Unknown 0:03
But the reason why the methane agenda is back. And more important than before, is that you know, we as we're reaching 1.5 degrees already, we need to be looking into the the ways in which we could reduce temperature in the short term. And that's by mitigating methane because of its short lived nature.
Unknown 0:21
So 60% of methane emissions come from the food system as a continuum from waste to production. You know, it really provides a new opportunity.
Unknown 0:30
That cultural sector had been for many years a little bit of a laggard. Yet with this agenda. We'll see a very strong private sector that wants to lead and to work, and we have many Win Win opportunities in which we could provide better resilience, better productivity, but lower emissions for farmers that are already facing the burden of climate change.
Unknown 0:54
You know, everywhere in the world. The there is a very stressed agricultural system in which regulations are seen as unnecessary burdens. For for farmers, yet the true stewards of the land have always been farmers, they're ones that have had and benefited from a good relationship with nature and so, therefore, it is in their benefit in many ways. And so therefore, the opportunities that we see are based on collaboration, saying, you know, this is not about not eating meat. This is not about necessarily reducing cow cow herd sizes we get we the way that we want to approach it this decade, is to improve productivity while we're developing the new technologies like reducing emission emissions and in absolute terms.
Unknown 1:49
We have feed additive solutions that could only be applied to 2% of global production systems,
and are not representative of what the real outlook is. So that's why we have encouraged north south collaboration and many of our projects, you know, a lot of the funding efforts that were done on this topic, were not necessarily coordinated, didn't have predictable funding requirements. And and so therefore, funding opportunities either and so we've really brought in the philanthropy into this, and, you know, gotten them to really support the agenda. You know, getting people like the Venus Earth fund or the or the Gates Foundation in have been really important. But then we've also found that it was important to bring in governments that have unique challenges regarding their their exposure to the methane emissions in the context of their production system. So we have today a food production system that's not compatible with the same climate and we need to really make it align. And I think this efforts the results of this, this r&d accelerator are going to expand the toolbox that we have to mitigate methane, lower the costs and make it applicable to all production systems. So I think that's the focus and and I think that's what makes it so unique and successful up to you know, Kerry and other ag ministers agree on string agriculture was the headline. And so that's gonna be a super big challenge. You know, and the only way to to do this is very, very transparent, because and it was really good because we shut down those. We shut down those those misstatements, with all the fact checkers that were asking about whether this was true or not. And it was, you know, when having John Kerry saying explicitly, this is not about reducing production. This is not about less cows is about better production. That's, you know, he's gonna say, that's a big challenge that we step into. And the way to do to get out of it is actually just only focus on the benefits and how methane mitigation behind BIA be a cool benefit of everything else we're doing for multiple other very valid reasons. In terms of the big challenges that we have, I would say food loss and waste is a big one. Overall. I think there's this sort of the food production aspect is governed by administers that want to produce more. We have the waste issue covered by environment ministers because of the organic waste management, but in between, I don't think we have had done enough to reduce the food loss and waste having a third of our food being just not consumed in time came out last year that indicated half of food systems emissions come from food that nobody ever eats, if you if you look into the production and the loss, emissions in the full lifecycle, and then who would oppose that and many times in many of the places that we talk, maybe methane isn't the priority, but it is about complaints from neighbors. It's about the difficulty of permanent new landfills. It's the life of landfills being ended, and nobody wants a new one nearby and increasing organic waste management costs all these things. So I've seen the shift between different development banks in focusing on this and evolving so the previous programs that used to be on livestock per se, now have more emissions intensity work, better feeding techniques or better water efficiency as part of the the center. So really bringing in the methane mitigation into the development agenda is going to be really our key to our success and I think that gives me a lot of hope. The US and China actually having a common understanding of acknowledgement of the methane problem, and declaring that they will include include methane there and NDCs also very encouraging, because that means that we'll have, you know, many regions in China leading sort of the BRICS countries. And the US leading the global north countries that should be able to address this challenge together. They're so probably designing projects to support this and so therefore, shifting, shifting, the finance towards methane mitigation at all scales is going to be really important. Production Systems have intensity factors of emissions per unit of milk or, or meat that are probably threefold fourfold of what we could be achieving, really. And so I think, you know, the, so therefore, you know, the development finance and funding development finance to make that shift is going to be really important. And we'll get a lot of indices committing to net zero with methane targets that will be probably successful. The problem is, how are we going to get real development five minutes to shift that necessarily, and that's going to be a big effort altogether, I think. Of course, yes, you're right about the behavioral issues, but we can't really bank on them unless they're more convenient to people. And so therefore, everything we do must be done following the success stories of renewable energy and E mobility in which, yes, it's more sustainable, but more importantly, it's cheaper, faster, more convenient.
Unknown 7:12
better performing, though, since the warming from methane comes from the last 12 years of emissions, not from historical emissions necessarily.
Unknown 7:23
That warming comes from a latest 12 years of emissions and that's 80% from non OECD countries. So therefore, the methane challenge is probably the most intimately linked mitigation and development challenge, much more so than the energy system. Things are done. There's not one jurisdiction that has done proper organic waste management in the world. Well, maybe it could start from the global south with the global south feeling of having waste pickers gotta load is, you know, whatever they call them locally. got tomatoes and Spanish, you know, and bring a new way of sustainability.
Unknown 8:05
The Global North can learn about some of the ways that very efficient, resourceful people look, the global south can also manage to do things. So yes, I think that's going to be the beauty of it being able to exchange but also not always, no matter we start with the assumption that the global north has all the solutions but the global south has a lot to bring to