A global food crisis may be less than a decade away | Sara Menker

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者:

Since 2009, the world has been stuck

從 2009 年開始，全世界流傳著一種

on a single narrative around a coming global food crisis

全球糧食短缺危機即將發生的說法，

and what we need to do to avoid it.

以及我們應該如何做來避免它。

How do we feed nine billion people by 2050?

到 2050 年時，我們要 如何養活九十億人口？

Every conference, podcast and dialogue around global food security

關於全球糧食保障的每一場會議、 播客（podcast）、和對話，

starts with this question

都會以這個問題開場，

and goes on to answer it

並接著回答說，

by saying we need to produce 70 percent more food.

我們需要將現有的 糧食產量提高 70%。

The 2050 narrative started to evolve

2050 年這個說法始於

shortly after global food prices hit all-time highs in 2008.

2008 年糧食價格 創下歷史新高之後沒多久。

People were suffering and struggling,

人們在苦難及掙扎，

governments and world leaders

政府以及全球領導人

needed to show us that they were paying attention

得要讓我們看到他們有在留意、

and were working to solve it.

且在努力解決這個問題。

The thing is, 2050 is so far into the future

重點是，2050 年還很遙遠，

that we can't even relate to it,

以致於我們不覺得切身，

and more importantly,

且，更重要的是，

if we keep doing what we're doing,

如果我們繼續現行的做法，

it's going to hit us a lot sooner than that.

危機來臨的時間會更早。

I believe we need to ask a different question.

我認為我們需要問一個不同的問題。

The answer to that question

那個問題的答案

needs to be framed differently.

需要用不同的方式來表達。

If we can reframe the old narrative

如果我們能把舊說法重新表達，

and replace it with new numbers

並換上新的數字，

that tell us a more complete pictures,

來提供更全面的資訊，

numbers that everyone can understand

且這些數字必須要是人人能理解、

and relate to,

並感到切身的，

we can avoid the crisis altogether.

那麼我們就可以完全避免這場危機。

I was a commodities trader in my past life

我過去在做商品交易，

and one of the things that I learned trading

我從交易中學到的其中一件事，

is that every market has a tipping point,

就是每個市場都有一個臨界點，

the point at which change occurs so rapidly

在臨界點，改變會發生得十分快速，

that it impacts the world

以至於對世界造成衝擊，

and things change forever.

一切就此改變。

Think of the last financial crisis,

想想最近一次的金融危機，

or the dot-com crash.

或是網際網路泡沫化。

So here's my concern.

我的擔憂是，

We could have a tipping point

全球糧食和農業 可能也有一個臨界點，

in global food and agriculture

if surging demand

如果需求劇增，

surpasses the agricultural system's structural capacity to produce food.

超過了農業系統的構造產能， 這事就有可能發生。

This means at this point supply can no longer keep up with demand

意思就是，在這個時點， 供應趕不上需求，

despite exploding prices,

就算價格飆高也是一樣，

unless we can commit to some type of structural change.

除非我們能致力於 某種結構性的改變。

This time around,

這一回，

it won't be about stock markets and money.

重點不會是股市及金錢。

It's about people.

重點會是人。

People could starve and governments may fall.

人們可能會餓死，政府可能會垮台。

This question of at what point does supply struggle

這個問題，在哪個時點

供應會開始很難趕上需求的問題，

to keep up with surging demand

is one that started off as an interest for me while I was trading

正是當我在做交易時 引發我興趣的問題，

and became an absolute obsession.

後來完全就變成了一種著迷。

It went from interest to obsession

這個問題會從興趣變成著迷，

when I realized through my research how broken the system was

是因為我從研究了解到 這系統有多麼破碎、

and how very little data was being used to make such critical decisions.

以及在做相關關鍵決策時 用的資料有多麼少。

That's the point I decided to walk away from a career on Wall Street

在這個時點，我決定 離開華爾街的工作，

and start an entrepreneurial journey

開始走上創業之路，

to start Gro Intelligence.

創辦了「Gro Intelligence」 （全球農業資料分析）。

At Gro, we focus on bringing this data

在 Gro，我們著重在使用資料，

and doing the work to make it actionable,

並設法將資料轉變成可執行的行動，

to empower decision-makers at every level.

來協助各層級的決策者。

But doing this work,

但在做這些工作時，

we also realized that the world,

我們也發現到，這個世界，

not just world leaders,

不僅僅是世界領導人，

but businesses and citizens like every single person in this room,

還有企業和公民， 就像現場在座的每個人，

lacked an actionable guide

都缺少一份行動指南，

on how we can avoid a coming global food security crisis.

來指導我們要如何避免 即將發生的糧食保障危機。

And so we built a model,

所以，我們建立了一個模型，

leveraging the petabytes of data we sit on,

讓我們手中數千兆位元組的資料 能發揮重要功能，

and we solved for the tipping point.

而我們解出了臨界點。

Now, no one knows we've been working on this problem

沒有人知道我們一直 在處理這個問題，

and this is the first time that I'm sharing what we discovered.

這是我第一次分享我們的發現。

We discovered that the tipping point is actually a decade from now.

我們發現，臨界點其實就在十年後。

We discovered that the world

我們發現，世界將會短缺

will be short 214 trillion calories

214 兆卡路里的糧食，

by 2027.

2027 年就會發生。

The world is not in a position to fill this gap.

世界沒有辦法補足這個落差。

Now, you'll notice

你應該有注意到，

that the way I'm framing this is different from how I started,

我現在表達的方式和一開始不同，

and that's intentional, because until now

這是刻意的，因為目前為止，

this problem has been quantified using mass:

這個問題一直都是用質量來量化：

think kilograms, tons, hectograms,

比如公斤、噸、百公克，

whatever your unit of choice is in mass.

任何你可以選擇的質量單位。

Why do we talk about food in terms of weight?

我們為什麼用重量來談食物？

Because it's easy.

因為那樣很簡單。

We can look at a photograph and determine tonnage on a ship

只要有台簡單的口袋計算機， 我們就可以憑照片，

by using a simple pocket calculator.

判斷出一艘船所載的總噸數。

We can weigh trucks, airplanes and oxcarts.

我們可以測出卡車、 飛機、牛車有多重。

But what we care about in food is nutritional value.

但對於食物， 我們在乎的是營養價值。

Not all foods are created equal,

並非所有食物都生來平等，

even if they weigh the same.

即使它們重量相同。

This I learned firsthand

我從衣索比亞搬到美國來讀大學時，

when I moved from Ethiopia to the US for university.

親身學到了這一點。

Upon my return back home,

當我返家時，

my father, who was so excited to see me,

我的父親很高興看到我，

greeted me by asking why I was fat.

他迎接我的方式是 問我為什麼變胖了。

Now, turns out that eating

結果發現，

approximately the same amount of food as I did in Ethiopia, but in America,

我在美國吃的食物份量 和在衣索比亞時差不多，

had actually lent a certain fullness to my figure.

但在美國我卻變得比較圓胖了。

This is why we should care about calories,

這就是為什麼我們應該考量卡路里，

not about mass.

而不是質量。

It is calories which sustain us.

是卡路里維繫著我們的生命。

So 214 trillion calories is a very large number,

所以，214 兆卡路里 是一個龐大的數字，

and not even the most dedicated of us

即使是我們當中最投入的人，

think in the hundreds of trillions of calories.

也不會用數百兆卡路里來思考。

So let me break this down differently.

所以，讓我換種方式來分解。

An alternative way to think about this

另一種思考這個量的方式，

is to think about it in Big Macs.

是用麥當勞大麥克來計算。

214 trillion calories.

214 兆卡路里。

A single Big Mac has 563 calories.

一個大麥克的熱量是 563 卡路里。

That means the world will be short 379 billion Big Macs in 2027.

換言之，2027年，世界糧食 短缺量會達 3790 億個大麥克。

That is more Big Macs than McDonald's has ever produced.

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?

所以，我們最初是如何 得到這些數字的？

They're not made up.

它們不是捏造的。

This map shows you where the world was 40 years ago.

這張圖呈現的是四十年前的世界。

It shows you net calorie gaps in every country in the world.

它呈現的是世界各國的 淨卡路里差值。

Now, simply put,

簡單來說，

this is just calories consumed in that country

這個差值就是該國家消耗的卡路里

minus calories produced in that same country.

減去該國生產的卡路里。

This is not a statement on malnutrition or anything else.

這不是一份營養失調的 聲明或其他東西。

It's simply saying how many calories are consumed in a single year

它很單純就是一年內消耗的卡路里

minus how many are produced.

減去生產的卡路里。

Blue countries are net calorie exporters,

藍色國家是淨卡路里出口國，

or self-sufficient.

或自給自足國。

They have some in storage for a rainy day.

他們有些存糧，以備不時之需。

Red countries are net calorie importers.

紅色國家是淨卡路里進口國。

The deeper, the brighter the red,

紅色越深越亮，

the more you're importing.

表示進口量越大。

40 years ago, such few countries were net exporters of calories,

四十年前，只有少數國家 是淨卡路里出口國，

I could count them with one hand.

用一隻手就可以數出來。

Most of the African continent,

非洲大陸大部分地區、

Europe, most of Asia,

歐洲、亞洲大部分地區、

South America excluding Argentina,

南美在阿根廷以外的地區，

were all net importers of calories.

都是淨卡路裡進口國。

And what's surprising is that China used to actually be food self-sufficient.

令人吃驚的是，中國以前 是個自給自足的國家。

India was a big net importer of calories.

印度曾是一個淨卡路里進口大國。

40 years later, this is today.

這張圖是四十年後的現在。

You can see the drastic transformation that's occurred in the world.

你們可以看到世界上發生的劇變。

Brazil has emerged as an agricultural powerhouse.

巴西以農業強勢國之姿興起。

Europe is dominant in global agriculture.

歐洲支配了全球農業。

India has actually flipped from red to blue.

印度則由紅色翻盤變為藍色。

It's become food self-sufficient.

它變成能夠自給自足。

And China went from that light blue

而中國，則由淺藍色

to the brightest red that you see on this map.

變成這張圖上最亮的紅色。

How did we get here? What happened?

我們怎麼走到這一步的？ 發生了什麼事？

So this chart shows you India and Africa.

這張圖呈現出的是印度和非洲。

Blue line is India, red line is Africa.

藍線代表印度，紅線代表非洲。

How is it that two regions that started off so similarly

為什麼這兩個區域的軌跡

in such similar trajectories

一開始如此相近，

take such different paths?

後來卻各走各路？

India had a green revolution.

印度有綠色革命。

Not a single African country had a green revolution.

但是非洲沒有一個國家 有過綠色革命。

The net outcome?

結果呢？

India is food self-sufficient

印度的食物能自給自足，

and in the past decade has actually been exporting calories.

且過去十年間都在對外出口卡路里。

The African continent now imports over 300 trillion calories a year.

非洲大陸每年要進口 超過 300 兆的卡路里。

Then we add China, the green line.

接著我們加上了中國，用綠線表示。

Remember the switch from the blue to the bright red?

還記得中國由藍色變成亮紅色嗎？

What happened and when did it happen?

發生了什麼事？何時發生的？

China seemed to be on a very similar path to India

中國的路線似乎和印度很類似，

until the start of the 21st century,

直到 21 世紀初，

where it suddenly flipped.

它突然翻盤。

A young and growing population

中國的人口既年輕又在成長，

combined with significant economic growth

結合了顯著的經濟成長，

made its mark with a big bang

讓它非常響亮地一炮而紅，

and no one in the markets saw it coming.

市場中的所有人都沒有預料到。

This flip was everything to global agricultural markets.

對全球農業市場來說， 這個翻盤極重要。

Luckily now, South America

幸運的是，在中國興起的同時，

was starting to boom at the same time as China's rise,

南美洲也開始快速發展，

and so therefore, supply and demand were still somewhat balanced.

因此，供給與需求依舊 以某種方式保持著平衡。

So the question becomes,

所以，問題就變成了：

where do we go from here?

接下來我們要往何處去？

Oddly enough,

奇怪的是，

it's not a new story,

這不是個新故事，

except this time it's not just a story of China.

只不過這一次， 這並不只是中國的故事。

It's a continuation of China,

它是中國的延續、

an amplification of Africa

對非洲的放大觀察、

and a paradigm shift in India.

以及印度的典範轉移。

By 2023,

到 2023 年，

Africa's population is forecasted to overtake that of India's and China's.

預計非洲人口將會超過印度和中國。

By 2023, these three regions combined

到 2023 年， 這三個區域的總人口數

will make up over half the world's population.

將會超過世界人口數的一半。

This crossover point starts to present really interesting challenges

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。

for global food security.

And a few years later, we're hit hard with that reality.

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?

十年後的世界會是什麼樣子？

So far, as I mentioned, India has been food self-sufficient.

目前，如我剛才提到的， 印度能夠自給自足。

Most forecasters predict that this will continue.

大部份的預測者推測， 這個現象會持續。

We disagree.

我們不同意。

India will soon become a net importer of calories.

印度很快就會變成淨卡路里進口國。

This will be driven both by the fact

造成的原因包括

that demand is growing from a population growth standpoint

從人口成長加上 經濟成長的角度來看，

plus economic growth.

需求在成長。

It will be driven by both.

兩者將都是原因。

And even if you have optimistic assumptions

即使你對於生產成長

around production growth,

有樂觀的假設，

it will make that slight flip.

它會造成輕微的翻盤。

That slight flip can have huge implications.

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,

再來，非洲會持續是 淨卡路里進口國，

again driven by population growth and economic growth.

也是因為人口成長和 經濟成長兩個原因。

This is again assuming optimistic production growth assumptions.

同樣的，這也是在對生產成長 做了樂觀假設的結果。

Then China,

接著，中國，

where population is flattening out,

人口成長趨於平緩了，

calorie consumption will explode

消耗的卡路里會暴增，

because the types of calories consumed

因為所消耗的卡路里類型

are also starting to be higher-calorie-content foods.

會開始變成是 卡路里含量更高的食物。

And so therefore,

因此，

these three regions combined

這三個區域加在一起，

start to present a really interesting challenge for the world.

開始會給世界帶來 十分引人關注的挑戰。

Until now, countries with calorie deficits

目前為止，有卡路里赤字的國家

have been able to meet these deficits

都有辦法從生產過盛的區域

by importing from surplus regions.

進口卡路里來補足赤字。

By surplus regions, I'm talking about

我指的生產過盛區域是

North America, South America and Europe.

北美、南美、歐洲。

This line chart over here shows you

從這張折線圖可以看出

the growth and the projected growth over the next decade of production

在接下來十年，

北美、南美、歐洲的 生產成長和預測成長。

from North America, South America and Europe.

What it doesn't show you

從圖上無法看出的是，

is that most of this growth is actually going to come from South America.

大部份成長其實都是來自南美。

And most of this growth

而大部份的成長，

is going to come at the huge cost of deforestation.

背後的代價會是砍伐森林的高成本。

And so when you look at the combined demand increase

所以，你們看到印度、 中國、非洲大陸

coming from India, China and the African continent,

合併的總需求增加，

and look at it versus the combined increase in production

也對照看到印度、中國、

coming from India, China, the African continent,

非洲大陸、北美、南美、

North America, South America and Europe,

歐洲的合併總生產增加，

you are left with a 214-trillion-calorie deficit,

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。

one we can't produce.

And this, by the way, is actually assuming we take all the extra calories

順道一提，這裡的假設是，我們把

produced in North America, South America and Europe

北美、南美、歐洲所有多出的卡路里

and export them solely to India, China and Africa.

都只出口到印度、中國、非洲。

What I just presented to you is a vision of an impossible world.

我剛剛給各位看的， 是一個不可能的世界的遠景。

We can do something to change that.

我們可以改變這一點。

We can change consumption patterns,

我們可以改變卡路里消耗模式，

we can reduce food waste,

我們可以減少食物浪費，

or we can make a bold commitment

或是我們可以做出大膽的承諾，

to increasing yields exponentially.

讓產量成指數增加。

Now, I'm not going to go into discussing

我不打算要討論

changing consumption patterns or reducing food waste,

改變卡路里消耗模式 或是減少食物浪費，

because those conversations have been going on for some time now.

因為這類談話已經都在進行中了。

Nothing has happened.

沒有改變發生。

Nothing has happened because those arguments

沒有改變發生是因為那些論點

ask the surplus regions to change their behavior

要求生產過盛的區域 為了赤字區域的利益

on behalf of deficit regions.

而改變行為。

Waiting for others to change their behavior

等待別人為了你的利益、 為了你的生存

on your behalf, for your survival,

而改變他們的行為，

is a terrible idea.

是個很糟的點子。

It's unproductive.

是徒勞的。

So I'd like to suggest an alternative that comes from the red regions.

所以，我想提出一個 紅色區域的替代方案。

China, India, Africa.

中國、印度、非洲。

China is constrained in terms of how much more land it actually has

中國受到的限制， 是能夠用在農業上的

available for agriculture,

土地面積還有多少，

and it has massive water resource availability issues.

中國還有嚴重的水資源可得性議題。

So the answer really lies in India and in Africa.

所以答案落在印度和非洲。

India has some upside in terms of potential yield increases.

在潛在產量增加方面， 印度是比較有利的。

Now this is the gap between its current yield

潛在產量增加，是目前產量

and the theoretical maximum yield it can achieve.

和可達到之理論最大產量間的差距。

It has some unfarmed arable land remaining, but not much,

印度還有一些尚未 耕作的耕地，但不多，

India is quite land-constrained.

印度的土地還蠻受限的。

Now, the African continent, on the other hand,

另一方面，非洲大陸

has vast amounts of arable land remaining

就仍然有大量的耕地，

and significant upside potential in yields.

且潛在產量方面也很明顯是有利的。

Somewhat simplified picture here,

這是簡化描述的情況，

but if you look at sub-Saharan African yields in corn today,

但如果你們想想現今 撒哈拉以南非洲的玉米產量，

they are where North American yields were in 1940.

和北美在 1940 年時的 產量是一樣的。

We don't have 70-plus years to figure this out,

但我們沒有七十幾年的 時間來想出對策，

so it means we need to try something new

這意味著，我們得要嘗試新的方法，

and we need to try something different.

我們得要嘗試不同的方法。

The solution starts with reforms.

解決方案始於改革。

We need to reform and commercialize

我們得要將非洲的農業產業

the agricultural industries in Africa

做改革並商業化，

and in India.

印度也一樣。

Now, by commercialization --

商業化的意思──

commercialization is not about commercial farming alone.

商業化的重點不只是 商業性農場經營生產。

Commercialization is about leveraging data

商業化的重點是發揮資料的效益，

to craft better policies,

來訂出更好的政策，

to improve infrastructure,

來改善基礎建設，

to lower the transportation costs

來降低交通運輸成本，

and to completely reform banking and insurance industries.

來完全改革銀行業和保險業。

Commercialization is about taking agriculture

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。

from too risky an endeavor to one where fortunes can be made.

Commercialization is not about just farmers.

商業化不只和農夫有關。

Commercialization is about the entire agricultural system.

商業化與整個農業系統有關。

But commercialization also means confronting the fact

但，商業化的重點也意味著 要去正視一個事實：

that we can no longer place the burden of growth

我們不再把成長的重擔僅僅放在

on small-scale farmers alone,

小規模農夫的肩膀上，

and accepting that commercial farms and the introduction of commercial farms

且接受商業化農田 以及推行商業化農田

could provide certain economies of scale

可提供某種經濟規模，

是即使小規模農夫也可以發揮的。

that even small-scale farmers can leverage.

It is not about small-scale farming or commercial agriculture,

重點不是小規模農場經營 或是商業化農業，

or big agriculture.

或大型農業。

We can create the first successful models of the coexistence and success

我們能夠開先例，創造出 小規模農場經營與商業化農業

of small-scale farming alongside commercial agriculture.

共存與成功的圓滿模型。

This is because, for the first time ever,

這是因為，有史以來第一次，

the most critical tool for success in the industry --

在業界要成功，最關鍵的工具──

data and knowledge --

資料與知識──

is becoming cheaper by the day.

隨日子變得越來越便宜。

And very soon, it won't matter how much money you have

不用多久，你有多少錢 或是你有多大，

or how big you are

就都不重要了，

to make optimal decisions and maximize probability of success

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，

in reaching your intended goal.

來達到你想要達到的目標。

Companies like Gro are working really hard to make this a reality.

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,

如果我們能夠承諾去做 這個新的、大膽的計畫，

to this new, bold change,

這個新的、大膽的改變，

not only can we solve the 214-trillion gap that I talked about,

我們不但能夠解決先前提到的 214 兆差額問題，

but we can actually set the world on a whole new path.

還能夠把世界引領到 一條全新的路上。

India can remain food self-sufficient

印度可以維持食物能夠自給自足，

and Africa can emerge as the world's next dark blue region.

非洲可以以「世界下一個 深藍色區域」之姿興起。

The new question is,

新的問題是：

how do we produce 214 trillion calories

到 2027 年，我們要如何 生產出 214 兆卡路里，

to feed 8.3 billion people by 2027?

來養活 83 億人？

We have the solution.

我們有解決方案。

We just need to act on it.

我們只需要採取行動。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）