[CONSULTATION] Synthesis report: A Digital Planet for Sustainability

Dear colleagues, it seems I should have put my comments here. Apologies for the cross posting. In the run up to the CODES event, I wanted to provide a paper that was produced for this week's Science, Technology and Innovation Forum.  The paper reviews the electricity consumption and environmental impacts of our current digital structure.  If taken all together, the current structure consumes about 9 per cent of global electricity demand.  This has accompanying environmental impacts, from climate change to air pollution.  I hope this paper will help us consider how to mitigate these more challenging environmental impacts as the digital transformation happens.

T05-roehrl-ai energy demand_0.pdf399.59 KB

In reviewing the paper for the upcoming workshop I'm struck by the incorrect use of language.  While this group's mission seems to be focused on 'environmental sustainability', the paper only seems to mention 'sustainability'.  I would suggest that we stay focused on environmental sustainability in our discussions and mention the other two pillars of sustainability (social, economic) as and when needed.  I feel that if we aren't precise in our language we will lose focus and not achieve our environmental sustainability objectives.

Sorry for the multiple messages.  I am hoping that the CODES discussions will focus on the 'how' we achieve environmental sustainability through digitalization.  What I see in the current paper is very much the 'what' needs to be done.  Unfortunately much of the 'what' has been said before and there isn't very much of the 'how' out there.  For example, the report says:

"As our global economy undergoes digital transformation, there are opportunities to ‘hard code’ environmental sustainability as a foundational feature"

How can this hard coding be done?  There aren't any 'how' statements in the paper on this critical piece of the puzzle.  Some very tiny impact examples are given of what some of the bigger high tech companies are doing.  I would suggest that the group really explores the above statement and tries to develop the 'how' statements that will further flesh it out and make it more actionable for people.

Hello again colleagues,

Although the paper mentions the fragmentation of the internet in passing, I think the broader question is government control of the internet.  With China and now possibly India, blocking open dialogue on various different internet channels and the shutting down of the internet by authoritarian regimes or regimes in crisis, there are sound arguments to be made that the internet is now a tool of oppression and propaganda in most of the world, rather than a tool bringing greater equity and participatory governance.  If we are to stretch the discussion beyond environmental sustainability into social issues, this could significantly divert the energy and attention of the group.

On question 2:

Does the report adequately capture and balance perspectives from the Global North and South? Are other cross-cutting inclusion issues such as gender and indigenous perspectives captured?

I think the paper has a very Global North-focused narrative.  I've also commented on this in the 'Making Peace with Nature' report, recently released by UNEP.  Participatory governance as a possible solution to many of the challenges we face on environmental sustainability and digitization is only a dream for most of the world.  Most of the Global South currently lives under top-down or corrupt governance regimes, so our proposed solutions (the 'how) must take into account the realities of this large portion of the global population.  Here is some data from the Economist's democracy index.

On question 3:

Do you agree with the core values mentioned in the report ? How should they be augmented ?

I think it's essential that we have clear definitions of the values that are presented in the paper.  People with different world views have very different definitions for these values, so making them explicit will be important for the success of our work.

Since the paper calls for a dramatic shift in world views, towards a society that values nature, sees markets as an means, not an end and views digitization as a net benefit to society rather than as a hindrance, I suggest we are explicit about the values we are discussing, using clear and precise definitions.

We would like to discuss the connection of knowledge and activity throughout society and the delivery systems for change to sustain life for today's generations - and tomorrow's.

edward.darling@redlistrevival.org

I missed the meeting but I'm hoping to review the draft report in more detail.

I would like to comment that the document needs to be readable by a mass audience. If not the report, a separate companion document could be generated, like a Cliffs Notes version.

And I think a vision of what kind of society we want to see must be communicated clearly. How it interconnects with society, politics, economy and the environment. In other words, it must connect the dots.

The choice we make on a daily basis will determine the kind of society we want to become and how we are to achieve that society  

Different types of chosen business models should provide value to our planet earth and end users. World’s business organizations must have the capacity to capture value in the process of serving our society.
 Any given operation system technology need to create and provide value for whoever uses it.

Most projects focused on an intuitive Companies website, which incorporated features for those thinking about who their users are and what they want, in order to develop a skill and improve business and meet expectations precisely to exceed competitors in terms of technology and maximize their own profits without regard for our planet earth.  This may be the model of business employed to determine the tactics available to compete against, or cooperate with, other firms in the marketplace.  Firms across the world advertising for vacancies in Business sectors have increased significantly compared to the number of employees in the sector of environmental activities.  Our PLANET EARTH (ALMA MATER.  LA MERE NOURRICIERE) must be considered as a business website which we run on a daily basis. We must stress the importance of making every effort to ensure its maintenance without compromising the ability of our and future generations’ needs. The identification of gaps from systematic reviews is essential to identify other issues. Also ensure a proper identification and engagement of business world user groups and other stakeholders involved.  It is important to understand that not all stakeholders  will have the  same influence or effect on a project, nor will they be  affected in the same manner. However, we need to engage them by facilitating workshops with managed expectations from different areas of the business to ensure engagement and support of the project with architects to model end-to-end processes and resolve identified other gaps. Organise events and organisations strategies, like community groups or festivals and fairs, during which they can try to reach and engage the audiences as a form of publicity, awareness “values toward a scientifically informed understanding of earth systems, taking a whole-of-society approach with a clear intent to restore nature and reduce our footprint.” UNDP.  The use of the exhibition approach or the fringe activity to building a team with newly acquired members 

 UNEP, UNDP and other relevant institutions  can still play the role of Stakeholder management/workshop facilitation – to facilitate  various workshop sessions to elicit sustainable requirements for our planet earth, analyse the cause and  effect of “Complex global challenges, the geopolitical weaknesses, losing our life support systems, irreparable deterioration of the environment, the world outdated models of economic growth, the existing global  inequalities, exclusion and discrimination, and diminishing agency, the unequal distribution of digital access between and within countries, failure to mobilise a global response, and leaving behind those less fortunate that lead to failure, the levels of transparency…" in more details 2020HDR and many more likely to be identified in the ongoing Stakeholders’ consultations , make sure all the findings are inclusive , accurate and reflect the scenarios. Any issues affecting progress between environment and digitalisation processes should be listed together with any associated assumptions made.

Attend regular stakeholders’ meeting such as design authority, change board, steering committee to provide project update using RAG and RAID to discuss and escalate issues when required.  Set up Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor information inputs, performance and ensure deliverable solutions are effectively and efficiently met accordingly. It may be possible to reach a decision as part of the initial feasibility study for the known gaps but other, unknown, gaps may be needed to perform more requirement analysis and technical investigation before a technical option can be chosen. 

I think this is a very well written and balanced report for an initial draft. In terms of the specific questions which are being asked:

1. In your opinion, is there any critical area that this report has under-emphasized, overlooked or that you don’t agree with?

• One of the three dynamics emphasises the need for building sustainable digital infrastructure, in order that it is sustainable and climate-safe. Elsewhere in the document, there could be an accompanying focus on the need to review not just the carbon footprint of existing digital infrastructure, but also its computational carbon efficiency per user, in order to make informed investment/de-investment decisions.
• It’s also important to look at the whole lifecycle not just of the digital infrastructure, but also of the data itself. For example: What are the carbon costs of data gathering? Is it environmentally sustainable to engage in continuous monitoring  and to hold data in perpetuity? What does an alternative business model look like?
• It may be useful to take a more nuanced approach towards ‘digital infrastructure’ (for example, to distinguish between the footprint of HPC and the merits of red/green AI) or to talk about the ‘digital fabric’.
• More could be said regarding the opportunities of ‘hard-coding’ sustainability into society – for example, consumption driven by sustainability-based algorithms, or improved guarantees of environmental provenance through the use of distributed ledger technologies.
• A reference could be made to the fact that new insights are being gained into highly complex systems through the application of transformation platform technologies (ex. Deep Machine Learning) that give us an opportunity to understand and mitigate against unforeseen consequences in a way that was not previously possible.

2. Does the report adequately capture and balance perspectives from the Global North and South? Are other cross-cutting inclusion issues such as gender and indigenous perspectives captured?

• The point regarding the global digital divide and the need for universal internet connectivity is well made and represents a fundamental barrier to progress. However, we are also rapidly entering a new era of multiple Low Earth Orbit satellite networks which have the potential to rapidly close this gap. This will be hugely disruptive to the future development of the internet and digital democracy (and will also present environmental sustainability challenges). This could be captured within the document, but recognise that the intention is to state ‘where we are now’.

3. Do you agree with the core values mentioned in the report ? How should they be augmented ?

• Agree that the imperative to link digitalisation to sustainability and human development is absolutely key. Also, the fact that markets are essential to progress.
• Minor point: there’s a typo on Common Value #4 (pg14)

4. Do the six priority areas recommended by the report resonate with you and do they make sense as a framework for co-designing an acceleration plan?

• The priorities for transformation are quite siloed at the moment, but it would be nice to present them as interdependent in a graphic

5. Where do you see examples and best practices that exemplify the values, incentives and strategic shifts mentioned in the report ?

• Will aim to provide broader use-cases, but as a start, a few UKRI (https://www.ukri.org/) focussed-examples that reflect some of the values of the report include:

‘Climate and Risk Analytics for Sustainable Finance’ (CERAF) programme
The overall vision for the CERAF programme (which is being funded through both NERC and InnovateUK) is to drive research and innovation to support the establishment of a climate and environmental risk analytics capability and capacity in the UK aligned to the specific requirements of the financial services sector such as banks, insurers, asset managers, pension funds and ratings agencies. Following a successful competition, Oxford University have been selected to lead the development of a new UK Centre for Greening Finance and Investment (CGFI). This will be led by Dr Ben Caldecott, the founder of Oxford’s Sustainable Finance Programme, within the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-15-uk-launches-new-oxford-led-research-centre-accelerate-greening-global-financial

https://nerc.ukri.org/research/funded/programmes/ceraf/

https://nerc.ukri.org/research/funded/programmes/ceraf/ceraf-news/10m-research-centre-to-spur-a-greener-global-financial-system/

https://www.ukri.org/news/10m-research-centre-to-spur-a-greener-global-financial-system/

‘Constructing a Digital Environment’ programme
The Constructing a Digital Environment Strategic Priorities Fund programme aims to develop the digitally enabled environment which benefits scientists, policymakers, businesses, communities and individuals. Our funded research will help support the creation of integrated networks of sensors (in situ and remote sensing based), and the methodologies and tools for assessing, analysing, monitoring and forecasting the state of the natural environment. This will be done at higher spatial resolutions and at higher frequency than previously possible. This would support responses to acute events but also inform our understanding of long-term environmental change.

https://digitalenvironment.org/

‘Digital Economy’ programme
The Digital Economy Theme is supporting research to rapidly realise the transformational impact of digital technologies on aspects of community life, cultural experiences, future society, and the economy.  The Digital Economy Theme funds research aligned to the following five new priority areas, which were most recently updated in October 2020 (Trust Identity Privacy and Security; Content Creation and Consumption; Beyond a Data Driven Economy; Sustainable Digital Society; Equitable Digital Society)

https://epsrc.ukri.org/research/ourportfolio/themes/digitaleconomy/

Net Zero Digital Research Infrastructure
This UKRI scoping project is due to start in 21/22. NERC propose to lead an initial 2-year UKRI-wide study to develop a survey of the digital carbon landscape, a roadmap and a Living Lab to ensure that our data infrastructure can achieve net-zero. Taking a systems-based approach, UKRI will work to develop adaptation strategies for the way data is conserved, analysed and managed. This will support the aims of the UKRI Environmental Sustainability Strategy (https://www.ukri.org/files/ukri-sustainability-strategy/) and the vision to create net-zero UKRI owned and majority funded data infrastructure, that places carbon-reduction targets in the context of broader research, innovation and sustainability goals. This needs to be achieved whilst meeting the goals set out in the UKRI ‘Opportunities to grow our capability’ report (https://www.ukri.org/files/infrastructure/the-uks-research-and-innovation-infrastructure-opportunities-to-grow-our-capacity-final-low-res/).

Hello everyone, 

First of all I would like to congratulate all lead and contributing authors upon this stimulating zero draft. I think the report excellently lays down the basis for the upcoming work of the Coalition, even though (as mentioned by boileaup) it should perhaps begin to incorporate some initial reflections on the actual contribution that CODES could provide to the three strategic shifts (this could be done, for example, when spelling out in more detail how CODES' priorities for transformation will be pursued). 

More generally, as I will try to outline in my comments below, the report clearly maps the interface between environmental sustainability and digital transformations (which I understand is one core objective of CODES), but in my opinion it fails to articulate the critical role of governance in addressing the challenges and opportunities emerging from this interface. For example, when the report states that “so far, the haphazard way that digitalization has progressed has proved to be an engine for scaling and amplifying existing global inequalities, including widening income gaps …” (p.2), what it is actually referring to is that the governance of digitalization has been haphazard, not digitalization itself (I guess we would all agree that the digital transformation is a socio-technical process, not a purely technical one). 

With this, I do not only mean ‘formal’ international governance or policy, but rather the multi-level, collaborative, network-based arrangements that are required to steer the dynamics discussed in the report towards the realization of specific goals (if you are familiar with the notion of ‘mission-oriented innovation’ developed by Mariana Mazzucato and the UCL’s Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, you will understand what I mean). In other words, there is not a lot of ‘agency’, by CODES or other actors, in the context of the digital transformations discussed in the report. I would suggest that there are at least three ways through which this link could be made clearer. My points, as you will see, relate mostly to the Questions 1 and 3 introduced above.

a) Backcasting: what is the overarching goal of the Report, and of CODES more broadly?

The report states in p.3 “We must understand how to successfully harness the range of digital technologies to respond, recover, and become more resilient in the face of increasing risk of environmental degradation, including threats from zoonotic diseases.” This sentence is as close as the report comes to identifying an overarching goal, and I think it should be highlighted, because it should guide the rest of the analysis. Incidentally, I believe it could also be improved by

• linking this goal more explicitly to current global agendas for environmental sustainability, in order to clarify what are technologies being ‘harnessed for’ in practice (e.g. whether it is decoupling of resource use and socio-economic development trajectories, decarbonization, supporting the transition to sustainable production patterns etc.); and
• emphasizing the need to not only harness the positive potential of digital technologies, but also mitigate the risks they pose (e.g. in terms of environmental degradation but also environmental inequalities and human rights). 

Finally, there is probably ample scope to connect this goal more clearly with the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation too. To be fair, the Roadmap itself is relatively neutral in terms of its objectives (i.e. it focuses more on specific technologies and issues), but it still has a paragraph (n. 10) that should help shape the report’s structure and content. 

b) Breaking down the goal into specific shifts

Having defined an overarching goal, I think the report could do more to articulate a conceptual framework for its approach to the interface of digital transformation and environmental sustainability. Particularly crucial would be to break the Coalition’s overarching goal into distinct (and yet obviously interweaving) aspects. This would help facilitate a common understanding of the CODES’ agenda and disentangle different action items.

My personal suggestion is that an attempt could be made to unpack what I see as the two main directions of CODES’ work:

• How do you steer digital transformations to ensure they promote environmental sustainability?
• How do you use the opportunities offered by digital technologies to improve environmental governance?

As one can see, both of these dimensions relate to governance (and must be enabled by governance), but focus on two slightly different issues. One is the question, already well discussed in the report, of changing incentives, shaping innovations according to a common vision, and building sustainable digital infrastructure. The other issue, which is more conspicuously absent from the report (and yet is also mentioned in Para.10 of the Roadmap), relates to harnessing technologies to make better policy choices, improve monitoring and enforcement, build environmental literacy, and more generally support implementation of ‘non-digital’ agendas. 

If the report made this distinction clear, it would help articulate the specific transformations or use-cases that CODES should engage with/advocate for. One option would be to add a fourth strategic shift, focusing on harnessing digital technologies for policy and governance*, while simultaneously ensuring that the other three shifts also expand a bit more on the governance pathways that are needed to realize them. Another option would be to only keep three shifts, but at the same time introduce a discussion of how governance is a cross-cutting enabler of such shifts, and how governance itself could be improved by ensuring that digital technologies are leveraged according to a common vision (rather than through one-off initiatives or partnerships).  

c) The role of values

I really appreciate the idea of articulating the core values that CODES aim to follow in its work. However, I think the discussion of such values should come earlier in the report, i.e. before discussing the necessary strategic/governance shifts that the Coalition wants to target. Governance (like digital technologies themselves) is not value-neutral. As such, introducing a number of core ‘universal’ values even before discussing the issues that CODES wants to target can be a way of framing the Coalition's approach to such issues. In other words, these core values are not something CODES ‘superimposes’ on a series of deterministic dynamics of digital transformations, but rather a key means of understanding how those very dynamics unfold and can be re-shaped.

In turn, it will also be important to how the meanings and implications of these values are impacted by digital transformations. For example, what are the new nuances of equity, dignity and justice in a digital era, from data governance frameworks to unequal access to digital applications? Why are participation and inclusion especially necessary in the design and deployment of machine learning tools, and how can digital technologies give new tools to realize public participation, e.g. in the shaping of environmental policy or citizen-driven transparency? Why do we need decentralized governance of digital applications in the context of environmental sustainability?

Lastly, discussing these values early in the report can help articulate the analysis of, and promotion of, specific digital tools or governance priorities over others. For example, what would these values mean for promoting digital (environmental) literacy? How do they relate to the endorsement of digital public goods vs. commercial models of innovation in the context of different environmental issues? How can they strengthen the quest for universal connectivity and access?

There could be of course more to say on the priorities for transformation and on the potential choice of examples and use-cases (e.g. in terms of the use of digital technologies in environmental policy and governance, which is what I know best, I am thinking for example of how tools like the UN Biodiversity Lab could be scaled up to support the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework), but I think addressing these 'structural' issues could in itself guide those improvements by clarifying and narrowing down the scope of the report. I hope these ideas may be useful in one way or the other and I look forward to the next iterations!

In your opinion, is there any critical area that this draft report has under-emphasized, overlooked or that you don’t agree with?

• We are missing how this will relate to industrial monitoring, Industry 4.0 and logistics and accumulation of resources in stocks.
• There is a strong emphasis on consumption choices but little on industry choices beyond new business models.
• We are missing an elaboration on how CODES is advised by and supports the right to science and declaration on human rights and the environment.
  • see part IV of the Declaration of Human Rights and the Environment http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/1994-dec.htm and article 15 of covenant on economic, social and cultural rights
• Nice to see “sustainable and climate safe” highlighted but attention should be payed also to material requirements and circular economy (especially for Critical Raw Materials which will unavoidably spread across society in a way that it is not always possible to recover)  
• There is no mentioning of future synergies of CODES with the UN System of National Accounts in particular with their Big Data Initiative and current working groups on UNSNA.
• We are missing formal references and relevance to the work of International Panels on Climate Change (IPCC), Resources (IRP), and Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
• We are missing discussion on intellectual property rights

Does the draft report adequately capture and balance global and diverse perspectives from the Global North and South? Are any cross-cutting inclusion issues missing?

• There is a lack of discussion on the fact that data disparities prevent competition from emerging economies, environmental stewardship and existing challenges in data acquisition.
• We are missing the risks of digital disparities which in the case of digitalization may bring about a much stronger competitive advantage to developed economies, exacerbating ever larger inequalities.
• Missing a discussion on inequality in data access for environmental assessment and how this prevents adequate people participation in environmental decision making
• How this initiative will support local socio-ecological technical systems and decentralization in general

Do you agree with the core values mentioned in the draft report ? How should they be augmented ?

I agree partly, some should be more to the point and other slightly expanded. 
For example, we briefly mention equity, dignity and justice in one sentence as if each one is not a massive topic on its own right but then we have a whole statement on business models.

The following could be a clearer articulation, where we state the value and then we provide subitems specifying what they mean for the CODES community:

• Equity
  • Equal access to digital technologies, data and methods across regions and socio-economic groups
• Dignity
  • Openness and participation to ensure the empowerment of marginalized groups on environmental issues
  • Inclusive AI and data
• Justice
  • Monitoring and stewardship of environmental public goods
  • Monitoring abuses of environmental stewards
  • Crossgenerational environmental justice
• Value
  • Beyond monetary value
  • Adjusting our collective valuation of social, natural, human, and financial capital
• Openness and transparency
  • Transparency, openness and FAIRness of digital algorithms and software
  • Transparency, openness and FAIRness of data
  • Transparency and openness of business models
• Empowerment and inclusivity
  • Empower people economically, politically, socially in environmental stewardship
  • Empowering people in the achievement of sustainable lifestyles
  • Ensuring Technological and Knowledge Transfer across regions (see e.g. UN CTCN https://www.ctc-n.org/) in the spirit of non-colonial exchange
• Collaboration and interconnectedness
  • between public, private sectors, citizens of all kinds
  • among existing public institutions and programs
  • Interconnectedness” with other systems. E.g. supply chain and industry dataspaces, ecosystem monitoring, statistical offices etc
  • Citizen science
• Decentralization and adaptability
  • distributed governance framework to empower citizens
  • Enabling quick uptake and upgrade of digital technology
     

Do the priority areas for transformation recommended by the draft report resonate with you and do they make sense as a framework for co-designing an acceleration plan?

• Yes

Where do you see examples and best practices that exemplify the values, incentives and strategic shifts mentioned in the draft report?

Some examples:

• EU green dataspaces
• EU open data initiatives
• International data spaces association https://internationaldataspaces.org/
• Research Data Alliance

I think what is also helpful for the successful adoption of the initiative is a breakdown of each concept/area of focus. Like an FAQ section that answers basic questions as to why any of these things we are discussing matters to the overall sustainability movement/sustainable development movement.

I know the target audience here is for policymakers but without a media campaign to raise awareness among the general population, policy makers will not be pressured to adopt certain policies.

Greetings from Southern Africa. The discussion of the subject matter is most welcome. The zero draft gives an excellent, though positioned, overview of the state-of-the-art. It seems to view the world from the urban experience of those that are connected, the majority of authors appear northern-seated, and the references appear to be Euramerican-centric.

Glad there is a desire for inclusivity. The ideation pointer “Does the report adequately capture and balance perspectives from the Global North and South?” is witness to the wish to be balanced. However, one wonders how such can be achieved when the text appears to frame solely within eurocentric conceptions of realities. There seems little knowledge (or knowing) included from non-Western settings. This void begs the question of the balancing in those that introduce (and wrote?) the report; Are they talking 'from' or 'about', are their studies eurocentric or did they also include non-eurocentric experiences and understandings, and are their authorities granted from a balance in 'northern' and 'southern' sovereignties and seats of knowledge? One questions if its content is based on information current (and acceptable) in ‘seats of power’. Balance is being sought, but is it existing (from top to bottom)? The coloniality in the field of ubiquitous computing is a clear-and-present danger.

There are lists of essential issues that the zero draft does not guide on. For instance, the platform economy is lopsided, being forcefully colonized by 'big tech' in the USA and China. Further, digitalisation is effective in certain areas, but ineffective, and detrimental in others, can be helpful in one context, but be unhelpful in others. Further, it is crucial to recognize the disempowerment dished out by digitization, especially in 'the South'. For instance, (digital)clouds (primarily) gather over ‘the North’, Southern information is tromboned through (and siphoned off? by) the North, Southern partners are crowded out and play little, or token, roles in defining categories and developing technology, and there is a constant threat of information and communication ‘leaking’ without concern for sovereignties.

Although there are plenty of universities and think tanks in 'the South'. However, their contributions are difficult to hear as they have great difficulties piercing through an imperial academic system. The heralded contribution of the scientific community, thus, must be qualified as being a ‘eurocentric’ scientific community and captive minds. There is a distinct drive to expatriate data from the South, often to the USA, dubbed a new rendering of colonial behaviour. Therefore, more digitisation and connectivity could well mean a better world for some but, when underlying issues of dualistic orientalism, imposing imperialism and colonial exploitation are not addressed, more adverse inclusion and thus more expropriation and manhandling of resources from others. The lopsided results in Wikipedia show that ‘more connectivity’ does not necessarily mean that one is heard better in a global conversation. Introducing technologies leads to (new) dependencies and, for many, more ways to lose control over precious public and personal resources. The draft is yet silent on these issues.

There are philosophies beyond ‘modern’ (=Western) ones. Those can be fruitful to develop ‘new’ ideas (example: FLOSS). Southern conceptions of realities make more sense in the South than models set in non-Southern thinking that are being ‘flow in’. Solutions of solving pregnant question are around but often ‘forgotten’ in the West (or did not make it there). In the field of ecology, indigenous knowledge is heralded as well-established practices of balanced use of resources. The report is yet silent on these issues.

In Southern Africa, for instance, there are dynamic/integrative value systems that priorities ‘being together’ (e.g. ubuntu), ‘orality’ (e.g. embodied knowledge, oratio), ‘sharing’ (e.g. relational resource allocation, relatio), different conceptions of time (animatio), and the value of maturity (dominio). These values, which might have equivalents in Buen Vivir (Latin America) or Asian variants do not map with the values espoused in the zero draft. Common ground is yet to be found.

When looking at the described dynamics and proposed priorities, one wonders how non-Westerners would understand those. What to think of “Leverage digital technologies to influence a shift in governance and leadership”, where such leadership has not been involved in the first place (e.g. traditional or spiritual leaders). Possibly, one might think interaction is futile when one does not align with eurocentric ideas. For instance, the ‘underlying models for business and society’ seems solely oriented towards capitalist and ‘modern’ models. These are not the only ones existing, and, frankly, they are shown ‘not to work’ in many areas of the world (otherwise, everyone would be connected already). Ideas and knowledge outside such frame, however, make little chance to come through or be valorized by Western gatekeepers and have little chance to be resourced. It is well known that many of these resources were expatriated from the South in the first place.

However, there is hope! When reviewing the excellent Nelson Mandela speech of the UN Secretary-General, there seems an honest desire to ‘leave no one behind’ and to address underlying, pregnant issues. Such a desire is also clear from the CODES meetings. The passion is real! However, how to do that in a practice where geography and power play out to prioritize those located in the North? The report is silent on that. No doubt, there is a need for solidarity, more dynamic/integrative instead of normative thinking, and, above all, balanced and equitable management and resourcing. Outside the seats of global power, knowledge-workers struggle to make end meet and to be heard. The chance to acquire funding for research or laboratories set in non-eurocentric ways of knowing, locally authorized and accountable and led by embedded researchers is less than meagre. Without such research and development, there is little chance that non-eurocentric, 'Southern' knowing, strategies and policies will see the light. Subsequent, there is even less chance that local communities will align with the resulting designs that will be enforced upon them.

Thus, one could envision this to be a clarion call to prioritize ‘decentering’ and understanding the digital, its benefits and its environmental issues from the lens of ‘common goods’. Such can be done by

1) engaging with communities (which are not the accumulation of individuals, but the aggregation of persons = human beings in relationship),

2) allowing the flourishing of workforces that are already in place, in context (thus, not primarily relying on ‘consultants’ that fly in and tell how things must be done, but develop and built locally with locals (example: VODAN Africa and Asia),

3) prioritizing, and if needed engender, listening into thought leadership from the area (thus not prioritizing those who talk about. Now in the zoom-age, such is more possible),

4) conciliating systems

Such a context-sensitive method was approved in Switzerland recently. It is set in values, ethics, and environmental sensitivity, focusing on integrating various knowledge systems and prioritizing local ways of knowing. This method reinstates the social world to guide the technical. This is urgent in a current situation where intelligent technologies further homogenize the world, and where, as part of the environmental degradation, cultures, ways-of-knowing, and well-established ways of dealing with adverse occurrences are under threat.

Yes, indeed the acceleration of planning not enough but, we all have to start somewhere. The trigger to starting up this project can be declared since the Key stakeholders and subject matter experts have been identified and engaged, the existing documentation had been already reviewed. I believe Stakeholders have a really good ideas of what the project is aiming for now. Again, it important to understand that not all stakeholders will have the same influence or effect on the project, nor will be affected in the same manner.  Has this helped to eliminate any assumptions and provide us with a full picture?  Is this a useful starting point to think about helping policy makers to use agile? The plan can be accelerate depending on available resources, the environment and the effort to initiate the work to the standard required. The risk associated with each task should be considered.  If challenges are identified and managed appropriately, this can be the key to overall success. I think I will recommend the acceleration of the project plan and it priority list. However, it's still important to hear more from stakeholders' opinion. A poll can be set up, way to get clarification about what is important from the majority ." People with different world views have very different definitions for these values, so making them explicit will be important for the success of our work." boileaup " Usually, the quickest way to slow something down is to ask hundreds of stakeholders to agree on common definitions for specific values :) David'   Dear David, what is the level of stakeholders’ engagement so far ? their imputs inputs... 

Thank you for the opportunity.

My inputs comes from the area of the use of satellite technology, digital transformations in Climate and Environmental Sustainability for a better connected planet with precision and data driven intelligence for drawing insights on climate change.

How can these digital transformations be made publicly available for use even in areas with limited or no infrastructure or facilities and in under developed nations

If we could sum up the co-benefits of advancing climate action through digital transformations; taking bold initiatives and solutions from this platform we can measure adequately the digital and environmental impact nexus and aggregate practical solutions like we have with climate tracker deployed in the environmental sustainability space.

I also want to suggest that we look outward to existing solutions for open data collection for sustainable development. Like our solution on presenting on demand data and incident reporting for  Human/ Child Trafficking offenses globally which we had last year August with the support of UNODC.

Another example is Open Migration Platform these are practical solutions and they are making waves

Thank you for sharing this draft and for creating the space for this co-creation process. I have truly enjoyed reading the other comments and reflections - there is a lot of food for thought here!

One general comment I would like to highlight is that I really like and appreciate the inclusion of words like "compassion", "solidarity" and "dignity" in this document. I would even propose going one step further, and adding some empathy in there :) 

1. In your opinion, is there any critical area that this report has under-emphasized, overlooked or that you don’t agree with?

Like other people mentioned before, there is some confusion in the terminology. E.g. "digital planet", "digital infrastructure", and others are used in ambiguous ways throughout the working document. I also agree with others that the language used can lead the reader to interpret many of this as an individuals' issue, rather than driven by industry and governmental.

2. Does the report adequately capture and balance perspectives from the Global North and South? Are other cross-cutting inclusion issues such as gender and indigenous perspectives captured?

I think some of the examples given in the document could be used a bit more intentionally to highlight less visible efforts and recognize marginalized communities. I have noticed the following:

• Direct reference (i.e. by name) to the founder of LinkedIn (in I. What’s At Stake); this could possibly be omitted, as (I believe) the personal reference doesn't add to the document's message
• The examples of blockchain, Google and Amazon as "nascent efforts to embed environmentally minded values, goals, and metrics into existing digital technologies" is a bit simplistic and overshadow work done by others that, while less known, actually created business models in line with the core values listed in this report. It would be refreshing, considerate, and more inclusive to use some of those as examples. Just as a reference, Ecosia and Too Good to Go come to my mind in this moment. 
  (In fact, blockchain is referred to a couple more times, both as a potential problem and part of the solution; while I understand the complexity of the situation, maybe the wording can be revisited to avoid seemingly contradictory messages, or unnecessary references to blockchain technology can be dropped)
• The internet access statistics never mentions if those online have freedom to choose what to see. It would be great if you could address this fact, which is critical for a fair and equally distributed digital access. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/01/facebook-free-basics-inte…)
• Regarding e-waste, it would also be more inclusive to refer to the export of e-waste from the global north to the global south, which adds to the "Less developed countries in particular struggle with managing e-waste, as nascent or non-existent e-waste management infrastructure struggles to keep up with exploding use of digital devices." E-waste is also associated with minerals depletion (and waste). This isn't acknowledge, focusing solely on its connection to green energy technology. 
• Edit: Metabolic just released a landscape assessment of e-waste with some interesting graphics https://www.metabolic.nl/projects/circular-electronics-landscape-assess…?
• Regarding food systems, I am not sure the consumer is to blame for the majority of food waste, but maybe this was a matter of language (e.g. https://refed.com/food-waste/the-challenge/#where_does_food_waste_occur)

3. Do you agree with the core values mentioned in the report ? How should they be augmented ?

I generally agree with the listed Key Values, although they seem to be a mix of values and goals. However, I am not sure what to make of key value #4 Acting on the belief that digital technologies can ultimately empower people and nudge them toward more sustainable lifestyles. Currently technology is being used to nudge people into mostly consumption-focused lifestyles. Are you proposing the same, but in another direction? I agree with the empowerment, and there is the possibility that people will used that new found power in that direction, but that is out of our control. But this was aiming at expressing a more general "hopeful" attitude towards digital technologies for sustainability?

4. Do the six priority areas recommended by the report resonate with you and do they make sense as a framework for co-designing an acceleration plan?

I am not sure how these would connect to the 3 strategic shifts, particularly because there will be a fair amount of interconnection and overlap between them. I would be able to comment once there is more information, starting with a brief explanation of what is meant by each priority area.

5. Where do you see examples and best practices that exemplify the values, incentives and strategic shifts mentioned in the report ?

The Open Source community, namely the HOT OpenStreetMaps group that, while not being perfect, has been experimenting with these notions and concepts for long and developed into a fairly stable and good example of a digital community matching the key values.

A small additional comment: some reference links are broken (e.g. 35 and 36).

To question 1: I would suggest that at the bottom of page 4, there is very little mention of digital currency and the daily innovative work going on by serious financial experts on this issue. Further, I will send in language for consideration and also suggest that World Harmony Foundation, a member of the NGO Major Group within UNEP, would put together a working group to develop a series of webinars for Member State delegates and other stakeholders, as well as a "dictionary of terms" that might help everyone understand digital currency.

I thought it might be worth quickly reiterating a point which was raised by boileaup, and answered by David. I think it might need to be made clear in the flagship report – for those who aren’t familiar with the fact that this is a two stage process – that it will be followed by the acceleration plan to deal with the ‘how’ digital technologies might advance action on sustainability. As boileaup points out, without that background knowledge, it does feel as if a major part of the initiative is under emphasised.

Colleagues, please find attached ITU’s comments and suggestions on the zero order draft of the report "A Digital Planet for Sustainability".

ITU_Comments on the zero draft A Digital Planet for Sustainability-20 May 2021.docx47.15 KB

Hello everyone,

In response to Question 1: In your opinion, is there any critical area that this report has under-emphasized, overlooked or that you don’t agree with?

This report does a great job of highlighting the critical need for collaboration, transparency, decentralized governance, and new transformation incentive models. The ability to work from a shared and trusted data source for for all of climate related activities will be required to accomplish these objectives, and so I think that this is important information to include. I have provide some language to include for your consideration. I hope it is useful. Thank you!   

Language for your consideration: 

Solving climate change will require the greatest mobilization of resources and collaborative action in human history. To reach net zero by 2050, humanity must marshal our resources across country borders, industries and stakeholders groups touching everything we produce and consume. We must enter a new era of collaboration built on open information sharing, transparency, and trust. 

To accomplish this an open global Climate Accounting System is needed to balance our single global carbon account (measured as the remaining carbon we can put into the earth's atmosphere before pushing the climate past the 1.5 degree threshold). By sharing an open and transparent climate accounting system, humanity can work together to balance climate emissions activities against climate mitigation and adaptation activities across all global stakeholders from governments, business, investors to civil society. New technological advances in blockchain, big data, IOT, AI, smart contracts, etc. offer us the ability to link climate systems, financial markets, and the policies, protocols, and agreements needed in a single climate accounting system. 

This is the umbrella solution that is needed to bring collaboration to a fractionalized solution space; To convene power and bring together all of solution builders globally; To re-align interests and incentives across industry in order to achieve collaborative action together; To build an open platform of truth and transparency for the planet. 

Work has begun, but time is short, and all our collaborative efforts will be needed to build the digital infrastructure required to manage our shared global carbon climate account.

Open Earth Foundation USA amplifies  the input provided  above with the following:

•  Direct linkage of action and acceleration under SDG 17 (partnerships and collaboration) including tools such  to enable open platforms and collaborations across sectors, borders and stakeholders (toolbox platform as well as thought leadership to coincide with the practical implementation).
• The tools should be backed by incentivization for collaboration (innovate the process of innovation and  digitalization) and shifting from not just  bridging a fractionalized solution and innovation space (which adopts the processes and paradigm of private with and through tech across collaborative open source processes and platforms across sectors, geographies and actors 

In addition to my previous comments I would also suggest

• An open and transparent global (and nested) climbing accounting system can serve  as both a concrete avenue to building out the above tools as well as key pillar linking the solutions in an open and transparent climate accounting system. As noted in Sherwood’s comments above, this leverages the digital architecture (blockchain, smart contracts, big data, IOT, AI, MRV) already being developed to enable  all actors and stakeholders (from local communities and civil society to government to private sector) to participate and collaborate in climate mitigation and adaptation.
• www.openfoundation.earth/

In addition to the comments from Open Earth Foundation I would also like to comment per my work with the UN Sec Gen Task Force on Digital Financing of the SDGs and the extended Dialogue. The Dialogue Technical Papers   will soon be published and  presented at the high level roundtable on June 18.

Based on my three papers, I suggest inclusion of language around a more robust approach to defining the parameters and impacts per the narrative of digital economy and tech for SDGs.  The current narrative of tech for SDGs is  premised on the notion that  tech and particularly fintechs have  an enabling capacity but  that there are certain risks largely related to data governance, consumer protection and operational risk management that must be addressed.In my upcoming UN Dialogue Technical papers on BigFintech impacts on SDGs and LDCs I take a broader look at the range of impacts (across the SDGs and particularly for LDCs). My team also  examines the role of the key actors (bigfintechs) many of whom come from outside the financial sector. BFTs are playing an increasing role in shaping (in both positive and negative ways) SDGs  including on issues that have previously been considered as outside the realm of examination and not captured in examinations, practice and regulations.

In my technical papers I also provide a number of tools (including an ESG-SDG lens) and use cases. I also  outline three tiers of impact  (similar to Climate scope 1,2,3 )  to better capture the fuller impacts.  

A Final note is that I am collaborating with the   World Benchmarking Alliance on a proposed benchmark:  Digital Technology Actors in Financial Services Creating Clarity and Accountability (Together) I am happy to share. 

Good morning, David and all, I am offering a few reflections for consideration for the Zero Draft. This proposed language for consideration (fine to edit or include as a "hook"), is from a team at the World Harmony Foundation, who would propose offering two other modalities on digital currency (page 4 Zero Draft, last 4 line of the page, where digital currency is given, in our opinion, very little exposure): 1. that we produce a webinar on digital currency, environmental impacts, soup to nuts so to speak, free of charge and that might contribute AFTER the June 10-11 conference to education on this issue and 2. creation by WHF with consultation of UNEP of a "dictionary of terms" for non-specialists. That is one thing. Again, no PBIs attached to this (Programme Budget Implications).

Three paragraphs written by Pam Frigo for WHF:

The exponential growth of crypto assets are designed to be borderless and inclusive. This decentralized approach to knowledge and network is easily transferable among participants and observers alike. As a result, best practices and inspiration alike can be shared across traditional organizational systems, thus empowering members of society to flourish in a more inclusive, natural and organic approach. The crypto ecosystem has had explosive growth over the last year. The blockchain technology behind, e.g., Bitcoin, the largest digital currency by market capitalization, is fueling innovation across a variety of sectors, such as clean energy, education, food, finance and sectors such as the creative arts industry. Even Ervin Laszlo, at age 89, has offered a Non-fungible Token (NFT).

Clubhouse, a new audio social media platform, has brought the global community together in a new way. The rise of Clubhouse highlights the shift towards open source, community-led, decentralized communities of practice, thus widening the entire concept of the 9 Major Groups identified in Agenda 21, or new communities of practice developed in the Rio +20 process and following into the negotiations of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, such as The Commons Cluster.KISNature.com is an example of a community-led initiative looking at ways to inspire participants to integrate the SDGs in harmony with nature, using the ingenuity of Crypto, NFTs, meme marketing and the Metaverse, together with advancements from the impact that must evolve from the Secretary-General's Digital Roadmap.

With more decentralization, blockchain (see the Desk Review on Technovation Day at the UN, https://issuu.com/blockchainhq/docs/usage_of_blockchain_in_the_un_system), and Web 3.0, there is a move towards new billion dollar industries such as the metaverse and space technology. This will usher in new types of "commons" (Inge Kaul, UNDP, commons and global public goods) that will engender new ways of thinking and collaborating for a thriving future in harmony and peace with nature.

World Harmony Foundation would be pleased to suggest leading a working group after June 10-11 on the issue of digital currency to promote the Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (2021-2030) and contribute to the Biodiversity Summit in October in Kunming, China.

Dear All:

We, at The Digital Economist, are initiating a similar but a more focused initiative.

The Digital Economist (https://lnkd.in/d5Mh8KN) was founded during the World Economic Forum in January 2020 with a mission to to drive technological convergence towards a human centered digital economy. As part of our broader objectives, we are in the process of launching our “Digitalization and Energy” initiative. Kindly answer the questions in this very brief online market survey (the link is given below) on or before June 7, 2021.

https://form.typeform.com/to/tjXeqw13

Dear Colleagues:

Great work in laying out the baseline  implications of digitalization  

I wish to make a couple of important comments on the report:

a) The report stresses at many places, on the digital divide between the rich and the poor and addresses some of the mechanisms for addressing this gap such as enhanced literacy through digital technologies. I think it is important to realize that in many low income countries (including India where I originally hail from), there are parts of the country where people live in abject poverty and their immediate concern is not access to digital technologies. Their immediate concern is to look at ways of empowering themselves economically. In this context, the micro enterprises and self help groups should work with the rural population and investigate ways and mechanisms to ensure that the access to digital technologies also means immediate economic empowerment for these people and not 3 or 5 years down the road. In other words, business models need to be devised  in a manner that will encourage the rural households to embrace digital technologies that also offers them immediate economic rewards.

b) Energy industry is a slow adopter of digital technologies - particularly, the traditional oil & gas companies. However, it is an undeniable fact that the digitalization is going to be the new" RPS" (Renewable Portfolio Standard) which will drive the penetration of renewable energy. Therefore, it is extremely important that an active collaboration between computer scientists/energy scientists/energy practitioners is undertaken at the earliest (maybe even a setting up of an independent consortia can be considered) that will help in hardcoding the environmental safeguards and ethics into the processes of renewable energy/oil & gas companies as the energy sector becomes digitalized over the next years.     

Thank you, Sreekanth; however, the work that World Harmony Foundation really is focused on how are we going to seek new financing of voluntary contributions for UNEP in the area of biodiversity protection and restoration, given the launch of the UN Decade for Ecosystem Restoration on World Environment Day, 5 June. I merely gave a background to thinking, but as CEO of the World Harmony Foundation and going back in the UN system as an NGO for 40 years, I have an institutional memory that might be thinking of interconnected ways to support UNEP within its mandated work programme.

Hi everyone - we are about to announce a change of date for the virtual conference "A Digital Planet for Sustainability" where we will use the report to co-develop an action plan and operational strategy. New dates are 30 June-1 July.

More information is available here. 

There is a critical need for balance in technology transfer and the adaptability of technology in local contexts for consumers or end users (particularly the indigenous population).

There comes the modification to the values of consultation, and respect for privacy in data governance, specifically as it relates to the deployment of new technology for instance; it is imperative that consent is sought and technologies are developed or co-developed in such a way that these communities are engaged in a thorough Technology Needs Assessment stage where there are sufficient surveys on their need for such technologies.

Mapping impact of Technology in isolation of 'People' is counter intuitive in nature.Hence the need for validating such technologies with the people in mind is a key approach to keeping value as a top priority in designing solutions

After reading the communication thus far, I am delighted with the content of the report. I see many alignments. However, what I fail to see is the mention of the primary culprit.

Software Technology!

All the technological advancements that we have experienced thus far are primarily thanks to hardware technology. It has been almost 70 years since the last change in software technology, which was the introduction of the compiler.

Evidence of software's demise to meet the growing need and complexity of our modern world is visible in the increased number and growing severity of technological failures in daily life.

All technological development are tools/systems developed by software technology to sit on a hardware platform. Using an ageing approach to software that is neither sustainable nor circular will result in end products that remain neither sustainable nor circular by nature.

All seven priority areas of data, Infrastructure, energy, finance, people, governance and science, are impacted by underlying software technology.

We are currently drowning in too many solutions. Layer upon layer of overlapping disconnects with conflicting standards, governances and logic.

Attempts to address this initiative without addressing the true culprit will only add to the mix and ultimately solve very little long-term.

It is like everyone is standing in a room, speaking simultaneously, in different languages, volumes and topics. Then someone says, I can’t understand. Let’s bring our team to the mix!

I am happy to give a "Tech Myth Buster" overview to anyone interested. But, as I see many learned tech-savvy people here, I refrain from going into details. I prefer to focus on how we can get out of where we are.

Disclaimer – this is not a sales pitch. What I am explaining is a concept. The complete collective does not exist. However, some components do exist out of context. I see a perfect opportunity to lay this foundation to meet many of the objectives of this initiative.

To break away from all inherent issues of today’s software technology, I believe, we should:

1. Break the dependency between hardware & software – The “knowledge” or business & technical logic used to develop the solution must exist independent of the intended hardware platform and on the direct path of the executable code. Enabling creation and delivery of a software solution on required hardware platform on-demand, directly from the stored knowledge. Ensuring the documented logic is always aligned with the delivered executable.
   Imagine upgrading the enterprise systems from IBM to HP hardware without any additional cost, other than the cost of the new hardware.
   This approach will optimise the linear development model into a circular model and create an enterprise-wide single source of truth, passing knowledge from generation to generation without loss or corruption. A single source of truth also promotes standardisation and eliminates overlaps and conflicts in logic.
   
   Note: Business knowledge drives customers' needs (there may be many customers – e.g., a medical device would have the company that is funding it, the doctors that provide the medical knowledge and the patients that will use it. All such info is considered Business knowledge – although terminology can vary!!!).
   Technical knowledge drives the needs of the technology to deliver the said product.
    
2. Embrace augmented intelligence – Humans and computers have complementary abilities. Computers are fast and accurate at performing repetitive detailed work. Humans, on the other hand, are great at pattern recognition and creativity. Instead of trying to reverse our roles, let us bring the strengths of each together to create a formidable team. Allow the computers to do detailed repetitive activities, freeing humans to do the greater thinking.
   By doing so, humans can focus on problem patterns and creative solution identification. While computers track changes, perform analysis and auto-generate target code.
    
3. Instead of having books on methodologies – which are read, following the bits that we agree with and understand, ignoring the bits that we don’t and improvising the rest. Let us deliver a methodology that aids and guides us step-by-step. Always allowing us to have the freedom of choice. While documenting and tracking changes and deviations.
   Doing so allows the regulatory bodies to focus on the deviations and have a meaningful conversation about why the deviations happened, without tracking through millions of lines of documented text hoping to find them. This approach also allows quick reversal or enhancement of regulations and track changes.
   Improved communication leads to better regulations and change management with reduced overheads.
    
4. Monetising knowledge and data – allows the exchange of data and knowledge (including standards) between collaborators on-demand in exchange for other data, knowledge or services.
   Imagine being able to auto deliver branded data set or executable code to your partners in exchange for other services or be able to create a custom system for a remote agent collecting a specific data set on-demand.
    
5. Reverse engineering legacy logic to merged into the single source of truth – will recover the lost legacy knowledge while enabling the elimination of unnecessary legacy infrastructure. Ultimately, causing further reductions in cost and energy consumption while increasing knowledge, efficiency and quality.

Most importantly, image a group of subject matter experts focused on how a solution should function rather than discussing the technicalities of the build.

Many research, including The Standish Group Chaos report which is the largest research to date, confirm the rate of software's “failure” to deliver on time, cost and quality is at 84%!

Statista reports the enterprise software spending is expected to be $599 billion in 2021 and has been more than doubling every decade.

Imagine saving 50% of this spending within a decade!

How can some of this saving be put towards preserving our planet for future generations to enjoy?

First, I am thrilled and humbled to be included in this conversation. I read the report with a great enthusiasm and a sense of relief that an international community is coalescing around these issues. I apologize in advance if any of my feedback is redundant or comes too late.

It is understandable that we are initially looking to digital technology as a way to provide "nudges" and as a method of raising awareness of our climate emergency. Human behavior was what caused this crisis, so it would follow that our efforts be geared toward changing that behavior, typically through communications. If we can only educate enough people and provide them with accurate information, they will make the necessary lifestyle changes to avert a sixth mass extinction.

The pandemic has proven that large segments of the American public are willing to die for anti-science lies and the illusion of "freedom." It seems no amount of reasoning can penetrate the resistence of the unvaccinated. This makes me question the efficacy of using digital technology merely as a communications medium in an attempt to alter human behavior for the purpose of confronting our climate emergency.

What seems more promising is the confluence of four digital technologies, each of which is rapidly evolving: earth data, cloud computing, video games, and artificial intelligence/machine learning.

Since the beginning of the pandemic I have been working on a platform that integrates these four technologies into what I'm calling the World Integration Loop, or WIL. (I'm a sucker for a snappy acronym)

Here's how it works.

Earth data, including GIS, IoT, and LiDAR, gathered by NGOs, governments, and nonprofit organizations, is telemetrically delivered to the cloud. This is already happening.

In the cloud, AI/ML algorithms operating within data lakes integrate this data with game engine APIs. Unity and Unreal Engine currently have APIs that integrate GIS data from ESRI. Cesium recently released an amazing GIS/Unreal API. Microsoft Flight Simulator and Pokemon Go are good examples of early use cases for this technology.

In the cloud, a series of dependencies and triggers are established between changes in earth data and gameplay. For example, a game might feature an explorable digital twin of a real-world forest. After a certain number of trees are planted in the real-world forest, a new treasure or quest is unlocked in the game.

In other words, games can be designed to become more fun the more the planet measurably heals.

Concurrently, in-game marketplaces of virtual goods fund real-world climate action. A fashion house can sell its designs for avatar skins and designate part of the funds go toward beach clean up efforts. For every ton of plastic removed from beaches, new treasures and rewards are unlocked in the game.

The result is a self-reinforcing cycle of restoration and stewardship powered by the only inexaustible resource we have, the human creative imagination, enlisting billions of people who play games to make a personal, measurable contribution to saving our planet.

I have consulted with UNEP, Unity, Ubisoft, Microsoft, ESRI, Ustwo Games, the Independent Game Developers Association Climate SIG, Internet of Elephants, Particle, the Kering Group, Flash Forest, Skagit Land Trust, Surfrider Foundation, and myriad game developers, researchers, engineers, land stewards, and others working at the intersection of games and climate. Not a single person has told me my vision for the WIL is unachievable.

I am launching a startup called Machines & Dreamland to develop the World Integration Loop. We're just getting started and could use a lot of help. You can find us here: http://machinesanddreamland.com/

I look forward to learning more about how digital technology can confront our climate emergency as a member of this group, and welcome your questions and critiques. Thank you all!

Ryan Boudinot

Even with a delay in order to collaborate with the CODES report, I send here some small considerations after my reading.

CODES report: brief considerations

"An Open Science framework could enable more research from the same data, and increase opportunities for participation in research at local, national, and global scales." (CODES, 12)

The need for open science is urgent, especially in poor countries such as Brazil. Even within universities, here in Brazil, there is a certain resistance to data sharing among researchers. For example, sometimes a certain researcher gets a cartographic base and does not agree to share it with other fellow researchers. This ends up making the work of less influential researchers somewhat difficult, but who carry out important research and often need to obtain secondary data. Nobody does everything alone. 

"Business models and consumption patterns driven and, at present, served by the infinite growth paradigm draw limited distinction between price and inherent value. This mindset is pushing us beyond the planet’s carrying capacity. Ubiquitous features of online platforms, search engines, news feeds, targeted advertisements, suggested sites, and connections have become “hyper-nudge” mechanisms that increasingly determine what people read, what questions theyare encouraged to ask, and what opinions and candidates they support." (CODES, p 14)

This can, with advertising, focus on children and young people to reach adults resistant to new ideas, new lifestyles. I notice that adults feel ashamed when asked by children or young people. Perhaps this is the way, even if the opposite, in educational terms. Global standardization in education may be important. Greta Thunberg and Malala Yousafzai are great examples that children and young people can positively influence global change.

"Even Amazon is responding to climate-based criticisms by beginning to highlight climate pledge-friendly products on its platform to nudge consumers toward better sustainability choices. These efforts should be noted, but Big Tech companies struggle with reconciling sustainability goals with traditional profit-making practices. Despite their climate pledges, Microsoft and Google continue to support the oil and gas sector, offering cloud computing technology to expand oil production and increase profitability." (CODES, p. 14)

It is necessary to encourage the idea that we human beings do not need many things to live. A simpler lifestyle is possible and important to avoid a collapse of planet Earth.

I live in an important agricultural region in Brazil, where most of the Brazilian soy is produced. In my city, I observe how poor people have become millionaires planting soybeans and how their current lifestyle is encouraging other people to abandon their businesses to also plant soybeans with the sole aim of becoming rich.
Capitalist soybean cycle: deforestation forests, planting, harvesting, selling, making a profit, spending everything on luxury, planting, harvesting, selling, spending everything on luxury. Generally, when the land becomes degraded, the big farmers in my region sell the farm and buy a new farm in another place with fertile soil. This has been a common problem in my region where farmers are migrating to the Amazon in search of fertile soil to grow soybeans or raise cattle. 

Perhaps a solution would be to implement a system in which the farm owner is held responsible for soil degradation and is obliged to recover the land he degraded, preventing him from migrating to another region in search of fertile soil to explore and again degrade and abandon the land.

Some texts, reports and articles on this issue:

https://www.youthmappers.org/post/the-soybean-the-environmental-degradation-and-the-importance-of-collaborative-mapping

https://www.scielo.br/j/asoc/a/tykKcbYvdnsX5CHcH97qNcd/?lang=pt

https://reporterbrasil.org.br/2021/05/soja-pirata-cultivada-na-amazonia-acelera-desmatamento-e-tem-participacao-de-gigantes-do-agro/

https://imazon.org.br/pecuaria-na-amazonia-tendencias-e-implicacoes-para-a-conservacao-ambiental/

https://www.nationalgeographicbrasil.com/meio-ambiente/2019/09/fazendeiros-amazonia-incendios-floresta-amazonica-queimadas-paleoecologia

https://www.ecodebate.com.br/2017/08/28/pecuaria-maquina-que-move-o-desmatamento-da-amazonia/

https://www.dw.com/pt-br/o-avan%C3%A7o-ilegal-da-soja-sobre-a-floresta/a-52242760

"Goal IV: Assess the data needs, interoperability standards, and digital infrastructures that are needed to support and automate Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA), Product
Environmental Footprinting (PEF), and Digital Product Passports needed for a circular economy." (CODES, p.17)

What if there is an environmental passport to economics? For example, are people with businesses that contribute to the degradation of the environment prohibited from traveling internationally? 

"Goal I: Develop and adopt green public procurement standards and policies, laws, and regulations to reduce and mitigate the adverse impact of e-waste regulations for ICT with adoption by at least 100 countries as part of closing the digital divide." (CODES, 18)

 It must be remembered that there are still rich countries that export their garbage to poor countries. This needs to change.

"Goal III: Develop a global framework for the digitalisation of financial mechanisms such as carbon credit and distributed renewable energy credits (D-RECs) to incentivise
investments in developing countries and to monetise the value of distributed renewable energy installations on a global basis." (CODES, p. 19)

 As long as this does not imply a control of economic growth in poor countries, configuring a form of "CASTES" for rich countries to continue exploiting poor countries to sustain their luxuries. Equality between all must also prevail in this aspect.

https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/geral-48489791

https://www.uol.com.br/esporte/olimpiadas/reportagens-especiais/japao-exporta-milhoes-de-toneladas-de-lixo-plastico-a-paises-pobres/

Before concluding, I would like to open a parenthesis to draw attention to the crisis in Afghanistan that thousands of women and girls are at risk not only of losing their rights as a human being, but of losing their own lives. If the objective of this CODES group is the digital transformation for environmental sustainability, educational reform will be fundamental and this implies educating for human equality (gender). It has never been more important than now to standardize the way of educating and especially to focus on education that teaches boys to respect women and girls. Education for human equality needs to be universal, it needs to help develop citizens who are more aware of their role and responsibility to improve the world and not destroy it as is happening in many places. Women are a force of intelligence and a more human personality that can contribute to changing the world for the better. I say this because this is my place to speak, as I come from a country like Brazil where the rates of domestic violence and femicide have never been as high as they are now. The study, professional training, intellectual and professional development of women have been reasons for men to commit and justify violence against women in Brazil. It is absurd that in the 21st century this is happening in many parts of the world. And that's why I say that we need to change the way we educate children so that they become more evolved adults who respect not only women and girls, but also everything related to Nature, because whoever doesn't respect a woman, a child, never will respect the environment.

Finally, I would like to say that, I hope to help in this digital transformation process, even if my words are simple and obvious. I come from a poor country and as a teacher and researcher in the area of land degradation, maybe I can help a little in this process for a digital transformation for environmental sustainability in local communities in my region.

Sorry for any errors in writing in English. My language is Portuguese and I am not fluent in English.

While reading your comments on women empowerment, I remember reading an article about professor Yunus where he describes the struggle he had when he decided to make Grameen focus on women borrowers. Bangladesh has traditions that are not particularly in favor of women empowerment and he had to work hard to convince men that women can become entrepreneurs. I just started going back to school to finish my degree but now I want to focus on computer science. In the years ahead while I slowly work on my classes, I want to focus on how computer science can help with soil health. I think people in general still don't value or understand soil. But with data and proper storytelling, I think we can make people reconsider. In one of my interviews for my films, one of the scientists described how people don't value what mangrove forests provide. They only see them as wastelands. But if we can quantify the real value of our ecosystems, then maybe more attention will be put on the preservation and enhancement of our ecosystems. Our mission is not easy. But I hope CODES will continue to grow in the years ahead because we need this platform to transform society in both the developed and in the developing nations.

Let's not forget the great work of Sam Daley-Harris and the RESULTS Educational Foundation in Washington DC that, with persons such as the late Bella Abzug, former Congressional Representative from NYC and Director of the Women's Enviornment and Development Organization and of her lifelong friend Mim Kelber, worked for 10 years to bring microfinance to 150 million of the world's poorest women. Sometimes the great work that was done in tandem is overlooked, and Bella, with her trademark hats worn at all meetings, would be aghast if I did not mention this.

Greetings all,

I am new to this group and delighted to learn about and engage with this important vision.

I’m a U.S. academic who previously worked in the tech industry and co-founded a software company. So my brief and selective comments below are informed (and biased) by that perspective.

Overall, I appreciate the boldness of the Zero Order Draft - it succeeds in its goal as a first draft.

Moreover, I appreciate the thoughtful comments provided by others, which informed my thinking and spurred reflection. Below are a few responses to the specific questions posed by the moderator.
 

1. In your opinion, is there any critical area that this report has under-emphasized, overlooked or that you don’t agree with?

• Systems thinking for productive dialog and solution development. As an example, the tech industry argues that more data collection improves our lives, but this is not the case for many people, and may even create a vicious cycle. 
• AI and machine learning are hardly mentioned despite their immense positive potential and immense damages and risk to human welfare and environmental sustainability.

2. Does the report adequately capture and balance perspectives from the Global North and South? Are other cross-cutting inclusion issues such as gender and indigenous perspectives captured?

• No, not surprisingly the global north is over-represented. A simple text analysis would show this, though it is not needed. There are myriad pertinent stories / perspectives from the global south that can be included.
• Indigenous perspectives ought to be included, within and beyond issues of equity and digital divides.

3. Do you agree with the core values mentioned in the report ? How should they be augmented ?

• Yes
• Perhaps embracing a new value of time, meaning, future humans in 100 years are just as important as current humans, or, humans living 100 years ago. Strangely, the “time value of money” taught in most business schools seems to have an implicit analogy to humans beings - even though this is an absurdity. 

4. Do the six priority areas recommended by the report resonate with you and do they make sense as a framework for co-designing an acceleration plan?

• yes

5. Where do you see examples and best practices that exemplify the values, incentives and strategic shifts mentioned in the report ?

• Global organizations that embody human-centric approaches, such as Doctors without Borders, Red Cross, and Oxfam.

In a very related piece of work to the CODES conversations & indeed workshops at launch, last week a number of academic & corporate practitioners & published authors launched  the new International #CDR Definition and Manifesto, outlining seven key principles of CDR. 

Click here to read about it https://lnkd.in/dnUKvyqb

This represents six months of collaborating and debate by an international team of recognised CDR experts, each of whom has substantive background in published insight in #CorporateDigitalResponsibility. 

If any of this is valuable to others around the world, then the high level framework is available to use and inform work across organisations, both public and private sector. 

My thanks to all of the efforts and contributions of each of those who have collaborated in the production of this, namely Dr. Saskia Dörr, Michael Wade, Oliver M. Merx, Tim Frick and Christopher Joynson. 

Please contact any of us if you would like more information, or indeed use the contact links on the website to express support or suggest further evolution. 

I have not seen any recent update about the creation of the final report. Could someone alert me as to where we stand? I thought that there was a meeting of the IGF for presentation of the report and then delivery to the UN SG.

Hello everyone!
I would like to respectfully express my concern about the dynamics of the CODES group. Maybe my opinion is wrong. I thought that the purpose of the group was to involve all participants in all stages of the process of making the CODES group a global project for environmental issues. I am concerned about this dynamic of consulting people around the world about issues and ideas, and then disappearing or not responding to emails from people who are not UN staff or UN friends or acquaintances. I am not criticizing, but raising a concern that I have been having in relation to the CODES group. I imagine that some people here have already had the same experience that I had in sending emails to the coordinators of the CODES group and not receiving a response. A few months ago I sent an email with an idea about creating an agricultural-climate calendar application (free software) to help combat soil erosion and sandstorms. I have not received any response. I remember a speech by Mr. David Jensen at a CODES event where he said that a lot of people are developing great projects somewhere, but that the rest of the world doesn't know and that the CODES group would be to help solve this by joining forces to achieve the goals of the 2030 agenda.
My project proposal to develop a software on agricultural-climate calendar was something I elaborated for a part of my doctoral thesis and now I want to turn it into software. I sent the agricultural calendar image to Mr. David Jensen and a researcher at Future Earth, but they didn't reply. I have noticed that many questions here in the group do not receive an answer either. This worries me, because if we are a group we need to interact better on these issues and avoid acting like the former colonizing countries that in the past frequented other territories just to take away the riches. If the CODES group's proposal is to join forces and support ideas that are often being developed alone in remote places, I think something is not going very well. I'm from Brazil, I studied my Doctorate in Portugal, I returned to Brazil to help my country. However, I came across a government that is destroying everything, especially Science. Practically, there is no longer any support or funding from the Brazilian government for researchers in Brazil. That is terrible. So, I feel frustrated because I thought that CODES could be a way out so that I could continue in Brazil developing my research on soil degradation.
COP26 failed, as those involved were unable to close deals according to the needs of the 2030 agenda. At COP26, many leaders were only concerned about closing deals involving the predatory exploitation of natural resources. In other words, for many leaders, COP 26 only served as a stage for multi-million dollar deals for rich people to keep getting richer, and ecosystems increasingly degraded. If we need to reduce consumerism, change the means of production and lifestyles, to something more sustainable, then there is something wrong with the COP26 results. This is quite worrying.
I leave the invitation here in case anyone wants to share with me the development of a platform or software on the agricultural-climate calendar. I emphasize that my goal is to develop something with free access, or at a low cost, that can help the community in general in rural areas, especially small farmers, as they are the ones who feed the world. My English is not good, but we can get over it.

If anyone is willing to help me move forward with the climate-agricultural calendar project, I'm willing to talk about it.

Hi, Regia, yes, I am a little puzzled also on lack of replies, has the drafting group actually prepared a new version of the document? Early December was supposed to be a launch at the Internet governance Forum, if I recall, and then have the plan sent to the SG. It surely would help for many partners if we could perhaps see a revised ?? roadmap, have the drafters been at work, many of us put great effort into this endeavor, and as i recall, there would also be some type of followup process depending on budgetary resources. Thank you for expressing concerns that some of us have been feeling since the summer.

Hi all,
I have to concur with the sentiments. I am disappointed with the lack of communication and cooperation on this topic.

I was waiting until after the COP before writing it off as another dead-end hype that had potential.

I sincerely hope it lives to its potential.
Best Regards,

Régia,  Richard ..  Yes, You're right.  I honestly have no idea about  what  has been going on since last  September as far  as i can remember. Also want to mention that ; A member of  the International Science Council, the German Environment Agency  wrote to me  this message during an online session   "When you enter the breakout room, you will be asked in German if you want to allow access to the camera and microphones. Please click on "zulassen" (=allow)” However, the meeting was in English. I  believe  it is rude, wrong and unprofessional.  I hope CODES  will try to engage positively with our ideas in the future. Hope for the best.  

Hi Regia, You are absolutely right! This is like an old boys network! David Jensen as the coordinator of this group has been absolutely abysmal. I had great hopes from this group in the beginning that it would truly be a collaborative work but have become very disillusioned very quickly. Not acknowledging or responding to messages is so disrespectful!

Thanks

Sree 

Dear Regia and others,

I agree that the lack of transparency in this initiative is a concern.  I hope the moderators can improve their communication and inclusiveness.  Regards,

Pierre.

Hi colleagues - please accept my sincere apologies for not seeing this string of responses. This thread had been closed and I was not monitoring the content.

I can only apologize for the lack of communication and engagement that colleagues are feeling. We have tried to increase communications across the members with the monthly newsletter and with monthly learning sessions but indeed - these are not sufficient measures. 

One the report itself - on the basis of all of the feedback received during the conference, it was felt that we had to go back to the drawing board in terms of taking all of this on-board. This has been an extremely slow process to try to redraft the report on the basis of all the feedback and we've done a poor job communicating with the members on how this is moving.  We have been planning to organize a roundtable in December to update colleagues on where everything stands. With the re-write, it won't be possible to release anything by December. We are looking more towards end February 2022.

Let me also apologize if there are some missed emails. I'm not sure what happened to them - but please do resend them to me so that I can respond.

Please also continue to send this kind of constructive feedback and do hold the steering committee accountable if we are not meeting needs and expectations. 

Message that we need to do better received loud and clear. 

That's fine, as long as we have an idea of the timeline, etc. Realize this is really tough going since most likely the Our Common Agenda might have an impact. Thanks, David.

Hi, everyone, while no NGOs ever speak for the entirety of NGOs or participants in a conference or process, allow me perhaps to take a liberty as someone who spent 8,000 days, usually 8 hours a day, at the UN in an NGO observing role. This process is very difficult, having been in some similar situations. I myself am actually happy that this hiatus has given more time for reflection. So occasionally it really can be hard to hit every note perfectly or hit the dives in Olympic swimming with perfect 10s. I myself am satisfied with David's reply and would say that whenever there can be another zero draft provided and at least another roundtable held that we simply await that process and then let's see what happens. I am ready to provide some new input and perhaps all of us can be thinking of material that could be useful, even though we are not seeing a draft quite yet. There is far less to follow in the official UN processes and after COP26, hopefully we can contribute refreshed and ready to go. Thanks, David, we await your additional directives most likely after 1 December.

Régia Estevam Alves , my startup is currently working on a publication with the Vincenza University (IT) and the local regenerative agriculture farmers, matching data collected insitu with satellite imagery and our technology, we are also collaborate with MIT and RAISG/Mapbiomas initiative for water quality monitoring, including the flying rivers of the Amazonian Macroterritory, we will love to collaborate with you and all life-centered earth observation community.

My startup uses the quantum properties of the electromagnetic spectrum. The electromagnetic field vibrates at different frequencies according to the energy that is absorbed, propagated or reflected by a material according to its identity. We use a series of algorithms that classify and quantify the thermodynamic properties of the materials captured by the satellite image. If a technical name is needed for what we do, it can be called QUANTUM SPECTROMETRY and we use AI and quantum computing to do it on a large scale.

As far as our research concerns, there is no other company doing this and we are focusing on working with GSI projects with more experience to secure a positive impact as fast as possible.

I don´t have Richard´s experience as an observer, but my experience as action oriented civic society on the oceans agenda includes being showcased as content for UNDP & UNEP, now my main collaboration is with DOALOS, I can only say that the main support comes trough the network, for that i´m thankful and I trust that David will find the time, space and support to assist to escalate our inputs, that being said; I was recently designated by the Mexican authority of aquaculture and fisheries to coordinate the capacity building program, including the digital aspects, hope that I can connect ASAP with the coordinators and interested members of this community to accelerate implementation on my country and region.

Thank you.

I know DOALOS very well, as one of the 5 original co-founding editors of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, I helped cover the negotiations on one of the most important Conventions prepared at the UN, the Highly Migratory Fish Stocks and Straddling Fish Stocks Conference, chaired by Amb. Satya Nandan of Fiji, who was instrumental in furthering the space of NGO and CSO participation in UN processes.

All - I'd like to briefly weigh in with a voice of support for our colleague David Jensen. First, I realize David is perfectly capable of speaking for himself, as he has done so in the responses above. But I cannot in good conscience refrain from sharing the disappointment I felt in reading the negative comments directed at David, specifically. While I can appreciate the frustration being expressed here, I know that unresponsiveness is very atypical for David and not at all consistent with my experience in working with him. He has always been a pleasure to work with, respectful, responsive, engaged, smart as a whip - and every interaction working with him has left me hoping for the opportunity to do so more often. I hope in the future we can all do a better job of affording others the benefit of the doubt.