Redefining Davos: The Case for a World Ecosystem Forum.

In a world brimming with acronyms, WEF has withstood the test of time.

For more than half a century, world leaders and the business elite have convened to discuss the most pressing global issues and opportunities at the World Economic Forum.

But before this years event had even opened it doors Aljeezera was leading with the provocative headline:

"Is the World Economic Forum still relevant?".

Why? In short, because there seems to be a growing disconnect between the lofty ambitions of WEF and its tangible outcomes, particularly on global, complex and interlinked threats such as climate change, biodiversity loss and inequality.

The truth is todays challenges extend far beyond economics, in fact its the nature of the global economy we have created that has (fossil) fuelled our current climate emergency.

We all want to see timely and purposeful action on our most existential challenges, so perhaps its time for WEF to lead this by fundamentally reimagining and re-positioning itself to acknowledge that we can no longer prioritise economics over ecosystem.

What greater signal than by changing it's moniker to reflect the changing nature of global challenges and priorities? It wouldn't be the first time.

WEF has already had a rebrand.

In 1971, when the forum was born it was called the European Management Forum and the world was very different place. A global population of just 4.5 billion, it was a time of economic-centric optimism. Carbon dioxide in our atmosphere wasn't a hot topic (326ppm) and global air surface temperatures were a relatively cool 15.5 degrees (see Nasa data below).

Then in 1987, to "better reflect its global membership and the fact that economic policy was at the forefront of its activities", the European Management Forum changed its name to the World Economic Forum. (source: WEF). It is fair to say that global economic progress has been up and to the right ever since.

The 'Inconvenient Truth' Behind Economic Progress.

Fast forward to today's 8 billion population, and the environmental landscape has shifted dramatically. Economic growth has undoubtedly driven progress, but also led to climate change, rising sea levels, and unprecedented biodiversity loss eclipsing traditional economic concerns.

Today, atmospheric carbon dioxide is circa 421ppm, close to 30% higher than in 1971. Last year was officially the hotest year since records began, only a hair under 1.5 degree hotter than average measurements when the forum first convened.

In the relatively short period since the first forum we have lost on average 68% of the abundance of species on earth, predominantly from clearing biodiverse areas for new land usage for agriculture, livestock and farming (also over fishing etc).

And while we have been clearing and extracting natural resources at unprecedented levels we have been producing ever increasing amounts of human-made materials.

Staggeringly, in 2020, human-made mass reached about 1.1 teratonnes, exceeding overall global biomass. Our buildings and infrastructure outweigh all our trees and shrubs, and the amount of plastic alone outweighs all land animals and marine creatures combined (Nature, 2020).

A Rising Economic Tide Hasn't Lifted All Boats.

Back in the 90's hay days of the Davos forum, the concept of stakeholder capitalism was driving the economic development agenda.

This approach aimed for corporations, owned by shareholders, to serve the broader interests of employees, consumers, communities, and the environment, moving beyond just shareholder profits.

But the reality isn't living up to the marketing brochure.

Whilst it's true that economic development has contributed to millions of people escaping extreme poverty since the the first forum, global inequality is now rising again, for the first time in decades.

The multi-millionaire and billionaire leaders hosted in Davos are getting richer while the unrepresented poor are getting poorer. A new report by Oxfam, "Inequality Inc." outlines that at current rates, it will take 230 years to end poverty but we could have our first trillionaire in a decade.

It has a foreword by Bernie Sanders that includes the following remarks:

Never before in human history have so few owned so much. Never before in human history has there been such income and wealth inequality. Never before in history have we had such huge concentrations of ownership. Never before in history have we seen a billionaire class with so much political power. And never before have we seen this unprecedented level of greed, arrogance and irresponsibility on the part of the ruling class.

The cost of inaction.

In the whirlwind of immediate crises and short-term priorities, it's all too easy for global leaders to sideline the pressing need for systemic change. There's always something more urgent, more immediate.

This constant deferral has led to a critical oversight in addressing long-term threats like climate change, biodiversity loss, and escalating inequality. The irony is, these 'long-term' issues are no longer distant concerns; they're knocking at our door, becoming more pressing with each passing day.

The World Economic Forum's own Global Risk Report underscores this urgency. The most significant risks over a 10-year horizon are environmental: extreme weather events, critical change to earth systems, and the looming threat of ecosystem collapse. These aren't hypothetical scenarios; they're very real possibilities that demand immediate and concerted action.

By continuing to treat these issues as secondary, or as challenges to be dealt with in the future, we're not just failing to seize an opportunity for positive change; we're actively contributing to a ecosystem decline.

A few weeks ago, at COP 28, the "two-year Global Stocktake for the Paris Agreement" concluded that:

We are off track from the targeted 1.5°C pathway, and there is a “rapidly narrowing window” for increasing efforts in order to achieve the Paris Agreement goals.

A new report by CPI estimates that to ensure global temperatures do not rise above 1.5°C range will require climate finance of USD 5.4 trillion to USD 11.7 trillion per year until 2030, and between USD 9.3 trillion and USD 12.2 trillion per year over the following two decades.

These needs are dwarfed by the increased social and economic costs that will be incurred under business-as-usual (BAU) warming scenarios (which CPI estimates to be at least USD 1,266 trillion) and will only worsen the longer action is delayed.

The time for acknowledging and addressing these threats is no longer in the future; In the words of Fatboy Slim- it's right here, right now.

The World Ecosystem Forum: More Than a Name Change

As we stand at the precipice of an era marked by existential environmental and social challenges, it's clear that the World Economic Forum, an institution once at the forefront of global economic discourse, must evolve. The current state of our planet and its inhabitants calls for a radical shift in perspective — from economic focus to an integrated ecosystem approach.

It's no longer enough to expect economic discourse to deliver change. We need to address the interconnectedness of economics, environment, and equity.

This isn't about simply rebranding; it's about rethinking our priorities. The 'World Ecosystem Forum' could be more than a symbolic change; it could herald a new age of holistic problem-solving.

Imagine a forum where the conversation isn't dominated by growth, but by how effectively we're preserving biodiversity, ensuring equitable resource distribution, and fostering sustainable communities and integrating the "triple bottom line" — people, planet, and profit — into every decision and discussion.

This isn't just about changing a name; it's about changing mindsets, policies, and, ultimately, the world.

Add Your Voice.

So, here's a call to action for every one of us:

Let's bring our perspectives, our expertise, and our voices to this conversation. Whether you're a seasoned economist, a serial Davos attendee, a concerned citizen, or anyone in between, your insights matter.

Do you think this idea could be the catalyst for a change? Or is it, a well-intentioned but insufficient gesture in the face of overwhelming challenges?

Share your perspectives- they are needed in this dialogue. After all, the future is not just in the hands of those who meet in Davos.

It belongs to us all.