96% of the World’s Biomass is Livestock and Humans, and We Still Can’t Feed Everyone?
Global hunger is on the rise and under-nutrition is still impacting millions of children. United Nation’s SDG Knowledge Platform estimated as of 2017
- 821 million people were undernourished
- 770 million were faced with severe food insecurity
- Aid to agriculture in developing countries decreased by $12.6 billion
- 89 million children were affected by either wasting or overweight
How can 96% of world’s biomass consistent of livestock and humans, and we are still failing to feed the world? Is it because we aren’t simply producing enough food or is our agricultural system broken? Johan Rockström, former executive director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, believes our agricultural system is broken and it is trapped in a vicious cycle. During Johan’s presentation at World Economic Forum’s conference in Davos 2020 (Feeding the Planet for the Future) he revealed that
“Food on its own is responsible for killing 11 million people pre-maturely because of malnourishment, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases. Our food system has a major impact on water usage & pollution, biodiversity, deforestation and climate. 25% of greenhouse gases come from agricultureâ€
Our unsustainable agricultural practices is causing climate change and climate change is resulting in food shortages. It is a vicious cycle. With our climate at a tipping point, we have 10 years to fix our food system, save the planet and prevent irreversible destruction.
Where do we start? The Planetary Emergency Plan, a report by the Club of Rome, states that we as consumers need to change our diet. We should eat more plant proteins and whole grain foods. We also ought to consume less animal proteins, sodium, sugar and starchy vegetables. This is what they call a flexitarian diet. To bring this dietary behavior change among consumers, Ramon Laguarta (CEO of PepsiCo) proposed an ingenious idea. Similar to how products have nutritional value at the back of its packaging, products should have a sustainability value. For example, products can display its carbon footprint. By communicating the relevance of food and how it interacts with climate change, consumers are more likely to make informed decisions.
The no meat sustainable low carbon buffet at tech4good session by SDC at Davos, Switzerland. Picture taken by Swiss Learning Exchange.
The report’s other major suggestion is to support local farmers. Local farmers are the most knowledgeable and vulnerable of our vicious agricultural system. To start off, we need to incorporate local farmers in global discussions on sustainable agriculture. There is a lot that we can learn from their local knowledge. However, before we start advocating these farmers to going green, we need to save them from going red. What I mean by this is financing our local farmers. A World Bank report reveals that 65% of poor working adults are in agriculture. There is enough public and private finance in the world to help our local farmers adopt sustainable agricultural practices.
Read: SLX Story on Akshay Patra – fighting hunger in India
By addressing our agricultural system, we can address many of UN’s sustainable development goals. However, this is not a simple task. We also do not have the luxury of time. If we are to succeed, it will have to be a collaborative effort. We, the consumers, the government institutions, the finance industry, private companies, global innovators and last but not the least, local farmers, all working together.
- Published in Blogs
Dataopia not Dystopia
This year’s World Economic Forum’s (WEF) conference in Davos has placed a huge emphasis on achieving the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and solving the climate crisis. One stakeholder in particular is being viewed as both the criminal and the solution for this problem. The finance industry. Executive director of Greenpeace reported that the finance industry are as culpable as the fossil industry in creating climate emergency. Greta Thunberg even went as far as demanding the financial sector to
“immediately halt all investments in fossil fuel exploration and extraction. Immediately end all fossil fuel subsidies. And immediately and completely divest from fossil fuels†(source).
Despite the negative spotlight, these financial institutions were also viewed as the force for change. From preparing transitional frameworks to move away from the current broken economic system to investing more money in Green Finance and Green Bonds. Â However, there is just one problem. There is a distinct lack of data and standardized reporting standards for sustainability. Without this, the capital market is unable to fully comprehend sustainable development. Therefore, they are unable to successfully invest in environmental and social projects.
It is then no surprise that data is the new oil. Data can help the finance industry assess risks in sustainability and understand where the critical climate challenges are. Data collection also means that governments can ensure environmental regulations are implemented by polluting industries. For example, data that is collected from these industries can be used to monitor their polluting activities. Â
As a key first step, Refinitiv has announced the launch of the Future of Sustainable Data Alliance in Davos yesterday. An alliance to accelerate capital into sustainable financing using data. The Alliance aims to solve the question
“What data do investors and governments need to meet the requirements of both regulators and customers for sustainable investments and products in pursuit of the 2030 Agendaâ€.
While this is a great start, it needs to be stressed that the data needed to quantify, measure and compare impact is still in its early stages. From my point of view, there are two momentous challenges that will need to be addressed to move forward. First, data reporting will need to be standardized. Whether that is one format for each industry type or one universally accepted format for all industries. Without a standardized reporting template, we will not be able to compare performance and identify best practices among industries. Second, companies will need to adopt transparency reporting. Only then can we hold these companies accountable, manage risks and most importantly, build trust.Â
- Published in Blogs
Academia’s Role as a Stakeholder for a Sustainable and Cohesive World: Female Quotient Lounge, Davos 2020
Swiss Learning Exchange was in the Female Quotient Lounge, Davos when the session on Academia was going on. Â
Academia can play a critical role in building a sustainable and cohesive world – a fact reiterated at the Female Quotient Lounge, at Davos. Especially when it comes to instilling the values of sustainability and reducing inequalities (SDGs 10), think tanks believe, teachers and students have a lot to contribute.
Sustainable Development: Common Goal in an Uncommon World
Being divided on lines of socio-economic-cultural factors, world leaders are working towards the common goal of building sustainable development solutions. Academia has the power to change the narrative of growth and development by designing curriculum which not only bridge the gender gap, but also involves students to solve real socio-environmental problems.
David Steingard, from Saint Joseph’s University, highlights the necessity infusing the SDGs to college curriculum to build business solutions which are sustainable in nature. The message is loud and clear – tomorrow’s entrepreneurs are today’s students.
Read: Davos 2020 – Youth Activists or Businesses: Who will Save our Planet?
SDG 5: Gender Equality and the Role of Finance Departments in Educational Institutes
A sustainable future is impossible without overcoming gender inequality. Financial independence and the ability to make major investment related decisions are imperative to empower the women. The role of finance departments and finance professors is critical and has been duly pointed out by Mette Morsing, Co-Director of CBS Sustainability Platform. She advocates the alarmingly low number of women in the field of finance which bears a reflection on gender-biased financial policies throughout the globe.
For businesses to flourish and a decent work and economic growth, it is time universities bury the gender misrepresentation their finance departments.
Read: SDG 5 Gender Equality – The 28 trillion-dollar business opportunity
Technology, Data and Sustainable Development Goals
As rightly articulated by Salem Avan, technology and data are universal language. If used in an efficient manner, they can advance equality in workplace through accountable solutions. The onus is on the academia to develop mechanisms of meaningful partnership between technology and sustainable growth ethos and solutions.
- Published in Blogs
Is the Financial Industry Fueling Climate Change?
“Financial industry is as culpable as the fossil fuel industry in creating the climate emergencyâ€. Strong words from Jennifer Morgan (international executive director of Greenpeace) during World Economic Forum’s conference in Davos yesterday. Should we be blaming the financial industry for climate change? Let’s find out.
In a recent report published by Greenpeace, “It’s the finance sector, stupidâ€,  revealed two crucial facts. First, majority of the financial industries that travel to Davos and UN’s climate conferences actively invest in the fossil fuel industry. These companies till date have invested $1.4 trillion since the signing of the Paris climate accord in 2015. This is not a great sign for the financial sector. Especially when they are simultaneously looking to promote net zero carbon goals. You cannot invest in the biggest perpetrator for carbon emissions and talk about solving the climate crisis. That is textbook greenwashing.  Second, many of these companies in the financial industry are providing insurance for coal coverage. This is enabling the fossil fuel industry to rapidly expand globally.
Lord Nicholas Stern, a British economist believes that the reason the financial sector is investing in fossil fuel is because they are only thinking short-term. The financial sector seems to have pulled away and disconnected itself from real economy. Many people are slowly waking up to the realization that the economy we have right now is flawed and requires a fundamental re-think. This perfectly captured in Klaus Schwab’s quote (Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum) saying
“Adherence to the current economic system represents a betrayal of future generations, owing to its environmentally unsustainabilityâ€.
We are once again at the precipice of reforming the way the global economy works. The Bretton Woods agreement was signed by world leaders to ensure world wars would never again occur. The system may have worked for the 20th century and resulted in unprecedented economic growth. However, this growth has led to destruction of the environment by giving central power to the financial sector. Â Similar to how world nations came together to sign the Bretton Woods agreement, the world requires all countries to come together now. We need a new agreement that fundamentally changes how our economy works.
Yes, the financial sector may have fueled climate change, but that does not mean they cannot change. So, how can the financial sector be proactive about this? First, the sector needs to start shifting subsidies away from the fossil fuel industry and invest it in long-term renewable energy. Second, advocate government to have stricter climate regulations. Ask the government to act based on scientific facts. Finally, start preparing a transitional framework. One that will move way from our current outdated and one-dimensional economic model to a new and holistic sustainability model.
Swiss Learning Exchange is in Davos this week with our mic and camera. As for all the latest blogs on Davos 2020, you can visit our online platform SDG Plus. Â
- Published in Blogs
Davos 2020 – Youth Activists or Businesses: Who will Save Our Planet?
We are at the brink of causing irreversible damage to our mother earth. It is costing our economy trillion dollars in damage every year. We are at the risk of destabilizing our planet. Scientists say we have roughly 10 years to change our course and avert this disaster. In this time of need, who should we turn to? To the youth activists who have made it their responsibility to change the status quo? Or to the businesses, who’s philanthropic investment can inspire the force for change?
2019 has been a year where youth climate activists like Greta Thunberg, Leah Namugerwa, Ridhima Pandey, Xiye Bastida took hold of the center stage. What has been their impact on the world? The positive news is that every day, more and more young people are getting involved and taking an interest in climate change and sustainability. At the bare minimum, this will help foster our next generation of leaders and change makers in embracing sustainability. However, the good news stops there. Despite their wide media coverage, the voices of young activists are not turning into any form of meaningful action.  Youth activist Natasha Mwansa summarized this sentiment eloquently in today’s Davos 2020 conference,
“Action is what counts. We need more actors on the ground to foster the changeâ€.
How do we bring this change? Who can create such a revolution? I think businesses have the potential. Our Planet documentary reminded us that businesses where responsible in creating a digital, internet and mobile revolution. This has shaped the way we think and do things. If they can do it on three separate occasions, what is stopping them from doing it for sustainability?
Let us face it, businesses will have no option but to be a force for change. Why? Because business heavily depend on nature and her ecosystem services. The overuse of natural resources is costing the world $2 trillion per year and this can go up to $28 trillion per year if these trends continue. Kristin Rechberger, CEO of Dynamic Planet, said that global ecosystem provides $125 trillion dollars in free services to businesses and us. It would be illogical if we did not try and save mother nature, even if it is purely for economical reasons.
This is a great segue way to ask the title question of my blog once again. Youth Activists or Businesses: who will save our planet? I must go with youth activist Natasha Mwansa’s answer. She said that businesses and youth activists need to collaborate and co-create. Businesses have the financial investment and experience necessary to make the change happen. While youth activists have all the energy and ideas in coming up with new and innovative solution. There needs to be an alliance of movements.
Swiss Learning Exchange is in Davos this week with our mic and camera. Let us know on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, “what do you want us to ask the people on the streets of Davos?â€. As for all the latest blogs on Davos 2020, you can visit our online platform SDG Plus. Â
- Published in Blogs
Davos 2020 – SDG 5 Gender Equality: The 28 Trillion-Dollar Business Opportunity
With such an attractive opportunity presented to private companies, will SDG 5 (gender equality) be the first to be achieved by 2030? Well if you are like me and you got optimistic seeing this figure, I have some bad news for you. To close the gender equality gap, it is going to take us more than 200 years! Â Okay, but are we making progress in reducing the gender gap? Unfortunately, we are not. In fact, these last couple of years, progression has been in reverse.
With these facts in mind, it comes with no surprise that not a single country in the world is close to achieving gender equality. Good progress has been made on improving women health and education. However, other critical issues such as equal pay, economic opportunity, political empowerment, etc. are still very much lagging.
So, what gives? There is a clear opportunity for businesses and public organizations, but we are nowhere closer to solving the problem. In today’s Davos 2020 conference, at the UN Global Compact lounge Anita Bhatia (Deputy Executive Director, UN Women) said that gender equality is the most complex issue to solve. The reason for its complexity comes from the point that it cuts across many major issues – health, politics, innovation, economic growth, climate change, etc. Addressing gender equality means addressing many of these issues parallelly. To put it lightly, this will naturally make things complicated.
The second major issue is that our society has always followed a patriarchy system. Moving away from this will require a fundamental re-think of our society. A systemic change is needed. I don’t need to tell you that no one will easily give up power. To foster this change, Anita Bhatia firmly believes this is an area private companies can get involved.  She suggests that private companies should take investment risks the public sector will or cannot. Adding on to this, businesses will need to support women role models and champions to help them achieve the agenda.
We can no longer ignore and exclude women from any form of decision making progress. It is evident that gender equality has the potential to solve other sustainability issues in tandem. If we want to reverse the backwards trend of SDG 5, we will need private companies to be more active. We only have 10 years to achieve the SDG, but we all know how businesses love deadlines.
- Published in Blogs
Davos 2020 – Are Big Business Adopting the SDGs or Hijacking the Agenda?
Davos 2020 kicks off today. For its 50th anniversary, World Economic Forum (WEF) decided its theme for Davos was going to be “Stakeholders for Cohesive and Sustainable Worldâ€. With so much noise around the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), have businesses finally awoken to the reality of sustainability? Or are private companies using WEF’s agenda as a global PR stunt? Â
SDGs provide a host of business opportunities for private companies. A report by the Business & Sustainable Development showed that achieving the SDGs will offer a minimum of $12 trillion in business opportunities. You would think more companies will be taking advantage of this. You are not wrong there. The UN Global Impact reported that more than 80% of its member companies have committed to advancing one or more SDGs. However, most of these private entities have simply re-branded their corporate social responsibility (CSR) mandate under the name of a suitable SDG goal. Â
So, how are businesses getting away with greenwashing the SDGs? I think it is because of two main reasons. First, the goals are not mandatory for private companies to accomplish. This means that as a private company, you can avoid any form of responsibility when it comes to advancing the SDGs. Second, each goal is broad and open to interpretation. This allows businesses to find loopholes and vague correlation links to the SDGs. Â
As we start the Davos week, which is centered around SDGs, my only fear is that businesses will simply utilize this platform as a lip service. To leave you with a more positive note, the world has enough CSR and philanthropic money to achieve all the 17 SDGs by 2030. However, we are missing a crucial piece to the puzzle – meaningful engagement with businesses and its leaders. Â
- Published in Blogs
COP25 – Are We Going in Reverse?
With youth climate activists like Greta Thunberg, Leah Namugerwa, Ridhima Pandey, Xiye Bastida taking the centre stage, I thought this year’s COP, aka COP25, would finally address critical climate issues in a meaningful way. Did my wish come true, or was history doomed to repeat itself? Well, I think it is safe to say that everyone walked away scratching their heads.Â
First, let us take a step back. if you aren’t familiar with COP, they are organised by United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). Their main objective is to regulate man-made greenhouse gas emissions to prevent climate change. They do so through Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings, by setting non-binding targets for member countries. You may have heard of the Kyoto Protocol (1997), Montreal Protocol (2005) and the Paris Agreement (2015). So far, there have been 25 COP meetings and all of them have largely been ineffective because of its non-enforcement mechanisms.Â
How did 2019’s COP turn out then? 2 weeks of COP25 can be roughly summarised in 3 points: Â
- Developed countries refusing to make any meaningful investment
- Developing countries criticised for not being ambitious enough with their targets
- Overuse of passive terminology to acknowledge major issues – “we need to addressâ€, “strongly encourageâ€, “urges to scale upâ€, etc.Â
An optimist would say COP25 could have been worse and we should look forward to COP26 in Glasgow on June 2020. A pessimist would agree the world is on reverse gear and we are all moving backwards. I think, all our world leaders are procrastinating, waiting until it is too late. Everyone is content with pointing fingers at each other. Developed nations are asking developing nations to be ambitious, while simultaneously refusing to invest in climate change adaptation and mitigation. In a time where we all need to work together, we couldn’t be more divided. Â
I look back at 2019 and we have had a major climate disaster for every single month of 2019. Starting with floods in Argentina and Uruguay in January and ending with forest fires in Australia in December. Climate catastrophes could become an unwanted trend. Knowing what we know, can we afford to be passive? As we step into 2020, will we see countries be more proactive to solve the problem of climate change? One thing is certain though, if UNFCC conferences are going to make an impact, they need to stop trying to please everyone.
- Published in Blogs
Are the Top 5 Sustainable Countries in the World the Best We Have?
As reported by EPI in 2018, the top 5 sustainable countries in the world are. Â
- Switzerland
- France
- Denmark
- Malta
- SwedenÂ
If a developing country is looking to be more sustainable, should they simply follow in the footsteps of these countries? Let us find out. Â
It is important to first understand how EPI determines whether a country is sustainable or not. As the name suggests, EPI by in large only considers environmental indicators.  These include air quality, water and sanitation, agriculture, forest, fisheries, etc. However, I don’t think this is an accurate representation of sustainable development. In an ideal world, the notion of sustainability should include its three pillars – environmental, economic and social.Â
Adding on to this, EPI only takes into account the environmental performance of a country’s policies. It does not consider the country’s impact on the rest of the world. Living in a globalised world, where goods are bought and sold in an international market, this can be misleading. Look at the following report published by Global Footprint Network on Earth Overshoot Day, July 2019 (source).Â
2 out of the 5 top sustainable countries of 2018 are consuming 2.8 (Switzerland) and 2.7 (France) Earths worth of resources. Are we asking developing nations to aspire to this benchmark of sustainability? To quote from Brundtland Commissions’ Our Common Future report, “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.†(source). At this rate, we would somehow need to find an extra 0.75 earth for our future generation. Â
Why are we still relying on a one–dimensional indicator to rank the sustainable countries of the world? If developing countries use this indicator as a benchmark for sustainability, we run the risk of needing to move to mars. Question is, can we develop an indicator that incorporates all three pillars of sustainability? I think we can. However, developed and developing countries both need to work together to develop a holistic indicator.
- Published in Blogs
SDGs: Moon-shot or Achievable?
A common dialogue surrounding sustainable development goals (SDGs) is promoting the use of clean and renewable energy. However, there are 17 SDGs and bringing affordable and clean energy is only one of them. While the world has made great progress in achieving this SDG, it seems to have lost momentum on other critical goals such as ending world hunger. Â
To better understand where the gaps are, I have made a simple table to showcase which of the SDGs are making headway and which of them are lagging. Each SDGs have a set number of targets assigned to them. Example – SDG 1: No Poverty has 7 targets and SDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being has 13 targets. So, I have categorised the SDG progress as follows –Â
- Green – Progress in majority of the SDG’s targetsÂ
- Orange – Mix of SDG targets showing progress and decline Â
- Red – Decline in majority of the SDG’s targets
Source – The progress highlighted in UN’s SDG Knowledge Platform website was used to form this table https://sustainabledevelopment.un.orgÂ
As you can see, only 4 of the SDGs have made a positive progress in the last 5 years. Whereas 9 of them have shown mixed results and 4 are signaling a declining trend. So, the question then is, why hasn’t significant progress been made on achieving the SDGs? It could be that countries aren’t making serious enough commitments. Private companies could be using SDGs as a global PR stunt, rather than make any meaningful strides to solve the problem.Â
Off the bat, it is not clear what the root cause of the issue is. But one thing is certain, we cannot continue business as usual. Well, we can, but that could mean not being able to achieve majority of the SDGs and risk causing irreversible damage to our planet. What do we do then? To start off with, if the SDGs are to succeed, it will depend on continued advocacy for each of its targets. Countries and companies will also need to start adopting meaningful and achievable short-term targets. This will allow us to be flexible and help in identifying roadblocks a lot quicker. Â
Finally, goals and targets can become meaningless if there are no consequences. But the question is, are companies going to wait for regulations to make them adopt SDGs or are they going to be proactive? By the same token, as private companies come under increased global pressure, what role will the trade associations play?Â
- Published in Blogs