since it's nine o'clock. Good morning, everyone. So glad to welcome you to the first Natural Capital Conversation. Today, we'll be talking about the Anthropocene Ocean. First, I thought I would start with a few introductory remarks. The Natural Capital Project is centered at Stanford University, and we've got five core partners shown here on the screen. We are pioneering science, technology, and partnerships that enable people and nature to thrive. We started these Natural Capital Conversations because we found that we missed the lively and thought provoking sessions at our annual symposium at Stanford, and we thought we'd try taking them online. So these are conversations that are designed to spark engaging discussion, learn from others' experiences, and promote connections with collaborators old and new. The various events will feature everything from climate-smart coastal planning to cultural ecosystem services and more. And just a few little housekeeping things. First of all, a recording of this webinar will be available at our YouTube channel. And a copy of the slides that are presented today will be included in a thank you email after the event. In terms of questions and answers and chats, just to get you oriented, if you have questions for the speakers, please use the question and answer box. And if you have technical challenges or have questions about logistics, use the chat box. And we'll remind you of this again when we get to the Q&A section. Here's the schedule after opening remarks. Jean-Baptiste Jouffray, who is a postdoc at the Stockholm Resilience Center, whose work focuses on the interlinked social, economic, and ecological challenges that shape the new global ocean. He will introduce all of the panelists. We'll take a break from 9.45 to 9.50, and then we will begin the discussion and Q&A. And then we'll wrap up with a few announcements about upcoming conversation series that we hope that you will join us for. And with that, I will turn it over to Jean-Baptiste. Thank you very much. And thank you all involved in the Natural Capital Project for organizing this series of conversation and giving us the opportunity to discuss the Anthropocene Ocean with such a fantastic panel. And of course, thank you to all four panelists for accepting the invitation and joining me today. Back when I was in high school, I remember my philosophy teacher telling me that as soon as we get a subject on the table for the essay, well, the first thing we should do is to actually extract each one, each word of the topic of the subject and define them. And that will help us get started. And I figured this was quite fitting today because we have only two words that shouldn't get us too far. So the Anthropocene and the Ocean. The Anthropocene, it describes a new epoch where humans have become the dominant force of planetary change with profound impact on the Earth biosphere and the climate system upon which so many people depend. It is characterized by increasing speed, scale and connectivity. And it depicts an age where people, places, cultures, economies and technologies are connected across geographical location, sectors and socioeconomic context in unprecedented ways. Some argue the Anthropocene should be a distinct geological era following upon the Holocene and marking the age of humans. Others ignore these debates and prefer to look at the Anthropocene as an analytical framework to explore what this new reality means for social ecological system and their capacity to support human societies. Indeed, a key challenge for humanity in the Anthropocene is to understand its new role as dominant force of planetary change and how to enable transformation towards a more sustainable and equitable Anthropocene. In particular, in the context of the ocean. So what is the ocean? Well, that's a life support system. It produces oxygen, it absorbs excess heat, it regulates the climate and essentially it covers more than 70% of the planet. It also provides food, economic opportunity and livelihood to billions of people. Yet the prospect of a new era of blue growth that we're experiencing today poses unprecedented sustainability and governance challenges as marine ecosystem face cumulative pressures from local human impacts, global climate change and distal socioeconomic drivers. So the point of this session today is to explore what the Anthropocene means for the ocean and how to steer it in a sustainable and equitable way. 2020 was supposed to be the super year for the ocean with the UN Ocean Conference, the COP26 and so on. It obviously did not happen and those events have been postponed to 2021. 2021 marks also the beginning and the start of the UN Decade for Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. It actually started literally 27 days ago, first of January and it will go on until 2030. We have the Blue COP COP26 at the end of the year. We also have the UN Ocean Conference in the fall. We have the food system which is no list relevant for the ocean considering blue food and seafood. So there is some kind of momentum around the ocean and today the idea is what about the two words together? What about Anthropocene and what about ocean and how to make sense of it? Well, it is my pleasure not to have to answer those questions and instead to introduce our four distinguished speakers starting with Elizabeth Selig, deputy director or the Center for Ocean Solution at Stanford University. Her work focuses on analyzing how changes in ecosystem health will affect ecosystem services and human well-being and how to design and evaluate the success of management tools to effectively manage resources. Elizabeth, you have long experience working with international organization such as conservation, international, the Smithsonian Institution or the World Resource Institute. Your research covers a wide range of topics from marine ecology and conservation including the role of marine protected areas to coral reef, climate change, fisheries and the seafood industry in general. But I think that being said, one common thread throughout your work has been and still is to apply an integrated social ecological lens and to really look at the social ecological interdependencies of sustainable development. And I think this is something that should be obvious from your presentation today about the human dependence on marine ecosystem. Our second speaker will be Douglas McCauley, professor at University of California, Santa Barbara and director of the Benioff Ocean Initiative. I think broadly speaking, Douglas work focuses on understanding the ecology of communities and ecosystem in a rapidly changing world. Research in your lab is directed at understanding how community structure influences ecosystem dynamics in determining how ecosystem are interactively and energetically coupled to one and over and quantifying how humans disturb these dynamics and shape patterns of biodiversity. To design solution to the problem confronting ocean health, you draw from disciplines such as community ecology, biogeochemistry, conservation biology and anthropology and often use emerging tech and big data to conduct spatial analysis and ecological modeling. Ultimately your work aims at generating results that both advance the science of ecology and can be used by decision makers. Today you will introduce us to the rapidly growing industrialization of the ocean and its possible consequences. Then we will hear from John Verdin, director of the Coastal and Ocean Policy Program at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at Duke University. You have expertise in studying and advising government policies to regulate human use of the ocean, particularly marine conservation policies to reduce poverty throughout the tropics. The program you're directing aim at connecting science and policy makers to solve ocean sustainability problem. Your focus has been largely on managing fisheries for food and livelihood, expanding to broader ocean based economic development policies, coastal adaptation and more recently issues such as ocean plastic pollution and the role of large corporation in the ocean economy. Prior to joining Duke University in your previous life, you spent more than a decade working at the World Bank where you focused on increasing its funding for ocean conservation and fisheries and also managed the World Bank's global partnership for oceans, a coalition of more than 150 governments, companies, NGOs, philanthropies and multilateral agencies. Yet today government won't be the focal point of your talk, instead you will tell us more what the world's largest corporation active in the ocean economy. And last but not least in the context of the natural capital project is Jan Bebbington, professor of accounting and sustainable development, director of the Pentland Center for Sustainability and Business at Lancaster University in UK. This is a transdisciplinary center. And prior to that, I think I believe it's a recent appointment prior to that you were at the University of Birmingham after having also been head of the School of Management at the University of St Andrews in Scotland. Your expertise is in social, environmental and sustainability accounting topics, but I think it's fair to say that overall you are a sustainability expert who has spent her whole academic career focusing on the whole organization through accounting and reporting activities can contribute to sustainable development trajectories. You're known to build bridges, not only within science between different academic disciplines, but also between science and policy and importantly between science and industry. You have been instrumental in shaping many government policies and well, and as well as science industry collaboration, not least with your work within the seafood business for ocean stewardship and the largest seafood companies in the world in collaboration with the Stockholm Resilient Center and Stanford University among other. And today I think your intervention will be particularly relevant for the natural capital project as you will tell us more about the role of accounting and organization in the Anthropocene. So once again, a warm welcome. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening to everyone. And thank you to all the panelists. And I think with no further due, we shall start with Elizabeth Selig. The screen is yours. Thank you. Give me one moment. Let me share my slides. So first of all, I just wanna begin by saying thank you so much for inviting me and I'm really excited to be a part of this panel of so many great ocean folks and also to have a chance to talk with you about our work in mapping human dependence on marine ecosystems. I think an important focus of the last several years has been to try to identify critical natural capital, these ecosystems that support incredible biodiversity but also supply critical ecosystem services. At the same time, I think it's important to think about what critical natural capital means in the Anthropocene ocean. As we ask more and more of the ocean in order to provide the benefits that we need and increasingly use it in new ways, including offshore aquaculture development and renewable energy development. We sort of tried to reconcile this by thinking about what are the ways in which humans depend on the oceans and the way in which we began to explore this question was to think about what are the ways, what are the types of dependence that human populations have on the ocean? And through an expert working group process, we identified four key types of dependence, nutritional dependence where people depend on marine ecosystems for their food security or nutritional benefits, economic dependence where people depend on marine ecosystems for their jobs or revenues to governments, coastal protection dependence where critical ecosystems like salt marshes, mangroves and coral reefs provide important buffering from storm events and cultural dependence where marine ecosystems are a key part of cultural or religious identity. We then try to think about mapping out these types of dependence and we met our match early on with cultural dependence but it was exciting to see that that will be a topic of future talks within this series. So we're focusing primarily in this talk on nutritional, economic and coastal protection dependence. The second thing we did was to try to think about what is a conceptual model that actually describes human dependence on marine ecosystems? And we think of this dependence as a function of three key components. The magnitude of the benefits that are being provided, the susceptibility of the population to a loss of those benefits and the substitutability of those benefits in some other way. So what this looks like for nutritional dependence when we think about key indicators or potential proxies to look at these things for the magnitude of benefits it could be the percent of animal dietary protein for marine sources, for susceptibility it could be some metric of malnourishment looking at the percent of underweight children and substitutability it could be GDP or dietary diversity. In other words, do you have the ability to go out and buy an alternative? And if you do, is there an alternative even available? When we put these together and mapped out nutritional dependence we found a few striking results. One is that nutritional dependence represents one of the key ways in which human populations rely on marine ecosystems. It's over 500 million people are nutritionally dependent but the ways in which you get to the sort of high, the dark red on this map or high dependence can be very different. So for example, Iceland, Norway, Japan, South Korea are all countries that have very high consumption or high magnitude of benefits even though they have the ability to go out and purchase alternatives. And so their nutritional dependence is almost cultural preference for seafood in the diet. Whereas other places, nutritional dependence is a function more of susceptibility of the population to a loss of those benefits and a lack of alternative options. And that's more true of some of the countries around coastal West Africa. So I think this really brought home to us the idea that it's important not only to understand where people are dependent but also the mechanisms that create that dependence. When we mapped economic dependence, we were struck, first of all, by the fact that a couple of countries were important for both nutritional and economic dependence. And that included a lot of island nations in the Pacific and the Indian oceans. And also that there were some key differences between countries that had high nutritional dependence and those that had high economic dependence. Economic dependence here looks at both jobs and livelihoods. And so to try to understand and tease apart what might be happening kind of under the surface there, we calculated them both separately as well to try to understand which countries are most reliant on marine ecosystems for revenue versus livelihoods. And you can see for revenue, several Pacific Island nations that rely on revenues from tuna access agreements come up as being highly reliant for revenues, whereas countries where small scale fisheries are very important are more economically dependent for their livelihoods. When we map coastal protection dependence, you can see that the patterns are quite different from either nutritional or economic dependence. And this is largely a function of where ecosystems that provide coastal protection services are located. This is using coral reefs and mangroves and where psychonic storms are most likely to affect coastal population. When we look across all three types of dependence, we find that more than 775 million people worldwide are dependent on marine ecosystems. Our results suggest that management and policy will need to be tailored to the type of dependence present and the mechanisms that create it. At the same time, there are trade-offs. If you try to manage for increased revenues, for example, you may have negative consequences for fisheries livelihoods. But I think it's important to think about a better understanding and representation of where and how people are dependent on marine ecosystems to be able to integrate them more fully not only into conversations around ecosystem management but also around poverty alleviation and sustainable development. With the hope is that that takes us a step towards being able to have an Anthropocene ocean that not only supports functioning ecosystems but also thriving coastal communities. Thank you so much. Well, thank you, Elisabeth, for this wonderful presentation. And I think there's no better way to start than actually hammering down this notion of social and ecological. Indeed, it's not only about functioning ecosystem, it's also about functioning communities. And I think something you highlight is we will come back to it with this disparity and heterogeneity of the ocean and its benefits across the globe. So thanks a lot for that and for highlighting those key aspects of human dependence, nutritional, economic, coastal protection and cultural. Now I'm turning towards Douglas McAuley to maybe bring us on a journey for what this dependence or not necessarily dependence looks like and what shapes it takes over time. Douglas, it's yours. Thank you, Jean-Baptiste. And thank you, Liz, really wonderful framing and really interesting results. So the thing that strikes me most about the Anthropocene Ocean is indeed today the relative lack of Anthropocene in the ocean. And perhaps that's made more or less evident with this first image here of New York City looking down from the city. If you were to head out in one of the boats, moving back and forth into the marine sector of New York City, you might in any given year encounter hundreds, say 200, 300 whales, the mega mammals wild and cruising in that marine sector. You can answer in your own head exactly how many mega mammals you would actually find cruising the streets wild in the terrestrial sector of that city, which is to say that this general motif that comes in us, this impression that comes at us from New York City that there's a very strong boundary around where the Anthropocene has propagated from land to sea is very real in many places across our planet. The human footprint is much more well developed, it's much more mature, it's much more intense, I think it's fair to say on land than in the ocean. However, I think that discontinuity of human impact across the land to sea boundary is in fact that border and that discontinuity is breaking down. We are seeing bit by bit a rapid acceleration of humanity, human influence the human footprint into our oceans. There are dozens of brand new industries that are now beginning in the oceans and old industries that are ramping up in the sea. Take for example, aquaculture where thousands of years ago on land, we made the transition quite successfully and unidirectionally from hunting our dinners, hunting for food on land to farming with transformative impacts on ocean, on terrestrial ecosystems. We're now seeing that same transition from hunting to becoming farmers in the sea big time in the ocean. Things industries that were science fiction when I was a child like ocean mining are now becoming real. We've now gazetted about a million square kilometers of our global ocean in a mining claim areas which may begin commercially mining within the next several years. If you move from industry to industry, you see this kind of acceleration whether it's oil and gas, ocean mining, desalination, shipping traffic, whether that's crews or commerce, building power plants in the ocean's coastal growth, the amount of infrastructure reporting in for communications on and on and on from sector to sector for different industries that are beginning new or continuing in the oceans. You see what I think Jean-Baptiste and colleagues at Stockholm Brazilian Center really crystallized so well this concept of a blue acceleration, rapid acceleration sector by sector by sector for industry in our oceans. Now what's really interesting to me, this new change in the pace of the way that the Anthropocene is moving into the oceans is that this is not our world's first rodeo for rapid accelerations of industry on the planet. The first of these rapid accelerations, I would say began during the industrial revolution on land about the 17 or 1800s when we had all kinds of new accelerations industries, new industries, expansions of cities, expansions of the need to draw energy and resources into power industries in these cities, in these factories associated with this revolution. There was good and there was bad that came out of this first industrial revolution for our planet. Many very useful, very positive products from the vantage point if humanity came off these assembly lines, advances in medicine, new kinds of advances in mobility that brought people closer together. But again, there was also a whole suite of different products coming out of these factories that were negative for planet and people. Consider of course the case of this river in Ohio which caught fire not once but 13 times as a result of pollution. We during the industrial revolution invented products like air pollution and water pollution and acid rain products that were not intended consequences or not intended products of the industrial revolution. When we think a bit about what this rapid industrialization meant on land and might mean in oceans there are dozens, hundreds of different currencies when we think about this from the vantage point of biodiversity, maybe we can focus in just as an indicator on the currency of extinction. It's somewhat simple but also clear in terms of its binary nature, species of live, species is not alive. We zoom back to about 500 years ago, you can see that the number of cumulative extinctions that we're adding onto our planet is relatively low in the domains both of land can see prior to this rapid industrialization, first industrialization on land. So we move forward to the 1700s and 1800s is when we begin to see more and more and more and more species added to the extinction register on land. However, that line for extinction in the oceans remains flat in a good way all the way out more or less to the present. So perhaps there was something fundamental and that's a subject for a long conversation what did change during this industrial revolution which also changed the impact we were having on our planet and then the feedbacks between those impacts we had on planet and biodiversity and all of our own wellbeing that suffice to say something fundamental changed in our relationship with nature in that period. So what's really fascinating and intriguing to me is that in some ways this period in the past on land this first industrial revolution for our planet on land can serve perhaps as a crystal ball of sorts as we look forward towards predicting and more importantly managing with the future of a second industrial revolution may become in our oceans. The thing that's extremely exciting to me is that concurrent with this rapid acceleration of all industry that we're beginning in the oceans and the extension of the Anthropocene and the human footprint into our oceans is that we have another revolution brewing alongside the extension of humanity into the sea which is that we have a revolution in our capacity to actually track sea documents and hopefully guide what this next big industrialization becomes from the ocean. That's data that's coming from sensors that are placed on all of those ships whether they're fishing or transiting across our oceans. That's data that coming from remote sensing platforms like satellites that allow us to see down to 30 centimeters resolution. What we're doing to some of these coastal ecosystems that is referenced that provide such important services for coastal societies. So in some, if we're thinking about another big revolution for a big part of our planet this being perhaps even a bigger industrial revolution for a larger part of our planet there gonna be some very important consequences that come from this ocean industrial revolution from the movement of the Anthropocene into the oceans consequences that come again both for nature and people but we're empowered in an exciting way to perhaps do this better at sea than we did on land. We can imagine traveling back to the beginning of the industrial revolution on land and if we had the richness of data that we have now then perhaps we could have gotten more of the good and less of the bad. I would say in the years going forward we have a really important responsibility really exciting opportunity to try to think creatively with science, with policymakers about how to leverage the power of this data to make sure that the ocean Anthropocene as we see more and more of it becomes something that's positive for oceans and for people that depend on oceans. I'm going to use so much more to say but perhaps let me pause there. Well, thank you, Douglas. I think so much has already been said and point being made. Indeed, I think while ocean uses has happened for thousands of years like human use of the ocean clearly what your presentation shows is that the extent, the intensity and somehow the diversity of today's aspiration are unprecedented. And in fact, the expansion of humanity into the ocean space is unprecedented. And so I like the optimistic note at the end to say that with that comes also an acceleration of technologies and of innovation that should theoretically allow us to hopefully do things better. And I guess we will get back to that in the question. But as the ocean becomes increasingly industrialized who are those industries? And who says industries, says companies, says private sector. So now I'm turning towards John Verdin who has looked into it who has looked into this rapidly growing ocean economy and who were the big actors behind it? John, John, I think you're muted. Yes, thank you so much, JB. Let me just share my screen here and bear with me if I find my files here. No worries. I seem to be a little bit.  And thank you in particular to following on Doug's presentation which I cannot frankly can't imagine a better start to what I wanna share which is really if we are industrializing the oceans and if human use of the oceans is growing in the Anthropocene then who is really accelerating in the ocean space? And who is industrializing here in the ocean? So that's what I wanna talk about briefly right now and just to share with you a little bit of a study that JB and I and several others from Duke and Stockholm Resilience Center just looked at which is to say can we get an initial estimate, initial snapshot of who are the largest companies operating in the ocean economy? That portion of the global economy that's defined by the ocean as a shared operating space or an input into production. And what we tried to do is apply the idea and the concept that Henrik Osterblum and JB and others at Stockholm have been using of looking at keystone species in an ecosystem, those species that have an outsized role in the structure and function of an ecosystem and applying that to industries with global supply chains to see if certain companies have an outsized role to play in these industries and how they interact with the environment. So we took an initial look at this for the year 2018 and wanted to see if in fact there are a relatively small number of large companies that play an outsized role in the ocean economy and if these are the companies that have been driving the blue acceleration that you mentioned JB and that are really poised to be the leaders here as we start this age of ocean industrialization that Doug mentioned may be coming. So when we looked across eight core industries of the ocean economy based on the OECD's definition, what we see is a pretty consistent pattern across all of them, whether it be offshore oil and gas, whether it be the emerging industry of offshore wind that's grown so much over the last decade or two, shipping, ports, marine equipment, seafood, cruise tourism across the board. We see essentially that the 10 biggest companies in each of these industries generated on average about 45% of the total revenues from those industries in the year 2018. Essentially giving us an indication that actually a relatively small number of companies are generating most of the revenues in the ocean economy and potentially are playing an outsized role in humanity's interaction with the oceans, at least through these industries and the ocean economy. So we looked across these industries, see who are the biggest players? Who are the 100 biggest companies in the ocean economy? You probably won't be surprised to see that almost half of them are offshore oil and gas companies. And then after that, when we take out offshore oil and gas and look at the remaining large companies in the ocean economy, you see Maersk and a number of shipping companies are some of the largest. It's a little bit more widely dispersed from shipping, shipbuilding and repair to seafood, cruise tourism, wind, a number of these kind of more mature industries as well as emerging so to speak, like offshore wind factor in there. And again, we just see this pattern of concentration of revenues in a relatively small number of companies across these industries. Looking at then, okay, where are they on land? Where are these industries? Where are these companies based? We see similarly that whether it's offshore oil and gas or different sectors, shipping, shipbuilding and repair, most of these large ocean-based companies are headquartered in a relative handful of countries, whether it's the US and Europe, China to a lesser extent, Japan or Brazil and the Middle East there, Saudi Arabia in terms of offshore oil and gas. So again, it just, it indicated to us starting to get a sense of, well really who is accelerating in human use of the ocean and economic use of the oceans in the Anthropocene? And where is this happening from? It seems to be, if we just use revenues as a proxy, it seems to be across the ocean economy, across many of these kind of core ocean-based industries, a relative handful of companies based out of a handful of countries. And so one of the things I just wanted to kind of close out on and think about that with that is if indeed there are a relative handful of companies generating most of the revenues from economic use of the oceans. This is the structure of what we call the ocean economy as we approach kind of the blue acceleration and ocean industrialization. Does that mirror who's using the ocean, where the jobs are, where the livelihoods are, is we think about sort of capital and labor in the ocean economy? And I want back to what Liz mentioned, which is how many people depend upon the oceans for food and nutrition and through small-scale fisheries, one of the oldest uses of the ocean space. And there, if we just compare the OECD's 2010 employment figures across many of these industries with some of our best, albeit pretty rough, gases or estimates of the total number of people employed in small-scale fisheries, there's just no comparison. Far more people employed in small-scale fisheries as the ocean's largest employer than many of these other industries combined. So we're just starting to think about what does that mean in terms of the distribution of capital and labor in economic use of the oceans in the Anthropocene? If many of the, most of the revenues are concentrated in the hands of a few very large companies, much of the employment is in small-scale fisheries distributed, dispersed widely around the globe and particularly throughout the tropics. And really, what does that mean for the influence and power of different ocean users and for ocean governance in the Anthropocene? So I'll stop there, but that's just a sense of how we're starting to think about at least who's using the ocean economy, who is accelerating as we think about ocean industrialization in the Anthropocene. Thanks. Thank you, John. So interesting presentation and I think very much speaking to this also often a critic of the term itself, Anthropocene, which would assume that all humans are considered equal, right? It's like humans have become a dominant force of planetary change. I think if anything, your presentation shows that maybe it's not all humans that have become a dominant force of planetary change and it has consequences for sustainability but also for equity, which we will get back to you I'm sure during the Q&A. I would also love to overlay your maps of the headquarters of those companies with the maps we saw from Liz early on about the human dependence. And I think the mismatch would be extremely striking between those countries that depend the most on the ocean and yet where the revenues from the ocean are actually flowing. Because if anything, I think you have highlighted the world's 100 largest corporate beneficiaries of ocean use today. And I think that raises a lot of question. Now, this corporation, these large TNCs are quite something and I can think of no better to conclude the lineup of speakers but also to enlight us in terms of cooperation, in terms of organization. What are those and how to deal with those than Jan Bevington? Thank you, muted, Jan. I'm so busy with my slides on using myself. So thank you so much, JV and thank you so much for making space for an accountant in your discussions. And I want to now think more carefully about organizations themselves and some of the generic issues with regard to how they both create and might be able to mitigate Anthropocene impacts. And in particular, we're gonna focus on transnational corporations. So these are corporations that manage production and or deliver services in more than one country. And in this respect, they directly do that because indirectly we are all transnational beings because of these indirect links that we've got when we buy things or eat food and live our daily lives. But these are the organizations that directly have touchdown points in more than one place and actually produce materials as a result of it. And I want to really echo Doug's point because TNCs are as old as the Industrial Revolution and indeed some of the key and first TNCs were really, really nasty organizations that were owned by countries. So the East India Company for example that controlled a great deal of India on behalf of the British crown as it was then. So in that respect, whilst TNCs are now not always owned by countries, although some of them are that's now been decoupled but the same sense of the factors going on whereby one part of the world is affected by organizations that are based elsewhere and John's work really draws that out. And with regard to TNCs, there was an equivalent great acceleration in the last 50 to 70 years of a growing size of these organizations a greater distribution across the globe and also a greater concentration of power. So to say something about these organizations and try to understand them what you need to understand and what I'm going to try to talk you into is that how they measure and manage what they do really matters. And here I should say that my pictures aren't as great as the others because I could have shown you a cheeky wee picture of a balance sheet but it would be just so boring to anyone. I mean, it's quite boring to me and I'm an accountant. And so here is one of the hidden powers of accounting and the kind of rules and technical and know-how that sit beneath organizational practices is that we think they're so boring they're not worth looking at. And they are kind of boring but they produce effects on the world. And these effects have a great impact when we're thinking about the Anthrosine.  So it creates spaces where we might decide what matters. So here prices cost compensation for work, taxes paid but critically not externalities because they're external from that mechanism and how we measure the calculative spaces where organizations operate. Once you've got numbers, you can start coming together and exchanging those numbers with each other. And so we would call that commensuration and that you turn one thing into financial numbers. So you turn people's productive work into wages and then you start thinking about the next step which allows you to evaluate things. So you talk about productivity. You might talk about value for money or you might talk about cost-benefit analysis. And in each one of these stages, if you like, we extract further away from the activities of actual people in actual places until finally you get these contexts where you can exercise control in financial capital terms not in natural capital terms. Except in so far as financial measures capture natural capital values. And there is a whole debate on there as to whether or not it's appropriate to price the natural capital in some way. But at the moment it is priced but it's probably priced incorrectly because of externalities and because we know we've created these negative Anthropocene effects. So my work really focuses on how would you hold organizations accountable in the Anthropocene. And this is where it starts getting quite varied and quite difficult because it depends on two things. For organizations, they are distinguished by purpose and by their ownership structure. In terms of purpose, you've got the profit and the not-for-profit sectors. Now the not-for-profit side of things can be extremely large, particularly if you put health and education out of the for-profit sector. These are very large activities that take place in each country. Mostly TNCs are for-profit organizations. So they fit within some kind of framework where they're trying to maximize their profits. They are across the globe but they are critically also local. TNCs in every organization has to headquarter somewhere and the rules that govern how an organization must behave are critically determined by that headquartered location but then also by the rules where they operate as well. And this is where tax havens become really critical because if you're headquartered somewhere with quite poor standards of transparency and governance, then it's very hard for anyone to actually hold you accountable. In terms of ownership, you've got privately owned. This and some very large corporations are privately owned, they're often family owned, publicly owned. And by that we mean those shares are exchanged on the stock market. This is, if you like, quite often what a typical transnational looks like is will be a privately owned but publicly exchanged in terms of ownership. But there's also a large stake in the ocean in publicly owned organizations. So the previous presentation looked at state-owned oil and gas. They are very, very large organizations but also you can imagine thinking about distant water fleets belonging to a government as being a state-owned transnational corporation and its transnational effects. The difficulties we have with managing and controlling organizations is that by and large those who own the organization are different from the people who operate them. And so there's almost a dual route into affecting organizations behavior, some of it with their owners, so their formal shareholders and other ones with the managers. And both of them would be important routes for change. The power of organizations then is because they, if you like, the rules of the game economically have been designed for their benefit, then they are very powerful institutions. Likewise, and I think the presentations have highlighted, they're pivotal in many contexts either in places or in particular industries. But then their norms become our norms as well. So this whole sort of push to neoliberalism, the idea of efficiency being the most important thing rather than equity is sort of brought to us and infused through our society through organizations. But they are ultimately governable and the strength of governments is one way of actually ensuring organizations play a positive role in the Anthropocene. But then also organizations themselves have views about what good conduct looks like, particularly through green clubs, et cetera. So what are the possibilities for change then? Well, it does mean that you have to figure out what you mean by change. So is it a change in actions, change in effects or change in underlying ethos? I'd say it's going to be hard to change underlying ethos of current for-profit organizations, but with good management, it is possible to change their effects. It might also be possible for them to think about being stewards of a natural environment rather than being extractors from it. In terms of the change versus stability, it is assumed organizations are seeking stability. They're quite hard to change, but they do change. Usually after there's some sort of jolt or shock, it's the time when organizations can move quite rapidly to do something quite different. But also, and this is where the strength of the analysis that John's undertaking becomes really important, is that change travels through a system and you might think about some norms that tip over into whole industries. And this is where the Keystone Actors approach shows some promise because you can propagate change through the system by organizations affecting each other and seeking to be similar to each other and hence changing what they do. Organizations are also within whole webs of influence. I sometimes describe them as complex adaptive systems inside complex adaptive systems. So you'll see how difficult it is as a researcher to really understand exactly what organizations are doing because they're very diverse and they change their impacts very rapidly and might be very different in different places. But also then a lot of people talk about stakeholder influence. So these are people or groups that are affected by organizations or who can affect them. I'd be cautious about thinking stakeholder influence is enormously powerful. It can be at times, but mostly the power differential is so large that stakeholders have relatively little leverage on organizational change. And then finally on a bit of a gloomy note, listed organizations may be the least able to change because our financial markets are dominated by short-term thinking and are not very ecologically literate. These companies might not have people who are able to understand and articulate what change looks like. So if you're trying to understand what's happening with organizations, there's some key questions that I've left here. So some of the things that we haven't really picked up on which are really important though are the insurance companies and what they will and won't they won't ensure. Stock exchanges have different demands of organizations. Although it's probably worth realizing stock exchanges are also private companies. They're run for profit by a different group of people. Industry bodies are hugely important because they develop new norms and promulgate those norms throughout a process. CEOs matter. So there's a recent study that suggests that up to 30% of pro-social attitudes from organizations are driven by their CEOs. So the leadership really matters. And then it depends where people are, how they're governed, how they're regulated, how big their impacts are. So to try to draw that together is that organizations are complex, they're adaptive. They have this global reach but they can also be steered onto more sustainable and equitable paths. But not easily. That has to be done self-consciously with another group of actors where they be regulators, owners, financiers by the banks, insurance companies, consumers, sort of everyone. So they are a really interesting feature to examine because that's where my academic life rests but they are also quite slippery characters to be examining as well. But thank you, Jan. As always, I think horizon expanding presentation and topics from tax seven to financial institution, to the need, if I hear you correctly to change not only the companies but maybe the whole financial markets since some are locked in into short-term profits. I think this is really interesting.  So I'm sure we will get back to that. We're almost on time. So we will take a three-minute break we'll come back at 55 of whatever your time is wherever you are in the world.  So please do not hesitate to write down question in the Q&A if you want to direct them at a specific speaker, do so. If they're more general, just write the question we will try to go through as many of those as possible. Thanks again and see you in three minutes. 55. All right, it's 1855 my time. It should be 955 to the west coast. 555 for you, Jan in UK. And I'll invite all panelists to turn on the video and join me, thank you so much. Here we are, yes. So I think we've, that's wonderful.  Some of those had been answered. I think Liz has been quicker than anyone else in already answering some of those questions. So I suggest for the time being, because they keep coming. So I will just take them as they come. And so going back, I believe Douglas, you were next in line with the question about the growth of extinction, land versus ocean if you want to take this one. Sure. So let's see. There is the question about growth of extinctions and the question in essence asks, which is a really good question, asks whether or not the flat line or the diminished amount of extinction that's apparent in the oceans or putative we apparent in the oceans, whether that's being underrepresented underrepresented by the challenges in detecting extinction in the sea, which is an absolutely good question, which is that it's much easier to detect extinctions on land than it would be in the oceans and think for example of the challenges that came from trying to find the Titanic, the world's most famous ship and a 50,000 ton vessel, right? It took us about 75 years to find that in the ocean. Imagine how challenging it might be to find a diminutive shrimp that has gone extinct as a result of trawling or something in the sea. So it's a very good observation that we have less detectability of extinction in the oceans. So we can't necessarily rule out the possibility that extinction and this apparent lower level of extinction in the ocean results from this detectability bias. However, I'd say that the magnitude of extinction on land and ocean is really so great. The last I checked in on IUCN extinction statistics, it was about 500 documented extinctions on land versus approximately 15 animal extinctions in the oceans. And so the level of difference is so large that I would at least suggest or my first hypothesis is that there is something very real about this difference in extinction land versus sea. As we advance forward, learning more about the oceans, perhaps we'll get a battle handle on detecting the extinctions in a more accurate rate to compare extinctions in land and the oceans. And there's a handful of mechanisms that I think are very real in brief, because I want to hear answers to other questions. In brief, I think, as I mentioned, there is something I think causative about this difference, perhaps, was a driving force for this accelerated extinction rate on land. And that is that when we switch from hunting individual species, you hunt a mammoth, you might be able to drive it extinct, or when you overhunting deer, it's the same. But when you hunt an ecosystem, when you hunt a forest, or you hunt a grassland by building out society on top of them or bringing in lumber to be able to power a city or a factory, you don't just drive one species, but hundreds of species extinct. So I would say that there's a good mechanism that may also support, at least in my mind, a upsurge of extinctions on land and more of them than we see in the scene. But a really good question, Jean-Baptiste. Well, thank you for a really good answer. Absolutely. I'll take the next two to John, I think, because both the one from Felicity Barringer and Sergio Malo are actually linked to the governance, right? Like how do you actually govern that Anthropocene Ocean? The first one is asking you about the governance structure that actually allowed the work of this cooperation to operate. And there the distinction is made between the exclusive economic zones of each country, which I think will have, obviously, a different legal governing system, and the uniqueness of the ocean, which is that two-third of it actually lies beyond national jurisdiction, right? What is called the high seas when referring to the water column. What is called the area with a capital A, when it refers to the seabed. And this is considered shared inheritance of humanity, and it's much harder to enforce government. But John, what is your take on this one with different industries, such as mining, commercial fishing, shipping, and linking to the other one also, which is how to ensure that government capabilities have the, sorry, governments have the abilities to enforce environmental conservation measures. Yeah, and thanks, JP. That's a great question because I have to remind ourselves that the ocean may be obviously one global ocean and body of water, but many of these industries are very different operating in the same space. And we still govern them. We still regulate them from governments in very different ways. And they're often not linked, so the impacts can be cumulative on the ocean environment and community. So you have many of these different industries are operating in the waters that are under national jurisdiction under the governments within 200 nautical miles of their coastline. Many that are operating both inside and outside in the areas beyond national jurisdiction. And for those areas, as you mentioned, when your colleague Robert at Stockholm has this wonderful diagram that just shows the UN and international agencies linked to international agreements regulating some of these different industries within the ocean. It's just like spaghetti on the wall. There are so many, whether it comes to the international maritime organization and shipping, whether it comes to international seabed authority and deep sea mining, regional fisheries management organizations in tuna. It is really challenging to look across these and to think about this larger ocean economy and regulating the cumulative impacts of these different industries and uses in the ocean space. So it is, I would say, quite a big mix between both national governments and this huge mess of different international agencies and agreements, all trying to mix together in the global ocean. So it's a mess. I was trying to use that word, but yeah, can be. No, but I mean, and this is a nice transition to maybe like a recurring question, which comes several times. They'll have to sort out all the comments of it, which links both to your presentation, John, but also to yours, John, on the role of those transnational cooperation. How do you actually bring those companies to take on a leadership position, on a stewardship position, right? And stewardship means caring, and caring means going bay on just for profit. So how do you incentivize? How do you get those companies within the realm of sustainability, given the current structure?  I'll take a quick answer though. I'll certainly defer to Jen, who's worked with these companies far longer than I have. I've spent most of my time working with governments, but I'm, I can just say I'm, I'm eager to see the extent to which these large companies recognize their role in the ocean and in the ocean economy and are willing to think about the potential that they could play as ocean stewards, but I'm also not naive. Companies are driven by the constraints that they have, by the interest in long-term profits and short-term profits and a range of the factors that, that Jen mentioned and will mention. But I just think that if we are in the Anthropocene, if this acceleration is happening, if we are industrializing the oceans, these companies are going to have to realize that they're social licensed to operate, their long-term risk profile, their competitive advantage is all going to be tied to what state the ocean is in and how society sees the changes happening in the ocean place and particularly the distribution of benefits. Jen, maybe if you can follow up. There's a bunch of questions as well on linking natural capital to capital markets, right? So I think that's quite the spot on here with those companies. I can tie some of those together. So somebody asked what's the most leverage and I think it's a constellation or an assemblage of things that might come together. One of them is a bit depressing is that given the direct impacts and now very pressing and the space for externalities are much more constrained, the direct impact of getting this wrong will be more punishing on organizations than it has been in the past and you can't just wander off. If you've done over Ohio, you can't wander off and do over something else if the whole world was full. So I think we're up against the title limit but then it's a constellation between CEOs and managers. So people who are charged with the responsibility for running organizations looking very closely at what their industry peers are doing because companies are quite vain. They want to look like others and they want to look better than others. The benchmarking alliance or ranking of people actually has quite an impact on how organizations think about themselves. Combine then with their funders and their owner's support and here it really depends because one of the other question is will the owners help? It depends who the owners are because there's different categories of owners. So the best owners in terms of having sort of pro-social and pro-environmental profiles are the institutional investors. So they're the people that if you do have a pension are investing our pensions on our behalf. They are the most proactive but they are also the most passive because they have a little bit of everyone. So they don't have concentrated ownership, they have spread out their ownership. Family investors and individual owners are fantastic if they believe, if they don't it's useless. So it depends on their profile. And then other companies own companies and that's quite a mixed bag. And then it depends on who owns them. So you've got some leverage off the owners but it's not a constant leverage. It really varies. And then it depends whether or not capital markets can become smarter. So capital markets work on risk and return. And so there's quite a movement, a positive movement. Firstly there's a task force on climate related risk disclosures. So trying to get more information into the market that starts to articulate the climate change risk. And there's an equivalent process underway looking at nature related risks. So if you like they will get smarter over time. But in all of this it has to be underpinned by transparency. So really picking up Doug's point that the information about what organizations are doing has to be there. And then transparency doesn't buy you the full package. If you don't like what somebody's doing you have to have the ability to sanction them in some way. Either as a consumer or as an owner or as a regulator. Because if you haven't got the sanctions all you've got is a wonderful visibility of how ghastly people are. You've got no ability to change their behavior. So I hope that maybe ties several of the questions together. And each one of these moving parts have things going on in a good way to make organizations more accountable and Anthropocene. And also vested interest in each one of those moving parts not to hit the move as well. Thank you. Quite a list and quite a comprehensive answer. I'd like to hear from Liz and to go back maybe to this notion of dependency because it's interesting we flew in right from this human dependence into the big industrialization with all those fancy new technologies that open new realm of the ocean that were unthinkable maybe from there we moved to the hundred largest ocean companies but there are many more of course and from cooperation we're now talking about shareholders, finance, financial market. But let's bring it back to those communities to those local communities who depend on the ocean. And I was really struck by the mismatch between the maps you showed of human dependency and the maps of where the revenues from the ocean economy today were flowing. So I mean the question is not really a fair question but what can we do? Like are there any scientific partnership we're missing or bridges we need to build if we're to achieve sustainable ocean management and how? Well so a very small question with an easy answer I mean incredibly complex and I think if I'm thinking about what we want to do in the next couple of decades the answers to those questions would be at the top of my list. I do think though and in listening to John's characterization of the spaghetti on the wall of all of the actors in place and then Jan's discussion about the potential for companies to be stewards I think that there is actually if one wants to take a glass half full approach here is that there are a lot of actors if one actor is not stepping up to the challenge there are other actors and other lovers we might try to pull and I think one of the ones that we haven't explored and figured out how best to address is basically a lack of voice and accountability to coastal communities in these discussions and so I think that there's a lot that we can do to get governments to support companies that want to make a difference and who want to be advocates for specific things that governments can then enact the regulations and policies to support them at the same time I think governments can take a stronger role in in sanctioning companies that have practices that that are hurting coastal communities and I think companies themselves and governments both need to look at trade policies and other policies they're doing that are potentially jeopardizing the delivery of key benefits to coastal populations that need them most so not an easy answer I wish I had it but I think that there's a lot of opportunities to kind of pull different lovers within the system to try to get to a better place Is any of the given the scope of the question is any of the other panelists wants to jump in maybe and add something to that thanks so much Liz I was going to just add maybe a nugget of an example which speaks to the question the mega question that you put to Liz but also just to this thread that we're talking about about how do we actually create some sense of responsibility and some incentive through these different kinds of business structures to create change as businesses grow in the oceans the nugget of an example that I wanted to use was just an effort that we have going here in California which tries to do just that which is actually used data as I was suggesting which is not a silver bullet for trying to fix all of these different challenges with growing pains for blue acceleration but can be very empowering and then to try to build transparency for impact in some of these companies and industries and then try to connect people and governments to this process who's doing good and who needs to improve the example is just for an issue associated with global maritime commerce and ship strikes with whales so a minor example but matters to whales one of the top causes of deaths for endangered whales in the world is actually collisions with ships and a lot more ship traffic beginning as our world becomes more international in terms of 90% or so of the products that we have around us come on the back of ships and maritime commerce so one thing that we did was we tried to use big data techniques to actually look at where ships were slowing down in some of these areas where they're asked voluntarily to slow down so that they don't run over ships when ships slow down the collision risk is lower with endangered whales and then we just used a few filtering algorithms to create grades for these different shipping companies and remember of course presentation some of these shipping companies Merus, CMA, CGM these are the largest ocean companies in the world well we gave them grades the same way they would give students in class grades and then we one of the great challenges with the ocean economy is connecting it back to people because the steps between sustainability or response environmental responsibility and the average person on the street are much greater and the links are more opaque when it comes to the ocean economy then it will come to things that are more familiar but we tried to tell the story of how the things that you buy in whatever your big retail store is where you live you know in the US why a product on the shelf at Walmart actually connects to shipping which connects to whales which connects to good and bad companies that are delivering your shoes or your laptops and then gave them some data both the companies their clients and consumers this information to be able to make that link and to help some of the clients for these big ocean companies finally have data that help them choose okay well who is an A grade maritime shipping partner and who is a D grade maritime shipping partner so I just wanted to throw that in the mix you know to maybe take it down to a case study example of how we can actually use data to create some visibility and transparency around sustainability and help to encourage either voluntarily or through regulator regulatory pathways you can imagine governments looking at the same grades and saying wow okay we have a whole bunch of ass maybe we need a regulatory lever instead of hoping that they voluntarily change but a specific case study of how we can maybe initiate this change process that everyone else in the panel is describing I really like that Douglas like the actual case study the success story as well I think please feel free to share those and we need them it also speaks to the to the notion of benchmarking right and there are a growing number of initiatives in this is and Jan mentioned some of those to benchmark those companies and try to establish those kinds of indices then of course the question is where the data comes from to initiate those grades and to be able even to to write those companies are their third party would it's and so on so it's not the silver bullet but as you said it's it's one step in the right direction speaking of examples we have a question a tough one but I think in a very relevant one about whether anyone has examples of organization like big organizations and tackling equity effectively because I think this and this is a difficult one but it is a bit the elephant in the room right where everyone is talking about this blue economy and what would make it truly blue is that it's not only sustainable but it's also just unfair and it's equitable it's one thing to say it's another one to implement it and if anything the different speakers today showed that we're far from an equitable today ocean economy do we have examples of companies and organization tackling equity turning towards you Jen it's quite complicated on the equity front and if we particularly look at human rights abuse and labor abuse looking at force bonded and child labor these are endemic social harms in the system there are endemic social harms in seafood but there are also harms in many consumer products and also lots of agricultural products so there is a sense in which our economies have been designed to exploit people for private profits linking however that harm to an individual organization is not straightforward if you've got lots of subcontracting and you've got these long chains whereby I might be buying from a consolidator who's bought from someone else who is then production to a lot of smaller organizations and then that happens in agriculture quite extensively but also in clothing manufacture so in that respect sometimes it's the structure of the industry that makes the tracing and holding organizations accountable very difficult having said that one of the it's not a great act but the UK has a modern slavery act which also organizations to say something about their due diligence and most of the reporting is quite lousy but some people do good examples of it so the people that are UK based because if you like they've been pushed to try to do it first is M&S, Marks and Spencers Food Retailer so you can go on their website and you can ask for a product and then find out where the labor force is and where do they own factories and where do they subcontract factories and then find out if there's been any problems with that another one is the Pentland Brands now you would have never heard of Pentland Group it's a large family owned business in the UK but they sell you all your speedo they've got lots of brands that you would be buying as a matter of course they have a similar thing but then also they give you information on how serious some of the labor rights abuses that they've found and they categorize the percentage of problems they've found and how many are severe etc and again they have this map of where all these production systems are so because we have created a worldwide economy where people can be working anywhere on products that then are passed along these chains those links are only really starting to be articulated really clearly by organizations organizations only have a direct relationship with their first set of suppliers to reach beyond that they have to have some other mechanisms in place so somebody was mentioning Thailand earlier on and then the improvement that took place in Thailand that's because there was a cross sectoral approach within a country and that seems like a really strong way for then a corporation and a country intersection to come into play so it's really tricky there but there are some people around who are doing some very good things but there are some people around that can show you how much information they can give you should you wish to find out more about them Thanks, this is good this is comprehensive answers and I think it's great we still have a bit of time we're approaching to the end though with 10 minutes left so we'll keep doing it around and maybe shorten the answers if we can but the point is also the quality more than the quantity John I'm turning towards you because we heard a little bit of it from John like we often talk about corporations like you know full period or like the private sector as if it was like an homogeneous entity like in particular in the academic literature right it's like oh the role of transnational corporation but it's obviously not the case like different sectors different industries different companies based on their ownership and so on will have different incentives if you look at the ocean 100 I think it's pretty obvious you said it yourself more than half of your ocean 100 or almost half are offshore oil and gas companies which are likely to have very different incentives to become oceans stewards or to engage in a sustainable initiative than let's say seafood companies whose resources depend and are is renewable and depends on long-term sustainability how do you intend to deal with this inherent heterogeneity when you move on with this cohort of ocean 100 that's absolutely right jb I mean we use the ocean in a variety of different ways and a variety of industries as part of this blue acceleration we haven't talked about some of the emerging ones that you know Doug you mentioned there's biotech there's deep sea mining we have a snapshot of what the ocean 100 look like in 2018 what it's going to look like in 2030 could be very very different as these industries emerging in very different ways so it is a challenge my hope and I don't know yet I want to start to now that we know who they are I want to start to talk with him and engage and see if these industries at least see see a sense of a shared sense of responsibility relation to the ocean space the ocean good resources that they're all using and if there might be even some maybe industry specific but ocean wide impacts that these these companies could undertake so that will be my hope and question to see that's the opportunity the opportunity is if there are relatively small number of them yes that has concerns about concentration and power and what Liz mentioned on sort of whose voice is being the loudest in ocean governance but it also might mean there's the opportunity that there are fewer to regulate fewer to interact with to really have an impact and so even if they are across very different industries if they see a shared connection to the ocean there might be opportunities then for for action thanks I'm turning towards Douglas we had an early question which I kept a little bit for later in terms of the covid emergency of course and the current situation do you think the current covid emergency and future pandemics will have an impact in the human nature relationship if so could we expect contrary to the general expectation a stronger detachment from nature I'll add one to make a cocktail of it which is which is further down about the land-sea interaction I think another really good question saying well you know what happens on land doesn't stay inland what happens in the ocean doesn't stay in the ocean so we haven't talked much about this land-sea interaction throughout the different presentation yet it's there right when we talk about plastic most of the plastic ending in the ocean 8 million tons a year on average and comes originally from land and and a lot of the seafood and feed resources coming from the ocean end up feeding beefs on land as well so you have all those interconnection can you take a shot at those two folded question sure Jean-Mathieu Stem let me try to take on your charge of being succinct in answers to so the first question about covid and our relationship with the oceans and the blue acceleration or marine industrial evolution whatever you wish to call it is complex and important answer and I many perhaps some folks on the panel as well tried to shape some thoughts about how covid is changing our relationship in the oceans I have an essay that I read trying to look industry by industry about what some of these covid impacts were but let me pick one example from that thought cloud which is my own exercise trying to understand this changing relationship particularly since I'm a good question since the the audience member asked this about the human nature relationship so I think one very particular impact on the human nature relationship and the blue economy of blue acceleration happens in the track of ocean tourism which is huge I don't think we appreciate how large the ocean blue ocean and tourism economy is it's roughly 390 billion dollars globally this all of the jobs and services with with hospitality and travel as it relates to the ocean economy so that's been completely disrupted of course because of covid and the impacts on travel which has been devastating for so many places and particularly in the conversation about equity and Liz's points about mapping dependency on ocean resources has been particularly devastating for island states but other coastal places in less wealthy regions which have immense assets and in the oceans they share with the world through this track of ocean tourism but they were no longer sharing and that were assets for wealth as well as being assets for you know their inherent value is biodiversity resource, beautiful coral reefs and bird rich mangroves that people would come from all over the world to see well anyway that entire economy has been put on pause meaning that there's been a lot of vulnerability opened up in that track meaning that the stewards on the ground that were looking at ocean resources coral reefs that they were sharing with the world now perhaps are changing that nature human there are re-evaluating or that relationships become more complex they were you know as I say stewards for this resource that they wanted to keep healthy coral reefs for another hundred years not just because they're amazing species on their on these reefs because that was an amazing portfolio of life they could share and attract people in to spend in their local economies so you know that's something that I think has given us a moment of pause which both has allowed us to look with a new lens about our relationship with our ocean nature as an asset hopefully that reboots because I've got such an important way to create value for nature and ocean biodiversity I should say just relatedly another very small nugget of changing relationship with COVID and nature which may go the other way which may intensify our relationship with nature is just something that's happening within my country in the US which is now in fact today our new president has announced interest in creating a civilian conservation core which would be creating more jobs partly to help take some of the stress off our hugely impacted domestic economy around trying to restore nature and if that takes off and if you create more jobs to restore nature perhaps that will bring us closer together so some things that are making our relationship more complex things that perhaps are bringing us closer together as a result of COVID I wonder if I should table the other response just in the interest of in the interest of time we're going to move on but thank I mean I think it was worth it I think it was really worth it to to mention and dive into that I tried so hard to be succinct thanks for trying but since we are indeed approaching to the end I want to round up with giving a chance to each speaker to briefly really give including words and starting with you Liz on the Anthropocene ocean and also if you want of course don't feel free not to but reflecting on the idea that as I said earlier we are starting the UNDK of ocean science like this year 2021 and in 2030 it will be over so let's say we were in 2030 we're all scientists here on this panel what would you like to have seen scientists done and achieved over the last 10 years we're now in 2030 guys so brace it so I mean I think just reflecting on on all of the wisdom from from the other panelists and what we've discussed today I'm really hoping that by 2030 we have a more diverse set of voices and ideas to bring to bear on a lot of the problems that we're facing in oceans and ways to really create that accountability and and voice particularly for coastal communities and small holder fishermen and aquaculture livelihoods so that we can really bring bring their voices in a more fulsome way into discussions around the use of our oceans and who benefits from them and my hope is that the spaghetti governance spaghetti on the wall governance structure has also found ways to really create redundancy and ability to bring about a more sustainable ocean thanks John a few words the world's biggest ocean blaze companies create a global ocean fund or ocean tax to help fund ocean public goods that we need and that governments protect the coastal grounds for small scale fishers and that as Liz mentioned they have a greater voice thanks I think I don't mean to suggest in my my portrait of a ramping up of a blue acceleration that the ocean undersea is going to look more like New York City on land and by 2030 but I would predict that 2030 2040-2050 the ocean is going to continue to look a lot different and is going to change in a much faster pace than probably we expect which means that the species here in this ecosystem policy makers, scientists folks that are connected to business we have a really great responsibility in the years between here and 2030 and that is to get more data assets, thought assets, research assets and importantly apply those for trying to forge this future for rapidly changing oceans and do it fast I think at the next few years and the stretch between now and 2030 maybe years that determine what the ocean will be like for the next 100 years so we'll see what it looks like but just putting on all our shoulders a great sense of responsibility to shape that future in these next few years Point taken, pressure is on thanks Douglas Jan, a few final words before we hand over to Llorio and for the next series advertising 2030, organisational activities will be within a robust social and ecological governance framework it will be fully supported by financial systems whether it be an ocean tax or it be some way of raising money to support the activities and that organisations themselves would have become corporate biosphere stewards and that organisational science such as I'm a representative of that community we have actually had a core contribution alongside the ecologists and humanities and the social equity people to achieving those outcomes so that's my hope for 2030 Thanks Thank you so much, Jan, thank you so much to all four panellists once again for a fascinating discussion for joining in in the first time but making it a really interesting discussion I thank you deeply and now I hand over to the NETCAP project for the next conversation and say thank you to all the audience and the number of questions I wish we had more time to answer all of them I appreciate the comments, the feedbacks and the brilliant questions thank you everyone on behalf of the panellist and myself Thank you so much Jan Baptiste and all the panellists for such a fabulous first session of the natural capital conversations I learned so much and have lots of follow ups that I would like to do with each of you When Liz is opening talk she talked about three of four different types of human dependence on oceans that her team categorized the fourth the cultural one was left unexplored and I just wanted to mention that the next two natural capital conversations that we'll be hosting are focusing on cultural connections the first one on February 2 from 10 to 11 Pacific time is focusing on cultural benefits and the ways in which humans are connected to water and then on February the 16 from 10 to 11 Pacific again is a focus on cultural benefits and the connection between people and land through cultural dimensions you can register for the next conversations at the link shown on the screen here and we'll have a link in the follow up email and with that I would like to thank everybody so much for joining today it was really inspiring and I look forward to seeing you at future engagements thanks so much everyone


A lot of you guys have asked for this video, and for those of you who don't know what high meat is, I think it's a term coined by Eskimos and the Arctic explorer of Yelmer Stephenson for rotten meat, and many indigenous groups ate rotten meat in various forms, you know? The Eskimos would let fish ferment under twigs for a year, and then they'd freeze it and eat it like ice cream. There were, you know, swish in the Luchento Valley made cheese. Cheese is a modern example of fermented rotten food. There was another group of, I think, Inuits somewhere that they would take a whole seal skin. They'd capture these birds with nets, and they'd fill that seal skin up with like dozens and dozens, I think maybe even hundreds of birds. And they'd let that bear that in the ground for a year, and they'd just take that out and eat those birds like it was the most delicious thing in the world. And it's called high meat because it makes you feel high when you eat it, and it's like a feeling of energy like you can run through. I like to describe it as I feel like I can run through some drywall, and you literally feel like you can run down the street. And I get this feeling when I eat high vitamin foods, not just rotten meat. That's why it got me confused when people started saying, calling it high meat. I'm like, well, I feel high after I eat just liver or organ meats or just super high vitamin foods in general. So I don't necessarily think they have to be fermented. I think it has more to do with the super high vitamin content of the food. That being said, there are benefits to eating foods like this. And even though they've been present in our evolutionary history from when we used to scavenged corpses, and maybe we came up across a skull that was three months old and we ate it, the brain probably tasted like rotten cheese. Same with marrow tissue. We've always been scavengers, and we've always eaten rotten food. You know, I mean, there is example of wolves in nature eating completely rotten and putrid flesh, and humans are kind of have very similar digestive systems to those animals to some degree. We might not eat as incredible volumes of food as a wolf does at once or a bear does at once, but we have those rotten foods present in our diet in various aspects, and some people eat rotten food for every meal of the day and they don't even realize it. They have yogurt for breakfast, rotten food. They have sourdough bread with ham and cheese. All of those foods are rotten for lunch, sandwich. Then for dinner, they have a dry-aged steak at a steakhouse, so more rotten food. Literally, more food people can eat is probably rotten and older than people realize it. They just don't know that or understand it or understand fermentation and how big of a role it plays in every food we eat. But as soon as you put some liver in a jar and let it go bad, people get a little crazy, you know? They won't think twice about having that French cheese, you know, that aged, old French cheese. And, you know, cheese in itself is a great example because people crave it. It has that umami flavor. It's very high in vitamin K2. That's the main vitamin we look at when fermenting foods. And people just say they love cheese and they really do. And it's a reason that high meat and our taste for rotten flesh, it's just a great example of why that's so apparent even in our culture now. And I don't, I should do a separate video on cheese and how, you know, there's a difference between cheese made from raw milk with animal rennet and natural cultures versus some modern cheeses now. You know, there's a big difference between those types of cheeses, but I just wanted to mention that. So what are the actual benefits of eating this high around meat? I mean, we can always speculate bacterial benefits, but really what happens when food ferments is the vitamin K2 content increases. And the only foods that really had vitamin K2 were parts of the animal that not everyone might have been able to eat. So in order to feed their whole tribe or group of people, they might have fermented or rotted certain parts of the animal to simulate, you know, the vitamin K in liver, the vitamin K in bone marrow, the vitamin K in brain tissue, because not everyone was able to eat those parts of the animal. So, I mean, you know, those people that relishing the rotten fish or the rotten birds was probably because of its super high vitamin K2 content. And there's definitely something to be said about increasing the palatability when fermenting a food. There's just so many more beneficial bacteria, the enzymes have broken it down. It's just really weird how this food tastes good, but you can't really describe the taste and the feeling it gives you.  I've had people tell me it has to be fresh meat, not never frozen, but I've never really noticed a difference. I'm not sure how big of a deal that is. This was freshly killed three weeks ago at this lamb, and I just let it sit in my fridge. And I unintentionally made this. I wasn't actually planning on doing this, but I decided to make a video on it because you guys keep asking me about it. So this is liver, and making fermented liver to me doesn't really make sense because we would have probably eaten the liver right out of the animal as it's the most nutrient-dense part. But in the case of fermenting and rotting foods, I guess a lot of indigenous groups did rot the whole animal anyway. So this liver, when I tasted it three weeks ago, had a very... It literally had no smell and no taste. Now it smells very strongly of like... pretty much rot. Pretty much rot, like acidic fermentation is what it smells like. You could really smell it on the liver. This is so weird. That liver tasted like nothing three weeks ago. Now, it has that same taste, but... just very super mild, livery, middle, and it's like almost no flavor at all.  It's really crazy how palatable and how tasty this is. I had a few pieces earlier because this is the second time I'm filming this, but I could literally eat that whole jar of liver, fine. Like it's not like I'm forcing it down. It actually tastes good and it's enjoyable. There's definitely something to be said about the importance of rotting foods and their speculative vitamin content in our diet. I guess we should answer, are they necessary in the diet? And they're definitely beneficial, but if you're consuming liver a couple times a week, if you have plenty of egg yolks in the diet, if you have plenty of omega-3s from certain high-quality animal foods, I just don't really see it being necessary, although most people probably inadvertently consume rotten foods anyway. It's just something that I never thought was... you know, because what I'm looking at is the vitamin K2 content. That might be exponentially higher in these foods. And is it nice to add them in if you want to? I know it's important to... you're supposed to air these out every few days to a week to prevent botulism, because botulism is anaerobic and just having oxygen in this prevents botulism. Guys, I don't recommend doing this. I don't want anyone to get sick. If you are interested in doing high meat, keep in mind your body has to adjust to every food you eat. So if you've never had that liver before, let alone rotten, eat very small amounts of it at once, you know, if you've never really experienced this high feeling, it doesn't have to be rotten foods. I feel that when I take a lot of vitamin D3 through a supplement or when I just eat regular liver normally. So when you eat high vitamin foods and you feel good and you understand what that feels like, you'll understand why you would eat a food like this. I think that's everything I wanted to touch on in regards to rotten foods.  That's part of how we evolved. Not only that, the amount of rotten foods that we see indigenous groups consume, they're present in almost every single one. Then when we look at even modern diets and modern foods that a lot of people eat, from yogurt to ham and cheese sandwiches to dried steaks to fish to sashimi, you know, so many foods are cured and rotten and older than fresh. If anything, we eat too many rotten foods in our diets now. So thank you guys for watching. If you guys have any questions, if you'd like to, you know, reach out to me for like diet or fitness consultations, you know, my email's in the description. And above all, guys, if you'd like to support me, please just share the channel.