:44,650 --> 00:29:51,340 to avoid competition for land with the energy sector on the biodiversity side. 237 00:29:51,340 --> 00:30:01,750 We basically in the in the current trends scenario, there is no additional conservation and the EIA in the in the better future one. 238 00:30:01,750 --> 00:30:17,080 We actually assume that certain high biodiverse areas actually spared from from conversion and we impose subsidy payments for restoration. 239 00:30:17,080 --> 00:30:27,970 Now on food security, we basically have a business as usual assumption, and in another assumption, we really try to feed everyone. 240 00:30:27,970 --> 00:30:31,840 We have food loss and waste way and a better future scenario. 241 00:30:31,840 --> 00:30:35,140 We were actually forced. We want it to be way more aggressive. 242 00:30:35,140 --> 00:30:41,990 But the industry more or less taught us to assume only a 25 percent reduction from current levels. 243 00:30:41,990 --> 00:30:50,840 So to say which was a surprise to me because when I'm in Brussels and we talk about the agriculture sector and climate mitigation, 244 00:30:50,840 --> 00:30:55,690 it's actually always the industry that says food loss and waste huge potential. 245 00:30:55,690 --> 00:31:03,670 But then in the end, it didn't. There was quite some resistance here on on the healthy diet. 246 00:31:03,670 --> 00:31:12,250 We basically ended up with published scenarios of The Lancet commission is, on the one hand, 247 00:31:12,250 --> 00:31:21,550 healthy diets for four four people, but also quite turned out to be very healthy for the planet as well. 248 00:31:21,550 --> 00:31:25,000 Then in terms of technological progress, 249 00:31:25,000 --> 00:31:34,790 we overall the world expects up to 2050 yield increases in livestock and crop production of about forty four percent. 250 00:31:34,790 --> 00:31:38,080 In this scenario and a better future scenario, 251 00:31:38,080 --> 00:31:51,910 we have 60 56 percent we actually ended up doing if biophysical study on the feasibility at the the the realism of this scenario, 252 00:31:51,910 --> 00:32:01,400 and it actually looks like this is this is actually not a one to conservative sites, I would say. 253 00:32:01,400 --> 00:32:06,430 And and here we have been on deforestation, deforestation side. 254 00:32:06,430 --> 00:32:14,980 We impose zero net forestation already in 2020, which is given current conditions in quite a few countries. 255 00:32:14,980 --> 00:32:21,070 Also in terms of political constellation, not incredibly realistic. 256 00:32:21,070 --> 00:32:26,800 And on trade, we ended up only not changing a lot. 257 00:32:26,800 --> 00:32:34,630 However, we we changed a 50 percent tariff for sub-Saharan Africa and on ocean proteins. 258 00:32:34,630 --> 00:32:43,820 I just want to point to you that five out of agriculture is actually one of the key technologies that came out. 259 00:32:43,820 --> 00:32:48,780 This kind of a little bit of, for me, a surprise. 260 00:32:48,780 --> 00:33:00,060 It's a huge resource for protein in the future. And the assumption we also made that meat is replaced by some of these these proteins. 261 00:33:00,060 --> 00:33:08,310 So these are are the results which are actually quite quite ambitious, so when you look at deforestation, 262 00:33:08,310 --> 00:33:15,750 we have in the current trends seven six point seven million hectares of deforestation throughout. 263 00:33:15,750 --> 00:33:19,860 On average to 20, 20, 50. 264 00:33:19,860 --> 00:33:29,340 And here we almost eliminate deforestation. What's what's quite striking is the development of agricultural land. 265 00:33:29,340 --> 00:33:35,080 So this is cropland and pastureland we have in the current trends scenario. 266 00:33:35,080 --> 00:33:39,750 It's still an expansion of 400 million hectares, 267 00:33:39,750 --> 00:33:50,670 which is in the order of 50 percent increase of current levels to a reduction in the order of 1.2 billion hectares. 268 00:33:50,670 --> 00:33:54,930 And we end up in this scenario to restore an additional 100 million hectares. 269 00:33:54,930 --> 00:34:05,720 So this is that the Earth from from the satellites would actually look radically different in this scenario. 270 00:34:05,720 --> 00:34:15,300 So if these scenarios were coming through on the biodiversity here, you actually see that would be still a decline of three point twenty two percent. 271 00:34:15,300 --> 00:34:19,170 And here we actually would observe a recovery. 272 00:34:19,170 --> 00:34:29,670 So this is what we call bending the curve on food security we basically eliminated in this one by additional supply. 273 00:34:29,670 --> 00:34:52,020 And one other thing is since we we eat less so to say we also have fewer deaths because of a a more improved body mass index of 5.6 million. 274 00:34:52,020 --> 00:35:01,350 And the ocean economy is also improving quite a lot, so I'm I'm really going very fast through these these results. 275 00:35:01,350 --> 00:35:10,980 They just tell you this is quite the radical scenario and we actually solve most of the problems, which is quite quite encouraging. 276 00:35:10,980 --> 00:35:16,710 One controversial issue, which we always see is what happens to prices. 277 00:35:16,710 --> 00:35:21,420 And what's quite interesting is that so this is the difference from the current 278 00:35:21,420 --> 00:35:27,120 trend scenario we see if we just do current trends and climate change mitigation. 279 00:35:27,120 --> 00:35:37,260 So if we do a single single policy, so to say we actually end up with higher crop prices and livestock prices or meat prices. 280 00:35:37,260 --> 00:35:39,570 However, if we implement all of those things, 281 00:35:39,570 --> 00:35:53,300 which I went through in quite big detail before we actually see a reduction in prices and especially in terms of meat becomes much cheaper. 282 00:35:53,300 --> 00:36:05,630 What's also quite interesting is how you can actually gain from rather than planning for a single policy measure by combining policies. 283 00:36:05,630 --> 00:36:18,030 So what you see here is these are the emissions in terms of gigatons CO2 per year in in the year 2050. 284 00:36:18,030 --> 00:36:23,900 So we predicted the current trend scenario still 12 gigatons of CO2. 285 00:36:23,900 --> 00:36:29,060 However, if we impose climate mitigation policy, we basically have it. 286 00:36:29,060 --> 00:36:31,820 However, if you put in addition, 287 00:36:31,820 --> 00:36:44,960 a biodiversity policy in place and you impose a Lancet Lancet diets and you eliminate some of the food loss and waste. 288 00:36:44,960 --> 00:36:51,740 And here the last one is protein from the ocean. You actually end up with zero net emissions. 289 00:36:51,740 --> 00:37:01,010 So what this tells you that a specific policy targeted to climate mitigation only delivers half off of what you could really gain. 290 00:37:01,010 --> 00:37:04,220 And so we really need to look at the at the bundle, 291 00:37:04,220 --> 00:37:16,590 at the portfolio of measures and try to reap as much synergies as possible rather than looking at policies individually. 292 00:37:16,590 --> 00:37:29,740 When we look at the biodiversity outcomes, it's even even more more, it's even more so that the synergies are playing out. 293 00:37:29,740 --> 00:37:40,470 So here you actually see the current trend scenario and just biodiversity protection and biodiversity protection only helps you to to stabilise. 294 00:37:40,470 --> 00:37:53,970 So to say, however, if you do the bundle of of measures as discussed before, you really can reverse the trend down by in terms of biodiversity. 295 00:37:53,970 --> 00:37:58,500 And we call this bending the curve, bending the curve on biodiversity. 296 00:37:58,500 --> 00:38:10,140 So this is something we tried to inject into the negotiations on biodiversity as a potential target where you could actually say by 2050, 297 00:38:10,140 --> 00:38:16,520 we should improve the status of biodiversity over what we have today. 298 00:38:16,520 --> 00:38:29,990 This could potentially qualify as a new target. However, if there's the the work decides for a massive bio energy to do a negative emissions in 2040, 299 00:38:29,990 --> 00:38:33,860 this is where where the word would go down in terms of biodiversity. 300 00:38:33,860 --> 00:38:41,280 So if, if, if all any sudden, we need to change course on the climate mitigation side, 301 00:38:41,280 --> 00:38:49,880 but say that renewable energies and energy efficiency doesn't deliver it, we need to switch on biomass with carbon capture and sequestration. 302 00:38:49,880 --> 00:38:58,160 Then of course, you have a trade-off here and you lose, you lose a year. 303 00:38:58,160 --> 00:39:02,660 The the ambitious target on biodiversity. 304 00:39:02,660 --> 00:39:05,990 So here what really comes out these days already today, 305 00:39:05,990 --> 00:39:14,750 a very strong rationale to at least coordinate the UNFCCC, the climate negotiation process with with the CBD. 306 00:39:14,750 --> 00:39:22,520 And this is not only in terms of negotiation process, but also in terms of looking at what countries propose to do. 307 00:39:22,520 --> 00:39:28,880 So what's what's currently, for example, done is that in the climate negotiations, 308 00:39:28,880 --> 00:39:35,930 countries put forward measures like afforestation and restoration, and they even produce maps. 309 00:39:35,930 --> 00:39:43,550 And in two metres down the corner and in the Ministry of Environment, 310 00:39:43,550 --> 00:39:50,150 another group delivers something to the biodiversity convention and there is not necessarily an overlap. 311 00:39:50,150 --> 00:39:56,660 It's even in some countries such that these guys never even talk to each other. 312 00:39:56,660 --> 00:40:06,740 Which is amazing in a way, because in the end, we should actually come up with one map, so to say to be delivered on all these things. 313 00:40:06,740 --> 00:40:11,630 And this is why we are proposing these senators and where you actually have 314 00:40:11,630 --> 00:40:19,670 a country led the way I respect you for the coordination of multiple goals. 315 00:40:19,670 --> 00:40:33,050 And this is something we do within the favourite consortium choices the representative for the UK in within the favoured consortium. 316 00:40:33,050 --> 00:40:41,330 And we just published now a report pathways to sustainable engines and food systems, which you can download here. 317 00:40:41,330 --> 00:40:53,900 And so what the objective of this consortium is, is it countries individually come up with transition plans in the in the LNG sector. 318 00:40:53,900 --> 00:40:58,490 However, at the same time, this country let's. 319 00:40:58,490 --> 00:41:05,690 And also individual country exercises need to collectively meet global targets. 320 00:41:05,690 --> 00:41:12,140 The biodiversity target the climate targets because an individual country can plan for itself. 321 00:41:12,140 --> 00:41:20,270 However, if it's uncoordinated, we see that with another country, then there might be a lot of contradiction. 322 00:41:20,270 --> 00:41:29,180 And so what what we did is we collected 18 countries, including the European Union. 323 00:41:29,180 --> 00:41:38,240 And what we are currently engaging on a lot and this is this last point here is that we allow even for cells learning. 324 00:41:38,240 --> 00:41:39,260 So in our case, 325 00:41:39,260 --> 00:41:52,820 the Brazilians are helping the Colombians and the Argentinian is on developing the tourism data gathering to formulate then these new pathways. 326 00:41:52,820 --> 00:41:56,990 This is the representation of the countries that participate. 327 00:41:56,990 --> 00:42:03,110 Of course, with this projection, we achieved a little bit because the North is larger than it really, really is. 328 00:42:03,110 --> 00:42:14,690 And we have a huge gap here. And this gap is already clearing for a long time because the capacity in countries is unfortunately quite low. 329 00:42:14,690 --> 00:42:23,840 And once we built the capacity in these countries, the guys typically disappear because they get much better jobs than being researchers. 330 00:42:23,840 --> 00:42:34,250 So that's that's a big issue. And so what we are technically really doing is we basically currently we just work with an excel sheet. 331 00:42:34,250 --> 00:42:43,970 We also have more richer models and to be populated to begin with with the national data that is internationally available mostly from the field. 332 00:42:43,970 --> 00:42:54,650 And then we we have these these calculator and countries come up with their their plans and then it goes into a link at. 333 00:42:54,650 --> 00:43:01,060 And then we see whether countries jointly actually deliver on global goals. 334 00:43:01,060 --> 00:43:06,490 There's also a verification tour I can probably go in later, so. 335 00:43:06,490 --> 00:43:13,210 So how are we doing these these symbols on? It's it's like this. 336 00:43:13,210 --> 00:43:20,020 So you have a model for country a, you have a model for Country B and there might be bilateral coordination. 337 00:43:20,020 --> 00:43:24,370 So for example, Brazil says, I have so much forest. 338 00:43:24,370 --> 00:43:29,150 I still want to chop down some and export soybeans to you. 339 00:43:29,150 --> 00:43:35,810 And this country says, yes, I have so little forest left and I don't want to chop it down, 340 00:43:35,810 --> 00:43:41,450 I import the soybeans from, you can probably imagine which countries those were now. 341 00:43:41,450 --> 00:43:48,380 And and and so you have you have a coordination in terms of targets. 342 00:43:48,380 --> 00:43:53,660 And in this case, it would be the forest target. 343 00:43:53,660 --> 00:44:02,220 However, there is always trade inconsistency and this this is where currently the link comes in. 344 00:44:02,220 --> 00:44:11,370 But this is this is not the only thing so that the link helps you to do the wipe out the trade, the inconsistency, 345 00:44:11,370 --> 00:44:20,700 but then we also have a dashboard and then see then we see how these individual countries fare globally when they when you combine the actions. 346 00:44:20,700 --> 00:44:27,150 And then, of course, in the first iteration when countries pledged so to say we will not reach the SDGs. 347 00:44:27,150 --> 00:44:38,550 So the SDGs smiley will not smile. And we have to tell the countries, be more ambitious, go on till we actually reach the global targets. 348 00:44:38,550 --> 00:44:43,260 So this is an exercise we went through through kind of virtual coordination, 349 00:44:43,260 --> 00:44:49,740 but also we had one meeting in in Germany where we actually had to head the life discussion. 350 00:44:49,740 --> 00:44:53,730 And we had we had the moderators here and you see here. 351 00:44:53,730 --> 00:45:05,340 For example, Austria Australia pledged an increase in mass production to help other countries to try to produce, 352 00:45:05,340 --> 00:45:09,300 conserve and save far less for more forests. 353 00:45:09,300 --> 00:45:17,280 And he had India pledged to reduce its its milk imports. 354 00:45:17,280 --> 00:45:26,340 This is then kind of a table of the assumptions, and I singled out the UK and the UK was quite interesting because when you look, 355 00:45:26,340 --> 00:45:32,370 you have a population increase assumed of 20 percent. 356 00:45:32,370 --> 00:45:36,420 The meat consumption is reduced by 20 percent. 357 00:45:36,420 --> 00:45:46,920 There's not much happening on the trade and the yield increases are significant, but probably not unrealistic 40 percent up to 2050. 358 00:45:46,920 --> 00:45:53,220 And for crops and for livestock and for crops 1.6. 359 00:45:53,220 --> 00:45:59,710 And you have forest 1.5 million hectares in the in the country. 360 00:45:59,710 --> 00:46:08,090 This is also consistent with some of the the pledges that were really made also on the global effort, 361 00:46:08,090 --> 00:46:12,400 we basically reached many targets or we we fit everyone. 362 00:46:12,400 --> 00:46:15,400 We have zero net global deforestation. 363 00:46:15,400 --> 00:46:25,030 We also got for the land use sector a net negative greenhouse gas budget, and we also did quite well on the biodiversity. 364 00:46:25,030 --> 00:46:32,920 What we didn't achieve was a greenhouse gas reduction goal in the agriculture sector. 365 00:46:32,920 --> 00:46:38,200 Just to give you an idea how this looks for an individual prejudices the forest pledge. 366 00:46:38,200 --> 00:46:45,370 And here you see that deforestation is eliminated over time. 367 00:46:45,370 --> 00:46:49,330 The Reds boss. So this is actually the rest of the work. 368 00:46:49,330 --> 00:46:56,200 So the participating countries really deliver on zero net by 2030. 369 00:46:56,200 --> 00:47:01,150 And you can also see then what are the contributions of the individual countries? 370 00:47:01,150 --> 00:47:03,430 And here these kind of diagrams. 371 00:47:03,430 --> 00:47:13,210 You can also use a little bit for blaming and shaming and get more mobilisation if certain countries don't pledge enough. 372 00:47:13,210 --> 00:47:20,500 What we are planning now, basically, we really want to get into the real pledging, 373 00:47:20,500 --> 00:47:33,300 so to say so we have no agreements with a few countries on participation to actually do something for the CBD cop in in Beijing. 374 00:47:33,300 --> 00:47:44,200 No, it's actually in Kunming, in China, where a similar pledging exercise should be organised as we headed for the Paris Agreement. 375 00:47:44,200 --> 00:47:51,430 And we are also trying to ramp up a food and land use action tracker. 376 00:47:51,430 --> 00:47:58,330 Good. One issue which I if time still allows, I could also stop here. 377 00:47:58,330 --> 00:48:01,720 What we find is but this is not a firm finding yet. 378 00:48:01,720 --> 00:48:05,480 This and this is quite interesting if we do this manual coordination. 379 00:48:05,480 --> 00:48:17,920 So if we just do a bilateral coordination between humans and if countries become sophisticated in the in their negotiations within finite time, you.