[MUSIC] 17 SDGs is a large number to deal with. Therefore, in order to simplify implementation of the SDGs, there's a tendencies for companies and other organizations to cherry pick among the 17 and to select those that they consider to be most relevant for their particular products or activities. Not surprisingly, when cherry picking SDGs, most organizations select those where their activities make a positive contribution. The problem with that strategy is that it's very difficult to envision activities that do not have both negative and positive effects on the SDGs overall. We can not achieve a sustainable development trajectory unless we simultaneously work to reduce negative impacts at the same time we exploit the positive interactions. Numerous studies have been carried out since the adoption of the 2030 agenda in which the interactions between different SDGs are mapped. Clearly, mapping the 17 goals, and there are 169 targets against each other, becomes a mammoth task. Therefore, most studies only consider a subset of the goals. One such study, where interactions between four goals were considered, was recently carried out by ICSU, the International Council for Science. As you can see, there are a myriad of interactions both between these four goals, number 2, zero hunger, number 3, good health and well being, number 7, affordable and clean energy, and 14, life below water, as well as with these goals and the other goals. Some interactions are negative and others positive, and not all are of equal weight. That is to say that some more important than others in terms of achieving sustainable development. Thus, it's very difficult to map the interactions between all 17 SDGs and to recognize their importance for achieving sustainable development. A further challenge in relating SDGs to sustainable development is that politicians and other social decision makers, or societal decision makers, do not actually think in terms of SDGs. Countries do not, for example, have ministries devoted to the different SDGs. They have ministries devoted to different sectors, the agriculture, health, energy sectors, and so on. Furthermore, legislation is usually made with respect to these different sectors, or systems. Therefore, it's difficult to relate the SDGs to everyday decision making. I've invited Bruce Campbell who's the director for the research program, Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security under the CGIAR to help us understand how something, that is familiar to us all as the food system, creates both positive and negative interactions within the SDGs and not least, where the food system needs to be changed in order to bring us on a more sustainable development trajectory. Food production is, obviously, critical to people to survive. But what other kinds of interactions does food production actually have with the SDGs than just health? >> So it actually has multiple interactions. So the first one is, no poverty, so agricultural development is a key part of the poverty alleviation agenda. Obviously, it's connection with food, no hunger. It's got a connection to the water one. What agriculture does to water resources, and it uses 70% of the earth's water resources at the moment, of the usable water. The biodiversity ones, both of those, agriculture production is a key driver of biodiversity change, climate change. So those are some of the big ones with agriculture production, but even all the others you can find linkages. So, for example the gender one, there's a massive feminization of agriculture in developing countries. So more women than men are doing farming. So then you have to have an empowerment approach within agriculture development as well. So you can go through the list and you can find linkages to almost all the SDGs. >> That's really kind of neat because nobody really thinks in terms of SDGs. They think in terms of the systems that we can regulate, like the food system, and the health system, and so on. And it's really kind of neat to see how they all fit together, but these SDGs are a global vision, really. I mean, they are at the global level, but they play out differently at regional and even local levels. Can you give some examples in agriculture of how the leverages that you would use, regionally, would be different to achieve the same goal? >> Yeah, we really believe that you have to work right across the scales, right from a farmer's field to national level policies, to global level policies, and they all have to come together. But some of the real solutions lie at the the level of countries and farms in landscapes. And so, for example, in Ghana the solution may be providing mobile phones to farmers and making sure everybody can access climate information about the next season to know what seed to grow. To buy insurance on the phone, which is already happening in some places around the world. To use more fertilizer, which in other parts of the world is a test to be using less fertilizer. So it's highly context specific, the solutions. So we have to understand these trade offs at a local level, and then deal with them at that local level in terms of the solutions. >> What about diet and culture? We keep hearing that we should be eating less meat. >> Yeah, so that's a really tough one, because in some parts of the world, so there's strong connections to health issues and livestock is driving many of the negative environmental effects on the planet. But in other parts of the world, people have meat three or four times a year at ceremonies. So there's definitely no over consumption, and there's livelihoods that depend on livestock production. So you cannot do away with livestock production, because you'll be really impacting the poverty agenda, for example. >> Do you really believe that we can have sustainable development and still feed 9 to 10 billion people? >> I really do believe that's possible. So, first of all, the production in many developing countries is way below the potential, five, six, seven, ten times below the potential. So we can increase the amount of food production, but we have to do it through sustainable intensification. It can't be at the spreading through more forest land and those sorts of things. So I'm optimistic that there can be changes. >> Bruce, two of the SDGs that a lot of countries are struggling with, actually, everybody's struggling with, are the ones on biodiversity. The numbers 14 and 15 on the ocean and in land. What about agriculture and biodiversity? >> Now, so agriculture's had a massive impact on biodiversity. On the land, it accounts for more than 70% of global deforestation, and it's the major driver of land cover change on the globe. And I think that most of us see the solution as sustainable intensification. This approach where you produce more with, essentially, less inputs. But, once again, that might not be the, there's no silver bullets. But, perhaps, it has to go hand in hand with forest governance, improving forest governance, so that the improved agriculture doesn't spread into the forests. >> You came with some pretty big numbers in there. You said that agriculture's responsible for 70% of the deforestation, and, what about water? >> It's using 70% of the water that's used at the moment. >> 70% of the fresh water that's used at the moment. >> But in addition, it's also putting fertilizer, nitrogen into the water systems causing massive putrefaction of lakes in some parts of the world. >> Of course, the fertilizers also can become potent greenhouse gasses, so it's also related to that problem. >> Yeah, that's correct. >> Challenge. >> Yeah, but, once again, I think that through intensification and more targeted fertilizer use, you can solve some of these problems. So, for example, there are subsidies in China to fertilizer use, and, actually, there's over use of fertilizer. And just by reducing the efficiency, by only 5%, you can keep the same amount of production, food production going. And you can reduce the subsidy bill by $1.5 billion in China. So in other words, years of trade off between the finance system and the environmental systems. And it seems like an obvious way to go in terms of reducing environmental impacts. >> So you're talking about actually using economic incentives to try and make the changes that we need to make in agriculture. >> Yeah, correct. And, in many cases, there are subsidies, for example, which are not very climate smart or environmentally smart, and they should be removed. They could still be subsidies, but they could be better placed. They could be driving micro-credit performance. They could be driving insurance mechanisms, those sort of things. >> So the bottom line, when we get right down to it, is that sustainable development isn't possible unless we change the agricultural system? >> That, I have no doubt of. So I would say that within a decade, we have to see a really transformed agricultural system to very different forms of agriculture. And in some cases it's leapfrogging. The problems that happened in the developed world, like Europe. So instead of going the same path of agricultural development, to high production and environmental impacts, is there a different path? And I believe there are different paths. >> It's interesting to me that everyone knows that in order to meet the climate challenge, we need to change our energy system drastically. But it's so few people that know that we really need to change the agricultural system as well. I wonder why that is? >> Yeah, that is really sad. The sector which is going to be most impacted by climate change is agriculture, probably, because it's so dependent on climate. And it gives 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions, so it seems like you have to deal with it. The rice subsector gives the same emissions as the aviation industry, for example. And the aviation industry seems to be taking some degree of seriousness about climate change but not the rice sector. They are 500 million small, older farmers, for example. And so you are dealing with many, many people with small bits of land. But, on the other hand, one of the ways of perhaps dealing with it and using a private sector approach, would be through some of the big companies. So, for example, Kellogg's, which is really interested in rice. They are potentially big players in the industry. And they're showing lots of leadership in terms of trying to change the way of doing business. >> In this lecture, I used food systems. That is to say, production and consumption, to illustrate how normal everyday activities, to which we give little thought, but upon which our lives depend interact with the SDGs. The example clearly illustrates that we must undertake major changes in our food systems to achieve sustainable development. It also clearly shows that one size does not fit all. While the SDGs are common global goals, their achievement plays out differently at regional levels. Thus, it will be necessary to use different levers in the sustainable transformation of the food system in different regions. I could just as easily have used any of the other systems critical to society, energy, transport, markets, etc., to make these points. For all of these systems, there are interactions with most, if not all, of the SDGs, and all play out differently from region to region. The take home message then is that the SDGs are all interlinked and need to be considered in the musketeer spirit. All for one, and one for all. Only in that manner can we begin to think and regulate in the system context that actually describes the world we live in. [MUSIC]
