Od 2009. svijet se kreće oko jedne priče, oko nadolazeće svjetske prehrambene krize i šta trebamo učiniti da je izbjegnemo. Kako ćemo nahraniti 9 milijardi ljudi do 2050? Svaka konferencija i dialog oko svjetske krize počinje ovim pitanjem i pokušajem odgovora, kako trebamo proizvoditi 70% vise hrane.
Since 2009, the world has been stuck on a single narrative around a coming global food crisis and what we need to do to avoid it. How do we feed nine billion people by 2050? Every conference, podcast and dialogue around global food security starts with this question and goes on to answer it by saying we need to produce 70 percent more food.
Priča 2050 se počela razvijati, neposredno nakon što su svjetske cijene hrane dosegle vrhunac 2008. Ljudi su se patili i borili, vlade i svjetske vođe su morale pokazati da brinu i da rade na rješenju. Stvar je u tome da je 2050. tako daleko u budućnosti, da ne mozemo ni suosjećati, i još važnije, ako nastavimo raditi ono što radimo, situacija će biti gora nego je zamišljamo.
The 2050 narrative started to evolve shortly after global food prices hit all-time highs in 2008. People were suffering and struggling, governments and world leaders needed to show us that they were paying attention and were working to solve it. The thing is, 2050 is so far into the future that we can't even relate to it, and more importantly, if we keep doing what we're doing, it's going to hit us a lot sooner than that.
Smatram da trebamo postaviti novo pitanje. Odgovor na pitanje se mora drugačije formulisati. Ako možemo preformulisati staru priču i zamijeniti je brojevima koji će nam dati kompletnije slike, brojeve koje svako razumije i s kojima se može povezati, možemo skupa spriječiti krizu.
I believe we need to ask a different question. The answer to that question needs to be framed differently. If we can reframe the old narrative and replace it with new numbers that tell us a more complete pictures, numbers that everyone can understand and relate to, we can avoid the crisis altogether.
Ja sam prije bila trgovac i jedna od stvari koje sam naučila je da svako tržište ima svoju kritičnu tačku, tačku kada se javljaju promjene koje utječu na svijet i stvari zauvijek mijenjaju. Pomislite na posljednju finansijsku krizu, ili dot-com krah.
I was a commodities trader in my past life and one of the things that I learned trading is that every market has a tipping point, the point at which change occurs so rapidly that it impacts the world and things change forever. Think of the last financial crisis, or the dot-com crash.
Dakle, toga se plašim. Mogli bismo imati promjenu u svjetskoj prehrani i poljoprivredi, ako porast potraznje prevaziđe sistem i kapacitete za proizvodnju. To znači da proizvodnja ne može pratiti potražnju uprkos porastu cijena, osim ako uvedemo strukturalnu promjenu. Ovaj put se neće raditi o tržištima i novcu, nego o ljudima. Ljudi bi mogli umrijeti od gladi i vlade bi mogle pasti. Problem proizvodnje i zadovoljavanje potražnje me je počeo zanimati dok sam bila trgovac, i postao apsolutna opsesija. Interes je prerastao u opsesiju kada sam shvatila koliko je sistem loš i koliko podataka se koristilo za odluke. Tada sam napustila Wall Street i počela poduzetničku avanturu osnivajući Gro Intelligence.
So here's my concern. We could have a tipping point in global food and agriculture if surging demand surpasses the agricultural system's structural capacity to produce food. This means at this point supply can no longer keep up with demand despite exploding prices, unless we can commit to some type of structural change. This time around, it won't be about stock markets and money. It's about people. People could starve and governments may fall. This question of at what point does supply struggle to keep up with surging demand is one that started off as an interest for me while I was trading and became an absolute obsession. It went from interest to obsession when I realized through my research how broken the system was and how very little data was being used to make such critical decisions. That's the point I decided to walk away from a career on Wall Street and start an entrepreneurial journey to start Gro Intelligence.
U Gro-u se fokusiramo na podatke i izvodljiv posao, da ojačamo donosioce odluka na svim nivoima. Ali ovim poslom smo spoznali da svijet, ne samo svjetski lideri, nego biznisi i građani kao svi mi, nemaju upustvo kako da izbjegnu buduću svjetsku krizu. Napravili smo i model, koristeći petabajte podataka koje imamo i riješili smo sve do kritične tačke.
At Gro, we focus on bringing this data and doing the work to make it actionable, to empower decision-makers at every level. But doing this work, we also realized that the world, not just world leaders, but businesses and citizens like every single person in this room, lacked an actionable guide on how we can avoid a coming global food security crisis. And so we built a model, leveraging the petabytes of data we sit on, and we solved for the tipping point.
Sada, niko ne zna da smo radili na tome i ovo je prvi put da dijelim naša otkrića. Otkrili smo da će se kritična tačka desiti za deceniju. Otkrili smo da će svijet biti uskraćen za 214 biliona kalorija u 2027. godini. Svijet ne može popuniti tu prazninu.
Now, no one knows we've been working on this problem and this is the first time that I'm sharing what we discovered. We discovered that the tipping point is actually a decade from now. We discovered that the world will be short 214 trillion calories by 2027. The world is not in a position to fill this gap.
Sada, primjetit ćete da je formulacija drugačija od početne i to je s namjernom, jer do sada se ovaj problem određivao masom: u kilogramima, tonama, hektogramima, koju god jedinicu za masu izaberete. Zašto o hrani pričamo u težinama? Jer je jednostavno. Pogledamo fotografiju i odredimo težinu broda jednostavno koristeci digitron. Možemo vagati kamione, avione i prikolice. Ali za hranu je bitna nutritivna vrijednost. Nije svaka hrana isto sačinjena, čak i ako isto teži. To znam iz prve ruke kada sam se iz Etiopije preselila u SAD. Po povratku kući, moj otac, koji se radovao sto me vidi me pozdravio sa pitanjem zašto sam debela. Ispostavilo se da me jedenje iste količine hrane iz Etiopije, u Americi dovelo do popunjene linije. Zbog toga trebamo brinuti o kalorijama, a ne o masi. Kalorije nas održavaju,
Now, you'll notice that the way I'm framing this is different from how I started, and that's intentional, because until now this problem has been quantified using mass: think kilograms, tons, hectograms, whatever your unit of choice is in mass. Why do we talk about food in terms of weight? Because it's easy. We can look at a photograph and determine tonnage on a ship by using a simple pocket calculator. We can weigh trucks, airplanes and oxcarts. But what we care about in food is nutritional value. Not all foods are created equal, even if they weigh the same. This I learned firsthand when I moved from Ethiopia to the US for university. Upon my return back home, my father, who was so excited to see me, greeted me by asking why I was fat. Now, turns out that eating approximately the same amount of food as I did in Ethiopia, but in America, had actually lent a certain fullness to my figure. This is why we should care about calories, not about mass. It is calories which sustain us.
214 biliona kalorija je veliki broj, i čak ni najposvećeniji od nas misle o stotinama i bilionima kalorija. Dakle, da pojednostavimo. Alternativni način da se misli o ovome jeste da se misli u količini Big Macova. 214 biliona kalorija. Jedan zalogaj Big Mac-a ima 563 kalorije. Znači da svijetu u 2027. nedostaje 379 milijardi Big Mac-ova. Više Big Mac-ova nego je McDonalds ikada proizveo.
So 214 trillion calories is a very large number, and not even the most dedicated of us think in the hundreds of trillions of calories. So let me break this down differently. An alternative way to think about this is to think about it in Big Macs. 214 trillion calories. A single Big Mac has 563 calories. That means the world will be short 379 billion Big Macs in 2027. That is more Big Macs than McDonald's has ever produced.
No, kako smo došli do ovih brojeva uopće? Nisu izmišljeni. Ova mapa prikazuje svijet prije 40 godina. Vidite neto manjak kalorija svake države. Sada, jednostavno, uzmite da su to kalorije iz jedne države minus kalorije proizvedene u toj državi. Ovo nije izjava o lošoj ishrani i slično. Samo govori o godišnjoj konzumaciji kalorija oduzevši proizvedenu količinu. Plave zemlje su izvoznici neto kalorija, ili samo-održive. Imaju zalihe za loše dane. Crvene zemlje su uvoznici neto kalorija. Što više, to svjetlija crvena, više se uvozi. Prije 40 g. je bila nekolicina izvoznika. Mogu ih na jednoj ruci izbrojati. Većina afričkog kontinenta, Evropa i većina Azije, Južna Amerika izuzevđi Argentinu su sve bile uvoznici kalorija. I iznenađujuće - Kina je bila samo-održiva. Indija je bila veliki uvoznik kalorija.
So how did we get to these numbers in the first place? They're not made up. This map shows you where the world was 40 years ago. It shows you net calorie gaps in every country in the world. Now, simply put, this is just calories consumed in that country minus calories produced in that same country. This is not a statement on malnutrition or anything else. It's simply saying how many calories are consumed in a single year minus how many are produced. Blue countries are net calorie exporters, or self-sufficient. They have some in storage for a rainy day. Red countries are net calorie importers. The deeper, the brighter the red, the more you're importing. 40 years ago, such few countries were net exporters of calories, I could count them with one hand. Most of the African continent, Europe, most of Asia, South America excluding Argentina, were all net importers of calories. And what's surprising is that China used to actually be food self-sufficient. India was a big net importer of calories.
40 godina. kasnije, ovo je današnjica. Svijet se drastrično transformisao. Brazil je postao poljoprivredni gigant. Evropa dominira u svjetskoj poljoprivredi. Indija se pomjerila iz crvene u plavu. Postala je održiva. I Kina je prešla iz te svijetlo plave u najjaču crvenu, koju vidite na mapi.
40 years later, this is today. You can see the drastic transformation that's occurred in the world. Brazil has emerged as an agricultural powerhouse. Europe is dominant in global agriculture. India has actually flipped from red to blue. It's become food self-sufficient. And China went from that light blue to the brightest red that you see on this map.
Kako su to uspjeli? Šta se desilo? Ovaj grafikon prikazuje Indiju i Afriku. Plava linija je Indija, crvena linija je Afrika. Kako je moguće da regije tako slične, tako sličnih putanja krenu sasvim drugim putevima? Indija je imala zelenu revoluciju. Ni jedna afrička zemlja nije to imala. Rezultat? Indija je samo-održiva i u posljednjih par decenija izvozi kalorije. Afrika sada uvozi preko 300 milijardi kalorija godišnje. Onda dodamo Kinu, zelenu liniju. Sjetite se promjene sa plave na crvenu? Šta se desilo i kada se desilo? Kina je bila na istom putu kao indija sve do početka 21. stoljeća, kada se iznenadno promijenila. Mlada nacija u usponu kombinovana sa značajnim ekonomskim razvojem je napravila ovaj pomak sa velikim praskom i niko na tržištima to nije predvidio. Promjena je bila sve za svjetska tržišta. Srećom sada, Južna Amerika je počela da cvjeta kada i Kina, pa su se proizvodnja i potražnja izbalansirale.
How did we get here? What happened? So this chart shows you India and Africa. Blue line is India, red line is Africa. How is it that two regions that started off so similarly in such similar trajectories take such different paths? India had a green revolution. Not a single African country had a green revolution. The net outcome? India is food self-sufficient and in the past decade has actually been exporting calories. The African continent now imports over 300 trillion calories a year. Then we add China, the green line. Remember the switch from the blue to the bright red? What happened and when did it happen? China seemed to be on a very similar path to India until the start of the 21st century, where it suddenly flipped. A young and growing population combined with significant economic growth made its mark with a big bang and no one in the markets saw it coming. This flip was everything to global agricultural markets. Luckily now, South America was starting to boom at the same time as China's rise, and so therefore, supply and demand were still somewhat balanced.
Pitanje postaje, kamo idemo odavdje? Čudno, to nije nova priča, osim što se ovaj put ne radi samo o Kini. To je nastavak Kine, pojačanje Afrike i promjena paradigme u Indiji. U 2023. afrička populacija će to da preuzme od Indije i Kine. U 2023, kombinacija te tri regije će činiti više od pola svjetske populacije. Ta tačka presjeka predstavlja interesantan izazov za svjetsku prehrambenu sigurnost. I par godina kasnije nas je snašla stvarnost-
So the question becomes, where do we go from here? Oddly enough, it's not a new story, except this time it's not just a story of China. It's a continuation of China, an amplification of Africa and a paradigm shift in India. By 2023, Africa's population is forecasted to overtake that of India's and China's. By 2023, these three regions combined will make up over half the world's population. This crossover point starts to present really interesting challenges for global food security. And a few years later, we're hit hard with that reality.
Kako će svijet izgledati za 10 godina? Kao što sam spomenula, Indija je samo-održiva. U većini predviđanja to tako i ostaje. Mi se ne slažemo. Indija će ubrzo postati uvoznik kalorija. Tome će biti uzrok potražnja na osnovu populacije i na ekonomskom osnovu. Oba faktora su drajveri. Čak i ako ste optimistični oko porasta proizvodnje nastati će blagi preokret. Taj preokret može imati velike implikacije.
What does the world look like in 10 years? So far, as I mentioned, India has been food self-sufficient. Most forecasters predict that this will continue. We disagree. India will soon become a net importer of calories. This will be driven both by the fact that demand is growing from a population growth standpoint plus economic growth. It will be driven by both. And even if you have optimistic assumptions around production growth, it will make that slight flip. That slight flip can have huge implications.
Zatim, Afrika će i dalje biti uvoznik kalorija ponovo vođena populacijom i ekonomijom. Što opet podrazumijeva optimizam. Zatim Kina, gdje populacija cvjeta, konzumacija kalorija će eksplodirati zbog toga što vrsta konzumiranih kalorija dolazi iz visoko kalorične hrane. I zbog toga, ove tri regije kombinovano predstavljaju interesantan izazov svijetu.
Next, Africa will continue to be a net importer of calories, again driven by population growth and economic growth. This is again assuming optimistic production growth assumptions. Then China, where population is flattening out, calorie consumption will explode because the types of calories consumed are also starting to be higher-calorie-content foods. And so therefore, these three regions combined start to present a really interesting challenge for the world.
Do sada, zemlje sa kalorijskim manjkom su mogle da popune deficite tako što su uvozile višak iz regiona. Kada kažem regije s viškom, mislim na Sjevernu Ameriku, Južnu Ameriku i Evropu. Ovaj grafikon prikazuje rast očekivani rast proizvodnje u idućoj deceniji od Sjeverne Amerike, Južne Amerike i Evrope. Što ne prikazuje jeste da će najveći rast doći iz Južne Amerike. I većina tog rasta će nastati na osnovu krčenja šuma. Tako da, kada pogledate na porast potražnje koji dolazi iz Indije, Kine i Afrike, i uporedite ga sa kombinovanim rastom produkcije iz Indije, Kine i Afrike, Sjeverne Amerike, Južne Amerike i Evrope, ostanete u deficitu 214 biliona kalorija koje ne možemo proizvesti. I ovo je pretpostavka da uzmemo sav višak koji se proizvodi u Severnoj Americi, Južnoj Americi i Evropi i izvozi ih samo u Indiju, Kinu i Afriku.
Until now, countries with calorie deficits have been able to meet these deficits by importing from surplus regions. By surplus regions, I'm talking about North America, South America and Europe. This line chart over here shows you the growth and the projected growth over the next decade of production from North America, South America and Europe. What it doesn't show you is that most of this growth is actually going to come from South America. And most of this growth is going to come at the huge cost of deforestation. And so when you look at the combined demand increase coming from India, China and the African continent, and look at it versus the combined increase in production coming from India, China, the African continent, North America, South America and Europe, you are left with a 214-trillion-calorie deficit, one we can't produce. And this, by the way, is actually assuming we take all the extra calories produced in North America, South America and Europe and export them solely to India, China and Africa.
Ovo što vam predstavljam je vizija svijeta. Mi možemo da je mijenjamo. Možemo mijenjati šablone konzumacije, i smanjiti otpad hrane ili možemo postaviti jasnu obavezu ili povećati prinose.
What I just presented to you is a vision of an impossible world. We can do something to change that. We can change consumption patterns, we can reduce food waste, or we can make a bold commitment to increasing yields exponentially.
Sada, ću da diskutujem o mijenjanju obrazaca konzumacije ili smanjenja otpada, jer su se ti argumenti već potezali i ništa se nije desilo. Ništa se nije desilo jer ti argumenti traže od regija s viškom da se mijenjaju zbog regija u deficitu. Čekati druge da mijenjaju ponašanje u vaše ime, za vaš opstanak to je užasna ideja. Neproduktivna je.
Now, I'm not going to go into discussing changing consumption patterns or reducing food waste, because those conversations have been going on for some time now. Nothing has happened. Nothing has happened because those arguments ask the surplus regions to change their behavior on behalf of deficit regions. Waiting for others to change their behavior on your behalf, for your survival, is a terrible idea. It's unproductive.
Tako da bih predložila alternativu koja dolazi od crvenih regija, Kine, Indije, Afrike. Kina je ograničena po pitanju zemljišta koje je pogodno za poljoprivredu i ima velike poteškoce s vodom. Tako da je odgovor u Indiji i Africi. Indija ima potencijal za porast prinosa. To je manjak između trenutnog prinosa i teoretskog maksimalnog prinosa. Ima još neobrađenog zemljišta ali ne puno. Indija je ograničena zemljistem. Afrički kontinent, s druge strane, ima višak obradivog zemljišta i zamjetan potencijal za prinose. Pojednostavljena slika ovdje, ali ako pogledate u saharske prinose žita oni su na istom nivou kao severnoamerički iz 1940. Nemamo 70+ godina da to ustanovimo, što znači da moramo početi nešto novo i nešto drugačije. Rješenje je u reformama. Moramo reformisat i komercijalizirat poljoprivredu u Africi i u Indiji.
So I'd like to suggest an alternative that comes from the red regions. China, India, Africa. China is constrained in terms of how much more land it actually has available for agriculture, and it has massive water resource availability issues. So the answer really lies in India and in Africa. India has some upside in terms of potential yield increases. Now this is the gap between its current yield and the theoretical maximum yield it can achieve. It has some unfarmed arable land remaining, but not much, India is quite land-constrained. Now, the African continent, on the other hand, has vast amounts of arable land remaining and significant upside potential in yields. Somewhat simplified picture here, but if you look at sub-Saharan African yields in corn today, they are where North American yields were in 1940. We don't have 70-plus years to figure this out, so it means we need to try something new and we need to try something different. The solution starts with reforms. We need to reform and commercialize the agricultural industries in Africa and in India.
Komercijalizacija više nije samo komercijalni usjev. Komercijalizacija je korišćenje podataka zarad boljih zakona, za poboljšanje infrastrukture, za smanjenje troškova transporta i za kompletnu reformu bankarstva i osiguranja. Komercijalizacija je promjena poljoprivrede od rizika na profit. Komercijalizacija nije samo o farmerima. Komercijalizacija je o kompletnom sistemu. Ali ona znači i suočavanje sa činjenicom da ne postavljamo teret rasta u uske okvire, i prihvatimo da komercijalni okviri i uvod komercijalnih farmi mogu pružiti ekonomije u razvoju da čak i mali farmeri mogu ojačati. Ne radi se o malim farmerima ili komercijalnoj poljoprivredi, ili velikoj poljoprivredi. Možemo kreirati uspješne modele simbioze sa malim farmerima i komercijalnom poljoprivredom. Zato što po prvi put ikada, najkritičniji alat za uspjeh u industriji - podaci i znanje - postaju jeftiniji iz dana u dan. Ubrzo, neće biti bitno koliko novca imate ili koliko ste veliki da biste donijeli prave odluke i uspjeli u postizanju svog cilja. Kompanije kao Gro rade na toj stvarnosti.
Now, by commercialization -- commercialization is not about commercial farming alone. Commercialization is about leveraging data to craft better policies, to improve infrastructure, to lower the transportation costs and to completely reform banking and insurance industries. Commercialization is about taking agriculture from too risky an endeavor to one where fortunes can be made. Commercialization is not about just farmers. Commercialization is about the entire agricultural system. But commercialization also means confronting the fact that we can no longer place the burden of growth on small-scale farmers alone, and accepting that commercial farms and the introduction of commercial farms could provide certain economies of scale that even small-scale farmers can leverage. It is not about small-scale farming or commercial agriculture, or big agriculture. We can create the first successful models of the coexistence and success of small-scale farming alongside commercial agriculture. This is because, for the first time ever, the most critical tool for success in the industry -- data and knowledge -- is becoming cheaper by the day. And very soon, it won't matter how much money you have or how big you are to make optimal decisions and maximize probability of success in reaching your intended goal. Companies like Gro are working really hard to make this a reality.
Ako prisegnemo toj novoj hrabroj inicijativi, tom novom hrabrom izazovu, ne samo da možemo riješiti nedostatak od 214 biliona kalorija, nego možemo usmjeriti svijet na novi put. Indija može ostati samo-održiva i Afrika može biti nova tamno plava regija.
So if we can commit to this new, bold initiative, to this new, bold change, not only can we solve the 214-trillion gap that I talked about, but we can actually set the world on a whole new path. India can remain food self-sufficient and Africa can emerge as the world's next dark blue region.
Novo pitanje je, kako proizvodimo 214 biliona kalorija da bismo nahranili 8.3 milijarde ljudi u 2027? Imamo rješenje. Moramo ga samo sprovesti.
The new question is, how do we produce 214 trillion calories to feed 8.3 billion people by 2027? We have the solution. We just need to act on it.
Hvala.
Thank you.
(Aplauz)
(Applause)