Download

Citi GPS

Around the globe, nearly a third of us worry about where our next meal is coming from, and one in ten of us suffer from hunger or malnutrition. How is that possible in a modern society? While we are having high-level debates about the possible dystopian effects on society from advanced technology, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, we seem to be missing a simple and embarrassing truth — we have failed in our moral responsibility to ensure no one goes hungry. It is easy to write off our current situation by pointing to a slew of one-off events that came together to create a “perfect storm” — droughts, armed conflict, skyrocketing inflation, supply chain issues. But even accounting for this tumultuous year, nearly a billion people around the world, some far away and some literally next door, have gone without food and experienced hunger for at least one day in 2022. Food insecurity has serious social and geopolitical implications and throughout history has been a driver of civil unrest and migration. It also carries a hefty price tag — the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the costs of malnutrition to the global economy to be as high as $3.5 trillion per year. And while finding a solution will also be costly, the economic benefits to society could reach $10.5 trillion per year. In the report that follows, we first look at what is driving the recent increase in food insecurity and find that although the Russia-Ukraine conflict fanned the flames of the crisis, it was not the sole cause. Environmental factors such as more frequent extreme weather events are making crop production more volatile and increasing the vulnerability of the agriculture sector. Higher energy prices have raised the cost of food production. Rising inflation has forced families to make trade-offs between food and other monthly expenses. And conflict in general has caused disruptions to supply chains and transportation hubs. Although some of these issues will fix themselves in 2023, there is a scenario where higher-than-normal agriculture prices persist with continued high fertilizer prices. The recent increase in protectionist trade policies, including export bans, is also exacerbating the problem. So how do we fix this? How do we ensure we are making out best effort to reduce the number of hungry people? The proposed solutions can be bucketed into four categories: social, technological, economic/financial, and governmental. Society can make small changes to eliminate food waste or shifting to a more plant-based diet, which would increase the amount of available food. Technological innovation in alternative proteins and indoor farming as well as automation and robotics can help in ensure food self-sufficiency for regions reliant on imports and improve the food ecosystem. Financing vehicles such as blended finance and hedging facilities can help facilitate investment in infrastructure. And government is needed to help push the agenda forward with targeted policy and regulation as well as provide humanitarian aid and sustained investment in global agriculture. Big problems take big solutions and big efforts. Authors: Jason Channell,Ying Qin,Elizabeth Curmi,Adam Bergman,Aakash Doshi,John B Finnigan,Emma Hampton,Dustin Oliver Ling,Julie Monaco,Harlin Singh Urofsky,Georgi Yordanov,

<h3 class="">Around the globe, nearly a third of us worry about where our next meal is coming from, and one in ten of us suffer from hunger or malnutrition. How is that possible in a modern society? While we are having high-level debates about the possible dystopian effects on society from advanced technology, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, we seem to be missing a simple and embarrassing truth &mdash; we have failed in our moral responsibility to ensure no one goes hungry.</h3>
 It is easy to write off our current situation by pointing to a slew of one-off events that came together to create a &ldquo;perfect storm&rdquo; &mdash; droughts, armed conflict, skyrocketing inflation, supply chain issues. But even accounting for this tumultuous year, nearly a billion people around the world, some far away and some literally next door, have gone without food and experienced hunger for at least one day in 2022. Food insecurity has serious social and geopolitical implications and throughout history has been a driver of civil unrest and migration. It also carries a hefty price tag &mdash; the UN&rsquo;s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the costs of malnutrition to the global economy to be as high as $3.5 trillion per year. And while finding a solution will also be costly, the economic benefits to society could reach $10.5 trillion per year. In the report that follows, we first look at what is driving the recent increase in food insecurity and find that although the Russia-Ukraine conflict fanned the flames of the crisis, it was not the sole cause. Environmental factors such as more frequent extreme weather events are making crop production more volatile and increasing the vulnerability of the agriculture sector. Higher energy prices have raised the cost of food production. Rising inflation has forced families to make trade-offs between food and other monthly expenses. And conflict in general has caused disruptions to supply chains and transportation hubs. <img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-11389" src="/rcs/citigpa/storage/public/icpublic/Chart-for-website.png" alt="" width="100%" height="auto" /> Although some of these issues will fix themselves in 2023, there is a scenario where higher-than-normal agriculture prices persist with continued high fertilizer prices. The recent increase in protectionist trade policies, including export bans, is also exacerbating the problem. So how do we fix this? How do we ensure we are making out best effort to reduce the number of hungry people? The proposed solutions can be bucketed into four categories: social, technological, economic/financial, and governmental. Society can make small changes to eliminate food waste or shifting to a more plant-based diet, which would increase the amount of available food. Technological innovation in alternative proteins and indoor farming as well as automation and robotics can help in ensure food self-sufficiency for regions reliant on imports and improve the food ecosystem. Financing vehicles such as blended finance and hedging facilities can help facilitate investment in infrastructure. And government is needed to help push the agenda forward with targeted policy and regulation as well as provide humanitarian aid and sustained investment in global agriculture. Big problems take big solutions and big efforts.
&nbsp;
Authors: Jason Channell,Ying Qin,Elizabeth Curmi,Adam Bergman,Aakash Doshi,John B Finnigan,Emma Hampton,Dustin Oliver Ling,Julie Monaco,Harlin Singh Urofsky,Georgi Yordanov,

No Room for Complacency Around the globe, nearly a third of us worry about where our next meal is coming from, and one in ten of us suffer from hunger or malnutrition. How is that possible in a modern society? While we are having high-level debates about the possible dystopian effects on society from advanced technology, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, we seem to be missing a simple and embarrassing truth — we have failed in our moral responsibility to ensure no one goes hungry.

Around the globe, nearly a third of us worry about where our next meal is coming from, and one in ten of us suffer from hunger or malnutrition. How is that possible in a modern society? While we are having high-level debates about the possible dystopian effects on society from advanced technology, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, we seem to be missing a simple and embarrassing truth — we have failed in our moral responsibility to ensure no one goes hungry.

No Room for Complacency

A Perfect Storm A perfect storm of conflict, environmental, and social, political, and economic shifts is worsening global food insecurity. The Russia-Ukraine conflict highlighted the risk of depending on too few countries for food and on physical chokepoints for the transport of key commodities. While some effects may be alleviated in 2023, food prices may remain elevated for some time, even if further inflation looks less likely.

A perfect storm of conflict, environmental, and social, political, and economic shifts is worsening global food insecurity. The Russia-Ukraine conflict highlighted the risk of depending on too few countries for food and on physical chokepoints for the transport of key commodities. While some effects may be alleviated in 2023, food prices may remain elevated for some time, even if further inflation looks less likely.

A Perfect Storm

Global Implications While this is, first and foremost, an immediate human tragedy, the economic and social/geopolitical implications of food insecurity have material macroeconomic impacts. Disruptions in food production have employment consequences while the economic impact from malnutrition could be as high as $3.5 trillion per year. In particular, history suggests high food prices can lead to civil unrest and displacement, e.g., the Arab Spring in 2011.



While this is, first and foremost, an immediate human tragedy, the economic and social/geopolitical implications of food insecurity have material macroeconomic impacts. Disruptions in food production have employment consequences while the economic impact from malnutrition could be as high as $3.5 trillion per year. In particular, history suggests high food prices can lead to civil unrest and displacement, e.g., the Arab Spring in 2011.



Global Implications

Potential Solutions Although imperfect, we propose an integrated approach to ease food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition in the short-medium term, and aim to eradicate it in the longer term. Key actors — the public, private, and financial sectors, as well as civil society — all play a role in tackling these challenges.

Although imperfect, we propose an integrated approach to ease food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition in the short-medium term, and aim to eradicate it in the longer term. Key actors — the public, private, and financial sectors, as well as civil society — all play a role in tackling these challenges.

Potential Solutions

Around the globe, nearly a third of us worry about where our next meal is coming from, and one in ten of us suffer from hunger or malnutrition. How is that possible in a modern society? While we are having high-level debates about the possible dystopian effects on society from advanced technology, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, we seem to be missing a simple and embarrassing truth — we have failed in our moral responsibility to ensure no one goes hungry. It is easy to write off our current situation by pointing to a slew of one-off events that came together to create a “perfect storm” — droughts, armed conflict, skyrocketing inflation, supply chain issues. But even accounting for this tumultuous year, nearly a billion people around the world, some far away and some literally next door, have gone without food and experienced hunger for at least one day in 2022. Food insecurity has serious social and geopolitical implications and throughout history has been a driver of civil unrest and migration. It also carries a hefty price tag — the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the costs of malnutrition to the global economy to be as high as $3.5 trillion per year. And while finding a solution will also be costly, the economic benefits to society could reach $10.5 trillion per year. In the report that follows, we first look at what is driving the recent increase in food insecurity and find that although the Russia-Ukraine conflict fanned the flames of the crisis, it was not the sole cause. Environmental factors such as more frequent extreme weather events are making crop production more volatile and increasing the vulnerability of the agriculture sector. Higher energy prices have raised the cost of food production. Rising inflation has forced families to make trade-offs between food and other monthly expenses. And conflict in general has caused disruptions to supply chains and transportation hubs. Although some of these issues will fix themselves in 2023, there is a scenario where higher-than-normal agriculture prices persist with continued high fertilizer prices. The recent increase in protectionist trade policies, including export bans, is also exacerbating the problem. So how do we fix this? How do we ensure we are making out best effort to reduce the number of hungry people? The proposed solutions can be bucketed into four categories: social, technological, economic/financial, and governmental. Society can make small changes to eliminate food waste or shifting to a more plant-based diet, which would increase the amount of available food. Technological innovation in alternative proteins and indoor farming as well as automation and robotics can help in ensure food self-sufficiency for regions reliant on imports and improve the food ecosystem. Financing vehicles such as blended finance and hedging facilities can help facilitate investment in infrastructure. And government is needed to help push the agenda forward with targeted policy and regulation as well as provide humanitarian aid and sustained investment in global agriculture. Big problems take big solutions and big efforts. Authors: Jason Channell,Ying Qin,Elizabeth Curmi,Adam Bergman,Aakash Doshi,John B Finnigan,Emma Hampton,Dustin Oliver Ling,Julie Monaco,Harlin Singh Urofsky,Georgi Yordanov, No Room for Complacency Around the globe, nearly a third of us worry about where our next meal is coming from, and one in ten of us suffer from hunger or malnutrition. How is that possible in a modern society? While we are having high-level debates about the possible dystopian effects on society from advanced technology, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, we seem to be missing a simple and embarrassing truth — we have failed in our moral responsibility to ensure no one goes hungry. A Perfect Storm A perfect storm of conflict, environmental, and social, political, and economic shifts is worsening global food insecurity. The Russia-Ukraine conflict highlighted the risk of depending on too few countries for food and on physical chokepoints for the transport of key commodities. While some effects may be alleviated in 2023, food prices may remain elevated for some time, even if further inflation looks less likely. Global Implications While this is, first and foremost, an immediate human tragedy, the economic and social/geopolitical implications of food insecurity have material macroeconomic impacts. Disruptions in food production have employment consequences while the economic impact from malnutrition could be as high as $3.5 trillion per year. In particular, history suggests high food prices can lead to civil unrest and displacement, e.g., the Arab Spring in 2011.

 Potential Solutions Although imperfect, we propose an integrated approach to ease food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition in the short-medium term, and aim to eradicate it in the longer term. Key actors — the public, private, and financial sectors, as well as civil society — all play a role in tackling these challenges. 

Tackling the Current Crisis and Building Future Resilience

Food Security

Elizabeth Curmi

Jason Channell

Ying Qin

Amy Thompson

At the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in November 2021, world leaders came together and set a global agenda on a path to net zero emissions. Pledges were made to further cut carbon dioxide emissions, reduce the use of coal, lower methane emissions, and stop deforestation. Importantly, an actionable framework was put around the promises made in the Paris Agreement. There are volumes of literature explaining why the world needs to focus on lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Countless experts list the devastating effects rising global temperatures will have on weather, crops, biodiversity, migration, and health. And a continuous stream of politicians and public figures tell us how important it is to support a green agenda. But unfortunately, there has been little focus on what is likely the most important subject — how do we pay for global action on climate change? In the report that follows, we aim to answer two questions: (1) What investment is needed in different regions and countries for climate mitigation and adaptation? and (2) How can we mobilize this investment efficiently to enable the world to reach its climate goals while still growing in population and developing the economy? Overall, it is estimated that $125 trillion will be needed for the world to reach net zero by 2050. From 2021-25, that equates to $2.6 trillion per year, rising to $3.8 trillion from 2026 through 2030. Although climate finance has increased over the past decade, it is still significantly below the levels required for us to be on the path to net zero. Average annual climate finance flows in 2016-20 were estimated at between $600 billion and $900 billion meaning there is a $1.7 trillion gap between what the world has been delivering each year towards climate financing and what is required through 2025. Alarmingly, no single country or region is currently on track to meet its individual climate financing targets. Mobilizing climate financing is a challenge as there is no one global solution. The public sector, including governments and development finance institutions, has played an extremely important role in mobilizing finance and the private sector has contributed 49% of investment funds. Unlocking private sector capital for climate finance is crucial as private actors could provide 70% of the $2.6 trillion needed in investment every year (on average in 2021-25) to put the world on a path to net zero by 2050.[1] Financial instruments, such as blended finance, in conjunction with development finance institutions can increase private sector investment in developing economies. And green banks, which develop clean project pipelines, are using innovative financing to accelerate the transition to clean energy. Collaboration — between developed and developing economies as well as the public and private sectors — is key to making this a just transition. [1] UNFCCC Race to Zero campaign with support and analysis from Vivid Economics, “Financing Road Maps,” accessed November 2, 2022.Authors: Elizabeth Curmi,Jason Channell,Ying Qin,Amy Thompson,

<h3 class="">At the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in November 2021, world leaders came together and set a global agenda on a path to net zero emissions. Pledges were made to further cut carbon dioxide emissions, reduce the use of coal, lower methane emissions, and stop deforestation. Importantly, an actionable framework was put around the promises made in the Paris Agreement.</h3>
 There are volumes of literature explaining why the world needs to focus on lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Countless experts list the devastating effects rising global temperatures will have on weather, crops, biodiversity, migration, and health. And a continuous stream of politicians and public figures tell us how important it is to support a green agenda. But unfortunately, there has been little focus on what is likely the most important subject &mdash; how do we pay for global action on climate change? In the report that follows, we aim to answer two questions: (1) What investment is needed in different regions and countries for climate mitigation and adaptation? and (2) How can we mobilize this investment efficiently to enable the world to reach its climate goals while still growing in population and developing the economy? Overall, it is estimated that $125 trillion will be needed for the world to reach net zero by 2050. From 2021-25, that equates to $2.6 trillion per year, rising to $3.8 trillion from 2026 through 2030. Although climate finance has increased over the past decade, it is still significantly below the levels required for us to be on the path to net zero. Average annual climate finance flows in 2016-20 were estimated at between $600 billion and $900 billion meaning there is a $1.7 trillion gap between what the world has been delivering each year towards climate financing and what is required through 2025. Alarmingly, no single country or region is currently on track to meet its individual climate financing targets. <img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-11404" src="https://www.citivelocity.com/citigps/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Climate-Finance-Gap.png" alt="" width="775" height="442" /> Mobilizing climate financing is a challenge as there is no one global solution. The public sector, including governments and development finance institutions, has played an extremely important role in mobilizing finance and the private sector has contributed 49% of investment funds. Unlocking private sector capital for climate finance is crucial as private actors could provide 70% of the $2.6 trillion needed in investment every year (on average in 2021-25) to put the world on a path to net zero by 2050.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" data-link-source="tiny">[1]</a> Financial instruments, such as blended finance, in conjunction with development finance institutions can increase private sector investment in developing economies. And green banks, which develop clean project pipelines, are using innovative financing to accelerate the transition to clean energy. Collaboration &mdash; between developed and developing economies as well as the public and private sectors &mdash; is key to making this a just transition. <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" data-link-source="tiny">[1]</a> UNFCCC Race to Zero campaign with support and analysis from Vivid Economics, &ldquo;<a href="https://www.gfanzero.com/netzerofinancing/" data-link-source="tiny">Financing Road Maps</a>,&rdquo; accessed November 2, 2022.Authors: Elizabeth Curmi,Jason Channell,Ying Qin,Amy Thompson,

Climate Finance Gap Climate-related projects mobilized between $600 billion and $900 billion on average annually in 2016-20. The IEA Net Zero Scenario estimates $125 trillion is required to reach net zero over the next 30 years. Therefore, getting on a path to net zero requires an additional annual investment of $1.7 trillion in 2021-25 in mitigation alone. Developing countries especially need support as they do not have the fiscal capacity to invest in climate action.

Climate-related projects mobilized between $600 billion and $900 billion on average annually in 2016-20. The IEA Net Zero Scenario estimates $125 trillion is required to reach net zero over the next 30 years. Therefore, getting on a path to net zero requires an additional annual investment of $1.7 trillion in 2021-25 in mitigation alone. Developing countries especially need support as they do not have the fiscal capacity to invest in climate action.

Climate Finance Gap

Substantial Investment Scale Is Needed Across All Regions Current climate investment flows need to be scaled up substantially as no region is currently on track to deliver enough investment to meet their climate finance needs. For example, investments need to reach $170 billion in Africa, $1.1 trillion in Asia Pacific, and $500 billion in North America annually between 2021 and 2025 in order to build low-carbon economies and adapt to climate change, with even higher needs in 2026-30. In all three regions, current investment flows are substantially below what is needed.

Current climate investment flows need to be scaled up substantially as no region is currently on track to deliver enough investment to meet their climate finance needs. For example, investments need to reach $170 billion in Africa, $1.1 trillion in Asia Pacific, and $500 billion in North America annually between 2021 and 2025 in order to build low-carbon economies and adapt to climate change, with even higher needs in 2026-30. In all three regions, current investment flows are substantially below what is needed.

Substantial Investment Scale Is Needed Across All Regions

Making It Happen Mobilizing climate finance is challenging, but we need to start looking at climate action as an opportunity versus a cost. Making this happen will require mobilizing the private and public sectors to work together, to create projects that are bankable, and to ensure a just transition. Since not one solution applies to all countries, we outline which key actors and financial institutions can scale up climate finance for countries at different levels of economic development.

Mobilizing climate finance is challenging, but we need to start looking at climate action as an opportunity versus a cost. Making this happen will require mobilizing the private and public sectors to work together, to create projects that are bankable, and to ensure a just transition. Since not one solution applies to all countries, we outline which key actors and financial institutions can scale up climate finance for countries at different levels of economic development.

Making It Happen

At the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in November 2021, world leaders came together and set a global agenda on a path to net zero emissions. Pledges were made to further cut carbon dioxide emissions, reduce the use of coal, lower methane emissions, and stop deforestation. Importantly, an actionable framework was put around the promises made in the Paris Agreement. There are volumes of literature explaining why the world needs to focus on lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Countless experts list the devastating effects rising global temperatures will have on weather, crops, biodiversity, migration, and health. And a continuous stream of politicians and public figures tell us how important it is to support a green agenda. But unfortunately, there has been little focus on what is likely the most important subject — how do we pay for global action on climate change? In the report that follows, we aim to answer two questions: (1) What investment is needed in different regions and countries for climate mitigation and adaptation? and (2) How can we mobilize this investment efficiently to enable the world to reach its climate goals while still growing in population and developing the economy? Overall, it is estimated that $125 trillion will be needed for the world to reach net zero by 2050. From 2021-25, that equates to $2.6 trillion per year, rising to $3.8 trillion from 2026 through 2030. Although climate finance has increased over the past decade, it is still significantly below the levels required for us to be on the path to net zero. Average annual climate finance flows in 2016-20 were estimated at between $600 billion and $900 billion meaning there is a $1.7 trillion gap between what the world has been delivering each year towards climate financing and what is required through 2025. Alarmingly, no single country or region is currently on track to meet its individual climate financing targets. Mobilizing climate financing is a challenge as there is no one global solution. The public sector, including governments and development finance institutions, has played an extremely important role in mobilizing finance and the private sector has contributed 49% of investment funds. Unlocking private sector capital for climate finance is crucial as private actors could provide 70% of the $2.6 trillion needed in investment every year (on average in 2021-25) to put the world on a path to net zero by 2050.[1] Financial instruments, such as blended finance, in conjunction with development finance institutions can increase private sector investment in developing economies. And green banks, which develop clean project pipelines, are using innovative financing to accelerate the transition to clean energy. Collaboration — between developed and developing economies as well as the public and private sectors — is key to making this a just transition. [1] UNFCCC Race to Zero campaign with support and analysis from Vivid Economics, “Financing Road Maps,” accessed November 2, 2022.Authors: Elizabeth Curmi,Jason Channell,Ying Qin,Amy Thompson, Climate Finance Gap Climate-related projects mobilized between $600 billion and $900 billion on average annually in 2016-20. The IEA Net Zero Scenario estimates $125 trillion is required to reach net zero over the next 30 years. Therefore, getting on a path to net zero requires an additional annual investment of $1.7 trillion in 2021-25 in mitigation alone. Developing countries especially need support as they do not have the fiscal capacity to invest in climate action. Substantial Investment Scale Is Needed Across All Regions Current climate investment flows need to be scaled up substantially as no region is currently on track to deliver enough investment to meet their climate finance needs. For example, investments need to reach $170 billion in Africa, $1.1 trillion in Asia Pacific, and $500 billion in North America annually between 2021 and 2025 in order to build low-carbon economies and adapt to climate change, with even higher needs in 2026-30. In all three regions, current investment flows are substantially below what is needed. Making It Happen Mobilizing climate finance is challenging, but we need to start looking at climate action as an opportunity versus a cost. Making this happen will require mobilizing the private and public sectors to work together, to create projects that are bankable, and to ensure a just transition. Since not one solution applies to all countries, we outline which key actors and financial institutions can scale up climate finance for countries at different levels of economic development.

Mobilizing the Public and Private Sector to Ensure a Just Energy Transition

At the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) in November 2021, world leaders came together and set a global agenda on a path to net zero emissions. Pledges were made to further cut carbon dioxide emissions, reduce the use of coal, lower methane emissions, and stop deforestation. Importantly, an actionable framework was put around the promises made in the Paris Agreement.

Climate Finance 

download

This report focuses on ocean degradation and makes the case for (1) increased attention and action from businesses and financial institutions, and (2) a more integrated approach across climate change, biodiversity loss and ocean degradation. It starts by examining the significance of the ocean from environmental, economic and social perspectives and the current state of play. This is followed by a deep dive into the root causes of negative impacts on oceans, which is then mapped to industries – both marine and land-based. Almost all industries contribute to ocean degradation through one or more of three key “stressors”: climate change, pollution, and land/sea use change & direct exploitation. We then discuss the risks and opportunities for businesses and financial institutions, as well as relevant regulations and initiatives that are in place and on the horizon. The note concludes with a set of recommendations for the private, public and finance sectors.

This report focuses on ocean degradation and makes the case for (1) increased attention and action from businesses and financial institutions, and (2) a more integrated approach across climate change, biodiversity loss and ocean degradation. It starts by examining the significance of the ocean from environmental, economic and social perspectives and the current state of play. This is followed by a deep dive into the root causes of negative impacts on oceans, which is then mapped to industries &ndash; both marine and land-based. Almost all industries contribute to ocean degradation through one or more of three key &ldquo;stressors&rdquo;: climate change, pollution, and land/sea use change &amp; direct exploitation. We then discuss the risks and opportunities for businesses and financial institutions, as well as relevant regulations and initiatives that are in place and on the horizon. The note concludes with a set of recommendations for the private, public and finance sectors.

The neglected SDG that could sink them all

This report focuses on ocean degradation and makes the case for (1) increased attention and action from businesses and financial institutions, and (2) a more integrated approach across climate change, biodiversity loss and ocean degradation.

Ocean Degradation

COP27 Page

As COP27 begins in Sharm El Sheikh, CEO of Citi’s Institutional Clients Group, Paco Ybarra and our Chief Sustainability Officer Val Smith discuss Citi’s engagement at the conference and the themes we expect to see this year. 