[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Hello everyone, and welcome. Thank you for joining us today. I'm Amanda Kolson Hurley, a journalist who covers climate change for Bloomberg News. When it comes to giving us joy, comfort and basic sustenance, nothing is as essential to humanity as food. Yet the world's food system is in crisis. Hundreds of millions of people experience hunger, food insecurity has been rising from economic and geopolitical shocks, and agriculture is making the planet sicker as climate change accelerates with grave risks for society. But today we'll be talking about the recipe for a future that's more sustainable and just. The New World Bank report, “Recipe for a Livable Planet” shows how the world can significantly lower emissions from the agrifood sector to safeguard the climate, while also nourishing a population that will soon reach 10 billion. The report is a detailed framework for getting agrifood to net zero. And food is the greatest untapped source of climate action. Today, May 22, is also the international day for biological diversity. A fitting time to note that transforming food production will have major benefits for ecosystems and animal species, as well as for the climate. 50% of global GDP depends on nature, after all. We'll learn about the key findings of the report from one of the authors in a few minutes. After that, four speakers will give short ignite talks identifying big picture challenges and solutions. Then, we'll have a panel discussion with experts to drill down on how to move from ideas to implementation. This event is being live streamed on World Bank Live. If you're watching online and have questions, there are experts standing by for the next hour or so who can answer for you. Now I'm going to hand it over to Doctor Juergen Voegele. He will deliver some short remarks. Doctor Voegele is the World Bank's Vice President for Sustainable Development. He's also a longtime expert on agriculture. So, this is a topic that's very dear to him. [Applause]

[Juergen Voegele] Well, hello and good morning, everybody, and a warm welcome to all of you in Washington, DC. Thanks for coming from afar, including as far as New Zealand, as I've just learned, so it makes us very happy. Also, a very warm welcome to all of you that are watching on World Bank Live. This is a hugely, hugely important topic that is unfortunately still misunderstood in a large part of the world. People do not understand that the way we produce, treat and consume our food is profoundly unsustainable and it's got to change. If we want to get ahead on climate, we need to change the way we manage our food system. It needs to be transformed from a major cause of disease, biodiversity extinction, you just mentioned the biodiversity link, very obviously climate emissions into a positive force. It is the only sector, when you think about it, that has the capability to transform itself from a massive net emitter to a real net sink. The good news is we don't need 20 more years of research to understand what it will take. We actually do know what to do. The problem is we are not doing it. In fact, we are doing the opposite. Instead of promoting and supporting climate smart agriculture and food systems, we are putting 600 billion dollars into the food system that does exactly the opposite, that produces food that emits more than it needs to, that produces food, that makes people unhealthy, that promotes systems that really undermine biodiversity. It's hard to explain to intelligent people why we're doing this, but we're all struggling with these global issues; but this one is a really tough one to understand because it really isn't rocket science. There are clear answers and solutions, and the report recipe for a livable planet lays out many of them. They're in the policy space, they're in the technology space. There are innovations out there, there are financing out there. If we just repurpose a fraction of the 600 billion dollars every year, instead of making the climate worse and the environment worse and turning them into a force that makes the climate better and the people healthier, we would have already solved probably the problem. It is not like other sectors where you don't have the money. There is money there in the sector right now that is not being used for the right purpose. So, this report makes that case among many others. We really need to act on this. The good news is you don't need to build a power plant which takes ten or 15 years to design and construct. You can, tomorrow, in the next season already change the way you produce your rice. You can reduce methane by 30%, 40% if you just do alternative readying and drying. We are at the World Bank now putting billions of dollars behind this, literally walking the talk, putting the money where the mouth is. And it's immediately taken up in East Asia on a very, very significant scale. You can start feeding your cattle, wherever you are, a tiny supplement that reduces methane emissions by a third. It costs next to nothing. It costs less than one cent per liter of milk produced and it has a massive immediate positive impact. So, if there is one message I hope you can all walk away with after today's session is don't think it can't be done. It can be done and it can be done fast. And if it's not done, let's be very clear, we will not reach our climate goals. There is no path to global net zero unless the food system is a part of it, and it's a significant part of it because it's a third of the problem, and it can be more than a third of the solution. So, let me just make that very clear. I want to thank all our panelists who have come and will speak later, our ignite speakers. We have a lot of partners in crime, Gunhild, Doctor Stordalen from the EAT foundation, you and I have been on this journey for several years now. Phenomenal report several years ago from the EAT-Lancet Commission, where for the first time they tackled the question, “what will it take to feed 10 billion people within our planetary boundaries, including climate and the rest of the environment, on a sustainable basis and an affordable basis?” The conclusion was already years ago, it's doable. It doesn't mean we have to stop eating meat. It doesn't mean we have to change everything we do. It just means we have to act rationally, not throw one third of what we produce away. Who else does that? Who else does that? I mean, think of a TV manufacturer, produces 100 TVs and throws 30 out over the next few years before they even use. Just chuck them out. That's what we do with food. It's complete madness, right? And so, we've done a lot of work, a lot of analysis, and now we’re beginning to connect the dots. What policies need to be in place? What are the priorities? How do you act internationally, regionally, locally, in the community, in the household, as a consumer, as a producer? It's all there; but what we need is all of you to be champions, ambassadors, and be out there and make it happen. So, with that, let me thank you, and I look forward to the event. [Applause] [Video playing] [Applause]

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] I'd now like to introduce Bill

[William R.] Sutton. He is the Global Lead for Climate Smart Agriculture at the World Bank and co-author of “Recipe for a Livable Planet.” He's going to walk us through some of the top line findings of this major report. Bill? [Applause]

[William R. Sutton] Hello, everyone, and many thanks to Juergen and Amanda. Welcome to everyone who's joined us here in person in the room, as well as all of those people joining online on World Bank Live. I'm really excited to be here today and share with you some of the key findings of our new global flagship report, “Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System.” So first, why are we interested in agrifood system emissions? The agrifood system is caught in a vicious circle and adaptation alone is not sufficient to feed the world. We're increasing agrifood activities in order to feed a growing population. That results in higher greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn contributes to increased global heating, which reduces agricultural yields, and to compensate for that, we increase agrifood activities again, which generates yet more greenhouse gas emissions. So, there's increasing consensus that we need to break this vicious circle and promote both adaptation and mitigation measures so that we can create a more sustainable food system that will both feed the planet and also create a healthier planet for everyone. Some of the key findings of the report include the fact that greenhouse gas emissions from the agrifood system are significantly higher than previously thought. As the bar on the left shows, that's total annual global greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. The agrifood system contributes about 16 gigatons of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions every year. That's about a third of the total. To put that into perspective, that's approximately one sixth more than all of the emissions from all of the electricity and heat production globally combined. On the right, we have a pie chart that provides a breakdown of the agrifood system emissions by different categories and sources of emissions. In orange, you have the farm gate emissions. That's what we normally think of as agricultural emissions from producing crops and livestock. That's the biggest category of emissions, but at about 45%, it's still less than half the total. The next second biggest category is actually pre and post production processes. That's everything from input manufacturing to processing, retailing, household consumption and food loss and waste. That's the blue shaded areas and constitutes about a third of agrifood emissions. And then finally, in green, we have greenhouse gas emissions from land use change linked to agriculture. That's also very important. And in fact, the single biggest source of agrifood emissions is deforestation linked to agricultural production. So, this points together to the importance of looking at the whole agrifood system when assessing emissions and also coming up with mitigation solutions. The next point, something that, I think, Juergen also highlighted without significant climate mitigation action in the agrifood system, the Paris Agreement goals cannot be reached. So, this figure shows the cumulative global emissions pathways going forward from now to the end of the century. The red line at the top, that's what's projected to happen if we eliminate all emissions from fossil fuels by the year 2075; but in the agrifood system, we continue with business as usual, emitting the way we have been. That alone will be enough to drive the planet past the 1.5 degree Paris Agreement target, and even put the two degree target in serious jeopardy. The green line at the bottom that shows what is projected to happen if we can get agrifood emissions down to net zero by 2050. That's what we need in order to have at least a 50% chance of achieving those Paris Agreement targets, and thus, the theme of our report. One of the interesting features of the “Recipe for a Livable Planet” report is the approach that we took, and that includes carrying out the analysis and providing recommendations by country income categories. Here you see a figure showing greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems in low, middle and high-income countries, and what it reveals is that over two thirds of agrifood emissions, or about 68%, come from middle income countries, with about 22% coming from high income countries and 11% coming from low income countries. This shows their emissions from 30 years ago and today, and it reveals a number of important points. First of all, if we want to really have an impact on climate change, we should focus efforts on those middle-income countries that are responsible for the lion's share of emissions. Second, the fastest growing category is those blue shaded pre and post production processes. We have to look at those, not just at the farm. And finally, we have to help low-income countries avoid the mistakes of the past. But despite its importance for climate change, finance for mitigation in the agrifood system is strikingly low. In this figure, you have the big blue circle. That's total annual global climate finance, which is about 660 billion dollars a year. The slightly smaller light blue circle, that is mitigation financing, and that's about 90% of total climate finance. Then you come to those much smaller green circles, that's the climate finance for the agrifood system. And despite its importance, only 4% of total climate finance goes to the agrifood system currently. The figure is even lower for mitigation, with only 2% of mitigation financing going to agrifood, despite the agrifood system being responsible for a third of emissions. We need to close that massive financing gap; and to do that, there are far greater opportunities to access financing on the mitigation side, which again, is 90% of the total financing available economy wide. But there is good news, and the good news is that the agrifood system is a huge, untapped source of low cost climate change action. This figure shows the cost-effective annual mitigation potential by the different country income categories. Again, low-income, middle-income and high. And as you can see, middle-income countries hold three quarters of the cost-effective mitigation opportunities through agriculture, forests, land use, and demand side measures. The technologies to do this are readily available, and some are actually cost saving things like more efficient use of fertilizer and water. And finally, we find that there is no inherent tradeoff between mitigation on the one hand, and food security on the other, because agriculture's triple winds can help break the vicious circle of climate in the agrifood system that we talked about in the beginning. The “Recipe for a Livable Planet” report provides much more detailed recommendations, a much more detailed roadmap for getting to net zero in the agrifood system. That's been provided before with specific doable recommendations by country income category. High income countries can lead the way by promoting renewable energy in agrifood. They can provide more financial and technical support to low and middle-income countries, and they can shift subsidies towards low emission foods. Middle income countries have the greatest potential. As I mentioned, three quarters of the cost-effective mitigation potential is in middle income countries, that includes reduced conversion of forests and promote reforestation in agroforestry, cut methane in livestock and rice production, manage soils more sustainably to store more carbon, and use cleaner and more energy efficient pre and post production processes. And finally, low-income countries can play a proactive role, they can bypass high emissions development paths by avoiding the mistakes of the past, they can preserve and restore their forests, and they can improve agricultural practices through climate-smart agriculture techniques. So that's it for me for now. Later, we're going to hear from my colleague Alex [Alexander] Lotsch, who's going to talk about the detailed “recipe” in the report for getting to net zero emissions in the agrifood system. Thank you very much for your attention. [Applause]

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Thank you so much, Bill. Gosh, only 4% of climate finance goes to agrifood. I can't go over that statistic. I'm going to kick off now our series of ignite talks. These are the lightning talks focused on big picture challenges and solutions for how to get the agrifood system to net zero fast. Scientists give us the evidence to evaluate a problem which is essential if we have any hope of solving it. Our next speaker has done really groundbreaking work on measuring greenhouse gas emissions from the food system. I'd like to introduce Cynthia Rosenzweig. She is Senior Research Scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Laureate of the 2022 World Food Prize. Welcome, Cynthia. [Applause]

[Cynthia Rosenzweig] Good morning. I want to thank the agriculture and food team at the World Bank for creating this important report, recognizing the crucial role that food system emissions play in climate change. In my seven minutes, I've been asked to share with you the science of climate change and agriculture in three slides. That's quite a challenge, since I've spent decades working on this, but I've narrowed it down to two challenges and two solutions. I need a clicker. Thank you. Here we go. All right, the first challenge right here in the center of this slide. These are the global surface temperatures from late 1800s to last year. 2023 was the warmest year on record. We highlight, I highlighted there, that October was 1.7 degrees warmer than the late 1800s. So, we are already pushing up into that 1.5 °C target set by the Paris Agreement. The urgency of all of this, of all of the climate change is now truly upon us. But for agriculture, it's not the global surface temperature that matters. What matters is the extreme events. I've put some examples around the global temperature graph. For example, in Pakistan, August 2022. I'm sure, I know the World Bank was deeply, deeply involved in that crisis; but in Europe, too, in one of those high-income countries that Bill was just talking about. Look, summer 2022, this is the soil moisture graph. This map showing huge heat waves, soil moisture deficits, massive effects on agriculture. Those were the 2022. 2023, here we have the cyclone Mocha in Myanmar and Bangladesh. The projections show that the more severe, most severe hurricanes and tropical cyclones are projected to increase with climate change. Finally, China last August, last summer, massive floods affecting agriculture. It's not just the global temperatures that we're looking in the middle. It's the increases in frequency, intensity and duration of the extreme events which are posing the tremendous challenge of multiple breadbasket failures [which] are now on their way. Lloyd's of London in 2015 did a report on the food shocks. It was very prescient. Look back at that study and you'll see these things that were projected then are happening now. Let's go to the second challenge. The second challenge is what this report is focused on. At the same time, we have these massive impacts of climate change on the food system, we have the food system creating the vicious cycle that Bill just talked about. Here's another representation of the food system. You see the part that was presented in a circle by Bill. We see that this food system approach has really taken hold now, before we just focused on the production side, then probably still more than 95% of impacts of studies on climate change were just focused on production. But now we have this much wider view which has taken hold, which is so important because for countries, they need to, as they're thinking about what to do about their Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Agreement, they need to think about, well, which parts are the most important, and the report gives guidance. So, we put just on some yellow stars, which for these, not every single box of these or activities in the food system are the same. Identifying which are the most effective and the most cost-effective ways I know the Bank, that's a key part of what the Bank does, is very important. So, we see, of course, these are the largest emitters, as we just saw, especially the deforestation, absolutely critical in the production, of course, the livestock production, which was mentioned. We have to do a big focus on that; but also the interactive role of diets and consumption is also very important in regard to, where possible, where people have food choices, to think about food choices on the diet and consumption side; and of course, the waste that Juergen highlighted so importantly. This is the second challenge operating at the same time as the increasing extreme events on the food system, as well as it's being a major causative sector for climate change. Okay, let's turn to the two solutions. The first one is, and I'm going to cite, I believe it's attributed to, he was our mayor in New York, Michael Bloomberg, very famous quote, we believe is attributed to him, “If you can't measure it, you can't manage it.” The first solution that I'm proposing is much better accounting of the food system emissions. We would like to work with the Bank, our food climate partnership and AgMIP, would like to work with the Bank to really encourage the IPCC to establish guidelines of best practices for accounting with this food system approach. The final solution is on the right. It has been mentioned, but I want to emphasize that we must act on the two challenges simultaneously and work not only on mitigation, but adaptation at the same time. It's really all one system, and we need to… Then we can see this was worked by the IPCC where there's a blue star and a yellow star. The blue is for positive adaptation for more than 25 million people. Soil, organic carbon, increased productivity, agroforestry, for example. And then that had simultaneous mitigation potential of more than three gigatons. So, with that, we have these massive challenges in the agrifood system, but we also now are really in the solution phase. What's so really great about the work of the Bank is that it's really motivating the implementation phase which we are now in, in regard to climate change solutions. Thank you. [Applause]

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Many thanks to Cynthia. That definitely delivered on the big picture framing. Really exciting to see though the potential that mitigation in the sector offers. Our next speaker will be coming to us remotely. I would like to introduce Éliane Ubalijoro. She is Chief Executive Officer of the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry. Agriculture is the lead driver of deforestation, and forests and soils, as we just heard, are major players in the battle to get our food systems to net zero. Miss Ubalijoro is, I'm sorry, I think it's Doctor Ubalijoro is a leading sustainable development expert who can talk more about that today.

[Éliane Ubalijoro] Thank you. Good morning, good afternoon and good evening to everyone joining. I’m joining from Nairobi today. Thank you so much for having me with you. It's a pleasure to speak at this critical event alongside Cynthia, Robyn and Pierre. Bringing together creative minds to solve challenges is really one of our greatest strengths and food system transformation is one of these critical challenges. As some of you may know, I was born in Rwanda, where I spent a lot of time in the countryside with smallholder farmers enjoying the beauty of forests. I remember how green everything was, how lush and how little dust there was in the air. Decades later, the same area has seen genocide, deforestation, soil degradation, and there was dust everywhere. Regreening efforts are bringing back landscape health. This is not uncommon story in terms of land degradation. 65% of soils in Africa are degraded. And when soils are degraded, we lose our resilience and we lose food security. This can be reversed. Just as Rwanda has fought to bring back biodiversity, focus on green growth and find harmony across the country, so too can communities around the world. I am here to tell you we cannot have a conversation about transforming food systems without talking about trees. One of our greatest solutions is agroforestry. Leveraging the power of trees on farms is really critical. When implemented at scale, agroforestry can increase food security for 1. 3 billion people, it can reduce soil erosion by 50%, and it can increase soil organic matter by 21%. Plus, it can contribute to significant emission reductions and healthy biodiverse ecosystems. And agroreforestry is catching on. About 85% of nationally determined contributions now mention agroforestry as a strategy for achieving targets without external financial support, this new report from the World Bank adds to this showing one of the easiest ways to reduce emissions is to stop cutting down forests for productive land. The message is clear, protecting existing forests, restore forests, and manage forests. People often ask, “How can we feed the world and protect forests? Can we do both?” The answer is a resounding yes. We can feed the world and protect forests by integrating sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices based on science and robust data. This requires working with farmers to build incentives for new practices to enhance productivity on their farms and to engage with evidence. This is much of the work we do at CIFOR-ICRAF putting participatory research for development in action on the ground with communities. Change is hard, even when governments and companies embrace change, they require help to work across sectors, disciplines, and data to address complexity. At CIFOR-ICRAF, we bring cutting edge research insights into development actions to guide stakeholders across the value chain and across sectors. How do we implement it? Well, by helping countries and farmers deliver. An example is in the Gambia we have worked closely with the environment ministry to develop the first of its kind national agroforestry strategy. Consequently, over 1000 smallholder farmers in the Gambia have adopted farm level agroforestry protocols. This is the power of convening groups deeply committed to transformative change. Just this week here in Nairobi, we met with the Deputy President of Kenya and colleagues from across ministries of health, agriculture, climate change, and water. We strategized on how to deliver on his Excellency, President Ruto's 15 billion tree agenda, acknowledging that these trees will be planted on farms and contributing to a new economy and security for farmers. However, challenges remain. As the report points out, three quarters of agrifood emissions come from low to middle income countries, including two thirds for middle income countries. Unfortunately, not enough money is invested in these holistic strategies that cut agrifood emissions. This sector lags behind others in financing for climate action, even when we have investable solutions that can catalyze green growth. For example, in Kenya, we see new tree-based economies that can generate ten times more revenue than tourism brings in. Too often, these solutions are left out of the conversation. However, fortunately, we have tried and tested solutions that are working on the ground, and this helps shift the conversation. Projects like Regreening Africa, recognized as a world restoration flagship at UNEA this past February, demonstrate the power of farmer-led regeneration to heal the planet. In healthy soils, the foundation for functioning ecosystems, including sustainable agricultural systems, is critical in this. CIFOR-ICRAF is home to state-of-the-art soil spectroscopy lab and the global database of ecosystem health indicators, one of the world's best tools for large scale and accurate soil analytics. By assessing land and soil health, we provide analysis at farm, landscape and global levels. What we need is partnership and funding to scale these solutions and make sure they reach those who need them most. If we are to transform our food systems to be climate resilient and sustainable, the change begins both on the ground, in grassroots initiatives, through national policies and frameworks, and through global initiatives. Every corner of our globe should have equal access to scientific advancements that can improve lives and safeguard our planet. It's an investment in the future of our planet and a commitment to addressing the pressing challenges of our time while partnering with brilliant minds from around the world to lead the way. Thank you. [Applause]

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Thank you, Éliane, for a great talk about the potential of agroforestry and sustainable agriculture. I think anyone in this room knows capital ultimately drives transformation. That includes private capital. What are the opportunities ahead of investors? What are the challenges? To answer those and some other questions, today we have Robyn O'Brien, founder of rePlant Capital. She's an author, entrepreneur and investor. Welcome to the stage, Robyn. [Applause]

[Robyn O'Brien] Well, thank you to all of you for being here. Capital. Capital is the very first ingredient in any food system. My entire career has been at the intersection of food and finance. I am the oldest of four. My parents, my dad is from the south, m y mother is from New Zealand. I have dual citizenship. When I went to business school, I went on a full scholarship after graduating top of my class as an undergrad. I graduated top of my class in business school. I was a Fulbright fellow in Paris. When I got into the finance world, I was on a team that managed 20 billion in assets. I was the only woman on the team. And so, the guys said, “You're going to cover the food industry.” I couldn't cook. I drank Diet Coke probably six times a day. I was not a food person. I thought, “What in the world are you guys doing? You don't know what you're doing.” I didn't have a choice. They said, “You're covering food.” And so, in the early years of my career, I really learned the financials. It was just black and white. My heart was not involved at all. A few years later, we started our family. I have four children now between the ages of 19 and 24. My youngest child had a life-threatening allergic reaction. All of a sudden, I'm saying, “What's going on in the food system?” To really understand what's going on in the food system, you have to understand the financials. You cannot separate these things. We have a broken extractive food system because the financial system behind it is extractive. Period. That's it. Part of the reason the financial system is so extractive is because it is so incredibly homogenous. You look at these panelists today, there is nothing like that in the financial system. You would never see that, the financial system is 98% white male. So, when we talk about biodiversity and the word “diversity” is actually tucked into the word biodiversity, it's completely lacking in the financial system. Completely lacking. We have monocropping. We have monoculture in our agricultural system because we have mono banking. We have mono banking in the private sector. It is completely homogenous. If nature has taught us anything, anything, it's that homogenous systems will fail. Every other species in nature, every single other species, the balance of the masculine and the feminine is absolutely, beautifully calibrated so that it is sustainable. As a human species, we've missed that. In the financial sector, it is completely missing. So, as a woman who has spent her life in this sector, to really come to this understanding that I now hold today, that that is the opportunity. How do we reimagine the financial system so that we can do all of these things? because this data keeps coming out year after year. Last year, the World Bank issued a report, “Detox Development: Repurposing Environmentally Harmful Subsidies.” 7.3 trillion dollars of environmentally harmful subsidies in the agrochemical sector, fossil fuels and fisheries. 7.3 trillion dollars. Literally, we are subsidizing the destruction of the planet. It is insane. 7.3 trillion dollars. Our farmers in the United States carry 535 billion dollars of debt. You go around the world, farmer debt is resulting not only in a loss of young people wanting to go into farming because they're looking at their parents saying, “Why do I want to take on that debt? Why do I want to expose my children to these chemicals? Why do I want to go into this as a profession?” So, they're opting out. Farmers call it a generational security crisis. Suicide in the farming population from the United States to India is one of the top leading causes of death. It is the highest demographic for suicide in the United States, farmers are. So, we've got 7.3 trillion dollars in subsidies, 535 billion dollars in debt. We literally have financed the destruction of the planet. It's insane. When you poll S&P 100 companies, 93% of those companies say climate change is real. 93%. That's a pretty strong consensus. A third of those same companies will lobby against any of these measures that you're seeing on the screen today, that's corporate suicide. So, what are we doing? The Food Systems Economic Commission issued a report that says there are hidden costs in this food system of 15 trillion dollars. Climate, human health, nutrition, deforestation, 15 trillion dollars of hidden costs. Again, we’ve got to talk about the math. None of this works without the math. What's the solution? Because this is the kind of stuff where you kind of want to jump off a cliff. Like, what are we going to do about this? In 1988, there was a piece of legislation passed, the Business Ownership Act for Women. It is the first time that women could take out a loan for a business. In 1988, I was in high school. I was not paying attention to this, that women could take out a loan and start a business without a husband or without their dad. That shift economically is so important. So, in 1988, while that was happening, while none of us were paying attention, or few of us were paying attention, there is also something that is about to happen called the great wealth transfer. 30 trillion dollars is going to change hands into the hands of women for the first time ever. 30 trillion dollars. That's the size of our GDP going into the hands of women. We don't invest the same way. We don't shop the same way. We've seen incredible transformation in the way that we shop over the last 15 years. That transformation in the food system is driving this demand today. That same transformation is coming to finance, where women are emerging as financial leaders. Women will be emerging as investors for the first time ever. When they invest, they are looking for impact. The opportunity is huge. How do you invest? We got scope one, scope two, scope three. I invite you to consider scope zero. Scope zero are the lobbying dollars spent by any corporation on climate. It is a leading indicator for how serious they are. They can tell you these things and put out press releases and say all these wonderful things. Look at their lobbying spend. Scope zero is how serious of a commitment they have to this work. The opportunity in front of us is huge. I will invite you to consider that just as there's that story of two wolves, one on each shoulder, I think you guys have probably heard that where one talks really well and the other tells you to do the bad thing, we have two compasses. One, compass is love, the other compass is fear. Most of us use fear because it helps us navigate around our own shame, our own ego. Whatever role we may have played in this, it will not solve the problem. When you use love, when you come from that place of what is actually in the best interest of these future generations, it will lead us to the solutions together. NATO says that we have to spend 2% of our GDP. 2% of GDP has to be spent on military defense. Of that 15 trillion hidden cost damage, the cost to fix that is 500 billion dollars. That is 0.2% to 0.4% of our GDP. So, if NATO is saying spend 2% on military, only 0.2% would provide the funding we need to be part of the solution. So, I will leave you with this, with NATO, with the leadership of the World Bank, which represents a diversity that is so missing in the financial sector, with that leadership to call on NATO, to call on other organizations to commit 0.2% of global GDP to transform our food system, because redesigning the food system is the most important defense project globally of our time. Thank you. [Applause]

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Thank you, Robyn. As a climate journalist, I love this concept of scope zero. I might have to borrow that, if you don't mind. Arguably, it's people who work in the kitchen who have an outsize role to play in shaping consumer preferences around food. How are healthy food choices related to the broader climate agenda? We have the perfect speaker to speak to that I'd like to welcome Pierre Thiam. He is a chef, author, social activist, and CEO of Teranga. Pierre. [Applause]

[Pierre Thiam] Thank you. Good morning. When I first arrived in New York in the late eighties and started working in kitchen, it was very exciting to be a young cook in the so called “food capital of the world.” But there was one problem. My food of origins, Africa, was absent of that world. And to me, I saw it as an opportunity. The luscious stews, efo riro with leafy cassava, the ndambe with black eyed peas and sweet potatoes, the akara, and all of those wonderful flavors of West Africa, Senegal, Nigeria, were absent. So that was, to me, really a big opportunity in New York City, where people were open to these cuisines, would be open to these cuisines. Eventually, that journey led me to opening restaurants, writing cookbooks. And that's when I really saw the really even bigger opportunity. As I'm writing cookbooks and thinking of substitutions for recipes for ingredients, those ingredients that made a cuisine, that made Senegalese, West African cuisine are really not accessible to the readers of my cookbooks, my audience, really. That opportunity started to ask that question, why is it that these ingredients that are grown in small farmers’ communities in West Africa, ingredients that could change, transform those communities because they are the poorest in the world, those small farmers’ communities, in addition, those ingredients happen to be climate specific, happen to be resilient they've been around for thousands of years, these ingredients happen to be very nutritious as well, and they don't have access to market. So, this was the biggest dream. I said, “Why shouldn't I be able to introduce crops like Fonio?” And Fonio, that grain that you probably never heard of, that's been growing for 5000 years in Africa that's drought resistant, that grows in an area called the Sahel, south of the Sahara, where nothing grows. Fonio became the first ingredient, first platform for this company that we started called Yolélé. Yolélé is an African food brand with a vision to bring crops that are called lost. Crops, that are called orphans, that are grown by small farmers in these parts of Africa that could not only bring economic opportunities, but also give us access to a diet that's diversified. As Robyn said earlier and Cynthia mentioned it, diversity is really the solution. It's the name of the game. The food system that we live in is a big problem because it has limited our diet to a very limited number of crops. Three grains, really, rice, and corn, and wheat. We ignoring thousands of other crops, particularly in Africa. This is why I'm insisting about Africa, and Yolélé became that company, because Africa is the place that is going to feed this planet. It has 60% of the world's arable land, and it still has hundreds of those other crops that need to be integrated in our food system. And the way we decided to do it with Yolélé was to start at creating a demand, to create a brand. And today, five, six years after we started launching our first product, fonio, we are distributed across the US at Whole Foods, at Targets, Sprouts. So, we are having an increased demand for fonio, especially from millennials and Gen Zs who are conscious consumers, but we were also able to enter the snack category. In addition to having our fonio and our fonio pilafs, we have fonio chips now. So, you can enjoy the fonio chips without even having to be in the kitchen, so you can snack on it even better. We introduced it as an ingredient to the brewery industry. And this is where you really have an impact. When other industries, such as Brooklyn Brewery, that started with us, but today we have nine other breweries that even launch a movement called “Brewing for Impact.” That includes Carlsberg, Guinness, and this year, and even a brewery in China this year, they're going to launch limited editions of fonio beer. Now that we've created this demand, it's important that we make sure Fonio doesn't become the next quinoa. And that's very important. We make sure that fonio remains a crop that supports and that is grown by small farmers in Africa. That's important. We have to make sure that fonio doesn't become that cash crop that only farmers grow now because they have a market for it. When that happens, we are back to that same monocultural system that Cynthia was talking about just now, Robyn just mentioned it, that system that gathers into the mess that we're in right now, that system that is the reason why the food system, modern food system, is responsible for one third of the greenhouse gas emissions. That's what we want to stay away from. We want to go away from monoculture by supporting those small farmers, by supporting the whole ecosystem. What we want Yolélé to do is to not only bring fonio into the market, but also bring other crops that are grown in rotation with fonio. Bambara groundnut, a bean that tastes like peanuts without the allergens, but that's been grown in rotation with fonio for thousands of years, but it's disappearing now. We need to bring it back. We need to open the market for that. We need to open the market for crops like baobab leaves. It's not a crop, it's a leaf, baobab leaves, moringa and many others. That's the mission that we are setting, but we need also support of institutions like the World Bank. We need governments support. We need to support the small farmers in better agricultural practices. They need aggregation centers so that they can respond to that demand. They need to invest in refrigeration, in warehouses, in elevating the standards of processing so that the waste, the food waste is diminished, which is terrible. With fonio, is actually close to 50% of food waste. So that needs to be addressed, but tackling those challenges will result in not only reaching that goal of net zero by 2050. It will help on that, because Africa will play a big role in it, but it will also be a win for the environment. Like I mentioned, they are climate smart crops. It will be a win for the consumers who have access now to a wider diversity of food products, which is better for our health as well, because of all those chronic diseases we are facing today, right now are directly connected to the food system that's limited our diet. So, this is what Yolélé is doing, and this is what we want you to think about. Starting to create a demand for these crops instead of letting them disappear. Biodiversity is draining at an alarming rate. We have lost close to 90% right now of the world's food biodiversity. We need to address that. We need to stop the bleeding. And the way to stop the bleeding is to open markets for these crops that are here and that are underutilized. The solution is all of us in our hands. It's not going to take a chef. It's going to take a community. Bankers, governments, doctors, research. And ultimately, the community must be the deliverable. It starts with the small farmers. Thank you. [Applause]

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Big thanks to Pierre. And if anyone hasn't tried fonio and would like to, I know for a fact they do sell Yolélé brand fonio at some Whole Foods in the DC area, I would recommend it. So, it's now time for… Well, actually, before we transition to our panel, let's have another round of applause for our really wonderful lightning speakers. [Applause] [Amanda Kolson Hurley] Okay, so we're setting up for our panel, and we have five really esteemed experts with different fields of deep knowledge on this issue. I guess I'll call them up. Three of them are joining us are here in the room, and two of them are joining us remotely. Our first panelist is Gunhild Stordalen. She is the CEO of the EAT Foundation. [Applause] [Amanda Kolson Hurley] We're also joined by Ousmane Badiane. He is the Founder and Executive Chairperson of AKADEMIYA2063. [Applause] [Amanda Kolson Hurley] Next, we have Ashesh Prasann. He is a senior agricultural economist at the World Bank, and he is a co-author of “Recipe for a Livable Planet.” [Applause] [Amanda Kolson Hurley] And then, tuning in from overseas are Lord Nicholas Stern of the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics. [Applause] [Amanda Kolson Hurley] As well as Elizabeth Nsimadala, a Board Member for the Africa Constituency of the World Farmers’ Organization. [Applause] [Amanda Kolson Hurley] So, before we kick off, I think we've heard from our lightning talk speakers, so many of the… They've summarized the big problems and the potential so well, and now it's left to us, this small matter of how we actually get there [laughs]. And some of our speakers also offered some really concrete, great ideas, but we're going to focus on that pathway to transformation and to making change happen. Is this on? Hi, so, Gunhild, I was hoping we could actually start with you. We just heard from chef Thiam about how bringing back traditional foods like fonio can drive healthy and sustainable eating. Several years ago, EAT worked with the Lancet to define a planetary health diet. What does that look like?

[Gunhild Stordalen] Thank you so much. Before I explain that and also give a quick comment on the report, I want to say congratulations because this is a huge landmark report and it's so important that the Bank now really puts the food system transformation next to the energy transition in terms of tackling climate change. The planetary health diets from the EAT-Lancet, for those of you who are not familiar with it, it started out by asking, what is healthy diets from sustainable food systems? The researchers, they identified an optimal healthy reference diet and asked, “Is this possible for 10 billion people within planetary boundaries?” All of them. And the answer was yes, it is possible in theory. Since this is then both, a healthy and sustainable diet, it was named the planetary health diet. And in short, it's a flexitarian diet. Lots of colorful plant-rich foods, fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, whole grains, fonio, with modest amounts of meat and fish and animal proteins, and very little, if any, ultra processed foods and added sugar. It's a very flexible diet. So, it will look different depending on where you are in the world. It's so flexible that you can really adapt it to different cultures and even individual preferences, blue and green food systems. It can be both, healthy omnivore, it can be a vegan, it can be a vegetarian diet. So, it's really dietary patterns. And if this diet, this dietary pattern was applied globally, it could save 11 million lives a year. For this to happen, major changes are needed, though. We would need to double production of healthy foods while halving production of unhealthy, including meats and sugar. One important piece that was not addressed in the first EAT-Lancet commission was social justice. So, this is partly why EAT-Lancet 2.0 is now underway and will be published next summer, with social justice, meaning both an equitable distribution as well as a just transition, which is absolutely essential. And then, the last final comment on the report. Again, it's a really important piece of work, but health is also incredibly important. Robyn mentioned the Food Systems Economics Commission, which was inspired by your report, Nick, back in the days, looking into the cost of action versus inaction and also the political economy of food. Of the hidden costs. Well, first of all, the food system is destroying more value than it creates, which is incredibly dramatic; but of these hidden costs, 70% is due to bad diets. There are so many synergies between climates and other planetary boundaries and health and by factoring in the health arguments, and the argument or the costs estimates that is in the report is from growing better that came out the same year as EAT-Lancet’s. But the health costs are astronomic and another argument that will strengthen the narrative and also get more people on board. Health is a universal argument. It's even more short term. So, let's not forget the health in this.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Absolutely. It's exciting to know about the follow up to your initial report with the Lancet. That's great. Yeah, health is a very powerful argument. However, the fact is that, you know, around the world, a lot of the trendlines are going in the wrong direction. I recently read that the average American consumes 270 calories a day just in added sugar. How do you… Do you have thoughts on how to drive? I guess I'm talking really about higher income countries with good food availability. How do you drive behavior change around something as sort of basically psychological and fundamental as food?

[Gunhild Stordalen] Well, that's not easy, that's for sure, but we have seen how fast diets have been shifting. In my lifetime, 40, 50 years ago, my parents and our grandparents, they were eating very differently. So, in just a couple of decades the world has been flooded with ultra processed foods. And we have also seen how fast new trends can happen. For example, Sushi. In the eighties, sushi was introduced to Norway by a very clever marketing strategy by the Norwegian Seafood Council and suddenly it was everywhere. The same is now starting to happen with plant-based alternatives. So, there are reasons to be optimistic; but obviously, as Jurgen said, we are subsidizing disaster and suicide, literally. And on top of that, we are also allowing aggressive marketing by big food. There are food oligopolies out there, massive unchecked corporate power and unfortunately, most innovations, I mean, they are first and foremost profit driven. To really shift diets, which is essential, the EAT-Lancet show that it's not possible to stay within planetary boundaries, tackle climate change without changing diets. For this to happen, which the Food Systems Economics Commission is looking in depth into, countries and governments that have a very important role to play need to start bundling policies. They need to put policy packages together. There's no one size fits all, important to say. This will have to be based on local realities. But even if it's a developing country or high-income countries, the main ingredients are the same. So, it's about supporting the shift to healthy diets. There has to be taxing of unhealthy foods, there has to be restricting of marketing. Public procurement can play a huge role and government really needs to start walking the talk. And then, there is about realigning incentives. Shifting subsidies, absolutely important, support the goals of the food system transformation, and start supporting a wide diversity of healthy foods. And then, it's also about new taxes. We need to start tax carbon. We need to start putting attacks on nitrogen, which is another important source of pollution, and of course, innovation. We need to put a lot more R&D into this space and also to make sure this becomes an inclusive transition. And the last piece, which also the Economics Commission stressed was, this will be, food prices can actually go up and this has to be addressed. Safety nets are estimated to cost around 300 billion a year, but it's really important. We need to factor in the true cost of food, but we need to make sure that it becomes available and affordable and is not hitting poor people hard.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Thank you. I'm now going to turn to Ashesh. You're a co-author of this great new report. And so, turning from diets, although we addressed much more than diets just now, but to the food production side of the equation. You said that investment needs to increase, I think, 18-fold, is that right? To get the world on track for net zero? Why has investment in this sector been so anemic?

[Ashesh Prasann] Thanks, Amanda. Yeah, that's a very important question and one that actually quite surprised us when we looked at the climate finance numbers, that it was just 2.4% for the agrifood system, despite it accounting for one third of emissions. As Bill was showing earlier, without attacking food system emissions, we don't have any chance of hitting the Paris Agreement 1.5 target. Why do we have this problem in the first place? I think one of the first things we need to remember fundamentally from economics is that global public goods, there's a tendency to underinvest in them. And climate mitigation is the ultimate global public good. The benefits are a livable planet for our future generations. So, ultimately, the investments are not for us, it is for the planet itself, and that there is an incentive to underinvest there. How can we really change this incentive? I mean, I think what we are seeing globally is now increased awareness of the problem. And that is what our report is also trying to contribute towards. With greater awareness, I believe there needs to be a shift in the way we think of the agrifood system. Too often we think of it as a victim of climate change, and it is. But it is also a system which can provide a lot of affordable, cost-effective solutions and get to net zero. That is something that's often missing in the way a number of food system actors think of the system. In contrast, for example, clean energy is thought of as our savior towards the climate transition. It is, absolutely and that's a system which already we've seen change significantly, and it was easier to make that change. It was a more centralized system, clean power generation, distribution. These are more centralized systems. The agrifood system is highly decentralized. We are talking about 570 million farmers, farms rather, 8 billion consumers, agribusinesses, banks, everyone is in this system together, and we need total collective action to actually make it move. I think, recognizing those challenges, what I do find empowering from the report is some of the main findings tell us that climate action can be actually quite targeted. Three fourth of cost-effective mitigation solutions are from middle income countries. 62% are from just 15 large countries. So, there is a strong case for focused climate action. How do we get there? Often in terms of climate, finance will involve, of course, governments shifting the way they provide support to the sector. We've talked about 600 billion dollars. A lot of it is towards inputs and also very emission intensive outputs. Inputs being fertilizers, pesticides, water, energy. The more we subsidize these inputs, the more we are actually increasing the amount of land degradation as well as emissions from the sector. Similarly, on the output side, a lot of countries subsidize rice, beef, sugar. These are highly emission intensive products. We need to shift the way we support the sector and that involves moving towards incentives for adopting new low-emission technologies. I believe that governments can do this also at the high level of climate commitments with NDCs and then private sector players really also have to have a different approach to the sector. Until now, as I was saying, they haven't really considered the sector to be a source of emission reductions. That needs to shift with more patient capital going towards the sector.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] I wondered if you could talk about what are some of the costs and risks that farmers, in developing countries especially, face on the ground that makes system change so challenging?

[Ashesh Prasann] Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think we all recognize that farming is an inherently risky business, and climate change has just compounded those risks big time. Whether it's pests, diseases, drought, floods, as we know from Cynthia's presentation, this is the intensity, duration, severity of all these shocks have gone up significantly. Agricultural productivity has gone down by 21% since 1961. That's about seven years of productivity gains. We've completely erased that. When we think of how farmers can adapt to climate change, that's where there has to be a conscious, careful thinking around the costs and risks that you're asking me about. Some of the main new technologies and practices that exist for reducing emissions. For example, for rice, switching from continuously flooded paddy production systems to intermittent flooding of paddy fields, what we call alternate wetting and drying, or SRI systems, can completely cut methane emissions by large amounts in rice systems. They also increase yields and incomes in a number of different locations globally; but all this is over medium term. In the short term, the farmer faces upfront costs of actually establishing this new system requires more labor, requires more upfront investments, and they don't know what happens in that season. If there is a drought, if there is climate shock that they are hit with, suddenly they lose interest in trying to do this and go back to what they were doing earlier. I think we really need to have systems in place which incentivize behavioral change, adoption of new technologies, and that can come through from both the public side and the private side.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Great. Thank you. I wanted to turn now to Ousmane, what are the main challenges at the country level in Africa, since I believe that you work quite a lot with African governments?

[Ousmane Badiane] Thank you. Let me first say congratulations to you and your co-authors for a very interesting book, actually, talking about a very complex matter, but in very, very simple ways. I like the pragmatism of the report, the solutions, very clear, very concise, easy to understand. It's going to be a very useful report, I think for a lot of people. It's not a given, it's not obvious that it will turn out that way, but it was really great. I enjoyed reading it. When we look at Africa and we talk about the climate issue here, one thing that sets Africa apart is the high level of vulnerability to all of this, which is high exposure and low readiness in terms of climate change. If anybody would like to see something done about climate change, that should be African countries; but of course, doing that has a lot to do with the kinds of technologies that will allow you to find new ways of doing business that are much more sustainable, environmentally friendly, but also having the resources to do that. Talking about agriculture and the food system, there's something else that sets Africa apart that's going to be quite important. We've done simulation work looking at the next 10, 15, 20 years, different climate scenarios, and what's going to be the impact on African economies at the macro level. GDP growth, employment, poverty, nutrition and the like. And it happens… Most of us will expect probably to be the case that agriculture is the entry point to everything else. The biggest trigger to macroeconomic impact of climate change goes through the effects in agriculture. We're not even talking about doing something for emission reduction in agriculture, but just because how agriculture [is] disrupted by climate change, the entire economy is suffering. You don't have that in many other economies. That means that when it comes to African countries, there's an opportunity for multiple wins. While you're fixing agriculture to reduce emissions, this is the opportunity to also make agriculture much more resilient to future climate change. You don't have that in many places. We have looked at the impact of climate change in a country like Mali, like Nigeria, like Ghana, like Senegal, and you say if this is the impact it's going to be on agriculture, and this is how it's going to be affecting the macroeconomy, what can you do to compensate for that as you go? These are entry points for acting, and then bringing interventions to reduce emissions. We saw that in each of those cases, there's a large share of crop land that will have to be invested in different types of innovations that will reduce emissions or make agriculture much more resilient. The share of crop land that has to be covered by improved varieties. The share of crop land that has to be covered with improved soil and water conservations. The share of crop land that has to be covered with new water irrigation systems. You can look at interventions you can do in agriculture to reduce the vulnerability climate and those are the entry point for you, as an African country, to look at new ways of doing business while dealing with climate change, to also reduce emissions.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] So, you're saying it's, you know, there's multiple realms of benefit here to taking these steps that go far beyond emissions reduction, but obviously include that. Thank you. I want to turn now, since we're talking about agriculture in Africa, to Elizabeth, who advocates for farmers there. Can you talk about some of the common pain points for people growing food in African countries? Maybe when governments or NGO's draw up plans, but it's difficult to maybe make them work on the ground.

[Elizabeth Nsimadala] Yeah. Thank you very much for the invitation. It's really a great honor for me to speak at this important event. Let me start by sending you virtual hugs from Uganda and also joining our colleagues to welcome the report and its findings. It's very important to recognize the crucial role that agrifood systems play as a huge untapped potential in climate mitigation as well as in adaptation efforts. But before I respond to these pain points that you asked me to, I would like to first paint a picture of what climate change means for farmers like myself and the millions that I represent and why we are critical to the agrifood system transition. We all know too well the impacts of climate change on our livelihoods. The previous speakers have already spoke about the impacts. My brother, Badiane, really painted the picture on the continent. But also, when we look at the occurrences of the new pests and diseases, the fall armyworm, the desert locusts, the recent droughts in the Horn of Africa, the recent floods, just the recent ones in East Africa, they have all destroyed thousands of hectares of cropland and killed livestock with warnings of food shortages across the region. What does this mean? It means that when family farmers’ livelihoods suffer, the repo effects at a local level, national and international is at a very big scale. So, in terms of the pain points, firstly, for me, I think part of the answer is in the question itself. Why are governments and NGOs drawing up plants without farmers at the heart of the decision making and in the planning process? Because we all understand that as much as agrifood systems are contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, but they also have untapped potential in terms of mitigating the impacts of climate change. Most of our governments’ consultation processes are usually not inclusive and they are not transparent, and as well as it is enshrined in most of our governments’ constitutions. So, the decisions are usually made way before public participation happens. These decisions are mainly based on interests, on influence, and promises by shoddy actors are known to the real agriculture sector. A case in point that you've pointed out are the NGO's, which normally are not accountable to the farmers. They have no farmer constituency, nor do they understand the farmers’ pride, but they are given so much leverage and space in such decisions. And that's why, for me, many of these plans are unknown to the farmers, thus making it impossible to monitor, to track, but also to report on them. In our view, such funds get wasted. They do not follow the Paris Agreement on effective, efficient and coordinated donor funding efforts, and they do not reach the perceived beneficiaries. Without results, such funding pathways risk being discontinued, making the vulnerable even more dire. That's why I really welcome the World Bank's report focus on inclusion as one of the six pillars of the neighboring framework which the study outlines. So, if our governments and institutions like the World Bank are serious about transforming our food systems, reducing emissions and building resiliency, they must, and I want to repeat, they must not only ensure family farmers have a real say in how climate plans are designed, but must intentionally develop instruments through which these farmers can access resources directly, because that is the biggest challenge for us as smallholder farmers. I think Bill has clearly elaborated on the statistics in terms of financing that reaches agrifood systems and we all know that the world's over 600 million family farmers are literally the experts in our fields. But too often we are ignored by policymakers, we are overlooked by the funders and donors, or we are tagged as an afterthought. When it comes to projects’ plans, we are viewed as project beneficiaries and as a result, we are also looked at as disseminators of results. So, everyone looks at us as if we are waiting for handouts and all we are asking for is for us to be treated as eco partners in the agrifood system. Our family farmers’ organizations hold on to generations of indigenous agriculture experience. We have the expertise when it comes to agriculture practices. We have the power to leverage on impact at scale through our millions of members at continental level represent more than 50 million smallholder farmers. And we are trusted as disbursers of finance. This has happened during times of crisis. So as farm organization, sustainable and resilient food systems are part of our DNA, that one, you cannot take it away. We are training our farmers on how to adapt to agroecology, regenerative agriculture to practices like climate smart agriculture. We have a compendium of over 50 practices of our farmers in the field; but these are just few islands of success that need to be profiled and put to scale. We need to see more investment in climate adaptation. Thank you. [Applause]

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Thank you. That's wonderful. I like your language, islands of success. I think now I want to bring in Nick to ask how we maybe make those islands into large land masses of a successful practice. We are, unfortunately, seeing a trend of countries backsliding on their climate goals. Some proposals to address agricultural emissions have met strong resistance. How steep is the political climb up?

[Nicholas Stern] Let me try to respond to that, Amanda, by describing what's involved in that political climate. Now, the first thing, if you want to generate a movement from “a” to “b” within communities, countries and across the world is to show that “b” is much better, much better than “a.” And I think this tremendous report does that very well. It deserves to be a game changer, and I think we're trying here to help it begin to be game changer. So, showing that the way of doing things that is in our hands is so much better than the dirty, destructive, wasteful models that we followed up to now is absolutely crucial. And this report does it in a very strong, clear way. It shows that it's not only attractive, it shows it's feasible, it shows that mitigation, adaptation and development come together. The system for root intensification of rice SRI has been an example. It's been here a few times in this discussion and it's a very good one. So too, restoring degraded land, building out mangroves, all of those things. Mitigation, adaptation, development together. And that story has to be told very strongly that these are not horse races, these three things, mitigation, adaptation with just one winner. They're things that are interwoven and have to be pursued together. This is truly part of the growth story of the 21st century, much more attractive and sustainable than what went before; but, and it's a big but, you have to invest a lot. I think the 200 billion or so number that comes out of this illustrates that or shows that very well. It doesn't come from nowhere. You've got to invest to get there. And that investment has not taken place. I hope this report helps it take place. Also, you're going to have to have not just the arguments, but examples. Elizabeth referred directly to that, I think. Absolutely rightly so. Developing early examples, I think is very important. So, showing that the destination is really attractive, well worth it. The questions then become in generating this political momentum and overcoming the obstacles in the backsliding, Amanda, is how you actually do that? Well, the first thing is to identify potential gainers and losers. That is absolutely fundamental. There it needs work, it needs analysis, it needs an understanding of the roots. If you're going to change, then change involves dislocation. Dislocation involves winners as well as losers, even though the aggregate looks good. The challenge then. is to help, and this is the second point, help get a credible package to those who might not otherwise support it. For a package to be credible again, as Elizabeth said, the people who are being involved in all this have to be involved in creating the package. The German government very recently tried to withdraw support for diesel in agriculture. Not surprisingly, the tractors turned up in the big cities and they backed off. It's very important that there's a whole package of support, opportunity, helping with the skills and the capital in actually getting there. People have to see that, the positive sides of those package, they have to see it early, they can't be told, “No, just wait and see, it's all going to be nice down the road.” It has to be seen early. As Elizabeth said, participation is very important to credibility. Credibility is crucial to the investment we need. The next part of the package has to be a really good agricultural extension. And actually, there's some very good examples. Going back to my very early career, at the end of the sixties, I was involved in smallholder tea in Kenya, and the way in which soon after land distribution after independence, smallholders were helped to invest in tea, mostly women, on small plots. But it was really organized very well. The capital came through the planting material, the collecting of the tea, and it really happened; but it was a major agricultural extension and finance organization. A few years later, in the seventies, I worked on wheat in Kenya. Sorry, wheat in India. After Kenya I worked on wheat in India and the green revolution there, again a package which involved not just the seeds but also the help with investing in the irrigation, which was crucial to those new crops. So, we know it can be done. The CGIAR has a good track record. Juergen Voegele is the Chair of that now and he's pumping it up. We really ought to be putting much more into the CGIAR. And the last bit is finance. You know, it's a lot of investment. That investment has to be financed and poor people face higher cost of capital. That's where the development banks can be so important, and if I've got 1 minute left, Amanda, can I say where that finance should come from?

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Go right ahead.

[Nicholas Stern] Okay. We…. A lot of it will be private sector finance where small farmers themselves from their savings will make the finance, but they can't do it alone or big farmers can make the savings, can contribute their finance, but it's going to need a very big increase in finance and the multilateral development banking system. I was part of a group chaired by N. K. Singh and Larry Summers, which produced two reports last year. The first of those was about the tripling of the flows of the MDBs. Now, that can be done without much input. It will need input from shareholders, it will need sweating the balance sheets, it will need new sources of capital. But it could be funded by very modest capital increases going along with that. So, the scale of the investment we need for the whole green transition and where the agricultural part of the green transition has been so underserved, does involve a big expansion of the lending of the MDB. Don't let anybody tell you it’s expensive it's not. The UK's contribution to this tripling could be about 300 million pounds a year for ten years. That gets lost in the small… The United States could be 1 billion, 1 billion a year for ten years. That kind of thing is absolutely feasible and we should work to make it happen, but it's not just those flows. It is also going to have to be some debt free finance, to fund the dislocations, to really bring down the cost of capital. I think that's ODA, it's IDA, it's the special drawing rights, it's new forms of taxation, which Laurence Tubiana is working on at the request of Mia Motley, and President Ruto and President Macron and the philanthropies, but there's one source of finance which I think we can stress, that's the voluntary carbon markets. These are major sectoral transformation. We need to have a system where these, our voluntary carbon markets, do not work project by project, because that's so difficult to make work that you could buy a slice of a major program of transition of this kind if you were looking to make big firm, looking to buy in the voluntary carbon markets. John Kerry has been pursuing that with the energy transition accelerator. We could make that happen in agriculture as well.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Thank you very much. I wanted to ask a couple of... Actually, I think it'll just be one question because we're running out of time for Ousmane. And then, I think I'll pose the same question to Elizabeth, because I didn't pitch you as many questions as I'd hoped. But that one question I'll ask both of you is, what would you like to see happen at COP29 OR COP30? What for you would be an outcome that could really help drive things forward.

[Ousmane Badiane] Thank you very much. I would just connect to what Lord Stern was talking about. In the report, you showed how little climate finance goes to agriculture, and of that little, how little goes to Africa. I think Africa can be ready for climate finance. Your report is talking about forestry preservation and restoration being an entry point for greater carbon sequestration and sink and contribution in developing countries, if we were to come at COP to a solution that allowed us to get a system of fair value of forestry resources that could be used to trigger capital finance to get into Africa, I think nowadays it's possible to get the verifications and the tracking and the measurements that are necessary to be able to do that. We are currently at AKADEMIYA2063 using satellite data and AI to track greenhouse gas emissions across land cover, and land use on a weekly basis and a bi weekly basis. So, we can construct the verification processes and the certification processes that allow capital finance to get into Africa. Climate finance. And when it does, the technologies that you need to be scaled across agriculture to reduce emissions, the extension systems you need to go with it, the infrastructure you need to go with that can be, and will apply this kind of finance to do that. So, if COP can help us get to a place where more of the capital finance finds its way to Africa, then we can leverage that to finance the technologies, the institutional infrastructure and the systems we need to reduce a trajectory on emissions to make agriculture much more resilient and get to the multiple win wins that I've been talking about. Thank you.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Thank you. Elizabeth. Hopes for COP?

[Elizabeth Nsimadala] Yes. I think for me, what is very important for every COP, we always hear a lot of commitments and praises in terms of resources; but I can say we are a constituency that always hears, but never touches some of these resources. So, we need to break down the barriers which prevent grassroots organizations such as my own, which supports millions of smallholder farmers to have direct access to financing, because this financing is needed desperately by the farmers. And this means ensuring more financing, going directly to farm organizations where we have the most impact, and prioritizing long term investment plans, projects, offering grants, as well as loans, and ensuring that funds are flexible to deal with the unpredictability of farming life. And this can only be done by reforming the funding pathways, by introducing new instruments that farmers can leverage on. It can be by allowing more accredited entities or agencies, especially those that are agricultural leaning, to be enlisted. There's need to empower more development and agriculture banks to be recipients of the loans, because they work with us as pharma institutions, they work with savings and credit cooperative unions. We need also to see affirmative action on the minimum allocation for the farmers annually. At least we need to see more than 50% of the funds that are provided for adaptation. Finally, there is need to diversify climate finance resources, provide for less stringent requirements for access by the farmers organizations; but I wanted to point out, if you can allow me 1 minute, they need to invest…

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Quickly.

[Elizabeth Nsimadala] [Laughs] They need to invest in innovations by smallholder farmers because we are seeing a lot of innovations that are happening on the ground. I want to point out to one, and specifically it's because it was supported by the World Bank funds under the Global Agriculture Food Security Program. This is a farmer led innovation granary initiative by the Eastern African Farmers Federation, which was tried and really proven as a climate smart agriculture program that leveraged more than 20 private sector partnerships from farm to the market and provided climate mitigation finance through risk mitigation and credit. So, we mitigated against production and market risks, and empowered farmers to make climate adaptation related decisions around choice of enterprise, variety to grow, inputs, and agronomy. However, such projects like this, which show impact and have a potential, are only supported for short term, usually between two and three years, and they fail to create impact at the outcome level. So, there is need for more resources for such initiatives that are farmer-led and that can achieve sustainability at scale. If I can use a metaphor from the “Recipe for a Living Planet,” family farmers need to be the head chefs, not just sous-chefs when it comes to cooking up this plan to make the agrifood sector zero, net zero. Thank you.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] That's actually a wonderful way to end. [Applause] [Amanda Kolson Hurley] Do we still have time for a couple of questions? [Man] Let’s make it two questions. [Amanda Kolson Hurley] Okay, we can take two, a total of two questions from the audience for the panel. The gentleman in the blue shirt here.

[Hamish Taylor] Hi, good morning and thank you for taking my question. I'm Hamish Taylor, I come from Scotland. I work in public private partnerships on sustainable value chains. It's a question for the entire panel. We heard how food systems are both the victim of climate change and potentially the villain through deforestation… [Video pauses]

[Ashesh Prasann] Smart agriculture funding, and we are just getting started. I think this needs to go significantly to the next level, especially in terms of mitigation financing. We are already seeing this happen. In East Asia, for example, Vietnam is now engaged in a very large-scale program to bring in low methane rice practices to 1 million hectares. World Bank is supporting this initiative. In Zambia, we are supporting an initiative to reduce emissions as well. We've already done this in many other places, so we have expertise, but we really want to support, this is completely a country led priority. So, once countries make this more of a priority, the World Bank is ready to support in any way possible.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Gunhild?

Gunhild Stordalen] Yes. I just wanted to add into what Nick said as well, that making this happen is obviously going to be challenging. It's totally doable and cost efficient, as we know, but it will require a much more participatory governance and also resources to help both countries, and also actors like farmers, to adapt. I think here the Bank could really leverage its sectoral expertise, ranging from climate smart agriculture to design of social protection measures, and also new skills systems to help different players adapt. So, I really think that the Bank can play a huge role going forward in making this possible. And the last thing I just wanted to clarify in terms of the EAT-Lancet and the planetary health diet, which I started thinking about once I stopped talking, it’s really important to say, which the report also calls out, this is about rich countries having to reduce their overconsumption of meat and animal proteins, allowing, for example, countries in Africa to actually consume more because that would help their diets be healthier. So, calling out the inequality and always have this social justice piece, which is what EAT-Lancet 2.0 is going to be very clear about by defining a social justice boundary for food systems. This will mean that, again, rich countries have to clean up and get their own houses in order and also play a huge part in helping the developing world making this happen.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Great, great, important distinction there. Yeah, I think we have time for one more question over here.

[Bob Tansey] Hi, Bob Tansey. I'm with the Nature Conservancy. I'm struck, both by the report and all the comments, but also the even greater potential for holistic solutions across biodiversity, lands, climate. I'm actually responsible through our membership, something called “China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development,” to give recommendations on agriculture to China's leadership. One example. Another is the opportunities for collaboration across different organizations for on the ground solutions in Latin America that avoid destructive sourcing and turn it into sustainable sourcing and the potential of the Saudi convening landscape.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Sorry, we're crunched from time. If you could get to the question.

[Bob Tansey] Just wondering if any of the panelists are also struck by holistic approaches that go beyond simply the all-important climate framing. Thank you.

[Nicholas Stern] I think. Amanda, can I say something very briefly? [Amanda Kolson Hurley] Sure. [Nicholas Stern] I think we've all been trying to tell the story and the report does it that this is good development, it's mitigation, and it's adaptation, and it's all wrapped up together. And that, I think, is the story. It's the growth story of the 21st century, sustainable, resilient and inclusive. I think the report makes that very clear so that the question has been answered, really.

[Amanda Kolson Hurley] Thank you. I think we're going to have to end on that note. Everyone, please thank our wonderful panel today. Those here and those afar. [Applause] [Amanda Kolson Hurley] All right, got multiple microphones to take us out. We're going to actually have a healthy and sustainable food preparation demonstration in a few minutes, which I'm looking forward to. And to take us out, I'd like to welcome Alex [Alexander] Lotsch. He is a Senior Climate Finance Specialist at the World Bank and he's going to be talking about the way forward. [Applause] [Alexander Lotsch] Let me just quickly rearrange the furniture. Good food and good conversation usually go together. That's almost universal around the world. We were very pleased to have such a good conversation about the report that we're launching today. We're very appreciative of the praise we got. We're very appreciative of the amplification of the messages we have in our report. That leaves me with a very… [Microphone cuts off] [Alexander Lotsch] Oh, it's back. See, anything that could top what has already been said. I will now highlight a few more insights from our report and explain how they inform our actions going forward. What you see here is essentially the summary of our recipe. It shows the quantified ingredients that we need to prepare it and cook it. It is the recipe that shows the cost effective, affordable options that can transform the system from the polluting system that it is today to a system that plays a much more climate and planet positive role going forward. On the left, you see the yellow bar that we saw earlier, the 16 gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions that the system puts out these days. Towards the right, you see a stack of actions. If you stack them up and you filter out the most cost-effective options across high, middle and low-income countries, you can see they can bring down this massive amount of emissions over the next couple of decades. You also see a purple bar there, on the right. Those are additional measures, technologies, innovations that are on the horizon that can bring us over that net zero line. We explain those in a great detail, but includes actions like low emissions fertilizer, feed additives that we heard about for livestock or coal chains powered by renewable energy. So, it is doable and it was resonated just now on the panel. It's a doable recipe, but why is it not happening? We have a substantial portion in our report that focuses on what we poetically call the “six eyes.” We've kept hearing about them over the last 2 hours. Let me just highlight one of them in particular, inclusion. I couldn't say it much more passionately than Elizabeth did that just a moment ago. Inclusion is absolutely essential for this transformation. The transformation will not happen if it's not inclusive, equitable and just. It needs to bring along the hundreds of millions of farmers that are producing most of the food that is consumed by humanity. So, absolutely essential. That's one of the areas that is framing this. But as any good recipe, it needs to be prepared in a kitchen. So, this is really the kitchen that we need, or as economists would call it, “the enabling environment.” There are other elements to it. There are five more eyes. Investments. Needless to say, we need to bring down the risk to crowd in the private sector. We heard about that earlier. To make this transformation possible, we need incentives, governments to spend differently, more climate friendly, set policies, institutions very quickly need to adjust, both at the international level, at the national level, at that level of green jurisdictions, many of which are playing a pioneering role. In this day and age of information and data, that's obviously particularly critical. We just heard it from Ousmane, the MRV, being able to measure our impacts, the impacts of action. Cynthia said it earlier in the session as well. That is absolutely critical not only to be confident that we're moving in the right direction, but also to unlock additional finance that could be brought in from carbon markets. Nick spoke to that point. And innovation, needless to say, a big transformation needs innovation, a very distinct feature that is different from the agrifood system to the energy systems. We don't have a few single technologies like battery storage or photovoltaics that can drive the transition. We need solutions upstream on land use, on the farm, and downstream as food moves from the farm gate to the fork. Now, what we have seen, as we've been writing the report, is really a wave of will, if you want. We have seen that governments are coming together and they've made ambitious declarations six months ago at COP28, to make agrifood system transformation an integral part of the actions going forward. What you see here is really an indication, several measures of how, over the last five years, the actions related to agrifood systems in countries climate action plans, in their Nationally Determined Contributions, have increased. We hope that this wave will continue to grow as we move forward. You saw these circles earlier and the small little tartlet shown in green here that represents current climate finance. This amount needs to increase to a big pie of 260 billion dollars, as we estimate, to be spent annually on protecting nature, making farms more productive, and clean up value chains. This is the 18-fold increase that we need to achieve going forward in mobilizing finance. If we do this, we can cut, according to our estimates, we can cut the emissions in half by the end of the century and put us on a path toward net zero by middle of the century. Nick very eloquently highlighted the benefits. The benefit cost ratio of this transformation is 16 to 1. 16 times more benefits than the cost. 260 billion dollars is less than half of what the world spends on agricultural, mostly harmful agricultural subsidies. So, again, it's doable. The resources are there, the money is in the system. It needs to be redirected. Of course, countries will choose their own pathways towards that target. What you see here are some of the countries with most of the solutions within their economies. You see the distribution in terms of the size of the solutions that they can deliver and the distribution across the different components of the food system. For instance, Brazil and Indonesia, highly forested countries that are losing massive amounts of forest due to the expansion of agriculture. Agricultural commodities could stop that trend and reverse it. A major gain, good for development and good for people on the ground. China, the United States, the European Union, for instance, as shown in yellow or in orange, can do a lot to shift harmful diets toward more low emissions diet. So, the point here is countries will choose and are choosing their pathways towards this net zero transition that reflects their natural endowment, their economies and their competitive advantage. Putting it all together, this is just a qualitative representation of what we have in the report. If all countries work together across all components in the food system, upstream on land use, providing clean inputs for agricultural production, making production more productive and efficient in terms of resource use, cleaning up the value chain all the way from the farm gates to the fork, and changing consumer behavior, we can make this transition, and it is possible, it is feasible, and it is affordable to reach the Paris Agreement targets in that way. We have quantitative estimates that allow us to map this opportunity to different parts of this food system, to different parts of these geographies. Now, going forward, in questions we're just asked, what are we going to do as the World Bank? Now, we want to work together with all of you in the room and all of you connected online, here are just a few highlights of what we want to do to turn the words that we have in our report into actions going forward. One set of activities relate to informing country action, really taking it down from the global level to the country level. The economics are there, but they're perhaps not specific enough to guide investments at the country level. We're working on that. We want to work with you on this. Food system climate action plans. Again, this idea of bringing down this type of analysis that we've now done at the global level, down to the local level, engaging in processes with stakeholders at the local level, at the country level, a point that Cynthia made at the beginning of our session. That's something we want to do together. Increasing leverage, partnerships both internally and externally, is part of our engagement going forward. Internally, we've produced this report with many parts of the Bank, colleagues working on water, colleagues working on energy, behavioral and economic. [Video cuts off]

[Alexander Lotsch] Currently, with many of the partners here in the room and many of the partners connected here, this is obviously too big to do alone. Mobilizing finance, crowding innovative sources of finance is absolutely critical, and there are several ideas laid out in the report that we want to pursue. Now, all of this takes different thinking, different actions and change. Now, one of the places that we're all familiar with and where we can make decisions, and again, we've heard about this many times in this panel is in the kitchen. We can decide what we eat, we prepare it and which section of the supermarket we go shopping in. Now, for those of you in the room we have, or in the building, if you're still connected online, we have a special treat lined up for you to transform the words in our report into action. It's a modest step, but it's leading in the right direction. Chef Pierre [Thiam], from whom you heard earlier with an inspirational speech, talked very passionately out the with food, about fonio and how it relates to the farmers in West Africa. That's what we have prepared for you. A cooking demonstration by Chef Pierre. He will be joined for entertainment value by our management and our panelists. He will get an apron and a knife and will join him in that cooking show. We will talk about the sourcing of these ingredients, their sustainability, their taste and their importance of promoting livelihoods of farmers in West Africa. So that's our treat for you. We thank you very much for coming. Thank you for the questions. Do stay engaged. Download the report, read it. We want to work with you and we hope to take the conversation now from here into the kitchen. Bon appetit. [Applause]

00:00 Welcome

02:29 Opening remarks
- Juergen Voegele, Vice President, Sustainable Development, World Bank

07:54 Explainer video: Agrifood systems and climate change

10:28 Main insights from the report
- William Sutton, Global Lead for Climate Smart Agriculture and Lead Agricultural Economist, The World Bank

Ignite talks
21:43 From challenges to solutions: Cynthia Rosenzweig, Senior Research Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
30:29 Deforestation: Éliane Ubalijoro, Chief Executive Officer, CIFOR-ICRAF
37:29 Private capital: Robyn O’Brien, Author, speaker, entrepreneur
46:54 Healthy food choices: Pierre Thiam, Chef, author, and social activist

56:10 Panel discussion: Pathway to transformation and making change
- Gunhild Stordalen, Founder and Executive Chair, EAT
- Ousmane Badiane, Executive Chairperson of AKADEMIYA2063
- Ashesh Prasann, Senior Agriculture Economist, World Bank
- Nicholas Stern, IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government, London School of Economics
- Elizabeth Nsimadala, Board Member for the Africa Constituency of the World Farmers’ Organisation

1:41:28 Live Q&A

1:48:31 The way forward
- Alexander Lotsch, Senior Climate Finance Specialist, World Bank