Business, nature meet in sustainable development<\/p>\n
Companies will have to start talking business if they want to
\nsave the planet. One good place to start is the World Business
\nCouncil for Sustainable Development. Its president, Bjoern
\nStigson, shared his views with The Jakarta Post's Berni K.
\nMoestafa over the weekend on where nature and business interests
\nshare common ground.<\/p>\n
Q: What is the impact that businesses have had on the environment
\nsince the first Earth Summit in 1992?<\/p>\n
You have two trends that go against each other; on one hand
\nyou have efficiency improvements in companies. The economy today
\nis much more efficient.<\/p>\n
But then you have the underlying overall growth in economic
\nactivity and population growth. So you have in absolute terms a
\nbigger environmental load. But if you had the same efficiency as
\nyou had 10 years ago you would have a much worse situation.<\/p>\n
But the efficiency gain has not been sufficient to offset
\ngrowing economic activity and population growth.<\/p>\n
Aren't business policies often short term oriented rather than
\nlong term as sustainable development measures would require?<\/p>\n
If you look at the leading companies, sustainable development
\nis a long-term strategy to maintain their licenses to operate and
\nto be successful in the long term.<\/p>\n
Yes, you have to be successful: you must be profitable if you
\nwant to stay in business.<\/p>\n
But you cannot avoid at the same time dealing with
\nenvironmental and social considerations if you want to maintain
\nyour license to operate.<\/p>\n
How does sustainable development address economic growth,
\nwhich is a process that adds to the environmental load?<\/p>\n
The biggest threat to sustainable development is poverty. And
\nunless we can grow the economy, we will not be able to deal with
\npoverty. Poor people have very few alternatives over how to use
\nthe environment where they are living. And therefore, you get a
\nrisk to the environment.<\/p>\n
I think that when we look at what has happened in the
\nnineties, the opening up of the global market has been a
\ntremendous driving force for creating higher economic growth.<\/p>\n
But that economic growth has not been shared equally across
\nthe globe. And if we cannot find ways of helping the poor parts
\nof the world's population, I think we will risk a potential
\nbacklash against open global markets. So there is a very strong
\nmotivation to do what we can to help on these issues.<\/p>\n
But when is it that we can say that the poor are no longer
\npoor and that the pressure has been taken off the environment?<\/p>\n
Our knowledge of the ecosystem is actually quite limited. No
\none knows what the long-term targets should be, what is the load
\nwe can accept on the ecosystem.<\/p>\n
You need trade-offs in society, and we're not in a situation
\nto say better rich and healthy than sick and poor. That is not
\nhow the world is functioning.<\/p>\n
More consumption will mean an extra load on the environment so
\nat the same time we except that we have to drive efficiency. And
\nthe long-term catalyst for an efficient economy is innovation in
\ntechnology.<\/p>\n
You know the equation; you have population times living
\nstandards times technology, and this is really what defines the
\nenvironmental load.<\/p>\n
So as the population grows and living standards grow, the only
\noffsetting factor is technology. So the question is how
\ninnovative can we be when it comes to technology.<\/p>\n
What do you expect to come out of the meetings in Bali and
\nlater Johannesburg?<\/p>\n
They (governments) cannot come out of this conference not
\nknowing where they would like to end up in Johannesburg.<\/p>\n
The governments are responsible for setting the priorities and
\nmaking the political trade-offs in setting objectives.<\/p>\n
A number of your questions (on economic growth and
\nenvironmental load) can only be resolved by political trade-offs.<\/p>\n
Unless the governments come up with their political trade-
\noffs, and say this is what we think is the best solution and what
\nis a politically acceptable balance of different interests, it
\n(setting priorities and objectives) will not happen.<\/p>\n
When you say priorities, do you mean time targets?<\/p>\n
Priorities mean targets, timetables. What are the developed
\ncountries willing to do to support the developing countries
\nfinancially when it comes to overseas development assistance
\n(ODA), debt relief and other kinds of support? These are the
\nkinds of trade-offs and political priorities that should be set.<\/p>\n
If you look back over the past 10 years, the private sector
\nhas increased investment in developing countries and at the same
\ntime ODA has gone down. Ten years ago, two-thirds of all the
\nfinancial flows to developing countries were ODA, one third was
\nfrom foreign investment. Now, 85 percent is foreign investment,
\n15 percent ODA.<\/p>\n
In countries that do not have natural resources, it is very
\nunlikely that foreign investment will bring them out of poverty.
\nThey need help through ODA from rich countries; otherwise they
\nwill not be able to move out of poverty.<\/p>\n
What do you see 10 years on from Johannesburg?<\/p>\n
I'm hoping that Johannesburg will, as we come closer, create a
\nmomentum. For the last 30 years we have had a period where we
\ntried to create norms. My hope will be that when it comes to 10
\nyears further down the road, we can look back and look at the era
\nof implementation and not creating more ideas and norms around
\nthis.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/business-nature-meet-in-sustainable-development-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}