In my last lecture, I spoke about the recent rise of the last four decades' public movements around climate change, and the end of extreme poverty. And how these movements, ultimately, after decades of being poles apart, and often fighting and finger-pointing between the two of them, how they dramatically came together in 2015 in the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. And in the last 18 months or so, rather than countries coming together and charging full steam ahead to achieve these agreements by the year 2030, you've had some countries, arguably some of the world's most prominent and powerful countries, start to retreat not just from these agreements, but arguably from the very consensus and global institutions that made them possible. These global institutions, such as the United Nations, built the long piece, the decades following 1945 that had been notable for the absence of a major war for the first time in human history between great powers. Thanks to a belief that investing in peace and prosperity and development is in all of our collective interests. The most notable example of this retreat is, of course, President Trump's announcement that the US will withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, and also, his proposal to slash the US foreign aid budget by 30 percent. Now, fortunately, unlike the Paris Agreement, which only requires an executive order signed by the president to withdraw, the foreign aid cuts, in order to go through, requires consensus in Congress. And thanks to the many campaigners, global citizens, results members, one campaign members out there. Congress has stood steadfastly in support of maintaining US foreign assistance. And even on the climate front, despite President Trump's best efforts, there's been great momentum at a subnational, local state level driven by leaders like Governor Brown of California, which has, to a certain extent, blunted the worst effects that could come from the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. So, arguably, America retreating from the world doesn't mean that all Americans are retreating from the world. In fact, far from it. But with that said, still, maybe this is a sign that traditional countries and governments, which we traditionally relied upon to lead, and the models of development around them can't be relied upon alone. Yes, we need to continue to press the US for global leadership. Yes, we need to call on wealthy developed nations to keep their international aid obligations and meet the promises they've made to the world's poor. But we also need to look at the other trends at current and parts of the world and look for new champions, too. Now, I'll be the first to say that foreign aid has been a critical part of the development agenda. I spent the last 10 years of my life campaigning and calling for countries to meet the promises they've made to the world's poor. Yet, the frank reality is that even if all OECD countries, the world's most wealthiest countries, met their aid obligations, which in the present climate isn't looking likely at all, there would still be a huge funding gap required to meet the Sustainable Development Goals and end extreme poverty by 2030, not to mention, mitigate climate change. Therefore, we need to talk about new models. We need to talk about citizen-led accountability from the grassroots-up in every country around the world. Ten percent of the world's poor still remain in extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as those living on less than US $1.90 a day. Now, a big percentage of this number actually found in middle income countries. These countries perform incredibly well when you look at overall levels of economic growth, and they will increasingly represent a larger portion of the world's wealth. In fact, many of them already do. You look at Nigeria, Indonesia, India, and these Southeast Asian economies, all of them are posed in the next 20, 30 years to be in the top rankings of high income countries. Yet, large pockets of extreme poor are consolidated in these countries. They're at high risk of being left behind if not equipped with the proper skills and educations and not able to grow up healthy in order to thrive. Indeed, 264 million children and young people around the world do not even get a quality education. This is the same number of people living in the country of Indonesia. And the bulk of development finance needs to come from these countries themselves domestically and it also needs to come from the private sector. Foreign aid alone isn't going to cut it. If we rely on that, people will be left behind. The World Bank's New Human Capital Project, championed by President Jim Yong Kim, is a step in the right direction. It is set to actively call out governance based on how well they invest in the human capital of their countries. That is, how they invest in the health and education of their citizens. And the data will speak for itself. For example, when we look at stunting, a consequence of chronic malnutrition, the World Bank analysis estimates that countries in the sub-Saharan African region and South Asia will have GDPs per capita of 9-10 percent greater than they do today if they had eliminated chronic malnutrition when today's workers were children. Governments from all corners of the world are picking up on this. President Macri of Argentina, in December last year, pledged to make his G20 presidency not a country-first agenda, but a people-first agenda. He invited global citizens to work with him, but governments in all parts of the world must adopt this approach. They need to look at not just investing in infrastructure, but investing in people, in the health and education of their citizens, so that they can all thrive and participate in the growth for their countries' economies. And civil society needs to take action, too. They need to equip activists at all levels in all countries, in all communities with the means to hold their governments accountable. Accountability, after all, is key to delivery, which brings me to my next point. Advocates, and I'm pointing the finger, advocates such as myself, need to shift gears as well. Pivoting is something kind of a bit about. When I was at high school, I started my activism fundraising for charitable projects. My first project was a quiz night at my old high school, where we raised a grant to build a school in Papua New Guinea. Shortly after that, we realized, if we really wanted to create systemic change, we needed to look at broader public policy. And I thought, well, on the one hand, I can help raise a couple of thousand dollars to build a school or I can call on my government, in my case, it was the Australian Government, to meet its obligations to the world's poor, to increase its aid obligations, and therefore, release perhaps billions of dollars. I cared not about small results, I was interested in long-term systemic change. Now I believe, more than a decade later, that advocates, such as myself, need to shift again if we are truly going to see a world without extreme poverty.
