Pavan Sukhdev: Put a value on nature!

Translator: Tatjana Jevdjic Reviewer: Nela Kacmarcik

I'm here to talk to you

Ovdje sam da bih govorio

about the economic invisibility of nature.

o ekonomskoj nevidljivosti prirode.

The bad news

Loša vijest je da

is that mother nature's back office isn't working yet,

"back office" Majke Prirode još ne radi

so those invoices don't get issued.

tako da ne može izdavati fakture.

But we need to do something about this problem.

Ipak moramo učiniti nešto po tom pitanju.

I began my life as a markets professional

U životu sam počeo kao tržišni stručnjak

and continued to take an interest,

i nastavio sam se time baviti,

but most of my recent effort

ali većina mojih nedavnih napora

has been looking at the value

bio je da sagledam vrijednosti

of what comes to human beings from nature,

onoga što ljudi koriste iz prirode,

and which doesn't get priced by the markets.

i što nije tržišno vrednovano.

A project called TEEB was started in 2007,

Projekat nazvan TEEB počeo je 2007,

and it was launched by a group of environment ministers

i pokrenula ga je grupa koji su činili ministri okoliša

of the G8+5.

zemalja G8+5.

And their basic inspiration

Njiihova osnovna inspiracija

was a stern review of Lord Stern.

bio je strogi izveštaj Lorda Sterna.

They asked themselves a question:

Zapitali su sami sebe:

If economics could make such a convincing case

Ako ekonomisti mogu napravitl tako uvjeljive argumente

for early action on climate change,

za rani odgovor na klimatske promjene,

well why can't the same be done for conservation?

zašto se isto ne bi moglo uraditi za konzervaciju okoliša?

Why can't an equivalent case be made

Zašto ekvivalentan slučaj ne bi bio i

for nature?

za zaštitu prirode?

And the answer is: Yeah, it can.

I odgovor je: Pa, može.

But it's not that straightforward.

Ali to nije tako jednostavno.

Biodiversity, the living fabric of this planet, is not a gas.

Biodiverzitet, živa materija ove planete, nije plin.

It exists in many layers,

On je višeslojan,

ecosystems, species and genes across many scales --

ekosistemi, vrste i geni na različitim nivoima-

international, national, local, community --

međunarodnom, državnom, lokalnom, mjesnom-

and doing for nature

i učiniti za prirodu ono što su

what Lord Stern and his team did for nature is not that easy.

Lord Stern i njegov tim učinili za prirodu nije jednostavno.

And yet, we began.

A ipak, počeli smo.

We began the project with an interim report,

Počeli smo projekat privremenim izvještajem

which quickly pulled together

koji smo brzo pripremili

a lot of information that had been collected on the subject

i za koji je prikupljeno mnogo informacija

by many, many researchers.

uz učešće mnogo, mnogo istraživača.

And amongst our compiled results

I među prikupljenim rezultatima

was the startling revelation

bio je zapanjujuće otkriće

that, in fact, we were losing natural capital --

da, u stvari gubimo prirodni kapital - -

the benefits that flow from nature to us.

koristi koje pritiču od prirode ka nama.

We were losing it at an extraordinary rate --

Gubimo ih po nevjerovatnoj stopi-

in fact, of the order of two to four trillion dollars-worth

u stvari, u razmjeru vrijednosti od dva do četiri triliona dolara

of natural capital.

prirodnog kapitala.

This came out in 2008,

Ovo je objavljeno 2008,

which was, of course, around the time that the banking crisis had shown

što je, naravno, otprilike u vrijeme kada se pojavila i bankarska kriza

that we had lost financial capital

u kojoj smo izgubili kapital

of the order of two and a half trillion dollars.

vrijednosti od dva i pol triliona dolara.

So this was comparable in size to that kind of loss.

Dakle, ovo je bilo uporedivo sa takvim gubitkom.

We then have gone on since

Zatim smo ovo počeli

to present for [the] international community,

predstavljati međunarodnoj zajednici,

for governments,

vladama,

for local governments and for business

lokalnim upravama i preduzećima

and for people, for you and me,

i ljudima, poput vas i mene;

a whole slew of reports, which were presented at the U.N. last year,

mnoštvo izvještaja prezentiranih u UN-u prošle godine,

which address the economic invisibility of nature

bavilo se ekonomskom nevidljivošću prirode

and describe what can be done to solve it.

i opisivalo šta se može uraditi da se to ispravi.

What is this about?

O čemu se zapravo radi?

A picture that you're familiar with --

Slika koja je svima poznata--

the Amazon rainforests.

Amazonske prašume.

It's a massive store of carbon, it's an amazing store of biodiversity,

To je ogromna zaliha ugljena, zapanjujući biodiverzitet,

but what people don't really know

ali ono što ljudi ne znaju

is this also is a rain factory.

to je takođe proizvođač kiša.

Because the northeastern trade winds,

Zbog sjeveroistočnih vjetrova

as they go over the Amazonas,

koji prelaze preko Amazona,

effectively gather the water vapor.

efikasno skupljaju vodena isparenja.

Something like 20 billion tons per day of water vapor

Nešto oko 20 milijardi tona dnevno vodenih isparenja

is sucked up by the northeastern trade winds,

je usisano u sjeveroistočne tropske vjetrove,

and eventually precipitates in the form of rain

i pojavljuje se u vidu kiša

across the La Plata Basin.

na području sliva La Plate.

This rainfall cycle, this rainfall factory,

Ovo kruženje, ova fabrika kišnice,

effectively feeds an agricultural economy

efikasno hrani poljoprivrednu ekonomiju

of the order of 240 billion dollars-worth

vrijednosti 240 milijardi dolara

in Latin America.

u Latinskoj Americi.

But the question arises: Okay, so how much

Ali se postavlja pitanje: U redu, koliko onda

do Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina

Urugvaj, Paragvaj, Argentina

and indeed the state of Mato Grosso in Brazil

i zapravo država Mato Grosso u Brazilu

pay for that vital input to that economy

plaćaju za taj važni doprinos ekonomiji

to the state of Amazonas, which produces that rainfall?

državi Amazon, koja proizvodi svu tu kišnicu?

And the answer is zilch,

I odgovor je -ništa,

exactly zero.

zapravo nula.

That's the economic invisibility of nature.

To je ekonomska nevidljivost prirode.

That can't keep going on,

To se ne može održati

because economic incentives and disincentives are very powerful.

jer ekonomski razlozi i prepreke su veoma snažne.

Economics has become the currency of policy.

Ekonomija je postala valuta politike.

And unless we address

I dok ne odgovorimo

this invisibility,

na ovu nevidljivost,

we are going to get the results that we are seeing,

nastavićemo dobijati rezultate koje sada vidimo,

which is a gradual degradation and loss

odnosno postepenu degradaciju i gubitke

of this valuable natural asset.

ove vrijedne prirodne imovine.

It's not just about the Amazonas, or indeed about rainforests.

Ne radi se ramo o Amazonu, ili o prašumama.

No matter what level you look at,

Nije važne gdje pogledate,

whether it's at the ecosystem level or at the species level or at the genetic level,

bilo da se radi o nivou ekosistema, vrsta ili genetskom nivou,

we see the same problem again and again.

vidimo isti problem uvijek iznova.

So rainfall cycle and water regulation by rainforests

Isto važi i za kruženje vode i regulaciju putem prašuma

at an ecosystem level.

na nivou ekosistema.

At the species level,

Na nivou vrsta,

it's been estimated that insect-based pollination,

procjenjuje se da oprašivanje koje vrše insekti

bees pollinating fruit and so on,

kao što pčele oprašuju cvjetove voća i slično

is something like 190 billion dollars-worth.

ima vrijednost od oko 190 milijardi dolara.

That's something like eight percent

To predstavlja oko osam procenata

of the total agricultural output globally.

ukupnog poljoprivrednog proizvoda na globalnom nivou.

It completely passes below the radar screen.

Prolazi "ispod radara" u potpunosti.

But when did a bee actually ever give you an invoice?

Ali, da li vam je pčela ikad ispostavila fakturu?

Or for that matter, if you look at the genetic level,

Ili, u tom smislu, ako se osvrnemo na nivou genetike

60 percent of medicines were prospected,

60 procenata ispitanih lijekova

were found first as molecules in a rainforest or a reef.

pronađeni su prvo kao molekule u prašumama ili na grebenima

Once again, most of that doesn't get paid.

I opet, većina od toga se ne plaća.

And that brings me to another aspect of this,

I to me dovodi do drugog aspekta priče,

which is, to whom should this get paid?

koje glasi, kome bi se to i trebalo platiti?

That genetic material

Taj genetički materijal

probably belonged, if it could belong to anyone,

vjerovatno pripada, ako bi trebao ikome pripadati,

to a local community of poor people

lokalnoj zajednici siromašnih ljudi

who parted with the knowledge that helped the researchers to find the molecule,

koji su učestvovali sa svojim znanjem koje je pomoglo istraživačima da pronađu molekule,

which then became the medicine.

koje su postale lijekovi.

They were the ones that didn't get paid.

Oni su ti koji nisu plaćeni.

And if you look at the species level,

I ako pogledate na nivo vrsta,

you saw about fish.

recimo, riba.

Today, the depletion of ocean fisheries is so significant

Danas, trošenje zaliha ribe u okeanima je tako značajno

that effectively it is effecting the ability of the poor,

da utiče na mogućnosti siromašnih,

the artisanal fisher folk

ribara po zanimanju

and those who fish for their own livelihoods,

i onih koji love ribu za svoja domaćinstva,

to feed their families.

da osiguraju egzistenciju.

Something like a billion people depend on fish,

Oko milijarde ljudi zavisi od ribe,

the quantity of fish in the oceans.

odnosno količine ribe u okeanima.

A billion people depend on fish

milijarda ljudi zavisi od ribe

for their main source for animal protein.

kao osnovnog izvora proteina u ishrani.

And at this rate at which we are losing fish,

I po stopi po kojoj gubimo ribu,

it is a human problem of enormous dimensions,

to postaje problem čovječanstva ogromnih razmjera,

a health problem

zdravstveni problem

of a kind we haven't seen before.

kakav još nismo vidjeli.

And finally, at the ecosystem level,

I na kraju, na nivou ekosistema,

whether it's flood prevention or drought control provided by the forests,

bez obzira da li je u pitanju prevencija poplava ili kontrola suše kakvu pružaju prašume,

or whether it is the ability of poor farmers

i da li siromašni farmeri mogu

to go out and gather leaf litter

izaći i prikupiti hrpu lišća

for their cattle and goats,

za njihovu stoku i koze,

or whether it's the ability of their wives

i da li su njihove žene u mogućnosti

to go and collect fuel wood from the forest,

izaći i prikupiti drvo za ogrev iz šume,

it is actually the poor

u principu su siromašni

who depend most on these ecosystem services.

oni koji najviše zavise od usluga ovih ekosistema.

We did estimates in our study

Mi smo u našoj studiji procijenili

that for countries like Brazil, India and Indonesia,

da zemlje poput Brazila, Indije i Indonezije,

even though ecosystem services --

kroz usluge svojih ekosistema--

these benefits that flow from nature to humanity for free --

koristi koje dolaze iz prirode čovječanstvu besplatno--

they're not very big in percentage terms of GDP --

nisu veoma velike u procentualnim iznosima GDP-a

two, four, eight, 10, 15 percent --

dva, četiri, šest, 10,15 procenata--

but in these countries, if we measure how much they're worth to the poor,

ali u ovim zemljama, ako mjerimo koliko oni vrijede siromašnima,

the answers are more like

odgovoro su bliže

45 percent, 75 percent, 90 percent.

45 procenata, 75 ili čak 90 procenata.

That's the difference.

U tome je razlika.

Because these are important benefits for the poor.

Jer su oni važni za siromašne.

And you can't really have a proper model for development

I ne možete zaista napraviti odgovarajući model za razvoj

if at the same time you're destroying or allowing

ako istovremeno uništavate ili dozvoljavate

the degradation of the very asset, the most important asset,

degradaciju imovine, veoma važne imovine,

which is your development asset,

koja je vaša razvojna imovina,

that is ecological infrastructure.

a to je ekološka infrastruktura.

How bad can things get?

Koliko se situacija može pogoršati?

Well here a picture of something called the mean species abundance.

Ovdje imamo ilustraciju nečega nazvanog prosječno mnoštvo vrsta.

It's basically a measure

U principu to je mjera

of how many tigers, toads, ticks or whatever on average

koliko tigrova, žaba krastača, krpelja itd u prosjeku

of biomass of various species are around.

biomase raznih vrsta postoji.

The green represents the percentage.

Zeleno predstavlja procente.

If you start green, it's like 80 to 100 percent.

Ako počinjete zeleno, to je kao 80 ili 100 procenata.

If it's yellow, it's 40 to 60 percent.

Žuto predstavlja 40 do 60 procenata.

And these are percentages versus the original state, so to speak,

I ovo su procenti u odnosu na početno stanje, da tako kažemo,

the pre-industrial era, 1750.

u preindustrijskoj eri, 1750.

Now I'm going to show you

Sada ću vam pokazati

how business as usual will affect this.

kako ignorantsko ponašanje utiče na ovo.

And just watch the change in colors

I samo gledajte promjenu boja

in India, China, Europe,

u Indiji, Kini, Evropi,

sub-Saharan Africa

sub-Saharskoj Africi

as we move on and consume global biomass

kako se krećemo i trošimo globalnu biomasu.

at a rate which is actually not going to be able to sustain us.

po stopi koja nas u svari ne može održati.

See that again.

Pogledajte ponovo.

The only places that remain green -- and that's not good news --

Jedino mjesto koje ostaje zeleno--i to nije dobra vijest--

is, in fact, places like the Gobi Desert,

su u stvari mjesta poput pustinje Gobi,

like the tundra and like the Sahara.

tundra i poput Sahare.

But that doesn't help because there were very few species

Ali to ne pomaže jer tamo je i bilo veoma malo vrsta

and volume of biomass there in the first place.

i obim biomase je bio mali i na početku.

This is the challenge.

To je izazov.

The reason this is happening

Razlog zašto se to dešava

boils down, in my mind, to one basic problem,

svodi se, po mom mišljenju, na osnovni problem,

which is our inability to perceive the difference

koji je naša nesposobnost da vidimo razliku

between public benefits

između javnog dobra

and private profits.

i privatnog profita.

We tend to constantly ignore public wealth

Težimo ka tome da konstantno ignorišemo javnu dobrobit

simply because it is in the common wealth,

jednostavno jer to pripada svima,

it's common goods.

jer je za opštu upotrebu.

And here's an example from Thailand

I ovdje je primjer s Tajlanda

where we found that, because the value of a mangrove is not that much --

gdje smo pronašli, jer vrijednost mangrova nije tako velika--

it's about $600 over the life of nine years that this has been measured --

jeste 600 dolara kroz životni vijek od devet godina koliko je to mjereno--

compared to its value as a shrimp farm,

u poređenju sa njegovom vrijednošću u vidu uzgajališta škampa

which is more like $9,600,

kada raste do 9.600 dolara

there has been a gradual trend to deplete the mangroves

postoji postepeni trend iskorjenjivanja mongrova

and convert them to shrimp farms.

i njihovog pretvaranja u farme škampa.

But of course, if you look at exactly what those profits are,

Naravno, ako gledamo jednostavno o kolikom profitu se radi,

almost 8,000 of those dollars

oko 8.000 tih dolara

are, in fact, subsidies.

su, u stvari, subvencije.

So you compare the two sides of the coin

Tako, kada uporedite dvije strane medalje

and you find that it's more like 1,200 to 600.

vidjećete da se radi o poređenju 1.200 sa 600.

That's not that hard.

To nije tako teško.

But on the other hand, if you start measuring,

Ali, sa druge strane, ako počnemo mjeriti,

how much would it actually cost

koliko bi to zapravo koštalo

to restore the land of the shrimp farm

da se zemljište koje se koristi za farmu škampa

back to productive use?

vrati za proizvodnu namjenu?

Once salt deposition and chemical deposition

Kada izloženost solima i hemijskim tvarima

has had its effects,

napravi svoje efekte,

that answer is more like $12,000 of cost.

odgovor je da trošak dostiže 12.000 dolara

And if you see the benefits of the mangrove

I ako vidite koristi mangrova

in terms of the storm protection and cyclone protection that you get

u smislu zaštite od oluja i ciklonske zaštite koju dobijate

and in terms of the fisheries, the fish nurseries,

i u smislu ribarenja, ribogojilišta,

that provide fish for the poor,

koji hrane siromašne,

that answer is more like $11,000.

tada je odgovor bilži 11.000 dolara.

So now look at the different lens.

Pogledajmo sada kroz drzgačiju prizmu.

If you look at the lens of public wealth

Ako posmatrate javno dobro

as against the lens of private profits,

nasuprot gledištu privatnog profita,

you get a completely different answer,

dobijate potpuno drugačiji odgovor,

which is clearly conservation makes more sense,

koji je da zaštita ima više smisla,

and not destruction.

nego uništavanje.

So is this just a story from South Thailand?

Dakle, da li je ovo priča iz Južnog Tajlanda?

Sorry, this is a global story.

Žao mi je, ovo je globalna priča.

And here's what the same calculation looks like,

I ovdje vidimo kako bi ista kalkulacija izgledala,

which was done recently -- well I say recently, over the last 10 years --

urađena je nedavno--recimo, u zadnjih desetak godina--

by a group called TRUCOST.

u grupi zvanoj TRUCOST.

And they calculated for the top 3,000 corporations,

Oni su uzeli u obzir najvećih 300 korporacija,

what are the externalities?

i šta su procjene?

In other words, what are the costs of doing business as usual?

Drugim riječima, koji su troškovi nečinjenja?

This is not illegal stuff, this is basically business as usual,

Ovdje se ne radi o nečemu ilegalnom, ovo je zapravo nastavak uobičajane prakse

which causes climate-changing emissions, which have an economic cost.

koja uzrokuje emisije koje utiču na klimatske promjene, koje imaju ekonomsku vrijednost.

It causes pollutants being issued, which have an economic cost,

Uzrokuje zagađenje, koje ima ekonomsku vrijednost,

health cost and so on.

troškove zdravstva i tako dalje.

Use of freshwater.

Korištenje pitke vode.

If you drill water to make coke near a village farm,

Ako pravite bunar da proizvodite koks blizu seoske farme,

that's not illegal, but yes, it costs the community.

to nije ilegalno, ali da, to košta zajednicu.

Can we stop this, and how?

Možemo li ovo zaustaviti, i kako?

I think the first point to make is that we need to recognize natural capital.

MIslim da je prvi korak koji treba učiniti vrednovanje prirodnog kapitala.

Basically the stuff of life is natural capital,

U principu, prirodni kapital je životna supstanca,

and we need to recognize and build that into our systems.

i to treba prepoznati i ugraditi u naše sisteme.

When we measure GDP

Kada mjerimo GDP

as a measure of economic performance at the national level,

kao pokazatelj ekonomski performansi na državnom nivou,

we don't include our biggest asset at the country level.

ne uključujemo najveću imovinu koju zemlja ima.

When we measure corporate performances,

Kada mjerimo performanse kompanija,

we don't include our impacts on nature

ne uključujemo uticaj na prirodu

and what our business costs society.

i troškove koje kompanije uzrokuju društvu.

That has to stop.

To mora prestati.

In fact, this was what really inspired my interest in this phase.

U stvari, to je zaista inspirisalo moj interes u ovoj fazi.

I began a project way back called the Green Accounting Project.

Počeo sam projekat nazvan Projekat zelenog računovodstva.

That was in the early 2000s

To je bilo početkom 2000-tih

when India was going gung-ho about GDP growth

kada je Indija bila zaluđena rastom GDP-a

as the means forward --

kao sredstvom napretka--

looking at China with its stellar growths of eight, nine, 10 percent

gledajući kako Kina ima visoke stope raste of osam, devet, deset procenata

and wondering, why can we do the same?

i pitajući se, možemo li i mi isto tako?

And a few friends of mine and I

Nekoliko mojih prijatelja i ja

decided this doesn't make sense.

zaključili smo da to nema smisla.

This is going to create more cost to society and more losses.

To će koštati društvo mnogo više i uzrokovati gubitke.

So we decided to do a massive set of calculations

Zato smo odlučili uraditi ogromnu kalkulaciju

and started producing green accounts for India and its states.

i počeli praviti zelena konta za Indiju i njene pokrajine.

That's how my interests began

Tako je počeo moj interes

and went to the TEEB project.

i razvio se u TEEB projekat

Calculating this at the national level is one thing, and it has begun.

Kalkulacija ovoga na državnom nivou je jedan dio toga, i to je već započeto.

And the World Bank has acknowledged this

Svjetska banka je ovo prepoznala

and they've started a project called WAVES --

i oni su počeli projekat WAVES--

Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services.

Svjetsko računovodstvo i vrednovanje usluga ekosistema.

But calculating this at the next level,

Ali kalkulacijom ovoga na sljedećem nivou.

that means at the business sector level, is important.

to znači na nivou poslovnog sektora, je važno.

And actually we've done this with the TEEB project.

I to smo u stvari uradili sa ovim TEEB projektom.

We've done this for a very difficult case,

Učinili smo to za sasvim drugi slučaj,

which was for deforestation in China.

koji je deforestacija u Kini.

This is important, because in China in 1997,

To je važno, jer u Kini 1997,

the Yellow River actually went dry for nine months

Žuta rijeka je presušila tokom devet mjeseci

causing severe loss of agriculture output

uzrokujući ogromne gubitke poljoprivredne proizvodnje

and pain and loss to society.

i bolne gubitke društvu.

Just a year later the Yangtze flooded,

Samo godinu dana nakon toga Jangce je poplavio,

causing something like 5,500 deaths.

uzrokujući smrt oko 5000 ljudi.

So clearly there was a problem with deforestation.

Bilo je jasno da postoji problem deforestacije.

It was associated largely with the construction industry.

Bio je povezan uglavnom sa sektorom graditeljstva.

And the Chinese government responded sensibly

I Kineska vlada je postupila smisleno

and placed a ban on felling.

i zabranila sječu.

A retrospective on 40 years

Retrospektiva kroz 40 godina

shows that if we had accounted for these costs --

pokazuje da, kad bismo uračunali ove troškove--

the cost of loss of topsoil,

troškove gubitka površinskog sloja tla

the cost of loss of waterways,

troškove gubitka vodene mase

the lost productivity, the loss to local communities

izgubljena produktivnost, trošak za lokalne zajednice

as a result of all these factors,

kao rezultat ovih faktora,

desertification and so on --

dezertifikacija i tako dalje--

those costs are almost twice as much

troškovi bi vili dvostruko veći

as the market price of timber.

od tržišne vrijednosti balvana

So in fact, the price of timber in the Beijing marketplace

Tako da , u stvari, cijena drveta na tržištu Beijinga

ought to have been three-times what it was

mora biti trostruko veća

had it reflected the true pain and the costs

da bi odrazila stvari bol i trošak

to the society within China.

društva u Kini.

Of course, after the event one can be wise.

Naravno, lako je naknadno biti pametan.

The way to do this is to do it on a company basis,

Način da se to uradi je na nivou kompanije,

to take leadership forward,

da se preuzme vodstvo,

and to do it for as many important sectors which have a cost,

i da se to uradti u mnogim važnim sektorima koji imaju trošak,

and to disclose these answers.

i da se objave ti odgovori.

Someone once asked me, "Who is better or worse,

Neko me pitao, ko je bolji li gori

is it Unilever or is it P&G

da li je to Unilever ili P&G

when it comes to their impact on rainforests in Indonesia?"

Kad se radi o njihovom uticaju na prašume u Indoneziji.

And I couldn't answer because neither of these companies,

Nisam mogao odgovoriti jer ni jedna od pomenutih kompanija,

good though they are and professional though they are,

iako su dobre i profesionalne,

do not calculate or disclose their externalities.

ne radi kalkulaciju niti objavljuje eksternalije.

But if we look at companies like PUMA --

Ali ako pogledamo kopmanije kao što je PUMA--

Jochen Zeitz, their CEO and chairman,

Jochen Zeitz, njihov direktor i predsjednik Uprave,

once challenged me at a function,

jednom me izazvao na funkciji,

saying that he's going to implement my project before I finish it.

govoreći da će implementirati moj projekat prije nego što ga završim.

Well I think we kind of did it at the same time, but he's done it.

Pa, ja sam mislio da smo ga uradili istovremeno, ali ga je on uradio.

He's basically worked the cost to PUMA.

Zapravo je obradio troškove za PUMU.

PUMA has 2.7 billion dollars of turnover,

PUMA ima 2,7 milijardi dolara obrta,

300 million dollars of profits,

300 miliona dolara dobiti,

200 million dollars after tax,

200 miliiona dolara nakon oporezivanja,

94 million dollars of externalities, cost to business.

94 miliona dolara eksternalija, troškova za biznis.

Now that's not a happy situation for them,

Sada to nije zadovoljavajuća situacija za njih,

but they have the confidence and the courage

ali su imali smjelosti i samouvjerenosti

to come forward and say, "Here's what we are measuring.

da izađu pred javnost i kažu:"Ovo smo izračunali.

We are measuring it because we know

Mi to mjerimo jer znamo

that you cannot manage what you do not measure."

da se nemože upravljati onim što se ne izmjeri."

That's an example, I think, for us to look at

To je jedan primjer, mislim, za nas da se ugledamo

and for us to draw comfort from.

i da se oslonimo na njega.

If more companies did this,

Kada bi više kompanija ovo radilo,

and if more sectors engaged this as sectors,

i ako bi se više sektora uključilo na nivou sektora,

you could have analysts, business analysts,

mogli biste imali analitičare, poslovne analitičare,

and you could have people like us and consumers and NGOs

i mogli biste imati ljude poput nas i potrošače i udruženja

actually look and compare the social performance of companies.

zaista posmatrajući društvene performanse kompanija.

Today we can't yet do that, but I think the path is laid out.

Danas to još ne možemo uraditi, ali mislim da je put iscrtan.

This can be done.

To se može uraditi.

And I'm delighted that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in the U.K.

Veoma mi je drago da je Institut profesionalnih računovođa u Velikoj Britaniji

has already set up a coalition to do this,

već osnovao koaliciju da ovo uradi,

an international coalition.

međunarodnu koaliciju.

The other favorite, if you like, solution for me

Drugo poželjno, ako dozvolite, rješenje po momo mišljenju

is the creation of green carbon markets.

je kreiranje tržišta zelenog ugljika.

And by the way, these are my favorites --

I usput, ovo su moji favoriti--

externalities calculation and green carbon markets.

kalkulacija eksternalija i tržišta zelenog ugljika.

TEEB has more than a dozen separate groups of solutions

TEEB ima više od tuceta različitih grupa rješenja

including protected area evaluation

uključujući procjenu zaštićenih zona

and payments for ecosystem services

i plaćanje za usluge ekosistema.

and eco-certification and you name it, but these are the favorites.

i eko-certifikacija i šta god još, a ovo su moji favoriti.

What's green carbon?

Šta je zeleni ugljik?

Today what we have is basically a brown carbon marketplace.

Ono što danas postoji su tržišta smeđeg ugljka.

It's about energy emissions.

Radi se o emisiji energije.

The European Union ETS is the main marketplace.

ETS Evropske unije je najveće tržište.

It's not doing too well. We've over-issued.

Ne funkcioniše baš najbolje. Previše trošimo.

A bit like inflation: you over-issue currency,

Nešto kao inflacija: previše izdajete valute,

you get what you see, declining prices.

i desi se rezultat u smanjenju njihovih cijena.

But that's all about energy and industry.

Ali radi se o energiji i industriji.

But what we're missing is also some other emissions

A ono što nam nedostaje su neke druge emisije

like black carbon, that is soot.

kao crni ugljik, to je čađ.

What we're also missing is blue carbon,

Šta još nedostaje je plavi ugljik,

which, by the way, is the largest store of carbon --

koji je, u stvari, najveća zaliha ugljika--

more than 55 percent.

više od 55 procenata.

Thankfully, the flux, in other words, the flow of emissions

Srećom, tok, ili drugačije rečeno emisija

from the ocean to the atmosphere and vice versa,

iz okeana u atmosferu i obratno,

is more or less balanced.

je više ili manje balansirana.

In fact, what's being absorbed

U stvari, ono što se apsorbuje

is something like 25 percent of our emissions,

je oko 25 procenata naših emisija,

which then leads to acidification

koji zatim vode do kiselosti

or lower alkalinity in oceans.

ili prekomjerne bazičnosti u okenima.

More of that in a minute.

Više o tome za minut.

And finally, there's deforestation,

I na kraju, tu je deforestacija,

and there's emission of methane

i tu je misija metana

from agriculture.

iz poljoprivrede.

Green carbon,

Zeleni ugljik,

which is the deforestation and agricultural emissions,

koji je deforestacija i poljopriredne emisije,

and blue carbon

i plavi ugljik

together comprise 25 percent of our emissions.

zajedno čine 25 procenata naših emisija.

We have the means already in our hands,

Imamo sredstva već u našim rukama

through a structure, through a mechanism, called REDD Plus --

kroz strukturu, kroz mehanizam, nazvan REDD Plus--

a scheme for the reduced emissions

šemu za smanjenje emisija

from deforestation and forest degradation.

od deforestacije i uništavanja šuma.

And already Norway has contributed a billion dollars each

I već je Norveška dala doprinos od po milijardu dolara za svaki

towards Indonesia and Brazil

prema Indoneziji i Brazilu

to implement this Red Plus scheme.

da implementiraju Red Plus šemu.

So we actually have some movement forward.

Tako da sad imamo momentum.

But the thing is to do a lot more of that.

Ali bitno je učiniti više od toga.

Will this solve the problem? Will economics solve everything?

Hoće li ovo riješiti problem? Hoće li ekonomija riješiti sve?

Well I'm afraid not.

Bojim se da neće.

There is an area that is the oceans, coral reefs.

Tu je i područje okeana, koraljnih grebena.

As you can see,

Kao što možete vidjeti,

they cut across the entire globe

prostiru se širom zemaljske kugle

all the way from Micronesia

sve od Mikronezije

across Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Madagascar

preko Indonezije, Malezije, Indije, Madagaskara

and to the West of the Caribbean.

do zapada na Karibima.

These red dots, these red areas,

Ove crvene tačke, ta crvena područja,

basically provide the food and livelihood

u stvari pružaju hranu i preživljavanje

for more than half a billion people.

za više od pola milijarde ljudi.

So that's almost an eighth of society.

Znači, to je skoro osmina društva.

And the sad thing is that, as these coral reefs are lost --

I tužno je da, kada bismo izgubili te koraljne grebene--

and scientists tell us

a naučnici nam kažu

that any level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere above 350 parts per million

da bilo koji nivo ugljen dioksida u atmosferi iznad 350 dijelova na milion

is too dangerous for the survival of these reefs --

je suviše opasan za opstanak ovih grebena--

we are not only risking the extinction

ne samo da rizikujemo istrebljenje

of the entire coral species, the warm water corals,

čitave vrste koralja, toplovodne koralje,

we're not only risking a fourth of all fish species which are in the oceans,

ne rizikujemo samo četvrtinu ribljih vrsta koji su u okeanima,

but we are risking the very lives and livelihoods

nego rizikujemo i same živote i egzistenciju

of more than 500 million people

više od 500 miliona ljudi

who live in the developing world in poor countries.

koji žive su siromašnim zemljama u razvoju.

So in selecting targets of 450 parts per million

Tako da odabir cilja na 450 dijelova od milion

and selecting two degrees at the climate negotiations,

i odabir dva stepena na klimatskim pregovorima,

what we have done is we've made an ethical choice.

što smo učinili je bio etički izbor.

We've actually kind of made an ethical choice in society

Učinili smo zapravo etički izbor u društvu

to not have coral reefs.

da nemamo koraljne grebene.

Well what I will say to you in parting

Zapravo što vam ja kažem djelimično je

is that we may have done that.

da smo to mogli uraditi.

Let's think about it and what it means,

Razmislimo o tome i šta to znači,

but please, let's not do more of that.

ali, ne činimo to više.

Because mother nature only has that much

Jer Majka Priroda ima samo toliko

in ecological infrastructure and that much natural capital.

u ekološkoj infrastrukturi i toliko prirodnog kapitala.

I don't think we can afford too much of such ethical choices.

Mislim da ne možemo priuštiti mnogo ovakvih etičkih odabira.

Thank you.

Hvala.

(Applause)

(Aplauz)