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.
從 2009 年開始,全世界流傳著一種 全球糧食短缺危機即將發生的說法, 以及我們應該如何做來避免它。 到 2050 年時,我們要 如何養活九十億人口? 關於全球糧食保障的每一場會議、 播客(podcast)、和對話, 都會以這個問題開場, 並接著回答說, 我們需要將現有的 糧食產量提高 70%。
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.
2050 年這個說法始於 2008 年糧食價格 創下歷史新高之後沒多久。 人們在苦難及掙扎, 政府以及全球領導人 得要讓我們看到他們有在留意、 且在努力解決這個問題。 重點是,2050 年還很遙遠, 以致於我們不覺得切身, 且,更重要的是, 如果我們繼續現行的做法, 危機來臨的時間會更早。
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.
我認為我們需要問一個不同的問題。 那個問題的答案 需要用不同的方式來表達。 如果我們能把舊說法重新表達, 並換上新的數字, 來提供更全面的資訊, 且這些數字必須要是人人能理解、 並感到切身的, 那麼我們就可以完全避免這場危機。
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.
我過去在做商品交易, 我從交易中學到的其中一件事, 就是每個市場都有一個臨界點, 在臨界點,改變會發生得十分快速, 以至於對世界造成衝擊, 一切就此改變。 想想最近一次的金融危機, 或是網際網路泡沫化。
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.
我的擔憂是, 全球糧食和農業 可能也有一個臨界點, 如果需求劇增, 超過了農業系統的構造產能, 這事就有可能發生。 意思就是,在這個時點, 供應趕不上需求, 就算價格飆高也是一樣, 除非我們能致力於 某種結構性的改變。 這一回, 重點不會是股市及金錢。 重點會是人。 人們可能會餓死,政府可能會垮台。 這個問題,在哪個時點 供應會開始很難趕上需求的問題, 正是當我在做交易時 引發我興趣的問題, 後來完全就變成了一種著迷。 這個問題會從興趣變成著迷, 是因為我從研究了解到 這系統有多麼破碎、 以及在做相關關鍵決策時 用的資料有多麼少。 在這個時點,我決定 離開華爾街的工作, 開始走上創業之路, 創辦了「Gro Intelligence」 (全球農業資料分析)。
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.
在 Gro,我們著重在使用資料, 並設法將資料轉變成可執行的行動, 來協助各層級的決策者。 但在做這些工作時, 我們也發現到,這個世界, 不僅僅是世界領導人, 還有企業和公民, 就像現場在座的每個人, 都缺少一份行動指南, 來指導我們要如何避免 即將發生的糧食保障危機。 所以,我們建立了一個模型, 讓我們手中數千兆位元組的資料 能發揮重要功能, 而我們解出了臨界點。
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.
沒有人知道我們一直 在處理這個問題, 這是我第一次分享我們的發現。 我們發現,臨界點其實就在十年後。 我們發現,世界將會短缺 214 兆卡路里的糧食, 2027 年就會發生。 世界沒有辦法補足這個落差。
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.
你應該有注意到, 我現在表達的方式和一開始不同, 這是刻意的,因為目前為止, 這個問題一直都是用質量來量化: 比如公斤、噸、百公克, 任何你可以選擇的質量單位。 我們為什麼用重量來談食物? 因為那樣很簡單。 只要有台簡單的口袋計算機, 我們就可以憑照片, 判斷出一艘船所載的總噸數。 我們可以測出卡車、 飛機、牛車有多重。 但對於食物, 我們在乎的是營養價值。 並非所有食物都生來平等, 即使它們重量相同。 我從衣索比亞搬到美國來讀大學時, 親身學到了這一點。 當我返家時, 我的父親很高興看到我, 他迎接我的方式是 問我為什麼變胖了。 結果發現, 我在美國吃的食物份量 和在衣索比亞時差不多, 但在美國我卻變得比較圓胖了。 這就是為什麼我們應該考量卡路里, 而不是質量。 是卡路里維繫著我們的生命。
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.
所以,214 兆卡路里 是一個龐大的數字, 即使是我們當中最投入的人, 也不會用數百兆卡路里來思考。 所以,讓我換種方式來分解。 另一種思考這個量的方式, 是用麥當勞大麥克來計算。 214 兆卡路里。 一個大麥克的熱量是 563 卡路里。 換言之,2027年,世界糧食 短缺量會達 3790 億個大麥克。 這比麥當勞歷史上所有 製作出的大麥克總數還要多。
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.
所以,我們最初是如何 得到這些數字的? 它們不是捏造的。 這張圖呈現的是四十年前的世界。 它呈現的是世界各國的 淨卡路里差值。 簡單來說, 這個差值就是該國家消耗的卡路里 減去該國生產的卡路里。 這不是一份營養失調的 聲明或其他東西。 它很單純就是一年內消耗的卡路里 減去生產的卡路里。 藍色國家是淨卡路里出口國, 或自給自足國。 他們有些存糧,以備不時之需。 紅色國家是淨卡路里進口國。 紅色越深越亮, 表示進口量越大。 四十年前,只有少數國家 是淨卡路里出口國, 用一隻手就可以數出來。 非洲大陸大部分地區、 歐洲、亞洲大部分地區、 南美在阿根廷以外的地區, 都是淨卡路裡進口國。 令人吃驚的是,中國以前 是個自給自足的國家。 印度曾是一個淨卡路里進口大國。
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.
這張圖是四十年後的現在。 你們可以看到世界上發生的劇變。 巴西以農業強勢國之姿興起。 歐洲支配了全球農業。 印度則由紅色翻盤變為藍色。 它變成能夠自給自足。 而中國,則由淺藍色 變成這張圖上最亮的紅色。
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.
我們怎麼走到這一步的? 發生了什麼事? 這張圖呈現出的是印度和非洲。 藍線代表印度,紅線代表非洲。 為什麼這兩個區域的軌跡 一開始如此相近, 後來卻各走各路? 印度有綠色革命。 但是非洲沒有一個國家 有過綠色革命。 結果呢? 印度的食物能自給自足, 且過去十年間都在對外出口卡路里。 非洲大陸每年要進口 超過 300 兆的卡路里。 接著我們加上了中國,用綠線表示。 還記得中國由藍色變成亮紅色嗎? 發生了什麼事?何時發生的? 中國的路線似乎和印度很類似, 直到 21 世紀初, 它突然翻盤。 中國的人口既年輕又在成長, 結合了顯著的經濟成長, 讓它非常響亮地一炮而紅, 市場中的所有人都沒有預料到。 對全球農業市場來說, 這個翻盤極重要。 幸運的是,在中國興起的同時, 南美洲也開始快速發展, 因此,供給與需求依舊 以某種方式保持著平衡。
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.
所以,問題就變成了: 接下來我們要往何處去? 奇怪的是, 這不是個新故事, 只不過這一次, 這並不只是中國的故事。 它是中國的延續、 對非洲的放大觀察、 以及印度的典範轉移。 到 2023 年, 預計非洲人口將會超過印度和中國。 到 2023 年, 這三個區域的總人口數 將會超過世界人口數的一半。 在這個交匯點會開始出現 全球糧食保障方面 很引人關注的挑戰。 幾年之後,我們將會 受到現實的當頭棒喝。
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.
十年後的世界會是什麼樣子? 目前,如我剛才提到的, 印度能夠自給自足。 大部份的預測者推測, 這個現象會持續。 我們不同意。 印度很快就會變成淨卡路里進口國。 造成的原因包括 從人口成長加上 經濟成長的角度來看, 需求在成長。 兩者將都是原因。 即使你對於生產成長 有樂觀的假設, 它會造成輕微的翻盤。 而那輕微的翻盤 可能會有重大的意涵。
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.
再來,非洲會持續是 淨卡路里進口國, 也是因為人口成長和 經濟成長兩個原因。 同樣的,這也是在對生產成長 做了樂觀假設的結果。 接著,中國, 人口成長趨於平緩了, 消耗的卡路里會暴增, 因為所消耗的卡路里類型 會開始變成是 卡路里含量更高的食物。 因此, 這三個區域加在一起, 開始會給世界帶來 十分引人關注的挑戰。
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.
目前為止,有卡路里赤字的國家 都有辦法從生產過盛的區域 進口卡路里來補足赤字。 我指的生產過盛區域是 北美、南美、歐洲。 從這張折線圖可以看出 在接下來十年, 北美、南美、歐洲的 生產成長和預測成長。 從圖上無法看出的是, 大部份成長其實都是來自南美。 而大部份的成長, 背後的代價會是砍伐森林的高成本。 所以,你們看到印度、 中國、非洲大陸 合併的總需求增加, 也對照看到印度、中國、 非洲大陸、北美、南美、 歐洲的合併總生產增加, 最後你還是剩下了 214 兆卡路里的赤字, 我們無法生產出來這個量。 順道一提,這裡的假設是,我們把 北美、南美、歐洲所有多出的卡路里 都只出口到印度、中國、非洲。
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.
我剛剛給各位看的, 是一個不可能的世界的遠景。 我們可以改變這一點。 我們可以改變卡路里消耗模式, 我們可以減少食物浪費, 或是我們可以做出大膽的承諾, 讓產量成指數增加。
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.
我不打算要討論 改變卡路里消耗模式 或是減少食物浪費, 因為這類談話已經都在進行中了。 沒有改變發生。 沒有改變發生是因為那些論點 要求生產過盛的區域 為了赤字區域的利益 而改變行為。 等待別人為了你的利益、 為了你的生存 而改變他們的行為, 是個很糟的點子。 是徒勞的。
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.
所以,我想提出一個 紅色區域的替代方案。 中國、印度、非洲。 中國受到的限制, 是能夠用在農業上的 土地面積還有多少, 中國還有嚴重的水資源可得性議題。 所以答案落在印度和非洲。 在潛在產量增加方面, 印度是比較有利的。 潛在產量增加,是目前產量 和可達到之理論最大產量間的差距。 印度還有一些尚未 耕作的耕地,但不多, 印度的土地還蠻受限的。 另一方面,非洲大陸 就仍然有大量的耕地, 且潛在產量方面也很明顯是有利的。 這是簡化描述的情況, 但如果你們想想現今 撒哈拉以南非洲的玉米產量, 和北美在 1940 年時的 產量是一樣的。 但我們沒有七十幾年的 時間來想出對策, 這意味著,我們得要嘗試新的方法, 我們得要嘗試不同的方法。 解決方案始於改革。 我們得要將非洲的農業產業 做改革並商業化, 印度也一樣。
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.
商業化的意思── 商業化的重點不只是 商業性農場經營生產。 商業化的重點是發揮資料的效益, 來訂出更好的政策, 來改善基礎建設, 來降低交通運輸成本, 來完全改革銀行業和保險業。 商業化的重點是把農業 從太冒險的努力嘗試, 帶到可以致富的努力嘗試。 商業化不只和農夫有關。 商業化與整個農業系統有關。 但,商業化的重點也意味著 要去正視一個事實: 我們不再把成長的重擔僅僅放在 小規模農夫的肩膀上, 且接受商業化農田 以及推行商業化農田 可提供某種經濟規模, 是即使小規模農夫也可以發揮的。 重點不是小規模農場經營 或是商業化農業, 或大型農業。 我們能夠開先例,創造出 小規模農場經營與商業化農業 共存與成功的圓滿模型。 這是因為,有史以來第一次, 在業界要成功,最關鍵的工具── 資料與知識── 隨日子變得越來越便宜。 不用多久,你有多少錢 或是你有多大, 就都不重要了, 不用這些也可以做出最理想的決策, 將成功的可能性最大化, 來達到你想要達到的目標。 像 Gro 這樣的公司, 非常努力在實現這件事。
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.
如果我們能夠承諾去做 這個新的、大膽的計畫, 這個新的、大膽的改變, 我們不但能夠解決先前提到的 214 兆差額問題, 還能夠把世界引領到 一條全新的路上。 印度可以維持食物能夠自給自足, 非洲可以以「世界下一個 深藍色區域」之姿興起。
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.
新的問題是: 到 2027 年,我們要如何 生產出 214 兆卡路里, 來養活 83 億人? 我們有解決方案。 我們只需要採取行動。
Thank you.
謝謝。
(Applause)
(掌聲)