about the economic invisibility of nature.

關於大自然隱藏的經濟

The bad news

壞消息是

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

大地之母的會計部門還沒開始運作

so those invoices don't get issued.

所以這些帳單沒有辦法被開出來。

But we need to do something about this problem.

不過我們還是要為了這個問題做些事情

I began my life as a markets professional

我一開始是從事市場領域

and continued to take an interest,

之後持續對此抱持著興趣

but most of my recent effort

但是我近期的努力

has been looking at the value

都是專注在

of what comes to human beings from nature,

人類從大自然取得資產的價值

and which doesn't get priced by the markets.

那些在市場上還沒有標價的部分

A project called TEEB was started in 2007,

在2007年我們開始一個叫做TEEB的計劃

and it was launched by a group of environment ministers

是由一群G8+5的環境部長們 (編者註:G8+5指的是原來的八大工業國 : 加拿大,法國,德國,義大利,日本,俄國,美國與英國 再加上五個新興國 : 巴西,中國,印度,墨西哥與南非)

of the G8+5.

所發起

And their basic inspiration

他們初步的靈感

was a stern review of Lord Stern.

是來自氣候變化經濟學家斯特恩爵士所提出的報告

They asked themselves a question:

他們問自己一個問題：

If economics could make such a convincing case

如果經濟學可以提出這麼有說服力的理論

for early action on climate change,

讓大家對氣候變遷及早行動,

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

為什麼這不能也用在保育上？

Why can't an equivalent case be made

為什麼相同的例子不能也用在

for nature?

大自然上

And the answer is: Yeah, it can.

而這個答案是：是的，是可以的

But it's not that straightforward.

但是不是那麼的直接了當

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

生物多樣性，這個星球上的各種組成不是汽油

It exists in many layers,

這出現在多種層次裡

ecosystems, species and genes across many scales --

生態系統、物種和基因，跨越了很多等級

international, national, local, community --

國際性的、國家級的、當地的、社群的

and doing for nature

對大自然做

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

像斯特恩爵士及他的團隊當初為了大自然做的那些,並不簡單

And yet, we began.

儘管如此，我們還是開始了

We began the project with an interim report,

這份計畫是先從臨時報告開始

which quickly pulled together

很快地，許多研究人員

a lot of information that had been collected on the subject

把很多關於這個主題的資訊

by many, many researchers.

都收集在一起

And amongst our compiled results

在這份整合的報告中

was the startling revelation

有個非常驚人的啟示

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

那就是,事實上,我們正在失去自然資本

the benefits that flow from nature to us.

那些從大自然流向我們的利益。

We were losing it at an extraordinary rate --

我們正已非常驚人的速度失去

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

事實上，是價值兩到四萬億美元的

of natural capital.

天然資本

This came out in 2008,

這份報告在2008年寫成

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

剛好是在財務危機報告顯示

that we had lost financial capital

我們已經失去財務資本的時候

of the order of two and a half trillion dollars.

兩點五萬億美元財物資本的時候

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

所以這是可以相對比較的損失。

We then have gone on since

我們便開始四處演講

to present for [the] international community,

向國際社群

for governments,

各國政府

for local governments and for business

地方政府和企業體

and for people, for you and me,

向群眾,向你和我,

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

做了完整報告，去年也在聯合國發表

which address the economic invisibility of nature

裡頭說明了自然的隱藏經濟

and describe what can be done to solve it.

也說明了怎麼樣做可以解決這個問題

What is this about?

這是關於什麼的呢?

A picture that you're familiar with --

這是一張你們很熟悉的圖片

the Amazon rainforests.

亞馬遜雨林

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

這是一個巨大的碳倉儲，也是一個驚人的生物多樣性的倉儲，

but what people don't really know

但人們不知道的

is this also is a rain factory.

是它其實也是一個降雨工廠

Because the northeastern trade winds,

因為東北季風

as they go over the Amazonas,

吹送過亞馬遜時

effectively gather the water vapor.

會有效的收集水蒸氣

Something like 20 billion tons per day of water vapor

每天大約20億多噸的水蒸氣

is sucked up by the northeastern trade winds,

都被吸到這東北季風裡，

and eventually precipitates in the form of rain

而最終成為雨的型態

across the La Plata Basin.

穿過整個拉普拉塔流域

This rainfall cycle, this rainfall factory,

這個降雨週期,這個降雨工廠

effectively feeds an agricultural economy

有效的滋養了整個農業經濟

of the order of 240 billion dollars-worth

價值240億美元

in Latin America.

在整個拉丁美洲

But the question arises: Okay, so how much

但問題來了:好,所以

do Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina

烏拉圭、巴拉圭、阿根廷

and indeed the state of Mato Grosso in Brazil

當然還有在巴西的馬托格羅索州

pay for that vital input to that economy

到底為了這個關鍵的經濟命脈附出了多少

to the state of Amazonas, which produces that rainfall?

給亞馬遜，這個造雨的地方?

And the answer is zilch,

而答案是零

exactly zero.

剛剛好零

That's the economic invisibility of nature.

這就是自然的隱藏經濟

That can't keep going on,

但這不能像這樣持續下去

because economic incentives and disincentives are very powerful.

因為經濟激勵和抑製作用是非常強大的。

Economics has become the currency of policy.

經濟已經成為貨幣政策

And unless we address

要是我們不正視

this invisibility,

這個隱藏力

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

我們將會得到一些可被預知的結果

which is a gradual degradation and loss

-一個漸進的對這個保貴自然資產

of this valuable natural asset.

的虧損

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

而這不只關於亞馬遜或雨林

No matter what level you look at,

不管你是從哪個層面看它

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

不管你是在生態系統或物種上的或是基因層面的

we see the same problem again and again.

我們看到同樣的問題重複上演

So rainfall cycle and water regulation by rainforests

所以降雨週期和水循環

at an ecosystem level.

在生態系統的層面上被降雨所控制

At the species level,

在物種的層面上來說

it's been estimated that insect-based pollination,

透過昆蟲授粉

bees pollinating fruit and so on,

及蜜蜂給水果授粉還有其他的種種

is something like 190 billion dollars-worth.

被預估約有190億美元的產值

That's something like eight percent

這大約是

of the total agricultural output globally.

全球農業經濟產值的8%

It completely passes below the radar screen.

這完全被我們忽視

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

但話說回來，蜜蜂何時給過你帳單?

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

又好比我們從基因的層面來看

60 percent of medicines were prospected,

60%的藥品都是由此發展

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

都是先以分子的型態在雨林或珊瑚礁中發現

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

再一次，它們大部分都未被付費

And that brings me to another aspect of this,

這將我們帶到另外一個問題

which is, to whom should this get paid?

所以這之中誰該被付費

That genetic material

這些基因原料

probably belonged, if it could belong to anyone,

如果該當屬於任何什麼人,可能是屬於

to a local community of poor people

當地貧窮的社區

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

他們顯現了這些知識,讓研究學者發現了這些分子

which then became the medicine.

然後用來製藥

They were the ones that didn't get paid.

他們也是那些沒有被付費的一員

And if you look at the species level,

然後如果你從物種的角度來看

you saw about fish.

想想魚

Today, the depletion of ocean fisheries is so significant

今天，海洋漁業的枯竭是如此顯著

that effectively it is effecting the ability of the poor,

非常有效地影響窮人的能力，

the artisanal fisher folk

那些徒手捕魚的漁民

and those who fish for their own livelihoods,

那些只為求生存養活家人

to feed their families.

而捕魚的漁民

Something like a billion people depend on fish,

大約有一億人民依賴漁業

the quantity of fish in the oceans.

依賴大海中的魚量

A billion people depend on fish

大約有一億的人口

for their main source for animal protein.

依賴魚為他們提供主要的蛋白質來源

And at this rate at which we are losing fish,

而按照我們失去魚量的速度

it is a human problem of enormous dimensions,

它是一個與人類相關的巨大問題

a health problem

是健康的問題

of a kind we haven't seen before.

一個我們前所未聞的問題

And finally, at the ecosystem level,

最後,在生態系統的層面

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

無論是旱災或水災的預防控制皆由森林所提供，

or whether it is the ability of poor farmers

它也讓那些貧窮的農夫

to go out and gather leaf litter

可以收集些落葉

for their cattle and goats,

餵養牛羊

or whether it's the ability of their wives

也讓農夫們的老婆

to go and collect fuel wood from the forest,

可以去收集森林裡的殘枝當材燒

it is actually the poor

實際上正是那些最貧窮的人

who depend most on these ecosystem services.

依賴這個生態系統最多。

We did estimates in our study

我們在我們的研究裡作了預測

that for countries like Brazil, India and Indonesia,

在那些像是巴西,印度,印尼之類的國家

even though ecosystem services --

儘管生態系統免費提供

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

這些免費的由自然流向人類社會的利益

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

他們在國內生產總值的百分比計算上並沒有佔非常大的比例

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

2,4,8,10,15個百分點

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

但是在這些國家裡,如果我們量測這對窮人來說多有價值,

the answers are more like

那麼答案會比較接近

45 percent, 75 percent, 90 percent.

45%,75%,90%

That's the difference.

這是其中的差異

Because these are important benefits for the poor.

因為這些對窮人來說是非常重要的利益

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

而你沒有辦法架設一個適恰的發展模式

if at the same time you're destroying or allowing

如果同時間你在破壞,或允許

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

資產退化的發生,關於這最重要的資產

which is your development asset,

是你發展的資本

that is ecological infrastructure.

這是生態基礎設施。

How bad can things get?

所以事情可以有多糟?

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

這是一個叫做平均物種豐富的圖片

It's basically a measure

他基本上量測

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

這附近有多少老虎,，蟾蜍，蜱或任何

of biomass of various species are around.

不同物種存在。

The green represents the percentage.

綠色代表百分率

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

如果是綠色，那表示80%到100%

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

如果是黃色,那代表40%到60%

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

這些則可以當作是相較於原始狀況的百分比

the pre-industrial era, 1750.

這是前工業時期,1750年

Now I'm going to show you

現在我要告訴你

how business as usual will affect this.

一如往常的生活方式會如何影響這個

And just watch the change in colors

只要看著這些顏色的變化

in India, China, Europe,

在印度、中國、歐洲

sub-Saharan Africa

南撒哈拉非洲

as we move on and consume global biomass

當我們開始消耗全球的生物體

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

用一種其實沒辦法繼續支持我們存活的速度

See that again.

讓我們再看一次

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

唯一還是綠色的地方，且這並不是好消息

is, in fact, places like the Gobi Desert,

事實上，是像是戈壁沙漠的地方

like the tundra and like the Sahara.

像是苔原和像是的撒哈拉大沙漠

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

但這對我們並沒有幫助，因為這些地方擁有非常少量的物種

and volume of biomass there in the first place.

一開始的生物量就很低

This is the challenge.

這是我們面對的挑戰

The reason this is happening

而這正是發生的原因

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

追根究柢，對我來說，是一個非常基本的問題

which is our inability to perceive the difference

是我們無法感知

between public benefits

群體利益

and private profits.

和個人獲利的差別

We tend to constantly ignore public wealth

我們習慣性的忽略公眾利益

simply because it is in the common wealth,

就只因為他是共同財富

it's common goods.

是公共財

And here's an example from Thailand

這是一個來自泰國的例子

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

在那裡我們發現，由於紅樹林的價值並不多 -

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

在九年的生命裡大概值600美元

compared to its value as a shrimp farm,

和它做為養蝦場的價值

which is more like $9,600,

約9600美元相比

there has been a gradual trend to deplete the mangroves

逐漸出現了砍筏紅樹林趨勢

and convert them to shrimp farms.

將它們改為養蝦場

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

但當然，如果你仔細看這些利潤

almost 8,000 of those dollars

價值相當8000美元

are, in fact, subsidies.

實際上是補貼

So you compare the two sides of the coin

所以你如果比較這個硬幣的兩面

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

你會發現這比較像是1200比600

That's not that hard.

這其實沒有那麼難

But on the other hand, if you start measuring,

但另一方面，如果你開始測量，

how much would it actually cost

它實際上會花多少錢

to restore the land of the shrimp farm

將養蝦場重建成

back to productive use?

生產使用？

Once salt deposition and chemical deposition

一旦鹽沉積和化學沉積

has had its effects,

開始對這片土地作用

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

那答案是它會花12000美元

And if you see the benefits of the mangrove

而如果你看到紅樹林的好處

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

比如說你可以得到的風暴保護和氣旋保護

and in terms of the fisheries, the fish nurseries,

又比如在漁業方面，天然育魚場所

that provide fish for the poor,

它們提供窮人魚料

that answer is more like $11,000.

她們答案會是大約11000美元

So now look at the different lens.

所以現在我們來比較兩者差異

If you look at the lens of public wealth

如果你從公共財富的角度來看

as against the lens of private profits,

和私人獲利的角度相比

you get a completely different answer,

你會得到一個全然不同的答案

which is clearly conservation makes more sense,

那就是顯然保育更有意義，

and not destruction.

而不是破壞

So is this just a story from South Thailand?

那麼這只是一個來自南泰國的故事嗎?

Sorry, this is a global story.

抱歉不是的，這是一個全球的故事

And here's what the same calculation looks like,

而這是一個同樣的計算看起來的樣子

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

是最近才完成的，當我說最近，那是近十年的事

by a group called TRUCOST.

一個叫做TRUCOST的組織

And they calculated for the top 3,000 corporations,

他們計算前3000企業

what are the externalities?

的外部成本

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

換句話說，讓他們繼續一如以往運作的成本是什麼

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

這並不是非法的，這就只是企業正常運作

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

這運作會導致氣候變化的排放，有它的經濟成本。

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

這運作也導致汙染源的排放，這亦有它的經濟成本

health cost and so on.

健康成本等等

Use of freshwater.

用乾淨的水源

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

如果你在一個農場村落的旁邊鑽水，製造可樂

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

這並不是非法的，但它的確會讓社群付出代價

Can we stop this, and how?

我們可以停止這一切嗎，而且要怎麼做?

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

我想首先是我們得認清自然資本的存在

Basically the stuff of life is natural capital,

基本上所有生命裡的東西都是自然資本

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

而我們必須去認識它並將它併入我們的系統

When we measure GDP

當我們衡量國內生產總值

as a measure of economic performance at the national level,

作為一個量測國家經濟表現的指標

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

我們不該只是去計算在國家裡最大的資產。

When we measure corporate performances,

當我們衡量企業表現

we don't include our impacts on nature

我們不計算我們對於自然的影響

and what our business costs society.

也不去計算我們的商業活動讓整個社會承擔多少花費

That has to stop.

這必須停止